As I made my way to shore, some of my dogs were still in the water and some were already running along the bank to say "Hi" to the officer. Having told him that he was going to get wet from shaking dogs, I next saw to my horror that he had drawn his gun, assumed a crouched position with arms fully extended, and was taking aim IN MY DIRECTION. Screaming hysterically for him not to shoot, I continued into shore, but the volley of six shots echoed into the air. When I got there, I found my thirty-five-pound Border Collie Martha bobbing in the water about ten feet from Deputy Waterways Conservation Officer Jacob Wishard. She died in my arms seconds later from gunshot wounds.

I asked him why he had shot her. "I felt threatened," he said. He was not bitten or injured in any way.

In the hours following, I learned he was only a deputy--an unpaid volunteer of the PFBC armed with a .357 Magnum revolver. Supervising officers arrived much later and began their investigation. Trying to put trust and faith in them at the time, I did my best to keep it together and stay composed. After interviews and promises from the officers that the PFBC would be contacting me soon, I left after confirming one last time that DWCO Wishard WAS NOT HURT IN ANY WAY.

The following week, nothing came from the PFBC. Instead, I received a citation from the Dog Law officer charging me for having my dog out of control--a ticket that originated from reports made by the PFBC. Two weeks later, I made the headlines unintentionally with the story of my murdered dog. Wishard was now claiming he had been bitten by Martha and that all my dogs were acting "unruly and aggressive." He was afraid he would be knocked down and mauled to death by a pack of dogs, and he was in mortal fear for his life.

Having sought legal counsel in this matter, I obviously was going to fight the citation, a charge which was later dismissed by District Justice Ronald J. Horner, not the least because DWCO Wishard failed to appear at the hearing. My lawyer and I began to check into this man's background to try to understand why the shooting occurred. How could this person be so afraid of friendly Golden Retrievers and an equally, if not more so, friendly Border Collie as to think he needed to resort to deadly force in the few seconds that he had contact with them?

I am a professional dog handler. In my job as a veterinary technician I deal with all breeds and temperaments of dogs. I exhibit show dogs all over the country. My dogs, Martha included, routinely win awards for excellence in performance and obedience events. Aggressive and unruly dogs do not go far in the show ring or in the dozens of demonstrations and classes I have helped to put on showcasing canine activities. As President of the Mt. Nittany Dog Training Club, as well as a member of the Nita-Nee Kennel Club, the Golden Retriever Club of America, the Greater Pittsburgh Golden Retriever Club, and the Border Collie Society of America. I continuously keep abreast of dog training techniques, including the importance of public education and a dog owner's responsibility. In short, my vocation AND my avocation are dogs.

Our investigation of DWCO Wishard uncovered some surprising and disturbing information. Rumors that we had heard along the way were indeed confirmed. In the DWCO application process, according to the Pennsylvania Code, to be eligible for appointment as a DWCO, an applicant "shall be of good moral character and reputation in his community and shall be physically and mentally capable of fulfilling the demands of the position." Also according to the PFBC's standard operating procedures, District WCOs are required to conduct interviews and local background investigations for all applicants.

On the application sheet requesting personal data, DWCO Wishard indicated he had specialized training or qualifications stemming from one year as a Deputy Wildlife Conservation Officer (a volunteer position) with the Pennsylvania Game Commission. What he failed to mention was that he had been a wildlife TRAINEE (eventually a paid position) in 1993 and WAS DISMISSED FROM THE NINE-MONTH TRAINING PROGRAM AFTER THREE MONTHS FOR MULTIPLE REASONS. Nevertheless, in 1994, Wishard's application was approved by Brian B. Burger, the District Waterways Conservation Officer, and Paul F. Swanson, the Regional Manager of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.

Did either man deem it necessary to contact the Game Commission to inquire about Wishard? Did either man deem it necessary to ask Wishard about his tenure with the Game Commission?

As my civil suit against Wishard passed the one-year mark in August 1997, we found out that the PFBC was not recommissioning Wishard.

