Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

The canine controversy

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, December 2, 2008 10:00 pm

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.

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.

Welcome to the discussion.

57 comments:

  • posted at 4:35 am on Sun, Dec 14, 2008.

    Posts:

    Dan had Buddy for 6 months, not three weeks, another important fact the article neglects to mention. In fact, pointing out that he had cashed the check three weeks before looking for a home is quite misleading. It certainly makes it seem as if he only had the dog for 3 weeks, without actually saying so.

     
  • posted at 6:55 pm on Sat, Dec 6, 2008.

    Posts:

    jerm503 wrote: "We took him to Dan for 2 months of training...Buddy lived with Dan for six months."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.

     
  • posted at 12:10 am on Sat, Dec 6, 2008.

    Posts:

    jerm503 - although it is apparent that you were pleased with Irish's work with your dog, in this instance something has gone decidedly wrong. You have to admit that your account of the man doesn't square with the "facts" presented in the story. I'm afraid it is going to be up to the News-Sentinel, Irish and/or Morgan to set things straight. Unfortunately Rocky aka Buddy can't be reached for comment.

     
  • posted at 12:06 am on Sat, Dec 6, 2008.

    Posts:

    There's always enough space in an article to include all salient information. Peoples reputations hang in the balance with each article, letter or editorial that get published. Either the reporter didn't do her job or there is something else very intriguing going on with this little matter. Surely there will be a follow-up. . .

     
  • posted at 7:00 pm on Fri, Dec 5, 2008.

    Posts:

    jerm503: Why did Irish have 10 dogs on his property when he was only allowed to legally have three?

     
  • posted at 8:13 am on Fri, Dec 5, 2008.

    Posts:

    **" jerm503: Why didn't Irish share more of these details himself with the reporters? "**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.

     
  • posted at 8:09 am on Fri, Dec 5, 2008.

    Posts:

    **But then again, who is jerm503 and what possible motive might he/she have? Gotta love a good mystery!!**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.

     
  • posted at 3:28 am on Fri, Dec 5, 2008.

    Posts:

    mainframe: I know. It seems strange to me too.

     
  • posted at 1:20 am on Fri, Dec 5, 2008.

    Posts:

    when you have an agressive animal, and it sounds as if this animal was you must make some tough decisions/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!

     
  • posted at 7:29 pm on Thu, Dec 4, 2008.

    Posts:

    I'm confused. If Mr. Irish adopted the dog then why was he getting paid? If he was the official new owner that was allowed to offer the dog for adoption to someone else then why would the rescue group still pay him? This whole thing seems really strange to me.

     
  • posted at 6:00 pm on Thu, Dec 4, 2008.

    Posts:

    If it is true that Mr. Irish was successful in having the "no re-adoption clause" removed from the contract (as Ms. Morgan is reported to have insisted was "in" the contract), then there is a very serious problem here. Furthermore, if it turns out that Ms. Morgan was the one under a contractual obligation to return the dog to Irish, the plot grows even thicker.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!!

     
  • posted at 5:46 pm on Thu, Dec 4, 2008.

    Posts:

    Even hearsay conversations in a newspaper must be corroborated. Jerm503 may very well be telling the truth. But since Mr. Irish has yet to contest Ms. Morgans accounting of events, all we really have to rely upon is what has been reported thus far.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?

     
  • posted at 8:06 am on Thu, Dec 4, 2008.

    Posts:

    parrotheadsrule: A dog that is aggressive towards other dogs/animals can be a danger to humans as well.

     
  • posted at 7:41 am on Thu, Dec 4, 2008.

    Posts:

    jerm503: Why didn't Irish share more of these details himself with the reporters?

     
  • posted at 6:34 am on Thu, Dec 4, 2008.

    Posts:

    Lodian, Once again, you are quoting one thing and applying it to another. The comment you quote deals with animal aggression, the statement I was responding to was regarding human aggression. They are not, nor should they every be considered, the same thing. ALL terrier breeds tend to be animal aggressive, this is from the smallest Rat Terrier to the biggest Pit. This is a result of what the breed was originally developed for, hunting down and killing vermin. This trait can be easily controlled with proper handling and training. Don't try to confuse the public by applying misstatement and improperly applied quotes, it does nothing but reveal your intolerance and inability to accurately relate information.

     
  • posted at 6:00 am on Thu, Dec 4, 2008.

    Posts:

    So why am I writing this instead of letting Dan respond himself? Dan is something of a technophobe, and doesn't have a computer, much less internet access. When I heard Dan's response, I knew I should pass it on to those concerned and interested enough to dig into the facts.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.)

     
  • posted at 5:58 am on Thu, Dec 4, 2008.

    Posts:

    Buddy lived with Dan for six months. In that time, Buddy learned to mingle freely with Dan's other dogs. Dan had many opportunities to observe Buddy interact with people, and could see that aggression towards people was not Buddy's problem. As for his dog aggression, Dan says that without the proper training "that's what some dogs do." Almost all aggressive dogs can be taught that harming other dogs is not acceptable. When Dan can't rehabilitate a dog, he knows it, and would never try to adopt such a dog out.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.

