them in the car but for every pay tuition yeah exactly but the law doesn't see them that way well in certain instances they're there or you're correct they're there they're not considered children but but we are in charge of them and they're there keeping them on our property as opposed to being on other people's certainly creates problems when when we don't follow the dog large leash law and keep the keep them secure on our property and then and then our our our animals go on someone else's property in and basically infringe on their property rights you know our our animals on their property the other day when we were talking you were telling me about a particular case that that you were the sitting judge on correct and it was really interesting can you tell us i can talk about it enough because it did go to trial and the appeal process has been completed happened in two thousand n these dogs and they had permission to do some training of three dogs on some property a farm and dogs in the course of training and picked up the scent of a coon and i learned a lot about coon hunting and in training coon dogs during the course of the tropic that's what these dogs are trained for on a cot correct and then they don't chase livestock they don't chase other animals they are trained to chase and tree raccoons well they they had a training session and had permission of a farmer and we're training the dogs on their farm and during the course of the training session the dogs chased the co on somebody else's property and treed a raccoon on somebody else's property the folks who owned that property took offense to those dogs coming on their property because they had some livestock  and were concerned about the dogs chasing their livestock there their cows and calves and doing damage to them and you mentioned tree you're basically meaning what russ the the the dogs get on the raccoon and the raccoon to  avoid the dogs run up and three and the dogs there and the three and in this case there were three dogs who had a raccoon treat and the three of them and during the training session these these folks actually have g p s units on their dogs so they know where the dogs are but but the dogs bark and you can hear where they are and there were three dogs under a tree with a raccoon so they were in bothering the livestock they were in by the mud and the other animals on the farm if there there was some there some indication during the course of the jury trial that there was some disturbance of of the the cows and calves there were in a field but occurred was at that point the property owner took action against the against the dogs and there were there were two brothers that were there charged in the one one brother actually went out to the tree in and and shot and killed one of the dogs and shot the other two wounded the other two does the owner of the property have a right to do that there there are there are certain property rights that that you do have as a property owner certainly if if the dogs are chasing your livestock if the dogs are attacking your animal on your property then certainly going to have force you have the right of protecting your own your own animal your own your own livestock in this particular case  facts did not or there were not facts presented to the jury that indicated that these dogs were in fact chasing livestock all of the facts indicated that these dogs highly trained dogs only chase raccoons they don't chase horses they don't chase cows they don't they should say sheep they chase raccoons so you can't just walk because you have a dog on your property that's looking up a tree you can't walk out there and shoot and keep going with whatever and in this particular case that that was the jury verdict and certainly it was sustained on appeal that that the that the verdict was  that the weight of the evidence did support the jury's verdict of the cruelty to animals and criminal mischief basically doing damage to your property your property being the the dog and and in this particular case we're talking about dogs that these these fellows i mean they spent hours training the cost the dog initially plus they do this in competition and there are competitions that they go and if they win the price of the dogs escalate if it's like going to the kennel club you know the big westminster kennel club  competition if you win the value of your dog and the value of the pops and there's a breeder all of that correct and that was one of the big issues of this particular trial and this was a criminal trial yes it was a criminal trial there just briefly just to make sure we're clear what is quick i spliced on a criminal trial as opposed to a civil trial a civil trial would just be for damages sustained by the property owner also this would like in this particular case there were vet bills and there was obviously there was a loss of life of one of the dogs and the other two dogs were injured so there are vet bills and the cost of the dogs in a civil case it would simply be for civil damages which would be the value of the dogs or the cost of the veterinarian bills so we're talking money money in this particular case they were charged with a criminal offense cruelty to animals and also criminal mischief which would be damaging the personal property of another person  intentionally for no legitimate purpose and under the statute there you know it's it would be like going to deface school property or or your own your own and your property damage in your car if i intentionally damage your property and that's a criminal act and these charges are filed by the owners of the dogs are found by the cia in this particular case they were filed by the local police department after investigation after talking with witnesses and they filed criminal charges against these two were others for shooting the one brother for the actual shooting of the dog and the other brother for soliciting  his brother to shoot the dog there there was some testimony in the trial that the one brother statement you know go shoot those dogs since they're on our property and and so the one brother did was presented to the jury and then the jury decided that it was established beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of soliciting to