Our Marbles

March 16, 2007 | 205 Comments

Marbles was a very good dog, as evidenced by the love between him and his family. But then tragedy struck, when Marbles was shot dead on January 8th. The family was heartbroken, of course, but they aren’t taking this the way most folks do: they’ve taken their campaign to the web, and the press is covering the story, too. Susann and Doug Saarel are strong people; I don’t know anything about this sad story beyond what’s on their site, but I admire the way that they are dealing with it – taking action.

Comments

205 Comments so far

chelsey on April 16, 2007 1:53 pm
I’m sorry but if a dog is acting as though it is going to attack my child, and would not back down when I yelled at it, I would probably do the same thing. What was that dog doing 1.5 miles away from its home? It should have been in its yard!!! Marbles owners have gone over board.
James Mendenhall on April 16, 2007 2:23 pm
Typical Californians with too much money and time on there hands. Imagine the suffering from hunger they could have stopped by sponsoring 100 childeren from Mali for a full year instead of spending thousands on those billboards.
Greg Kuhl on April 16, 2007 2:57 pm
You People make me sick. I have been confronted on my own propery by an at-large dog. With no weapon at hand, I had to prepare myself for a confrontation. Luckily, my own dog saved the day. Years ago, another dog of mine was shot on two different occasions, because I made the decision to let him roam free. Did I sue anybody? no! Why? Because, I broke the law. You made the choice to let your dog run free and your dog paid the price. I hope Mrs. Gee prosecutes you if only to wake you up. I despise anyone who puts dogs before children. If someones dog were runing at large and tried to attack my children I would do the exact same thing as Mrs. Gee. Give the children the benefit of the doubt and not the dog. YOU broke the LAW.
Matthew on April 16, 2007 6:35 pm
Why be blunt? Let it be known that if Doug or Susann or anything else for that matter were threatening my children or family, I would have shot them just as easy as that dog. Buy a leash next time and take a little bit of responsibility idiots. Put that on your website Mr. and Mrs Saarel.
David on April 16, 2007 6:42 pm
I’m inclined to agree — if a large dog appeared to be threatening my child, I’d likely shoot first and ask questions later. Tough position to be in — but “choosing” between kids and pets just aint’ gonna happen.

This is just a sad situation.
Matthew on April 16, 2007 7:39 pm
If you read the link “Why Marbles Didn’t Deserve to Die” on the Saarels website you will notice that, and I quote, “Marbles was never aggressive, never ran with a pack of dogs and was restricted to the boundaries of the electric fence.” If you also read The Chronicles story dated today the 16th of April you will see that one of Saarel’s neighbors, a Bill Devine was quoted as saying “I’d always watch myself around the one that got shot,”. He also was stated as saying that he had “seen Marbles on his property”(about a mile away, some electric fence huh?) and that he was “traveling with another dog…” (pretty much the exact opposite of what is stated on the Saarels’ website.) Call me crazy but I think somebody isn’t telling the truth. Coincidence? You decide? I’m going to have to call BS on Mr. and Mrs. Saarel on this one.
George Periman on April 17, 2007 8:42 am
Losing a pet is very sad. I have lost pets in the past because I did not keep them on their own property and were run over. I now have a dog and cat, 7 years and 9 years old respectively. How have they lived this long? It is because I keep them on their own property. It is the pet owners responsiblity for the pets safety by not allowing them to roam. The gentlest of dogs can act very aggressive in circumstances away from home, and people need to protect themselves and children from these threats.
Paul on April 17, 2007 4:32 pm
Have you lost your Marbles? The dog was out and threatening. I love my dog too but go to great lengths to keep him out of harms way.
Bill on April 17, 2007 8:30 pm
Mr and Mrs Saarel’s,
It is a sad day when you lose a loved one, Amember of the family like Marbles. Let me ask you, Do you have Children of your own? I would move Heaven and Earth for my Children, And I would protect them to the end of MY LIFE. Never would I put a dog befor my Children. You call Mrs Gee a criminal, There is also a law against letting your dog run loose, Ask the County Dog Catcher, And also if your dog was harrassing my Livestock I have the right to protect them ” Yea look it up in the MCA annotated” And if your dog done any damage to my livestock YOU would be financially responsible. So how can my livestock be more important then Mrs Gee’s Children, Mrs Gee has my total support, and if you intend to try and bring a civil suit against her I hope it will be at a jury trial and Mr and Mrs Saarel’s I believe you will find out who commited the real crime. For shame you letting your dog run the counrty, You are to blame for your dog, also morally and ethically you are saddely lacking on both counts.
Curt Porteus on April 18, 2007 7:12 am
I have to say that it is too bad that Marbles had to die, but what in the hell are you doing letting Marbles run loose? You’re in Montana and if a dog runs loose and is threatening it’s going to get shot. There are all kinds of fences to contain animals and for dogs you could use an underground fence. If money is a problem you can install it yourself. If that doesn’t work, why don’t you buy more land, there are hundreds of places to buy all over the state of Montana with 600 plus acres for Marbles to run on. After all of this, and now that Marbles has paid the price for your stupid mistake you must feel bad and regret letting marbles run loose all over others peoples property. I hope you have learned a lesson from this and please if you have any other dogs do not let them run loose. I’m sure you’re like me and could use a good 2-4 mile walk every day and that is the best way to keep an eye on your dog. Or you can go back to wherever you came from. You must have too much time on your hands and with all of the time you have spent on trying to blame this on someone else for your mistake that is not right. You have to accept the consequences for your mistakes, I hope you have learned a lesson and that no other dogs will die because of your stupidity and laziness.

Curt Porteus
Bozeman, MT 59715
Curt Porteus on April 18, 2007 7:43 am
Here is some of the history on Susann and Doug Saarel.
Based in Livingston, Montana, Susann grew up on the beaches of Southern California
Saarel, her husband and their twins Larissa and Sam reside in their mountain-top log home high in the Bozeman Pass
First, it goes without saying that it is a pet owner’s responsibility to prevent pets from straying onto another’s property
Susann E. Saarel, Fine Art Portraiture | Sky Ranch Studios & Gallery | 201 Elk Ridge Rd., Livingston, Montana 59047
info@susannsaarelphotography.com 406.222.9453
Sky Ranch Seminars & The Montana Institute for Leadership Science
201 Elk Ridge Rd., Livingston, Montana 59047
p) 406 222-9453 f) 406 222-8477
info@skyranchseminars.com

http://www.skyranchseminars.com/

http://www.bigskyblog.com/index.php/2007/03/16/our-marbles/
James Point on April 19, 2007 1:24 pm
What is the problem with some of you
Montanans?
You don’t seem to like out of staters.
You talk about the California mindset,
you are just as screwed up as the people
in California’s LaLa Land, maybe even
worse.

I’ve traveled all south western states,
non of them are as mean spirited and
condescending as you people, you must
have picked that up from California, they
don’t like out of staters either.

If you would read the preamble in the
guestbook on the Saarel’s web site
you can find
that there is an electric fence on the
Saarel’s property and also a Montana
law since 1946 against cruelty to
animals.
I guess your ancestors came up with
that one, before Californians even
thought of Montana.

You pet killing Montanans ought to
inform yourself’s before insulting
decent people without knowing all the
facts, seems to me, that is what the
Saarel’s are trying to accomplish,
INFORM.

Just one more thing, Ms. Gee claims to
be a hunter, in my hunting experience
I found there are 3 kind’s of hunters
1.) Hunters that are out for the hunt.
2.) Hunters that are out for food
3.) Hunters that are out for the kill,
and those will shoot at anything that
moves.

Take a guess in which category
Ms. Gee belongs.

Thank you for your attention,
James Point
Bandera, Texas
Greg Kuhl on April 20, 2007 10:22 am
To: James Point, Bandera Texas. Go to http://www.dailychronicle.com April 16,2007. Read the article, then call me back.
Woody on April 21, 2007 5:29 pm
After several monthes of hearing about the death of the Saarels dog I think I speak for alot of park county residents when I say something is starting to stink it’s time to bury marbles. I understand the grief over the loss of a pet but it is time to move on. Ironiclly had Susann and Doug Saarel invested as much time, effort and money in taking care of their dogs as they do fighting the evil pet slayers, marbles would be home safe and sound. I think the letters to the editor are swayed by the Saarels friends and family, because most of the people I talk to support the Gees right to defend their children and property. We do things here differently than alot of other places around the country, and we like it the way it is. Maybe where the Saarels are from it is customary to not be responsible pet owners and then blame others for the results of our neglect , but here we take care of our pets or our neighbors will. If this is not the type of place the Saarels want to live there is an easy solution. Anyway enough is enough bury the dog, take down the billboard, donate some money to the stafford animal shelter and move on.
Woody on April 21, 2007 5:34 pm
Wow Mr point you are exactly why we don’t like outta staters you don’t have a clue. Mrs Gee has 3 children in a community that includes wolves, bears, lions, rattlesnakes and stray dogs. Protecting our children ALWAYS comes first. Touchy feely politically correct b.s doesn’t even rank
Morgan on April 21, 2007 5:55 pm
James Point,
The “mean spirited Montanan’s” you’ve met must be imports from either California or Texas. The rest of us are pretty down to earth decent folks. We have a right to protect our kids and our property. If you’d like to forfeit that right, why don’t you work on it where you are from and leave us alone. You are in Texas and very far removed from the situation that we are talking about. I happen to live down the road.
James Point on April 22, 2007 6:33 pm
This is in response to all the Kuhl’s, Woody’s and Morgan’s in the entire United States.

First let me say that there is not one person (Parent) including the Saarel’s that would

not absolutely understand that their dog had to be shot if it was endangering a child.

(as so stated in the preamble of the guestbook on their web site, http://www.ourmarbles.com )

Second it is a sad day in our country when the news media is slanting their articles by leaving important facts out of the reporting, I have spend some time in the last couple of days and tried to find any reports about the Montana law against cruelty to animals,

(Montana Code Annotated Section 45-8-211 provides: Cruelty to animals- exception)

which is a Montana Supreme Court Decision since 1946 and is being ignored I don’t know since when and certainly not enforced by the authority’s.

Your ancestors must have had a reason to put this law on the books, what happened?

According to this law…to justify the killing of a dog in defense of (person or) property…

it is necessary to show that the danger from attack was imminent at the time, and that injury could not otherwise have been prevented.

In Elizabeth Gee’s own words her three children were in the house at the time of the shooting therefore there was no imminent danger, she also destroyed important evidence.

And what I wonder about the most, she fired a high powered rifle in close proximity to her neighbors homes all around her property, also her home seems to be less than half a mile away from the I-90 Interstate.

Third, upon researching this, I came across an article written by “David S. Lewis” in the “Montana Pioneer” which you will find on http://www.ourmarbles.com click the link

“IN THE NEWS”.

Mr. Lewis may I congratulate you for an article well written and commend you for the medal of “Common Decency”.

Fourth, may this be a lesson for all those people that are quick to judge, I know we have people like that in every State of our Nation and one more thing to Mr. Morgan, the “mean spirited Montanan’s” that I was talking about, every one of them, I met on the Internet since this sad occurrence began.

I travel through Montana on the way to Seattle or visa versa often and I have never met anybody that wasn’t down to earth and decent folk, may they have been from out of state or not.

So don’t blame decent people from out of state for pointing out a law that is on the books since 1946 and is a Montana Supreme Court Decision that you down to earth decent folk are trying to ignore.

Thanks again,

James Point

Bandera, Texas

78003
Woody on April 22, 2007 8:31 pm
Mr Lewis I understand that Texas is far more civilized than Montana so I can see where you may have trouble understanding that these are issues we address everyda, less than a mile from where all this took place I killed two coyotes that had my dog cornered in a snow fence. Last summer I killed 15 rattlesnakes within 200 yds of my front door I encouraged a bear and cub to move on, and my neighbors dog ran my horse threw a fence. In this instance I warned my neighbor that next time this would result in my putting the dog down…..had it been growling at my children I would have shot it then and there. maybe next time it wouldn’t just growl and I would not take that chance with their safety. I can see where all this may seem uncivilized to many people but we have to take care of our own. In this county at any given time there are probably no more than one or two sherriffs deputys on duty and they may be more than an hour away. This is a bad situation but the fact remains that had the dog not strayed from home this would not have happened, taking that into consideration the Saarels are guilty of letting there dog stray(also against the law) and possibly animal cruelty for neglectig there pet.
Most of the time when these wandering pets do property damage all you find is a dead sheep or calf the next day. Or maybe you have to put your horse down because they were run threw a fence by a dog that was just out for a stroll. Very seldom are these wandering dogs caught in the act. So what options are we left with just right off the dead livestock? This has been a problem for a long time and no one has come up with an acceptable solution. So we are left with protecting our property the old fashoned way.
As I have said before the best option is to keep your pets at home.
Morgan on April 22, 2007 10:02 pm
FYI….It’s Mrs. Morgan, thank you very much.
Paul M. on April 23, 2007 10:24 am
Mr. Point, please try to reference something other than the “Our Marbles” website. Look up Montana Law and see MCA Section 7-23-101 and 102, 7-23-2109, 45-3-102 and 104, 45-8-211,81-4-206 and 208, and 81-7-401. Some of these pertain to fellow human beings, but I somehow doubt there are any of us “mean spirited Montanans” that would put the life of any animal above that of a fellow human being.
Greg Kuhl on April 23, 2007 11:12 am
James, James, James, You May Want to Fly up here and check out the situation before your foot is too far down your mouth to pull out. This is wild country full of wild animals. The local papers are full of stories about bear in and around downtown Bozeman. The Bozeman Pass area is a wildlife corridor, complete with a new Grizzly Farm. James you continue to miss the main point here! Young Children under the age of six were at risk. I seriously question your own moral fiber because you refuse to put the safety of the childern first This territory will take over the natural instinces of a dog allowed to roam free, especially in an area such as the Bozeman Pass. Why don`t you stay there and take care of Texas and WE will take care of the children around here. Have a nice day.
Greg Kuhl on April 23, 2007 2:19 pm
James, I have come to believe that you are nothing more than a trouble-making idiot. You claim to be researching this situation on the net, so you would`nt mind if I did a little research on your background, would ya? Either come up here and see the situation for yourself,(we all happen to live here) or find something else to do with your Texas ranting.
avout on April 23, 2007 8:38 pm
There used to be an aggressive dog that frequented our property. I didn’t shoot it. My mistake. One day our 8 yr old daughter was attacked and severely mauled by this mongrel. I am glad Marbles isn’t going to do this to another little boy or girl. It amazes me that folks who let their dogs roam free have the gall to villify people who defend their kids. The Saarels should apologize and not be allowed to own a dog again.
Matthew on April 23, 2007 10:27 pm
Saarels are liars plain and simple. Read the articles, cross reference statements from both parties and you’ll see that it’s all there in black and white. The dog was a known danger as stated in the chronicle article(See my comments above). The electric fence obviously didn’t work or was just a myth. Without facts opinions are just that, opinions. Oh, and I’m not sure how its done in Texas but please think before you speak.
Morgan on April 23, 2007 10:27 pm
BRAVO Woody and Mr. Kuhl, my sentiments exactly!
Matthew on April 23, 2007 10:39 pm
I’m not sure who actually started this blog but the first line in your open doesn’t make an ounce of sense.

