Haviland Bay dog seriously injured by arrow

How could anyone do this to a pup.

There is a picture in the article, looks like missed the lungs.

http://www.sootoday.com/content/news/details.asp?c=101376

Haviland Bay dog seriously injured by arrow

Monday, November 23, 2015 by: Darren TaylorA Haviland Bay woman is distraught after her dog was seriously wounded Monday morning.
Tina Fascina told SooToday she was taking Remington, her German Shorthaired Pointer, for his daily morning walk in Haviland Bay around 8 a.m.
Remington wandered off and returned to Fascina less than five minutes later, having been shot with an arrow.
Whoever shot Remington had cut off the tip of the arrow.
OPP have been called in to investigate.
"He's like my son," sobbed Fascina, speaking to SooToday.
Fascina took Remington, who is 15 months old, to a Sault veterinarian.
The local vet could not provide the needed treatment for the serious injury.
Fascina, accompanied by her husband, is taking Remington by car to the Michigan State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital in Lansing, Michigan for proper treatment of his injuries.
"We have Remington on intravenous painkillers, we're about three hours away from there (Lansing)," Fascina told SooToday when reached by cellphone at 1 p.m.
It is not known if the shooting was accidental or malicious.
No one has come forward regarding the shooting.
(PHOTO: Remington, a Haviland Bay dog injured by an arrow, is on his way to emergency treatment in Lansing, Michigan. Photo supplied by Lee and Bill Marcoux)

This came up on my Facebook feed. Remi is going to be okay. Tina posted the pics -- it was a straight through but missed all the vital organs. He's in recovery and responding well.

I'm glad the pup will be OK. I hope the OPP find out how this happened. If it was deliberate,someone needs an arse kickin'.

Poor dog. Some sick people out their.

Arse kicking. I could think of 100 better ways to deal with the person IF it was deliberate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPR 30-06

...
The local vet could not provide the needed treatment for the serious injury.
Fascina, accompanied by her husband, is taking Remington by car to the Michigan State University Veterinary Teaching Hospital in Lansing, Michigan for proper treatment of his injuries.
...

---

there're quite a few things that a regular vet cannot do.
unfortunately been there...
if there's something really serious, I would rather call them up (instead of wasting time driving there) and ask straight out if they can confirm they will be able to treat the dog properly. you may need to be pretty precise in the diagnosis and talk to the vet and not the receptionist.
if they are not positive, they should provide you the contact info of the nearest adequate clinic.
call those guys up as well and confirm if they really can help (they may not have qualified staff on site without arrangements).

it turns out it was archery practice arrow otherwise the dog would've bled to death; especially for his size.

my dad and I had a similar almost incident up in wolf's den just north of cookstown, it was just us two at the time in the morning. we were setting up the crossbow for 35-40 yards; then suddenly a dog starts to run across the range chasing a butterfly. we stopped and looked; my dad jokingly said, oh we get a live target to shoot for fun? I said I'll go see the manager in the wolf's den. in the end turns out the lady who has a property next to it, did not put a leash on the dog for wireless electric fence and just ran around free.

the manager said; the lady was warned over and over, if someone shoots the dog by accident or incidentally; its not the person's fault the since the range is always live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poltrojan

it turns out it was archery practice arrow otherwise the dog would've bled to death; especially for his size.

my dad and I had a similar almost incident up in wolf's den just north of cookstown, it was just us two at the time in the morning. we were setting up the crossbow for 35-40 yards; then suddenly a dog starts to run across the range chasing a butterfly. we stopped and looked; my dad jokingly said, oh we get a live target to shoot for fun? I said I'll go see the manager in the wolf's den. in the end turns out the lady who has a property next to it, did not put a leash on the dog for wireless electric fence and just ran around free.

the manager said; the lady was warned over and over, if someone shoots the dog by accident or incidentally; its not the person's fault the since the range is always live.

---

It is always the shooters fault. You are responsible for that bullet, or arrow, when it leaves your firearm. " Identify your target, and what's beyond your target".

Isn't it required to have a dog leashed in a public area?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

It is always the shooters fault. You are responsible for that bullet, or arrow, when it leaves your firearm. " Identify your target, and what's beyond your target".

---

it is also the owner's responsibility to have the dog leashed or controlled at all the time. As I know I am responsible for every bullet and arrow that leaves my presence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreyTech

Isn't it required to have a dog leashed in a public area?

---

No, in point of fact, it is not.

And even where leashing a dog is required, shooting an off-leash dog is (except where narrow exceptions apply) a criminal offence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

It is always the shooters fault. You are responsible for that bullet, or arrow, when it leaves your firearm. " Identify your target, and what's beyond your target".

