Dear City Council,
I am writing to express our deep concerns with what is happening right now around Bars case. We are the family of the victim dog - Pushkin. The case is very straightforward based on facts, vet assessment and photographic evidence, and was described by both Animal Control and the independent appeals hearing officer as an unprovoked attack on Pushkin. Unfortunately, Bars family is in denial of the facts. Moreover, they are distorting the truth, and sending mass email communication agitating neighbors. Here are the facts:
* Tobias was seen multiple times walking his dog Bar off leash (which he now claims is an electric collar, but that is impossible to check)
* In early August Bar pulled away from its handler and charged at Pushkin across the street
* Pushkin was just a couple feet away from our then 4 months old baby
* Pushkin was left with bleeding puncture wounds around his neck that required vet attention (cleaning, course of antibiotics, etc.)
* After the incident Bars family did not acknowledge that the incident was an attack and a problematic behavior
* Knowing that if it happened once it can happen again, we felt the need to file a report to Animal Control to enforce proper leash walking and fencing that would make our family feel safe in the neighborhood (and prevent any other families from the stress we have been through)
* However, Bars family started a campaign of gaslighting and mislabeling the attack as normal behavior, dismissing the harm caused to Pushkin, and smearing our family
* Since the incident, I myself and our nanny have been subjected to verbal attacks on the streets of the neighborhood at multiple occasions, by the Kunze family and their friends
For the safety of our community I believe strongly that City Counsel must uphold the dangerous dog designation, enforce leash and fencing requirements, and not allow the facts to be twisted to appease one loud family. I am happy to talk to the City Counsel if helpful in further consideration of this matter. I am also highlighting a few relevant quotes from the written decision issued by the impartial hearing officer in Nov:
* “The incident which occurred, in which the subject animal broke free from its handler’s control, and charged toward the victim animal, and then caused bite/teeth wounds to the neck area of that animal, was undoubtedly ‘an attack’.”
* “…the injuries sustained by the victim animal are real injuries, regardless of whether they were downplayed by the subject animal owners at the hearing.”
* “…the [victim] animal remained leashed and is not purported to have committed any attack or caused any injury to its counterparty animal, even after being attacked itself. It was simply attacked, and is not found to be at any fault for having been attacked.”
Kind regards,
Ekaterina Moshkevich