Peter A. Colangelo, Executive Director of the PFBC, recently wrote to DWCO Wishard "I have decided not to reissue your deputy commission. In reviewing this matter, I must focus on much broader issues than those considered by either the county district attorney or the deadly force review board. Each year's reissuance of a deputy commission represents a new action based on all available facts. In making my decision, I have considered, in addition [to] the board's report, information that was not previously available to the Commission. This includes the circumstances of your removal from Commonwealth employment as a wildlife conservation officer trainee. We have received copies of correspondence removing you from Game Commission employment. The August 11, 1993 letter states: 'Throughout the rating period as a Game Commission Officer Trainee you have exhibited a pattern of unprofessional behavior involving several documented instances of untruthfulness, poor attitude, failure to follow orders or instructions, excessive use of profanity, and poor interpersonal relations.'

If the Bureau of Law Enforcement had been aware of these matters at the time of your original selection as a DWCO, you would not have been commissioned. We cannot, and will not, ignore these past deficiencies in your past performance and behavior in a situation involving training to exercise powers and duties that are similar to those of the deputy waterways conservation officer."

Colangelo's decision not to reissue Wishard's commission would be laudable if not for the fact that paid professional employees apparently did not do the required investigation PRIOR TO THE ORIGINAL ISSUANCE OF THE APPOINTMENT. The Fish and Boat Commission only became aware of the Game Commission information AS A RESULT OF AN INNESTIGATION BY MY ATTORNEY. In addition, the PFBC had sought a court order to PRECLUDE ME FROM OBTAINING THIS INFORMATION. (As an aside, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, I was informed that while with the Game Commission, among other misdeeds, Wishard persisted in shooting at the heads of his targets on the firing range even after being repeatedly warned to stop. This allegation was confirmed by Game Commission records.)

The facts of this story are simple. My dog DID NOT bite Wishard. There is no evidence to the contrary. Wishard had no wounds or punctures on the hip boots he was wearing. He claims Martha bit him on the ankle and above the knee, but when I got to her within seconds of the shooting, she was floating in the water--she never even made it to the shore. He claims she and all my other dogs accosted him. There is no record or history that my dogs have EVER behaved aggressively or acted in any other way except happy in the company of people.

Only after Wishard's Game Commission past was revealed has the Fish and Boat Commission made any kind of movement to resolve this situation. One step was to mandate leash laws and other regulations which effectively bar me and other dog owners from utilizing public Fish and Boat Commission lakes and streams. Among other rules, it is not permissible to have more than two dogs at a time on the property and they must be leashed unless they are actually involved in a retriever training exercise in the water. Where does this leave dog owners like myself who have for years taken our dogs out to Pennsylvania's streams and lakes to swim for fun and physical fitness?

I only just recently received very weak and transparent apology letters from Wishard and Colangelo, which came as a directive in an attempt to "settle" this affair. Neither letter really addressed the situation and the ramifications for all dog owners that followed. The PFBC has conducted its own investigations, yet my input has not been included in ANY of them except for the one-page statement I made two hours after Martha was shot. They never have made any effort to contact me to get my side of the story after Wishard had filed his version.

Over a year has passed and I still am shocked and outraged over this atrocity. Not only was my gentle, 8-year-old dog blown away right before my eyes by a man who shouldn't have been in uniform in the first place, but also an entire government agency that is supported by public funds is hiding behind immunity laws, pretending nothing wrong was done. They are turning a blind eye to the truth and wish that the whole mess could be swept under the rug.

I haven't returned to Colyer Lake since accompanying the State Police there nearly five weeks after the shooting. They were investigating my complaint of reckless endangerment and cruelty to animals against Wishard who shot in my direction, and over water, no less. I no longer feel safe going there, not only because of the memory of Martha's violent death, but also because the Fish Commission pretty much has issued a "shoot first and don't bother asking questions" license to its law enforcement officers. I feel betrayed by an agency that I at one time had respect for. What are my rights? What are YOUR rights as the general public?

You have a right to demand that the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission be held accountable for its employees, both paid and volunteer, and to the citizens of this Commonwealth. You have a right to demand that it carefully screen and train its staff before placing them in the field with loaded weapons. You have a right to demand that it equip its Deputy WCOs with intermediate forms of protection such as batons and pepper spray, which both are standard issue for WCOs. If the PFBC hears of your concerns and takes appropriate actions to accept responsibility and reform itself and its procedures. the death of my dog Martha, although totally unacceptable, will not have been in vain.

Hopefully, the needless deaths of any other innocent dogs or people who choose to enjoy a sunny day at the lake will be prevented.

  web site