And that, more than anything, gets to the heart of the issue. Let us not forget that this dog is allowed to just run around loose. The very real potential that it will see some kid as prey and maul it needs to be considered. I am astounded that the city is not taking this seriously.
“it will see some kid as prey and maul it needs to be considered.”
Oh, for Christ’s sake you hysterical moron. A fucking dog killed a fucking cat. We ain’t exactly talking about Cujo here. I hope some dog takes a pass at your nuts if you got any.
Accidentally. ACCIDENTALLY. Accidentally. If you knew shit about cats, you’d understand that.
Yes. It was late at night and I put her back in the house. I knocked, entered, called out to him, and looked for him without entering the private areas of his house. What the hell else could I do? Who lets their dog out to roam the neighborhood in an unfenced area with no leash at 10:30 at night? Why the hell did he think I’d put the dog back in the house, just for the fun of it? I’ve had to put her in before when she was fucking barking at midnight too. This is a chronic problem.
Yeah, I did. I planned to move out as soon as my lease ended, in August, for many other reasons besides the killer dog. I am not a wealthy person and it cost me a considerable amount of money to move the first time. God, do I wish I had just moved out, forfeited my $750 security deposit, etc., but it’s not as easy as all that.
I’ve considered it. I still don’t think it’s right. It was a difficult situation and I think it was incumbent upon the landlord not to let people who have cats live on his property, because once someone moves it, it’s not a snap to just move out, forfeiting the deposit undoubtedly, having to find a new place (not easy with multiple cats, in the middle of an academic year), repacking after you’ve just unpacked, paying movers and renting a truck again, etc. I felt trapped there and it took a tragedy like this to get me out of there.
For heaven’s sake, county, Metacom, tell us something we DON’T know.
Dogs who are in fights will bite anyone who attempts to intervene. Gotcha.
Dogs are animals, and some of them will instinctively* chase, catch, kill small animals. Gotcha.
Hounds, especially. Yup.
No one is disputing any of this. The point is, at least as far as I can see, that responsible owners know all of this, and they take steps to prevent this type of behavior. If this loser was a responsible pet owner, he wouldn’t allow his dog to be free, knowing that she would kill cats. Obviously, he’s not a responsible pet owner. Not the dog’s fault, certainly, but she can’t be allowed to continue to kill pets just because her owner is an asshole. He is damned lucky that his dog didn’t attack the pet of a crowbar-wielding neighbor, I suppose.
On preview, re: county’s remark: A dog with this much training and supervision (that would be none) might very well injure a child. What if someone’s 8-year old had intervened, or had grabbed up that fleeing cat in an attempt to protect it? It’s not like children have never been injured or killed by dogs; I’m not sure what the incredulous reaction on your part is about.
*My dogs like to roll in shit, too. I suppose that’s instinct, but I still don’t allow it.
Metacom: You still refuse to acknowledge that my complaints against the Dog Control Officer were based on her shitty attitude, not her inability to file a Petition on my behalf. Clearly you’d rather argue and try to make me feel bad than see my side of it. Hypocrite.
County: Argumentative dickhead.
Thanks to everyone who posted supportive comments to this thread. I am not going to read it anymore. It’s just making me feel horrible and I don’t need any more of that, since I’m generating enough self-recrimination and blame without any help. I thought people would understand my outrage at the Dog Control Officer’s unnecessary mean-spiritedness when delivering already upsetting news. I guess not. Ah well. Later.
Okay, so I can kind of understand both sides of the story here.
With regards to the Fair Value of the animal, she could have been a little more… gentle.
Truth is, cats and dogs and other pets are considered PROPERTY by the law, regardless of what they mean to you. The ONLY clauses for exception involve guide/service dogs (and it is a criminal offense to willfully or knowingly harm a working dog). I’m not sure how the law responds to K9s and other police-type working dogs.
Fair market value for a humane-society-special will be the adoption fee, nothing more. Fair market value for a purebred, show quality cat (with papers) is a different matter. Same for a show dog, or working dog.
I’m really sorry for your loss, steak. I really really am. 
It’s always hard to lose a pet.
Unfortunately, if I look at it with no bias (I have dogs now, but have had and loved cats), the entire situation looks to me like a series of accidents: letting the cat out by accident, it crossing the path of the dog, getting in a tangle with the dog, etc.
I do know, though, that it hurts to lose a best friend, even if it’s “just a pet”.
Take care,
Elly
Well, that’s why responsible dog owners make sure to socialize their animals as puppies to other animals.
Rottweilers have an extremely strong prey drive capability as well…which is why mine had extensive animal/child socialization as a puppy…I could have left her alone in the room with a newborn child and a squirrel, and come back with the certainty nothing would have been injured when I returned…though the squirrel and baby might have been copiously covered in Rottie drool…she absolutely adored other animals and babies, because she was raised properly.
There are people who disagree with the statement that I made, so apparently I did say something that people “DON’T know” or at least disagree with.