commit cruelty to animals and solicitation to commit criminal mischief soliciting his brother to shoot the dog protein to animals and damaging the property of these three gentlemen who were they they were there they they could have retrieved the dogs  and were not permitted on to the property and that's that's where the conflict arose the right of a property owner to keep you off of my property that's my right and do you have the right to access the property to retrieve your property what is your and what is the answer and in this particular case you know the long and short of it should have been that that the property owner it would have been obviously would have been best to allow these guys to come on the property it's common sense common sense to to come on the property to retrieve their dogs now there was some indication that previously they had been told the the can dog hunters and the people in the there was some testimony that they had previously been told you do not have permission to come on our property at a certain point there  are conflicts in our property laws the right of a property owner real estate and right at a animal owner and but the dog law is pretty clear that if you own a dog you need to keep that dog under control and off of other people's property the the dog owners were not cited for for that the issue really became because of the value of the dogs the and the nature of the charges it was actually a felony because the value of the dogs exceeded five thousand dollars of these the damage to these three  dogs he actually ended up being on a a three month to twenty three month sentence actually we actually put him on a an electronic monitor of a bracelet and allowed him to continue to work because there were substantial damages that were sustained by the property owners and when it comes time for sentencing there's lots of issues that come into play  and the background of this particular individual he had a clean criminal record and is very well respected in his in his community and at his work but you know there there was a crime that was committed and and there were certain guidelines that as a judge if you follow regarding sentencing and felonies as serious felonies or more serious crimes that are committed in our society or be felonies either first degree second degree or third degree felony this was a third degree felony felony technically the maximum sentence was seven years in prison but you know based on the total set of circumstances that that certainly was not warranted but but you know when when as you being a pet owner obviously you you know this you're you consider this pet part of your family and that certainly these gentlemen had spent lots time with their dogs training them and there their hope was that they were going to win some competitions and also generate some some funds by way of  know if they were females you know having pups and selling them and i believe the the the total loss for these three gentleman was about seventeen thousand dollars fine the final determination was about seventeen thousand but but you would you would not think of this being the kind of trial that would go to the jury yeah we tried as best we could you know to try to resolve the case prior to trial but certainly the the property owner he took the position that these dogs were on my property i had a property right and these these dogs were disturbing my cattle my calves and that that he he had previously communicated to these gentleman that they were not permitted on his out that evidence was not in the record to carry the day so the property where the brothers and co owners of the property are just it was it was a fan base it was a family farm there were several residence is on that on the property that the one brother lived in and then the father and the younger brother lived in another farm coming to trial he was in fact prepared to to plead guilty because he acknowledged that he did do the shooting and and his position was basically that his brother did not have anything to do with  it and did not solicit him that would have been his testimony but but he died prior to that to his brother's case coming to trial and he he didn't and he had not entered a plea prior to the case coming to trial so that's all that transpired but it it it had gone on for us for several probably probably nine months trying to get all of the parties to resolve the matter prior to going to trial and it just just wasn't able to talk to work that out so had his case gone to trial or had he played a guilty and he would have had jail time possibly i believe that there was plea offer that was extended to him that would not have included jail time it would have been a probationary sentence and allowing him to pay the the amount of restitution to be determined th vet bills in the value of the dogs that as i recall that was what was being proposed but it generated a lot of interest in it generated a lot of far fewer within the coon dog hunting community for lack of a better descriptive term i think within the animal rights correct group  as well we had we had a lot of folks that that came when the case was scheduled there were a lot of folks that were there to to see how it was going to transpire you know and the years that i've been involved with these animals and i've seen a lot know i've been in the judicial system twenty eight years i've been a judge as for fourteen i've never had a case similar to it how often these cases come to the to the common pleas court well  of times the cruelty to animals things that cases a lot of times they'll get resolved at a magisterial district judge level sometimes if the if there are more serious and they're more animals involved they do get to court but rarely are they not resolved without a plea agreement normally normally you know it's a situation most mostly people are placed on probation it rarely involves jail the passion that dog owners pet owners have you know it does show to show through and you know to starve an animal to have animals in deplorable  conditions multiple cats multiple dogs that we have had those kind of situations but they they they rarely involve any jail time when you were a magistrate the you had a number of these you know that barking