     
  • posted at 5:57 am on Thu, Dec 4, 2008.

    Posts:

    I know Dan Irish. My wife and I had an Irish Wolfhound with aggression problems, and we, like so many others, went to Dan as a last resort. My dog now lives with him, in what is clearly a doggy paradise. After hearing of this story, I decided to talk to Dan to find out what was going on.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.

     
  • posted at 3:55 am on Thu, Dec 4, 2008.

    Posts:

    parrotheadsrule:-------------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-------------

     
  • posted at 3:45 am on Thu, Dec 4, 2008.

    Posts:

    I can appreciate Morgan's decision. I'm sure it wasn't easy. It's never easy for a dog lover to euthanize a dog, even if doing so was the right thing to do. I'm sure it weighed heavy on her heart, and still does today.

     
  • posted at 3:36 am on Thu, Dec 4, 2008.

    Posts:

    PAL wrote on Dec 3, 2008 12:47 PM:" 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.

     
  • posted at 1:58 am on Thu, Dec 4, 2008.

    Posts:

    Lodian: I have had better luck with mutts, both with temperment and overall health. But I agree with Cogito that ALL breeds can be vicious and can cause considerable damage. I personally think a vicious dog, whatever the breed, is caused by abuse/neglect, illness or defect due to overbreeding.

     
  • posted at 1:40 am on Thu, Dec 4, 2008.

    Posts:

    Lodian, If you properly research the ATT guidelines and look at the total amount of individual dogs tested you will see that they all fall within a few percentage points of each other.Thus, those few hundreths of a point account for more then you give credit. You are close to the mark in your comments about strength of bites in that it's obvious a larger, stronger, dog will, obviously, bite harder. In truth, any dog of similar size will have a pretty good chance of having a similar bite strength. However, your comment about an APBT not stopping until it "kills" you is, quite simply, ridiculous. An APBT or similar breed has no more propensity to "kill" a human then any other dog. This is one of the populare myths that uninformed people love to pass on. In regards to the specific development of the APBT breed human aggression was breed out of them starting in the 1700s. It is actually harder to find an APBT that exhibits human aggression then it is with most other breeds. I know you'll disagree, but after 25+ yrs of Police K9 experience,I stand by my comments.

     
  • posted at 4:55 pm on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    Dogs, a friend of mine had a 3 year old daughter who was viciously attacked by her grandparents purebred Lab. She had to have multiple stitches on her facial wounds. The whole family was sitting there when it happened. It was completely unprovoked. All dog breeds can be vicious. count on it.

     
  • posted at 3:27 pm on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    Agree with Uncle Stinky. So what happened here? A lady who has a great care for not just Retrievers, but all dogs trys to save a few more, This is a crime? The crime is Irish, get a grip!!!The world needs more people to step up once in a while and do the right thing, obviously Morgan did and I commend her strongly for what she did, Sounds like Irish owes Morgan a set of tires too?

     
  • posted at 7:38 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    Yes Stinky thats what I am saying. Remember, if you can that all beef are raised with one thing in mind, that they are raised as a crop and will be slaughered in about the most humane way possable, and are killed instantly. Where as a "hunter" that doesn`t get the instant kill can leave an animal suffering for hours or days if it cannot be found. A real hunter will use a bow, where stealth is required, if your going to use a rifle, open site and single shot bolt action shows just how good a hunter is, rather than staking out a salt lick and wait. I have seen people that hunt bear through a bunch of garbage across a drainage and wait, a chicken s*** way to hunt.

     
  • posted at 6:59 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    Educator- yeah, avid hunter. What chance does that poor animal have against a scope and powerful rifle. Thats not hunting, that is killing.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.

     
  • posted at 6:47 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    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. 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

     
  • posted at 6:33 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    Dogs4you," 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?

     
  • posted at 6:03 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    WCPatty: I think that muts are usually a much better choice than a purebred dog. Unless you find an EXCELLENT breeder, many purebreds have been "over bred". Besides, there are so many incredibly wonderful dogs that can be adopted out of shelters and through other groups (ei; SPCA PALS AFC etc). I don't know why anyone would ever buy a purebred unless they are in the breeding business.

     
  • posted at 5:57 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    parrotheadsrule: That's incorrect. The group you cited rates them about the same. And the test does not determine aggression against anyone closer than 10 feet. This does not give us results on pits and goldens as far as dogs that will kill other dogs or people when no owner is there to stop them. No one is going to do those kinds of tests. The difference between a golden and a pit seems to be that you may get bit by a golden, but the pit will not stop until it kills you, assuming they both have the same intent to do you harm for some reason. It's kinda like saying being in a car wreck in my sedan against an SUV or a Mack truck will result in the same outcome. There will be more damage by the Mack.

     
  • posted at 5:47 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    Based on the info on this article, this dog unfortunately had to be destroyed as he was a danger to people and obviously to other dogs.

     
  • posted at 5:45 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    parrothead: I agree, I have read the same information. 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.

     
  • posted at 5:44 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    According to the article, "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."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?

