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.

No charges in Yampa dog shooting

Sheriff’s office says rancher was within his rights

Advertisement

— There will be no charges in the shooting death of Mr. Bubbles, the 3-year-old English boxer killed in a field outside of Yampa in late May, the Routt County Sheriff’s Office announced Thursday.

Animal Control Officer Cindy DelValle got the last of the witness statements in Wednesday and determined that no charges should be filed, Sher­­iff’s Office investigator and spokesman Ken Klinger said.

“At this point, it appears there will be no criminal charges filed on anybody down there based on the statements,” Klinger said. “They were warned several times by several people to keep the dog on their property.”

State law says it’s fair to kill a dog if “the dog was found running, worrying or injuring sheep, cattle or other livestock.”

Part landowner and rancher of the property Gary Clyncke shot the dog on the ranch in the 13000 block of Routt County Road 7, south of Yampa.

On Thursday, his wife, Anne Clyncke, said she warned the dog’s owner, Joshua Flaharty, four times before her husband shot the dog.

“I’m actually the person who warned them,” she said. “I drove up and told them that it was out and that it had been out previously, and that if it was caught in with the cattle it would be shot.”

Anne Clyncke said the dog previously was seen near horses and “standing down” her 8-year-old son. She said that as Gary Clyncke was getting ready to leave on the morning of May 31, he saw the cattle running and saw the dog in the middle of the field.

“Basically, he saw the cows running, saw the dog in the pasture and shot the dog,” she said. She said the “worrying” portion of the law includes when dogs are stalking cattle or causing them to run. When that happens, the cattle can run into fences or be run to death, she said.

Flaharty said previously that the dog was in a field and not near any animals. He said there was calving on a different part of the ranch. The dog was shot May 31, not May 29 as Flaharty previously reported. Flaharty did not return calls Thursday afternoon.

Klinger said there is no set distance the dog must stay away from the livestock.

Anne Clyncke said the pasture where the dog was shot is 25 acres and that the mobile home where Flaharty was staying is on about 2 acres near the middle of the ranch. There are no fences between the properties, she said.

“The dog was let out of the trailer and just let go; it was never leashed or anything,” she said. She said Flaharty was offered a chain for the dog.

Flaharty said he let the dog go out to go to the bathroom for less than a minute. He said he heard the shot as he was searching for the dog.

Anne Clyncke said the most important thing was the livestock.

“People up here know what the law is and know what the results are. I, myself, know that if our family dog — good dog, love her to death — starts chasing cattle, she would be shot,” she said. “The most important thing is to protect the livestock.”

Comments

Terry Noble 4 years, 6 months ago

Having heard both sides of the story now I am satisfied with the outcome. Dog owners need to remember that dogs have hunt/kill instinct in their blood. I have seen the damage to cattle and it isn't pretty. Thank you to all who did good professional work to bring this to a resolution quickly and legally. Shame on the party who didn't tell the truth here and YOU know who you are!

0

francinefrank66 4 years, 6 months ago

Well, Josh still stands on the fact that there were no cows in that field, he was only out less than a minute and Josh was outside with him. There is no way that he would "stand down" anyone, that dog was the most gentle big baby there ever was!

This is just another example of how people with money get there way. He was not the first dog he shot according to people, so he got away with it again.

Angry, yes I am. People's dogs pee in my yard all the time, I don't get to shoot them and I never would.

The fact remains that he walked up and shot him right square between the eyes, do you think that if there was any "danger" that he would be able to walk right up to him? The fact remains that he didn't let Josh have his dog back for 3 hours, what on earth were they doing with him for 3 hours? The fact is Josh found blood at the side of the road, was that checked out?

It would be nice to have answers.

0

John Fielding 4 years, 6 months ago

.

If that's all there is to the case it is cut and dried. It seems like fair warning was given.

Still, I am very sorry for the loss of the dog, wish it could have been kept closer to home.

.

0

greenwash 4 years, 6 months ago

leash your dog pick up your poop.....no problem.

0

francinefrank66 4 years, 6 months ago

So I get ridiculed because I have my dog penned, I walk him as much as I can and people still harp at me about him being in a pen.

So my son let's his dog out to pee, he gets shot and everyone thinks that's ok.

Double standard!!

So I'm just wondering when will they require leashes on deer, elk, skunks, porcupines, moose, etc. whom all make POOP and run loose now.

Dogs sometimes need exercise just like any other animal.

I am probably way to close to this to be objective, but I think my opinion still counts.

If dogs can't exercise then why should other animals that God put here first before man?

0

Anne Doerr 4 years, 6 months ago

What a sad situation all the way around. Being an owner of a Border Collie who "job" is to herd I know when I am away from home that he needs to be on a leash. He herds kids, geese and given an opportunity he would go for whatever livestock he could find. Given the right circumstances my dog can be as unpredictable, he is a loving dog and is gentle with our kids....That being said he is a DOG and I still keep him under control with a leash NOT voice.

Regardless of where Josh lives and where his trailer is, a kennel or fence sounds appropriate especially living in an area where there is livestock. Finger pointing and arm chair dog training in hindsight is pointless.

