LIVERMORE FALLS — A Livermore Falls dog owner was served with a court summons Tuesday morning after his dog, a bull mastiff-mastiff-Rottweiler mix, called Hooch, killed a smaller Jack Russell terrier named Jack on Sunday afternoon.
Martin Vining, 41, of 46 Park St. was served the summons on civil charges of having a dangerous dog, having an unlicensed dog and having a dog at large by Animal Control Officer Wayne Atwood.
Atwood said he has mailed the information to the Androscoggin County District Attorney's Office.
Vining has an arraignment date of Wednesday, Aug. 11, at 1 p.m. in Lewiston District Court, he said.
The Jack Russell terrier, a therapy dog, owned by Bethany Miller was leashed and on a walk Sunday afternoon with her children, ages 14, 16 and 19, when Hooch, who was loose, attacked the smaller dog about a half-mile from Miller's home.
Although Vining, a friend of his and Livermore Falls Police officer Vern Stevens attempted to separate the dogs, the Jack Russell terrier died during the incident.
Vining's dog previously attacked a mail carrier in 2007 and he was charged with having a dangerous dog at that time, Atwood said. Hooch is also not registered with the town this year.
Report a correction
UGH...
This is why i don't like leaving my dog outside for long periods of time. He's just a small Puggle and yes he would like to play with every big dog in the neighborhood. He's a friendly dog. Park St is not far from my house. There have been 2 dog attacks in Livermore Falls within the last few months. Something needs to be done. You cannot replace a Therapy dog. That poor dog suffered enough. What about justice for the dog that died. They should really euthanize that dog that killed that other dog. Apparently this wasn't this dogs first attack either. WHY DO PEOPLE OWN DOGS IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE MEAN TO THEM. I am sure this guy was MEAN to his dog and that's why he viciously attacked the mailman back in 2007 and this dog now in 2010. Its just so sad.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Beth has been seriously ill
Beth has been seriously ill for a long time. There is no reason for her to have to go to the expense and aggravation of retaining and attorney and the legnthy process of litigation if, the ACO and DA would do their job and properly charge and prosecute these cases of attacks on Service animals. The laws are in place for charging these people with interferring with and injury to a service animal. The fines are hefty and the laws include provisions for ordering the offender to pay for the replacement of the service animal, vet bills, medical bills and or care of the person served from the attack or as the result of loss of use of the service animal. This man should be charged under this law and ordered to replace jack with a fully trained therapy dog aNd to provide replacement services until the replacement resumes all responsibilities previously fulfilled by Jack.The unfortunate side to this for the human partner is that in many instances i,e. seisure alert, seeing eye dogs there is a 3-5 year waiting list. Maybe enough pressure can be brought on the ACO and DA in this case to properly charge this offender.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.They Won't Do ENOUGH!
He's going to get off easy. He should have that $20,000 fine PLUS jailtime!
If he doesn't have money, everyday in jail can take $10 off his bill!
He should NEVER be able to own an dog again! No community service, JAIL!
He should pay all the ladies vet bills and she should sue the pants off of him in Civil Court!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.And another dog owner is
And another dog owner is going to get away with a slap on the wrist for injuries to a service animal. What is wrong with the Animal Control Officers inn Maine that the hit these people with a $50 dog at large instead of the attack/interference with a service animal that is $2000 plus damages. No wonder this happens over and over and over. In this case this dog attacked a mail carrier now kills a service animal and you aco and the da are going to let this guy of for $50. The lady in Rumford who was attacked spent $5000 on vet and medical bills when she and her registered/certified licensed seizere alert dog was attacked lasr year. Rumford's ACO was going to do nothing, that guy enden up with a $50 on a do atlarge, unlicensed and no shots. That woman wasa attacked a second time and with the attacking dog attached to her leg was asked by the ACO over the phone if she could jusst write out a statement and drop it at the PD. Imagine being a blind person and you and your seeing eye dog are attacked like this. We have laws. How do we ge those charged with the esponsibility of enforcing them to do so?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.What is it about the words
What is it about the words "leash law" or "controlled" that some dog owners can't understand. This particular animal already attacked a person, and yet the owner didn't consider it important enough to keep the beast under control at all times after that. Maybe if vicious dog owners got jail time instead of a slap on the wrist, they'd smarten up. It doesn't take much effort to control your animals but you do have to make the effort in the first place.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.kimberbeth
i would respectfully argue that the jackrussel in this story could have outrun the mastiff or atleast gotten under a porch had he not been tied to his owner. before anyone gets the wrong idea i leash my dogs. not because they dont listen but because i usually walk with my children and need to keep my focus on them. however once when my dog was attacked by a neighbors dog i dropped my dogs leash so he could better defend himself and it also allowed me to better respond to the situation. pulling your dog away from another dog who is not restrained will not get your dog away from the situation the other dog will just keep moving in closer. your best bet is to drop your dogs leash so you can better interveen with the situation. IE.. kick the other dog hard.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.perhaps :)
I hope neither of us ever need to test any of the above theories. Thank you for the alternate point of view.
Never having owned a dog that would have been inclined to run away, it didn't occur to me that the Doxie or the JRT might have chosen "run and hide." Typically a bigger dog sees "run" as something prey would do... a bigger dog would more likely stand its ground... but a little dog might choose "run away," I guess?
I've always been on the other side of the coin... I've been a husky owner for years (I have only one elderly dog now)... they train their humans differently :) Personally, I would have never taken my dogs out without a leash... but they were huskies... they might be three counties over before I could find them if they got loose... and I knew full well what mayhem they were capable of along the way. It was my responsibility to keep them from getting themselves into trouble, and I took it seriously. I can tell from your posts that your dog's best interests are a priority to you, as well.
