Starke County woman shoots neighbor's pet dog
Starke County woman shoots neighbor's pet dog Save Email Print
Posted: 5:42 PM Apr 25, 2008
Last Updated: 8:03 PM Apr 25, 2008
Reporter: Ryan Famuliner
Email Address: ryan.famuliner@wndu.com

A | A | A

A Starke county couple was shocked when a neighbor shot their pet dog this week. Especially because the woman, who admits to shooting it, runs a dog grooming company.

The dog's owners say Peyton, their 6-year-old Siberian-Husky mix, is a ‘hundred pound teddy bear.’

Peyton is expected to survive.

They say he roams around the neighborhood regularly, playing with children, and never even bothers any of the chickens, ducks or other 4-H animals at a nearby neighbor’s house.

So they don't understand why a woman living just down the road, felt like shooting at their dog was her best option.

Dan and Rebecca Norman’s new German Sheppard, Chloe, was there when their other dog was shot Tuesday.

“The first thing she does is go right to Peyton’s house and she'll go inside and sniff around and she'll sit by the door and look at me like, 'where's my buddy?'” said Rebecca Norman.

You can see a mark on Chloe’s back where the Normans think the buckshot must have singed her, then left some more serious marks on Peyton.

“One of the bones in his leg was just shattered, and he's got pins and rods in there. He'll be in there a week, they said, recuperating,” Dan Norman said.

Norman and his wife are traveling back and forth between the pet hospital in Fort Wayne to check on Peyton, who may undergo yet another surgery. They’re concerned about potential tissue damage.

They found it troubling that the person who admitted to shooting their dog seemed unapologetic.

“She made it very clear that that was her property, and she didn't like having stray dogs around,” Dan Norman said.

The woman is Linda Siroky, who runs a dog grooming business about a mile away.

She didn't want to speak on camera, but says she is sorry that “the only dogs she ever shot,” belonged to the Normans.

She says she'd had problems with strays other than the Norman’s dogs on her land near her animals; and that authorities recently told her if the dogs were a problem, and she didn’t know who they belonged to, she should shoot them.

She said she was concerned about the safety of her own animals, after seeing stray dogs gut a deer near where he horses are kept.

But the Normans wonder how their friendly dogs, who were wearing tags and collars, could have appeared to be strays.

“Thankfully he still has his leg and he will recuperate, but its going to be a long process and an expensive one too,” Dan Norman said.

The Normans hope the prosecutor's office will press charges, and possibly award them some money to pay their dog's medical bills.

They estimate they’ve already spent around $3,000 on Peyton’s recovery.

The prosecutor’s office says they've given the case back to police for now for further investigation.

Siroky says she and her husband both went after the dogs with guns after seeing them come on her property. She says her husband fired a warning shot, and the dogs started running away, toward her.

She says she felt somewhat threatened, and shot at the dogs. She said things were happening too quickly to tell if they were wearing collars, or who they may belong to, before she shot.

Siroky says she does not think she should have to pay the dog’s medical bills, because they were on her property almost a mile away.

According to the police report, she told Dan Norman “she kept all her animals in pens, and he should too.”

She says she did not originally apologize because she felt threatened on the phone when Norman “yelled” at her for shooting his dog.

More Stories
Company B will see 160 marines deployed to Afghanistan

Donnelly discusses his visit with Indiana National Guard overseas

SB Parks Department taking donations for Northern Indiana Food Bank

Fireworks likely the cause of Monday afternoon South Bend house fire

Colts fans have a chance to meet players in South Bend

S.B. shooting victim is six years old

More cases of counterfeit money reported in Elkhart

Pierceton woman in critical condition after weekend car crash

Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
By posting this comment I have read and agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy:
You must agree to the Terms of Service to continue.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: anonymous Location: grovertown on May 15, 2009 at 05:18 PM
to not run for the guns! I have also had a few dogs pass through that weren't my neighbors and they too do not cause any problem. The real problem is all the kids riding bikes and 4 wheelers unattended up and down the road! But theres too many ignorant people in the world more worried about a stray dog in their yard than a kid getting hit and killed! I wonder if those kids belong to any of you people preaching about leash laws! I'll argue with any of you. THAT'S LIVING IN THE COUNTRY! If you can't deal with it then move to a big city and live in an apartment where you don't have a yard to worry about! What about the deer, and coons, and opposums eating up the garden and getting in the trash? It's no different you just don't have someone to point a finger at for that!

Posted by: anonymous Location: grovertown on May 15, 2009 at 05:06 PM
I live down the road from where this happened. After reading all of this a year later I have learned alot of things I didn't know went on in my own neighborhood. In ten years of living here I have never seen a pack of stray dogs that frequents the area, and I also didn't know there were people that thought Linda is friendly and caring! I personally have had SEVERAL ppl tell me after they took their dog to her for grooming is sat in the corner and peed on itself for a week. Really doesn't sound like the caring compasionate type. It's my understanding she has a history of being cruel to dogs! But I guess when the heat is on you, you can work up a story. It's pretty sad how many IGNORANT people there are out there! B*$&!ing about leash laws. I feel sorry for your animals! I have a dog as does all my neighbors, and we let them run when we are outside in the yard. And sometimes they go next door to play or chase a squirrel two doors down. And GUESS WHAT? We are all mature enough adults

Posted by: K Location: Starke County on Apr 23, 2009 at 09:04 AM
I ran out of room on the last one! I just wanted to add,a loose dog does not always mean a bad owner! When I lived in the city a nd had my dogs on a tie out, neighbor kids tormented my dogs with lit fire crackers, poked them with sticks and threw things at them to the point that everytime someone walked by the back or side of our house, our dogs went nuts and our smaller one would bust loose. But they were only out when one of us was home and we watched constantly as much as we could. Thankfully we had understanding neighbors. We also followed the law and had him quaratined if he nipped someone and offered to pay incurred bills by anyone who was hurt or whose animal was hurt as a result. But if a dog came in my yard, I never went outside to see if it had tags unless it was hurt or injured, if I knew the dog I went out, but if I didn't, I called animal control! Call for help first! Only shoot to scare or disable if it attacks, but not to kill! just in case its someones pet!

Posted by: K Location: Starke County on Apr 23, 2009 at 08:50 AM
Its clear fromt he article that the Normans and Sirokys knew each other! The Normans admitted that their dogs namely Peyton, runs the neighborhood regularly and plays with the children and the Sirokys knew this! However it doesn't matter where u live, or if they had tags or not, the fact is that there are more than one of any kind of dog in an area. I moved to the country from the city almost 3 years ago and have had the problem in both places. Wen I first moved here, we had 2 large brown dogs in our yard everyday all hours of the day and night and after watching them discovered which house they belonged to, but we didn't know the neighbors because they lived in a rental property and people moved in and out so often we never knew was living there! We live on 12 acres along with my bf's parents next door and while none of us would shoot and kill anything, my bf keeps a bb gun and fires it near them to scare them off. ours hve gotten loose,but we don't let them run free!

Posted by: Sharon Location: Orange County, IN on Dec 12, 2008 at 01:26 PM
I have a similar problem. My neighbors livestock are frequently on property and doing damage. There is no leash law in the country, only within city limits. I have woke up to a herd of cattle grazing on my front yard, in my garden, I have had donkeys munching down my flower garden. I call the police and they said they would warn them about keeping their animals penned up. It happened again, I called the police, the dispatcher called my neighbors, and they admitted it was their animals. I called dispatch again, and they said an officer had to witness the animals being on my property for a citation to be written. If the dispatcher is going to call the neighbors to see if their animals are out, it would make sense that no officer is ever going to witness it. Luckily, I have a video tape of it. I am now going to hire a lawyer and go after them in civil court. My animals are in pens or on tethers. They run free to destroy my neighbors yards. I would love to let my dog run loose.

Posted by: Concerned Location: Fulton County on Sep 14, 2008 at 08:33 PM
This just happened to me today! My neighbor shot my dog and we called the police. We live in town. He shot right off his front steps!! I am outraged that he shot my dog and even more concerned that his neighbors have young children and he could still get away with shooting a gun in town let alone kill someones pet. As far as our dog being on his property we apologize but she keeps escaping out of her kennel. We put her in her kennel three times this afternoon before it happened. I am just appalled that it wasn't a huge concern to anyone but us! :( I now have to tell my kids that our dog won't be with us much longer because we can't afford surgeries and vet bills for this NEEDLESS ACT!! All the man had to do was call our home or call animal control out. People can be so thoughtless!

Posted by: Adam Location: Elkhart on Jul 21, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Ridiculous. You people that say, "She had a right to shoot and try to kill this dog" are out of your mind. First of all, it takes a sick person to have the trigger finger to shoot at a dog that is running through their yard to GET HOME! I saw the pictures online, and the bullet paths on BOTH dogs (yeah thats right, after one was shot and both were trying to get away, they tried to shoot at a fleeing dog) and guess what... it is CLEAR from pictures that the dogs were running perpendicular to the shooter, which means they WERE NOT running to her. They weren't threatening her at all. She wanted to kill a dog to make a point. And Linda did NOT EVER TALK TO THE NORMANS ABOUT THEIR DOG BEING IN HER YARD. So, here are the FACTS... finally: Linda shot to kill dogs that were not a harm to her, who she knew were not strays, who were simply trying to get home. And the dogs, from all indications, had gotten away on accident and the Normans were out looking for them when they heard the shots!

Posted by: hey girl hey Location: kkk capital of the world on Jun 2, 2008 at 02:12 PM
the dog should have been on a leash or in a fenced in yard, regardless if its friendly or not.

Posted by: candy Location: Knox, Indiana on May 18, 2008 at 05:02 PM
Let me see....the law states dogs must be on a leash. I guess that means on "some" animals, not the Normans animals, nice they can have an exemption. Personally I am tired of neighbors dogs barking 24/7, coming over and eating MY leashed dogs food and taking a crap in my yard. Not only are they a nuisance, they can spread disease and turn on a person who is in their own yard. This woman had every right to shoot that dog if she felt at all threatened by someone else's roaming law breaking animal. How many times have we seen or read where someone's "nice" dog turned on a child or a neighbor. Take responsibility for your animals and obey the laws, they are in force for a reason. It's time leash laws were enforced and owners fined. Starke County is notorious for not enforcing leash and noise laws. We have been told that the neighbors dog barking 24/7 is "our bad luck", and that is an exact quote. Wonder how they would feel if it was keeping THEM awake and annoying them all day.

Posted by: Nancy Location: Knox on May 12, 2008 at 05:53 PM
I know Linda, she is a caring person. If you are a pet owner you should be responsible for the animals.I live in the country and have two dogs, they are either in the house or their kennel or with us. Never are they allowed to roam the neighborhood. Living in the country is no reason to allow your pets to run loose. I see more dead pets on the roads due to owners who do not keep their dogs penned. Here is a thought, why not leash them and take them for a long walk every day for exercise, everyone benefits.

Posted by: Reader Location: Indiana on May 6, 2008 at 04:08 PM
We see many roaming dogs in our area. Dogs will roam far from home and we seldom see the same ones twice. In this case, the dogs were roaming from more than a mile away. It is too bad we have to see our chickens, ducks, cats, small dogs, and other beloved pets/livestock attacked, killed, or endangered because of the inconsideration of others. We should not second guess the decisions made in this case. We were not there. I see many remarks here that indicate a misunderstanding of the situation. I took in a stray cat about two years ago that still will not allow me to touch her back. She is totally traumatized from escaping the jaws of a dog. I love dogs too and have had to adopt a couple of strays and spay them. The other case in the news where a pet dog bit a child on a bike resulted in 75 stitches to the face of the 7 year old. Interestingly, in that headline, it was a "dog," not a "pet dog." Yet both dogs were family pets. The headline bias in the Siroky case is evident.

Posted by: JL Location: Grovertown on May 6, 2008 at 12:56 PM
"Siroky says she and her husband both went after the dogs with guns after seeing them come on her property. She says her husband fired a warning shot, and the dogs started running away, toward her. She says she felt somewhat threatened, and shot at the dogs. She said things were happening too quickly to tell if they were wearing collars, or who they may belong to, before she shot." So was one person standing in front of the dogs and the other standing in front? I'm sure if the dogs were running loose they had to see them a lot. The comment about Shoot first and ask questions later seems to have hit the bullseye!!! NO PUN INTENDED!!! I'm just glad I don't live another 2 1/2 miles down the road because I absolutely love my dogs!!!

Posted by: Pauline Location: Big Rapids on May 5, 2008 at 02:50 PM
It is illegal to allow your dog to roam free. Had the dog been in it's home or on it's own property, there would be no issue. What if someone hit the dog with their car? Would people think they are obligated to pay? Take care of your pets and you won't have an issue! This isn't a case of a dog accidently getting loose. The owners have already admitted the dog runs free "regularly." The fact that they don't see the issue with this tells me they aren't good dog owners. Good dog owners follow the law.

Posted by: J Location: Mishawaka on May 4, 2008 at 09:29 PM
I hope Linda's pets never get out, because it sounds like everyone will shoot first and ask questions later. I know they said these dogs roamed and yes, they should of been confined, but what happens if an animal accidently slips out the door when you open it or someone forgets to shut a gate. Does this mean that that animal deserves to get shot. No wonder the world is the way it is. People have no compassion for anything but theirselves.

Posted by: dog owner Location: marshall county on May 4, 2008 at 11:14 AM
i just want to comment on what mel from plymouth stated. yes the authorities told the to shoot the dogs. but here is the catch the way i see it.yes the Siroky's have the right to shoot the dog on their property. here is the catch the dog must die on their property and not run home. this now makes it the "shooters" responsibility. this is the way is was explained to me by the police when we had dog issues with our 4-H livestock.

