Oak Creek resident Joshua Flaharty's dog, Mr. Bubbles, was shot and killed by a rancher outside Yampa on May 31. The Routt County Sheriff’s Office reported that no charges will be filed.

Courtesy Photo

Oak Creek resident Joshua Flaharty's dog, Mr. Bubbles, was shot and killed by a rancher outside Yampa on May 31. The Routt County Sheriff’s Office reported that no charges will be filed.

Dog shot outside of Yampa

Routt County Sheriff’s Office investigating incident

Advertisement

— Routt County Sheriff’s Office animal control officers are investigating the reported shooting of a dog on county land about 4 miles from Yampa on Saturday.

The dog’s owner, Joshua Flaharty, said his dog, Mr. Bubbles, was outside for less than a minute at a junkyard when he apparently wandered into a nearby field. As he was looking for his dog, a 3-year-old English Boxer, Flaharty said he heard a gunshot.

Flaharty continued to look for his dog, and a short time later he said that the landowner approached him and said he had shot Mr. Bubbles.

Flaharty, 22, said the dog had a gentle demeanor and wasn’t near any livestock.

“This dog was the most gentle 80-pound dog you’ve ever seen in your life,” he said. “If you go to give him a treat, he takes it out of your hand with his lips, he doesn’t even bite it.”

Animal control officer Cindy DelValle confirmed Tuesday that the dog was shot and that she’s investigating the case. She said she’s still gathering information. She declined to discuss details of the case.

DelValle said that, in general, ranchers are permitted to shoot domestic dogs if they feel they, their livestock, their domestic animals, children or property are in harm’s way.

If nothing was threatened, however, the shooter could be charged with violating either state or county animal cruelty laws.

Flaharty, who has lived in Oak Creek off and on for most of his life, said he is considering his options, including civil charges against the landowner.

“We’ve cried so much today, we can’t even cry any more,” he said.

Several calls to the reported landowner were not answered Tuesday.

— To reach Zach Fridell, call 871-4208 or e-mail zfridell@steamboatpilot.com

Comments

greenwash 4 years, 3 months ago

Dogs belong on leashes......Sorry about your loss.

0

dave pieknik 4 years, 3 months ago

Geesh- leash that comment-ouch. I am sure the mourning owner is well aware of the laws. This situation sucks for all parties regardless of fault. A very special life was lost- and someone had to take a life. Not really a synical matter.

0

greenwash 4 years, 3 months ago

Dogs are not humans.....Mabye owner will leash dog next time.Sorry to sound harsh but he will get over it. Also Please pick up your poops its rude and unhealthy.

0

JusWondering 4 years, 3 months ago

It is sad for the dog owner but I respect the right of the land owner. It is very difficult for a land owner to determine the "intentions" of a pet. As a child growing up in South Routt I lost my dog when it went onto another rancher's property. Was I pissed and did I cry, yes! Would my dog harrass his animals, probably not. At the same time it was well known that a rancher has the right to shoot a dog on his property... how can the rancher know if the dog is there to frolick through the grass or to chase a cow such that she stops producing milk for the calf; a stream of income.

If Mr. Flaharty "who has lived in Oak Creek off and on for most of his life" does not realize this is a possiblity when he lives in a ranching community perhaps he needs to consider a different locale.

If he pursues civil action and wins it is truly a sad day for the ranching community. The fact that he is even considering civil options is offensive.

0

francinefrank66 4 years, 3 months ago

for your info the dog was under voice command and wasn't very far from the owner! He was not chasing livestock, people or being harmful to anyone or anything. It was out in the country. If someone has an issue they need to call the dog catcher not shoot them so they can't run away then kill them!!! It was my son's dog and he is devastated. That dog saved his life and was his lifeline so get the facts before you judge.

0

francinefrank66 4 years, 3 months ago

the law states ONLY if the animal is chasing livestock, wildlife or attacking someone or something then they can shoot. It does not state that they can shoot if the animal is NOT harming anything. He was running across an empty field!

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 3 months ago

Colorado definitely has stiff trespassing laws.

