Indexes
November 2nd, 2009
November 7th, 2009
November 6th, 2009
November 5th, 2009
November 4th, 2009
November 3rd, 2009
November 2nd, 2009
October 31st, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Bible is entwined with American civic life (135)
- I predict: A conservative tide will rise in 2010 (71)
- David Diskin is first to give an invocation under new city of Lodi policy (70)
- The Treaty of Tripoli hoax (58)
- Universal health care solves big problems (56)
- Here's what my father knew about the assassination of JFK (35)
- Words from our forefathers (27)
- Stuck in neutral? Hardly! (25)
- City of Lodi staff looking into possibility of limiting number of taco trucks (20)
- Majority cannot deprive the minority (20)
ADVERTISEMENT
The canine controversy
Golden Retriever Rescue operations in turmoil after Lodi woman has dog euthanized
Jill Morgan still hasn't gotten used to visiting animal shelters and seeing more dogs than she knows will find homes.
In an average year she helps rescue more than 100 golden retrievers, something the Red Cross honored her for last March, though she also finds herself helping with other dog rescue groups. She refers to her own dogs as children, and swells with passion and indignation when talking about how home foreclosures are driving up the rates of abandoned pets.
But now Morgan is facing a whole new dilemma: She's getting death threats and her tires were slashed after publicity about her decision to euthanize a dog that had reportedly killed a Chihuahua.
As a result of the backlash, most Northern California Golden Retriever Rescue operations are currently suspended, out of fear for the safety of some 40 volunteers.
On the other side of the controversy is Dan Irish, a dog lover who has been raising and training dogs since childhood. When working construction, and during his 20 years as a bouncer, Irish said he always took dogs with him.
Both Morgan and Irish talk enthusiastically about dogs. Both also get very passionate about what each feels is unjust action by the other person.
Morgan's home answering machine has filled with messages, her address in rural Lodi has apparently been given out near and far, and her e-mail inbox has become an easy target for anonymous contributors.
One e-mailer told Morgan that her children should die of cancer, that a black cloud had been placed over her and that the writer hopes she dies a slow, bleeding death.
It started a couple weeks ago when word spread about Morgan's October decision to euthanize a dog.
But the original story starts even earlier.
The dog in question, Rocky, was less than three years old when a Chihuahua crawled under the fence to his Nevada family's yard. Rocky or his brother killed the tiny dog. His owners turned them over to a local animal shelter. That's where the rescue group, dubbed NorCal for short, found Rocky, and they decided to give him a chance, Morgan said. On March 31, she took Rocky to her house, which serves as a type of foster home for countless dogs, as well as permanent home to her own four dogs.
"At my house he viciously attacked four goldens and a Newfoundland six times. The final straw was when he got down my 8-year-old (golden) Mikey, jumped on him and was at Mikey's throat," Morgan said.
That happened April 9, a little more than a week into Rocky's stay at Morgan's house.
"It was too risky," she said. "I have too many dogs coming through to have a vicious dog."
So NorCal took the dog to Irish, an animal trainer who says he's come into contact with 40,000 dogs in the past 50 years and has rescued thousands.
He also talks passionately about his love of dogs, beginning with showing them as a child. When talking by phone from his West Point home in rural Calaveras County, Irish tells his own dogs, "Everybody say hello," then holds the phone receiver out as the dogs erupt in a chorus of barking.
Irish does what he calls "reprogramming," or rehabilitating dogs that have behavioral problems.
So one of the NorCal members called Irish and arranged for him to train Rocky, or Buddy as the dog was renamed. He was paid $800 a month for two months — not a typical amount for a nonprofit organization, NorCal members said.
Then, in a move that has added to the controversy among NorCal board members, the group gave Irish another $2,000 for the training, and had him sign an adoption form.
He cashed the check on Sept. 13, then three weeks later advertised the dog for free online, saying the dog needed a home with a good fence.
Morgan found the ad and was livid, since the adoption form says that if the new owner isn't going to keep the dog, it will be returned to NorCal.
Irish, in turn, says that doesn't matter because the group didn't want the dog anymore.
In the meantime, three NorCal members were skeptical of all the money being paid, and they traveled from the Bay Area to Irish's home to check on the dog. They pretended to be with a breeding group, and Irish was mad when he realized who they were. He alleges that one saw his dogs rough-housing and said they should be euthanized.
He later called one of the women and left a message, expletives included, saying what he thought should be done to her. She filed a police report about threats.
"I called them a bunch of foul names and said that what should be done to them is what they wanted to be done to the dogs," Irish said. "I didn't make threats. I don't threaten women."