Posted by: jayla Location: swmi on May 4, 2008 at 12:32 AM
what irritates me is that some people think they are above the law... i live in the country and have a dog... we only put him out on his lead and if he somehow gets loose (happens about 3 times a year) we FIND HIM!! But, others on the country block just let their dogs run pell mell all over the place... which "excites" my dog terribly.... so... when my dog takes a chunk out of someone else's dog while on his lead... we are accused of having a "vicious" dog... all I can say is DUH! My dog was tethered... yours was loose.... but, back to my point... i hate when others think they don't have to follow the law... because if everybody else does, then their dog should be fine.... it's such bull. Kind of like immunizations.... those who don't get them for their kids are depending on everyone one else doing it so the diseases are running rampant. Selfish people irritate me... they act so superior.

Posted by: Resident Location: Starke County on May 3, 2008 at 04:20 PM
To all of you who are against shooting dogs that are not on their own property, you obviously have never lived in the country and/or raised livestock. Just this morning I retrieved what was left of one of my birds...this was not the work of a hungry raccoon. Coons will take off the head and disembowel but the damage I found was much more like a dog or fox/coyote kill. We have so many dogs running here that belong to people or are dumped in the country that shooting them is often far more humane than letting them starve to death. I have seen some that have been to the point of starvation after being dumped in the dead of winter...not something I enjoy dealing with. I HATE having to take those animals to the humane society (which is getting more and more expensive since it is on the opposite end of the county and they want a donation for a dog that is not mine)...they end up dead either way as they are not able to be placed in that condition. Spay, neuter and keep them home!

Posted by: Kim R. Location: Starke Conty on May 3, 2008 at 02:50 PM
I'm reading these comments and I'm appalled at all these grown adults bashing both the Normans and the Sirokys, its ridiculous! The fact is there is a leash law in Indiana, and it is against the law to let dogs run free, however just like kids, dogs sometimes have a mind of their own and get loose! I moved here a year ago and shortly after I moved here I read an article in the Leader that the police dept. is frustrated because the Humane society has no ordinance in place for uncontrolled dogs, so when people call, all they can do is go out, say something or charge a fine, their hands are tied. Also being rural is not like the city, no matter how long you live out here, u never know all your neighbors! Not only that how many people keep track of what pets their neighbors have unless they are good friends and lets be real how many of u would check for tags on a dog u don't know? most of u say dogs are family members, would u let your kids roam on others property? Think smart,use a leash!

Posted by: Tom Location: Leesburg on May 2, 2008 at 10:49 PM
WOW! Even after we have the story of the 4 people in South Bend being attacked and sent to the hospital we still have people who want to defend stray dogs. Unbeleivable! And as has probably been said before. A dog is a stray anytime it has STRAYED from where it belongs. It has nothing to do with collars,tags or belonging to someone. The dogs that attacked in S.B. probably had collars and tags and definately belonged to somebody. But that doesn't make the injuries they inflicted any less painful or dangerous. Any dog has the potential of being dangerous which means it's up to the person who has been forced to deal with them as to what action they need to take, so if you don't want your dog shot keep it at home. Then and only then is it NOT a stray.

Posted by: Megan Location: Elkhart on May 2, 2008 at 11:46 AM
I just don't see why it was necessary to shoot the animals. Is it that much of a problem having a "stray" walk through your property? I do agree that the dogs should have been contained, but I think the shooter was extremely unreasonable and ridiculous. I am pro guns but come on -- have some common sense!

Posted by: Willie Location: Niles on May 2, 2008 at 07:30 AM
Need more evidence of reporter bias? Look at the headline: "Starke County woman shoots neighbor's PET dog". "PET" dog? As opposed to what???

Posted by: S. Location: GROVERTOWN on May 1, 2008 at 10:49 PM
I'v read all these comments, it seems some people are just using this as an outlet to relieve anger. My family live pretty close to all the action. I don't believe either Dan or Linda are villians . I'm sure if asked both would do things differently. Both have good business reputations and it would be a shame if someone would read this crap and go elsewhere to do their business. I believe WNDU should remove this blog it's going nowhere. And before one of you makes fun of my spelling I already know I can't spell. (That's why they have spell check!) Okay I do need to say one thing off the subject............My husband and I have lived in many counties and they ALL have HILLBILLIES, Starke Co. is not the only one!!!!!(And yes, their probably even in YOUR COUNTY!)

Posted by: Lauren Location: MI on May 1, 2008 at 10:27 PM
its not even her own dog. why would she do that in fact why will anybody shoot//kill//hurt any animal unless it puts you in danger oh my god. what a sad sad sad world

Posted by: pet owner Location: county on May 1, 2008 at 04:27 PM
First off-Linda has the right to protect her own livestock/business whether she knew whos dog it was or not!The Normans stated their dog roams the neighborhood regulary and that they were aware Linda did not want stray dogs on her property.The Normans are respobsible for their own vet bills.Wouldnt it have been alot easier for the Normans to be a responsible dog owner and keep Peyton confined.The Normans have themselves to blame for this situation.We had a problem with a neighbors dog and the DNR Officer informed us we could shoot the dog whether we knew whos it was or not with or without warning.The Normans warning was when Linda made it clear she didnt want other dogs on her property.I own livestock and do not have patience for irresponsible animal owners and that is exactly what the Normans are.And as far as people stating they wouldnt take their dog to Linda because of this situation-she was protecting her property that has nothing to do with being a dog groomer!

Posted by: J Location: Mishawaka on May 1, 2008 at 03:01 PM
"She says she'd had problems with strays other than the Norman’s dogs on her land near her..." In this sentence it sounds like she knew who the dogs belonged to. That means they are not strays. She would be the last person I would take my dog to get groomed. I wonder how she treats those animals. I hope people boycott taking their pets to her. Actions speak louder than words.

Posted by: Keep your pets contained on May 1, 2008 at 02:03 PM
Another instance of idiot humans letting their pets run free, something tragic happening to the pets, and then blaming someone else for their lack of responsibility. I think dogs do need to run around and exercise, but in a safe area. This is why my dogs get to run around freely...in a yard with a 6' privacy fence!! I feel really bad for the dog because he doesn't deserve to be injured for the Norman's lack of common sense. As for the groomer, c'mon now, you really thought a dog with tags was a stray and worthy of being shot. I know where I'm NOT taking my dogs for grooming!

Posted by: to Anonymous4/30-3:08 Location: good fences make good neighbors on May 1, 2008 at 12:07 PM
You obviously haven't spent much time dealing with neighbors. Or at least, not as many years in as many places as I have. I'm glad your situation worked out. I've tried talking to people about their stray pets. In all but one case they became beligerant at the idea that they weren't allowed to do anything they wanted. Selfish people are delusional. When you confront their delusion-they become irrational and often violent. Telling one neighbor to keep his 2 pitbulls out of my yard led to several years of vicious harassment and intimidating behavior which ruined our enjoyment of our yard. The one person who didn't berzerk on us was our current neighbor, who smiled and told us we "can" yell at their never-leashed dog if it comes in our yard. I don't need her permission, but it isn't my job to train her dog, either. Just like it isn't my job to get bit so I can treat a fool's unwanted dog with more value than you placed on a person's safety. Bad neighbors don't deserve such consideration.

Posted by: Mel Location: Plymouth on Apr 30, 2008 at 06:05 PM
Let's see. Normans refuse to keep dogs contained. Sirokys contact Normans asking them to keep their dogs home. Normans refuse saying the dogs are accepted in the neighborhood and don't cause any harm. Sirokys contact authorities and are told to shoot the dogs. Looks to me like Normans are soley responsible for any harm or damages done to or by their dogs. The Normans have stated publicly that there is no need to contain their dogs. If one of Linda's customers were attacked or provoked, it is well documented that Linda did everything she could to protect her customers and business. Hmmmmm, my bets are that the Norman's are liable.

Posted by: Willie Location: Niles on Apr 30, 2008 at 05:03 PM
Good work, M from V.

Posted by: M Location: V on Apr 30, 2008 at 03:45 PM
I'm not a lawyer but I watch Judge Marilyn Milian. Normans are 100% liable by not containing pet. Reference episode #126.

Posted by: Anonymous on Apr 30, 2008 at 03:08 PM
I have 2 acres in the country, but the FIRST thing we did, when we moved to our home was INSTALL AN ELECTRIC FENCE! it keeps our dogs in, but doesnt keep other animals out. I would certainly go to a neighbor if I had continued issues or send an anonymous letter to everyone on the street or something before i resorted to shooting the dog. Our neighbor was the same way, even after their dog was hit by a car, and my husband begged them to keep the new puppy on a leash, one day the puppy does what puppies do and wanted to come into our yard to play.... not good. happened several times before my husband just was a jerk about it and they got a clue, they are keeping him in a pen, which is very neighborly and keeps all of the pets safe. people should communicate better with their neighbors!!!

Posted by: To deb/elkhart-11:50 on Apr 30, 2008 at 02:12 PM
There are special hospitals for people who can't tell the difference between an animal and a human. Please, get help. It sounds like you really need it.*Oh, and fix your fence. No one wants your "little" dog in their yards, either.As for the bratty kids, trespassing is trespassing, do what Linda did and call the authorities.

Posted by: Valerie Location: Work on Apr 30, 2008 at 02:06 PM
There are leash laws for a reason! The dog owners are lucky she didn't shoot to kill, I would have.

Posted by: Michael Location: South Bend on Apr 30, 2008 at 01:38 PM
Keep the dog or dogs on your own property !!

Posted by: Willie Location: Niles on Apr 30, 2008 at 01:36 PM
Not that I'm advocating litigation (ever), but it seems to me that the Normans may actually be the ones legally liable for any business or other losses incurred from this incident. They should be glad Siroky isn't suing THEM. Law students, any input?

Posted by: Sue Location: South Bend on Apr 30, 2008 at 12:34 PM
That is awful that someone's pet was shot, but it's the pet owner's responsibility to make sure that their animal is on their own property and not on someone elses.

Posted by: Concerned Location: Knox on Apr 30, 2008 at 10:51 AM
I know the Sirokys and they are good people. Some people responding here obviously didn't read the story. Here are some facts. Linda DID speak to WNDU, just off camera. Starke County does not have animal control. The Humane Society does not come out to pick up stray or troublesome animals, you have to take the animals to them. Linda's grooming business is located on their home property. The Siroky's have horses & other animals. The last thing Linda needs are two large dogs on her property when customers bring their dogs for grooming. This is a potential for disaster and I would hope the Normans recognize that they "may" be responsible for any harm to Linda's customers pets because of their irresponsibility. Even Teddy Bear dogs can attack horses and livestock causing serious and/or fatal injury. I know because I've had horses attacked by neighbors "teddy bears" that cost me hundreds of dollars in vet bills. The Sirokys did the only thing they could do.

Posted by: Willie Location: Niles on Apr 30, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Chuck - spoken like a true NJ resident. Here in "flyover country" we can still exercise our second amendment rights. Why would anyone go through the trouble of trying to trap their neighbors' unmonitored dogs, and why should they have to? The humane thing would have been to euthanize the dog after wounding it. And to Kim - Siroky did not want to speak ON CAMERA; she obviously talked to the reporter. And the story was obviously written with a bias, using verbs such as "wonder" and "hope" for the Normans, and always using "says" for Siroky. More attempts at heart-wrenching reporting by the modern media. (PS: I DO feel sorry for the dog, but the owners are to blame.)

Posted by: Conley Location: Warsaw on Apr 30, 2008 at 10:03 AM
I sincerely hope the Normans and all their supporters had a chance to see the televised version of the story about the 4 dog-bite victims in SB. There was a nice clear shot of the rip on the womans arm that I think you really need to see. Maybe the gruesome sight will stimulate your lagging brains and you will finally get it. No one wants your dog in their yard, or approaching them on the road, or following them through the trails of some park or walking up to them in a parking lot. We shouldn't have to protect our pets or family from your "nice & well-trained teddy bear". And we shouldn't have to risk having our faces torn off to do you the favor of bringing your monsters home. Pitbull or poodle-ITS AGAINST THE LAW TO LET THEM ROAM! And the law was passed because selfish people always need to be forced into doing the right thing.

Posted by: Tom Location: Leesburg on Apr 30, 2008 at 09:29 AM
Now we see in South Bend what 2 "teddy bears" can do. 4 people bitten and sent to the hospital. Please keep your dogs at home!!!

Posted by: howard Location: rochester on Apr 30, 2008 at 07:33 AM
you can't let your dog's run loose people,it's against the law!!!!!!! she had every right!!!

Posted by: Reader Location: Indiana on Apr 30, 2008 at 04:30 AM
So did everyone see the latest headline here at WNDU? FOUR BITTEN IN TWO SEPARATE DOG ATTACKS!..... Four people were bitten by dogs Tuesday afternoon, after two separate dog attacks. Three people were sent to the hospital. Both incidents happened in South Bend. Three people were hospitalized, including a young boy...(see link above for details). These were unprovoked attacks by supposedly well behaved pets....that should not have been loose!

Posted by: Kim Location: Home on Apr 30, 2008 at 12:43 AM
To those of you condemming WNDU for their coverage on this story.. The station did not side with the Normans but rather reported the only side of the story they got since Linda did not want to speak to the reporter. It might 'seem' biased at first look but they can't give Linda's side of the story themselves and she refused to comment. As usual, WNDU did a great job with the story with what they were given and this comment area will hopefully serve to educate people on responsible pet ownership. If even a few more people decide to contain their pets now, then it was all worth while. I hope some of you who are guilty of letting your teddy bears run free are learning something about respect of other peoples property and the right to privacy from not only strangers walking around on their lawn but dogs and cats too! Keep um home!

Posted by: Merridan Location: Syracuse on Apr 30, 2008 at 12:24 AM
Chuck, please read before you comment! As so many have stated- and as it is in the article above-THE FIRST THING LINDA DID WAS COMPLAIN TO THE AUTHORITIES. She didn't want to shoot the trouble-causing stray. She wanted to mind her own business and not lose her own pets to the Normans selfish theft of her privacy. BUT-IT'S ALL ABOUT THE NORMANS, ISN'T IT! So, their dog continued to be a problem that the authorities couldn't keep up with. SO THEY TOLD HER TO SHOOT IT. And, the Sirokys tried shooting in the air, but the dogs choose to charge at Linda, so she shot at the 100 lb dog (huge and with teeth)in an attempt NOT to end up another statistic. Like the four victims on the 11:00 news. The Normans are getting off light. They could be facing charges for allowing their "teddy bear" to kill someone. It was their responsibility to fence their dogs-it was Linda's to protect herself, her animals, and her clients. I'd gladly take my dog there! The rest of your comment- just juvenile. Grow up.

Posted by: deb Location: elkhart on Apr 29, 2008 at 11:50 PM
If you can shoot a "stray" dog on your proprty then I should be able to shoot "stry" kids that are in my yard without me permission. My dog listens better than the kids in my neighborhood. I can have my rotti in the front yard with his leash and the neighbor is threating to call the humane society. I have a privacy fenced back yard, but the little dog gets out sometimes (like once a year) it may take a minute for me to relize he is loose but I am right out after him. My rottis have never gotten out. But I know alot of kids that are strays and loose to run the neighborhood without supervision and it is ok for them to ruin my property and disturbe my day. So shooting them is the same as shooting a dog that has gotten out?

Posted by: Unfornuate resident of starke co. Location: Starke Co on Apr 29, 2008 at 11:37 PM
Being an unfortunate resident of Starke County this issue is not uncommom. The rednecks of this county that are poorly educated and inbreeds do not realize what a leash law is. A mile away from home...get a fence and keep your animals on your property. The shooting is no uncommon...it happens all the time with the gun toters around here.

Posted by: jaime Location: walkerton on Apr 29, 2008 at 07:35 PM
I was recently traveling on 23 south and ran over a dog that ran out in front of me. I could not avoid the animal and I feel horrible for that. I love animals but have had issues about people not keeping them contained like they are supposed to. There is a leash law. I told the owner that I ran his dog over and I was a basket case along with my 7 yr old. The owner told me it was not the first time. If you love your animals they need to be kept in a fence or on a leash. That is being responsible. You can not let animals run free, something bad will always happen sooner or later.

Posted by: Reader Location: Indiana on Apr 29, 2008 at 07:25 PM
To those who fail to read past the headline: Pets (and people) that live a mile away on a different road are generally unknown to most of us. The Editor's use of the word "neighbor" in this headline is puzzling and prejudicial.

Posted by: Chuck Location: New Jersey on Apr 29, 2008 at 06:41 PM
I don't equate dogs with humans but there is non-lethal force for both. Lethal force should only be used if non-lethal force can not. There were two people both with guns. One could have backed the other up. Shooting the dog is still the wrong thing to do even if they had a right. What is wrong with a "Dog Groomer" shooting a nerighbors dog? Well for one thing she is going to have that reputation from now on and it will impact her business. Not a smart business move. Would you bring your dog to a dog groomer who's first instinct was to shoot. What is her first instinct if the dog snaps on the table give it an electric shock. Anyone with half a brain can get that this is not an animal lover who just grooms for the bucks. She handles dogs professionally an has other animals does she shoot them? This was a nusience that they wanted to get rid of the easy way by shooting it! How about humanely trapping it and bringing it to the humane society so the owner has to pay a fine.

Posted by: Tayra Location: Goshen on Apr 29, 2008 at 04:37 PM
I laughed at this...due to the fact that so much hoopla is being raised at this. Dogs will turn on you, no matter what type they have been up to that point. Roaming free, i agree with with Joe Blow on that one. And...why should she apologize.... And you dog lovers out there, do you let yours run free, I doubt it..I know I dont let mine roam free..and he is a well disciplined dog, but he will growl at you in a minute...

Posted by: Joe Blow Location: Anytown,USA on Apr 29, 2008 at 04:10 PM
Anyone who truly loves their pets would never let them run free where bad things can happen. No doubt about it, the blame lies entirely on the dog owners shoulders.

Posted by: Anonymous Location: Walkerton on Apr 29, 2008 at 03:04 PM
My grandmother takes her dogs to Linda and has for years. She is a wonderful person. If you don't want your dogs shot then keep them on your own property. I would have done the same thing if a large dog was coming towards me. Linda has animals to protect too.

Posted by: ANGIE on Apr 29, 2008 at 02:30 PM
If someone shot my dog - they better hide...like Osama Bin Laden...b/c God help them if I find them.

Posted by: luss Location: south bend on Apr 29, 2008 at 02:28 PM
Come on you don't know your what you neighbors dogs look like? How cruel-will never go to your establishment for business that's for sure!Have fun paying the vet bills-came back @ you!

Posted by: Willie Location: Niles on Apr 29, 2008 at 02:14 PM
I love my dogs too, but at least I realize: THEY'RE DOGS, NOT PEOPLE. Anyone who equates shooting an animal with shooting a human being needs to have their head examined.

Posted by: Theallseeingeye Location: Bourbon on Apr 29, 2008 at 01:35 PM
I grew up in the country. We let our dogs run. Every once in awhile they did something to piss a farmer off and they were shot. Fact of life in rural areas. Dogs should be allowed to run and if the screw up, they pay the consequence.

Posted by: ALL OF US Location: to the normanites on Apr 29, 2008 at 01:20 PM
All you idiots defending the normans and their selfish attitude about letting their dogs run are such hill-rats! The normans are A$-H@--s! And so are you if you don't realize how sick WE ALL are of your stinking mutts! KEEP THE THINGS HOME! And BS about how you're such a great person because you "try" to keep your dog home-guess what! What you mean is your dog is smarter than you. That makes you too stupid to own a dog. As for WHAT ROLE DID WE PLAY IN DELIVERANCE-we are the outsiders who pity the hapless people like Linda who mistake you hillrats for humans and buy land near you. We aren't surprised you have resorted to pointless insults, since you haven't a six-toed foot at the end of a bowed-leg to stand on. YOU ARE WRONG. And, T/Granger 12:15-the dog didn't "get" out-they habitually let it run, violating a STATE LAW. It isn't currently against the law to turn into a drive & the authorities wouldn't tell you to shoot (as they did Linda), so it isn't even sort of a comparison. duh

Posted by: resident Location: starke county on Apr 29, 2008 at 01:17 PM
Let's not forget this part of the story: "Dan and Rebecca Norman’s new German Sheppard, Chloe, was there when their other dog was shot Tuesday." So that makes TWO large, intimidating beasts on the Siroky property as a potential threat to their livestock and pets, not to mention themselves. Dogs running in tandem or packs are emboldened to do what dogs do...hunt prey. Besides our pets and children being at risk, the wild turkeys and baby deer are vulnerable to attack. DOGS SHOULD NOT BE RUNNING LOOSE!

Posted by: Alan Location: Elkhart on Apr 29, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Bonnie... I like your ideal of a warning shot. This lady could have then went and spoke to the owners of the dog. All in all thou she did have the right to do what she did.

Posted by: neighbor Location: grovertown on Apr 29, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Just to let you know a few details....Linda weighs less than the dog who was running towards her. This is a 20 acre property with horses, ducks, and other animals at risk. She has had her beloved pets attacked previously, as well as baby deer that are born in her woods. She is not trigger happy. She and her husband have been bitten/threatened by other dogs. What would you do? Bang a spoon and call for the non-existent dog catcher to come to the rescue? There are several cruel or ignorant comments here by people who have not read the article carefully or just don't understand the magnitude of the problem. The headline should have read, "Irresponsible Dog Owner Imperils Child's Pet." But the media puts their spin on the news. As an animal lover myself, I pray that the dog recovers speedily. The owners should be thanking God that they still have their pet.

Posted by: Michael Location: Warsaw on Apr 29, 2008 at 12:37 PM
I have the same problem with my neighbors. They all let their dogs run lose in the streets, our yards and all over the neighborhood. It is a hazard to drivers and a nuisance to the rest of us. I also run frequently and on numerous occasions have had to wing a rock at dogs to keep them away. The owners of these dogs should have known betters. In addition, it's always the same response from pet owners, "oh my pets would never hurt anyone." How am I supposed to know that?

Posted by: T Location: Granger on Apr 29, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Listen to you people..... mistakes happen - the dog got out - doesn't mean the owners don't care - doesn't give rigt to shoot either. you are all insensitive people - next time one of you use a drivway to turn around in - should give that homeowner the right to shoot them....because if you think about it....they shouldn't be there - right?

Posted by: TO; all of us Location: SB on Apr 29, 2008 at 12:05 PM
What role did you play in Deliverence?

Posted by: mike Location: elkhart on Apr 29, 2008 at 12:04 PM
The idiot owners of the dog shouldnt let it run around. Sorry but the whole, oh my puppy is a sweet dog, wouldnt hurt a fly bs doesnt cut it. Any dog has the capacity to do behavior that isnt normal in your little world when it is running wild. The people are lucky it didnt step on someones property with livestock, most of the time us country boys dont miss what we are aiming at. If it were my property the dog was on, the owners would be digging a hole, not wrapping its foot. Take some responsibility people, it is your fault it happened, now you want to go into court and waste our tax dollars cause your idiots.

Posted by: Linda Location: Granger on Apr 29, 2008 at 11:32 AM
To the woman who shot a neighbors dog. It's just too bad the dog didn't give you a good reason to shoot. Why in the world would you shoot a dog that is not bothering anything or anyone? The woman should never be able to run a dog grooming business. Heaven forbid if a dog pees on her she'd probably shoot it too. She can't be an animal lover if she's capable of that. Now to the owner of the dog. My feeling is that if you love your pet you are responsible for their safety just like a child. The dog should never be allowed to just roam around. It's lucky it hasn't been killed by a car. People who don't want to take care of their pets shouldn't have them. I had to have my precious little dog euthanized and I can't tell you how much I miss her. I really can't tolerate people who mistreat animals. If they mistreat an animal, they also mistreat their children. I feel sorry for them all.

Posted by: M Location: V on Apr 29, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Tom, she shot the dog, the dog was not breaking the law anymore than a bird would. It all goes back to "shoot" the people, not the dog. It's like having a 3-year old wandering through your yard. Domestic cats on the other hand know what they're doing, so they're fair game.

Posted by: Bonnie Location: Michigan on Apr 29, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Couldn't she have fired into the air to scare the dog away? Just a thought

Posted by: student of the law on Apr 29, 2008 at 09:01 AM
The Normans were in violation of the law. That makes the incident ENTIRELY their fault. If the woman who shot the dog did so because she just likes inflicting pain on animals, she still did so with the approval of the local authorities whom she contacted. And, unless the Normans buy a judge, there's not a court in the land that won't tell them to pay their own bills-and any damages those strays caused while running the neighborhood. It's not shocking that a business owner would want to protect herself & property. IT IS shocking that someone in the world today is too stupid to realize that they need to keep their dogs at home. Grow up, people. Lassie was fake! NO ONE wants your dog in their yard!

Posted by: From "all of us here" Location: K. County on Apr 29, 2008 at 08:05 AM
Living "way out here in the country", I can tell you that WE DON'T WANT YOUR DOGS IN OUR FIELDS! They are a menace no matter how big or small they are, and really, anyone criticizing the woman for not waiting to find out what this dog wanted before protecting herself hasn't the mental capacity to realize what 100lbs looks like. That's a dog who probably stands as tall as my thigh, and I'm average for a woman. We've actually talked to people about their STRAYS (yes, that's the right word!), only to have them rattle off some self-absorbed b.s. about the dogs being "teddy bears" or "sweethearts" or other nonsense. This isn't about what you think of your dog. Obviously, you think little of it to let it roam. This is about MY right to NOT have destructive, untrained, unwanted animals on MY LAND. This IS still a free country, and one of those freedoms is owning private property. Those freedoms do NOT include stealing land from your neighbors by letting your dog roam!

Posted by: Husky owner Location: Goshen on Apr 29, 2008 at 07:39 AM
First let me say I have a fenced yard for my huskie but as a breed they are a very smart and determined dog and on a few occasions have escaped once was when my daughter didnt close the gate properly I have made many improvements to stop the escapes. I thank all the kind people who did find them (NOT SHOOT THEM) call me since they were tagged. And I went and got them. I also do the same with thoes I find that end up at my fence I also see both sides to the story but if I shot first and asked questions later because an animal was a stray on my property I would have had to shoot a beautiful horse but instead I went and took the horse back to where I knew it belonged and helped the neighbor fix the fence. And the shooting part puzzles me because most animals run the opposite way from the shot which leads me to believe he shot towards his wife not smart.

Posted by: Me Location: Mishawaka on Apr 29, 2008 at 02:21 AM
Debbie, You are as GOOFY and NUTS as the Siroky's!!

Posted by: Matthew on Apr 28, 2008 at 09:56 PM
my dad says with neighbors like the Normans we don't need terrorists. i am afraid a lot because of my dum neighbors. they let their stupid dogs out and let them roam and i never know when they will be out there. sometimes i can't walk to the bus without worrying. now i hate going to school because of those mean stupid people and their dogs, and those dogs are small, but still bark and snap at me. i used to like dogs but they make me not like dogs now.

Posted by: notbait Location: Plymouth IN on Apr 28, 2008 at 09:15 PM
As a former neighbor of Linda's and dog owner myself, I kept my dog confined. If she were to inadvertently get loose and end up in Linda's yard, I guarantee she would not have shot it. But if I didn't have a fence and let the dog run loose and it was on her property constantly, I would expect to have vet bills or be digging a hole for her. I am glad to see the overwhelming public opinion on this thread expressing the side of common sense and decency. In the age of the internet we get the benefit of hearing the opinions of everyday people and not just the message that the media wants to force upon us. 20 years ago, I would have watched the news or read the paper and thought that I was the only one who didn't feel that the Norman's were the ones who were in the wrong. I would have had no outlet to vent my frustration about news casters trying to sway people's minds rather than reporting facts. If the news cannot be responsible, at least we can call them on it in today's age. good night!

Posted by: Tom Location: Leesburg on Apr 28, 2008 at 05:09 PM
K, I've got news for you even "in the country" if you let your dog roam you are breaking the law. Whether it "bothers" anyone or not. And if you bothered to read the postings on this thread you would have seen at least 2 of your neighbors, besides the Sirokys who have said quite plainly that it DID bother them very much. And even if Linda is a control freak, as you say, that doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to protect her property from an illegal stray. By the way wanting people to obey the law and/or act like considerate neighbors doesn't make one a control freak.

Posted by: Anonymous on Apr 28, 2008 at 03:05 PM
Come on, folks! We have to have a little pity for the Normans. After all, it's painful to have your narcissistic bubble burst.

Posted by: Tricia Location: Granger on Apr 28, 2008 at 02:10 PM
Glad she doesn't baby sit. The psycho would probably shoot at children walking by. Nice Family.

Posted by: Tired of the dogs- Location: Starke Co. on Apr 28, 2008 at 01:58 PM
Mostly, I just wanted to say I am glad at least one person pointed out how frequently people HAVE contacted the authorities with complaints about the stray dogs. Clearly, not "all" of us approved of the Norman's (and other irresponsible animal owners) negligent, self-centered behavior. We really did want something to change, but felt somewhat powerless. Perhaps it is just this sense of powerlessness that caused this particular situation to escalate until Linda WAS FORCED by the Norman's refusal to act responsibly, to shoot a stray to protect herself and property. I once saw a horse that had been teased by "playful" dogs until it ran itself to death, bloody from running into fences trying to get away. Even if the dog was "playing", it was dangerous and had no business being where it was. Even a small dog is dangerous, and this one was huge. The Normans, and anyone defending them, should be ashamed. You all owe her and her family-and the rest of us, an apology. Keep your dogs home!

Posted by: Melanie Location: AMERICA on Apr 28, 2008 at 01:38 PM
Crabby? Sure Linda may be crabby. After all she has to have YOU for neighbors! I've been disgusted for ages about the selfcentered jerks who always call anyone not wanting to get walked all over "crabby". On behalf of the old lady who is "crabby" because she doesn't want your snot-nosed kid bouncing a ball on her tomatoes, & the workman who is "crabby" because he doesn't want some dope parking a car on the worksite, & the family man who's "crabby" because doesn't want some creeps party blaring at night, & the woman at the store who is "crabby" because you won't take your family reunion out of the juice aisle so she can shop...IF BEING CRABBY MIGHT GET YOU TO STOP BEING JERKS-SO BE IT! If I had to live around you, I guarantee you would call me crabby too, because I wouldn't want your stinking mutts in my fields terrorizing my horses either. This IS America, which means WE have a right to PRIVATE property-even "in the country". I'D RATHER BE CRABBY BECAUSE OF YOU, THAN RUDE LIKE YOU!

Posted by: M Location: V on Apr 28, 2008 at 01:09 PM
Should've called the pound and made the owners pay to get them out. Shooting it was just wrong, I can see shooting a coyote, fox, or domestic cat...but a friendly dog? Linda, they should take away your hilljack card, you've gone to redneck status.

Posted by: T Location: Granger on Apr 28, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Please do not say you are a Dog Lover if you can in the same sentance say you think it is ok to shoot or kill them.

Posted by: Anon Location: Elkhart on Apr 28, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Why shoot a dog when it's not the animal's fault the owners let it run loose? How about you talk to your neighbors first rather than take it out on their dog, be an adult, and be mature.

Posted by: Hurt Location: Starke Co. on Apr 28, 2008 at 11:18 AM
As a huge animal lover and someone who has lived in Starke County long enough to know that this kind of outrageous behavior is not surprising, I find this all to be hurtful. All of you can say that you would have done the same thing, but honestly, if it was your pet, you would feel the same way as the Norman's, think about it.

Posted by: Danielle Location: Churubusco on Apr 28, 2008 at 11:01 AM
I know Linda and this whole thing is sad!!! She should not have shot the dog, but the dogs should not be allowed to run free they have laws about this for a reason. I don't care if it is the country, you are not above the law simply because you do not reside in town. If you choose to let your treasured family pets roam you take your chances. This is a heck of a mess either way you go with no possible happy ending. Even if you have ill feelings about her, the internet is not the proper place to air them. GRow some guts and speak directly to her yourself rather than hide behind the faceless internet. I do hope the dog recovers.

Posted by: to K in America (or so she thinks) on Apr 28, 2008 at 10:23 AM
You are just a self justifying fool. You are a lazy slack-jaw like the Normans so you think what they did was right-BECAUSE YOU ARE LAZY AND LET YOUR DOGS RUN TOO. I LIVE IN THE COUNTRY-AND I am not stupid enough or rude enough or selfish enough to let my dog run. No one does, except a few self-centered jerks that no one likes! You're problem is you are immature and think the whole world is all about you. Anyone standing up for their rights and demanding you respect their boundaries is a "control freak". Well, you are the control freak! you and the normans want everything always your way and you're spoiled enough to think you deserve it! What a jerk you are! Poor Linda to have such selfish neighbors!

Posted by: Debbie Location: Tennessee on Apr 28, 2008 at 09:43 AM
I am a groomer. I am a dog lover. I HATE people who let their dogs roam! They should not HAVE a dog! I would shoot a large, loose dog if I felt it necessary. I would hate to make a dog suffer for its owner's stupidity and irresponsibility, but sometimes that is the solution. Only thing is, I'd probably kill it.

Posted by: K Location: America on Apr 28, 2008 at 09:31 AM
I know both parties in this mess and I know the dogs. They have are neighborhood pets. For all of you who so not live in the country yes dog run free around here sometimes and if they are well behaved no one cares (except crabby Sirokys). The dogs have been to my house many times and are sweethearts. And yes a mile away here is just down the road. Linda is a control freak and if you don't do what she wants you will hear about it. She will get her way one way or the other. To all of you city people things are different in the country. Linda knew the dogs and knows the Normans and has for years. Even their parents were close. She is WRONG and she knows it. Groomer I wouldn't let her touch my dogs. She ment to kill Peyton and just missed. Linda her boys and husband are all unwelcome in most homes around here and now the world knows why.

Posted by: Anonymous Location: indiana on Apr 28, 2008 at 08:24 AM
the key word is ROAMING not acceptable for your pet....I am sorry people let this happen to trusting pets.....Perhaps the dog should not be left with these people...it seems like a case of neglect to me

Posted by: used to live in Starke County Location: South Bend on Apr 28, 2008 at 08:13 AM
Hey, cb: I was agreeing with you!!! My post was in response to the idiot who said "typical for people who live in Starke County" addressed to you and Linda. You and I have the same view, my friend! I'm on your side!

Posted by: Mike Location: Michigan on Apr 28, 2008 at 07:09 AM
I hope she looses all her patrons at her dog grooming business!!! She has no business working with animals!!! What's she going to do if a dog happened to scratch her while she was giving it a hair cut??? Slit it's throat????

Posted by: Groomer1 Location: FL on Apr 27, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Interesting. Now that said.. as a RESPONSIBLE MEMBER of the Pet Industry, I would NEVER shoot a dog.. I mean come ON Linda.. you are or are you not a pet professional? You could not have caught these dogs without you and your husband ganging up on them with guns? From what I read, the dogs were running away from the trigger happy hubby and they probably would have a) run right by her as they were leaving or b) stopped for protection/reassurance.Lets hope one of your own pets doesnt get out and gets shot by two fools with a gun! Now as for the owners: Your dog should have been confined, period. Fencing Fencing Fencing. I have 6 dogs and a large privacy fenced in yard. Never would I allow these dogs to run free. However, when I lived in GA there was no leash law in the county I lived in, and everybodys dogs ran loose. Except for mine.A neighbor kid left my gate open and one of my small mixed breeds got mauled. Was there anything I could do? no. I paid my vet bill and moved on.

Posted by: Ellie Location: Elkhart on Apr 27, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Boycott Linda? Why? For minding her own business? For staying home that day? For not wanting to get bit? Or for not wanting to be forced to babysit some idiots dogs? I so glad to read so many comments by people who AREN'T rude, selfish mean, horrid people, but to those that actually think Linda did something wrong- get some help! You're a biscuit short of a dinner platter! I live rather a distance from her, but I am seriously considering taking my practically hairless dog to her for "grooming"-just to show her that we aren't all jerks! The Normans should apologize to her & the entire community for acting like spoiled brats, and then pay their own bills, and be thankful they learned something before someone got killed. Too bad for this poor mutt he ended up with morons for owners who didn't care what happened to him. My dog has never been out of my yard a day in his life. I actually LOVE my dog. And I'm sick of dealing with all the dogs whose owners are lazy and stupid and let them roam.

Posted by: Dwayne Location: SB on Apr 27, 2008 at 10:37 PM
any one who shoots something or some one is responable for there actions . yes a dog attacks you you have the right to defend your self.but you have to be in real fear for your life.useing a somewhat threatend excuse dont wash.

Posted by: Kevin Location: Rochester on Apr 27, 2008 at 10:28 PM
After reading all the comments I went back and reread the story. It mentions that the strays were near where the property owners horses are. If you have invested in Horses I find it hard to believe that you are not an animal lover like so many people here are accusing the shooter of being. I for one have seen the problems caused by someones loving pet loose chasing horses and can tell you I would be the first to shoot at any animal harassing my horse. lets please remember that the real bad guys here are the one's who couldn't tell you where their dogs were or what they were doing when they got shot. Hurray for this woman who was defending her pets and property.

Posted by: starke county resident Location: Grovertown on Apr 27, 2008 at 10:26 PM
I'm familiar with the dog that was shot and both the owners and the dog groomer. None of them are bad people. Shooting dogs that potentially threaten livestock is common practice. The sheriff's dept here does not have the manpower to respond to every dog call...they'd be out all the time and nothing else would ever get taken care of. We shoot dogs that come on our property if they are anywhere near our livestock of if we see them here more than once. IF I know (that is a capital IF) the owner, I will warn them after the first time. The second time, we shoot to kill or take the animal to the humane society if it is tame enough. Let them bail it out. Better to shoot a dog that is not kept home than having my livestock/pets dying. I don't think anyone ENJOYS shooting dogs, but sometimes it is the last resort and the best way to keep livestock and our children safe from strays. Wandering dogs can also spread disease and illness. I seriously doubt Linda WANTED to shoot the dog.

Posted by: Rational thinking on Apr 27, 2008 at 10:11 PM
I can really feel for Linda. I also feel for Kim/Argos, who commented below. I have also had the problem of neighbors dogs urinating on my garden and killing off special, expensive plants. And some of us gardeners love our gardens as much as some pet owners love their pets. People like the Norman's aren't even in the same class. They obviously do NOT love their dogs, nor even care about them at all. I have trouble believing they even have the capacity to care about anyone or anything but themselves, or they would have had more respect for their neighbors. And the person who claimed "we all love their dogs..." is just delusional & narcissistic. After all, unless you had asked every single person in a very large area (huskies have been known to roam up to 30 miles), then you can hardly be speaking for "all". You obviously weren't speaking for Linda, who had a God-given right to defend herself. The expenses are yours, Normans- including if SHE decides to sue. After all, YOU harassed HER.

Posted by: American Citizen Location: USA on Apr 27, 2008 at 09:55 PM
All I can think is "poor Linda". The woman was just home, on her own property, minding her own business-which YOU ALL want the right to do, when some selfish jerk from a mile away decided she doesn't have a right to her own property, she doesn't have a right to a peaceful day, & she doesn't even have a right to personal safety. The Normans are self-centered & rude. They let their dogs roam WITHOUT APOLOGY and insist the pack of dogs they turned loose on all the neighborhoods in the area were "teddy bears". When his laziness & selfishness backfired, Mr.Norman felt justified in harassing Linda and acting in a threatening manner. Now, she's being criticized just for wanting to mind her own business on her own property! And the Normans think SHE should apologize?! What jerks. I think the SPCA should take their dogs away. The Normans definately should get tickets, because letting your dogs run is a CRIME, as well as RUDE. A TRUE American wouldn't criticize her, they'd condemn the Normans.

Posted by: Susan Location: Indiana on Apr 27, 2008 at 09:47 PM
She had every right to shoot the stray dog. Whether it had a collar on makes no difference. If you want to own a dog, keep it on your property or on a leash.

Posted by: jerry Location: south bend on Apr 27, 2008 at 08:36 PM
After this act, I would surely find myself a different groomer. When you leave yor pet with these folks, ther is no telling what type of treatment is going on behind closed doors. SEMPER FI, I think not. Save that comment for the purpose inwhich it is intended.

Posted by: Traci Location: MI on Apr 27, 2008 at 07:52 PM
A leash or fence would have prevented the $3000 vet bill... I feel sorry for the dogs, not the ignorant owner.

Posted by: odeisho Location: knox on Apr 27, 2008 at 06:46 PM
I personally know Linda and her husband, and know that they are animal lovers. I am surprised that they waited this long to shoot the "roaming dogs". If the Norman's were RESPONSIBLE animal owners they would have kept their animals on there own property! Who wants animals trespassing on there property and pooping all over, it doesn't matter if the dog is wearing a collar and tag or not! I hope that the Norman's are fined for letting there dogs admititley roam the area bothering all there neighbors! Shame on the Norman's! I am sorry that Linda and her husband have to go through this because of irresponsible neighbors.

Posted by: Dixie Location: South Bend on Apr 27, 2008 at 05:27 PM
I've never known a vicious Rottweiler and the Pit-bulls I've met were pretty sweet too. On the other hand I've met one really mean poodle and a lot of cruel vicious people.

Posted by: me Location: knox on Apr 27, 2008 at 05:20 PM
another redneck hillbilly with a gun

Posted by: Anonymous on Apr 27, 2008 at 04:48 PM
Anyone defending the Normans or criticizing the Sirokys- You are SO wrong! She had every right to defend herself. She called the authorities in her area and followed their instructions. She obeyed the law. And, you idiots, she doesn't have to spend time or effort running around the state trying to figure out which one of you were such a**h***s as to leave dogs run. Let me just point out, if you decide to take a walk, and your dog is bounding uncontrolled along side you, without benefit of a leash, and it decides for whatever reason to charge onto my property so that I feel me/my loved ones are threatened-I'M GONNA DROP IT LIKE A SACK OF ROCKS AND IT'S MY RIGHT TO DO SO! So stop being so selfish. It's not all about you. The Normans should grow up and pay their own bills that they wouldn't have if they didn't break the law. What a bunch of jerks! Then to actually have the GALL to threaten her on her own property because YOU broke the law! God what jerks! I HOPE SHE SUES YOU, YOU IDIOTS!

Posted by: roleki Location: Mishawaka on Apr 27, 2008 at 03:55 PM
Save the dog, shoot the humans. Everything involved in this story is sickening, from the owner's astounding lack of responsible pet ownership, the shooter's bs attitude towards what's appropriate action towards stray animals, and the people in this thread who think it's a-ok to go around shooting at animals with the intent to injure/kill if you happen to be too lazy to take more responsible action yourself.

Posted by: Frank Location: South Bend on Apr 27, 2008 at 02:57 PM
I don't feel very sorry for the owner, but I do feel sorry for the dog. The owner should never have let the dog roam around. That said, I think that Siroky could have used a little more sense. If the dog was causing problems, then call the proper authorities.

Posted by: Sharon on Apr 27, 2008 at 02:23 PM
All I can say is this woman is a nut job and needs to have her license pulled as a pet groomer. There is no way she would ever get 50 feet near my dogs. Why did she not go and call the proper authorities why shoot the dog. Linda you are sick to shoot a dog.

Posted by: C Location: South Bend on Apr 27, 2008 at 01:38 PM
I love animals, I have two dogs of my own, and they are kept on chains when they are outside, I understand things to a point, I would ask the question? If they person felt she was endanger and the dog was running afer her then sure shoot but if just on the property then call animal control. Let them deal with it. As for the ppl and the medical bills, it is there fault they let there dog run around, and I don't think the person who shot the dog should have to pay, if the dog was in his yard then it wouldn't of happened. Just because your dog is loving with you, don't mean they won't attack someone who is poss. mean to them.

Posted by: One of the last grown ups on Apr 27, 2008 at 01:24 PM
I suppose since the morons that this article are trying to portray as the victims here are being pointed out by so many as the culprits, WNDU will bury this article as quickly as possible so fewer people can express their disgust of the Normans and those like them. So, I can only vent my opinion & wonder if anyone will get to see it. My thoughts are that we all have the right to pursue happiness. This means, we have the right to own pets, listen to music, fly a kite/rc plane, or target shoot. But IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU! So, your rights STOP where my rights begin. Keep your dogs at home-as defined by the law. Keep your music reasonable,-as defined by the law. Keep your toys away from your neighbors property-as defined by the law. Keep your targets in safe locations-as defined by the law. And where the law has yet to spell it out-BE CONSIDERATE OF OTHER PEOPLE! As I mentioned before-IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU! Linda had a right to defend herself, but you DIDN'T have a right to trespass.

Posted by: to the normans & all jerks on their side on Apr 27, 2008 at 12:31 PM
My neighbors are jerks like the Normans. They let their small dogs roam the neighborhood the same way-even though they know we don't like it because we've talked to them about it. But like the Normans, they think everything is all about them. My neighbors poodle has tried to bite me and my children, and has attacked my dog, except that my dog had me on the other end of the leash to help chase it away, but they just smile selfishly and tell us we "can" shout at their dog to chase it out of our yard. Well, guess what? IT ISN'T MY JOB TO TRAIN YOUR STINKING MUTT! You wanted those stupid dogs enough to go out and get them, and sometimes pay plenty for them, and now you treat them like garbage and ignore them. Shame on you! If I had a gun, I'd shoot a giant mutt like the Normans stray "wolf", too. And I wouldn't stop to read tags and get bit doing it! What terrible neighbors you are! And then to be threatening to her because YOU are such creeps! YOU should be arrested!

Posted by: Tracey on Apr 27, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Everyone on here from starke county has left complaint after complaint about these dogs running wild. Yes it is unfortunate and the owners needs to take responsibility for thier pets but the truly unfortunate part is the lack of education and spelling errors on the comments left from those in starke county. And to the rest of you Animal control doesn't do a darn thing in starke county.

Posted by: old enough to know better Location: just like the Normans on Apr 27, 2008 at 12:19 PM
When I was young, we had a husky mix. It escaped what we thought was a tight, high fence and when we finally found him, he was 10 miles from home. So, unless the Normans canvassed every single resident for at least a 10 mile radius, so no one can really claim "everyone liked the dogs". I have lived in city & country, and have had to deal with a lot of selfish A**H**** who are ALWAYS convinced that their pets are "teddy bears". Linda did the right thing. She has every right to protect herself and her property. Why should Linda risk her safety to look at your dogs tags, when you don't care enough about them to keep them at home? A dogs owner is 100% liable for ANY DAMAGE CAUSED by allowing the dog to be on the loose. That includes damages to gardens, livestock, pets, people or peace-and themselves! The Normans should be ashamed of themselves for practically bragging about how self-centered they are, and anyone defending them should be ashamed as well. You are all HORRIBLE neighbors.

Posted by: INDIANA ATTORNEY Location: South Bend on Apr 27, 2008 at 11:48 AM
With what facts we know the Siroky's will not face any charges. The authorities will probably feel for the owners and not fine them. But if further reports of breaking the Ind. Leash Law could call for repercussions.

Posted by: Kim E Location: Home on Apr 27, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Linda, If you are out there reading these messages and see all the support you have gotten. I think you should re-consider talking to the media because the message of responsible pet ownership needs to be heard and most of us are smart enough to realize that you are obviously compassionate for animals and only wish everyone else was responsible too. I think it is important for your voice to be heard as well. People who think it's OK for their animals to roam free need this education as obviously many lack in common sense and common courtesy. I hope you will let your voice in this be heard. As an owner of dogs that I show and raise I think it is so important to educate people on responsible ownership. Come on Linda... Toss us a bone! :)

Posted by: Tom Location: Leesburg on Apr 27, 2008 at 10:25 AM
The definition of a stray according to the dictionary: "adj.1 wandering; lost: a stray cat. 2 here and there;scattered.-n.1 any person or thing that is lost;wanderer;lost animal." I don't see anything about collars or tags mentioned anywhere.

Posted by: Nellie Bly Location: the old school USA on Apr 27, 2008 at 09:58 AM
I have to start by saying I am gratified that the majority of postings seem to grasp the fact that the animals had no business being off their own property--IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THIS ARTICLE WAS POSTURED TO MAKE THE NORMANS SEEM TO BE THE VICTIMS THEY ARE NOT. WNDU should be ashamed of publishing the obviously biased attitude that it is supposed to be shocking that the "woman who shot it runs a grooming business"-as if operating an animal-based business eliminates your freedom to protect yourself. I am also offended that the article attempts to unfairly garnish pity for the Normans by listing the amount of the vet bills, or by allowing the leader of the pack of stray dogs to be referred to as a "teddy bear." And it is highly offensive and repulsive that the article is allowing the absurd and immature attitude that the dogs were magically "not strays" because they are "friendly"(at home) and "wear tags and collars". SHAME ON THE NORMANS FOR BEING ROTTEN CITIZENS-AND SHAME ON WNDU!

Posted by: In God We Trust Location: South Bend on Apr 27, 2008 at 07:37 AM
This is a mess shedid not fill threaten she justwonted to fire her gun she could of took a spoon and hit a back of a pot to scare the dog away It's alot of stray dogs I dont shoot them This woman should be watch because if she GROOMS your DOG if it bites are next she might POISON it this is no DOG LOVER trust me she will never GROOM my (PET DOG KILLER) She need to be retrained the mail carriers dont even shoot dogs

Posted by: Homer Simpson Location: Mishawaka on Apr 27, 2008 at 07:32 AM
I have a nieghbor that has 2 German shepards that don't listen to the owners and come into my yard and scare my friends,family and other dogs that are on my property. They have never apologized for their dogs coming into my yard.I am ready to shoot these animals as well. I would rather punch the owner in the mouth but I would get arrested.

Posted by: Maureen Location: Grovertown on Apr 27, 2008 at 07:09 AM
I am Linda's next door neighbor of almost 20 years. It is troubling to read that (a few) others in the area have negative things to say. On behalf of my family and other neighbors who do not have computer access, I would like to say that we could not have better neighbors than the Sirokys. They are helpful, caring people who love animals. This area is plagued with large numbers of roaming cats and dogs. I wish I could take a walk or bike ride without encountering loose, intimidating dogs. Something needs to be done about the roaming dog problem so that we are not forced to take matters into our own hands to protect our children, pets, and property. May poor Peyton be a poster boy for a "Keep me home and protected" campaign!

Posted by: cb Location: knox on Apr 27, 2008 at 06:26 AM
I would like to know who contacted WNDU? I suspect the pet owners. Was it to put the pressure on the prosecuter?

Posted by: Ron Location: Chicken Owner in plymouth on Apr 27, 2008 at 12:33 AM
Her mistake is she didn't kill the dog. Any dog that is not mine is a threat to my chickens, rabbits and horses. Chickens and rabbits are my bread and butter. Any dog that comes on my land is dead.

Posted by: To annonymous in grovertown Location: too close to selfish people on Apr 26, 2008 at 11:42 PM
I seriously don't think I have ever heard anyone spew such stupidity before. "if they had known their dogs were problems.." maybe if they ever pulled their heads out and realized there were other people on the planet they might have figured out what nuisances they were to their neighbors! And trying to say a dog isn't a stray because you think its cute!?! What an idiotic thing to say! 100 pounds of teeth and furr rushing at me IS NOT CUTE! and any animal that isn't contained IS A STRAY, Moron! And "we all liked their dogs"?! Wow are you delusional! I can guarantee there are a lot of people quietly cheering the fact that the selfish-pig Normans finally have to face the fact that WE DON'T LIKE THIER STUPID MUTTS IN OUR YARDS! THEY NEVER ASKED ME, DID THEY? and, you know why they never asked? BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES-JUST LIKE YOU! The Normans are the ones who hate their dogs, or they would have taken care of them properly. You need mental help-please get it!

Posted by: Someone Location: South Bend on Apr 26, 2008 at 11:08 PM
I think both parties are to blame. You should always keep your dog in your yard. If you don't have a fence tie them up or something that's what I do. But I don't think that if a stray or neighbors dog is in your yard that you should shoot it. I have irresponsible owners around where I live and I don't shoot their dogs. Even though it's frustrating when people like me do the right thing and keep their dogs in the yard at all times.

Posted by: Anonymous Location: laporte county on Apr 26, 2008 at 10:27 PM
First off, in regards to: "Posted by: D Location: SB on Apr 26, 2008 at 12:46 PM 100% Teddy Bear. That's what every owner of a pitbull or rottweiler who chews a child's face off says".... That is a very uneducated thing to say, it is not only pitbulls or rottweilers that "chew off a childs face" as you mentioned, I do not own either type of dog so im not "sticking" up for those breeds, but in fact i do work at an animal hospital and we see even the smallest dogs "chew off faces", any and all animals that have teeth will attack and bite when they feel they are in an aggressive situation. I also would like to say both parties here are at fault, the owner should at all times know where their dog is and not let it just roam the neighboorhood. There are laws against that and you should be responsible for his/her well being but on the other hand, if the "groomer" had the time to go and grab a gun she should have had the sense to make a call to the proper authorities. Groomer-animal lover???

Posted by: Anonymous on Apr 26, 2008 at 10:22 PM
I feel extremely sad for the dog. I blame the owners. The dog should not have been allowed to roam free. I could understand if it was a one time occurance, but the owners stated that the dog roams the neighborhood regularly.

Posted by: Kim Location: Argos on Apr 26, 2008 at 10:14 PM
To all the people who do not seem to know what 'Stray' means. It has nothing to do with being pretty or wearing collars or tags. A Stray dog is one who has left home and is wandering/roaming around. These Teddy Bear dogs were STRAYS as soon as they left their own yard. The Normans have stray dogs and they have no respect for other peoples privacy of their yards. Just today I had someones stray in my yard and peeing all over my perennial garden. I went out to yell t the dog and he ignored me and went about peeing on everything. I had to chase him and throw rocks at him to get him to leave. Was that mean? Well guess what.. I have hundreds of dollars worth of perennials in my garden and I see no reason to allow someone elses dog to come over here and kill my plants. The ignorance of letting your pets roam free needs to stop. Annonymous says if they knew the dogs were causing people to be upset they would have put up a fence. It's common sense and courtesy. Well at least to most people.

Posted by: Pat Location: Shenandoah on Apr 26, 2008 at 09:59 PM
Put a fence up, and keep the dog on a leash. Simple as that. Loose dogs bite. How does the owner know that the dog will not bite? She does not. If your dog goes on someone else's property, there will be consequences. Period.

Posted by: Margaret Location: South Bend on Apr 26, 2008 at 08:52 PM
I would never let my 2 babies roam arouned our neighborhood, but we have had several strays (or should I say escape artists) wind up around our house. After we determine if they are friendly, we look at their tags and call the number on them. One time we had to call Animal Control because the one dog had no phone number. Sometimes dogs can be very slick and get out on their own or are let out by accident by little kids. That was totally unnecessary. I hope you get in big trouble for doing that to an innocent dog.

Posted by: American Patriot Location: America on Apr 26, 2008 at 08:13 PM
I think she needs some target practice! If that dog had come on to my property I can gaurantee that the vet would have been of no use to it! I personally own several dogs some pets, some for hunting and I would never let my dog just "roam" around! Thats what a fence or a kennel or even just a little responsibility are for! Sure its sad that this dog had to be shot but I blame the owners for neglecting to KNOW where their dog is, especially a breed such as this one even if it is a "teddy bear" it could cause a major traffic accident due to its size and its just plain wrong to assume that your neighbors dont mind a 100 pound beast roaming around! 1 shot. 1 kill. THE SNIPER WAY SEMPER FI

Posted by: Anonymous Location: Grovertown on Apr 26, 2008 at 07:56 PM
TO REPLY TO TOM IN LEESBURG!!!!  Okay I can see your point. And thank you but I'm not an idiot.  You are correct it is not her responsibility to call and see whose dog it is, I guess that is just being a decent person.  I know the Normans and if anyone would of told them they had a problem with their dogs they would of fenced them in. By the way everyone is talking about strays, and this is not a stray this is a beautiful dog with tags. If you want to scare a dog you use "bird shot" not "buck shot"...she was shooting to kill!!!!! And she is not an animal lover! She is just cruel. Do remember we know her!!!! The Normans are nice people and knew we all liked their dogs and that's why they let them roam!!!!!

Posted by: PJ Location: South Bend on Apr 26, 2008 at 07:48 PM
These dogs should not have been roaming the neighborhood, and on the other hand, those people should not have been trying to shoot the dogs either. The animals are the innocent ones here. The owners should pay their own medical bills, and the shooters that shot the dogs should be charged with ANIMAL CRUELY, and should have the gun taken away from them. What if there were stray kids roaming around the neighborhood, would they shoot them too?

Posted by: cb Location: knox on Apr 26, 2008 at 07:09 PM
To,Posted by: to cb and linda Location: South Bend on Apr 26, 2008 at 08:16 AM Typical behavior for people who live in Starke County. At least it is only animals, not like South Bend. And to used to live in Starke Co. Location: South Bend all I can say is it takes one to know one IGNORANT

Posted by: Rose Location: Warsaw on Apr 26, 2008 at 07:02 PM
I'm only 11-years-old but I still have had to deal with stray dogs coming into our yard, so I know how annoying it is. Linda was just defending herself and protecting her animals. If two big dogs, one of wich looking like a wolf, came running toward me I'd probably start shooting at them. The Norman's should pay their own vet bills because they were the ones who didn't care about their dogs enough to keep them at home.

Posted by: a REAL dog lover on Apr 26, 2008 at 06:12 PM
I've had to deal with selfish immature spoiled brats of dog owners everywhere I've lived. At first I would smile, wave, talk to them and ask them to just keep their pets at home. But, like the self-centered, spoiled brats they are, all they did was act offended at me and harass me because of it. I find it absurd the spoiled brats who chose to show their true stinginess by posting on here that anyone should be on the side of the Normans. They bought the dog, took it home, named it and then turned it loose on the neighborhood. Just because you call your pet a cute name or take pictures of it once in a while doesn't make you a good dog owner. The Normans sure aren't. I feel sorry for Linda having to live around so many jerks, and can't find anything to blame her for after reading all your selfish, hateful comments. She obeyed the law. The Normans didn't. They are the bad ones-not her.

Posted by: BUY A LEASH on Apr 26, 2008 at 04:57 PM
Starke County IS covered by the Indiana State Leash Law, and the sheriff department there is REQUIRED to enforce said leash law. The authorities told Linda to shoot the strays, and even if they hadn't she had every right to shoot a 100 pound beast that she didn't know that was charging at her with a large hairy side-kick right beside it. It's laying down in the photo, and I think it looks intimidating. Only a moron would think she did anything wrong. Only a moron would fail to condemn the Norman's for neglecting their responsibilities as the dogs owners and allowing them to roam the neighborhood. Only a moron would not notice what a blatant attitude of self-centered entitlement the Norman's displayed WHILE THEY WERE AT FAULT! They should be arrested for allowing/maintaining a public nusiance. Who do they think they are, anyway? HEY, NORMANS- IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU!

Posted by: Tom Location: Leesburg on Apr 26, 2008 at 04:08 PM
Just have to respond to Lindas neighbors. Even in a "rural area" your not allowed to let your dogs roam unattended. And if she did shoot the dog just to make a point (which we can't say she did) I hope you idiots got it. People are tired of dealing with stray animals and it's not their responsibility to find the owners or do anything else except protect their property. Dogs can be very dangerous! It's you dog owners who need to know where your dogs are at all times and not ours to to tell you where they are. Even in a rural area. It's not supposed to be "just part of country living". My father grew up in a rural area and he's told me plenty of stories where farmers shot the neighbors dog for harassing their livestock only to get an apology from the DOG OWNING NEIGHBOR the next day. Of course that was in a day when people accepted responsibilty for their actions. Linda did nothing wrong, and if I lived close enough to her I take my dog to her for grooming just to support her.

Posted by: kathy Location: lakeville on Apr 26, 2008 at 03:49 PM
As a responseble pet owner your dogs belong in YOUR own yard not roaring freely over other peoples lawns. Not only is dangerous for your pets they could be poisoned or cause a car accident.I keep my dogs at home where they belong. Having been bitten as a child twice by roaming pets it is very scary. Lucky for me the dogs that bit me had their shots but my sister wasn't so lucky had to have rabies shoots and they HURT.

Posted by: Karen Location: South Bend on Apr 26, 2008 at 03:48 PM
She must be a completely stupid heartless idiot to shoot a gun at a dog. ANY DOG !! I would never take my dog to a dog hater like that. She felt "threatened" because the owner yelled at her for shooting his dog.She shoud have been worried. I hope she does feel horrible, but it is the American to not care about anyone else but yourself. Linda fits that bill.Sounds like most of the people that know her - think she is a jerk.

Posted by: Dixie Location: South Bend on Apr 26, 2008 at 03:26 PM
You don't SHOOT dogs. It the police told her to shoot dogs then whoever told her that should be investigated. There are plenty of cruel, money grubbing people in dog "rescue" or the dog service area(not all be any means, but people around this area will known to whom I am referring). So this groomer is one of those, obviously. To the dog owners: please keep your dog away from this moronic greedy non-dog-loving family.

Posted by: FED UP Location: Knox on Apr 26, 2008 at 03:01 PM
my daughter was bitten by a neighbors "teddy bear" that was constantly roaming the neighborhood!! they were notified by the police many times to keep their dog contained. it is now buried in my back 40. we have an underground fence to keep our dogs where they belong. there are constantly other dogs coming to our yard to do their business and "visit" with our dogs, and we have many times over the years been threatened by these dogs. animal control in starke county is a joke. he has a full time job and was never evalable when we called. we quit trying years ago. since my child was bitten, we shoot first now and ask questions later. i'll not let my children be hurt by other peoples "teddy bears" again. KEEP YOUR DOGS HOME!!!

Posted by: barb Location: St. Joe on Apr 26, 2008 at 02:32 PM
Reading some of these comments it sounds like the people closest to them hold a higher reguard for the dog than they do the woman. Ha!!

Posted by: Lou Location: Knox on Apr 26, 2008 at 02:15 PM
We have the same problem in town, also dogs poopin in your yard where your children play (with or without their owner with them) or they are baking all night, I for one am fed up...something needs to be done

Posted by: rick on Apr 26, 2008 at 01:43 PM
since when did a person living a mile away become a "neighbor"? a neighbor lives on your block and you know their name. a stranger lives a mile away and your dog should not be in their yard for any reason whatsoever.

Posted by: Anonymous on Apr 26, 2008 at 01:35 PM
My family and I live very close to Linda.  If the dogs were causing so much heartache she should of taken the time to call the few neighbor's around her and this would not even be an issue.  We live in a rural area, deer, raccoons and cats on your property is just part of country living.  Knowing Linda I believe she shot the dog to prove a point .......not to defend herself!!!!! 

Posted by: rick on Apr 26, 2008 at 01:18 PM
keep your dogs in your OWN yard. YOU have NO right to let them run free!

Posted by: Spyce and Lily's mommy Location: Goshen on Apr 26, 2008 at 12:47 PM
I cannot believe the groomer actually shot the dog; however I do understand her wanting to keep the dogs off her property. We have an underground fence that keeps our dogs in our neighborhood and it works great!! It does not however keep the other dogs that 'accidentally get out' out of our yard. My dogs have to go to bed while we are working (we have at home offices) because the dogs that are allowed to run get into our yard and our dogs want them out and bark their silly heads off making it impossible to think, let alone work. Again, she definitely should not have shot the dog, but I certainly do understand wanting to. She should not have to pay any portion of the owner's bills - maybe the dog that was shot and Chloe should be given to someone who would really take care of them, walk them regularly on a leash and keep them home when they should be.

Posted by: D Location: SB on Apr 26, 2008 at 12:46 PM
100% Teddy Bear. That's what every owner of a pitbull or rottweiler who chews a child's face off says.

Posted by: Debbie Location: Knox on Apr 26, 2008 at 12:36 PM
To the few people who do not know Linda and made the nasty comments, you do not know what you are talking about. I have known Linda for over 20 years. She has always done our dogs grooming. She is the best because she gets along with them and never has to use drugs on them like some other groomers.Yes I will continual to go to her because I know that she will protect my pet from animals that their owner don't care about them. And let me tell you if I felt that my family or my pet or myself were in any danger That dog would not be getting the second chance that Linda gave it. It would be dead.

Posted by: joe Location: starke county on Apr 26, 2008 at 12:18 PM
i think it was irresponsible for the owners, but the shooter went too far. the only time you should shoot a dog is when it is attacking somebody. it's rediculous how she thought it was a stray when apparently it's always walking around the neighborhood and it has tags. you would think she would know by now who it belonged too. shooter should face animal cruelty charges and the dog should be taken away from the owners. that simple.

Posted by: Patricia Location: Elkhart on Apr 26, 2008 at 12:13 PM
First of all this woman should never be allowed to groom animals less own one. Proper steps would have been to call the humane society to pick the animal up. When dog and cats run loose the owners should be fined big time not just $100.00. If you love your animal then you don't let it run. You take every precation to keep it safe. Remember that animals are not to blame for being loose, the owner is so he or she are the ones that need to be sought after. All pets should be microchipped so when they run loose the owners will be fined. After a second incidence the rights of that owner owning a pet should be permently taken away. As far as the groomer she should not be allowed to groom or own animals EVER! I have had pets all my life and not once has one ran loose nor never will. They are like my children,part of my family. There are cases when pets find a way out, that is where microchips would be very benificial. We need an official in Indiana to crack down on animal abuse laws.

Posted by: Ann Location: Elkhart on Apr 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM
To "me" in Mishawaka, you are the nutty one. Dogs are not people. I am certain you would not let stray people run around and crap on your property or chase your animals or run tword you. Why do you think these people should have to put up with stray dogs? Animal control is a joke. The only way to handle this situation was to handle it themselves. They did the right thing by shooting the dog. The only sad thing is that the dog did not die quickly. Now it has a long road of recovery ahead of it. At least it will not be running around any time soon. It is good this subject is coming to a head. I hope common sense prevails in the justice system.

Posted by: Charm Location: Indiana on Apr 26, 2008 at 12:06 PM
I just noticed the number of people who are swearing they won't take their animals to 'that woman' for grooming. Let me be clear on this. Do you put your Fluffy or Spot on a leash when you take him or her to the groomer? Walk from your car to the building? Is Fluffy or Spot tough enough to handle being attacked by two loose very large dogs while still confined on a leash? How long would it take two dogs (that makes a pack) to kill your pet who is on a leash, heading to the groomer's building? This groomer is trying to maintain a safe environment on her property. Yes, shooting a dog is horrible, and I bet the groomer feels horrible, since she is in a business that loves dogs. Dealing with the results of dog attacks is much more horrible.

Posted by: Anonymous on Apr 26, 2008 at 11:59 AM
I know Linda and I know Peyton. I'd be more afraid of Linda!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous Location: grovertown on Apr 26, 2008 at 11:45 AM
I know that area and she doesn't live around that many people. If these dogs were causing so much heartache, take alittle time and check with your neighbors before shooting.   You would think a person who makes her living from taking care of "dogs" would do that before "shooting first and asking questions later"!! It's very strange!!

Posted by: Charm Location: Noble county, Indiana on Apr 26, 2008 at 11:41 AM
We no longer live in an age where we can just turn dogs loose to go wherever they wish. Btw, these are not toy poodles this woman shot at. A German Sheppard and a Siberian Husky? I love dogs, and I would be scared to death if two of those were running loose. One dog is a pet. Two dogs make a pack. Most owners do not realize how agressive and different pets can be when off 'running'. Too bad about the vet bills, but blaiming someone else for your lax ownership is not the solution. You are doing your community no favors by insisting that loose dogs are okay. How will you feel when the local farmer decides his 'pet' bulls can run loose around town? Good fences make good neighbors, and they make fences for dogs too.

Posted by: animal lover Location: USA on Apr 26, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Sounds to me that both sides are at fault!! The owner for allowing his animals loose, and the shooter for shooting the animal. Where has Animal control been in regards to these previous complaints?

Posted by: L on Apr 26, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Does the leash law not exist in Stark County? If a person owns a dog, keep track of him or her. Stop letting the animals roam the roads.

Posted by: neighbor Location: Starke County on Apr 26, 2008 at 11:29 AM
My family and I live very close to Sikory's.  It all seems alittle suspicious to us!  If she was so upset about these dogs on her property why have we NEVER seen those animals by our homes!!!!  We live in a very rural area, we but up with deer, raccoons, skunks all sorts of animals on our land, it's just a part of country living.  Knowing Linda I believe she was ticked that the dogs were on her land and shot them to make a point.....not to defend herself!!! I'm sure there's more to the story then she's telling.

Posted by: mom Location: niles on Apr 26, 2008 at 11:15 AM
I agree with Kim..both her and her husband were firing bullets at these animals. Don't you think that is a little gun happy? Then we see the random bullet who hit a child in Elkhart...maybe it is because of people who react instead of act!

Posted by: Just Me Location: Nappanee on Apr 26, 2008 at 10:40 AM
I am so glad to see most of you understand the law and agree with keeping your animals in your own yard. As to calling the Humane Shelter: Anytime I've called them in the last 30 years, I am ALWAYSD told "Yes, we'll come pick up the animal if you catch it first!" Fine thing to say to s disabled person! They are no help and I totally understand why this lady did what she did. She also had a responsibility to protect the animals in her care. I sure wouldn't leave my dog with a groomer who has stray dogs in her yard! Good for you!!

Posted by: Goshen Resident Location: Goshen on Apr 26, 2008 at 09:21 AM
That's why people should keep their dogs tied. I would have shot it too. If I would have felt threatened. I live in a neighborhood that has 3 pit bulls and an over zealous black lab. I have used pepper spray on the lab, because it's been in my yard barking and growling at me. I feared for my safety and if people are too stupid to keep their dogs to home and a neighbor feels threatened by them...let me tell you it's going to be my life or my kids over some dog.

Posted by: to dog lover Location: Topeka on Apr 26, 2008 at 09:07 AM
No, I do not allow my puppy out of my house without her collar and leash! You're extremely quick to assume-all it does is make an a** out of you. My puppy knows to stay in the yard and not even attempt to walk out to the road/sidewalk while on her leash-she's not allowed out otherwise. Responsibility comes with owning a pet and I will take full resposibility for mine. I merely stated that if someone comes to MY property and threatens my dog or kills her, THAT's when I'll be all over them as well as my family. Why not READ the whole post instead of assuming stuff or ask me a question? I made no mention whatsoever of letting her run loose and while I take precautions when I see an dog I don't know, I'm not going to take a gun and shoot it unless it's THREATENING me. Doesn't sound like this dog (Peyton) was that type. He probably recognized her and wanted to play.

Posted by: used to live in Starke Co. Location: South Bend on Apr 26, 2008 at 09:02 AM
To "to cb and Linda": You are ignorant! That's all I can say about you. To everyone else who thinks it's okay to let your dog run free, think again: I lived outside of S. B. city limits on 5 acres and there was nothing Animal Control or the police could do about my idiot neighbor who let their pit bull run loose. My daughter was a toddler at that time and we couldn't even play in our yard. This dog would come and stand by our back door. I called authorities several times, but they could do nothing except talk to the owners about "being responsible pet owners". Their hands were tied because there is no law that protected me in the county. I don't own a gun, but let me tell you, if I did have one, that dog would have been toast! The neighbor finally got rid of it only because I became a thorn in their side and bit**ed at them on a fairly regular basis. I wasn't about to wait around until this ignored feral animal bit my daughter's face off!

Posted by: eric Location: south bend on Apr 26, 2008 at 08:54 AM
its stupid to let your dog roam, what if it got hit be a car? Irresponsible dog owners.

Posted by: Amy Location: South Bend on Apr 26, 2008 at 08:41 AM
To "Appauled" (and you might want to check the spelling on that!): Patty is not an idiot at all! You sound like one of those parents who Lynn speaks of in her post! (You're the idiot! No one was going to shoot any children! Your post is ridicules.)

Posted by: Tom Location: Leesburg on Apr 26, 2008 at 08:39 AM
It's refreshing to see what most people are saying on this stream. I have had to put up with so many bad neighbors dogs roaming through my property that I was starting to think I was the last person on the planet who understood it is the pet owners responsiblity to control their animals. It's nice to see that most people understand. But I do have to ask those of you who keep saying that Linda is a dog groomer and should have been able to tell these dogs were not threatening. HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY WEREN"T THREATENING!? You weren't there. And as you all keep saying, she is a dog groomer and probably knows how to read animals. So I'd trust her judgement. It's real easy to sit nice and safe in front of your computer and say she overreacted, but these are 2 huge dogs that she had to deal with face to face. And probably, by the owners own confession, not the first time. She and those of us who agree with her are not the animal haters here. It's the people who allways let their animals roam.

Posted by: Shirley on Apr 26, 2008 at 08:29 AM
Dog owners need to have a bigger handle on their pets. I was taking care of my 18 month old granddaughter at her house last summer, playing in her front yard. All of a sudden I see this large black dog running across the street straight at us. I scooped her up and ran into the house. This dog was obviously a puppy, looked somewhat like a doberman. It ended up tearing holes in the screen on the front door. It probably just wanted to play, but the fact is that if I hadn't seen the dog running across the street, would it have pounced on my granddaughter? As is, it was barking so much, it did scare her and now when she sees a dog she starts crying. I have no clue where this dog came from, but the fact is even if it just wanted to play, it could have severely injured by grandbaby. Dog owners need to either have fenced yards or keep your dogs on a leash. BE A LITTLE MORE RESPONSIBLE!

Posted by: to cb and linda Location: South Bend on Apr 26, 2008 at 08:16 AM
Typical behavior for people who live in Starke County!

Posted by: Patty Location: Home on Apr 26, 2008 at 08:04 AM
Appauled.. If my dogs were in someone elses yard and got shot I would feel very sad for my loss and regret that they escaped from their fenced in yard/safe haven I have provided for them. I would not blame the 'shooter'. The Normans did not give a rats behind if their dogs were crapping in someone else yard or stirring up their dogs causing commotion at the groomers property. The groomer has a responsibility to protect her family and the animals in her care. I have dogs and I do not allow them to run the hood because I do not want them shot. Meantime I have to put up with the mentality of others whose cats are ccrapping in in my flower beds, stalking my bird feeders, causing my dogs to bark at all hours of the night and others dogs roaming around in my yard. I love dogs and feel sorry for them when they have ignorant owners but I would not hesitate to shoot one if I felt a threat to me or my own dogs. I have no doubt the groomer is compassionate for animals and would do business there.

Posted by: DOG LOVER Location: Mishawaka on Apr 26, 2008 at 07:35 AM
I am sorry for the husky's suffering, but there is another viewpoint. I approached 2 stray dogs with collars to see if I could get the owner's name to report to animal control, and both dogs turned on me and snapped. I was not injured but I learned my lesson about assuming all dogs are friendly. Even the nicest dog can attack a human or pets!

Posted by: cb Location: knox on Apr 26, 2008 at 06:12 AM
People are fast to judge people, that they don't know. I know Linda and she also grooms my dog. She is very good with him. If a stray dog comes in my yard, it will be dropped. I have had 2 of my children attacked from stray dogs. The way I feel Linda was in the right to do what she did. People of Starke County it is time to wake up, if you want a pet keep it home, they are your responsibility, if your animals get on the road and create a accident, you are responsible finacially. So...since the dog was able to roam the neighbor hood,the pet owner should have to pay the vet bills

Posted by: wayne on Apr 26, 2008 at 05:35 AM
First of all your dog should be tied up. Second she should be concerned about her own animals and family. Third who knows if she felt threaten. The way this country is heading she might be headed to court for attempted murder!!!!

Posted by: huh? on Apr 26, 2008 at 01:55 AM
They should fine the owners for letting their dogs roam loose and unattended.Bottom line is if they were responsible for their animals in the first place they would'nt of got shot!

Posted by: Me Location: Mishawaka on Apr 26, 2008 at 12:56 AM
People for gods sake watch your dogs as if they were your children.. You have SICK twisted minds like LINDA SIROKY and her HUSBAND who would not hesitate to shoot a pet dog, God forbid the poor dog who accidently ran away and end up in this JERKS yard.. To all who bring your dog to this IDIOT for grooming, I hope you have second thoughts!!

Posted by: Kim Location: South Bend on Apr 26, 2008 at 12:42 AM
If someone has time to go in the house, grab a loaded gun and return outside to shoot an animal, then I think it's safe to say they have time to call animal control. No, the dog didn't belong on your property but, that doesn't give you the right to be a gun happy fool either. As human beings, we have the ability to reason. Now the animal suffers when you could have just as easily had the owners cited. Because Mrs. Siroky chose such a violent way to respond when other options were available, she should pay the vet bill.

Posted by: Bunny Location: Home on Apr 26, 2008 at 12:32 AM
I love dogs and cats and have rescued many. I will admit I do use caution when I see a loose dog in the area. You just don't know and obviously had been happening a lot to warrant this type of reaction. Isn't it the owner's responsibility to keep their dog in their yard or on a leash at all time? The owner obviosly admitted she lets the dog loose. I am sorry your dog was shot, but as a past dog owner, I lived in a up scale neighborhood in Elkhart, went out to take my dog off here leash and the neighbors large golden retriever came on my porch and bit my beagle puppy. Her dog was clearly out of their yard and on my property and my dog was in my control, I almost killed that dog trying to get it off my beagle puppy. So you decide. I might have done the same, thank God I didn't have too.

Posted by: Tracy on Apr 26, 2008 at 12:10 AM
I agree with most of the comments made here with regard to keeping track of your animals. Unfortunately, I also live in a neighborhood where many neighbors feel it's okay to let their dogs/cats roam. We used to have a sand box for our 2 kids to play in but got rid of it when the neighbor's cats started hanging out in our yard. Who wants to play with poopy sand?

Posted by: Julie on Apr 26, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Amen, Patty! Not that I think shooting the dog was the right course of action, but the dogs should be in their OWN yard or walked on a leash--not roaming free! I don't want dogs in my yard, either. I have a small child and any dog that I don't know scares me. I hope the dog recovers fully and I hope the owners learn from this incident.

Posted by: MiMiPLR Location: South Bend on Apr 25, 2008 at 11:59 PM
If a strange dog is on your property, then you owe no one any apology or explanation for shooting it. An explanation and an apology should be required of the so-called "dog owners" who allow the animals to roam. If people really care for their animals, they will keep them home in order to prevent something like this from happening. Too bad the animal paid the price for the neglect of the owners. The owners should be paying a fine for allowing the dog to roam. The dog owners should at least have to pay for the ammunition their neighbor required to rid their yard of a nuisance. Charges??? The pet owners broke the law, not the home owner. Compassion for the dog starts with the owners of the dog; if they don't care, no one does.

Posted by: Emily Location: South Bend on Apr 25, 2008 at 11:58 PM
While I understand that letting one's dogs run free around the neighborhood is not the best idea, I DO NOT understand why this woman though it would be appropriate for her (and her husband) to go after these dogs. Due to her occupation, she obviously would be familiar with the behavior of dogs. If she felt that they were dangerous, why in the world would she think it intelligent to confront them? And I find it rather disturbing that the authorities gave her permission to shoot at dogs that may wander onto her property. While the owners may have used a littler more discretion in keeping their pets close to home, I think Siroky was out of line with her actions.

Posted by: appauled Location: granger on Apr 25, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Patty you are an idiot..... How would you feel if someone hurt one of your pets. Maybe it would be ok if it were a young child as well. What is this world coming to?

Posted by: Julie on Apr 25, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Somebody tell both parties that they make this stuff called fence.

Posted by: Robert Location: Knox on Apr 25, 2008 at 11:01 PM
I hope this story will convince others to build fences or pens to keep their animals safe. I have no sympathy for the Normans. I exercise regularly in the country near my home and I have to combat stray dogs almost every time. It is scary to be far from home and have stray dogs barking and stalking you.

Posted by: N on Apr 25, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Shoot the woman. Tit for tat.

Posted by: Stacey Location: Buchanan on Apr 25, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Isn't there a LEASH law??

Posted by: Jim Location: S.B. on Apr 25, 2008 at 10:25 PM
they are both at fault, if the dogs wernt running loose this would not have happened, but why would u put the "stray dogs" between you and your husband, so when he fired the warning shot they would run to you?

Posted by: dog lover on Apr 25, 2008 at 10:23 PM
To what a loser: I bet you are a dog owner who doesn't care where your dog goes either, lets them out to do their "business" in someone else's yard, then waits for them to come home. Have you ever lived on a farm and had animals killed by dogs? I suppose if the dog had been hit by a car the owners would say the driver is responsible for the dog's medical bills. When are people going to take responsibility for their animals, kids, etc. istead of blaming someone else for their ignorance? If you let your pets run loose, you should blame yourself for whatever happens to them. Everyone else's property is not yours--put up a fence.

Posted by: G Location: Starke Co. on Apr 25, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Good for you Linda! I am tired of other peoples dogs roaming my property, chasing my livestock, threatening my children, making a "mess" in my yard. Your Neighbors should have been more considerate of your property! They should pay for their own vet bills.

Posted by: Sarah Location: South Bend on Apr 25, 2008 at 10:08 PM
I feel that shooting the dog when there was no immiediate danger is drastic, thats why there is such a thing called animal control, if there is a roaming dog, they should of not been such a crazy person firing a gun, Although owners need to keep their dogs on their own property too, but I do understand the occasional mishap when they get loose, it happens but they shouldn't let their dog roam constantly for the own dogs safety.

Posted by: mark Location: granger on Apr 25, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Dogs, cats whatever. Keep your noise makin', poop dropin' hair loosin', peein' on everything, dander spreadin', garbage eatin', howlin', yowlin',pests in your own yard, or thier fair game like they should be! (not everyone thinks your pets are cute just because you do.

Posted by: Confused Location: Walkerton on Apr 25, 2008 at 09:57 PM
First of all, there is NO good reason for this person to have shot the dog. It seems she was LOOKING for a reason to shoot the dog. And, by the way, where does she do her grooming business.........that way we can avoid taking our dogs there!! Also, it really concerns me that there are so many people who don't like animals. My feeling is that if you don't like animals, there is something wrong with you. Scarey! Yes, the owners should keep their animals on their own land, but still.........do you really think this neighbor didn't know who's dog it was?? I think she probably did, but just didn't care. Again, where do you work so I can avoid having my dog groomed by you!! If you treat your neighbor's dog with such disregard, how do you treat the dogs who are unsupervised when they are with you??

Posted by: George Location: Marshall County on Apr 25, 2008 at 09:56 PM
Keep your dog at home. You have a right to have dogs on your property and your neighbors have a right not to have your dogs on their property.

Posted by: shoot first bill Location: southbend on Apr 25, 2008 at 09:38 PM
Good to know that if some of you people venture onto my property that is posted "No Trespassing", that you agree that it is okay for me to shoot you. Why would any cop tell someone to shoot at anything? If you have problems with strays, please call the Humane society to come and pick them up.