'Make My Day' just applied to a juvenile in Denver who was shot in the head multiple times for a breaking and entering.

Voice commands are lacking at best when a dog is trespassing. It's sad for the animal and the owner, but trespassing isn't welcomed in this state or any other.

0

fartpark 4 years, 3 months ago

Greenwash, you are an idiot. The poor guy lost his dog, and all you can say is that he should have been on a leash. Very sad you can't even have a little compassion.

0

JusWondering 4 years, 3 months ago

Fartpark, the dog should have been on a leash. I get so sick of people letting their dogs run up and down County roads frolicking through meadows and private property as the see fit. It is not a dog park. The County Ordinances are clear. The dog must be under control. If the dog was running through a meadow it was not under control.

I really do have empathy for the loss. I was more than a bit saddened when my dog was shot and killed... I was 11. However, I was living on a ranch and understood the consequences of him roaming free... the next dog I had was always under control.

.

0

AuroraBorealis 4 years, 3 months ago

What has happened to human decency and the essence of the human spirit?

Mr. Flaharty and francinefrank66, I am very sorry this traumatic event happened to you. My heart is sympathetic to the pain you're feeling. I'm sure you are having a very difficult time coping with the sudden and tragic loss of your pet. May you find healing and peace.

"He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant

0

Boat_Kid 4 years, 3 months ago

I don't like nor dislike dogs. After reading this story it makes me ask why kill something if it is not threatening anyone or anything. I know humanity is hard to come by these days but I was appalled after reading what happened. If there were no livestock nor children in the field was it really necessary to shoot a dog? For many people dogs are like family so in their world its like shooting a sibling or a parent. Would people these days be okay with that? I know media desensitizes many aspects of guns and cruelty but I think that the area should reevaluate what is humane.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 3 months ago

First of all, we are only hearing 1 side of the story. The landowner hasn't made any public comments to support or dispute Mr. Flaharty's story and the RCSO only confirms the dog was shot. I empathize with Mr. Flaharty but until we know the full story, there is no way to know if what is reported here is the correct version. For all those sick to death about it one way or another, maybe wait until the investigation is completed.

0

bandmama 4 years, 3 months ago

I am so sorry about your dog, no matter the circumstance. To anyone who has never had a dog they will never be able to understand the loss felt when you lose one. I am sorry for the lack of compassion Greenwash has shown. And, I thought that leashes were the law only within city limits? Am I wrong on this? Oh yeah, if a dog is in the country, and NOT chasing livestock and NOT attacking someone HOW DARE him "frolick" who the heck imagines that a DOG may "frolick" sometimes. (before anyone shoots back at that one, yes written with dripping sarcasm....even dogs need to feel a bit a freedom every now and then and this dog was not within city limits while doing so, that point I think we can take as fact) And yes, I do realize that ranchers have EVERY right to protect that which is thiers.

0

JLM 4 years, 3 months ago

Pretty lame stuff to shoot a dog under any circumstances.

0

MrTaiChi 4 years, 3 months ago

"Gentlemen of the jury, the best friend a man has in this world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter whom he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us -- those whom we trust with our happiness and good name -- may become traitors in their faith. The money that a man has he may lose. It flies away from him, perhaps when he needs it most. A man's reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads. The one absolute, unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish world -- the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous -- is his dog.

"Gentlemen of the jury, a man's dog stands by him in prosperity and poverty, in health and sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow, and the snow drives fiercely, if only he can be near his master's side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer; he will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounter with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens.

"If fortune drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him to guard against danger, to fight against his enemies. And when the last scene of all comes, and death takes the master in its embrace, and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even to death."

0

flower 4 years, 3 months ago

As much as I hate the thought of someone shooting a dog...the dog was clearly not under control by the owner if he had to look for him and was not aware he had been shot.

0

jk 4 years, 3 months ago

I see kids that aren't under voice command every day!!! I guess I better get the gun!!!!

