It's lovely that Bär is at ease around humans and most other dogs. Even the kindest and calmest dogs can be unpredictable and aggressive at moments when encountering another animal that they perceive to be a threat. None of the positive, kind, and supportive things that the owners and neighbors have said change or rebut the facts of the incident that provoked these findings: Bär attacked another dog (a Husky no less) and drew blood in doing so. That should be taken very, very, seriously.

The owners are fortunate that the dog wasn't euthanized. Six-foot fences and leashing hardly sound like a criminal sentence. My small dogs play in a yard with an eight-foot fence and never go out without leashes on. Most responsible dog people do the same.

The article seems to only represent the attacker's side, disappointing. I support the sentiment of the previous commenters. It seems the argument is that if the dog attacks only one in 100 times it is somehow OK. I am sorry attorney Kelly, but it is hard to imagine in what world a dog being attacked to the point it needs "wounds cleaned by the vet" to be "normal dog behavior under ordinary circumstances"

It is misleading and wrong for the reporter to describe this as merely an “altercation” between two dogs. It was clearly an attack. There is a significant difference. Upon review of the record, the impartial hearing officer determined:

- “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’s owners at the hearing.”
- “… the victim animal did not in any way provoke or threaten an attack on the subject animal, and the incident occurred in public space.”
- “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.”

This article is incredibly one-sided. The owners of B have organized a formidable PR campaign, including mass emailing neighbors with similarly claims that the injury caused by their dog was somehow grossly exaggerated. Bottom line it's not OK for our community to simple "forgive and forget" dog-on-dog attacks. We need to enforce safeguards to ensure pet safety.

This is overreaction of the 1st order. This is one minor incident in this otherwise wonderfully behaved dog' s life. I could understand this reaction to dog-on-person incident, not dog-on-dog, especially since the Husky's injury was far from serious. Plus which, there is no mention in this article of what precipitated the bite. Were both dogs off lead? What was the reason for the confrontation? Is it just a chemistry issue between these 2 dogs? Who initiated the confrontation? I've rescued, rehabilitated, placed and trained 100's of dogs for over 40 years. This reaction on the part of the authorities is overkill. If this happened in my state, in my city, the cops would be laughing at this non-incident.

I have seen the evidence and attended the hearing. The injury was negligible and there was zero evidence for an attack. The hearing officer actively distorted the facts to side with Animal Control (which pays him).

As for the injury, according to the owner’s photograph, there was a shallow injury of about 0.2” in size. The veterinary record initially notes another wound on the other side of the neck but subsequently only talks about this one injury. It also shows that the wound was simply cleaned, no stitches or sutures required, and that the injury had healed within a week.

As a dog aggression specialist and a forensic expert testified at the hearing, nothing about the injury supports an “attack”. On the contrary, according to their testimony, the injury is typical for what happens when untrained people are trying to separate dogs.

The witness statements disagree on what exactly happened, as do other accounts on that same day, for instance the one made by the husky’s owner on Nextdoor.

The newly hired, inexperienced Animal Control officer was out of her depth and the administrative hearing itself was a kangaroo court.

This case is as bogus as the other case we had a couple of years ago with a Malamute on Central Ave and it is high time that Menlo Park stops contracting with the County for Animal Control services.

Scott, what was bogus about the Malamute case on Central Ave?

The Malamute case involved a neighborhood Malamute that killed a dog, killed a cat and nearly killed another dog where Animal Control decided not to designate the dog as dangerous.

Oh, right, thanks for the reminder. One reason that dog wasn’t deemed dangerous was because one of the other dogs was loose and was the antagonist.