New York: Judge orders Sheltie named Jack to be killed

Will this story get the same media attention that the fake service dog in Colorado received?

NEW YORK -- Jack the Shetland Sheepdog never attacked anybody until he bit a young girl in the face last month.

For that, a New Hartford town judge believes the dog should die.

Ordering a dog to be euthanized isn’t the only option for judges to consider for a “dangerous” animal. Other alternatives include ordering the dog to be muzzled and fenced-in or leashed at all times outside or having the dog transferred to another owner.

The owners of this Shetland Sheepdog named Jack are fighting to stop a
New Hartford town judge's order to euthanize the dog after it bit the
owner's granddaughter in March. The judge found the dog to be dangerous,
but Jack's owner would rather the dog be returned to live with its breeder.
"He doesn't deserve to die," owner Natalie Beratta said. "In my opinion, the
dog was seen as a thing, not as a loving creature and as a part of our family."

But a euthanization order is one that will trigger an emotional response from dog owners who don’t believe their pet is a violent threat.

Now, Jack’s owners are fighting to keep him alive, and they’re joined by about 3,000 people who have been signing a petition to halt the euthanization order issued April 1 by New Hartford Town Judge James Van Slyke. A Facebook page also has been started called “Help Save Jack,” liked by more than 2,300 people so far.

“He doesn’t deserve to die,” owner Natalie Beratta said on Thursday, while also criticizing how the case was handled by the court system. “In my opinion, the dog was seen as a thing, not as a loving creature and as a part of our family.”

Jack’s owners already have begun the process of appealing Van Slyke’s decision, and Jack’s death has been put on hold pending any arguments that might be heard in Oneida County Court.

In the meantime, Jack is locked in a kennel at the Stevens-Swan Humane Society, where protocol prevents any dog found to be “dangerous” from being let out of its cage.

The incident occurred when Jack bit Beratta’s 2-year-old granddaughter in the cheek March 27 at their New York Mills home. Nobody witnessed the bite – which required four stitches – so Beratta said it’s unclear whether the girl did anything to provoke the dog such as pulling its tail or stepping on its paw.

New Hartford animal control responds to about a half dozen “dangerous” dog bites a year, and most of the owners agree the only option is to have their dog euthanized, said New Hartford police Lt. Timothy O’Neill.

“It’s an honest acknowledgment by the owner that this dog can’t be trusted around anybody, especially children,” O’Neill said. “Once a dog bites a kid, it’s not fit to be a pet. What are they going to do? Give the dog to somebody else so it can bite somebody else?”

A new owner for Jack is exactly what Beratta would have preferred, she said. During the hearing to decide Jack’s fate, Beratta suggested he be returned to his breeder in a rural community, where no children would likely encounter the dog.

Van Slyke, however, decided otherwise and gave Beratta 30 days to file an appeal before Jack would be euthanized. As long as an appeal is pending, Jack will remain alive.

James Van Slyke

In New Hartford, it’s rare for a judge to decide whether a dog should be euthanized: Since 2010, town attorney Herb Cully said he has had only one other court hearing to determine a dog’s fate, which also resulted in a euthanization order.

In an unrelated case, attorney Mark Wolber represented a Deansboro family whose Dalmatian “nipped” a child that had been poking it with a stick. In that case, the judge ruled that the family could keep the dog as long as it was leashed at all times outside.

“On the one hand, I do feel that the most important thing to protect is human life and the court should always err on the side of caution when you’re talking about a vicious dog,” Wolber said.

“But on the other hand, I am aware how emotionally attached people can get to their animals, and the court has to balance the interest of the owners with the danger that dog can pose to people in the community.”

(Utica Observer Dispatch - April 18, 2013)