0

Kevin Dyche 4 years, 3 months ago

So when someone shoots a dog, mans best friend, all you lame people can say is " he should have been leashed?" Give me a break. You're shallow people and the rancher is an A-hole. Sorry Joshua, my thoughts and prayers are with you. RIP Mr. Bubbles. P.S. You shoot my dog, you better have another bullet for me!

0

John Fielding 4 years, 3 months ago

.

Where is the crime?

Was injury or damage ongoing or imminent?

The law should prohibit such things, but not just the possibility thereof.

A dog off a leash is rarely a threat, and not usually an annoyance.

Trespassing rarely results in damage.

Where is the Reason that we govern ourselves by?

A law should be enforceable only if it is reasonable under the circumstances.

.

0

John Fielding 4 years, 3 months ago

.

And it is a Crime to enforce a law that is Beyond All Reason!

.

0

francinefrank66 4 years, 3 months ago

MrTaiChi-thank you very much this is very much how Mr. Bubbles was for Josh. They spent every hour of every day and night together. They did everything together. He will be greatly missed. This is a very nice poem, did you write it?

0

francinefrank66 4 years, 3 months ago

Thank you for the support, thoughts and prayers, they are greatly appreciated.

0

MrTaiChi 4 years, 3 months ago

Francinefrank66,

My condolences go to your family.

The quote is from an actual jury summation by George Vest in a case much like yours where a neighbor shot a dog. Senator Vest represented the plaintiff in a civil suit against the shooter. After the lengthy defense summation focussed in detail on the facts of the case and trying to exploit uncertainties, Senator Vest did not discuss the evidence in like kind, but rather issued the statements that I quoted above. It is said that when he finished there wasn't a dry eye in the courtroom and many men were weeping openly, except perhaps for the defendant and his attorney. The plaintiff won the case and received some compensation and made his point. In the process Senator Vest left a tribute to dogs for the ages that touches dog lovers in a way that lies too deep for words.

The event ultimately resulted in a movie starring Lionel Barymore.

http://www.almostheaven-golden-retriever-rescue.org/old-drum.html

If you can't find the full story there, Yahoo or Google, 'the shooting of old drum'

0

JusWondering 4 years, 3 months ago

Mr. Fielding. "where is the crime?" Trespassing! Last I checked the land owner still has rights. Could the rancher know the intent of a "dog at-large"? By the way, I would be vey surprised if the rancher was sitting out there in his/her pickup watching the fence line waiting for an innocent little puppy to cross it so he/she could practice marksmanship. No offense, but that is how the one-sided story we have heard thus far makes it sound.

I would agree that perhaps the rancher may have gone over the top. It is possible that the rancher is just an a-hole... no denying that some take their perceived need to enforce the laws allowing them to protect their property to an extreme. If this is the case he/she should be charged with animal cruelty and pay the fine. (We can only speculate since his/her voice and reasoning has not been heard; probably the smartest approach in the situation.)

Personally, I get sick of those living in "suburban" Routt County treating all land like the National Forest and NOT respecting the rights of land owners.

Dycheman, if your dog is chasing cattle and not under your direct control I would shoot it. If I have had problems with dogs from town chasing cattle and yours gets loose and wanders into my meadow I would shoot it. Period. If you then say you will then endanger the safety of me or my family there are lots of legal ways to deal with you.

The County statute is clear about the responsiblity of pet owners. Keep them under your control. It does not stipulate a leash. It says control; it eve goes so far as to say that if trespass occurs it is assumed that the pet is not under direct control; within ear shot is irrelevant. (http://www.routtcountysheriff.com/images/RouttCountyAnimalControlPolicy.pdf) See Section 6 a

jk No rancher would shoot a kid; give me a break; your apparent lack of logic is astounding.

0

John Fielding 4 years, 3 months ago

.

I do not disagree a law was broken by the dog owner, probably several. That is why the enforcement must be tempered by reason. Maybe a warning shot? Maybe hollar to the owner, "git yer dam dog offen my land"?

The "trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again" approach is only justified when there is a real threat, not just a disrespect for boundaries.