Josh I am sorry for your loss, francinefrank66 you are right you are too close to be objective and I am sorry for your loss as well.

To ranchers you have to do what you have to do.

Move on folks, nothing to see here!!!!!!!

0

weststmbtres 4 years, 6 months ago

Seems a bit odd that this story is so much different from the first story. Last week it the story seemed to say he was a customer at an auto salvage business and his dog wandered onto neighboring property while he was a patron at the business. Now it says he lives in a house that is in the middle of the ranch where the dog was shot. In order to avoid confusion on such subjects I think the Pilot should make sure they get their facts straigt before publishing anything at all.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 6 months ago

weststmbtres- I don't think the Pilot is at fault. As I was stating in the other thread, no "facts" were ever discussed. All they got was an "interview" with 1 side of the incident- the only side willing to talk to the Pilot at that time.

0

dave reynolds 4 years, 6 months ago

first i am so sorry for your loss...no disrepect intended but having been in the trash business for several years..I have been biten more than once by dogs, whose owners by the way say i cann't believe my dog bit you....just like children some dogs act differently when there parents or owners aren't around..check out this web site..www.rainbowbridge.com..you can post your pets pics and tell everyone how special your pet was to you Regards paddle

0

weststmbtres 4 years, 6 months ago

Kielbasa the Pilot is at fault for spreading incorrect information. The role of our News outlets is to present the story as accurately as possible. If that requires waiting until the details of the story are revealed then so be it. They hastily published the story without all the pertinent information. Don't even write the story until you've verfied the information with more than once source. Isn't that one of the many "first rules of journalism"

A much more informative, accurate and unbiased story could have been presented if the Pilot had waited for all the details before publishing incorrect info that was not verified by a separate independent source.

Their story last week with incorrect information needlessly got everyone's feathers ruffled on both sides of the argument. A lot of the comments and arguing back and forth would have been eliminated had both sides of the story been presented from the start.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 6 months ago

No, the Pilot collect information from the sources that speak to them. They didn't spread incorrect information- they reported what the dog owner told them. Only 1 side would speak to them so if the 2nd party is unwilling to speak to the press, the press can only present what is told them by the dog owner. The only facts they could report on:

1) That the dog owner spoke in his own words to the press. Whether or not those words were truthful had nothing to do with the Pilot.

2) That the RCSO was investigating the incident and the investigation was open at that time.

Not once did I read anything in the original story that the Pilot confirmed anything as a fact. They reported the story and left the fact finding to the RCSO. More than anything, it was the individual thread-posters that were propogating 1 side of the story as "facts" because they either agreed or disagreed with how things went down according to only the dog owner.

And since when does any news media outlet wait until all the facts were in on any story? Doesn't happen any longer. Otherwise, there would never be any story in any newspaper, blog, or network until after it's all done. You would know absolutely nothing until each incident was judged, juried, and executed.

No, I find no fault in the articles on this story as presented by the Pilot. Personally, I had no problem understanding that only 1 side of the story was being told so I could only reserve any feelings about either side until I knew more.

0

weststmbtres 4 years, 6 months ago

"One source" I meant to say. The fingers go faster than the brain sometimes. Ha!!!

0

weststmbtres 4 years, 6 months ago

They reported what the dog owner told them which we now know to be incorrect. The day the dog was shot wasn't even right. Matt, once armed with this information from the dog owner, what did the Pilot decide to do with the information? They spread the information. The "incorrect" information.

Your statement that "They didn't spread incorrect information" is clearly wrong.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 6 months ago

"which we NOW" know to be incorrect. Again- not once did the Pilot construe anything the dog owner said as a fact. They only reported the fact that the dog owner talked to them. They aren't the authority on who is not telling the whole truth or not. That was the RCSO's job in this instance. No- they reported what they were told by who would talk to them. Had they said the Flaharty had said something that he did not actually say, then I'd find them at fault for misrepresenting information. So far, I haven't heard anywhere that Mr. Flaharty is disputing anything the Pilot reported that he said.

Reading about news that far after the fact isn't news- it's history.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 6 months ago

thalgard- I don't even want to understand that statement...ever. LOL!

0

John Fielding 4 years, 6 months ago

.

You might say God made dogs using humans as His tools.

.

0

francinefrank66 4 years, 6 months ago

I guess my issue really is why did he have to KILL him? An injury could have healed and gotten the point across!

0

thalgard 4 years, 6 months ago

John, you also might say that humans invented the concept of god, while waiting for the dog to talk back.

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 6 months ago

How did I know that type of dog was aggressive towards a kid?

That's those type of dogs. 4 warnings and the dog is still out.

The Clyncke's were more than fair to that dog.

The 8 year old is much more important than the dog.

west - The dog owner spread false information, not the Pilot.

0

John Fielding 4 years, 6 months ago

.

Certainly all concepts are human inventions.

The concept of God is in a special category, that of the infinite.

The finite mind has difficulty there, so many concepts of God are limited.