“Marbles was a very good dog, as evidenced by the love between him and his family. ”

How does the love an owner has with his/her dog have anything to do with whether or not it was a good dog? I love the Chicago Cubs but that doesn’t mean they’re any good. The logic on the Marbles side of the argument is simply mind boggling.
David on April 23, 2007 10:45 pm
I wrote it — and I think it makes sense — Marbles did indeed seem to be a very good dog, and his family loved him very much because he was such a good dog — at least to the Saarels in their daily life.
Paul M. on April 24, 2007 11:14 am
If his family loved the dog so very much, why didn’t they protect it? Ms. Gee loved her family enough to protect them.

As long as the dog was not under the control of its owner, it could have just as well had been shot for the simple act of chasing chickens. All in accordance with Montana law.

We all have the right to protect ourselves and our families, whether it be from man or beast. The degree to which we can go depends on the level of threat. In this case, Ms. Gee determined that the level of threat constituted deadly force and applied such force. The fact that no other person witnessed the threat, one would be inclined to accept her judgement. Given the fact that the body was returned to its owner lends some credibility that the act was justifiable. Had she something to hide, she could have shot, shovelled, and shut up and possibly no one would have been the wiser.

This also has nothing to do with the fact that Ms. Gee is a hunter. If someone wants to bring that to the table, it could be construed that all hunting is cruelity to animals. Mr. Point, how many non-threating animals have you popped a cap in, being a hunter. I, too, am a hunter and have equal respect for those who do it as a food gatherer or a trophy collector. In Montana, it is only those two that we recognize as hunters, all others just shoot road signs. They probably don’t do that in Texas.

I have known children, seemingly good children whom their family loved very much. They left home and murdered someone. They paid the consequences. Now Marbles can be added to the list of good, beloved, family members gone bad.

Just one last thing for Mr. Point. In Montana, if we don’t like the way our neighbor keeps his house, we don’t go visit them. If you don’t like the way we keep our state, please don’t visit.
Jenny on April 24, 2007 10:25 pm
I can’t believe how upsetting the “ourmarbles” web site is. I could address many issues that I have with it, but I will just stick with what I found to be the most vial. When an animal has been shot to death, why would one feel the need to take the dead animal in for an autopsey? Also, who in their right mind would then parade their 7 year old children into the room with the mangled dog and take pictures? I’m sorry, but what a horrible publicity stunt on the Sarral’s part. How traumatic this has to be for their poor children. I would hate to hear what they have told them concerning all of this. The Sarral’s are so intent on placing blame outside of themselves that I believe they have really crossed the line. Also, that billboard is sick. It really makes it sound like we’re all killing each others pets left and right which is a down right falsecy. The only reason I can think of that it was placed where it is is to rub it in the nose of Mrs. Gee everyday…as if all of the fingerpointing, letter writing, and just down right meaness hasn’t been enough. Let dead dogs lie and find a better way to spend your money.
Morgan on April 25, 2007 6:49 am
yah, I think one of the backlashes of this whole thing is going to be that when Fido dissappears no one will ever know what happened to him. Nobody wants to go through what Ms Gee is.
Stacy on April 25, 2007 1:59 pm
I would recommend the Saarels seek Grief counseling for the loss of their pet. And also take responsible pet ownership classes if they have or want other pets.

It is hard to take responsiblitlity for harm that comes to a beloved pet-
Mrs Gee took responsiblitlity for her actions and acted as a good neighbor by notifying the owners.
The Saarels need to accept it was their responsibility, and theirs alone to keep the dog at home.

How sad it is that first the Saarel dog harassed the neighbors children and now the Adults are harassing the same neighbors!How CRUEL to post a picture their dog that terrified a neighboring family for them to have to see. Especially small children! Where is the decency there…. If the Saarels want to make a point to try to give their dogs life meaning-Making a martyr of an aggressive dog isn’t the way…Promote responsible pet owner ship. By accepting responsibility.

A dog wandering often acts differently than when it is in its territorial comfort zone of IT’s home. Most owners who have dogs that bite, harass, or injure others while at large say the same thing “our sweety pie has NEVER acted this way” Meanwhile, the dogs victim is in the emergency room being sutured, or having reconstructive surgery, on antibiotics, if charges are pending, pictures are taken, and scarred physically and emotionally from a preventable Attack. Luckily in this case that scenario didn’t happen due to quick thinking and justifiable force of a protective parent.

The Saarels should realize that they could have been charged for a crime committed by their at large dog. Rabies quarantine and/or rabies testing(the brain is sent in to a laboratory)
if a bite had occurred. (even just a tooth scratch breaking the skins surface allowing the dogs saliva to contact the wound)

This has been an interesting controversy – Although I dislike the attempt to villify the victims-Maybe the good of this is that pet owners will keep their animals at home.
The downside has been already said- many owners will never know what happened to the pet that wanders…..Way to go
Morgan on April 25, 2007 3:06 pm
I know I’ve already voiced my opinion here, but I needed to share my story about my ‘good’ dog. I have a heeler who has been raised around kids, cats, chickens, horses, etc and has always been loving and never aggressive to either me or my children. I know she would die protecting any of us and she is very much loved. Now that being said, I was visiting a friend in town and my dog took off after the neighbor kids (jumping between two cars and aggressively charging them). If I hadn’t been there to see it I wouldn’t have believed it. I called her back and she totally ignored me which was out of character. The kids screamed and ran (which really scared me because I thought she was going to attack them for sure). Thankfully she stopped short of hurting them physically although I’m sure it traumatized them, it did me. If the childrens parents had had a gun, I wouldn’t have blamed them if they had shot her. If I’d have had a gun I might have shot her at that moment as well after having wittnessed what I did. I guess what we all need to remind ourselves of in this day and age is that even though we treat our animals like family members and we humanize them, they are still animals and are very much capable of behaving in unpredictable ways. Mr and Mrs Saaral really should pull their heads out of the sand and try to understand this point because I think it is very relavant here. I don’t know Mrs. Gee, but I have to believe that she made the decision that she did based on what was happening in moment. Her mother bear instinct came out and she did what she felt she needed to do to protect her children. I can’t imagine that anyone in that same type of situation wouldn’t have done the same .
The Saarels, Marbles' owner on April 27, 2007 10:40 am
Our campaigns’ intent was to turn our sad experience into a positive one by making the public aware of the surprisingly unknown extent of pet killing in Montana and to clarify a misperception of Montana Law. We have tried to avoid discussing personal issues to the press preferring to focus on the message of our campaign. Instead, we are forced by recent radio broadcasts, news articles and subsequent response, to address false assumptions.

We took every precaution for Marbles’ safety and have employed an invisible electric fence since 1999. No restraint system is 100% flawless and it is not always immediately apparent when a system fails. We were advised that an underground fence was best, since wildlife can destroy above ground fences. A large herd of elk traverse our property. On the very rare occasion that Marbles escaped, a friendly call from our neighbor, Bill alerted us.

In the 8 years we have lived here, no one, neighbor or otherwise ever mentioned a problem with any of our dogs. Likewise, when Bill’s horses traveled to our property, we’d either call him or herd his horses home ourselves. When another’s cows broke through our fence and enjoyed a lunch of our newly laid sod we called the owners who collected their animals and promptly fixed our lawn.

Gee states she had never seen Marbles before, which would indicate that Marbles never crossed the electric fence and ventured to the Gee property in the two years the family has lived down the road since moving here from out of state. Our property borders the Gee’s 1.5 miles away. At the closest point, our property is 50-60 feet from the Gee’s driveway.

Gee’s statements to the County Sheriff’s office indicate to us that her children were in the house when she shot and killed Marbles and that she shot twice aiming to kill her from 75 feet away. Marbles’ necropsy reveals she was shot from behind. With both structure and distance between Marbles and the children, there was no imminent threat. The Park County Sheriff’s Office requested prosecution.

A necropsy was performed to reveal Marbles’ injuries. A photographer documented the examination for the purpose of evidence in the event of a small claims or civil suit. Our 7-year old twins were not permitted in the room during this process. When the exam was over, two towels were placed over Marbles’ body and her extensive injuries revealing only her face and two front paws. Our family was then allowed to say good-bye. Our children had asked not to go to school that day. They wanted to accompany us to the vet and see Marbles, a dog they have known all their lives, one last time. Sad as it was, they too needed to mourn her loss.

Marbles was adopted from a local shelter when she was a year old. She completed obedience training and followed commands unfailingly. We knew her to be timid and shy, yet longing for love and attention. For the sake of our own children and the hundreds of others that have been to our ranch, we would never have tolerated an aggressive dog.

Marbles is dead and nothing can bring her back but what we can do is try to prevent this type of tragedy from ever occurring again. Gee’s actions were not justified and resulted in a crime.

Montana Law and a 1946 Montana Supreme Court decision state:

• A person commits the offense of cruelty to animals if without justification he knowingly or negligently subjects an animal to mistreatment or neglect by: killing an animal. Protecting property cannot excuse wanton destruction. A person’s right to employ all reasonable means for protection of his life, home, and property may not be used as a pretext for the wanton destruction of trespassing animals whose depredations might otherwise be reasonably prevented or discouraged;…to justify the killing of a dog in defense of (person or) property…it is necessary to show that the danger from the attack was imminent at the time, and that the injury could not otherwise have been prevented.

Thank you.
Susann and Doug Saarel
Montanans Protecting Pets
Jenny on April 27, 2007 1:49 pm
Just the same BS as before, still unable and unwilling to accept any of the blame or to face the fact that Marbles ATTACKED three small defenseless children. We’ve all let our neighbors know when their animals were out and in our yards, on our property, etc. You are nothing special so get over yourselfs and stop trying fill us all in on how wonderful you are and how great your dog was…Marbles did what he did, he was shot, end of story.
The Saarels, Marbles' owner on April 27, 2007 2:35 pm
Jenny,
Nowhere in Gee’s statements to the Sheriff does she state that Marbles attacked her children.
Jenny on April 27, 2007 3:27 pm
Saarels,
The fact that Marble’s was growling at Mrs Gee’s children with her hackles up shows an intent to attack. I’m assuming that you love your children, and if a strange dog wandered into your yard and growled at them you would take appropriate action to protect them. That is what Mrs. Gee did for her children. She didn’t know where Marbles came from or to whom she belonged….She may have even thought Marbles might be rabid since she was displaying such odd behavior. Also, why don’t you address any of the other questions or comments posed by bloggers here? You claim Bill notified you when your dogs were out wandering around, but didn’t seem to feel it necessary to address the other comments he made concerning Marbles….he was very leary of her and stated so. Also, I find it amusing that you claim you didn’t want to make this personal. You must think that we Montanans are a real bunch of hicks if you think any of us will buy it that you aren’t out to persecute the Gee’s….just out to make the world a better place for all pets. Like I’ve said before, what a bunch of BS
Matthew on April 27, 2007 3:29 pm
Let me get this straight. You were adamant that your electric fence kept your dog in your property. That was a huge point of yours. Now you’re saying that it might not have been 100% effective. When you decide what your story really is let us know. Also, whether or not Mrs. Gee has seen your dog before is irrelevant and has no bearing on the circumstances.
In addition, whether its 10 feet or a hundred feet away its still Mrs. Gee’s property. As for her children being inside, I find it easy to assume that if a questionable dog was endangering them I would get them inside ASAP too. Mrs. Gee also obviously had time to get a weapon to kill your dog (which shows it must have been present for at least a little while) is it not then also logical for her children to have had time to get inside the house?
As for it being shot from behind, well, I could assure you that had it been on my property and acted the way it did, it would not have made it off alive. Once somebody’s safety is threatened, it is not restored just because the thing doing the threatening decides its lost interest for a second and turns away. Oh, and please elaborate on the Sheriff’s office requesting prosecution as I haven’t heard anything of the sort.

Thank you,
Matthew L.
Montanas for an idiot free America
Matthew on April 27, 2007 3:36 pm
As pointed out by Curt here is Susann’s place of business. Keep this in mind for all your photography needs.

Susann E. Saarel, Fine Art Portraiture | Sky Ranch Studios & Gallery | 201 Elk Ridge Rd., Livingston, Montana 59047
info@susannsaarelphotography.com 406.222.9453
Stacy on April 27, 2007 3:59 pm
Just an F.Y.I: Maybe this law also needs amending to include harassing humans.

81-7-401. Killing of dogs harassing, destroying, or injuring stock — notice to owner — penalty. (1) As used in this section, “harasses” means worries, chases, or runs after livestock, including ostriches, rheas, and emus, in a manner that may lead to subsequent injury to the livestock.
(2) A dog, whether licensed or not, that, while off the premises owned or under control of its owner and on property owned, leased, or controlled by the livestock owner, harasses, kills, wounds, or injures livestock not belonging to the owner of the dog is considered a public nuisance and:
(a) may be killed immediately by the owner of the livestock or an agent or employee of the owner; or
(b) the owner of the dog, when reasonably notified after due process, shall kill the dog within 24 hours of notification. If the owner fails to do so, an officer may be notified and shall kill the dog or cause the dog to be killed.
(3) A dog may not be killed in a manner that will endanger a person.
(4) This section does not apply to a dog herding livestock under the direction of its owner or the agents or employees of its owner.
(5) This section does not apply to a dog engaged in legitimate sport hunting or predator control activities under the direction of its owner or the agents or employees of its owner.
(6) The owner of a dog that harasses, kills, wounds, or injures livestock is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not more than $500.
Morgan on April 27, 2007 4:05 pm
I for one find it not suprising at all that Susann and Doug still refuse to accept any responsibility for the death of their pet. It’s the fences fault, the neighbors fault, and all the rest of us pet killing Montanans fault that Marbles was killed. I think that if we told them their shit stinks just as bad as the rest of the worlds` they’d argue that fact as well. The Saarels as well as their pets can obviously do no wrong and they won’t hesitate to tell us all so. It’s so absolutely amazing that they think Mrs. Gee just shot Marbles to shoot her…now they even insinuate that Mrs. Gee and her children were out dog hunting. Absurd!!!! People don’t just resort to using deadly force without just cause and I believe that Mrs. Gee had it. I think the Sarrels should be thanking their lucky stars that none of the children were hurt and apologize to the Gees for the trauma to their children and for being such jerks in the first place. Nice neighbors, glad they aren’t mine!!
Matt on April 27, 2007 4:27 pm
Well, if one were so inclined to look up public records for the Saarel’s, one might find a few interesting facts demonstrating just what stand up individuals they indeed are. If one were so inclined of course.
Woody on April 27, 2007 5:07 pm
How can you say Gees actions were not justified I can’t understand how you people can STILL be laying the blame soley on them. Your dog was wandering…..mrs Gee felt threatened end of story. You guys need to get a dose of reality. Even if the county attorney does file charges it would end up being a jury trial I assume and if that happened no jury would ever convict a woman protecting her children and as far as that goes I think it would be very unlikely that this community would reelect a county attorney who thought it was necessary to prosecute a mother protecting her children. Now on the other hane I am all for having the county attorney prosecute someone for letting there dogs wander. What a waste of time you people really need to move on a get a hobby.
Woody on April 27, 2007 5:33 pm
There is a dog bite epidemic in the United States. There are almost 5 million victims annually — about 2% of the entire population. 800,000 need medical attention. 1,000 per day need treatment in hospital emergency rooms. Between 15 and 20 die per year. Most of the victims who receive medical attention are children, half of whom are bitten in the face. Dog bite losses exceed $1 billion per year, with over $300 million paid by insurance
In the US from 1979 to 1996, 304 people in the US died from dog attacks, including 30 in California. The average number of deaths per year was 17.

Most of the deceased were children. (”Dog-Bite-Related Fatalities — United States, 1995-1996,” MMWR 46(21):463-467, 1997.) The chances that the victim of a fatal dog attack will be a burglar are one in 177; the odds that it will be a child are 7 out of 10.

However, fatalities are highly unusual. For every fatal dog bite in the United States, there are 230,000 bites that are not treated by a physician

Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People, has conducted an unusually detailed study of dog bites from 1982 to the present. (Clifton, Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada, September 1982 to November 13, 2006; click here to read it.) The Clifton study show the number of serious canine-inflicted injuries by breed. The author’s observations about the breeds and generally how to deal with the dangerous dog problem are enlightening.

According to the Clifton study, pit bulls, Rottweilers, Presa Canarios and their mixes are responsible for 74% of attacks that were included in the study, 68% of the attacks upon children, 82% of the attacks upon adults, 65% of the deaths, and 68% of the maimings. In more than two-thirds of the cases included in the study, the life-threatening or fatal attack was apparently the first known dangerous behavior by the animal in question. Clifton states:

If almost any other dog has a bad moment, someone may get bitten, but will not be maimed for life or killed, and the actuarial risk is accordingly reasonable. If a pit bull terrier or a Rottweiler has a bad moment, often someone is maimed or killed–and that has now created off-the-chart actuarial risk, for which the dogs as well as their victims are paying the price.

Clifton’s opinions are as interesting as his statistics. For example, he says, “Pit bulls and Rottweilers are accordingly dogs who not only must be handled with special precautions, but also must be regulated with special requirements appropriate to the risk they may pose to the public and other animals, if they are to be kept at all.”

Does anybody else think marbles looked like he had some Rottweiler in him?

The majority of dog attacks (61%) happen at home or in a familiar place.
In all fairness, therefore, it must be noted that:

Any dog, treated harshly or trained to attack, may bite a person. Any dog can be turned into a dangerous dog. The owner or handler most often is responsible for making a dog into something dangerous.
An irresponsible owner or dog handler might create a situation that places another person in danger by a dog, without the dog itself being dangerous.
Any individual dog may be a good, loving pet, even though its breed is considered to be potentially dangerous. A responsible owner can win the love and respect of a dog, no matter its breed. One cannot look at an individual dog, recognize its breed, and then state whether or not it is going to attack.

Children are the most frequent targets
Studies of dog bite injuries have reported that:

The median age of patients bitten was 15 years, with children, especially boys aged 5 to 9 years, having the highest incidence rate

The odds that a bite victim will be a child are 3.2 to 1. (CDC.)
Children seen in emergency departments were more likely than older persons to be bitten on the face, neck, and head. 77% of injuries to children under 10 years old are facial.
Severe injuries occur almost exclusively in children less than 10 years of age.

The majority of dog attacks (61%) happen at home or in a familiar place.

The vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim’s family or a friend.

When a child less than 4 years old is the victim, the family dog was the attacker half the time (47%), and the attack almost always happened in the family home (90%).

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html

APPERENTLY THE SAARELS DOG WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE GEES CHILDREN.
avout on April 27, 2007 7:57 pm
The very irresponsible Saarels are really starting to tick me off. I still haven’t heard them apologize to Mrs Gee. Is it really true these folks own another dog? If so, I would urge the sheriff’’s department to remove that dog from their home as the combination of Saarels&dog is clearly a threat to public safety. There are 400.000 emergy room visits/yr due to dog attacks in the US. My young daughter was one of them. Any roaming dog is a threat to people so all roaming dogs should be killed or captured. I thank Mrs Gee for her very prudent action and ask anyone in Montana to start applying zero tolerance to roaming dogs. The Saarels have further convinced me that we have been too lenient on nuisance dogs.
Shelly on April 30, 2007 12:53 am
It’s interesting to me that something is being left out. One thing that is a constant in every letter, blog posting, and editorial that the Saarel’s have written, states that their camPAIN is to stop pet killing in Montana. And while I agree there is definately something to be done about animal abuse and it is something that should be addressed, I believe the reason behind their camPAIN is skewed. They have used it as a camouflage for a personal vendetta on Ms. Gee.

And they can resond with ” Our campaigns’ intent was to turn our sad experience into a positive one by ” blah blah blah. But they are still pointing their finger at Ms Gee. We don’t know the whole story, we don’t know anything more than has been presented through the website and the media, but what we do know is that the Saarels’ dog was wandering around someone else’s property and has done so in the past. So where is the responsibility here? With the Saarels and no one else.

The excuses keep building and they just keep coming. If your fence doesn’t work, self stated, then build a secondary back up fence. Then you know for sure the dog won’t get out. If a deer or other wildlife breaks your fence, fix it. If you feel the need to blame someone else for your mistakes then grow up and act your age. Only children do things like that and they don’t know any better. If you don’t like your neighbor then move, don’t cause a situation that would ruin someone else’s life. Because like it or not, we all have to live next to someone and if you still can’t get along with your neighbor then move to Alaska, your dog can roam all the property it wants and not see anyone for weeks.

Ms Gee is a mother and from what I know about being a mom, we all protect our young. Thankfully her kids were in the house when this happened. I would have hated to see the headlines if they weren’t in the house. But that is her property and she needs to keep HER property safe for her kids. If she doesn’t, then she needs to take care of the situation so that they can play outside safely.

Go ahead and work on the pet killing, fix the real problem, the people that randomly abuse, kill, poison animals just for thrills. But let Ms Gee have her life back and leave her alone. She needs to take care of those little souls that will someday be leaders in our world, not worry about jail time. Let her use her money for her kids’ college education instead of any fines she may incure because you won’t back off.
Shelly on April 30, 2007 1:16 am
And one more thing, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR MISTAKE. If you can’t keep your dog inside the confines of your property, then you need to suck it up and suffer the consequenses. It’s sad that our society is quickly turning into one of blame instead of responsibility.

And if you don’t agree that you are on a personal vendetta, I suggest you open your own website and read the opening flash page. You certainly have made it sound like poor little Marbles was just innocently playing out in the field when ” suddenly, I felt someone watching me”. Sad. I highly doubt Ms Gee was out stalking your dog. While she may be an avid hunter, I’m sure she didn’t think that Marbles was good eatin and I’m positive she doesn’t think Marbles was such a fine speciman that she needed to have that dog stuffed and mounted on her wall.

The more I think about this, the angrier I get. I can’t believe I have wasted this much of my time on this topic. Just get your proiroties straight!!!!
Paul M. on April 30, 2007 8:18 am
I was just reading the article about the Saarels on Pet-Abuse.com and ran across a statement made by Doug. It seems that maybe things have not gone as well with the law as it may appear. I am quoting Doug from the article “local police and prosecutors often don’t fully understand or enforce the law, which allow wandering pets to be killed needlessly.”
Maybe the trial will need to have a change of venue since Park County, according to Doug, doesn’t have anyone that fully understands the law.
I only hope that the law in Park County gets a good laugh.
Greg Kuhl on April 30, 2007 2:26 pm
I have been sitting in front of my screen for 20 minutes trying to come up with a simple and reasonable responce to the Saarels latest argument There jumping story can not be dealt with in a reasonable manner. I believe the Gee children were outside when the dog first approached, and refused to leave . Now, Mrs. Gee reaches for Her rifle while yelling at the dog and the dog still refuses to leave. So, what this tells me is that Mrs. Gee is, herself now in harms way on her own property, totally upset because her young children were just in harms way. SO, heres where I become a little sickened with the Saarels argument. You have an upset mother who just ushered her children into the house for their own safety, and the dog is still in the yard confronting this upset mother who has only two options before her. Leave the children in the house without an adult present(an illadvised move by the way) and wait for the dog to leave. Option 2, leave the children in the house unattended while She waits for the dog to attack her, possible being killed by the dog, leaving the children unattended for life. Oh yes! I forgot option 3. Shoot the dam dog, saving herself and her children, take it back to the owners sobbing from the trauma just endured, say your sorry for having to save your childern and yourself, then go home and wait for holy hell to brake lose. Now with option 3, you will have to prepare yourself for public pursecution and the upcoming lawsuit Mrs. Gee there are people behind you 100%. I ADMIRE YOUR COURAGE. My choice would have been option 3. Mrs. Gee, you hang in there and please call me if you need any help. It would be an honor to assist you. Have a good day.
Greg Kuhl on May 2, 2007 11:31 am
Forgot to correct my spelling. By the way, if anybody wants to keep track of the public opinion count on the blog and in the local papers, the count is right around 67 to 2 in favor of Mrs. Gee. Have a nice day.
Morgan on May 2, 2007 3:34 pm
Thanks for the count Greg. Even with public opinion as it is, isn’t it amazing that the Saarel’s still won’t admit that just MAYBE they are out of line??? Has everyone else heard that the Saarel’s are marching in the Livingston Roundup Parade? They are having a sign-up for anyone wishing to march along with them and carry the OurMarbles banner to show their support! Just a FYI if anyone is interested!! Hopefully they will get lots of their out-of-state, holier then thou friends to come here for the occassion as well. I’m very looking forward to it.
Jenny on May 2, 2007 3:42 pm
I wanted to point something out as well concerning the letters to the editor in favor of the Sarrel’s….the one’s that I have read have been written by employee’s of theirs, ie their cleaning lady. wonder if that got her a raise?
Greg Kuhl on May 2, 2007 6:51 pm
Well , somebody must be very computer savy! I just tried to enter another blog and was some who dissmissed from my computer. If anybody has a way to print all these blogs before they disappear, I would appreciate it. I may be a simple-minded idiot, but I know dangerous people when I read their BS. What I was trying to say was ,” the vote of your employees does not count.” You people are really starting to scare me! For the sake of my own family and my business, I should quit this blog, but I’m addicted to the insanity of the story. Please to the Saarels,,,, Don’t come after me because of this blog, Because “I May not be able to defend myself Against your overwhelming intellect. I think I will quit this blog now, before I lose my Kuhl.
Dennis Doney on May 2, 2007 7:08 pm
The Saarel’s are shameless – plain and simple. If they file a civil lawsuit I would donate money to Ms. Gees legal defense fund. She shouldn’t have to pay to defend maternal instinct. I hope that a reputable attorney would donate legal services to mount a defense should the need arise.
Woodys on May 2, 2007 8:17 pm
I am beginning to think their website should read ” lost our marbles”. Anyway I respect their right to defend there opinion I don’t agree with it but I respect that right. But maybe it is time for them to realize they aren’t going to change things around here
Paul M. on May 3, 2007 1:58 pm
I think we’re poking a dead pig here folks! (The circumstances surrounding the pig’s death is unknown to me as I was not a witness to his demise, however there will be a funeral and parade after the necropsy.)

Allowing that the Saarels refuse to accept ANY responsibility for the death of their cherished pet, it’s time to get comedic on their a–es.

Check out Zazzle.com. You can buy buttons, apparel,key chains, stickers, postcards, greeting cards, bags, bumperstickers, and hats. Geez, I’m suprised they for got Christmas tree ornaments! Please don’t forget to send cash memorials to the Pseudo-Montanans Collecting on Pets (or Montanans Protecting Pets) c/0 Doug and Susann Saarel.

In an effort to capitalize on the situation myself, I would like to offer bullet-proof vests for the wandering K-9’s whose owners would like to let their doggy roam with the peace of mind that comes with irresponsible pet ownership. The “Protector” features ballistic, cut, slash, hack, chop and stone protection for your valuable pet. Vest covers vital areas and stops most calibers, allows freedom of movement and is easy on and off. Available in black, brown, navy and camo. Prices on request.
Matt on May 3, 2007 10:41 pm
Hey Paul, do you have anything in my size that protects against frivolous lawsuits?
Woodys on May 4, 2007 6:07 am
hmmmm my cat was struck and killed by a train is there an open billboard around here? BNSF has lots of money for a wrongful death suit. The next Saarel seminar…..how to make money from home without working
Morgan on May 4, 2007 7:26 am
The latest article, contrary to what the Saarel’s have said, states that charges will NOT be filed. What a shocker huh? It is apparent from the Saarel’s actions as well as their failure to accept any wrong doing that they are planning on persuing a lawsuit….hope we’re all wrong. I’d really hate for this incident to eat up any of the Gee’s money, more of their time, give them additional stress. It’s obvious that the Saarel’s don’t have any problem spending money on stupid things….as someone pointed out earlier, imagine the amount of good in the world these people could be doing. I would definately contribute to a defense fund for the Gee’s if it comes to that. I really wish that we could teach these super rich outta stater imports that they can’t come here and push people around just because they have more money. We will stick up for ours when they are in the right.
Hans on May 4, 2007 10:46 am
Hey James Point, are you still following this madhouse from Texas or are you on the way to Montana to straighten those dim witted nail benders?
In case you’re still checking this blog there is a new article written by David S. Lewis
in the Montana Pioneer May edition, you mentioned him in one of your blogs and commended him for a medal of Common Decency.
“TO SHOOT A DOG, What Does the Law Say?” is another one of his great reporting know how and maybe it will shut some of those Montana Rednecks up, but I doubt it.
I think what is funny though you Texan’s must have left all those rednecks up in Montana on your long cattle drives.
Keep in touch.
Hans
Santa Monica
Cal.
Jenny on May 4, 2007 2:30 pm
Hey Hans…
If you didn’t notice, your good ol buddy Mr. Point also ripped on you Californians “in Lala Land”. Yes, I’m sure that included you too. I guess all of you are so fake and superficial that you don’t mind calling your enemies your friends as long as it makes you feel like you aren’t alone. Get a clue, get a life! What a waste of skin!
Jenny on May 4, 2007 2:44 pm
And another thing…..the fact that the county attorney refuses to prosecute Mrs. Gee (as stated in the article”to shoot a dog” that you find so enlightening) should be enough to shut you up on something that you obviously know only one side of the story about(and a very biased one at that). Why don’t you focuse your “dim witted” attention on something a little closer to home!
Matthew on May 4, 2007 2:47 pm
Sad, just sad.
Matthew on May 4, 2007 2:49 pm
This has taken a drastic turn for the extremely comical. Thanks for giving me a good laugh Hans. But I’m not sure what a nailbender is. Please clarify for my amusement.
Woody on May 4, 2007 5:26 pm
I think nailbender is an affectionate term between to gay lovers
Woody on May 4, 2007 5:27 pm
right up hans’ “back” alley
Woody on May 4, 2007 5:33 pm
I would also like to go over one thing again “no charges will be pressed”. Looks like rednecks 1 beatnicks 0
Matt on May 4, 2007 6:17 pm
Oh, I guess that must be a Santa Monica thing then. Thanks for the heads up on that one. Just to clarify I live in both California and Montana. I’ve always found Californians to be a little more high strung and a little more dense. Stereotype all you want but thats been my experience. I also know from experience that the Saarel’s aren’t the most honest people around. But hey, I’m part redneck so what do I know?
Matt on May 4, 2007 6:23 pm
Nomatter what state you’re from there is just no good substitution for common sense. Also, when did the shooting of hostile animals turn into gay bashing? Nailbender.. and here I thought he was talking about construction workers. I think Hans officially gets the jackass award for this blog. He can share it with the Saarels I suppose.
Matthew
Irvine, Ca
Morgan on May 5, 2007 7:47 am
ya, I don’t understand where Hans is going with all this…Talking about gays OR construction workers on an our Marbles blog? I don’t get it.
Woodys on May 5, 2007 11:30 pm
I wonder if the saarels will keep better track of their children than their dogs?
Judd on May 6, 2007 10:51 pm
Woody, Is that supposed to suggest that if the Saarel children accidently wander onto the Gee property, that they too will end up dead in a trash bag at the Saarels doorstep?
Jenny on May 7, 2007 9:28 am
Judd
I think it means that if the Saarel’s children get into trouble that their parents will not believe that their little poopsies could do any wrong and that they would fail to punish them but would rather punish the rest of the community! That seems to be how these sort of people work….theirs can do no wrong and it’s sickening! Like many have said before, the Saarel’s believe that the rights of their dog weigh more heavily then the rights of the Gee’s children….Maybe the Saarel’s would have preferred that the children were severely mauled or even killed before Mrs Gee took action and took care of Marbles!
Judd on May 7, 2007 8:13 pm
Lemme get this straight…Gee’s kids are in the house and Saarels dog is shot in the rear from 75 feet away. Do you realize how far 75 feet is? Pace it off. I may be missing something, but I just do not see a threat there. What family would want their dog to maul neighborhood children? It doesn’t look like their dog was ever close to the kids. Woody shared some great statistics regarding dog bites on an earlier posting. He failed to mention that overwhelmingly the dogs involved in fatal attacks are males (92%). Also, the overwhelming majority (94%) of dogs were unaltered. Marbles was a female. I would assume that since she was a local shelter dog, she was spayed. Somebody is barking up the wrong tree. It would appear killing the dog was not necessary. According to the latest Pioneer article, I think Saarels have a case. My heartfelt condolences to the Saarels.
Dennis Doney on May 7, 2007 9:32 pm
75 feet – what would it take for the mutt to cover that ground – maybe 2 seconds? Judd – the fact of the matter is that neither you, nor the Saarel’s know what that dog was capable of or how it behaved OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF ITS OWNER!!! You and I do share 1 opinion – the Saarels need to quit pissing and moaning and file their civil lawsuit. Let a jury of their peers decide this thing once and for all. Who cares how far the dog was away from the children (the fact the children were ushered into the house is irrelevent), or if the dog was running away. I owned a dog that would turn and run at the sight of a gun – Ms. Gee should not have waited for the dog to return next time – because the outcome could have been much worse.
Morgan on May 7, 2007 10:00 pm
If that dog had been on my property, growling at my defenseless children, I would have shot it too….in a heart beat.
Judd, just because statistics show that most attacks occure from non neutered males, that doesn’t mean that a spade female would never attack! A strange dog was in Mrs Gees yard growling at her 3 young children (all under the age 5) and you think the stupid dog should have been given the benifit of the doubt??? You’re an idiot! You are right though, someone is barking up the wrong tree and it happens to be the Saarel’s.
Morgan on May 7, 2007 10:18 pm
I would hope that if the Saarel’s are seriously arrogant enough to file a law suit that the Gee’s file a counter claim for SLANDER! The Gee’s would have a much better chance of winning.
Paul M. on May 8, 2007 8:56 am
Let’s back the truck up here. First of all, there is one thing about the whole situation that no one can qualify, and that’s the fact that no one except Mrs. Gee and her children, were present when the alleged threat took place. I know that, in the “mean spirited”, “nail-bending” state of Montana, when a grizzly sow attacks a human, the first question is “did she have cubs?” If she was protecting cubs, then she’s left alone. If he/she wasn’t, then the bear is destroyed.

I’m going to say that Mrs. Gee was protecting her “cubs” and did what she felt was necessary, even if it meant plugging the dog as it was leaving, insuring it wouldn’t return for a second threat.

To you people who keep insisting that it was not necessary to destroy the dog, YOU WEREN’T THERE! None of us were, so how are we to judge one way or another. Besides, when you come down to the bottom line, it’s not about Mrs. Gee. It’s about the Saarels letting their dog wander where ever the hell it pleases. Was it a nice doggy when it was home? Of course it was, why would you own a dog that threatens your own family member. Did it bark at the mailman? Maybe, but then the dog would naturally protect ITS OWN TERRITORY.

Fact: The dog was not on its own property and was not confined to a leash when off its property.

Fact: The dog had wandered onto some property other than its own, unsupervised.

Fact: The dog was shot to death.

Fact: The remains of the animal were returned to its owner.

Question: Were the owners of the dog issued a citation for “dog-at-large”?

To Matt: Sorry, I don’t have anything to stop frivolous lawsuits. As long as there are people who won’t take responsibility for themselves, there will be frivolous lawsuits. We nail-benders will probably have to turn in our pet wasting side arms for a pair of pearl handled lawyers. Worry not, the lawyers won’t be loaded as they “don’t fully understand or enforce the law.”

There are many times I would like to snuff out one or many of my neighbors dogs. They tend to use my yard as a toilet. I have used other methods, like county animal control, but they have to catch the dog in your yard and for them to issue a citation, you have to prove it was you neighbors dog and not some other “black dog”. I like dogs, don’t get me wrong, I’ve had a few in my life. If I wanted dog crap in my yard, I would get my own dog and fence it in so that I would’nt have to share my dog crap with anyone else. ‘Cause it’s mine! Actually, I would rather the owner of a wandering dog be punished than the dog, it’s a dumb animal. (Either one).

By the way, being a native Montanan, should I be offended by being called a nail-bender? What the hell is a nail-bender? Is that the lingo of street gangs in Santa Monica?

One last aside, there is a petition on the Internet that wants to allow California to cede from the United States. I say, let’s give them a hand and sign it today. Some want to take Oregon and Washington with them. I doubt they have even been asked.
Greg Kuhl on May 8, 2007 11:58 am
So, where did Judd get His info? Read the entire story before you comment, or you will end up looking as foolish as the Saarel’s. I just couldn’t stay away from this blog. Without football season, this is the best entertainment out there. Please keep me informed on the defense fund for Mrs. Gee. Have a great day.
Judd on May 8, 2007 1:50 pm
Greg, The Montana Pioneer (May) shed new light on the subject with quotes from Gees own statement to the sheriff. Her ‘cubs” were in the house when the shot Saarels dog in the rear from 75 feet. Where are you getting your story from? It seems the Bozeman Chronicle article left out a few facts, or perhaps Gee forgot to mention that part of the story. If a dog attacks or poses a threat, sure, shoot him. But shooting a dog in the rear when the kids are in the house…I call that a damn good insurance policy.
Morgan on May 8, 2007 6:05 pm
Judd…are you suggesting that Mrs Gee should have shooed the dog away even after it acted like it was going to have her children for breakfast??? She would have had to be watching over her shoulder constantly after that in fear that the dog would return to try to finish what it had started?…and who’s to say it wouldn’t have? The Saarel’s sure weren’t jumping to make sure Marbles wasn’t taking off on her walk abouts off of their property!! I don’t understand how all of you do-gooders can make it through the day with your near sightedness…
Also, any good mother would have put her children inside first and out of harms way. The fact that she had time to do that and Marbles was still there to shoot should say something as to how in a hurry she was to get away and how close she was to begin with.
Judd on May 8, 2007 7:33 pm
Morgan, let me tell you something…if you tried to break into my cabin but decided to leave and I came out and shot you in the rear, I do think I would have violated the law no matter how much I would have wanted to shoot your a**. The majority of the postings here including the last one from you are solely based upon Gees words. I find it curious that the Bozeman Chronicle says one thing according to Gee and she used other words and a different scenario altogether in her apparent statements to the sheriff. I wonder which of her stories to believe, if any.

I also wonder what the Saarels do know that they would go to such lengths to defend a dog. Perhaps they had their dog on a GPS tracking system. Lord knows, it would have been alot easier for them to just shut up and forget it…go on a nice vacation instead of time and money on billboards and websites.
Woody on May 8, 2007 7:54 pm
One thing no one seems to be talking about is when the encounter first began the saarels dog was between mrs Gee and her children, growling acting aggressive and would not back down. Or let her get to her kids. How would anyone respond. Let this be a lesson to all you new comers keep your blankty blank dogs at home. This campaign of the saarels is not going to reduce the number of dogs shot it is just going to increase the number of dogs that don’t come home.
Morgan on May 8, 2007 8:47 pm
Judd…
That’s a stupid and totally irrelevant scenero and has nothing to do with this subject. Nice try though!!
Jenny on May 9, 2007 7:12 am
Hopefully Judd will remember to wear his helmet when he gets on the short bus today…I think he’s banged his head on the window panel one too many times!
rckbrnd on May 13, 2007 8:24 pm
After reading the posts here and other information related to this situation, I am of the opinion that both parties involved made errors in judgement and no good can come from people pointing fingers! What has actually been accomplished here? The dogs’ owners did not do enough to keep their dog on their property, and the women who shot the do acted in an exyreme way. What might have happened is she had joined her kids inside and called for assistance? Pleas explain because I see both sides here on some level, but I think that the point here is–What good can come from this for all?
rckbrnd on May 13, 2007 8:27 pm
Please excuse the typos in my post! Proofreading is always good.=)
Mrs Hank on May 13, 2007 9:49 pm
I agree with rckbrnd, both sides could have done things differently. I am sure Mrs. Gee has second guessed herself to death, but I don’t think the Saarels have. They believe their actions (or rather in-actions) where not to blame. Letting their dogs go on ‘walk-abouts’! I believe I read or heard somewhere that another one of their dogs went missing a few years ago. I guess if they get eaten by bears it’s okay.

Did anyone see that they’ve since adopted another dog from Heart of the Valley! I guess Marbles was not as irreplaceable as the Saarels led us to belive.
Stacy on May 14, 2007 2:04 pm
Why should a landowner be responsible for someone elses neglect?
rckbrnd on May 14, 2007 4:10 pm
Please let me say first that my words are not meant to be critical. I understand someone wanting to protect their children from harm. I read the article in the Livingston Enterprise. It was clearly stated in the article that the woman sent her kids inside before killing the dog. Thank goodness that was able to happen and nobody got hurt! That is not always the case in some situations. But my question is, at what point is the line drawn? At what point does a person act rationally and not take matters into their own hands but call on people like the police, animal control etc before shooting an animal. I guess I am trying to understand the whole thing on a broader level than just this isolated incident.It seems to me as with everything in the world that the issue is not just one sided. I have no idea what I would have done. We all have incidents in our lives where we look back and see what could have been done differently. I guess I am hoping that what comes from this is that situations like these will be less likely to happen in the future. It just seems like a real shame that it had to happen at all.
Woody on May 14, 2007 8:20 pm
rckbrnd
I know it is hard to understand park county where this all took place is approximatly 100 miles long and 40 miles wide and at any given time there are only a couple sherrifs deputys on duty. IF Mrs Gee had called and IF it were a priority she would not have seen a deputy for possibly hours….. there is no animal control in the county. I hate to sound like a broken record but the simple solution is to keep your dogs at home. As before this dog was BETWEEN Mrs Gee and her children and acting agressive. Had this dog done that to my wife (we live less than a mile away) she would have killed that dog her bare hands. Funny how if someone gets between a bear and her cubs everyone says “she was just defending her young” Mrs Gee does the same and she is a “pet murderer”
rckbrnd on May 14, 2007 9:02 pm
I do not mean to sound like I think Mrs. Gee is a pet murderer. I do not know her personally. I am sure that she did what she thought she had to do at the time. I also know that sometimes people handle situations in the heat of the moment in ways that are extreme. I am a huge animal lover, but I do not think that an animals life should be put before a person. I guess I am just wanting to look at both sides and point out that everything in life is a lesson and that both sides might think about healing and forgiveness so that the situation is not a gaping wound for people. The bottom line is that it is not any of my business, so forgive me my two cents.
Jenny on May 14, 2007 10:29 pm
I was unaware that the Saarel’s had adopted another dog. Of course, They HAD to adopt another dog in order to fit in with their Montana way of country living! Actually, I think their dogs are more props for their gazillion dollar “ranch” then anything. How in the world would they ever be able to hold seminars for their corporate exec’s without the dog lying on the porch??? Hopefully they will keep this one home even though they aren’t responsible….not even one little bit… for Marble’s untimely demise. I can’t imagine losing a beloved pet and then replacing it so quickly. I shouldn’t be, but I am really shocked.
Another Mom on May 15, 2007 7:42 pm
Our dog was shot by a neighbor last August and died from his injuries while trying to get home. I am a single mother and our dog was a wonderful companion to both me and my child.

Most people fence their dogs in one way or another, but I know that nothing is perfect. It happened to us. Our dog got loose. Just have a look at the number of “lost” dogs and cats in the newspapers. Most people do not want their dogs to be lost…they want them home, where they are safe! I would imagine the Saarels felt the same way.

We got another dog soon after our dog’s death. No dog could ever replace him, but we, especially my son, needed a distraction from the emptiness and sadness that lingered on. No living thing can replace another, human or animal, but we must find a way to go on and find joy again. Our new puppy helped us to heal. We laughed again. And, if like the Saarels, they choose to give a homeless animal a loving home, good for them. I would imagine they are doing everything within their power to be sure their new puppy does not stray onto the neighbor who kills pets property. How horrendous the thought…”Puppy who growled at neighbor’s children shot and killed.”

Once your dog is killed and by a neighbor no less, you never feel safe again for your pets, your child, yourself. Everything changes. I know.

I also couldn’t help but notice that alot of the posts seem to be personal and seemingly have nothing to do with the issue of shooting neighbors pets which the original post seemed to suggest which is how I found this blog in the first place. I don’t know how big the saarels ranch is, but I would think that even people with big ranches love their dogs. Sadly, it seems that there is alot of hatred and jeolously toward the Saarels. Why I am not sure, but I guess anyone who has a successful business and a big ranch in Montana is as fair game as a lost dog. The cruelty of the remarks in this blog in addition to the pain the Saarel family must have experienced just shatters my mind.

I think some of the bloggers need to stop taking their anger out on their neighbors and pets and start taking a serious look at themselves and what it is they are so mad at and why. I am sure the Saarel family and the dog that was killed was not to blame for all the misery, problems and unhappiness in your lives.

By the way, even Murphy himself, could not accept responsibility for Murphy’s Law!
Dennis Doney on May 15, 2007 7:52 pm
Another Mom – What has the locals up in arms is the Saarel’s complete refusal to acknowledge their part in the tragedy. If you have read the intro to their website http://www.ourmarbles.com you will see that they insinuate that Mrs. Gee went out into the forest hunting for their dog! That is ludicrous – as soon as Doug and Susann stop trying Mrs. Gee in the court of public opinion (it isn’t working) and acknowledge they were partially (at minimum) at fault for this tragedy then people will lay off of them. So far it seems all we get is arrogance on their part – there is nothing wrong with their message of stopping illegal pet killing – but unless they have some proof their beloved pet didn’t act aggressively toward her or her children then this act doesn’t fall into the random pet killing category. Fact is nobody really knows what happens, but why should I believe the Saarels over Mrs. Gee? It doesn’t make any sense to me that Mrs. Gee would gleefully shoot the dog and then RETURN THE CARCASS to the owner. The autopsy and the photos just scream publicity stunt to me. Sorry…
Woody on May 15, 2007 8:50 pm
As dennis said the saarels are acting as if their dog had every right to wander wherever it wanted and Mrs Gee had no right to defend her children. I think everyone agrees that the loss of a pet is a an awful thing. BUT it was nobodys fault but their own if they had kept their dog at home he would still be home.
Woody on May 15, 2007 8:55 pm
Also I think there is alot of resentment simply because they (saarels) are turning this into something it is not. They also refuse to accept any responsiblity for the dogs death and as I have said time and time again……Wandering dogs may not come home
Morgan on May 15, 2007 9:39 pm
I think that “another mom” is one in the same as Mrs Saarel….
At least defend yourself as yourself!
Morgan on May 15, 2007 9:41 pm
maybe not, maybe I’m wrong but the wording sure sounds familiar
Jenny on May 16, 2007 9:58 am
I couldn’t have said it any better then Dennis did. This whole situation angers me so very much that maybe I am a little too blunt at times and maybe I have said things that I shouldn’t have. I just don’t understand how the Saarel’s can refuse to take on any of the responsibility and it infuriates me that they keep persecuting Mrs. Gee for protecting her children. I have to drive by those stupid bill boards at least twice every day, I’ve had to listen to them whine on the radio, I’ve had to read about it in the paper, and I’ve wasted so much time on this blog it’s not even funny. I ask myself why I do it and I guess it’s because I can relate with Mrs. Gee 100% and I feel like we as a community need to stand up for her. I am a pet owner, I love my animals like family members and I also know that I am responsible for everything they do. I accepted that responsibility when I took on the role as a pet owner. I don’t agree with “another mom’s” point of view at all…just like everyone else who have sided with the Saarel’s, it makes no sense to me. Mrs. Gee is not a “pet killer” she killed a vicious animal that was apparently going to attack her children in the safety of her OWN yard. Kids come before anyones pets (even the Saarel’s)…plain and simple.
rckbrnd on May 16, 2007 11:03 am
I can imagine that this has been quite a difficult and emotional issue for all involved. I wish you all a peaceful resolution of this matter.
Levi on May 16, 2007 10:52 pm
Being a 4th generation native Montanan and growing up on a ranch, I know a few things about loising a pet or two. First off, if you aren’t native go home. Second I’m tired of lokking at the stupid billboard every day on my way to work, please take it down. I would have done the same thing only I wouldn’t have wasted a good bullet, I would have probably used my pocket knife or my bare hands.First thing you should understand is, my family comes first especially the kids,I would do anything to protect them at any cost. It looks to me that Marbles is some sort or Heeler mix. Knowing this these dogs have notoriously crusty attitudes. I know this because in the years past I have had a few of them. These dogs don’t like people. They are controllable only if their owner is present, if not they have their own mind.they are a really smart dog just don’t leave them unatended. Having said that I’m not sorry your dog got shot, you should have kept better tabs on him. Your best bet is to buy one of those ankle bitting poodles and keep it in your house. If you let them run someday they may not come home. If you don’t like it you can always move!
Paul M. on May 18, 2007 9:38 am
I was going to give up on this site as it seemed to have come full circle, then I read the one from Another Mom and felt compelled to respond.

Once I wiped the tears from my screen, I realized there was something missing from the letter. What could possibly evoke more emotion than the horrendous thought of “Puppy who growled at neighbor’s Children shot and killed”? How about “Neighbor’s Children mauled, disfigured by growling Puppy”? Excuse me ma’am, but growling is to dog as rattling is to snake. It generally preceeds a bite!

I’m a fifth generation Montanan and grew up having neighbors who are one of the larger landowners in the state. There has never been any jealously or hate, only good neighbors. It’s not that the Saarels own land, are successful, or are God’s gifts to California. They are just bad neighbors in my eyes. Good neighbors would have apologized for their dog threatening the children and putting their neighbor in the position of having to defend them.

Another Mom, a real horrendous thought is of a three year old child with a chunk of meat bitten out and its eyeball laying on what’s left of a once chubby little cheek. A child traumatized for life and never being able to know the joy of owning or even petting a dog because fear won’t let them.

You madam, like the Saarels, seem to think that we should take a look at ourselves because no one else could be the root cause of all our “misery, problems, and unhappiness”. Maybe we should all be in therapy and you could be the doctor.
Stacy on May 18, 2007 4:59 pm
I agree with Levi – that frickin billboard needs to be taken down- seeing it no less than twice a day makes me want to puke. And if you really want to stop pet killing in Montana-keep your animals at home and adopt a pet from a shelter that doesnt have a limited kill/no kill policy. So basically quit the martyr act, suck it up and move on. and Marbles died doing what it liked to do – running amok- so marbles died happy.
Woody on May 21, 2007 11:20 am
Well it seems the saarels campaign is working, has anybody else noticed the large number of missing dog signs around park county lately? It seems that alot of dogs aren’t coming home …….I wonder why. Wolves must be eating them.
rckbrnd on May 21, 2007 3:54 pm
I may regret saying this, but you are not seriously implying that some seriously sick person/persons are purposely killing people’s pets to prove a point. Are you?
Woody on May 21, 2007 4:18 pm
I hope not….but the Saarels may have created a situation where these dogs are just going to disappear if they are getting into trouble where before most of the time people were atleast warned if there dog was cuasing trouble. I don’t think people are going to give a warning because they may end up on the saarels web page……Ask the Gees if they would have done anything diferent and they will tell you they should have just buried the dog…..
rckbrnd on May 21, 2007 5:30 pm
I actually respect Mrs. Gee for taking Marbles body to the Saarels. I imagine that must have been very difficult to do. Whatever view people hold personally about the events of that day and her actions, I think that credit should at least be given for her steps in returning the dog. She did the hard thing and often in life, the right thing to do is the hardest thing to do.
Morgan on May 21, 2007 7:12 pm
Yes, she did do the right thing and look where it got her….If I were ever in her position (and alot of other would agree with me) after this event it’s shoot, shovel, and shut up. I hope the Saarel’s are proud of themselves and the results of their “not personal” campaign.
rckbrnd on May 21, 2007 7:43 pm
I think, at their best, the Saarels are trying to draw attention to an issue. The issue of people killing pets and cruelty to animals. I was reading the link to “pet- cruelty” on their website and I had a physical reaction to the stories on the site. The problem of animal cruelty is a nationwide problem. It happens everywhere. I think that that is a different issue than defending yourself or your kids against an animal attack. It seems like the issues have been blurred in this situation. It sounds like the Saarels have done more harm than good in terms of opening up a dialogue where these issues can be resolved and some good can come from this situation. If the only thing that comes out of the whole incident is that people are more alert to doing more to keep their pets on their property, then that seems like it makes it worth it. Have the Saarels and the Gees had any kind of dialogue since that awful day? It seems like that might do more to help things than anything else. Is that possible or am I ridiculous to even suggest it?
Morgan on May 21, 2007 10:18 pm
Every time I read the Saarel’s “Our Marbles” site I get very emotional. It is really a very sad thing that has happened as it would be very hard to lose a loved pet in such a way. As sarcastic as I sometimes tend to be, I can tell that they really did love Marbles and that they considered her part of their family. Now that being said, I then think of how the Saarel’s have turned the death of their dog into a 3 ring circus with Mrs Gee in the spotlight and it makes me very angry… outweighing any sympathy that I might have had for them.
I don’t know what type of dialogue, if any has occured between the two parties but if I were Mrs. Gee I would be inclined to not want to talk anything over with the Saarel’s after they have repeatedly attacked her character. Right now, the Saarel’s are getting their ducks in a row in order to file suit against Mrs. Gee. Her own attorney would probably advise her to not have any contact with the Saarel’s.
I hope you are right though, I hope some good does come out of this, but like you I think the Saarel’s have turned this into something it’s not, more then likely in an attempt to try to sway public opinion in their direction. Something in which I believe they are failing miserably at. Animal abuse and neglect is a real tradgedy but has nothing to do with Mrs. Gee defending her children from an at large and aggressive dog. They need to get on with their lives and let the rest of the community get on with ours as this is getting really old. The billboards need to go and Marbles needs to be put in the ground.
Morgan on May 21, 2007 10:22 pm
Not to sound Calloused of course…..
rckbrnd on May 21, 2007 10:50 pm
It is clear that this is still an open wound. I continue to hope for a resolution which will not tear the wound open even further, but move things forward.
Greg Kuhl on May 22, 2007 2:35 pm
The local population has been swayed by the actions, or should I say the reaction of the Saarel’s, which was and continous to be the public persecution of Mrs. Gee. This situation is the talk of the street these days. From what I’m hearing, Most people ( 9 out of 10 easily ) are favoring the 3 S rule. Our society has become litigation crazy. The only solution to this attitude is to keep your mouth shut and your head down. Kind of looks like a big city problem, doesn’t it? A person can do the right thing all day long and still be sued. I saw this coming the first time I read this web site. Thats what made me sick, not the people involved, but what was coming down the road. People tearing people apart like some school-yard bullies. I know who I’m going to spend my money on, and Her name starts with a G. To the Saarel’s: Your reaction has exploded the very problem you were trying to fix. A new course of action may be the only way you can stop the storm you have created with your reaction. Do not confuse action with reaction. That’s how countries start wars.
Matthew on May 23, 2007 2:56 pm
The county attorney decided not to prosecute. In other words there wasn’t enough evidence to support Saarel’s claim. What else is there to be said? The saarel’s are not good people. This is simply beating a dead dog… oops I mean horse.
rckbrnd on May 23, 2007 7:36 pm
The only good that came come from this situation is for people to stop acting like it is their God given right to kill,poison,maime or torture animals beacause they feel like it. I am still willing to acknowledge that Mrs. Gee acted out of a desire to protect her family and did not have evil intentions, but what on earth is going on that SO MANY pets are being poisoned or killed? Seriously, what is up with this? I am not some bleeding heart liberal. I understand fishing and hunting for food! I know we as humans are higher on the food chain than animals etc…I just cannot understand why all of this poisoning and shooting of pets is going on! To me, being a good neighbor means that you talk to your neighbor and that you want to help your neighbor. That means that you talk with your neighbor kindly about things like their pets getting on your property and you remember that if you kill or hurt an animal that someone sees as part of the family, you have essentially killed a person in terms of the emotional impact. It is not the same as killing a grizzly bear that is charging you or possibly even killing a wolf that has killed your livestock! Survival of the fittest does not mean cruelty. That is why we have a conscience. We are able to think through our actions and their consequences unlike a grizzly bear mother who is defending her young. So, there I said it. I will not say anything else on this subject. I do truly hope that this situation is resolved and that the community heals and moves on, but maybe part of the healing is this issue of pet killing being looked at and adressed once and for all.Maybe, just maybe, there is a better way to deal with things than at present. I say this without animosity, just a desire to make a point.
Stacy on May 24, 2007 1:27 pm
Even animals kill is a way some would consider “cruel” that is why a clean kill with a bullet or two is much kinder “humane” act. Notifiying owners what happened is an act of kindness. Not apologizing for your pet acting aggressive toward your neighbors is rude. Attacking the same neighbors via print and internet is mean, cruel harrassment.
rckbrnd on May 24, 2007 3:32 pm
I agree with everything that you just wrote. I do agree that bullets are more humane and frankly, I would much rather eat “clean” hunted meat, organic meat, or fresh from the farm/ranch meat than the garbage that they sell us in the store.
As a general rule, nature has a very balanced way of taking care of itself. There is an order in terms of the way that certain animals kill and the animals that they kill such as the weak and old in a herd,etc. Again, though, we are more evolved. We as humans are the ones who generally mess with that balance. But, that is perhaps another blog thread.=) I think that it is true that the Saarel’s have launched a slightly immature attack against Mrs. Gee, but I do agree with the larger of issue of the need to STOP pet killing. This has been happening alot lately, not just with Marbles, though I still think that falls into a different category.When I say the whole issue needs to be looked at, I mean the apparent extreme amounts of pets being killed by neighbors. That is what I am referring to and why I support the Saarels in their stand against this problem, if not for their treatment of Mrs. Gee. It makes me deeply sad to think that there are people cruel enough to do things like poison their neighbors dog or shoot cats and stuff them into garbage cans. To me that borders on sociopathic behavior and MUST STOP. There is simply NO excuse on God’s earth to do that. I agree that Mrs. Gee did the right thing in returning Marbles to the Saarels. In a situation like that, that is the right thing to do. The Saarel’s do owe Mrs. Gee an apology as well. There are often situations in life where both parties owe each other an apology for part, if not all, of the events or words that have been said. Well, so much for me not writing any further on this subject!
Woody on May 24, 2007 4:39 pm
The only way it is going to stop is if people start being responsible and keep their pets at home. There is no law enforcement that will deal will this so people are forced to deal with it themselves. It ALL falls on the pet owner for the most part neighbors will try to tell their neighbors that their dog is getting into trouble they will then keep their dogs home for a few days then they let them run again. neighbor calls again says keep your dog home…neighbor locks his dog up for a few days then lets him run again….dog doesn’t come home….whos fault is it?
This really is a simple issue keep your pets at home. I consider a stray dog as much a threat to my family and livestock as a coyote, wolf, mountain lion or bear. In some cases even more of a threat becuase they have less fear of people.Like I have said time and time again no matter what your feelings on this issue it is the saarels fault no one elses. Had the dog been kept at home he would still be alive. I bet they keep their new on at home…. A little common sense goes a long way and that seems to be in short supply. I must say that it appears that the Saarels campaign seems to be fizzling out thank god…
rckbrnd on May 24, 2007 5:35 pm
Common sense is good, but compassion is even better.
Woody on May 24, 2007 6:56 pm
where on earth are you from? Cause it certainly isn’t from around here. If there were less people who think that way there would be alot fewer wandering pets and alot more live ones. compassion does not take the place of RESPONSIBILITY. Maybe it is compassionate to put an animal down if it’s owner doesn’t care enough to take care of it……
rckbrnd on May 24, 2007 7:16 pm
I do agree with you that animal owners have an obligation to take responsibility for their animals, that is part of having an pet. I absolutely do believe that people need to take responsibility for things in their lives, but it seems like there can be a fine line between having common sense and being cold-hearted. I am also glad if the whole Marbles issue has simmered down. It did not seem to be going anywhere good in terms of resolving things. To me though, it seems like the whole issue has just been swept under the rug and life goes on without anyone really being willing to examine the larger issues. I guess what I meant in my above comment is that what is sometimes is called common sense is really just a personal point of view. We are all entitled to have our own. That is all I meant. So I guess the question is, has anyone learned anything?
Jenny on May 24, 2007 8:38 pm
I’ve learned not to let my pets wander…wait, I already knew that! I guess I learned that if an aggressive dog is approaching my children and will not leave then I need to wait till the dog actually attacks and hurts my children before I react and protect them or else the Saarel’s (or the like) will slander me, pull out all the stops to persecute me, and then more then likely ultimately sue me!
Let’s stop trying the bleeding heart approach since it still doesn’t fit the situation. I don’t feel like I need to learn a life lesson from the Saarel’s.
rckbrnd on May 24, 2007 10:38 pm
Well, I am not a bleeding heart liberal. I have always had the ability to look at both sides of an issue and see both points of view. My words were only meant to make anyone who read the blog to consider a new point of view. I tried to write things in a way that was not attacking, criticizing, or condescending to anyone. I truly believe that there is a larger issue going on concerning pet killing and it goes beyond the Marbles situation. I will say again that I hope that good comes out of this and that maybe people will think in different ways about the way pet situations are handled. Not letting one’s animals roam is certainly a good plan, but it is not the solution to the entire problem. So, I am signing off of this blog now. I wish everyone well.
Another Mom on May 24, 2007 10:42 pm
Stacy, Excuse me, “humane”?? It appears the dog was shot and her intestines fell out. Apparently it was the second shot that did her in. I don’t think the Saarels were notified. By the looks of it, Mrs. Gee without warning, delivered their beloved dog to them in a trash bag and the Saarel’s poor children were probably witness to the whole thing. Obviously kindness means different things to different people. Why didn’t Mrs. Gee call the Saarel’s and tell them what happened and spare the Saarel children the pain of learning their beloved pet was blasted to pieces and seeing their parents in obvious agony over this, I don’t know. Overall, this woman obviously has very poor judgement. Sorry, but the words “humane” and “kindness” do not come to mind.
Another Mom on May 24, 2007 11:03 pm
Oh, and kudos to rckbrnd who seems to be one of the few persons on this blog to have the intelligence to recognize the real issue at hand here…pet killing in general, which is what the Saarel’s seem to have been trying to bring attention to since the beginning despite their personal tragedy and pain.
Matt on May 25, 2007 12:06 am
Another Mom, Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about. Since when did the dogs intestines fall out? The Saarels were notified. The childred probably wouldn’t have even know what was in the infamous garbage bag until the Saarels in all their brillance decided to hold a photo op with thier children basking in the glow of the operating room lights. And agony is not a billboard. I’m sorry but the words “stupidity” and “worthlessness” come to mind for people who post equally unfounded nonsense.
Matt on May 25, 2007 12:12 am
I will say that rckbrn has a few good points. As emotionally charged as this is it is important to realize the difference between the merciless killing and torturing of ANY animals and the protection of assets and MORE importantly, human well being. Gee actions were obviously not committed with suffering and/or torture in mind for the animal.
Matt on May 25, 2007 12:17 am
If I feel bad for any of the children it was Gee’s having to witness their mother putting down a dangerou dog. Has anybody ever read To Kill A Mockingbird? Not to mention the trauma of nearly having been biten. Growling dogs are rather intimidating. Kind of like the scary looking one on that billboard.
Stacy on May 25, 2007 10:05 am
Dear Another Mom-Yes Humane-she could have let the dog crawl off like yours did and let it be fair game for any other animal or try to make it home to be found. and a garbage bag is essentially a body bag. Again-the dog should have been at home or under the owners supervision and none of this would be an issue now would it. But then you probably would have invited the dog in for biscuits and milk if it had been agressive toward you and your kid right?
Another Mom on May 25, 2007 10:09 am
Matt,
Excuse me, but it is pretty obvious in the photos on their website that the poor dogs intestines fell out. Yeah, I feel bad for the Gee children too. I shudder to think how many dogs they’ve watched their mother kill.
Stacy on May 25, 2007 10:29 am
Another Mom-seriously though-in that situation where the stray dog was at your yard, acting the way it did toward you or your kid what would you have done if yelling hadn’t worked? Of course its not necessarily a bad thing to teach kids how to protect themselves from vicious animals when you live in the country-I hope her kids grow up to have a good aim.
Paul M. on May 25, 2007 10:44 am
You’re right, Another Mom. The real issue here is cruelity to animals, and whether or not Mrs. Gee’s actions in protecting her family constituted cruelity to animals. It appears that the law has decided not to pursue the case as evidence of cruelity is not sufficient to prosecute.

In the mean time, what have the Gee’s had to endure and still do endure because of the publicity and one-sided campaign of the Saarels? If you think it’s not directed at the Gee’s personally and the overall message is about animal cruelity in general, why has the Gee’s name been used in the Saarel’s website? The Gee’s may very well be left with a far reaching, undeserved stigma from which they may not recover.

I agree that cruelity to animals runs rampant. Nothing gets my ire up more than seeing several horses on couple of acres of ground that wouldn’t support a small goat. We see a lot of that around here. Most horses appear to be well taken care of, but the first time I can see the ribs on that horse, I’m calling the authorities. And that’s cruelity by their owners own hand. “Pet” isn’t necessarily limited to cats and dogs.

Quit trying to jerk tears out of the rest of us, we get it. You don’t like cruelity being purveyed on innocent animals and neither do a lot of the rest of us. We have laws in Montana that deal with those issues and they have been enforced in the past and will continue to be enforced. We also have laws concerning dogs-at-large and those have not been enforced, probably as they should be.

My wife was bitten by a little yapping dog. She was walking on the street. Broke the skin. Took her to the emergency room to be treated. The sheriff’s department was notified in accordance with the law, and the owners of the dog were cited for dog-at-large violation because the dog was not on the owners property. Were the Saarel’s ever cited for dog-at-large?
Stacy on May 25, 2007 11:21 am
“This must NEVER happen again! Help protect YOUR dogs or beloved pets from murder! Spare your children the painful and unexplainable loss of a beloved pet at the hand of a neighbor!” This is what the Saarels web site is about-accusatory isn’t it-However the unexplainable loss does have an explaination-it could go something like this-: Twins, as your parents we are sorry we let you down and caused Marbles to die by not keeping her at home. Yes Marbles was loving towards us, however she wasn’t with us and was acting different because of that. She scared the neighbors so bad that they felt in danger and felt they had no choice but to kill her- Thank goodness Marbles didn’t actually bite them. If we ever get another dog and realize our invisible fence doesnt alway s work- we will build a kennel to keep our dog safe at home and our neighbors from being put in that position. We will always be saddened by this but we can learn from it.
Jenny on May 25, 2007 1:14 pm
Another mom…you really need a reality check. I’m sorry your neighbor shot and killed your dog, like the Saarels you should have kept it at home. Maybe you can hold a candle light vigle together.
Jenny on May 25, 2007 1:20 pm
one more thing to another mom….Marbles is the only dog that Mrs. Gee has ever shot or attempted to shoot (that’s been documented). That should tell you something as well since there are lots of roaming dogs in the area. Do you think she just had it out for Marbles that day??? She must have looked so cute there jumping around in the snow when she felt Mrs. Gee watching her….I’m sure Mrs. Gee just wanted to snuff the life right out of a poor innocet little dog! Give me a Break!!!
Stacy on May 25, 2007 1:41 pm
there would probably be only one candle if the vigil was held
Matt on May 25, 2007 5:32 pm
“I shudder to think how many dogs they’ve watched their mother kill. ” Wow someone really has her head up her ass. Please remove before speaking.
Matt on May 25, 2007 5:40 pm
So maybe Gee’s a bad shot. I’d like to think I would have been a little more accurate but you never know what mindset you’d have if your children were being threatened by a wandering animal. You are right about the intestine thing though, I must’ve missed that pic. Bet after that he was like “damn, I shouldn’t have threatened those kids.” Anyway, doesn’t change the fact that you’re simply full of el crapo.
Another Mom on May 25, 2007 8:04 pm
Stacy, To tell you the truth, if I was able to get my kids in the house I wouldn’t have stepped outside to kill a dog on its way home, but I WOULD have called its owners and told them what happened or the sheriff to report a vicious dog…maybe even report a dog-at-large as you suggest.

To Paul M., I may be wrong, but I didn’t notice that the website mentioned Gee’s name.
Mrs Hank on May 26, 2007 12:26 pm
Another mom-No, the Saarels website does not mention Gee’s name but the link to all the newspaper articles does, so obviously they are referring to the Gee’s. Unless some other neighbor has shot one of their “sweet” dogs.

Did you see the letter to the editor in todays Bozeman Chronicle from Doug Saarel? Apparently EVERYONE is a liar: The Gee’s, Bill Devine and Skip Lightfoot. I just emailed my friend Skip to inform him that his property has been sold out from under him. I’m sure he will be very surprised to learn he no longer owns it. So, we are supposed to believe everything the Saarels say and ignore the many other people that have had unpleasant incounters with Marbles? I THINK NOT!!!

IF, and that’s a big IF, the Saarel’s campaign were actually about animal abuse, and not a smear campaign against the Gee’s, I would be the first to support them.

Saarels-what laws are you trying to change? What do you want them changed to? How do we go about changing them? Is there a pettition we can sign? A letter to write to our congressmen? A law to be voted on?? Other than bringing awareness to this issue, what else are you trying to do to help stop pet abuse/cruelty? Can you answer any of these questions??? I’d really like to know!
Mrs Hank on May 26, 2007 12:38 pm
A quote from Doug Saarel from todays paper:
“It is even more surprising that only now since Marble’s death are some individuals
“conveniently” coming forward to reveal experiences with Marbles never shared with us before.”
Doug, perhaps they were scared of being persecuted by you before, but are now just so FED UP with this smear campaign, they just had to speak up. I am sure there are many others that have not come forward yet, but if this case ever goes to civil court (because there will not be a criminal trial), I’m sure there will be people coming out of the woodwork to support the Gee’s and to discredit you.
Griz on May 26, 2007 1:53 pm
I just had an interesting conversation with Mrs. Gee, she told the particulars of the incident and I agreed with her actions. Had Marbles come onto my property and acted agressivly towards my children or myself I would have shot him also.

I recently heard a comment about the caliber of the rifle she used to protect her children, I guess she should have ran into the house and grabbed a smaller caliber rifle while the dog attacked her children.

My question to the Saarels is” what the hell was the dog doing running loose ?”

If my dog was on some ones property and acted like Marbles did I would expect them to either shoot the animal or call me so I could do it myself.

If the Californians don’t like the way we do things here they can take their dogs, kids, attitudes and anything else they brought with them back to California.
Woody on May 26, 2007 5:25 pm
Ahh What a mess………. Mrs Gee did not know who the dog belonged to until AFTER it was shot…..making it hard to call the owners. There is no leash law in park county, there is no dog at large law……there is no animal control officer to call. Mrs Gee was defending here children and her property. I have not read mr saarels letter but I can see how he would get vicious NO ONE in his community that I have spoken to agrees with his position not ONE. This is simply a vendeta against the Gees in an attempt to cover up there ther own iresponsibilty. Advice to Saarels…..let it go you are only further alienating yourselfs from your community. Had you been respopnsible pet owners this would not have happened. As I have said before the ONLY mistake the Gees made was returning the carcass
Jenny on May 26, 2007 7:31 pm
The Saarel’s are just po’d because they are watching their civil lawsuit that they have alluded to so many times coming apart at the seams. And once again they are resorting to slander and attacking the character of their neighbors. Maybe they need to put up another billboard to punish these other neighbors that have spoken out against them as well. “Stop Saarel Bashing In Montana”. I’m sure that we’d even get some bleeding hearts that agree with them. Yes Another Mom (aka Mrs. Saarel) that means you!
rckbrnd on May 26, 2007 10:05 pm
So, I was going to sign off for good, but I would be interested to know what people feel about Jim Durfey and his wife and their actions. I realize that this is a blog dedicated to the “Our Marbles” situation, but I feel that this question is worth asking.
Woody on May 26, 2007 11:28 pm
not even close to the same thing rckbrnd. Cats last time I checked don’t pose much of a threat to children or livestock. Anyway It’s pretty obvious this whole thing is crumbling for the saarels I just hope they take down that stupid sign soon
Does anyone know what saarels letter had to say? I can’t find it online yet
Jenny on May 26, 2007 11:48 pm
That’s like comparing apples to oranges…two different things. What the Durfey’s did was kill innocent defenseless animals and in a cruel manner. Once again for the millionth time, Mrs. Gee killed an animal that was threatening her children. Why is that so hard for some people to distinguish between these totally different types of events??? I don’t get it.
rckbrnd on May 26, 2007 11:54 pm
I realize that the situations are not the same. I know Mrs. Gee was protecting her kids with her actions. I just meant to ask the question in terms of what people thought of the Durfey actions in general. I realize that cats and dogs differ in terms of the kind of animal they are and their behavior in terms of being a threat, but the result was the same regardless of motive. Apparently they,and others, were poisoning both cats and dogs in town. I looked for the letter as well with no success.
rckbrnd on May 27, 2007 12:12 am
I say this gently,but one could get the impression from reading some of the posts that the attitude was a sort of a “too bad,so sad” attitude to all pet- killing regardless of the circumstances. It heartens to me to read these responses.
Jenny on May 27, 2007 9:54 am
rckbrnd
I don’t think people have that attitude here at all. Most of us have pets of our own that we love and would heartbroken over if they were killed. Animals just being animals are one thing, but an animal threatening children or livestock is quite another. I’m sure that Mrs Gee would not have shot Marbles for simpley passing through her yard, or even deficating there for that matter (even though she might have found that annoying). If she had then the public outcry would be much different then it is. I for one, and I’m sure I speak for 99% of us around here, do NOT condone animal cruelty, neglect, abuse or random killing. People who mistreat and murder defenseless animals for the joy of it or because they’re lazy are lowest of the low and should be punished. Mrs. Gee does not fall into that catagory! An apology from the Saarel’s to the Gee’s would go a long way here in helping our community “heal” as it was their dog that threatened her children in her yard and forced her to take such drastic and traumatizing measures. Until the Gee family receives that apology, in my eyes, the Saarel’s are not much better then the REAL pet abusers and killers such as the scum Durfey’s.
Stacy on May 29, 2007 10:53 am
If you don’t know who the dog belonged to you would have to go up to it and read the dog tags-then go into the house and bandage a bloodied arm-have the kids call the # from the tags-then call 911 because they can’t leave the house so their injured mom could drive to the ER because the dog actually wasn’t returning home it stayed- well the ambulance/sheriff show up but not the dogs owners-now what- the dog is still aggressive-the sheriff dispatches the dog-the owners are notified. result-much worse then shooting the damn dog in the first place-because now the owners face alot of bills besides the autopsy-and the autopsy only shows physical characteristics of the wounds and somewhat assumptive train of events to the final death-not the mental state of the dog at time of death. So another mom perhaps it would have worked better if it had been aggressive towards you and yours- but it would have come back another day – perhaps when you weren’t around to get your kids safe and then what.
rckbrnd on May 31, 2007 2:12 pm
RESPONSIBILITY. It is a good word. It is an important concept to understand in life. Pet owners have a very important responsibility to take care of their pets. Part of that responsibility is to not let pets run loose. To not let their dogs or cats run all over kingdom come and put: the pet, other people, livestock and property, etc in harm’s way.Right? So, here it comes. The flip side.Well, sort of.There is another area of responsibility that is a little diferent. That is the responsibility that comes from taking responsibilty for doing something like killing a neighbor’s dog or cat by any means. Shooting, poisoning, beating, stabbing, running it over with a car. All actions that a person must take responsibility for. If one makes the choice to do that, regardless of the circumstances, then one sure as heck better have the guts to take the heat.To me, the only time any of those scenarios should take place, the only time that behavior is not beyond sick and evil is in defense of a person or animal in immediate danger. The responsiblity for the decision to do these things, unless one is a sociopath because sociopaths have no conscience,is still the RESPONSIBILITY of the person who committed these acts. If one is going to do something like kill someone’s pet then by God you’d better have the backbone to not only explain your actions, but take the heat for it. Only a coward would bury the animal and keep quiet about it. Any thoughts?
Dennis Doney on May 31, 2007 2:51 pm
I have a thought – besides the fact that Doug and Susann Saarel have NOT taken responsibility for their part in this, what is relevant about your post rckbrnd? I believe by returning the dog to the Saarels, and by explaing the situation FROM HER PERSPECTIVE (after all – she was there!) Mrs. Gee has upheld her end of the responsibility equation. What have the Saarels done besides put up a billboard that has pissed all of their neighbors off? Nothing as near as I can tell…I agree with your post – I just don’t see the relevance to this exact circumstance aside from what I have written.
rckbrnd on May 31, 2007 3:22 pm
It is quite relevant to the situation in light of some of the discussion about future scenarios. The present attitude that it is better to bury the body and keep quiet about it. Yes, this is a specific situation, but it is hardly the first time something like this has happened and unfortunately probably not the last. Doesn’t it seem to anyone that the larger point here is for EVERYONE (including the Saarels) to learn lessons so that maybe a scenario like this and others somewhat similar will not happen in the future? If people don’t get that letting your pets roam is not wise, then it will still happen. If people don’t get that taking at least some responsibility for what happens when you do let them roam is part of being a pet owner, then next time, it will be the same scenario, just different names. It won’t be Saarel vs Gee, but Smith vs Joe Blow and more pain and strife and dead pets. Maybe somebody reading this blog who does not understand these ideas will get it and act accordingly and responsibly in the future. Hopefully, I am preaching to the choir.
Woody on May 31, 2007 5:39 pm
The only thing this has changed about future scenerios is that these wandering pets just won’t come home. Who is going to come forward if this is the result of them stepping forward?
Plan and simple if you don’t want this to happen to your dog keep him at home, than this won’t be an issue. If he wanders into my horse pasture I have a spot for him VERY simple….maybe it’s cold hearted first time you get a warning or a warning shot next time I get the shovel
rckbrnd on May 31, 2007 6:05 pm
Well, perhaps cold-hearted, cowardly and illegal. I believe that the law in Montana does not allow for killing an animal for simply being on your propery. I suppose I am being judgemental, but that is the whole point here. Mrs. Gee, (if her account of the events is 100% true, honest, and up front)shot the Saarels’ dog to protect her kids. The events of that day are open to debate, but I am giving her the benefit of the doubt.I continue to respect her for taking the body to the Saarel family and not just burying it. Yes, one can continue to argue about people letting their animals run loose. As I have said, I completely agree with the view that pet owners must keep their pets on their own property. Just because the animal wanders off of the property, does not mean that a person automatically has the right to kill it. If I am not mistaken, that is against the law. I believe that the animal has to be shown to have been endangering people, livestock or another pet. I could bring up the moral implications of doing something like that, but that is probably not appropriate at this time. I am not trying to force my personal moral code on anyone. It seems better to stick to the facts.
rckbrnd on May 31, 2007 6:08 pm
Nothing I have written is meant to be a personal attack on anyone, so please do not be even tempted to take it that way. I am speaking in generalities.
Woody on May 31, 2007 8:36 pm
So is the wandering dog “harassing” my horse before or after it runs the horse through a fence and costs me several thousand dollars….and guess what no one saw the dog do it….so now I have a several thousand dollar vet bill I have to pay. So lets see it would appear to me that the wandering dog was harrasing my horse therefore it died a tragic death not because my morals but simply a desire to protect my property. No matter how you try and twist this around rckbrnd wandering dogs are going to get killed because by their very nature wandering dogs pose a threat to livestock and people. So I know you are morally superior to the rest of us but you really need to get a clue
rckbrnd on May 31, 2007 9:10 pm
That is not the same scenario. You would be in your rights to stop a wandering dog or any animal from running your horse through a fence etc. You have every right to protect your livestock or family from harm. Mrs.Gee did too. I have said that I agree with your stand on pet owners taking responsibility for keeping their pets on their property so that very scenario does not take place. When people do not do enough to keep their dogs on their property, they put people in situations that could have been prevented if they had been responsible and kept them home. The scenario of a loose dog running your horse through a fence would be an example. I do not think that all pet owners understand that it is not right to put someone like you in that position due to their irresponsible behavior. What I am saying is that if that is how the events went down, you would not have any reason to “hide” it. You would be within your rights. There are scenarios when it would be legal and understandable to take matters into your own hands. I suppose I was harsh in what I said, but it was not meant as personal attack. Truly though, I most definitely do have quite an understanding of every single issue and point that has been brought up along the way. I am sorry if anything that I have written has been offensive to anyone. So no, not clueless.
Jenny on May 31, 2007 9:44 pm
I agree that returning the animal to it’s owners would be the honorable and descent thing to do. Most people around here are both such things and that’s one reason that I find that billboard as well as the Saarel’s campaign so offensive. It implies the contrary and at the same time it puts everyone of us in the community at risk of being sued in the event of ever having to make the hard choice of putting an animal down. I for one already knew to keep my pets at home, as well as not making rash decisions to kill an at large animal (as you’ve pointed out only extreme cases warrant this)…if I ever did, I would notify the owner (assuming the dog had a collar with id, some don’t). So really, Mr. Gee had to make the first hard decision feeling that the animal would hurt her kids if she didn’t take care of it. She then did another maybe even harder thing by returning the dog to it’s owners tearfully explaining what events had unfolded, and now has and is still paying sever consequences brought on by the Saarel’s and their inability to do the right thing (forgiving and apologizing). My question here is, who is it that needs to learn from this unfortunate series of events besides the Saarel’s? I think you will be happy to know that you are indeed preaching to the choir. I don’t think we’re arguing with you, just saying the same thing in a different way….
svs on May 31, 2007 10:08 pm
The Saarels are generating some interesting arguments. And while I agree that pet killing needs to stop and that there is absolutely NO reason to randomly shoot, harm, maime,or poison any animal. The thing that gets me about this whole thing is that the ACTUAL problem here keeps getting ignored.

The issue that will cause future problems is that the Saarels have taken this too far, without taking any responsibility for their part in this. Which, in turn, is going to hinder the very thing they are claiming to be backing. By that I mean this. If Mrs Gee had in fact just buried the dog and didn’t say anything to the Saarels, she would not be dealing with the lawsuit, the bad reputation etc. She did the right thing by bringing the dog back after shooting an animal she believed to be a danger to her family. So this then is going to cause future problems. More people are going to be afraid of the lawsuits, slander etc and are going to shoot shovel and shut up.
If the Saarels had just taken responsibility for their dog being lose, thanked Mrs Gee for bringing the dog back, apologized for the scary situation the Gee kids had to witness and then given their money to the animal shelter and any other group that helps animals, instead of a smear campaign to shed a very dark light on Mrs Gee, this blog post wouldn’t even exist.
But they didn’t do that. And THAT is the issue.

People have become so quick to sue, blame others, point the finger and not take responsibility for their actions or the actions of their pets, kids whatever.

So yeah, I agree that animal abuse needs to stop. But I also believe that people need to grow some and act like adults.
Jenny on May 31, 2007 10:15 pm
One more thing and then I’m done with this going absolutely nowhere blog…the Doug and Susanne Saarel’s campaign has done far more harm then good. As pointed out many times over, people will now be afraid to tell their neighbor what happened to Fido out of fear. However, I don’t think the Saarel’s care. Because “making public aware of the surprisingly unknown extent of pet killing in Montana and to clarify a misperception of Montana Law…” has never been their real agenda and we all know it and have known it from the get go. They have made things worse in our community and they know it and still no apology, still no “we were wrong’s” nothing but their unrelenting slandering of the Gee’s and others in the community. I don’t believe that they care about what happens to animals, just that nobody better do this to THEM. They are so self absorbed that they don’t care about the how’s or why’s. Their heads are shoved so far up their own asses and they think they are so much better then everyone else. They want to make sure that we all know that no one does that to the Saarel’s…(they are all that matters, certainly more important then Mrs. Gee’s children!) Well Mr. and Mrs. Saarel, you can both kiss my ass, I’ll save a cheek for each of ya! Best wishes to the Gees.
svs on May 31, 2007 10:20 pm
Well said Jenny! Thank you!!!!!!
svs on May 31, 2007 10:24 pm
We are just back woods hicks that need to be taught a lesson and they are going to do that with a parade. Thank you Saarels, for truly making Montana the last best place and fixing us.
Jenny on May 31, 2007 10:31 pm
LOL
yeah I’m sure if you asked the Saarel’s, this wasn’t really “the last best place” until THEY moved here…then it was Californ-i-a. I’m booing them at the Parade. I hope others join me.
Jenny on May 31, 2007 10:33 pm
Ok, now I’m truely done. Thanks for the laugh svs.
rckbrnd on May 31, 2007 10:42 pm
I did not necessarily mean that anyone specific needed to learn a lesson from this situation.There are many, many people who read this blog.There is a link on the Saarel’s website,too. Some of these ideas are things that have not occurred to everyone and discussing them in this forum might help prevent future problems. That is what I meant.
rckbrnd on May 31, 2007 11:05 pm
I am signing off too. It has been interesting.Wish you all well:)
Mrs Hank on May 31, 2007 11:06 pm
Jenny-
I don’t think we should boo them, I think we should march in the parade in front of or behind them carring posters of mauled children and banners that say: Welcome to Montana! Take care of your dogs, or we will!

If the Saarel’s are reading this blog, I don’t think they’d want to march in the parade. After all, the ‘postponed’ Marbles’ funeral.
Mrs Hank on June 1, 2007 7:26 am
Hey everyone-I saw in the paper there is going to be a huge yard sale (6+ families) on Elk Ridge Road. The street sounded familiar, so I checked the papers and found out that is where the Gee’s and Saarels live. Perhaps Mrs. Gee is trying to raise leagel fees. (From the sounds of it, I can’t imagine the Saarels having a yard sale.) I’m going to go and if she’s there, shake her hand and let her know how many of us support her. If anyone else wants to go, it’s this weekend, June 2 & 3 from 8am to 2 or 3pm (not sure which). And it’s on Elk ridge rd. Hope to meet some fellow supporters of the protective mom.
Stacy on June 1, 2007 9:38 am
The home page of the saarels web site asks everyone to write the county attorney to support prosecution of their neighbor….As they do check this site I hope they get the point that their actions/tactics are not supported nor their understanding of the cruelty law as it pertains to the Marbles incident. So Please take down the Billboard. It is offensive to Montanans, both Native and transplants.
svs on June 1, 2007 9:52 am
MAYBE, the Saarels are having a yard sale because they are MOVING AWAY????!!!!???? Could that be possible? Wouldn’t that just be glorious! However, I will be fishing. So I can’t go. But make sure to say hi to Mrs Gee from all of us supporters!
Jenny on June 1, 2007 10:50 am
Okay, so I can’t stay away…could this be an addiction? any way, thanks for the info on the yard sale. I am going to be there. Also, I love your idea of marching in the parade. I wonder if it isn’t too late to enter and how to actually go about doing that.
Jenny on June 1, 2007 11:01 am
svs…might be wishful thinking but wouldn’t it be nice if they were? I whole heartedly agree with the saying about keeping Montana beautiful…Although I’m sure the Saarel’s wouldn’t be caught dead on a bus. Maybe we can all chip in and get them a limo ride back to California!
Morgan on June 2, 2007 3:36 pm
I just wanted to share something out to all of you who might be interested. There is a beautiful “scenic byway” that was Pointed out to my husband and I today that start at Elk Ridge road and goes over the Mountain to Cokedale. What’s interesting about this road is that it is a public road, however the Saarel’s have decided that they would claim it for their own and post no tresspassing signs on it. I guess that since we Montanan’s don’t fully understand our own laws, that maybe we’re also confused about our road easements and how those work. Anyway, we drove that road today after it was pointed out to us, and LAWFULLY drove past the UNLAWFULLY posted “no tresspassing” signs. I encourage everyone else who wants to see the scenery from the Saarel’s place to do the same, and if you see the Saarel’s make sure and give them the Californian welcome sign. Also, it’s interesting to see just how far dear Marbles travled on her last day. The road is slightly rutted, and there is a puddle close to the Cokedale road, but it’s easily avoidable…
Jenny on June 3, 2007 2:15 pm
Hey, I drove the road today too. I talked to some friends of mine in Cokedale and they confirmed that it is a public road and that Doug and Susanne put up the signs a few years back probably because they don’t want us common folk driving by their place. How they figure they can do that and how they can actually get away with that I don’t know. Also, I guess that they are still riding the county attorneys ass and seeking prosecution of Mrs. Gee and now have some sort of a petition going around. I really hope that everyone involved here has the backbone to stand up to these peoples bulleying…I thought that was something done by mean kids in a schoolyard but I guess I was wrong.
svs on June 3, 2007 8:59 pm
I think we should get a caravan of cars and just go down that road a few times. ( a day)
Toni on June 3, 2007 10:08 pm
Seems as though it all boils down to one thing, keep your “pets” at home so we rednecks don’t abuse them when the threaten our family or property. Just pure BS on the Saarel’s behalf. Damn right some dog was on my property growling, snarling or so on at my children it would find itself with a bullet in it. Being a mother, a redneck, a hunter and all ya know. LOL!
I would have done the same as Mrs. Gee took the dog home to its owner, hoping they would get the point to keep there other pets at home.
As someone before me on the blog said “Welcome to Montana, Take care of your pets or we WILL!”(where can I get that bumper sticker??) If it was my dog that was in someone’s yard scaring someone or someone’s children they got the right to shoot it in my eyes. I’m sure I would be upset, but better to be upset then some child or person being mauled.
I was born and raised here in Park County and what a waste of dollars sitting on that billboard every time I drive past it I get wound up all over again. Bet Saarel’s wouldn’t have put that up if one of the Gee’s children would have been hurt! Take that thing down I think we have all had our fill of there pitty trip.
And one more point…. I was taught growing up “A dog is only as good as it’s owner.” enough said!!!
Stacy on June 4, 2007 7:42 am
If I get asked to sign the petition-I think I’ll add my 2 cents to it about dog at large and harrassment instead of a signature. Then they can see that at the county attorneys too-unless they(Saarels) can underhandedly delete that from the petition before turning it in….I think I’ll take a scenic drive too-I thought it was private land-yet again just mean people and mean people suck!
Jenny on June 4, 2007 8:11 am
Stacy
I’m with you, if I get asked to sign the petition I will do the same. I highly recommend that you do take that drive, you too svs. I will be frequating the road often as I have business to attend to in Cokedale one or more times a week and it takes time off of my drive, plus the scenery is just so nice that way.
FYI…I’ve also heard rumor that the Saarel’s are filing a lawsuit against the new subdivision going in because the road that was punched through ruins “THEIR” view. Just a rumor of course but it wouldn’t suprise me in the least.
Tuck on June 4, 2007 9:50 pm
I heard another rumer. A developer, Tim Blixseth bought the Saarel’s place and an adjoining 100 acres. He’s putting in a gondola from the house to a heated garage at the bottom of the road. I think he’s also the one building the new subdivision up there of luxury homes.
Jenny on June 5, 2007 10:57 am
wow, if they ARE moving I hope it’s back to Cali and not somewhere else around here. I hope not anywhere near me.
Woody on June 6, 2007 1:03 pm
I think the saarels just apppear to be overall bad neighbors…..It looks like with all the money they spend installing no trespassing signs and closed circuit cameras not to mention suing their neighbors. They definatly should have had the resources to keep there dog at home. Oh yeah this may be only a rumor but how different would this whole situation be if in fact the children WEREN’T inside….and that was entirly made up by the Montana Pioneer reporters. Check out the police report see what you think…decide for yourselves…. Looks to me like some outta staters at work here trying to change paradise part of me really wishes all these A**holes would go home or atleast get a clue. Does anybody know where i can get ahold of a copy of this petition my outhouse is running low on “reading” material
svs on June 7, 2007 8:25 am
All I know is that they are really doing a great job of making themselves look worse everyday. It would be nice to have them gone. They have done nothing but make us look like angry back woods hicks who like nothing more than chewin tobaccy, drinkin beer and shooting their innocent little animals for fun and sport. Yeah, cause Marbles was so cute, she would look great mounted on a wall. Give me a break. ( By the way, for all you people who can’t take sarcasm, the mounted on the wall comment is SARCASM)
rckbrnd on June 7, 2007 4:58 pm
One wonders what would happen if the Saarels and Mrs. Gee sat down and had a coversation (off the record).Maybe something like this:

Saarels: We are sorry we have persecuted you so mercilessly. We were so saddened by Marbles death that we reacted in a way that has villified you. We did not ever experience Marble acting in an agressive manor, but as we all know, animals do not act predictably and we can accept that maybe Marbles did act agressively that day. We truly do want to bring attention to animal abuse and illegal killing, but this situation does not fit that so we are retracting our lawsuit. We will do better in keeping our animals on our property and remember where we are living so that neither animal, livestock or another person is put in the same situation again.————— Mrs. Gee: I am sorry too. I truly am sorry to have killed Marbles, but I felt that my kids were being threatened, so I did what I felt I had to do. What the heck was your dog doing on my property in the first place? Marbles should never been allowed to wander! This is rural Montana for heaven sakes! So, perhaps I acted in an extreme way in shooting the dog from so far away and as it was leaving, but I was doing what I felt needed to be done at the time. Let’s work together to make sure people are educated about keeping their dogs at home so a tragic situation such as this does not happen again! I’m sure you all know that I am slighlty kidding by writing this post like this, but hey, there is always hope that a scenario like this could take place!! Okay, probably not, but sometimes the only way to bring about a peaceful resolution is for both sides to be willing to look at things in a different way. To let go of a view of a person or situation in order to see it with clearer, fresher eyes. That is true strength.Besides,you know what they say about pointing a finger, the rest are pointing back at yourself. Pointing fingers of blame has never done anybody any good in any situation.
Greg Kuhl on June 8, 2007 11:37 am
Another illegally blocked mountain road? So, where do I get the ticket for Saturday’s caravan over the public road? Are there any gophers up there? If there are, I’ll bring my picnic basket. Have a nice day.
rckbrnd on June 8, 2007 9:35 pm
Yeah, rich people do tend to get it into their heads that having money means they can do whatever they want. It’s interesting. No matter how much one bitches and moans about other people and how they have made you look,in the end it is people’s words and actions that define their character and how they come across.It is not anyone else’s fault if people are getting bad impressions. If one is doing the right thing there is very little call for anyone to criticize.
Jenny on September 16, 2007 8:44 am
So, I was at the Livingston 4-H rodeo when Doug and Susan show up and plop themselves down in front of me and my family (Susan in her designer capris with high heel stapless pumps) shortly followed by their children. when their daughter got there, she threw such a fit (crying and such) because of how mean goat tying was that her father had to leave with her in tow. After a bit, Susan made a comment that “I just can’t stand all of this cowboy stuff” and stood up and left as well. Like I said, this was the 4-H rodeo, the kids in it were probably somewhere between 10 and 16. It just really reaffirmed it in my eyes that Doug and Susan are in the wrong part of the country beings that all “this cowboy stuff” is a way of life for many families around here…and how do they own a so called “ranch” without it??? They are so desprately trying to fit in but they don’t and they never will. I’m STILL waiting on that stupid billboard to come down. I really wonder how much they are spending on that thing every month to try to prove their point?
Robert N on November 1, 2007 8:06 pm
I have seen this kind of crap my whole life. Some Rich Couple moves into town trying to live their version of the Montana Dream. The only problem is, they have no clue what Livingston or for that fact, what Montana is all about.
First of all, your dog got what he deserved. If mean ‘ole Marbles growled at my kids, I would have blasted him too. That is what happens to mean dogs.
Secondly, quit teaching your childen to be victims advocates for the wrong cause. All you are doing is leaving the door open for them to turn out just like you.
Then you need to take your stupid BillBoard down. It is ruining the Beatifull drive to Bozeman. The last thing I want to see is a picture of a mean dead dog begging people for empathy. Come On.
The only people in town I have heard defend you folks are your 2 goofy Gardeners. And I suspect that is only because they are on your payroll. Maybe ‘ole lady Saarels should get down on her hands and knees and pull her own weeds. Thats what real Montana women do. Tell her to quit pretending.
Mrs Gee, Keep your Chin up. You did the right thing and you know it. I am proud of you and your actions. Family is Always First !!
Let me know if the Saarels need help moving. I will glady help them pack and move back to California or New York.
God Bless Livingston, The Big Sky, and the ideals of Free Range.
Angela R on November 1, 2007 8:39 pm
This is beyond belief. If a dog is on your property, threatening those you love, then you are well within your rights to shoot it. I applaud the actions of Mrs. Gee in protecting her family. Were I in the same situation, I’d likely have done something similar.

The fault for this dog’s death lies solely with its owners. They should never have let it roam free and off of their property. Shame on you Saarels for raising a big stink over this. It is your fault and you should be ashamed of yourselves for your actions before Marbles’ death (in not keeping your dog on your own property) and afterward (in thinking you could bamboozle good Montanans with your billboard).

You people obviously don’t get what it is to be Montanan and should slink back to whatever hole you crawled out of. The Good Lord knows we don’t need people like you polluting our wonderful and fair State.
Buck on November 2, 2007 12:51 pm
Maybe the sign should say, “Oh my! Oh my! We’ve lost our Marbles!!!”

Crazy dipsticks from the left coast.

Someone said that they sold their place to a developer? Is that true? Glad they’re leaving but that’s all we need is another damned bunch of houses littering the once beautiful countryside. GO AND DEVELOP (destroy) SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!
Chaco on December 31, 2007 9:20 am
The comments on this blog are seriously frightening.

For all the off-topic, anti-development (non-native) “Montanans” complaining about the people from “California” and the “left coast”, let me remind you that development and conservation guidelines are passed by the local government. If you don’t like the way they work, then get off the Internet and start doing something about it.

Look. The west is growing like mad. If you don’t like it, you should move, now, perhaps to South Dakota. There are backwards rubes there, too. Or you could continue to spit sanctimonous vitriole on a blog, blissfully ignoring the facts on the ground. Don’t worry, we’re not listening.

Add this to the list of the wedgie and the cat killer as Montana embarrassments.
Finn on January 1, 2008 8:09 pm
Wall Street Journal just reported retirees are no longer flocking to California or Florida, but rather, to the Rocky Mountains. The few subculture Montanans in this state are already outnumbered by educated, successful and thoughtful folks who have chosen to make Montana their home. The new Montanan is joining the great majority of native Montanans who share the same thoughtful views and consider folks like Jenny and Robert N as an insult to the intelligence and integrity of this great state.

Shape up or ship out.
rckbrnd on January 15, 2008 3:18 am
If things are really changing for the good in Montana then I am very glad. The last two comments give me hope. My comments were sometimes written in a way to try to temper the extreme anger that was was being expressed by others and help bring thinking to a middle ground, but to this day I am deeply saddened by the kind of stories lke this in Montana and other places. I continue to hope that this kind of thing will become a thing of the past.
MT-dog on August 18, 2008 6:28 pm
When your dogs run you take a chance they will never return. The people up the road from us let their dogs run and 3 have been killed on the county road by cars or pickups. I was one of the people who killed one of the dogs. The dog ran in front of my truck and stopped.

Doug Saarel gives Leadership Seminars and training………….LOL where is his leadership for taking responsibility for an at large dog that has wandered off their property on more than once. I for one would not hire Mr. Saarel for any Leadership considering how they handled this situation. The people who’s cows ended up on their new lawn would be better suited IMHO to teach Leadership.
sandy slade on August 29, 2008 2:55 pm
Oh, for heaven’s sake, I thought everybody knew by now that poor Marbles was shot twice from behind by a trespassing hunter in her own backyard. The dog was trained on an invisible electric fence.

Leave the Saarel’s alone…they’ve been through enough already and are trying to move on.
NonNativeMTan on June 24, 2009 8:47 am
This whole story is old news by now but I’ve got to point out something I haven’t seen mentioned here… the Saarels and a few others argued the dog did not present a threat to the children at the time he was shot because they were in the house by then, the dog was 75 feet from Mrs. Gee, etc…, but: who’s to say the dog would not have returned another day and gotten closer to the kids? If a scary-looking person was standing my yard saying weird things to my kid and I yelled and scared him off my property, I wouldn’t be thinking “Great – solved that problem!”
NonNativeMTan on June 24, 2009 9:03 am
Actually I read a bit further and others did bring up this point…
Publius Valerious on August 28, 2009 3:05 pm
I wonder if what followed all the “ifs” of comments on this blog and also their companion speculations were the opposite of those presented what your opinions would be.
For instance what if the Saarels carefully tried to ensure their dogs didn’t roam and almost always succeeded? What if a Calamity Jane rather than a presumed “Tinker Bell” was part of the equation? What if really poor judgment entered the picture and Marbles wasn’t anything other than a terribly frightened dog who was trying to sulk away? What if the situation occurred on the Saarel’s property perpetrated by someone who often walked on the adjacent road and according to one neighbor shot everything in sight? What if one or more of the commentators about the behavior of Marbles had a very dull axe to grind for all the wrong reasons? What if a number of those making comments were better specimens of humanity who put their brains in gear before their mouths in motion? Would there not be a slightly different perception and attitude of the presentation by most on this blog?
Publius Valerious on August 28, 2009 9:59 pm
To set the record straight, the Park County Planning Department conducted an exhaustive study of all the public roads in the county during 2002-2004. They sent a letter to the Saarels which stated that they could not find any record that Elk Ridge Road was a public road. The letter is available in the Planning Office records.
mandy monroe on December 31, 2009 11:37 am
Pitbulldogs can never be banned heres why……
——————————————————————————–

IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CITIZENS WHO OWN PARTICULER BREEDS OF DOGS ..IF THERE IS A BAN AGAINST ONE BREED THE LAW MUST APPLY TO ALL BREEDS BECAUSE IT AFFECTS THE CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOT TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR OWNING A PARTICULER BREED (IE OREGON STATE )..THEY HAD TO MAKE THEIR BITE LAWS ALL INCLUSIVE FOR ALL BREEDS BECAUSE OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION THAT AFFECTED CITIZENS RIGHT TO NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR OWNING A PARTICULER BREED…THE BREEDS , DOGS THEMSELVES HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IT IS THE CITIZEN THAT DOES… AND ALL BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION CAN BE FOUGHT AND WON BECAUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOT TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST…AS A PITBULL OWNER OR OWNER OF ANY BREED “DON’T FORGET THIS” AND THE ACLU WILL HELP BASED ON THIS…..IT WAS DONE IN OREGON AND CAN BE DONE EVERYWHERE SO LONG AS YOU FIGHT FOR (YOUR RIGHT ) NOT TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, NOT THE (BREEDS RIGHT) THE BREEDS HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS…UNDERSTAND? I HOPE SO.. INDEPENDENT DOG BREEDERS ASSOCIATION,AMERICAN DOG BREEDERS ASSOCIATION …
PEACE MANDY
Sandy Slade on January 2, 2010 1:17 am
Goodness…the comments are going on 3 years now. I’m amazed. Marbles is gone. Ms. Gee saw to that with a rifle still loaded from the previous days mountain lion hunt. To add to the “ifs” of Publius’ posts above, what if Ms. Gee was hunting on the Saarel property. What if she saw a “coyote”? What if she shot it and then realized it was Saarel’s dog. What if she bagged it up and delivered it, made-up story and all? How is it that the sheriff did not find a pool of blood where Marbles was supposedly killed in the Gee’s snowy driveway? Ms. Gee needs to come clean.
James Point on January 20, 2010 10:41 am
It is well known, that in every state of our union we have people that are cruel to animals, of course there are always different reasons why, in Ms. Gee’s case, she’s a hunter, not a very good one at that.
Her story doesn’t make any sense , too many holes and when you tell the truth there are never any holes in it.
Now we have another case in Colorado where Buddy was dragged to death, what kind of people would do stuff like that?

If you care please sign the petition below.

*** SIGN PETITION AND SHARE***
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/6/demand-justice-for-buddys-killer

James Point

Bandera, Texas

*** SIGN PETITION AND SHARE*** http://www.thepetitionsite.com/6/demand-justice-for-buddys-killer
James Point on January 20, 2010 12:04 pm
And here’s to JENNY one of those backward Montanans,let me tell you about Californians in LaLa land, they are people just like you “BACKWARDS”, that includes the movie and film industry also the music industry,
basically all of HOLLYWOOD with just a few exceptions.

I noticed you included Hans from California in it, just to let you know…….”I did not”. I was talking about HOLLYWOOD exclusively.

I got into this blog by accident, didn’t even think it exist anymore….so I’m encouraged to see people like Publius Valerious and many others to have an open mind….

There’s hope for Montanans

James Point
Sandy Slade on February 20, 2010 10:43 pm
There is always hope…and KARMA.

TLA
- EMF Financial
Montana News on Twitter
Latest Montana News
- Helena students "band" together for music festival
  In the Helena valley, music brought three middle schools together in harmony this week. The bands from Helena Middle School, C.R. Anderson, and East Valley Middle School joined forces for a music festival, with the 8th-grade students split up into two groups to practice sets of four pieces.Triona Matheson, a percussionist, said, "We all play together as […]
- Montana communities not happy with state funds freeze
  According to the Montana Department of Commerce, 50 cities and counties across the state will not be getting money that was promised them.During the last legislative session, Congress approved spending $20-million dollars on rural projects. The state has spent $16.5-million of that, but is holding the remaining 10% due to the budget situation.State budget di […]
- Montana water committee addressess federal proposal
  Montana's Water Policy Interim Committee is speaking out about the federal government's jurisdiction over Montana's water and has sent a letter to Montana's U.S. Congressional delegation.State law says Montana's water resources are state property and should be used for the people of Montana. Language before the U.S. Congress in the C […]
- Belgrade resident Wolery sentenced for attempted sexual exploitation of teen
  The United States Attorney’s Office announced on Thursday that Rayne Allen Wolery, a 30-year-old resident of Belgrade, was sentenced in a Helena courtroom to a term of 180 months in prison, supervised release for 10 years, and forfeiture of computer and cell phone. Wolery was sentenced in connection with his guilty plea to attempted sexual exploitation of ch […]
- Montana unemployment rate ticks up
  The state's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate increased slightly by 0.1 points in January to 6.8% while the national unemployment rate fell from 10% to 9.7% in January."The U.S. economy showed positive Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth in the second half of 2009, but employment growth lags behind a recovery in GDP," says Labor Commission […]
- St. Peters, county health agency team up to offer free mammograms
  The National Cancer Institute estimates about 40,000 American women died of breast cancer last year. Saint Peters Hospital in Helena is teaming up with the Lewis & Clark County Health Department to help with early detection by offering free mammograms for uninsured and low-income women.Saint Peters recommends women start getting an annual mammogram when […]
- Sarah Palin returning to Montana for teen fundraiser
  Former Alaska Governor and vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin is making another trip to the Treasure State.Palin will be in Missoula on September 12 for a fundraiser for an organization called Teen Challenge;the faith-based organization helps teens deal with life's problems by teaching them Christian values.Money raised during the event will go towar […]
- Custodian found dead in Butte school
  The body of a 49-year-old man was found at Kennedy Elementary School in Butte on Saturday.The man worked as a custodian for the school district, Butte-Silver Bow Sheriff John Walsh said.The body was found in a classroom by a teacher Saturday morning.The man was identified as Doug Weisenberger.The body was taken to the state crime lab for an autopsy, but it a […]
- Superintendent's gun fires during class in Reed Point
  Reed Point High School students got quite a shock when a history lesson about a gun misfired on Friday. The gun actually went off in the middle of class and the bullet went through a wall. No one was hurt.Superintendent Dwain Haggard says he was teaching a history lesson and was showing off his .50-caliber Hawkens, an antique replica muzzleloader, when the g […]
Meta

Most Commented Posts

Mar

16

Our Marbles

Comments

TLA

Montana News on Twitter

Latest Montana News

Meta