Dead dogs raise questions about gun laws

Wednesday June 24, 2009

By Vivian Belik

Submitted Photo/Yukon News

Shotdogs
Kirsten Vetrie’s dogs, Bella and Dakota, were shot to death by a neighbour without warning in Tagish.

Answering the door recently, Kirsten Vetrie was greeted by a neighbour carrying a shotgun. He told her he’d shot one of her dogs and was about to shoot the second.

He made good on his promise.

Moments later, the second dog was dead.

Vetrie had never met the man before.

Her dogs, Dakota and Bella, are victims of outdated laws in the village of Tagish, she said.

“The Dog Act treats this area like the wild, Wild West,” said Vetrie. “It hasn’t been updated since 1930 when there were only five cottages in Tagish.”

Tagish has slightly more than 200 full-time residents and is home to several hundred seasonal cottagers. The area isn’t zoned as a residential or “development area” by the territory, but the gas station, stores and homes in Tagish say otherwise.

Vetrie’s neighbour shot Dakota and Bella after one of her dogs scared eight of the man’s chickens. No chicken was eaten by the dog, but they all died from shock.

In the Dog Act for the area of Carcross, no dogs are permitted to run at large. If they do, they’re legally allowed to be shot for “pursuing, worrying, injuring or destroying” livestock.

Vetrie, who considered her dogs close companions, is devastated by the loss.

“All he had to do (her neighbour), rather than shoot them with a shotgun, was knock on my door,” she said.

Bella, her nine-month-old Labrador cross, was pregnant. Her other dog, Dakota, was a four-year-old border collie cross. Both were shot to death.

“I specifically chose to live in Tagish because it was supposed to be a healthier and safer life for my dogs without all those cars,” said Vetrie.

“Now I’m blaming myself for not knowing my neighbours or the dog law.”

And the fact her neighbour discharged a shotgun so close to her home has left Vetrie unsettled.

“If you shoot off a gun in Whitehorse you’re going to jail,” said Vetrie.

Under the Yukon Wildlife Act, a person can’t discharge a firearm within one kilometre of a house except when the surrounding tenants give consent to do so.

According to the RCMP officer investigating the case, there were several homes within a one-kilometre radius of where the gun was fired.

“The neighbours are within close proximity,” said Cpl. Kurt Kamotzki. “They’re not side-by-side neighbours, but they’re between 300 and 500 metres.”

The RCMP will be canvassing Vetrie’s neighbours to ask whether they would have permitted gunfire close to their home.

“The neighbours are the people who actually have to answer to it,” said Kamotzki.

If Vetrie’s neighbours don’t approve of the gunfire, the man could be charged under the wildlife act. He would face an $86 fine.

“It’s a slap on the wrist,” said Vetrie.

The fines are outdated, said Kamotkzi.

“A good portion of these (types of) fines are dated and need to be evaluated in the future,” he said.

The courts could also find her neighbour guilty of a criminal code offence for discharging a gun in an unsafe manner, but it is unlikely, said Kamotzki, especially if he isn’t found guilty of breaking the wildlife act.

“They would need to look into case law and see what the immediate neighbours thought of (the gunfire),” said Kamotzki. “But the reasonable probability of conviction is slim to none.”

If the neighbour were handed a criminal offence he could either face jail time or be fined and have his firearm confiscated.

Only incorporated communities or First Nation communities can create their own bylaws surrounding dogs, said Jay Lester, a Yukon animal welfare officer.

“I’ve heard of dog-control issues in Tagish, but nothing that’s been reported to us as a complaint,” he said.

Control Vivian Belik at

(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Bookmark and Share 26 Comments

5:29pm 07/04/09  |  Karma wrote:

When I moved out to the country I let my dog run free.I thought she was a perfect angel. A weeks later A neighbor stopped by to inform me she was no angel. I went to Beaver Lumber and spent $500 on fencing supplies. She was crafty and a week later same neighbor stopped by.She was jumping onto her house and over the fence she went.After I raised the fence at that one spot no more complaints.I have the greatest respect for that neighbor and his communication. Problem solved no guns.

8:55am 07/04/09  |  sundog wrote:

“I specifically chose to live in Tagish because it was supposed to be a healthier and safer life for my dogs without all those cars,” said Vetrie.
Does this imply it is ok to be an irresponsible dog owner just because you are away from city traffic and by-laws?  A loose dog must be assumed to be a dangerous dog, despite the opinion of the owner.