---

Absolutely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poltrojan

it is also the owner's responsibility to have the dog leashed or controlled at all the time. As I know I am responsible for every bullet and arrow that leaves my presence.

---

One of those is a bylaw matter, the most trivial law there is. The other is a criminal matter, the most serious class of offence you can commit.

Shall we continue pretending these responsibilities are equivalent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

No, in point of fact, it is not.

And even where leashing a dog is required, shooting an off-leash dog is (except where narrow exceptions apply) a criminal offence.

---

I did not condone the shooting, I just asked a question.
I find it interesting how some people take up the crusade because they are dog lovers, but probably have something to say about the animal lovers who crusade against hunting. To me that is somewhat hypocritical. Just let the law deal with it.
My bad, I should never have opened this thread, I guess I know better when i see the next one. This forum seems to be heading in the same general direction as the rest of social media.
By the way I love my dog too, and would pursue legal action if someone shot him. But I don't see how that could happen as he is never out of sight when outdoors. He knows to maintain a line of sight at all times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

One of those is a bylaw matter, the most trivial law there is. The other is a criminal matter, the most serious class of offence you can commit.

Shall we continue pretending these responsibilities are equivalent?

---

No,of course not. That would be ridiculous,but, I would like to draw your attention to Ontario e=laws,The Protection of Poultry and Livestock Act Sect.2(c)
Any person may shoot a dog running at large on property where livestock are or have been likely to habituate.

I once thought as you do until my muttly got away from the wife and ventured onto other property where horses were grazing. The DRPS showed up a while later with a $200 fine and a stern warning that any further incursions by our dog would result in it being immediately shot. I checked with our lawyer,found we had no recourse and could be sued for any damage caused by the dog,so, we STFU and paid the fine. FYI

Yes, I'm aware of that one, too (he remarked with a yawn.) Still not a criminal matter.

The level of responsibility involved in handling a firearm is much higher than in letting your dog off leash. Pretending the dog owner is equally responsible when a dog is shot is simply BS. The person taking the shot is responsible for the shot, period.

Yes, you can keep your dog safe by not letting it run at large. And I'm against dogs running at large for several reasons, such as dogs running deer. But that doesn't give anyone a free pass to shoot dogs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Yes, I'm aware of that one, too (he remarked with a yawn.) Still not a criminal matter.

The level of responsibility involved in handling a firearm is much higher than in letting your dog off leash. Pretending the dog owner is equally responsible when a dog is shot is simply BS. The person taking the shot is responsible for the shot, period.

Yes, you can keep your dog safe by not letting it run at large. And I'm against dogs running at large for several reasons, such as dogs running deer. But that doesn't give anyone a free pass to shoot dogs.

---

Responsibility is the key here; we were given the privilege to own firearms (i'm not here to debate privilege/rights of firearms) as opposed to dog ownership, you don't need anything to own a dog but be responsible for it. I heard a couple of incidents in the past where a friend I played soccer with was mauled by a dog off leash ON HIS PROPERTY; simply lunged at him (I don't know the whole story) but I saw the face scar it wasn't pretty. Dog are also used as a 'weapon' in K9 units; dogs teeth are quite formidable and if the owner doesn't control the dog and just pretends its a play thing. Its the same thing mishandling a firearm. I don't have absolute faith in people's ability in controlling their off-leashed dog when I see its aggressive traits; I keep my pocket knife handy for those situations.

So owning a dog is just as serious a responsibility as handling a firearm. And with that, we're in the silly season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

So owning a dog is just as serious a responsibility as handling a firearm. And with that, we're in the silly season.

---

No,but,it's just as important as owning a firearm,that's the point posters are trying to make,I'm sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

So owning a dog is just as serious a responsibility as handling a firearm. And with that, we're in the silly season.

---

If your dog poses a threat to others you have even more responsibility. If attacked I would not think twice. Far too many stupid, irresponsible dog owners think their little doggy can do no wrong.

Yeah, okay. Because of course every dog is scary and threatening. Owning a dog is a BIGGER responsibility than handling a firearm!

Silly season is getting sillier by the minute.

As for your previous response, GreyTech: yes, you asked the question, and I answered it by pointing out that you were out to lunch on the facts. Then you called me a hypocrite out of the blue, over something I never said. Get back to me when you've learned to behave like a grownup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poltrojan

it is also the owner's responsibility to have the dog leashed or controlled at all the time. As I know I am responsible for every bullet and arrow that leaves my presence.

---

Tell me how I or others are going to hunt rabbits or coyotes with their Beagles and Walkers , Blueticks , Black and Tans , these are all running game chasing hunting sports .It would be impossible to have these type of hunts if your dog was leashed . :confused:
Please use some common sense and a little forethought -[noun fore·thought \ˈfȯr-ˌthȯt\. : careful thinking or planning about the future. ] before you come on here and make some of these ridiculous statements.

