Letters 10-24-2016

It’s Obama’s 1984 Several editions ago I concluded a short letter to the editor with an ominous rhetorical flourish: “Welcome to George Orwell’s 1984 and the grand opening of the Federal Department of Truth!” At the time I am sure most of the readers laughed off my comments as right-wing hyperbole. Shame on you for doubting me...

Gun Bans Don’t Work It is said that mass violence only happens in the USA. A lone gunman in a rubber boat, drifted ashore at a popular resort in Tunisia and randomly shot and killed 38 mostly British and Irish tourists. Tunisian gun laws, which are among the most restrictive in the world, didn’t stop this mass slaughter. And in January 2015, two armed men killed 11 and wounded 11 others in an attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. French gun laws didn’t stop these assassins...

Scripps’ Good Deed No good deed shall go unpunished! When Dan Scripps was the 101st District State Representative, he introduced legislation to prevent corporations from contaminating (e.g. fracking) or depleting (e.g. Nestle) Michigan’s water table for corporate profit. There are no property lines in the water table, and many of us depend on private wells for abundant, safe, clean water. In the subsequent election, Dan’s opponents ran a negative campaign almost solely on the misrepresentation that Dan’s good deed was a government takeover of your private water well...

Political Definitions As the time to vote draws near it’s a good time to check into what you stand for. According to Dictionary.com the meanings for liberal and conservative are as follows:

Liberal: Favorable to progress or reform as in political or religious affairs.

Conservative: Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditions and limit change...

Voting Takes A Month? Hurricane Matthew hit the Florida coast Oct. 6, over three weeks before Election Day. Bob Ross (Oct. 17th issue) posits that perhaps evacuation orders from Governor Scott may have had political motivations to diminish turnout and seems to praise Hillary Clinton’s call for Gov. Scott to extend Florida’s voter registration deadline due to evacuations...

Clinton Foundation Facts Does the Clinton Foundation really spend a mere 10 percent (per Mike Pence) or 20 percent (per Reince Priebus) of its money on charity? Not true. Charity Watch gives it an A rating (the same as it gives the NRA Foundation) and says it spends 88 percent on charitable causes, and 12 percent on overhead. Here is the source of the misunderstanding: The Foundation does give only a small percentage of its money to charitable organizations, but it spends far more money directly running a number of programs...

America Needs Change Trump supports our constitution, will appoint judges that will keep our freedoms safe. He supports the partial-birth ban; Hillary voted against it. Regardless of how you feel about Trump, critical issues are at stake. Trump will increase national security, monitor refugee admissions, endorse our vital military forces while fighting ISIS. Vice-presidential candidate Mike Pence will be an intelligent asset for the country. Hillary wants open borders, increased government regulation, and more demilitarization at a time when we need strong military defenses...

My Process For No I will be voting “no” on Prop 3 because I am supportive of the process that is in place to review and approve developments. I was on the Traverse City Planning Commission in the 1990s and gained an appreciation for all of the work that goes into a review. The staff reviews the project and makes a recommendation. The developer then makes a presentation, and fellow commissioners and the public can ask questions and make comments. By the end of the process, I knew how to vote for a project, up or down. This process then repeats itself at the City Commission...

Regarding Your Postcard If you received a “Vote No” postcard from StandUp TC, don’t believe their lies. Prop 3 is not illegal. It won’t cost city taxpayers thousands of dollars in legal bills or special elections. Prop 3 is about protecting our downtown -- not Munson, NMC or the Commons -- from a future of ugly skyscrapers that will diminish the very character of our downtown...

Vote Yes It has been suggested that a recall or re-election of current city staff and Traverse City Commission would work better than Prop 3. I disagree. A recall campaign is the most divisive, costly type of election possible. Prop 3, when passed, will allow all city residents an opportunity to vote on any proposed development over 60 feet tall at no cost to the taxpayer...

Yes Vote Explained A “yes” vote on Prop 3 will give Traverse City the right to vote on developments over 60 feet high. It doesn’t require votes on every future building, as incorrectly stated by a previous letter writer. If referendums are held during general elections, taxpayers pay nothing...

Beware Trump When the country you love have have served for 33 years is threatened, you have an obligation and a duty to speak out. Now is the time for all Americans to speak out against a possible Donald Trump presidency. During the past year Trump has been exposed as a pathological liar, a demagogue and a person who is totally unfit to assume the presidency of our already great country...

Picture Worth 1,000 Words Nobody disagrees with the need for affordable housing or that a certain level of density is dollar smart for TC. The issue is the proposed solution. If you haven’t already seen the architect’s rendition for the site, please Google “Pine Street Development Traverse City”...

Living Wage, Not Tall Buildings Our community deserves better than the StandUp TC “vote no” arguments. They are not truthful. Their yard signs say: “More Housing. Less Red Tape. Vote like you want your kids to live here.” The truth: More housing, but for whom? At what price..

Home · Articles · News · Random Thoughts · The death of Jake
. . . .