dogs barking dogs the that that probably was they go oh very frequent so what happened is i have dogs that make a lot of noise i mean fortunately i can't but let's say i did and i and i never next door's complaining so they complain initially to the place where they come to the local magisterial district judge and they follow maybe a private complaint for harassment or for some some type of by lation of the dog law if the dog is running at large you know call the local animal control officer to file a complaint and basically what any property owner you know you won't property i own property we have dogs ok so so maybe we're a little more understanding but there are folks that don't own thoughts but i still want the private i want the enjoyment of my property as a private property owner so i should be entitled to the quiet enjoyment of that property being i don't i shouldn't have to listen to the the barking dog all night when i might be working midnight and i'm coming home and and and i'd like to get some sleep  i have to listen to a barking dog for hours on end and i do that is not i know the answer is it is no and i shouldn't have to have dogs running at large i let the my dog out and you know what happens with all of us the dog gets loose it runs and the dog law says that i have to keep my dog under control either by fencing or a chain or  whatever so if the dog runs and takes off you know it's my responsibility as a dog owner normally if those kind of cases came before magisterial district judge or or or a judge  would normally say to an individual ad look you've never been here before can you keep understand you've got to keep your dog on your property while the judge the dog broke the chain i understand the dog broke the chain and you didn't  intentionally allow the dog to run at large but it's your responsibility can you can you at least indicate to the court that it's not going to happen again and most most adjoining property owners simply want the ability to say look just keep your dog on your property you're your dog owner it's your property you have the right to do that just keep it on your property and don't allow it to bar constantly i mean obviously dogs bark and and that will happen so this happened with that let's say that the barking dog and so it went before the magistrate went and he said hey you know keep your dog and  housekeeper quiet when it comes before the magistrate again what happens a second time well normally at that point then a judge is going to enforce the law and the law is that you have to keep your dog under control and not in a fashion that is going to disturb your neighborhood and and you could be fined up to three hundred dollars depending on the section of the  statute for that violation and that violation could i mean if you're talking about multiple days you know that you know the animal control officer will come in and say you know we've had complaints of this particular dog on multiple occasions so you're talking a lot of money that could be imposed and a lot of times i will you know maybe i'll find somebody and i'll say  will suspend the fine let's say your dog violated this particular section of the statute five times and we're talking the three hundred dollars and the incident so on five different days if your dog was running at large in violation of the the dog law the fine is fifteen hundred dollars i will suspend the imposition of the fine if you promise add never to have your dog run at large again so say your fifteen hundred dollars now if it comes back that you know next week the dog got loose again and you didn't provide fencing or do you didn't people tend to be pretty reasonable and you know neighbors in any neighborhood you know we we we have issues with neighbors good bad indifferent your fault my fault nobody's fault but the bottom line is it's my property i should be able to enjoy it can you take the dog from the owner and there are certain provisions that believe that that they're there are opportunities under the dog law if it's a dangerous dog i was going about to ask if the dog has biting habits correct that there are certain designated sections of the dog law that would permit that but they're very specific and they're very small facts specific  but but there would be there are sections a law that would permit that i've never had to do that and fortunately in most instances the the neighbors the folks involved though resolve their differences or and in many times the the the property owner who owns the pet will recognize i can't control this dog and i do need to i do need to get rid of it voluntarily  rico the most recent the animal abuse case i do recall one dealing with some horses and and that did get resolved by way of you know they're out in the field and you can see you know as you're driving by you can see the the bones on the on the animal and that's how that came to the attention of the authorities so those those always get some big publicity when when those things happen and i think it does a lot of good when that happens and it does you know it allows us you know the maybe the property to be cleaned up we had a case where there were a lot  of dogs in a particular house and it to the point where it was physically offensive to even go close to the home and i heard about that and you know and then you know that the dogs are removed  property's cleaned up and and then the neighbors are happy that that that that occurred so when they're when there's a spotlight with does in fact allow you to to make some corrections so well judge that says it's been my pleasure to have you on let's talk healthy pets and i think that's a lot of crucial information out there because we have to be responsible for our path and respect the rights of others as well at the same time these others have to respect our rights as pena correct and i think that that's that's what i know as a pet owner i have to remind not only myself but also my family and my kids you know when you let the dog out you know make sure that it's not infringing it's not running down the street and unfortunately my dog does in fact do that on occasion but you know i'm subject to the same restrictions as a pet owner thanks for watching us talk out the pats we'll see you next time