So when Morgan saw the ad online, she rented a car and used a fake name when she went to get the dog. She felt it was her duty to make sure the dog didn't cause harm, since he apparently wasn't going to be living with Irish any longer.
"If the dog would have broken out of anybody's fence and there would be a small child standing there holding a Chihuahua, what would have happened? Rocky had already killed one dog," she said.
Morgan picked up Rocky and had him euthanized by a local veterinarian, who only puts dogs to sleep if they show a pattern of aggression, Morgan said.
Irish was outraged, and says he hasn't been able to eat or sleep well since. He believes Morgan has an illness, needs therapy and that she should never be around dogs again.
Morgan, meanwhile, says Irish is a "loose cannon," and she's upset that dogs aren't being rescued while her organization waits for things to settle down.
"I was thinking that maybe I should just quit, but I can't," she said, as she looked through dozens of pictures of rescued dogs, each one with a story she remembers. "These dogs have all been thrown away."
Contact reporter Layla Bohm at layla@lodinews.com.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
jerm503 wrote on Dec 14, 2008 10:35 AM:
Rhodie wrote on Dec 7, 2008 12:55 AM:
In the Article: "He cashed the check on Sept. 13, then three weeks later advertised the dog for free online, saying the dog needed a home with a good fence."
jerm503, do you really think three weeks is enough time to rehabilitate an aggressive dog to the point of placing it in a family situation? It took your dog 2 months, did yours kill a dog before you took it in and did it agressivly attack several other dogs at a different home?
If it had been three months instead of three weeks I might side with Irish thinking the dog could have been helped, but three weeks is not enough time to change a behavior problem. "
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 6, 2008 6:10 AM:
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 6, 2008 6:06 AM:
Lodian wrote on Dec 6, 2008 1:00 AM:
jerm503 wrote on Dec 5, 2008 2:13 PM:
There isn't enough space in one article for everything that was said, so things get left out. There are so many claims and counter claims that the reporter was probably unsure of who to believe, and unsure of which facts were salient. "
jerm503 wrote on Dec 5, 2008 2:09 PM:
My motive is to try to give Dan's side of the story because he is a good guy (especially if you are a dog). When our first IW died, we got a puppy, expecting a similar personality. As he grew up, we could tell his personality was 180 degrees from our first IW. We tried everything. I believed my dog was incurably aggressive towards other dogs and would have to be put down, which would have devastated my wife. He had to be muzzled 24hrs a day. We took him to Dan for 2 months of training. Dan taught him that attacking other dogs was not OK. When we brought Ari home, he wasn't happy. We found that we couldn't give him the constant attention, exercise and training that his ultra-high energy personality needed. Dan agreed to keep him permanently. Ari loves it there! Thanks to Dan, We're happy and the dog is happy. "
Lodian wrote on Dec 5, 2008 9:28 AM:
roni95242 wrote on Dec 5, 2008 7:20 AM:
Do you take a chance on someone who adopts this animal getting hurt?? NO you do the kindest thing for everyone and put the dog down! The dog was in rescue for a reason ( probbaly abuse) and became agressive,you have to do the responsible thing wheather you want to or not! You made the right decision! "
mainframe wrote on Dec 5, 2008 1:29 AM:
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 5, 2008 12:00 AM:
So, where does this go from here? There's a lot of finger pointing going on, but exactly what do the facts reveal? The Lodi News-Sentinel needs to quickly gather all the contracts together and determine who is actually telling the truth insofar as Rocky's legal status. Review of these documents should clear things up substantially. The readers of this newspaper are deserving of the truth.
But then again, who is jerm503 and what possible motive might he/she have? Gotta love a good mystery!! "
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:46 PM:
However, my concern for many months now has been an overwhelming lack of digging by Lodi News-Sentinel reporters. Apparently Layla Bohm interviewed both principals in this story. However, she doesn't reveal whether or not she presented Ms. Morgan's side of the story to Mr. Irish in order for him to set the record straight (according to him) or vice versa. Usually when a newspaper is about to publish derogatory information about someone they provide them with the opportunity to refute the "facts" prior to publication. If they opt not to add anything further or if they are unreachable for comment prior to press-time, the reporter makes note of that somewhere in the article.
If what Jerm503 states here is accurate, this could be another example of flimsy fact-gathering and erroneous reporting. But to be fair, at this point there is no telling what really happened.
A follow-up, Ms. Bohm? "
Lodian wrote on Dec 4, 2008 2:06 PM:
Lodian wrote on Dec 4, 2008 1:41 PM:
parrotheadsrule wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:34 PM:
jerm503 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:00 PM:
I read this to Dan, just to make sure I had the facts right, and he confirmed these facts.
