Controversy surrounding Stu the dog spurs proposed change in L.A. animal law

After almost four years in custody, ten year-old Stu remains in legal limbo

In their first meeting since the Court of Appeals ruled the death sentence against the long-incarcerated dog Stu could stand, the Board of Animal Services Commissioners on Monday proposed changing L.A.'s Municipal Code to allow the Board to overrule the General Manager's verdict of death against dogs the Animal Services department has determined to be dangerous, even after the appeals process has been exhausted, if new evidence becomes available.

Board Vice President Kathy Riordan pushed for strong action from the Board, both in a last-ditch attempt to ensure that ten year-old Stu would not be killed in the wake of the Appeals Court decision, which would allow L.A. Animal Services to euthanize the dog as early as July 23rd, and to help avoid similar situations from occurring again.

Said Riordan, "Hopefully we can fix some things for future dogs with this."

Riordan introduced the motion after a lengthy closed session which followed a contentious start to Monday's meeting that was dominated by questions from members of the community about Stu's fate. Several people spoke in the senior dog's defense, including Orange County veterinarian Dr. Paula Terifaj, who asserted that although in her practice she has been bitten several times, occasionally severely, it is not customary to classify dogs who bite when fearful or in pain as dangerous. The single bite incident in which Stu was involved took place when the dog had been injured in a fight with another dog. The bite victim had attempted to put a harness over the dog's injured ear, an act that one expert said had inadvertently provoked the dog to bite.

Dr. Terifaj also pointed out that by the city's own established criteria for determining dogs as dangerous, Stu did not qualify when personally assessed by Dr. Richard Polsky, the animal behavior specialist who helped formulate the criteria over twenty years ago.

As the City Attorney proposed going into closed session, during which members of the public would not be present, Commissioner Archie Quincey initially objected, saying, "There are quite a few things I would like to say regarding this case that I think the public should hear. These are important issues and we seem not to be able to get any results."

Quincey went on to point out that despite repeated requests from the Board that Assistant General Manager Linda Barth provide all records related to the case, "We don't have them."

"Where are the records?"

Quincey, who brings thirty years of L.A. animal control experience to his role as Commissioner, pointed out, as he has done in previous Board meetings, that multiple discrepancies and omissions exist in the the incomplete records that the Department has provided.

"The bite occurred on August 12 and the dog showed up in the shelter on September 15." But, Quincey said, the records don't show how the dog came to be in City custody. "Where was the dog for thirty-four days? Officer Marino said the dog was impounded for a leash violation -- [but] no one will tell us how the dog came to be in the shelter. And then the next day the victim files the [bite] report. That is mighty coincidental!"

Since the Department could not document how Stu came to be in the shelter, when he had been housed in a locked kennel on owner Jeff de la Rosa's property, Quincey said, "As far as I'm concerned, the dog was brought into the City kennel illegally."

"There are so many errors. All this evidence was suppressed from the get-go. Records have been changed. We cannot prove how this dog came into the shelter -- that's criminal. I want all these irregularities brought up to the City Council. Somebody in this department is mighty wrong in this."

There have also been allegations that Animal Services department staff have been less than candid with members of the public who have called to complain about Stu's treatment. One caller, Claudia Hoffmann, says she called Animal Services Commission Secretary Ross Pool to express her concern. She says, "[Pool] said Stu needs to be euthanized because he is a bad and aggressive dog and it wasn't the first time something had happened." This appears to contradict the established facts in the case, which seem to indicate that the bite was an isolated incident that took place almost four years ago. Calls to Ross Pool's office seeing comment were not returned.

In calling for the amendment to the Municipal Code that would allow the Board to modify death sentences handed down by the General Manager, the Board included a provision that would make the action retroactive to include Stu. They also resolved to request that the Department of Animal Services refrain from taking any action to euthanize Stu prior to completion of the City Council's consideration of this matter.

Reached for comment, Frank T. Mateljan, Public Information Officer for the City Attorney's Office said, "The proposed ordinance will be drafted by the Board of Animal Services with our assistance if requested. The draft will then be sent to the City Clerk for committee assignment. There is no time frame as of yet as to when that might be complete."

With no established time frame for adopting this animal protection measure, apparently the ultimate decision about Stu's fate remains undetermined.