Back in 1977, Tom Otterness adopted a shelter dog, chained the dog to a fence and then shot it dead as the dog wagged its tail. Otterness justified the murder asserting it was for the sake of “art.” He called his film an “art film,” entitled “Shot Dog Film.”

Immediately, there was public outrage and protests. Unfortunately, he was never arrested and never prosecuted. He refused to back-down. He pushed back at the outrage. He refused to apologize.

Thirty years’ later, after protests against him and his work threatened to derail his art projects, he belatedly issued an apology in 2008: “As you must understand this is a very difficult and painful situation for me. Thirty years ago when I was 25 years old, I made a film in which I shot a dog. It was an indefensible act that I am deeply sorry for. Many of us have experienced profound emotional turmoil and despair. Few have made the mistake I made. I hope people can find it in their hearts to forgive me.” The apology plainly focused on his pain, not the killing of the dog, not the pain he caused.

There was nothing more. No deeds backed-up his apology. No rescuing of dogs and cats. No donations to shelters, rescue organizations. Nothing done to ease the plight of abused pets, and animals. No contributions to animal hospices, veterinarians. No volunteering at shelters, ASPCA, etc. No artwork designed to stop animal abuse and/or promote, educate about dogs and animals.

To this day, there’s been no renunciation by Otterness of “Shot Dog Film,” as art. There’s no indication that Otterness destroyed the original and all copies of the film. There’s no indication that Otterness hasn’t saved it as a work of art and still considers it “art.”

In stark contrast to Tom Otterness is Michael Vick who has and continues to back-up his words with deeds. Michael Vick deserves and is entitled to public redemption and celebration for his deeds, including publicly speaking out against animal abuse and donation of his time, efforts, and considerable monies and resources to help dogs and animals.

Tom Otterness just as Michael Vick is entitled to make a living but not at the expense, including the lives and suffering of others, including dogs, cats and animals. The stark difference between the two professionals is that one is deserving of encomium but the other deserves condemnation until he backs-up his apology of empty words with decisive deeds.

An anonymous wealthy donor “donated” $750,000 on condition that Tom Otterness be commissioned to sculpt bronze lions and cubs for the Battery Park branch of the New York Public Library. The community and many others protested. Petitions of thousands of people all around the globe protested: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-dog-killer-from-creating-sculpture-for-ny-public-l.html. There were protests at the Community Board Meetings. There were protests protesting every aspect of it. That the wealthy donor was using her/his wealth to dictate terms to the community, that there was no open competition to ensure that the best artist was commissioned, that other locally talented artists were not given any opportunity, etc. Despite the protests, it appeared that the will of one wealthy person over the voices of many would prevail.

However, the Battery Park City Authority (BPCA) decided against the anonymous gift because of a “lack of transparency.” The New York Public Library disowned any involvement in the project, claiming that the BPCA has sole jurisdiction. “We in no way solicited this project, and are learning much of the detail in public meetings,” the NYPL said in a statement.

Reportedly, Otterness is pushing-back, saying he’s working with the BPCA to overcome the lack of transparency. Despite the protests of the community and many others, he’s determined more than ever to force his “artwork,” upon the community. According to Otterness, the fight is not over but merely joined. Little wonder why Otterness never backed-up his apology of empty words with deeds.

WEST VILLAGE — You’ve heard of drunk dialing and drunk Facebooking, but drunk puppy buying?

Inebriated passers-by are falling in love with playful pooches frolicking in the window of a West Village pet store, and the problem has become so bad the owner has banned them from taking the pets home.
“I feel like they always come in drunk,” said Fernanda Moritz, the manager of Le Petite Puppy at 18 Christopher St. which has implemented a policy against letting customers buy — or even hold — animals if they’ve been drinking.

The shop is surrounded by bars, and Moritz said many of her would-be customers stop in after happy hour around 6 p.m.

“They come from there and say ‘let’s stop by to see the puppies,'” said Moritz.
Amazingly the store, which has supplied puppies to celebrities including Sarah Jessica Parker and Hugh Jackman, isn’t the only one in the neighborhood forced to implement the ban.

Christopher Street’s Citipups also forbids intoxicated customers from purchasing puppies after watching too many booze-fueled purchases go bad.