(I've posted a similar response to other articles about this incident. I couldn't fit the whole thing in one post here. Read from the bottom up.) "
jerm503 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:58 AM:
Buddy's rehabilitation was successful, but Dan considered him more than a success story, he was a beloved friend. Ms. Morgan signed a contract that if there was any problem with Buddy, she was to return him immediately. The contract also stated that Dan could visit Buddy in his new home. It is truly ironic that Ms. Morgan is accusing Dan of not obeying a contract. Ms. Morgan's actions have caused Dan a great deal of distress, sleepless nights, and even weight loss. "
jerm503 wrote on Dec 4, 2008 11:57 AM:
IIn 40 years as an animal behaviorist and trainer, Dan has handled and trained thousands of dogs with aggression problems. He has only come across a handful that could not be helped. Buddy came to Dan because there was no where else to go with him. At the time that Dan took Buddy, there was no written adoption agreementthat came later. When Dan received the agreement in the mail and read it, he called the president of the rescue to have the "no re-adoption" paragraph removed in this case. Dan's policy isn't to permanently adopt dogs that he trainsif the dog is rehabilitated, Dan places it in an appropriate home. Those who work with him know that to be the case. "
Lodian wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:55 AM:
-------------
NEVER leave Pit Bulls unsupervised with other animals. We can't emphasize this enough. When no one is around to keep an eye on them, the dogs should be safely crated or in separate rooms even if they are best friends. You never know what might trigger a fight in your absence. All canines can fight, but Pit Bulls were bred to never quit. If no one is home to break the fight, the dogs could inflict serious injuries to each other, or worse.
-PIT BULL RESCUE www.pbrc.net
------------- "
Lodian wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:45 AM:
Lodian wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:36 AM:
" My only objection to this is why was one person able to decide this dog should be put down. Does this dog rescue group not have some type of board where Ms. Morgan should have taken Rocky and made it a group decision.
----------
That probably would have been a better way to go about handling the problem, but we probably don't know some of the details. Obviously Morgan felt strongly that she had to do something. After all she did know the dog well. After seeing that the man (Irish), that was to try and rehab the dog, was offering him up to the public for adoption she just couldn't allow anyone to be attacked, or worse, by the dog. "
WCPatty wrote on Dec 4, 2008 7:58 AM:
parrotheadsrule wrote on Dec 4, 2008 7:40 AM:
Cogito wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:55 PM:
Cameron Park Charlie wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:27 PM:
dogs4you wrote on Dec 3, 2008 1:38 PM:
PAL wrote on Dec 3, 2008 12:59 PM:
If you want to go hunting take a bow and arrow, even one of those fancy ones. At least it will be more of a sport that way.
Oh, and before you lable me a crazy animal lover, I grew up on a farm where we would butcher animals for meat all the time. Cows, pigs, chickens, ducks and pigeons. That is what they were raised for. "
PAL wrote on Dec 3, 2008 12:47 PM:
I thank her for trying to rescue the many, many, many dogs out there that would otherwise be euthanized.
I also thank Mr. Irish for trying to rehabilitate dogs to find a good home.
Oh, one more thing. Mr. Irish was wrong to try to find the dog a home. Most adoption contracts come with the stipulation that if the new owner does not want the dog it must be returned to the rescue "
Uncle Stinky wrote on Dec 3, 2008 12:33 PM:
" I find "hunting" an animal sad, since the "hunter" is dressed to blend in with the souroundings, has a rifle and scope that can see the rings of Saturn and can`t miss at 2-3 hundred yards. I suppose there`s a thrill in killing an animal though I don`t understand it. A dead animal is just dead and ends up on a wall, some sport. I do all my hunting at Safeway or Food for Less. I know the hunters will say, Hey I pay good money to hunt, wouldn`t that be something if the animals were armed and could shoot back. "
So what you are saying is that is better to buy meat killed in a slaughtering house than to kill your own food. Should a rancher kill and buthcer his own cattle or buy beef from a market? Maybe we should sell all the dog and cat meat from animals that are put down and sell it at the local grocery store? "
Lodian wrote on Dec 3, 2008 12:04 PM:
Lodian wrote on Dec 3, 2008 11:57 AM:
WCPatty wrote on Dec 3, 2008 11:47 AM:
WCPatty wrote on Dec 3, 2008 11:45 AM:
The only pet dog I had that I didn't trust was a Golden Retriever My husband and I have had several dogs between us over the years, including one part pit bull. The Golden Retriever was the one who growled and snarled at people and didn't want to mind. I blame his disposition on overbreeding, since he was well trained and cared for the same as all our other dogs. "
wtf wrote on Dec 3, 2008 11:44 AM:
This could explain why Morgan used a fake name to pick up the dog; especially since Irish was in violation of the contract (adoption form). Maybe NorCal can counter sue for breach of contract? "
parrotheadsrule wrote on Dec 3, 2008 11:21 AM:
dogs4you wrote on Dec 3, 2008 11:02 AM:
dogs4you wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:52 AM:
OTH wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:42 AM:
I'm curious, do you hunt things that can fight back or are you into the deer and maybe elk or moose? I'm curious because I've never found a great white hunter who will hunt wild boar. They all say they are too dangerous. "
OTH wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:36 AM:
This dog was unpredictable at best. He had no business around other animals or people.