There are plenty of laws that cannot be strictly enforced with justice. There are a few that cannot be enforced at all with justice.

I think the Nazi comparison is over used, but it is true that the persecutions and executions of both the target peoples and anyone who helped them were all real laws being enforced by authorized officials.

In that case many who enforced those laws were later prosecuted, if they were not killed outright in the war to stop them.

In this instance the shooter will have to make a compelling case to justify his actions, or face prosecution for taking enforcement into his own hands.

If the dog owner and his kids were near the dog, and armed, and had returned fire and killed the rancher, would that have been justice?

I have been shot at, warning shots I think, but when I took cover and returned warning fire at their exposed location they left quick.

Lets just do it old west style again, eh?

.

0

John Fielding 4 years, 3 months ago

.

We may disagree about what constitutes a Crime.

In my mind there is a difference between a Crime and an offense or violation.

I do not disagree a law was broken by the dog owner, probably several. That is why the enforcement must be tempered by reason. Maybe a warning shot? Maybe hollar to the owner, "git yer dam dog offen my land"?

The "trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again" approach is only justified when there is a real threat, not just a disrespect for boundaries.

There are plenty of laws that cannot be strictly enforced with justice. There are a few that cannot be enforced at all with justice.

I think the Nazi comparison is over used, but it is true that the persecutions and executions of both the target peoples and anyone who helped them were all real laws being enforced by authorized officials.

In that case many who enforced those laws were later prosecuted, if they were not killed outright in the war to stop them.

In this instance the shooter will have to make a compelling case to justify his actions, or face prosecution for taking enforcement into his own hands.

If the dog owner and his kids were near the dog, and armed, and had returned fire and killed the rancher, would that have been justice?

I have been shot at, warning shots I think, but when I took cover and returned warning fire at their exposed location they left quick. If my dog was shot I'd shoot back with lethal intent.

Lets just do it old west style again, eh?

.

0

Boat_Kid 4 years, 3 months ago

JusWondering the article does not state that there were livestock or children in any proximity to the dog. In some of your arguments it sounds as if assumptions are the basis. Yes, the dog was trespassing but did the dog know that probably not. If a child trespassed unknowingly would you shoot them? I would hope not. I know to some people dogs and children are very different but to others they are both part of the family. I understand that shooting the dog may have been justified if he was causing harm but if not why kill?

0

S_G30 4 years, 3 months ago

Regardless of the laws, the decent thing to do was fire a warning shot, or at least warn the owner before pulling the trigger. This is rediculous and I see no reason that the dog should have been shot. I know that there are laws and they need to be followed but come on, did he really have to shoot the dog? If they dog was being a problem, bothering livestock, threatening kids than fine, but it does not sound like that was the case. Sorry for your loss.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 3 months ago

Boat_Kid- The article only states what the dog owner told the reporter. The dog owner said there wasn't livestock. RCSO & the landowner haven't confirmed or disputed that. Right now, none of us posters know whether that's the absolute case or not.

And all the comparisons to shooting a child instead of a dog is ludicrous. A child is less apt to approach a stranger (or allow a stranger to approach) and show some sharp teeth & start growling. Most people would say, "Awww, cute!!" Not so much if a dog does it to you. Even a normally nice dog will do that. My friend's dogs loves me & climb all over me when I visit. Should their owner not be around & I tried to enter his house or pet them in his vehicle with the window open, they'll growl & bark even though they've known me for a few years. I'm sure we've all seen/heard people say how nice their dog is and then when the owner isn't around, the dog can get a bit mean. Not always, but it happens.

Nothing against Mr. Flaharty- I don't know him or his dog, nor the landowner since that person isn't named.

0

JusWondering 4 years, 3 months ago

Mr. Fielding, So it is not a crime to break the law? Are we now condoning moral relativism? All laws should not be equally enforced? quot" "If the dog owner and his kids were near the dog, and armed, and had returned fire and killed the rancher, would that have been justice?" Uh, no, the owner and kids were trespassing as well; the owner and kid would likely face prosecution for murder. I would also assume that any rancher with a brain larger than a pea would prudently not shoot.

quot: "I do not disagree a law was broken by the dog owner, probably several. That is why the enforcement must be tempered by reason. " I completely agree, but we do not know the situation with the rancher do we?