But the dog lives, and that Force of the universe that propels all Life is its origin.

Man is merely one of the influences in the form that Life has assumed.

In the case of the dog, a large influence on the appearance, little on the substance.

In the case of God, much the same.

.

0

John Fielding 4 years, 6 months ago

.

Watching my 7 year old boy here snuggling with my 14 year old dog I am reminded again of what a special blessing dogs are.

.

0

cntrygirl 4 years, 6 months ago

I guess these ranchers should have used county channels instead of peacefully trying to reach a resolution with their neighbor. Our 4 month old puppy followed my son to the end of our driveway where a "good samaritan" picked him up, drove him 50 miles to Steamboat & turned him into the pound. I myself take pride in my ability to keep track of my pooch but it only took a few minutes for this whole event to take place. After searching for 8 hours for him (we stopped just after midnight), missing two days of work ( going to Steamboat to pick the pooch up & then back again to pay his fine), and paying a $300 fine, I can definately say I would have much preferred that my good samaritan come tell me my dog was getting in trouble. I guarantee that if Mr. Flaharty would have had to get his dog out of the pound on the 4 previous occasions he would have been watching his dog better.

0

weststmbtres 4 years, 6 months ago

Kielbasa, Read my comments again. I didn't say they construed anything as fact. I said they should do their homework and get the facts straight before reporting anything at all. I said they spread incorrect information and you say, for some reason, despite the obvious that they did not spread any incorrect information. You are wrong. Admit it and quit trolling for confrontations.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 6 months ago

There is no need to read your post yet again. I'm pretty sure it still says the same thing it did before. The Pilot's job is to report what they've been given. This is not investigative journalism in this instance- it's reporting the News. It was the RCSO's job to determine facts. I'm sorry if you can't understand this. You understand it the way you wish to. The rest of us who understood that only one side of the story was being told until this particular story came out had no trouble not speculating about the Pilot passing on bad info. Not once was I led to believe that the dog owner was telling the only side worth hearing and not once did the Pilot state that there was only one side to the story. They helped tell one side of the story as it was available to them. They stated the rancher couldn't be reached for comment. They did their job just fine. It's not their fault if some people made immediate reaction to the story without hearing both sides.

Good thing nobody waited on 9-11 to report that planes were flying into buildings before having all the facts. We might still be waiting on the story today.

0

weststmbtres 4 years, 6 months ago

Kielbasa said on June 11, 2010 at 11:00 and I quote

"They didn't spread incorrect information"

Just tell me exactly how this statement you have made holds any water?

0

weststmbtres 4 years, 6 months ago

Kielbasa, why are you being a troll? I just stated my opinion that I think the Pilot should have gotten both sides of the story before reporting anything and the result would have been a better story for the readers to digest. Rushing to report the news without having boths sides of the story doesn't do any favors for the readers.

What gives? Do you have some kind of personality disorder that makes you confrontational and unable to carry on a meaningfull existence somewhere other than the pilot blogosphere?

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 6 months ago

west - Not to barge in on this debate, but Kielbasa is correct and you are wrong. It was an event that was reported based on the information the reporter had received.

Duke bets that may be the definition of journalism.

0

weststmbtres 4 years, 6 months ago

I'm not disputing that at all Duke. Read my comments again. All I did was state my opinion that the story should not have been hastily reported based on the information from one side. It would have been more informative for the readers had they waited to get the information from the rancher and written a complete story from both sides. That's all I'm saying.

Do you disagree with that?

Kilebasa says that in reporting the first article from one side, and I quote again "They (The Pilot) didn't spread incorrect information" the first article is filled with incorrect information which was spread by the Pilot.

Do you disagree with that?

0

weststmbtres 4 years, 6 months ago

I asked Kielbasa to read my comments again and he refused. Duke, I'll ask you to do the same. I never said they construed anything in the first story as "fact". Those are words that the troll, Kilebasa is putting in my mouth. I said they should strive to get the facts straight before reporting anything at all. Meaning simply talk to the other side before publishing the story and spreading incorrect information from one side.

I guess I'm not understanding why you guys think it's a good idea to report incorrect information from one party. So in your world it's better to get the news out to the readers quickly as opposed to getting it out correctly.

0

Matthew Stoddard 4 years, 6 months ago

It is not the job of the Pilot to determine who is lying in cases when it's XX vs. XXX. It is their job to report was given to them. That's their job. It is not their fault nor liability should XX or XXX give them incomplete or false statements, unless they print that as being a fact or the truth. Had they altered Mr. Flaharty's statement that was given to them by Mr. Flaharty, I'd say you were right. So again- believe what you want about it and the rest of us who don't believe the same, won't.

In my first response to your post, I was quite nice about it and explained myself and reasoning. You don't get it. That's fine. I don't get how you place blame on the Pilot for doing what I believe was proper. That's fine. I'm done with it because ultimately, it doesn't matter to me. I tried to explain how I saw it in a nice manner & have tried to keep it civil. Oh well. You can go ahead and keep posting so you feel some type of validation.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.