VILLAS – On Aug. 16, Maximus, a cat owned by Kim Davis, was killed on Davis’ property on Bayshore Road. Maximus was killed by Gio, a Pit Bull/Labrador mix, owned by neighbor Hilary Raines. Davis alleges that the dog, Gio, wandered onto her property and attacked the cat, while Raines insists that the dog was only defending itself from an attack by the cat.
The events of Aug. 16 are not clear. According to Davis, Gio entered her property through a hole in her fence and attacked Maximus. While her daughter called 911, Davis tried to divert the dog’s attention, throwing items from the porch and yelling. She also said a neighbor tried to help to no avail.
Raines paints a different picture of the event. “The day of the incident, my fiancé, Michael Mattera, and I were at work and my 13 year-old son and his cousin were at home,” said Raines. “They went for a walk and apparently the front door didn’t close all the way. When they returned home they noticed Gio wasn’t in the house.”
The children ran to the alley on the side of Davis’ house and asked her if she had seen a white dog. According to Raines, Davis said, “Yes, it just killed my cat.” By that time, Animal Control Officer Zackary Nagnadita, arrived on the scene and took the dog. The dog was returned to Raines and Mattera’s home a short time later.
“Her gate was left open and that’s how my dog got into her yard,” said Raines. “Our neighbor’s cats walk around our property and cause the dogs to bark and carry on. Gio has never been aggressive towards any person or animal.”
Mattera added that Gio would have required stitches had they been able to seek medical attention for him following the attack.
“His face is scarred now and was torn up from his eyes to his cheeks,” said Raines. “We have no idea which animal actually started any type of confrontation. The cat may have attacked Gio since his behavior has never been aggressive. I feel awful for the cat, however, I honestly believe that Gio was defending himself.”
Raines said that she and Mattera have three dogs, including Gio, and all are friendly and well-trained. She also disputes Davis’ claim that she was unaware of the dog. “Our neighbor is well aware of our three dogs, as her daughter has played with them for the last three years,” said Raines. “In no way is she surprised to find out we have them.”
Mattera also added that Davis was warned to keep her cats off his property. He alleges the cats caused $1,800 worth of damage to his swimming pool.
A court date had been set for Aug. 29, but according to Lower Township Court Administrator Elizabeth Byrne, the date was pushed to Sept. 12 because Nagnadita was late in submitting the paperwork, which included summonses for a loose dog and for owning a potentially dangerous dog. Byrne thought that Nagnadita’s delay was because of confusion over the dog’s owner, but she declined to speak on his behalf.
Once the case goes before a judge, he or she will determine whether the dog should be deemed a “potentially dangerous dog” or be euthanized. If the dog is not euthanized, Raines could be required to build a secure 12×12 foot compound with a concrete bottom and double doors. Signs notifying the public of a vicious animal would also have to be posted on the property and be visible from 100 feet away. No one under the age of 18 would be permitted to walk the dog and the dog would need to be muzzled while in public. Additionally, the licensing fees for the dog would cost $700 a year. These conditions would remain throughout the dog’s lifetime, even if the owner would relocate.
According to the law concerning potentially dangerous dogs, “an animal control officer shall seize and impound a dog when the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the dog” committed one of the following acts.
a) The dog attacked a person and caused death or serious bodily injury.
b) The dog caused bodily injury to a person during an unprovoked attack and poses a serious threat of harm to persons or domestic animals.
c) The dog engaged in dog fighting activities.
d) The dog has been trained, tormented, badgered, baited or encouraged to engage in unprovoked attacks upon persons or domestic animals.
Additionally, the law states “the dog shall be impounded until the final disposition as to whether the dog is vicious or potentially dangerous. Subject to the approval of the municipal health officer, the dog may be impounded in a facility or other structure agreeable to the owner.”
Raines and Mattera claim Gio was returned because the responding officer did not see the dog as a threat. Lower Township Police Captain Thomas Beeby confirmed that Nagnadita determined the dog to be non-threatening; however, Beeby did explain the responding officer was unsure of how to proceed regarding what could be considered a potentially dangerous dog. Multiple attempts to reach Nagnadita were unsuccessful.
Lower Township Animal Control Officer Don Montgomery said that in some cases a dog could be confined in the home, should the Department of Health find the structure agreeable. A representative from the Cape May County Department of Health said that the department would only become involved if the dog had been exposed to rabies.
Gio was surrendered to Animal Control on Sept. 1 and is currently being held at the Cape May County Animal Shelter. Both Mattera and Raines are confident Gio will be exonerated. “In no way will my dog be found vicious,” said Raines. “He lives with two other dogs and our children. He truly is a sweetheart and should not be punished for something that he is not responsible for.”
While Mattera and Raines believe Gio was attacked first, Davis is adamant that the dog attacked her cat, unprovoked. “My daughter is traumatized,” said Davis. “My neighbor, who tried to help during the attack, is traumatized. People need to be aware of their rights when something like this happens.”
Villas – That is EXACTLY who we need. …people with NO experience in Federal jobs.
