Human/Canine Interest Story, abandoned dog on 13,000 foot peak

[Jeff C]

So thought you all might find this story interesting. A hiker takes his dog to climb Mt. Bierstadt, a 14,000 foot mountain in Colorado. The dog's paws get injured and the hiker (having a child with him) has to abandon the dog. Although some efforts are made by the owner to get the dog, some intrepid rescuers find the dog 8 days later and carry it back down the mountain in a backpack--the dog weighs 112 lbs. Now a custody battle is brewing. So who do you think should get to keep the dog? The original owner, certain rescuers, somebody else?

http://www.9news.com/news/article/28...nd-on-mountain

[ackvil]

Incredible story.

[The Count of Merkur Cristo]

Who do I think should get to keep the dog?

First, Ortalani was an idiot (what was he thinking?), to bring a dog who was not bred to work and survive in the mountains.

Second, Ortalani should have tried harder to organized the rescue mission, not leave it concerned hikers and climbers to do the mission for him.

Third, Ortalani abandoned his injured ’Missy Girl’ to her fate (and therefore his rights to Missy too). Missy stood strong, tall and faithfully waited for her owner to return in those frigid, cold and desolate mountains...but no avail. Hope, faith and love came from unknown rescuers...not from Ortalani.

Lastly, in my opinion and if I was adjudicating this case, I would rule in favor of the one of the rescuers who would have her and give her the love she

needs and deserves.

"The reason a dog has so many friends is that he wags his tail instead of his tongue". Author Unknown

[MichaelG]

Animals, pets included, are usually thought of as "personal property" in the view of the law. I know most of us think of pets as "more than just property," but legally speaking, they're seen as personal property.

The original owner was arguably negligent in taking a dog up a mountain, but he didn't "abandon" or forfeit the dog in the legal sense. He tried to get the dog down the mountain and later tried to organize a rescue effort with authorities who refused to engage in one for safety reasons.

What the private rescuers did was was highly laudable but presumably they did it as an act of charity or kindness. I don't think they told the original owner they were undertaking the rescue effort with the intent of taking ownership of the dog and the original owner assenting to that.

It's no different than someone retrieving another piece of valuable property - that doesn't entitle them to the property - the original owner still has title to the property.

I know it's not a popular position, but I think the original owner still has ownership rights, legally-speaking.

So thought you all might find this story interesting. A hiker takes his dog to climb Mt. Bierstadt, a 14,000 foot mountain in Colorado. The dog's paws get injured and the hiker (having a child with him) has to abandon the dog. Although some efforts are made by the owner to get the dog, some intrepid rescuers find the dog 8 days later and carry it back down the mountain in a backpack--the dog weighs 112 lbs. Now a custody battle is brewing. So who do you think should get to keep the dog? The original owner, certain rescuers, somebody else?

http://www.9news.com/news/article/28...nd-on-mountain

[smalltank]

that dog should be put up for adoption to a REALLY caring and loving home IMO

[luvmysuper]

Animals, pets included, are usually thought of as "personal property" in the view of the law. I know most of us think of pets as "more than just property," but legally speaking, they're seen as personal property.

The original owner was arguably negligent in taking a dog up a mountain, but he didn't "abandon" or forfeit the dog in the legal sense. He tried to get the dog down the mountain and later tried to organize a rescue effort with authorities who refused to engage in one for safety reasons.

What the private rescuers did was was highly laudable but presumably they did it as an act of charity or kindness. I don't think they told the original owner they were undertaking the rescue effort with the intent of taking ownership of the dog and the original owner assenting to that.

It's no different than someone retrieving another piece of valuable property - that doesn't entitle them to the property - the original owner still has title to the property.

I know it's not a popular position, but I think the original owner still has ownership rights, legally-speaking.

Pretty much it in a nutshell.

[urr-lord]

I think a good case could be made that he did abandon the dog.After all he did have EIGHT days to retreive her and did not.From the story as televised, the group of climbers rescued the dog and then was contacted by the owner.The owner should not face cruelty charges as was hinted at in the news report.But I think he may have abandoned the animal and forfeited his rights to her.

Hell,let the dog decide.Put them together and see if she bites him.Y'know get her opinion on the matter.

[rickboone1]

I agree he abandoned the dog. Therefore that could throw "personal property" out. 8 days is also a very long time. He didn't leave a note on/ near the dog, didn't go back and try to get it or anything. Unacceptable. I would say, okay...give the dog to the original owner, then I'd hit him with some animal neglect charges and take his dog away. He left the dog to die and be in misery. Unacceptable.

[luvmysuper]

The guy never should have brought the dog in the first place. Just plain stupidity.
The saddest thing about this is that such a big deal is being made of a dog when it is common practice to leave fellow human beings behind to die.

http://www.king5.com/news/world/Clim...-95443314.html

http://www.rd.com/true-stories/survi...unt-everest/3/