Over the years many times people have come to my door and said "my dog ran off do you mind if I go look for him"; that happens when you live fairly close to town. The answer is always go for it but respect the land (don't trample through hay right before harvest, don't scare my cows, etc). However, if a dog were harrassing wildlife or cattle they would be shot.

Boat_Kid. quot: "the article does not state that there were livestock or children in any proximity" Exactly... the article, to its own admission is very one-sided. The view point of the pet owner is all that is represented. That of the Sherriff's office and of the land owner are very much absent. While it is VERY sad over the loss of a life for the dog and his owner (believe me I understand the pain) it could have easily been prevented by the pet owner who bears responsibility for controlling his pet just as the rancher bears responsibilty for acting with prudence.

I will re-state that I would be VERY surprised if a rancher would shoot at a child in today's day and age. I will admit though, that one cantankerous old coot shot me with rock salt as a kid for taking a short cut through his property; something that likely would not happen today. If someone chooses to shoot at another human they should be prosecuted for attempted murder.

What is completely unknown is the motivation of the rancher. I agree I am making assumptions when I defend him/her; but I also caveat that if it was done because the rancher is an a-hole then prosecute them (I know many arrogant ranchers)! At the same time, prosecute the pet owner for failing to control their pet. To me, the only victim in this is the poor dog.

Most posters here are coming very quickly to the defense of the pet owner and the poor dog without knowing the facts. I do the same and take the contrarian position in hopes of some sort of balance of fallacies.

When it comes down to it it is likely that only the rancher knows their real motivation.

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 3 months ago

The landowner has not issued comment, so this is a one-sided story.

Voice commands were obviously not effective when the dog owner had to go looking for his dog.

I'm certain the rancher has livestock and family members.

Boxers, Pitbulls, and Rotts are fairly scary by just their appearance. Also, the most common dogs to attack without being provoked.

And, comparing dogs to kids really dilutes the argument.

0

brian ferguson 4 years, 3 months ago

Be sure to watch your pets in the national forests too. Seems sheepdogs get the right of way out there.

0

John Fielding 4 years, 3 months ago

Trespassing is not a capital crime even for dogs. It is an offense, usually trivial.

Harassing livestock is a crime, it causes damage and injury.

Plenty of laws regulate offenses, some forbid crimes.

There is a difference. It is easy to break a law without committing a crime.

People who do not know the difference should not take enforcement into their own hands.

Those who do so, using firearms in the process, might have their right to keep & bear arms infringed.

If you shoot a bear that is actively killing your livestock you will have a problem with DWR.

.

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 3 months ago

Brian - You are 100% correct. Sheep dogs do get the right of way. Another case of a dog on voice command with bad ears and no discipline.

John - How about 'Make my Day' law in Colorado? That was put in place for trespassing and allows capital punishment. There is nothing trivial about trespassing. It's as black and white as it gets. You can also shoot any animal without recourse that is killing your livestock. You seem to be making up laws as we go. Breaking the law is a crime. 'It's no big deal'......'No one is watching'.

0

John Fielding 4 years, 3 months ago

.

What exactly is damaged or injured when someone trespasses?

I know you can define any act that is not fully in line with the law as a crime, but how do You differentiate between those that injure those that annoy?

Let someone exercise their "legal option" to shoot a trespasser and see if the law will actually protect them.

By the way I support respect for property rights. When someone walks across my posted property, I bid them good day, and advise them access is by permission only.

When someone tears it up with their bikes & ATVs I track them down and warn them, then call the cops if they return. Haven't shot one yet.

I might shoot a dog killing my animals, but I probably would just let the owner pay instead.

.

