Unleashed big dog tries to rip teacup poodle to shreds in South Boston

Capt. John Greland reports that on April 25 outside 16 Pacific St.:

A teacup poodle attacked by neighbor's unleashed dog injuries requiring over 100 stitches, entire back almost torn off.

He says the attack dog was a husky mix and that the poodle's owners have racked up $4,000 in veterinary bills so far. No charges have yet been filed, but the case is now under investigation by the city's animal-control department, he adds.

The mauling happened the same day the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled the owners of dogs that attack other dogs are liabile for reasonable veterinary costs - even if that exceeds the cost of putting down the injured animal and buying another one.



    Free tagging: 


    Rule of Thumb

    By on

    Never own a dog you could eat in one sitting, lap dogs are the worst.


    By on

    Yes. If the attacked dog lives, this court decision makes it possible for the owners to attempt to keep their dog alive, potentially with a significantly reduced quality of life, at the attacker's ongoing expense. If the attacked dog dies, the cost of burial/cremation and replacement would be far less.

    There is a weird intersection between family member and property, between veterinary medicine costs and cost of replacement that decisions like this try to hash out. Obviously, there's a lot of emotion in it too.

    This decision doesn't really strike me as setting the right balance on the scales. It seems to open the question of what pet is worth extremely costly life-saving attempts and which aren't. It leads to scenarios like whether you use your pet's well-being and quality of life as a weapon against the person who wronged you and your pet.

    Only to apply if the

    By on

    Only to apply if the attacking dog was unleashed in a mandatory leashed area.
    Dogs are animals, you may not know why a dog will attack another - and we never will. Some dogs just don't like another dog for some reason, mostly something in their scent will trigger something, again we'll never know.

    Having said that, my dog has been attacked and I chalk it all up to animals behaving like animals. Granted, if it warranted vet bills, I would expect the other owner to pay. I've mentioned that I have paid others before. But, say you have two leashed or even unleashed dogs (approved area) there's no telling what will trigger an attack. When my dog has been attacked and the other dogs owner has done all they could in the situation, I do not get mad at them. You can't always get perfection, they are animals.

    That is why I would disagree with the fine scenario. Unless the owner has broken the leash rules, or isn't being responsible during a play time. Good dog owners never take their eye off their dogs and will look for signs in their dog and others that things may take a turn for the worse. You need to be vigilant.

    Most of the time you can tell.

    By on

    Yes--dogs can "snap." Unpredictable things can happen. But if you have a dog with a history of aggressive or unstable behavior around other dogs (or god forbid, people) then yes--it is your responsibility to keep your dog leashed and away from other dogs and to understand the warning signs if your dog is acting up. In all my time at dog parks etc I've rarely seen this as a one-time-only thing.

    Counter productive

    By on

    Constantly worrying about looking for signs of a fight will trigger a fight. Look for owners who are in control of their dogs when choosing a place to play.

    It's called being an informed dog owner

    By on

    regarding point #1, there's plenty of signs and tells that suggests that something bad will happen. Tight lips, stiff erect tails, raised hackles. If a dog owner decides that it's okay to offleash their dog in designated areas, then they owe it to their dog to be informed enough to spot signs of aggression in other dogs, plus have applied enough training to keep their dog from making a fatal mistake (see: recall, and the non-verbal leave it).

    Regarding point #2, I agree. The owner needs to decide which dogs their own dog can interact with. If they're afraid that they'll have no control over their dog during an offleash encounter, then they should not be offleash.

    I respectfully disagree. The

    By on

    I respectfully disagree. The court decision makes it possible for the victim/plaintiff to be made "whole" (or as close to it as possible) by allowing for the defendant to pay for the medical bills to heal the injured animal. While it may be more costly then putting the injured animal down, the simple point is the injured animal would not be injured BUT FOR the actions of the aggressor animal. Therefore, the injured animal's owner should not simply have to put the animal down because its more cost effective. They did not ask to be put in that situation. The responsibility for restitution lays squarely upon the shoulders of the aggressor animal's owner.

    I love laws like this. If you

    By on

    I love laws like this. If you aren't responsible and don't contain or control your dog you should be liable for 100% of any damage it causes. If you don't like the law, it's very simple to avoid just control your dog, keep it securely in your yard and put a leash on it when you leave. The owner of the poodle had their dog on a leash and was following the law, why should they have to come out of pocket for vet costs that they only incurred due to someone else's negligence?

    A rule...

    There should be a rule that if you want to post like a dbag, you at least need to create a username.


    own a dog you can't handle; it might eat you, or cost you 4K.

    Blame Game!

    Perhaps the small dog wasn't wearing bright enough clothing and had no business being where it was anyway.

    It's the small dog's fault.

    Not a person

    By on

    Anyone refers to humans. Anything would be the word you're looking for in your fake scenario.

    "He's just playing"

    By on

    I love the type of dog owner that says "he wont' hurt you" or "he's just playing" when their dog is displaying clearly aggressive behavior. I mean, how blind are these people?

    I've had a dopey guy with a pit bull

    By on

    reassure me of this as his dog was growling and straining towards me at the end of his leash as if he'd like to take a chunk out of my throat. Um...no, he's not. And I didn't even have my dog with me--this was a pit bull who was clearly feeling aggressive towards a human which is actually pretty unusual. It was terrifying--both the dog's aggression and instability AND the utter cluelessness of an owner with a powerful dog with some serious issues.

    The Husky mix was on

    By on

    a skateboard and was infuriated by the poodle's deft use of a unicycle.

    Why deal in facts?

    I picture the husky owner running off cowardly

    Why deal in facts, when you can deal in conjecture? I picture you, after a vigorous morning of anonymous trolling, eating a live baby for lunch.

    I think Bob's point is that

    By on

    I think Bob's point is that you are all assuming that the owner of the husky accepts no responsibility and/or blames the other dog/owner, despite the fact that the referenced Tweet doesn't say anything other than there was an attack and the poodle was severely wounded. Give the guy a chance before you crucify him.

    All this

    By on

    As a dog owner, i have to say that I'm shocked how cavalier other dog owners are about off-leash ventures. Whenever you take off the leash, you are taking a HUGE risk.


    I didn't say anything one way or the other about the husky owner. I have no idea if he (or she) is brave, or cowardly, and I don't know whether he or she stuck around or sneaked off. I have no idea whether he or she is standing up to pay the vet bills and otherwise help the little dog's owner, or whether he or she is ducking responsibility.

    I picture you drooling and picking your nose as you read this.


    By on

    Bob, I really do appreciate and enjoy your comments. Every time.

    Don't see nothings

    By on

    Same dog owners who let their dogs shit all over the park and pretend that they're looking up at the birds in the trees, while keeping their hands in their pockets.


    I picture you butchering the English language, forever.

    Attacked by dogs

    By on

    Three times I've had my dogs attacked by other dogs.

    Once it was a dog off leash that came barreling out of nowhere. The owner ended up being a new neighbor who was stinking drunk all the time. Then every time she saw us she would try to set her dog on us, because obviously it was my dog's fault that her dog was off-leash and territorial. Calling animal control didn't help as it only encouraged her.

    The second time it was tiny woman with two Labradors on those extractable leases (that are illegal in the City of Boston) that were able to get up to enough speed that the woman wasn't able to hold on to the leashes and the dogs came charging from a block away and attacked my old dog who was trying to have a peaceful shite.

    The third time it was a dog that never did that before, so it was obviously my fault as my dog was on-leash and her dog wasn't.

    In each case the owners tried to claim it was the fault of my dogs or my fault somehow. Even tho' at the time we were no-where near their dogs and their dogs initiated the attack.

    There are plenty of irrational and self-entitled dog owners who don't think their dog can do any harm and often project the blame onto other dogs, or other dog owners. Most of the crazy dogs I've encountered are owned by crazy people who don't exercise or socialize their dogs, but do love their dogs.

    But you know there's plenty of irrational and self-entitled car drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and crazy people are everywhere! :)