Tim Walker shares Spork-related correspondence

No doubt you have heard about Spork, the dachshund who bit a lab tech in Lafayette, Colorado and whose owners were hit with criminal charges by the bitten lab tech. Here is a post from Tim Walker, Spork's owner, on the SAVE SPORK Facebook group. The "Bensman" that Tim refers to is Lafayette City Council member Terry Bensman.

Tim Walker

Just wanted to let you know that we responded the following to the editor at WestWord today in response to the article to clarify some points.

Hi Michael,

I'm glad that you wrote the story regarding another perspective
regarding our pet Spork. There are a few things you should be aware of
and I'd like the opportunity to set the record straight!

1) "Bensman says he doesn't begrudge Tim and Kelly Walker, Spork's
owners, for spending many thousands of dollars defending their dog,
although he believes the price is so high because of a lawyer change
and various court maneuvers done by their choice"

The truth is we made a mistake. We hired a lawyer that came highly
recommended and paid him $2,500. He fouled up the submissions on our
behalf and it was very frustrating because we kept telling him that
the state law excludes vets for months. He said "that didn't exist".
When I mailed him the physical law (in December!) here is his unedited
response:

"I was unaware of this statute, passed in 2004. Haven’t handled a dog
bite case since 2000 or 2001. We’ll be able to put this statute to
use both in pretrial discussions with City Attorney and at trial, if
necessary. Shows Legislature views vet employees and dog groomers as
having essentially “assumed the risk” of bites. Thanks, [Name
Deleted]"

We could not leave our pet in the hands in someone who hadn't even
done basic research of the law. We sought at that time to find someone
who knew the law so we hired the Animal Law Center and paid them
$3,500 which we have spent. It will probably cost us another $4,000 to
proceed. That makes $10,000 we have spent fighting this charge and
this does not include time, loss of work, and incredible stress. If
Mr. Bensman wants to pay his his son or daughter's house down payment
to prove himself innocent in his home town he is welcome to it. Or if
he knows a better way than hiring a lawyer, I'd like to know it. That
is exactly what we were planning to use this money for and probably a
house in Lafayette. This probably won't happen now until we can save
again and it will not be here. Thank you for calling this "legal
maneuvering" without even a basic clue as to what happened. Trust us,
this is a huge strain financially and we will probably have to finance
our freedom but we will fight this charge. Not just for us but for
Wiggles and other animals suffering from inhumane laws.

2) Bensman says he's checked around, and the folks with whom he's
spoken only one remember one euthanization in the past couple of
years.

I do not know the numbers since 2007 (the law was only one year old at
the time) but everyone must be sensitive to the fact that 25 family's
have MOVED TO AVOID HAVING THEIR DOG EUTHANIZED OR KENNELLED. Can you
imagine the stress of that? It is the decision we have made as well.
We will move, if Lafayette continues to press this. We will not live
in a City that operates like this nor can we be responsible pet owners
with the existing laws and attitudes here. That's too bad, we've been
spending our money in Lafayette for 10 years and we have rescued one
Dachshund and will most likely rescue more in our time. Please know,
that, despite Mr. Bensman's rough homework, when we took Spork to the
Louisville Animal Hospital a week later (who performed what was the
originally scheduled surgery), the Vet told us that "this probably
will not have a good outcome for Spork" and was quite upset. We
inferred that they've had to actually do this unbelievably sad deed in
the past. The law allows euthanasia for the ticket we were holding at
the sole discretion of the judge. Would you leave it solely to that
avenue if it was your animal family member and you saw how this was
headed? I did not sense any compassion or respect for our rights in
Mr. Bensman's words. We are very saddened by them,

3) In it, Dodge says that he'll argue for this particular loophole to
be closed after the current controversy has been resolved.

Isn't that swell? Let's acknowledge that the law is screwing us over
and then wait until after we've all spent more money to do something
about it? This is the most preposterous thing we have ever seen in our
lives. We are flabbergasted that this law was analyzed for 5 months
and this time-bomb was just waiting to happen. Can you imagine the
ramifications if this goes forward? In my estimation, flat out,
ultimately, it would mean people simply could not take the risk to be
animal owners and any dog in a pound that even looks mean will die
there. People should be aware that the law in Lafayette states. "Any
animal which has caused injury to any person or animal or which has
unprovokedly attacked any person or animal or which has approached any
person or animal in a terrorizing manner or apparent attitude of
attack may be seized and impounded". Can you imagine the waste because
of the ambiguity and subjectivity that a dog had an "apparent attitude
of attack"? I want to know why the city spent our money for 5 months
creating a law that was inferior to the law it was replacing and which
has such obvious flaws.

4) His choice for a more appropriate headline for Spork stories? "'Vet
Tech Maimed by Spork the Dachshund,'" he says.

What hasn't been answered is any reasonable explanation for how a Vet
Tech could be bit in the face by a dog with 3 inch legs, in the arms
of its owners? I wonder if Mr. Bensman is aware that neither the
police nor animal control never, ever got Kelly's side of the story
(which shocks us to this day). The news can't show Kelly's police
report because there isn't one.

Thanks for keeping it level.
3 hours ago · Report