0

jk 4 years, 3 months ago

My comment regarding kids was to make note that many dog owners feel the way about their dogs that others feel about their kids. And most dogs are better trained than most kids these days!! I have had kids at my fence taunting my dogs before. All it took was a chat with the kids and their parents to solve the problem. I wonder if this avenue was ever approached in this instance? As far as the make my day law goes I think someone has to have broken into your house and you have to fear for your life, not someone fumbling around on your land! I am still fuzzy on the whole sheep dog thing if I am in my National forest enjoying myself with my family (which includes dogs),and some great pyrenees comes rolling around acting aggresive there will be warning shots first and then we shall see.

0

trump_suit 4 years, 3 months ago

What is also missing here is any sense of history between this animal and the land owner. If this is the very first intrusion by this dog, it is a much different picture than if this represents a continuing issue.

I think John hit the nail on the head with his commments, this is supposed to be a friendly place and having a talk with your neighbor to prevent future problems might be a better solution than shooting from the hip.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 3 months ago

Even if someone thinks, for whatever reasons, that this is not such a friendly place then there is still the question of to what to be known for. It is pretty bad to be known as the person that shot someone's dog unless someone or something was being attacked. Or to be known as the guy that shot the bear in downtown.

0

francinefrank66 4 years, 3 months ago

I want people to understand just one thing, don't you think that my son is punishing himself and will forever punish himself for not having him on a leash, he will forever ask himself why, why did I not, why did he run over there, why, why, why. FOREVER, he loved that dog more than life itself. Mr. Bubbles WAS HIS LIFE.

This dog was no threat to anyone or anything. I want to explain a little about this dog. He was very smart, he thought he was a person, he hated being alone, he would cry when left alone. He was so very friendly and trusted everyone.

He had the greatest personality I have ever seen in a dog. Some of his favorite things: snuggling you on a cold day or hot day it didn't matter, he would start at the bottom of the bed and before you knew it he had crept his way to your pillow with his head in the crook of your neck snuggling you, he loved to watch TV curled up in your lap with you rubbing the indent in his forehead. He also liked to take naps with his head in the crook of your back. He like to go shopping, we would come home from work and if we had left the pantry door open he ever so gently would take things out and make a path to the front door as if to say, I want spaghetti for supper! He would take a bunch of bananas off the kitchen counter and with no teeth marks or bruises he would put them on my bed, (grandma must have needed more potassium!) we would find cracker packages on the bed to, never opened just there. He stood on "his" chair in the mornings look out the window so I could say bye Mr. Bubbies grandma loves you have a good day and he would look at me with his sweet face and smile.

He loved to run, he had so much energy that's why he and Josh made such a great pair, he loved listening to Josh's stereos, he loved music, he loved riding in the car, playing with his buddy Boomer (who misses him too).

Their favorite place was Croshow Lake where they spent most of the summer last summer. He loved to swim, loved ear rubbings and loved our family with his whole heart.

I have woken up, like I'm sure my son has for the last 4 days crying, I wonder if this pain will ever go away. The act of cruelty was NOT necessary, Josh was right there, why could he not just yell, hey your dog is over here I don't want him here. Why not at warning shot. Why not just call the animal control and let them handle it.

Some of you are not reading the facts, facts are: there was no livestock, no wildlife, no people, no children involved. It was an empty field and a high energy, loving life dog who had to pee!

0

francinefrank66 4 years, 3 months ago

Here is the law to clarify:

CO - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty/Animal Fighting Statutes CO ST § 18-9-201 - 209 This Colorado section contains the anti-cruelty and animal fighting laws. Under the law, "animal" is defined as any living dumb creature. A person commits cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence overdrives, overloads, overworks, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, unnecessarily or cruelly beats, or allows to be housed in a manner that results in chronic or repeated serious physical harm among other things. A person commits aggravated cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly tortures, needlessly mutilates, or needlessly kills an animal. Cruelty to animals is a class 1 misdemeanor and aggravated cruelty is class 6 felony; engaging in animal fighting is a class 5 felony. CO - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws CO ST § 35-43-126; § 13-21-124; § 25-4-601 - 615; § 30-15-101 - 105; § 33-3-106; § 33-4-101.3; § 33-6-128; § 35-42.5-101 These Colorado statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include rabies control, dog licensing, and pertinent wildlife regulations implicating dogs. CO - Domestic Violence - Animals and Domestic Violence; Definition. CO ST § 18-6-800.3 "Domestic violence" also includes any other crime against a person, or against property, including an animal, or any municipal ordinance violation against a person, or against property, including an animal. CO - Impound - An Act Concerning Cruelty to Animals House Bill 1069 (2001)

Emphasis on NEEDLESSLY!