     
  • posted at 5:21 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    Hey Lodian....not trying to bring up an old issue but....I'm gonna anyway. If you look up the breed temperment ratings at the American Temperment Testing website you will, interestingly enough, see that a Golden Retriver rates a lower passing score than an American Pit Bull Terrier....go figure

     
  • posted at 5:02 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    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.

     
  • posted at 4:52 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    Want a great dog that won`t harm anyone, get a Lab. I take mine to the park all the time, little kids ask if they can pet him, I always say "sure" being confident he won`t do anything to harm them. There might be one rotten one in the bunch, however I have had Labs for many years and have never had a probem, as they like everyone. It`s sad that this whole situation had to happen, one thing I do find strange, my Vet or most Vet`s won`t put a dog down for no good reason, especially if you just walk into their office and request the animal be put down.

     
  • posted at 4:42 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    educatorI'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.

     
  • posted at 4:36 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    I think people need to remember "Rocky" killed one dog and mauled several others in the space of a couple of weeks. I was raised on a farm and knew from a young age that if a dog attacked or killed chickens, livestock or other animals my father had a .22 and it was sure and swift and he didn't do it again.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.

     
  • posted at 4:32 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    LodiSafeway wrote on Dec 3, 2008 10:17 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.

     
  • posted at 4:31 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    Goldens are often sought out by families with children as they are well known to be great with kids. Was Irish prepared to make sure any and all callers for "Rocky/Buddy" were well aware of his aggressive history? No family, especially with small children, would adopt a big dog with an aggressive history. The whole money part of this story is disturbing. Why would a group pay so much money to Irish to "reprogram" a viscous dog? And why did Irish take $2000+ and then allow the dog to be adopted out (against contract) shortly thereafter? It's very suspicious. 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?

     
  • posted at 4:17 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    By the way, all people are liars. To state otherwise is a bold-face lie.

     
  • posted at 4:14 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    Sorry, but no matter how much we love our animals and care about them; no matter how ingrained they become as members of our families - they cannot be "murdered." Only people can be murdered.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.

     
  • posted at 3:51 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    If Ms. Morgan had a contract and Mr. Irish was in violation of that contract she had every right to go get the dog under those circumstances. Did she do it the right way? No! She lied, manipulated, and then murdered a dog. She hadn't been around the dog and had no idea if its behaviour was modified or not. She snuck around and got the dog and had it killed. She is not only insensitive she is a liar and a killer.

     
  • posted at 3:43 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    Yeah, people who care not only about animals but the people and other animals they are around really are disgusting. Going to the lengths that Jill Morgan did to ensure that others would not be hurt by this dog is clearly indicative of an "insensitive boob."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.

     
  • posted at 3:17 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    Jill Morgan is an insensitive boob. While I don't agree with the threats and vandalisim I believe she knew what she was doing was wrong or she wouldn't have made up a fake name, rented a car, and snuck to get the dog. If what Dan Irish did was against the contract then they had every right to get the dog back the RIGHT way. This woman should not be allowed to be around a rat let alone any more dogs. She disgusts me.

     
  • posted at 3:17 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    Maybe he didn't want to risk having to give any of that money back?

     
  • posted at 3:15 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    There is no indication that Irish trained this dog to do anything, let alone cure him of his vicious nature. From the report it appears that he was more enraptured with the money he received for doing practically nothing.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?

     
  • posted at 2:56 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    DRAMA, DRAMA, DRAMA!Yuck - not worthy of printinig!!!

     
  • posted at 2:54 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    GetUrHeadOut Can you? The dog needed to be put down. Nuff said.

     
  • posted at 2:31 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    What is wrong with you people? Jill Morgan is the one that KILLED the dog! Irish trained the dog to not attack! HELLO!

     
  • posted at 2:19 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    I think we need to learn more about this Dan Irish fellow. As much as dogs are an important part of millions of peoples' lives, the safety of others (and their pets as well) should always take precedence over the life of one who exhibits a real propensity for violence.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.

     
  • posted at 1:46 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    Mr. Irish: You state you don't threaten women, however telling someone that what they did to the dog should be done to them sure sounds like a threat to me. You are a disgrace to all dog owners, rescues and trainers. Anyone knows that if a dog is aggressive and has killed, he will likely kill again. If you had given that dog to someone and it killed their child, you would have been liable once your "training" efforts and horrible ethics were put out in the open. You should be THANKING Jill Morgan for doing the humane and RIGHT thing in this case. Get over yourself.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.

     
  • posted at 1:13 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    As a society, we euthanize thousands and thousand of dogs and cats each year. One mean animal gets killed and some people act like it's the end of the world. It's a DOG not a human. Don't bother reprogramming it, get rid of it, and save another from its fate at the pound.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".

     
  • posted at 12:55 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    Euthanized might be a little extreme, but he should at least be muzzled.

     
  • posted at 12:53 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    Thank you for giving a good description of what happened, Layla. I saw this story on the nightly news and it painted the woman as an insensitive boob.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.

     
  • posted at 12:22 am on Wed, Dec 3, 2008.

    Posts:

    Dan Irish should be euthanized.

     

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists