3) I don't recall my dog, who weighs the same or less than the "svelte" pig, knocking me down.
4) Sutro Heights Park is not an off-leash park. In fact, it is a federal park and the leash law is enforced against dogs and pigs. By the way, pigs are not allowed in San Francisco city parks with or without leashes. See S.F. Park Code § 5.01 ("DOGS, CATS, HORSES ONLY ALLOWED"). That's presumably why this pig goes to Sutro. At the time of the incident, the pig was on a leash much longer than allowed under Federal Regulation 36 C.F.R. 2.15 (a)(2). The pig's owner should have been told that the case would not be pursued because both animals were "off leash." Instead, Animal Control urged me to have the matter heard, even though it conceded that it did not have jurisdiction because the incident occurred on federal property.
5) Mr. O'Brien makes much of the fact that my dog, when in an uncomfortable and manufactured situation, barked a lot. Did he expect her to recite "Howl"? Dogs bark. Many of them (like my dog) bark more on leash than off. Many of them bark much more than my dog. Will Animal Control's next step be to get an expert to teach dogs to talk rather than bark?
6) Mr. O'Brien labels me as "the type of person who might appeal by filing a lawsuit [i]f Herndon deems Sweet Pea vicious and dangerous and places restrictions on her." I'm not the litigious one. I didn't file anything. The pig's owner, identified at the hearing as an officer, never told me that her pig was injured. Instead, the first I heard about the alleged "injury" was when I was contacted by Animal Control and then served a summons to appear at the hearing. At the time of the incident, I stayed in the park with my dog on leash for at least 45 minutes. Yet, the pig owner/officer never once approached me to complain that her animal had been injured during the incident.
I am not willing to concede that the pig was even bitten by my dog in that: a) I have never seen the alleged bite; b) a hearing witness -- who is familiar with dog bites -- testified that the mark she was shown contemporaneously was not a bite, and instead could have been caused by the owner kicking the pig; c) at the time the pig owner/ officer alleges that the bite occurred, she had her back to my dog while I was inches from the pig's rear end trying to get my dog on leash and never saw my dog make contact with the rump; and d) the pig owner/ officer did not produce a photograph or vet bill or any other evidence of the alleged injuries.
As to my defensive nature, it seems unlikely that any pet owner would allow her pet to be labeled vicious or destroyed (see, e.g., the other cases reported on by Mr. O'Brien where the dogs actually killed other animals) without a vigorous defense. In the dog/pig drama, the litigious person was the pig owner/officer. She brought a grossly frivolous action because she apparently believes that mine is the only dog that would ever react badly to her pig.
Finally, at the risk of once again offending the tender sensibilities of the city employees (many of whom chuckled when initially discussing this case with me), and the reporter who was not above hamming it up ("make bacon") to get a laugh, I close with a bit of doggerel ... I'd rather be a suer than a sooooeey.
Laurie L. Moore
Richmond District
Correction and Clarification
Because her name was misspelled in police documents, we did indeed misspell Ms. Moore's last name in our story, for which we apologize. The story did not say Ms. Moore is an unfit parent, and it did not mean to imply that Ms. Moore's dog was a danger to her children.
Moore claims that her dog, Sweet Pea, did not bite Potsticker the potbellied pig. The pig's owner has stated in Dog Court that Sweet Pea bit Potsticker on the rump and drew blood. Did dog tooth break pig skin? We admit we cannot resolve the controversy, to a moral certainty.
