Spork, a 10-year-old miniature Dachshund up on vicious animal charges in Lafayette, Colorado for biting a veterinarian technician, has not only his owners fighting to save him, but also a Facebook fan club numbering in the thousands.
In August, Spork’s owners took him to Lafayette’s Jasper Animal Hospital to have a bad tooth extracted… The dog bit the technician in the face when she reached out to take Spork from Walker.
Another concern, she said, is people will be reluctant to seek medical care for their dogs, out of fear that they’ll end up in the same position. Vets and other Lafayette dog-related businesses also could lose customers, she said.
“It’s just out of hand,” she said. Her family has spent about $6,000 so far fighting the ticket. A court hearing is set in April.
The technician, Allyson Stone, lost small pieces of her lips and was treated at Boulder Community Hospital and by a plastic surgeon. Stone told police that Spork showed no signs he was going to bite, adding that she felt the attack was unprovoked, according to the police report. She told police she wanted to press charges because she was concerned that Spork would bit [sic] his owner or someone else and she wanted to prevent another attack.
Read more: Lafayette prosecuting Spork, Dachshund that bit vet tech – Boulder Daily Camera http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_14462960#ixzz0gYOXPT9Y
Should injuries inflicted on vets and vet techs be judged against a separate standard, based either on an implied consent [hazard of the occupation] or a recognition that the animals are naturally agitated by the environment? Is it justifiable to press forward under an ordinance which may result in the death of a companion animal for a bite which was not in any way life-threatening? Which was likely prompted by the stressful circumstances of the vet’s office? Is the contention that the vet tech hopes to “prevent another attack” laudable or laughable?