Ms Morgan I'm sorry you are having to go through this. Let's hope the mental deficents find something else to do soon. "
Lodian wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:32 AM:
" By the way, all people are liars. To state otherwise is a bold-face lie. "
---
I've been telling RF this fact for years yet he refuses to admit it to this day. "
Lodian wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:31 AM:
Thousands of dogs are put down every year in San Joaquin County alone. Where is the outcry, from all the Morgan haters, when these thousands of other ADOPTABLE pets are euthanized every single day? "
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:17 AM:
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:14 AM:
We "put down" our pets for a variety of reasons as those of us who love them fully understand. Are there those here who actually believe that in order for us to "care" for them we should permit them to live in pain when that pain cannot be alleviated? Are they also suggesting that dangerous animals should be permitted to live in conditions that would be deemed to be cruel and inhumane?
Our pets are not human beings; blurring this distinction is unfair to people as well as to the animals. "
LodiReaderFromStockton wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:51 AM:
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:43 AM:
It couldn't be that based upon her understanding of this particular dog she believed that there was a clear and present danger and rather than just shrug her shoulders and say to herself that "it isn't my problem anymore," she actually acted in a heroic fashion by risking herself as she did?
Clearly Mr. Irish has an anger problem. Why would he care who he gave the dog to? He allegedly wasn't looking to get any more money for it. Would he have insisted that whoever he gave the dog to not be permitted to have it put down; that they should have been required to return it to him if things didn't work out? If so, why not just return the dog to Jill Morgan as he was contractually obligated to do?
Something is decidedly wrong here; but not with Ms. Morgan. "
LodiReaderFromStockton wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:17 AM:
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:17 AM:
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:15 AM:
Not only that, but these rescue groups are very specific when handing over a dog to someone. If Irish was unwilling to honor his agreement to return the dog to them rather than keep it himself, one has to wonder what was going through his mind. Could it be that he realized that he would be unable to extract any more than the $3,600.00 already procured for attempting to fix this unfixable animal?
Absent further information I can only surmise that simple greed reduced this seemingly dog-caring guy to someone who simply didn't care about the welfare of unsuspecting people or other animals. Why else would he attempt to give the dog away only three weeks after cashing the $2,000.00 check? "
joesr wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:56 AM:
Yuck - not worthy of printinig!!! "
reality1 wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:54 AM:
GetUrHeadOut wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:31 AM:
LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:19 AM:
It seems that all that could be done was done with regard to "Rocky." Mr. Irish (at least as this story portrays him) seems more concerned about the money than the mission. To attempt to give a dog with the temperament of this one to any family is reckless and hopefully criminal. At best, Rocky should have been kept in an environment where he would have posed no danger to people or other dogs - but what kind of quality of life would that be for him? As sad as it is, sometimes the only recourse is to put an animal to sleep. This appears to have been the only solution here. "
jaysam1 wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:46 AM:
Ms. Morgan - I applaud your efforts in this case and I hope that many other people will be able to continue to adopt Goldens from you. there are so many loving families that want loving dogs out there. It's a shame you have to go through this. Bless you and your organization. "
educator wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:13 AM:
I know many of you can't stand the thought of killing anything. But as an avid hunter, who grew up in the country, I have often wondered about the sanity of many "animal Lovers". "
Billy Rubin wrote on Dec 3, 2008 6:55 AM:
wtf wrote on Dec 3, 2008 6:53 AM:
However, with the background to this story that you have provided, it now appears that this Irish fellow is a scammer.
Perhaps the NorCal people will consider making an iron-clad contract before giving dogs and money to people who claim to "reprogram" them. I'm sure there are those who work with animals in this way; but this Irish person sounds like he didn't do anything but take the dog and the money, and then placed an ad.
Not good.
Hope you follow up on this one. "
uncle stinky wrote on Dec 3, 2008 6:22 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.