06-20-2011

POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y. (AP) – An upstate man was convicted Thursday of sexually assaulting a girl for four years starting when she was 10, an ordeal the girl was only able to describe while testifying with a companion dog at her side. The jury deliberated seven hours on Wednesday and Thursday before finding Victor Tohom, 36, guilty of predatory sexual assault against a child and child endangerment.

The now 15-year-old victim testified Monday that Mr. Tohom repeatedly raped her. While she spoke, she petted the 11-year-old golden retriever, Rose, who was trained to comfort troubled or distressed children. The judge allowed the dog on the stand, a first in New York, because the girl suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and was unlikely to be able to testify otherwise. While the girl testified for more than an hour, Rose, the dog, could hardly be seen. When the girl was asked to point out Mr. Tohom, the dog poked her muzzle up and the girl stroked it. When she was asked to go into graphic detail about the rapes, she looked down and patted the dog.

Mr. Tohom’s lawyer, public defender David Martin, had objected to the use of the dog, saying it would create undue sympathy for the girl and distract from otherwise contradictory evidence. He said he would appeal the conviction. According to the Poughkeepsie Journal, Senior Assistant District Attorney Kristine Hawlk said after the verdict that she had “no doubt” that the dog had helped the girl cope with the stress of testifying. Mr. Tohom faces a maximum sentence of 25 years to life in prison.

After holding a hearing in People v. Tohom, 338/2010, Dutchess County Court Judge Stephen Greller had concluded on June 1 that the child victim would suffer “serious emotional and psychological distress” if called on to testify without Rose’s support but that an appropriate instruction to the jury would minimize any prejudice to the defendant. He said that her case fell within the parameters of Executive Law §642-a, which requires trial judges to be sensitive to the stress child witnesses experience. He analogized this holding to that in People v. Gutkaiss, 206 A.D. 2d 628 (3rd Dept. 1994), a sodomy case in which the court ruled it “was entirely appropriate” to allow a child to testify while holding a teddy bear. While unprecedented in New York, advocates list 18 jurisdictions in Washington, Idaho, California, Texas, Missouri, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Hawaii and New Mexico with courthouse dog programs. There is a website that promotes their use www.courthousedogs.com. Rose’s regular job is helping provide therapy in schools for troubled children.

Reported by Oren Yaniv this week in the New York Daily News:

Wednesday, May 25th 2011, 1:51 PM

A cat killer convicted using DNA evidence was slapped with a six-year
sentence Wednesday – and will likely soon be deported.

The Brooklyn judge lashed into Trinidadian immigrant Angelo Monderoy,
who said he torched his super’s beloved tabby, Tommy Two Times, out of
boredom.

“To torture and kill an animal because you were bored?” Justice Michael
Gary asked in bitter bewilderment.

“There’s no way the world should not know what Mr. Monderoy did here.”

A jury found that Monderoy and his friend grabbed Tommy Two Times, took
him to an abandoned apartment in their Crown heights tenement, doused
him with lighter fluid and lit him afire in the 2008 attack.

“This was not a whim, not a fleeting decision in a teenager’s mind,”
said prosecutor Josh Charlton.

The guilty verdict in March marked the first time DNA evidence led to a
conviction in an animal abuse case in the history of the state and
possibly the nation – Tommy was found badly burned outside the tenement
and investigators were able to trace the crime back to Monderoy’s lair.

That evidence also helped bring more serious burglary charges, for which
Monderoy, 20, got two to six years upstate.

He also received the max of two years for aggravated animal abuse and up
to four years for arson, all running concurrently.

Because he’s been jailed for more than two years awaiting trial, he’s
already eligible for parole, but will likely face deportation once out
of prison, officials said.

Monderoy’s defense lawyer had asked that he be treated as a youthful
offender and that the court seal his record.

Gary refused – even after Monderoy apologized.

“I’d like to say I’m sorry for what happened,” Monderoy told the judge.

“What I did was wrong.”

Pet Law, and Animal Rights is as diverse as life itself because it cuts across all aspects of life, including where and how you have chosen to live, whether in an apartment or a particular community where zoning laws and other rules exist; setting-up a trust fund for your companion or pet to ensure their health and well-being; pet or animal abuse; conversion; animal bite cases; marriage and divorce; family law; domestic relations; service days; leash laws; veterinary care and malpractice; burial arrangement; insurance; and, of course, rights involved in entering and participating in competitions and shows for pets and other animals.