ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Enforce dog laws

| Saturday, Sept. 5, 2015, 9:00 p.m.

In June 2014 while I was sitting on my porch, a 150-pound Akita jumped over a gate, onto the porch, and attacked my 22-pound dog.

I fought the Akita for six minutes before it released my dog from its jaws. My dog had a large chest wound and many others, requiring more than 48 stitches. I suffered a broken finger and financial loss in my cookie business. It is very painful to make cookies with a broken finger.

A year later, when the case finally went before District Judge Frank Pallone in New Kensington, the dog was found to be vicious and the dog's owner was ordered to say where the dog now lives.

She has refused to tell Pallone, New Kensington Police, dog control officer Gary Hoffman, county police and state dog warden Tom Wharry where the dog is.

I filed a Right-To-Know request and still got no answer.

For the past 14 months I have been living in fear that this vicious animal that was living a half block from my house will return to finish the job. I cannot leave my house without carrying a stun gun.

Meanwhile, the state dog warden sends officers periodically to the owner's house to see if the dog is there. What a waste of taxpayer money. This woman should be required by law to say where the dog is.

I am petitioning state Rep. Frank Dermody to rewrite the state dog laws so that something like this never happens again.

There ought to be a law or someone willing to enforce laws already on the books.

Why do I even bother to pay taxes?

Pat Condelli

New Kensington

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me