Happy trails :)
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I agree with you but
My dog was being walked by my children.The froze with fear.The dog was about to attack my 14 year mentally disabled child, when Jack stepped in to protect his Family.Jack died a hero.Now my top concern is that this dog is still at home with his owner who refuses to control him, until the August 11th court date.That gives this dog a full month to attack & kill again & next time it could be a child instead of my dog. I dont understand why animal control cant keep the dog until the court date,I think that public saftey is not being considerd.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.One irresponsible owner kills two dogs, traumatizes children
At least that's what the article should be titled. Nice going, Mr. Vining. Because of your irresponsible actions, your dog will most likely be put down. The leash laws are in place for a reason, and it's NOT simply to raise revenue.
There seems to be a lot of this "dangerous dog" thing going around lately. A family just lost a doxie to a husky (both leashed, but unlicensed and un-vaccinated) in Lewiston last month.
Sadly, we live in a society where there is still a bit of stubbornness where it comes to owning dogs. There are owners who either give the argument that their family has "always" raised their dogs this way, or they think it's cruel to restrain a dog, or they believe vaccinations make their dogs sicker than the diseases they are made to prevent. There are also owners who refuse to license their dogs simply because they feel the town gets enough of their money already.
The fact is, it's cruel to raise a dog without giving it the boundaries it needs. A domesticated dog needs those boundaries. It needs a pack leader (and that, by no means, requires cruelty) to know what is acceptable behavior. When contained to your yard, it needs vaccinations to protect it from the wildlife (and un-vaccinated domesticated animals) which will eventually wander -into- your yard. It needs to be licensed so that on the rare occasion where it slips its collar or digs under the fence you can show up at the shelter and claim it. Believe it or not, they -want- to give you your dog back. They're not the enemy.
My sincere condolences to the Miller family.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I meant to say...
...that both the doxie and the huskies were leashed, but the huskies were unlicensed and un-vaccinated. THAT owner simply couldn't control the number of prey-driven dogs she had leashed at one time.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.still no leash laws in maine
excerpt taken from the same web site used above.
6. At large. “At large” means off the premises of the owner and not under the control of any person whose personal presence and attention would reasonably control the conduct of the animal.
nowhere does it state the dog must be on a leash.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.AT LARGE
Interesting argument, jeffyd. Pretty sure it doesn't apply to Mr. Vining's situation, though.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.correct
you are correct the dog in this story was "At large" as i stated earlier. my comment was about the law, not this instance.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.no leash law?
§3911. Dogs at large
It is unlawful for any dog, licensed or unlicensed, to be at large, except when used for hunting. The owner or keeper of any dog found at large is subject to the penalties provided in this chapter. [1999, c. 254, §3 (amd).]
found here:
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusmest3401_4162.htm#s3911
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.no
a dog under voice command is not considered at large.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.animals dont have the right to be free?
Maine does not have a leash law. Maine has a command and controll law. your dog must be behaved and listen to voice command or be on a leash. this dog does not qualify as a voice command dog and the owner knew he was dangerous. i am not condoning this dogs right to be off a leash as clearly the owner cannot controll him. however there are alot of dog owners who actually spend time training thier dog and not every dog needs to be leashed.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.voice commands
While I understand your argument, I would have to argue... there is nothing quite as effective as pulling a voice-command-responsive dog AWAY from an attacking dog... as the leash attached to it's collar... and a big stick...
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.[This comment has been
[This comment has been removed by the administrator]
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.I removed this comment
I removed this comment because it violates our commenting policy. Please go read it.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Dogs, by nature, are not
Dogs, by nature, are not "solitary" creatures. They require a pack... a family... to be happy. Forcing it to live it's life "in solitary" would be more cruel than giving it the needle.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.WOW.....kill the owner
Yours has got to be the stupidest comment that I have read in a while.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Whadd I say?
maybe it was stupid but I don't think it was inappropriate.
Please cancel my subscription if this is how you treat what remains of your readers.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Justice for Jack?
I am thankfull that Martin will have to anwser to the court for what he allowed to happen.However the real problem for me is that a dangerous dog is still allowed to live with his owner,who has already shown an unwillingness to leash or pen up a dangerous dog.The public is not safe as long as that man has that dog, on that street.Martin lives in a school zone,dozens of children walk past his place everyday.Public safty must come 1st.I dont want anyelse toget hurt.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Kudos AwardedAgree (1)
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.HORRIBLE
What makes it ok for this guy and alot of other people to just let their dogs/pets roam free??? Put them on a leash, put them in a kennel, put them in the house! They don't have some animal "right" to be FREE. That is called a STRAY and there should be more done to collect these free roaming animals, take them to the pound and make the consequences a little more stiff to get them back. This owner should be tied to a tree on a leash with no way to escape while that poor lady beats him to death with a baseball bat in front of his loved ones. That's about equivilent to what that poor little defenseless dog had to go through. Some people just have no common sense or respect for anyone but themselves. I hope they take the dog away and fine him heavily.
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.Fine him 20grand this time he
Fine him 20grand this time he will eventualy get it through his skull to be reckless with a dangerous dog is inviting problems!!
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.$20,000 fine
Sounds like a grand idea... but if a person doesn't have the money, they don't have the money. I don't know Mr. Vining's financial situation, but a $20,000 fine seems a little mild.
Maybe it would be more effective to have him do community service at the animal shelter in addition to a fine?
- Permalink
- Is this comment inappropriate?
Would you like to respond? Login or create a new account. You'll need to verify your account before you can respond.