Leashes are required only were the Town or Municipality has passed such a By Law .

Not debating that there are irresponsible dog owners for one second, but when we talk about "threat" I were to list a few things before.
My personal worst accident was because I kid ran out in front of me and I only had the option of hitting him or opting for a very painful dismount from the cycle. Have I started to insist children are to be kept on a leash?
Have I been bitten by dogs? Sure! Last time was only a few weeks ago - after decades of zero incidents. First large breed (no hunting dog) by the way. The dog was on a 3' leash and under full supervision. Believe it or not: That was the cause! Big deal? Hell no.
The lady who cut me off this morning on the way to work was more of a threat...

Charges Laid



http://www.sootoday.com/content/news...s.asp?c=101616

It turns out that it wasn't a hunter,just a neighborhood a**hole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaycee

Tell me how I or others are going to hunt rabbits or coyotes with their Beagles and Walkers , Blueticks , Black and Tans , these are all running game chasing hunting sports .It would be impossible to have these type of hunts if your dog was leashed . :confused:
Please use some common sense and a little forethought -[noun fore·thought \ˈfȯr-ˌthȯt\. : careful thinking or planning about the future. ] before you come on here and make some of these ridiculous statements.

Leashes are required only were the Town or Municipality has passed such a By Law .

---

*sigh* I think you misunderstood me. We have an English Springier Spaniel that we take hunting. We have a command or a whistle to call him. Our dog when he sees another person or dog; he doesn't advance without our command, he's been trained to wait for 'it's ok' or a whistle to call back. that's controlled dog off the leash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poltrojan

...
Our dog when he sees another person or dog; he doesn't advance without our command, he's been trained to wait for 'it's ok' or a whistle to call back. that's controlled dog off the leash.

---

...and did training your dog to consistently do that involve off leash walks in public areas? I would assume yes.
A well socialized dog is not an issue. The problem is how to get there, if you cannot have your puppy tag along (e.g. any public buildings, etc.)?
The reasons (aside from the hygienic aspect, which I'm not going to debate): Safety or someone might be allergic. First, that person is just as allergic to service dogs (which are rightfully exempted) as they would be to any other dog. Second, there are not many people with actual life threatening allergies. For the most part the reason for allergies are some mommies needing an interesting topic for their housewife symposium.
The problem seems to be that it is harder and harder to find some middle-ground, which most often requires common sense.

Even the Hullet rules say that "Dogs must be leashed or under immediate control of the handler." The immediate part concerns me sometimes as I have a BIG running setter .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waftrudnir

The problem seems to be that it is harder and harder to find some middle-ground, which most often requires common sense.

---

Wise words. And this is why a post about a dog shot with an arrow by some neighbourhood jerk has become a thread about why you have to keep your bad dangerous dog under control at all times or people will just have to shoot it: a lack of common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Yeah, okay. Because of course every dog is scary and threatening. Owning a dog is a BIGGER responsibility than handling a firearm!

Silly season is getting sillier by the minute.

As for your previous response, GreyTech: yes, you asked the question, and I answered it by pointing out that you were out to lunch on the facts. Then you called me a hypocrite out of the blue, over something I never said. Get back to me when you've learned to behave like a grownup.

---

Perhaps you should read more carefully, I never initially stated any facts I asked a question, so I could not have been "out to lunch on the facts". Nor did I direct the hypocrite statement at anyone in particular, but if the shoe fits..... You took a tone with your initial reply that was unnecessary. Perhaps you should keep your emotions a bit more in check, you know, like a grownup.
PS yes looking after a dependent living thing is far more responsibility than occasionally oiling your gun. Any 5 year old can confirm this for you if you are still in doubt.
As far as safe gun handling, anyone who aims a loaded weapon anywhere it can do unintentional or illegal harm should probably be shot themselves to get them out of the gene pool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreyTech

Perhaps you should read more carefully, I never initially stated any facts I asked a question, so I could not have been "out to lunch on the facts".

---

I took your question as clearly rhetorical. And if you were just asking an innocent question, it's hard to see why you would get snippy over my original response that (a) no, dogs are not required to be kept on-leash everywhere, and (b) even where they are, shooting an off-leash dog is unjustified, and then proceed immediately to the ad hominem. So I think on the basis of your subsequent snit-fit, any reasonable person would conclude I was correct in taking your question as rhetorical, which would make your sudden air of wounded innocence a markedly disingenuous display.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreyTech

Perhaps you should keep your emotions a bit more in check, you know, like a grownup.

---

Like the guy now going after me on another thread entirely because I annoyed him here? Who would that be, again?

I'd say my earlier remark that you're not behaving like a grownup needs no elaboration. Have a nice day.