8:40pm 07/03/09  |  Pussinboots11 wrote:

Ok, everyone, I think alot of input and views have been brought forward on this issure. Its been very insightful. Its good to hear the majoritys input on various disputesa about things. Lets hope its all helped both parties involved reflect on it all and lets all let them deal with it. No war parties please!

2:23pm 07/03/09  |  Jim Smith wrote:

I agree that communication is key to solving any problems. If the person who owns the chickens warned the lady who has the dogs of the situation and asked her to keep her dogs away from the livestock and she did not, He is in full rights to protect his livestock. I grew up on a farm and this is no different then having a fox come in and attack your pigs or turkeys. In those days we would not think twice about killing the fox because the livestock are very important to us.

5:15am 07/01/09  |  a65c63 wrote:

well first let me say i was definatly taken aback when i saw the picture of the dogs! i think we all got the point without having to see pictures! as far as what i read of the dog owners story, she lost credibility when she said the chickens died of shock!!! COME ON!  a chicken does’nt die of fright!I live Rhode Island and i can spot a bullshit story across the country! i feel terrible for the dogs! BUT, i don’t blame the guy who shot them. she was’nt taking ANY responsability for her dogs.

9:28pm 06/30/09  |  Kirk wrote:

Why were the dogs running loose? Appears it was a common occurence. Of course this entire episode would never have happened if the law regarding dog containment to the owners property would have been obeyed, thus respecting your neighbours right to enjoy his lifestyle without having a neighbours animals destroying their property.

12:50am 06/30/09  |  vividone wrote:

I am disheartened that people from the Yukon are arguing about this.  Legal action is the appropriate way to deal with issues between neighbors, if communication is attempted and fails.  Neither party should have lost animals whether that be dogs or chickens.  I do not believe in eye for an eye, and I am disappointed in the behavior here.  If an animal comes onto my property, and I do live out of city limits, then I deal with the owner…I don’t resort to violence.

10:09am 06/29/09  |  Meesha wrote:

Karma

You don’t have to be CITIFIED to deal with things in a civilized, compassionate manner.  I have no desire to live in the city but feel there are ways to deal with things that don’t involve just blowing something away with a gun - it’s called COMMUNICATION - talk to your neighbour directly and look at options instead of shooting first and talking later.  I was never suggesting shooting dog owners (even suggesting that is ridiculous) I was talking about working things out with them.

11:49am 06/27/09  |  Karma wrote:

Chickendee your right Yukon News should not have printed this article with those pictures.I had nightmares and can’t get the thought of those dogs breathing their last blood gargled breath out of my mind.

11:41am 06/27/09  |  Karma wrote:

Killing the dogs is so cold there are so many options to choose.Killing is just wrong unless there was no other option.Like the guy tried to yell at them and scare them off but the dogs turned on him and were attacking. Then sure no problem fire away.People would back him up on that i’m sure.To just shoot a pregnant pup and her friend is just so heartless and cold.

7:13pm 06/26/09  |  Dog lover wrote:

Meesha, as far as I know it is illegal to shoot the owner!!!! We pride ourselves as being “back-woods” people, thanks. You will also notice that a lot of us enjoy the quietness of being out here, then the “city folk” move in and try to citify us in our own community!

3:45pm 06/26/09  |  swanderosa wrote:

Hey Dog Lover, My facts came from the story in the paper, and no where did it mention that this had happened before! Also if it had happened before then maybe she should have mentioned that, before all the dog lovers jumped on her neighbors! Maybe Karma bite her, by taking her dogs away. But if they have never even spoken to her about her dogs then yeah, I hope Karma bites him back!

11:45am 06/26/09  |  Meesha wrote:

I have to say I surprised by reading all these comments how “back woods” alot of people here still are. . . .something annoy you or bothers you, kill it.  Yes the owner was probably irresponsible but that isn’t the dogs’ fault, why should they pay with their lives?  Have a bit of compassion . . .

11:39am 06/26/09  |  Meesha wrote:

Yet another case of killing the ANIMAL for the actions of the OWNER - disgusting and inhumane.  Talk to the owner, deal with the authorities, take them to small claims court if necessary - let be CIVILIZED about this. I am saddened and ashamed that I live in a place where it is legal to walk onto someone’s property and shoot their pets.  This isn’t the wild west and it isn’t 1898!  I am totally disgusted with the actions of this backwood curmudgeon!