0

francinefrank66 4 years, 3 months ago

and I forgot to mention that if we had a long day and he couldn't wait to pee, he would pee in a bucket or empty laundry basket, never on the floor!! AND he loved to take showers, many times you would be in there scrubbing your hair and Mr. Bubbles would pop in for a scrubbing too!! He loved Pantene shampoo.

0

francinefrank66 4 years, 3 months ago

and I forgot to mention that if we had a long day and he couldn't wait to pee, he would pee in a bucket or empty laundry basket, never on the floor!! AND he loved to take showers, many times you would be in there scrubbing your hair and Mr. Bubbles would pop in for a scrubbing too!! He loved Pantene shampoo.

0

John Fielding 4 years, 3 months ago

.

Sorry, I did not mean that shooting that bear is wrong or illegal, only that there will be a problem with DWR, if you consider having to prove your right is a problem.

The fact that the law does not prohibit something does not mean it is Right to do it.

The fact that the law does prohibit it does not mean it is Wrong, only illegal.

Laws can be wrong, and it is our duty to try to correct them.

As John Locke said, "if man lived by right reason, there would be no need for government.

Lets be reasonable.

.

0

callguinness 4 years, 3 months ago

I'm going to withhold my comments on this exact situation until I hear the other side of the story.

However on the many comments about Colorado's Make My Day law. Some of you may want to know the details so as to keep you self out of a lot of trouble. There are three very important parts to the law:

1) Someone has to unlawfully enter a dwelling.

2) The occupant of said dwelling has to have a reasonable belief that said someone is going to commit some crime in addition to the unlawful entry.

3) The occupant then has to have a reasonable belief that said someone will use any kind of physical force in the commission of the additional crime.

If all three of these conditions are not met then the make my day law does not apply.

So far as trespassing goes you have to reasonably believe you are preventing first-degree arson, to justify the use of lethal force.

See this link for all the details... http://www.moffatcountysheriff.com/CoStatutes.pdf

Lastly this topic of warning shots is crazy. Any responsible gun owner/user should be able to tell you that just the act of pointing a gun should mean you intend to kill whatever it is pointed at. Warning shots are a VERY bad idea, if you pull the trigger you should only do so with the intent to kill. Warning shots make for stray bullets that could go anywhere.

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 3 months ago

call - The 'Make My Day Law' was being used as a comparison to trespassing laws.

Point 1) is the only intrepretation of that law. Points 2) and 3) are subjective and mean nothing.

And, I really want to meet a dog capable of starting fires.

0

ljcolorado 4 years, 3 months ago

God Bless Mr. Bubbles - he sounds like an INCREDIBLE companion. All arguments aside; no excuse to shoot that dog - justice will hopefully ring truth.

Myself and many of my friends want to send our deepest condolences and prayers for your comfort in the loss of what sounds like an incredible animal.

For anyone that doesn't 'get it': shame on you.

0

bandmama 4 years, 3 months ago

In a town where, in addition to the mints at most stores, there are also doggie treats at the counter, this touches many. Francine, thank you for providing additional information. Our thoughts are with you and your family.

0

Steve Lewis 4 years, 3 months ago

It’s important to recognize the different filters we apply to the world around us. Do the filters change with proximity? We react to personal and local injury this way - see above 47 comments.

I wonder what compassion we find, what filter do we use, when viewing something less local – like Louisiana’s coastal wildlife. Bubbles probably got off much easier than millions of animals there who will die an acrid, suffocating death under the weight of an unfathomable nightmare of oil.