Posted by: Anonymous on Apr 25, 2008 at 09:10 PM
Dogs cannot be allowed to run wild. The story mentions more than one dog. Two dogs running around together are certainly a danger as they are more likely to be agressive. The dogs were a mile from home and on someone elses property. She had every right to shoot. It is a sad story, but the ones at fault are the owners of the dog that got shot.

Posted by: shocked Location: south bend on Apr 25, 2008 at 08:47 PM
I agree that the owners of the Husky should not allow their dog to 'run free'. It is disrespectful to all the neighbors on many levels. On the other hand why did this lady resort to such measures? Cruelty to animals! Us city people call animal control when we have problems like this! I hope her grooming business is affected by this! I wouldn't trust her with my dog!

Posted by: Connie the real me Location: Warsaw on Apr 25, 2008 at 08:42 PM
By the way, for anyone too juvenile to understand the article- the NORMAN'S are the BAD GUYS here! If they cared about their pets they would have kept them home! Without owners, pets are vunerable to all kinds of harm- attacks from dogs allowed to roam by idiots, vehicles striking them, poisonous substances in places no one expected a pet, wild animals, diseases spread by wild animals and strays allowed to roam by idiots like the Norman's... So, if you DON'T know where your dog is EVERY SECOND that it is outside your house-you are a lousy pet owner( and a rotten neighbor) and should have your pets removed by the animal control/shelter in your area.

Posted by: Connie-the real me Location: Warsaw on Apr 25, 2008 at 08:37 PM
You're kidding me! They break the law and let TWO HUGE BEASTS OF DOGS roam A MILE from home, and they think the prosecutor should pursue a case against HER! What jerks! The prosecutor should pursue a case-AGAINST ALL SCUM WHO LET THEIR DOGS ROAM. It is a violation of the leash law, and that makes it A CRIME! Shame on any law enforcement official who knowingly let this occasion pass without writing the NORMAN'S 2 tickets for violating the leash law! SHAME ON YOU!

Posted by: dave Location: northern IN on Apr 25, 2008 at 08:30 PM
since I have 2 furkids,that Im very attached to,and I dont let them wander about,but they do have several acres of fenced in area to romp in, I have to toss my 2cents in,. this is a bad situation all the way around.On this(( They say he roams around the neighborhood regularly,))ahem, dogs are not supposed to be roaming around,,keep thinking indiana law has something on this,, then to call someone a neighbor, but they are a mile down the road, I have lived in the same place over 30yrs and dont know whos dog is who a mile down my road, 1/4 or 1/2mile I do know, but not no mile,.I dont know, but I think this could have been prevented, by the dogs owners, keeping the dog closer to home

Posted by: Lynn Location: South Bend on Apr 25, 2008 at 08:23 PM
"They said he roamed the neighborhood regularly." News flash for all you dog lovers out there (and I am a big one, by the way): Other people don't love your dogs like you do. They don't enjoy your dog's company like you do. Mr. and Mrs. Norman seem pretty self-righteous considering they were the negligent ones! They remind me of those parents who let their kids terrorize a restaurant while others are trying to enjoy a meal, smiling the entire time while everyone else endures their children. If you've ever lived in the country, (and I have) you should know how problematic and dangerous stray dogs can be. I can see why Siroky reacted the way she did, especially if the dogs rushed her. A German Shepherd and a Siberian Husky can seem pretty intimidating. ..

Posted by: Ed Location: Goshen on Apr 25, 2008 at 08:18 PM
It's too bad that the dog has to pay the price for it's owners stupidity and irresponsibility. I don't know about Starke county but Elkhart county has a leash law that basically says you must keep your pets (including cats) ON YOUR PROPERTY. Even if there is no such law in your area common sense, courtesy and respect for your neighbors should tell you to keep your pets home. After all not everyone enjoys having your cutesy pet around and it is THEIR PROPERTY, NOT YOURS! And why should they have to put up with and clean up after your pet? I also see no need for the police to spend their time nor taxpayers money on investigating this. Furthermore the Sirokys shouldn't owe or pay a dime of the costs incurred by the Normans as it is the irresponsibility (FAULT) that caused this situation. Fact is the Normans should apologize to the Sirokys not the other way around. Maybe the county should remove the other dog from the Normans as they are definitely not responsible pet owners.

Posted by: David Location: Starke County on Apr 25, 2008 at 08:10 PM
What a stupid woman shooting this dog. Id never take my dogs to her to get them groomed.

Posted by: Amy Location: Plymouth on Apr 25, 2008 at 08:05 PM
Ever heard of a leash law??? It was your fault that your dog was injured. If you were a responsible pet owner you would always know where your pet is and never let it run unattended. It is one thing to let it run leashless on your property...but another thing to expect other people to let it run on theirs. I also think that you should not get any compensation, I think that this should be an expensive lesson for you to learn not to let your animals run loose. It doesn't matter if your dog is friendly or not...there is a leash law for a reason. In the futire maybe you will think twice before you let your dogs out. Next time it might not be so lucky to make it home.

Posted by: Patty Location: Home on Apr 25, 2008 at 07:59 PM
"But the Normans wonder how their friendly dogs, who were wearing tags and collars, could have appeared to be strays." Are you kidding me? Dog collars and tags are not what define whether a dog is a stray or not. The dog 'strayed' from home and was at someone elses house. The Dogs WERE STRAYS as soon as they left their owners property! These dogs must not be loved to much because most people I know keep them at home so they don't get hit by cars. We could just as easily be talking about how the leg was shattered by a car tire! Or how the dogs caused a major accident of a driver. Get real. If you can't be responsible for your pets, then don't have them! I am sure the owners will be paying their own vet bills here. You have to pay for your own mistakes and leaving your pets to roam free is a pretty stupid mistake.

Posted by: what a loser! Location: Topeka on Apr 25, 2008 at 07:59 PM
Why, pray tell, would you shoot a dog who is not threatening you? What kind of "authorities" would tell you to shoot them? It's called get on a phone and call animal control! She should pay for that poor dog's medical bills ON TOP of reimbursing this couple for the trips to Fort Wayne to check up on Peyton. All I can say is if anyone gets NEAR my puppy with a gun, they'd best watch their back if they hurt her with it, or worse yet, kill her. Not only will I be all over you, but my husband and kids will be, too! There are other ways to handle strays that are non-threatening other than shooting them with the intention to kill!

Posted by: Dave Location: South St. Joesph County on Apr 25, 2008 at 07:43 PM
I am sorry to hear of a pet dog being shot, but if the dog was a mile for the owners home and on the shooters property, she has a right to shoot. The dog may have been a safe dog to the owner and nearby neighbors, but the shooter has no idea what the dog would be like. If the shooter knew who's dog it was, as a good nieghbor, there should have been an effort to warn the owners, but not required. This is the United States and we do have property rights.

Posted by: Gregg Location: Michigan on Apr 25, 2008 at 07:42 PM
If you truly love your dog, then keep it under control. If an unsupervised animal is approaching a member of my family, I'm not going to take chances. If we can't get away from it or scare it away, then I must assume the animal is dangerous and threatening my loved ones.

Posted by: Lisa Location: Knox on Apr 25, 2008 at 07:40 PM
No the dogs should not have been allowed to be that far from home. At the same time a woman that works with dogs everyday should know the difference in a dog charging her, and one that is just running towards her. I have dogs myself, I would know the difference.

Posted by: A dog owner. Location: South Bend on Apr 25, 2008 at 07:37 PM
I don't believe in shooting dogs unless they're attacking. The neighbor with the wandering dog has no respect for others around them. To ask for funds to cover expences for their inconsideration, is wrong. It was bound to happen. Understand people, not everyone loves dogs. The ones who do, don't like cleaning up other neighbors animals messes. Get a fence, then they can roam all over "your" property.

Posted by: Kim E Location: Local on Apr 25, 2008 at 07:28 PM
The bottom line is that your 'Teddy Bear' is YOURS, Keep it with YOU. If you truly love your pets then you keep them at home where they belong. These people are oblivious to the idea that dogs are contained for a reason. I am guessing that they might not appreciate it if everyone had their same ideals and they had a bunch of stray dogs in THEIR yard. I can tell you this. I am a Hobby Show exhibitor/Breeder and my dogs live in the house but when they are out, they are safe in a fenced in yard and I have had stray dogs in tact lurking around here when one of my girls is in season. As many thousands of dollars as I have invested in my dogs, I would shoot to protect them. Keep your dogs home and pay your own bills that are a direct result of your ignorance in pet owning. I don't care how nice other peoples dogs are. They do not belong un-invited at someone elses house/property. I love dogs but many of them have careless owners. It's a huge problem with an easy fix. Keep them home!

Posted by: Marty Location: Niles on Apr 25, 2008 at 07:17 PM
Isn't it against the law in Starke Co. to let your dogs run wild? It should be. The dog owners are negligent, and should never believe that other property owners want their dogs on their property. We raise sheep and have had plenty of "friendly" dogs attack our animals. Believe me we are ready when dogs come on our property.

Posted by: Tom Location: Leesburg on Apr 25, 2008 at 07:15 PM
Our family has a dog and dogs are great. He never leaves the yard except on a leash. But why is it that so many people have dogs and don't want to be responsible for them. Indiana (like all states) has a state wide leash law. No dog is allowed to wander unattended by its owner. And anyone I've ever talked to who lets their dog wander is always SURE that their dog is just a big teddy bear and wouldn't hurt a flea. The problem is that they wouldn't know how their dog acts when it's out because THEY AREN'T THERE.Other people don't know your dog and they need to protect themselves and their property even if you think it's harmless. Quit making everyone else your dog sitter and you won't have to worry about this kind of thing happening. By the way what difference does it make that the lady who shot the dog is a dog groomer. Aren't dog groomers allowed to protect their property too?

Posted by: Dave Location: Marshall Co. on Apr 25, 2008 at 07:14 PM
I understand her questioning a seemingly stray dog on her property. And it is true that the people should have kept a better eye on their pet. But to shoot to kill these dogs was pretty you-know-what. She has an animal grooming operation? If I was the other people I would let others know of the disregard the shooter has for animals, strays or not. Thought they were going to attack her or something??? Yea, right.

Posted by: Dixie Location: Sturgis, Mi on Apr 25, 2008 at 07:09 PM
WHY??? In the world would anyone who loves their pets, let them RUN? Does Starke county not have a leash law? We had dogs & cats for over 40 years and trained our dogs where THEIR property was and they stayed on it. Maybe the Normans think like one of our neighbors...My property is mine and yours is mine too. I hope the prosecutor DOES NOTHING to the Sirokys.

Posted by: Anonymous on Apr 25, 2008 at 07:01 PM
keep you dog on YOUR LAND ! If the dog was on your land if would have been shot ! ill shoot any dog of cat thats not mine if its on my land !!!!

Posted by: Lisa Location: Cass county on Apr 25, 2008 at 06:59 PM
While i feel sorry for the dog its the owners who should take the blame. Those dogs should never have been left to roam anywhere they want to. Anything can happen to them from shootings to getting hit by a car and dying in a ditch. SHAME ON THE OWNERS. In my opinion you don't love your animal if you can't keep them safe. At home! That's what the law says. The owners should get tickets for letting them roam. It's just commom sense NOT to let your dogs roam.

Posted by: Svengali Location: Elkhart on Apr 25, 2008 at 06:47 PM
Good for her. Maybe people will learn they just can't turn animals loose on the public anymore, and expect us to like it. Its against the LAW to let your dogs run wild, and bite and kill people. And they do just read the news sometimes.

Posted by: Kim Location: Argos on Apr 25, 2008 at 06:45 PM
I am disgusted with the owners of this dog and their it's OK to 'roam the neighborhood' mentality. Pets are kept at home in fenced in yards to keep them safe. I live in the country and get so angered at dogs running free. I love my dogs and that is why I keep them in fenced in yards where they are safe from being shot, stolen, ran over, etc. You know, NOT everyone likes strange dogs running around in their yard. KEEP YOUR DOG AT HOME. Pay your own vet bills for this incident. This is the owners fault 100%. I do not condone shooting the dog, but come on, It's YOUR pet, why in the heck would you feel that everyone else should welcome it to their yard? I would be surprised if the law would side on the owners here. The headline should have been Irresponsible Pet owners cause their dog to get shot! This is exact kind of story that fuels PETA freaks to try to bring anti pet owning laws to those of us who care enough about our pets to keep them home, safe and protected.

Posted by: b on Apr 25, 2008 at 06:43 PM
Keep your dogs to yourself and this wont happen! I wouldnt apologize either. Typical society, its someone elses fault and I accept no responsibility for my actions! Its not my fault my dog was over there on their property...doing whatever it wants to...

Posted by: V Location: Welles on Apr 25, 2008 at 06:34 PM
It's unfortunate this Husky was shot with a pellet gun but there are al two sides. I personally experienced an attack by a neighbor's Husky who appeared to get along well with his young children and even me. One afternoon as I put away groceries my Pomeranian was tied in MY YARD. The Husky was continually let loose to get exercise because the owner was apparently too lazy to exercise the dog himself. He immediately attacked my dog who suffered life threatening injuries which resulted in over $1000 in veterinary bills. The neighbor was taken to small claims court and I was immediately awarded the full settlement after photos of my poor dog were shown with drain tubes and injuries. This woman had a right to protect her pets from a potentially aggressive dog. I personally do not trust the Husky breed not only because of my small pet but also because they are known predators. They can't be trusted. The owners should have fenced them in or walked them regularly to prevent wandering.

Posted by: Karen Location: Elkhart on Apr 25, 2008 at 06:34 PM
What trash this Siroky person must be. She needs to be prosecuted for her negligent actions.

Posted by: Pat Location: South Bend on Apr 25, 2008 at 06:26 PM
Guess I will never take my pets to that place for grooming.


WNDU News Poll
There are currently no active polls at this time.
Click here to view other polls on our site and past poll results.