10:35am 06/26/09  |  taku wrote:

This is a case of an irresponsible dog owner.  This woman should have gone over to the neighbour and apologized for the destruction of the livestock and offered to pay for replacement.  She should also keep her dogs tied up and not roaming around.  Had she done the above, the situation would not have escalated to the point that it did.

8:26am 06/26/09  |  YTPaul wrote:

The dogs would still be alive if the owner of the dogs was a responsible pet owner.  Key word responsible.  Letting your dogs roam free, regardless of your location, is not responsible.  Her 9 month old pup is (was) pregnant for pete sakes, what does that say about her responsibility?
You live in a community, respect your neighbours, keep your dogs on your OWN property.  If you can’t, don’t own dogs.

8:04am 06/26/09  |  Dog lover wrote:

Hey swanderosa, get the facts before Karma bites you in the butt! This was the second time Kirsten’s dogs attacked these chickens. No restitition was made buy her in any way at all.

9:42pm 06/25/09  |  chickendee wrote:

I would also like to add that my husband DID NOT walk up to Kirsten’s door with a shotgun in his hand threatening to shoot her other dog. Kirsten was not even there! Both dogs were in the chicken run and they were shot in a RESPONSIBLE and SAFE manner. The gun was left at home when the dogs and chickens were taken to Kirsten’s house. Get your facts straight!

6:35pm 06/25/09  |  Pussinboots11 wrote:

Well I guess if the dogs previously got into the chicken pen or on the property and killed chickens or whatever other livestock, then Kirsten should have apologized at that previous time and offered to pay for the loss.

5:53pm 06/25/09  |  gurf wrote:

Yeah right Kirsten, I cannot wait until everyone hears the truth about this b.s. story. Yes your dogs were shot from being on are property twice killing are live stock and you didnt even have the courtesy to come and appologize to my mother the first time so why would we expect you would the second time. You should learn how to keep some control over your dogs. She thinks her dogs are close to her, well my mother feels the same about her chickens.

5:33pm 06/25/09  |  Pussinboots11 wrote:

I think the guy was wrong shooting the dogs. He should have at least gave Kirsten a chance to come get her other dog. Also, I used to raise chickens myself and have never in my life heard of chickens dying from fright,LOL! I think its Bull! Rabbits maybe but chickens???

11:29am 06/25/09  |  chickendee wrote:

It is IRRESPONSIBLE and UNFAIR to pass judgment and WORSE, publish an article such as this without getting both sides of the story. I am the owner of the 46 chickens that were killed (in 2 seperate incidents) by these dogs. The paper should publish the pictures of MY DEAD CHICKENS. Get my side of the story first and quit publishing lies.

9:57pm 06/24/09  |  john of the north wrote:

So who is this person who allegedly discharged a firearm close to a dwelling place in what appears to have been a reckless and wanton manner?  Obviously the local community at Tagish knows who this person is.  Why not everyone?  Foolishness like this gives all gun owners a bad name.

5:29pm 06/24/09  |  yukon14 wrote:

Kirsten, must have been scared out her wits, facing a stranger with a shot gun in his hand.  What got me was it sounded like he shot her dog on her property. If so he had no right to be on her property with a shot gun let alone shoot her animal on her property. Sounds like this fellow has a bad temper. He should go to anger management. His actions is truly not the actions of a true Yukoner. Hopefully every avenue of the laws get looked at, he deserves more then a slap on the wrist.

3:56pm 06/24/09  |  swanderosa wrote:

This is terrible! Could the man who shot the dogs not have gone over and talked to the owner first? Why did he jump to the gun right away? It breaks my heart that he had to resort to killing the dogs. I really hope Karma bites him back hard!

1:43pm 06/24/09  |  yukonkas wrote:

I am sorry to hear the Kirsten’s dogs were shot and killed. But, I also would like to point out that if her dogs were on a lead and not allowed to roam around freely, they would still be alive. It is horrible that her 9-month old pup was already pregnant- that is irresponsible pet ownership! I am not condoning the nieghbour shooting her dogs- he behaved horribly and irresponsibly in shooting the dogs while so close to family homes, but the blame can be spread to both parties in this instance.

Add a comment

The Yukon News has provided readers with the opportunity to post their views and opinions regarding any stories published on its website to foster dynamic discussions. Posts will be reviewed by a moderator before being published, but will not be edited or altered except for spelling and grammatical errors. Comments on this site are not the opinions of the Yukon News and comments with personal attacks, vulgar language, libelous statements or falsified facts will not be permitted. Only registered users of the website can contribute to the online conversations.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.