There’s a pretty one-sided discussion going on over on the Review’s website about an incident a couple of weeks ago in which a well-known local man, George Muteff, shot a dog.

A Boston terrier [Wikipedia] gets loose and into a pen that holds some sheep. The property owner (Mr. Muteff) shoots the dog. The matter is referred to the district attorney and the DA declines to prosecute. There is, after all, a law that says you can shoot a dog that’s harassing livestock. But, like most stories, it’s more complicated than it appears at first glance and the aftermath of the shooting is still being played out.

The discussion over at the Review’s site is a little weird, and pretty heated. It’s weird, because some folks are posting detailed accounts of the incident, as if they were there, but Mr. Muteff has not posted anything himself.  Posters have been called morons and cry babies. Posts have been deleted for bad behavior. Someone has posted details from the police report, which other citizens have been unable to obtain. Mr. Muteff, who describes himself as a financial consultant/stockbroker, is being referred to as a “rancher”. It’s heated because its at the interface of several ugly divides: left vs. right, gun rights vs. gun control, city vs. country, dogs vs. sheep.

If you want to participate in the discussion, and you’re new to Coastsider, our rules are a little different from the Review’s. You must be a registered member of Coastsider. It’s easy—just use the form in the left-hand navigation bar of the home page. You must register using your real name. And you must request permission to post in Town Hall by emailing me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Everyone is welcome to participate and we use the permission system to enforce civility. Be civil and don’t insult other community members. All comments on Town Hall are released immediately, without moderation, but are subject to deletion for incivility. On more thing. I banned George Muteff from Town Hall last year, but I’ve unbanned him today because it wouldn’t be sporting to discuss his behavior without giving him the right to reply. I hope he will join the discussion and give us his account of what happened that night.

“I’ve unbanned him today.”

How generous.

“I hope he will join the discussion and give us his account of what happened that night.”

Are you serious?

Actually, George has commented on stories on Coastsider since he was banned in Town Hall. I didn’t particularly want to raise George’s banning in this topic, but it was a pretty public event on Coastsider, so the question had to be addressed.

In my experience he’s never been shy about expressing himself, and it would appear that he’s already using Dale Dunham (and possibly others) to channel his account of events to the Review’s Talkabout forum.

So, stranger things have happened.

Hmmm. “Man bites dog” is legendary reader-bait. I’m not so sure “man shoots dog” has the same bite.  I guess we’ll find out. :)

“appear that he’s already using Dale Dunham”

Now you are taking shots at Dale?

I’ll give you a taste of what Dale wrote:

When Mr. Muteff went outside to investigate he found one dog trying frantically to get into the sheep enclosure but unable to do so because it was too large to squeeze through the fencing. A second smaller dog was already in the enclosure chasing the sheep which were running into the fence and buildings desperately trying to escape. Mr. Muteff first attempted to chase the dog away but was ignored by the dog which continued to chase and bite at the frightened sheep.

or my favorite:

In doing so Mr. Muteff, who is an accomplished marksman and gun safety advocate, intentionally discharged his rifle from a position that assured the trajectory of the single round fired would take it into a safe background and not injure any of the sheep in close proximity, trying to escape the dog.

Either Dale Dunham is an eyewitness and a mindreader or he’s speaking on behalf of George Muteff.

Were there any girls around who laughed at Muteff when he was trying to chase the dog? That might explain the ensuing gun violence.

Carl May

Now that’s an interesting comment made by Mr. Dunham on behalf of Mr. Muteff. To paraphrase:  “another dog too large to squeeze through enclosure, smaller dog could… rifle intentionally discharged between sheep and smaller, 15 lb. dog.”  Two quick questions:
Why doesn’t Mr. Muteff fix his enclosure so he doesn’t have to shoot another animal who got into the sheep’s yard because it could, and if he was able to place himself between the livestock and the little dog, why didn’t he just pick ithe terrier up, take it back outside, call the owner and have a reasonable discussion about the problem?
I’m certain I would have just picked the dog up and taken it from there.

We’ve published a Letter to the Editor on this subject to the Coastsider home page and linked it to this topic for comments.

” I was, in fact, on Ocean Colony property, with permission,”

Two questions for the letter writer.

1) what “Ocean Colony” property?

2) with permission from whom?

I have to respect Barry’s right to and reasons for banning George originally, although I was disappointed when I read about it being done.  Town Hall was much more lively with George around, even though I rarely agree with him.