Does that bother you too?

0

Terry Noble 4 years, 3 months ago

I await the full facts reguarding this incident. As many have stated above, this is disturbing whether you love or hate dogs. If in fact the dog was shot on "County" land then the shooter had no tresspass rights and broke the law. My dog IS my family and I'm not sure how I would react to this act of sensless cruelty. Perhaps the truth will come out before this is all over and done. Hopefully the paper will print the rest of the story before it gets buried in the past news file. My heartfelt sorrow goes out to the people who lost their beloved pet. My heartfelt sorrow also goes out for some of the idiotic responses I see above. In closing ponder this, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein ...

0

Terry Noble 4 years, 3 months ago

"Several calls to the reported landowner were not answered Tuesday". Gosh I didn't see his name anywhere in print. Does the public have a right to this information or just the press?

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 3 months ago

Steve, It is a false analogy to compare one person's pet being intentionally shot by another person and an accident that is killing animals in nature.

That would be like comparing someone that had their house broken into with a forest damaged by a tornado.

There is a superficial similarity (an animal dying, property loss), but all of the important aspects of the situation, how it happened, are completely different. It is completely different for something to happen because it was someone's intended action vs it occurring naturally or via an accident. It is completely different when it is a person's pet or property vs an animal or plants of nature.

0

frankly 4 years, 3 months ago

I would like to point out that the leash laws outside of the city of Steamboat are rather vague. When I asked about leash and off leash at the clerk's office, they were not clear on what the laws were or where dogs could go on or off leash. Even the worker at the humane society I spoke with was uncertain where leash and off leash start and end in the county (of course, the wilderness area is the obvious 'leashed' area). But I think it would be somewhat helpful for at least a rudimentary map with colored areas of 'leash' and 'off leash' for dog owners here and those visiting. I would love to create one, except I have no idea where dogs can go off leash in the county. Anyone know this information?

I am sorry for the loss of Mr. Bubbles. It is terrible to lose a best friend and I hope you find a way through the pain.

For the rest of us dog owners, there are many dangers for dogs out in the county, and we dog owners need to be aware and vigilant. I know of several dogs lost to irrigation ditches, traps, sheep dogs, shootings, and even skunk burrows. Please watch your best buddy like he or she watches after you and keep him or her as safe as you can.

0

bandmama 4 years, 3 months ago

get a grip. Dogs are wild in nature! They need to run off the leash every now and then. You ruin the animal by keeping it contained. They need to run. Dont HUMANS need to cut loose every now and then? (yup, but WE are so much better....????) I would rather find a pile of dog poo in my yard than human. Much more sanitary. What is the differerence between dog poo and cat poo???........(turd size unless it is one heck of a cat..) Or bears, or skunks, or foxes or bird. It freaking happens. A domesticated animal doesn't make it's poo any more appealing to anyone. It is pooooo. Any pet, animal, friend that is killed without a warning shot is sad. And most the time not needed. I love my dog, He is one of my best friends. Aways there with or without food. Which is more than many human friends have to offer. Let us hear both sides and THEN pass judgement. If the killer was justified, then it is what it is. If they were not, lets make him serve community time by picking up skunk scat. (and port-a- potties on Linclon, I am sure there are LOTS of turds needing to be disposed of....) No one has the right to kill anything unless they are posing a threat to me or mine. It really doesn't sound to me from reported "facts" from the Pilot that this was the case. Waiting to hear from the paper...... (oh help me if Mr Bubbles was tormenting a ranch animal...then I might be more swayed the the dark side...if anyone cant see the sarcasm and the light, go be a productive member of society and pick up the poooo...) Until then my dog will behave as a dog should, on a leash under the law and needed situations. Other conditions? He will be allowed a quality of life by being a freaking dog and playing in the river, laying in his yard or just rolling in some sweet smelling grass. And please feel free to tell me I am wrong, after YOU wear a collar 24/7 and a leash every time you have to take a dump.... try it.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.