The death of Jake

Robert Downes - November 23rd, 2009
The Death of Jake
There’s a lot of pain and emotion in Bart Arrigo’s voice as he tells the story of the court-ordered destruction of his pet dog, Jake.
“The officials of Kalkaska County had no care or remorse -- they destroyed a wonderful animal... an injustice was done,” he says, echoing the sadness of anyone who’s ever lost a pet.
Jake, a 14-month-old Great Dane, made the mistake of biting a friend’s child in the face last August. Bart, who owns an excavating company in Kalkaska, had just returned from boating that day with his girlfriend and their neighbor friends. They were sitting around a fire, having a good time, when 10-year-old Cory was bitten on the cheek by Jake.
“I felt terrible,” Arrigo remembers. “We grabbed Cory and ran to the hospital. The whole thing was terrible for us and the boy.”
Indeed, Cory received 12 stitches, and since he’d been bitten once before, is now reportedly even more wary of being around dogs.
The story illustrates one of the unfortunate realities of pet ownership in America, in that dogs sometimes bite, and when they do, the law clashes with all of the emotions that are invested in the ownership of a pet. Nationwide, more than 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs in the United States each year, according to the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s about two percent of the population.
Children account for more than half of all dog bites -- often because they are at eye level with a canine and are literally in its face.
Police were summoned to the hospital and they subsequently took Jake away to be quarantined for 10 days in Kalkaska’s animal shelter. “On the tenth day, they told me to turn myself in for having an unlicensed dog,” Arrigo says. “I told them that he was already licensed in Antrim County, but they said that didn’t matter because we were in Kalkaska.”
Arrigo was held in jail for four hours before being released on a personal recognizance bond. He then went to the courthouse to get his dog properly licensed for Kalkaska, only to be told that it wasn’t possible because Jake was already licensed in Antrim.
Go figure.
Arrigo is sorry that Cory was bitten, but relieved that the boy’s family are still friends. In fact, he says that Cory and his family testified in the subsequent hearing that they didn’t want to see Jake destroyed.
Arrigo believes that the dog bite was due to the fact that Jake had an ear infection and was also taking some medicine that may have altered his mood. When Cory brushed against his sore ear, Jake literally snapped.
Arrigo has owned four Great Danes through the years and calls them the “gentle giants” of the dog breeds. He lives on an 80-acre ranch outside Kalkaska where his pets have plenty of room to run and play. He also owns a three-year-old Great Dane named Tiny who weighs in at 140 lbs. Arrigo had planned to breed Jake, who was an exceptional merle harlequin example of the breed with a value of $1,200. Jake’s pups would have fetched $800 to $1,000 each.
Arrigo fought hard to keep Jake from being destroyed. He hired attorney Jim Hunt from Traverse City and saw to it that the case went to trial in the county’s 87th District Court. He sought the testimony of expert witness, Pam Johnson, who spent 17 years training dogs in the Marine Corps. Her recommendation was that Jake be neutered -- something Arrigo says he planned to do after breeding the dog.
But the court ruled that Jake had to be destroyed, with the caveat that Arrigo could appeal the decision, provided he could come up with a $5,000 stay-of-execution bond -- in cash.
Arrigo thought the cash bond seemed improper and unusual, but set about arranging the money. He was under the impression that animal control officer Chuck Hill would be busy with a training project through the end of the week, and that there was still time to save Jake. But Arrigo turned up with the cash bond at the end of the third week in October, only to find that Jake had been put down by lethal injection the day before.
“They went and destroyed my dog without giving me a chance to prove he wasn’t a bad dog,” Arrigo says. “They just hurried up and killed him and got rid of the body. It was handled unprofessionally because they didn’t want to give Jake a chance.”
Why unprofessional?
“They thought that financially they would stop me,” Arrigo says. He believes that when county officials realized he was going to produce the cash bond, they rushed Jake’s destruction.
Even if he couldn’t save his dog, Arrigo wanted to be with Jake at the end of his life. “I wanted to be there with him at the end, and I wanted his body to bury on my ranch.”
From the county’s perspective, assistant prosecutor Bryan Beach notes that both parties had a full hearing in a case that went beyond the typical destruction of an animal. “This wasn’t just done on a whim. We take this very seriously,” he says.
“The boy now has a very large scar on his cheek,” Beach adds, noting that the court was swayed by “some fairly grisly photos” of the wound. “There was a fairly significant injury to the child’s face. After the hearing, the judge deemed that it was a dangerous animal.”
Even so, why couldn’t Bart Arrigo be with his dog at the end of Jake’s life?
“It isn’t a policy of the county to allow that,” Beach says. “It’s fairly obvious -- it could lead to an altercation having the pet’s owner there at its destruction. It’s going to be very sad for the owner.”

I wouldn‘t hazard to draw any conclusions in such a story, other than to point out the obvious: there are three viewpoints here in what is a fairly common occurrence in America: that of the parents and their child, the law, and the pet owner, in what tends to be an emotionally-charged issue. Perhaps you’ve stood in the same shoes as one of them. What do you think?

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5