After slogging through all the posts on the Review’s blog, I have to say that I have really mixed feelings on this incident.  On the one hand, it pains me to side with George.  On the other hand, starting with a gun seemingly was rather excessive.  On the third hand, the cited sections of State law seem pretty clear.  And on the fourth hand, I would like to see significant penalties for dog owners who don’t have their dogs under control at all times.  I’m guessing that if I had been in George’s shoes, I would have taken a 2x4 to the dog, just enough to convince it to leave immediately and not come back, and hopefully not cause any permanent injuries.  But that’s just a guess, based on what I read on the HMBR blog.

Dog owners too often don’t seem to understand how their pets may act when the owner isn’t around.  (And apparently frequently don’t care even when they are around.)  I once needed to do something on a friendly acquaintance’s property, and was reluctant to go there without the owner there.  The owner told me “don’t worry about the dogs.”  One was a doberman, like on Magnum P.I.  The other was equally menacing.  Those dogs were running free, in the unfenced front yard, and that was the only time in my life that I have ever been scared of a dog.  The way they were menacing me, I felt very lucky to have gotten back into my car without being bitten.  No telling what would have happened to the dogs if they had attacked—I had a good piece of 2x4 and a heavy claw hammer and was ready to use them to defend myself.  (Epilog:  a couple of years later I heard that the dogs were killed when they ran off the <u>unfenced</u> property into highway traffic.)

Sorry to be saying this, but my strong feeling is that the moral of the unfortunate event at the Muteff’s really needs to be that when something bad happens with a dog, it’s always the dog’s owner’s fault.  Remember the woman killed by a dog in a San Francisco apartment building a few years ago?  The dog owners were rightfully charged with a felony and sent to prison.

So even though—based on the information given—George appears to have acted within the law, let me close with this thought for those who think he should be on the City Council:  “Judgment is the difference between what you can do and what you actually do.”

First, it seems like the letter writer went looking for a confrontation—-and then got one. Second, how “sporting” is it (to use Barry’s word) to give the letter headline status on the main page, while restricting any comments to the much-less-visible Town Hall section? If the goal is really “to keep all comments in one place” as claimed, then why not just put the letter on Town Hall, since the letter itself is really nothing more than a long comment.

I had promised Krista to run her letter a few days ago, and other folks were asking me to launch a Town Hall topic. I received Krista’s letter after I launched the topic, but I felt obligated to run it on the main page. (I also wanted to experiment with my content management system’s ability to link a story to a forum topic.)

Krista’s letter, as far as I know, is the only first-hand account from anyone involved in this mess. Most of her letter speaks from her personal experience and not from what she’s read or been told. If any of the other principals in this story want to send me an account of what happened, I’ll run it as a letter as well.

Mr. Muteff could crossbreed his sheep with these from New Zealand, then they’d be able to defend themselves—tough sheep

Our gun-toting rancher/pol locked up the Coastside NRA vote for his next run at office, and there are surely more of these folks out there than urbanites with little dogs, aren’t there?

Mr. King thinks this is seomthing to joke about.  Odd.

I have lived in cities and suburbs all my life, and so I’m sure this will seem a naive question to some ranchers out there, but here it is: Why should Mr. Muteff, his supporters or anyone else equate the claim that a sheep was endangered by a Boston Terrier with a justification of the use of deadly force? Couldn’t Mr. Muteff just have collared or penned the dog and sent its owner the vet bill (or if Oreo either killed the sheep or necessitated euthanasia, the bill for lost profits)?

I just don’t understand why he, Mr. Dunham and others think that a claim of danger to livestock should give him a free pass to instantly escalate to the death penalty for that little dog. A former City Council candidate like Mr. Muteff should have the judgment to err on the side of caution and distinguish between the threat posed by a small dog from that of a pack of wolves. And if it was a hasty decision that he subsequently regretted, I am sure that he will have the class to communicate his regret to Oreo’s family.

My condolences to Oreo’s family, and I hope the Muteffs’ sheep is OK, too. I’m glad to hear the dog owner and Mrs. Muteff have exchanged kind words, and hope it helps heals the sense of loss. Most of us like living in a town on the suburban and rural boundary, and we all need to make concessions in order to make it work.

- Jimmy

It was pretty clear to me that Krista was looking for a lost dog to prevent a recurrence of the last shooting on the ‘ranch’.  I think she was trying to avoid a confrontation.

I have a few questions - maybe Kevin or Dale can answer them:

Given the residential nature of the zoning, is a use permit needed for livestock.  Is it legal to discharge firearms in HMB in a residential area under any circumstances, or just under these circumstances.  What are the determinate factors for a use permit?  For instance, can someone on a small lot in Casa del Mar have sheep?  If one can shoot a dog perceived to be a menace for protect livestock in a residential area, can one shoot a dog perceived to be a threat to oneself or ones children or ones pets in HMB?