Eh? You have read this thread, right? There’s been plenty of evidence that people either don’t understand or disagree with what I said:
All three of those quotes to some degree or another seem to confuse a dog with a prey drive with a dog that’s viscious.
Right. Not the dogs fault. And in light of that, you still think Rubystreak’s mission to have the dog declared a dangerous animal (instead of having the owner declare unfit, negligent, whatever) is just? Whatever.
And there are some breeds that will always be dangerous when outside and around small animals, no matter how well they’ve been socialized.
Just so that I leave this trainwreck in a clear state, here are my opinions in an easy-to-understand, bulletted form:
[ul]
[li]Even responsible owners can fuck up occaisonally, so the incident, as she described it, without any of the subsequent “He always let the dog out to go a-menacing” testimony, isn’t enough to condemn the owner.[/li][li]If her description of the owner’s past behaviour is true–and I have no reason to believe it isn’t–then he is irresponsible, and he should have his dog taken away.[/li][li]Dogs that kill small animals are not necessarily viscious, and no evidence has been given in this thread that this particular dog was viscious and should be destroyed.[/li][li]Just as it was the dog owner’s responsibility to keep his dog inside, it was Rubystreak’s responsibility to keep her cat inside. Thus, she bears some of the responsibility for this. Not much, but certainly some. This doesn’t mean she’s a bad person–everyone makes mistakes. The best thing to do is acknowledge them, regret them, and try to prevent them from happening again.[/li][li]From what Rubystreak has said, I don’t think the Animal Control officer did anything worse then disagreeing with her. The most damning thing she mentioned, the “$10” comment, could easily have been misinterpretted by someone who was upset.[/li][/ul]
Metacom, Yes. Dogs are predators. I totally get that. My point is that the Animal Control officer seems to be oblivious to that fact, and moreover horribly rude and insensitive. Further, as an owner of a predator I fail to see how it is not the owner’s job to keep the animal under control.
The fact that chilled me the most from the original thread was that the dog is submissive to the OP, but seemed to go after the cat with pretty single-minded ferocity. This suggests, at least to me, that the dogs hunting instincts are more “awake” than the norm for a domesticated animal, and that it could pretty much just has easily have been a child. But I am sure county will be along pretty soon to call my hysterical and wish physical harm on me.
At the end of the day, the dog owner is responsible for his dog and at very least should be paying for the damage that it caused. I don’t really it as relevant that this was or was not a series of accidents.
I’m so sorry for your loss, Rubystreak. I wouold suggest documenting your conversations with the officer and then sending a polite, certified letter to the director of animal control, CCed to the local county or city council. Call a week after you send the letter to follow up on the call; when you call, insist on speaking to the employee’s supervisor. Although the ACO may have been entirely correct, legally speaking, her attitude with citizens sounds abominable. I know from direct experience that the ASPCA (situated in NY and responsible for much of the animal control up there) has some wonderful people working for it, and I’d be surprised if the officer’s supervisor wasn’t sympathetic to your complaint if you offer it in a calm, polite, but forceful fashion.
County doesn’t know what he’s talking about re: dangerous dogs and euthanasia; you can safely ignore him. As usual.
Daniel
That I agree with.
I’m surprised she’s taking him to court, instead of having a go at his homeowners insurance…
Perhaps so, but I am not advocating an “eye for an eye” or in this case a “dog for a cat”
Vicious bitch.
To me it would indicate that the dog is pretty well socialized towards humans, but not cats.
But the notion that a dog who kills cats is necessarily going to attack children is not, in my view, very reasonable. Dogs and cats don’t get along. That’s not exactly a radical idea.
But a cat who is outside, for whatever reason, is going to encounter risks. If the cat gets out, shit may happen. And it doesn’t seem to me that the Animal Control Officer was 100% wrong.
YMMV.
Regards,
Shodan
I would assume that an improperly controlled dog, one that is unrestrained in spite of the fact that it’s a killer of other people’s pets, could, yes, be considered vicious. In the light of day, I suppose it doesn’t really matter whether the dog is vicious by whatever definition you use, or “vicious” because it’s aggressive and kills small pets when it’s unrestrained, because the fact is that it IS aggressive and it DOES kill small pets. If it were running in my neighborhood, and entering my yard to attack my cat, I’d consider it vicious.
I’d love to see the dog removed from the care of its owner. Unfortunately, I don’t see a lot of dogs with that sort of temperment being placed from our local animal shelter, and we have a damn good record of dog placement. Maybe your experience is different, and there are plenty of would-be foster placements or permenent good homes for dogs that have this sort of reputation.
Oooh. Ouch! Touche already! Stop before I curl up and die from the emotional injury inflicted by your disdain.
:wally
I guess that we could always let the dog out with a toddler and find out
I don’t consider a dog that exhibits a normal prey drive to be vicious. Vicious implies a predisposition to violence above and beyond what is normal. Yes, it kills small pets. Small pets that are at-large, just like it is.
Nope, but I think it’s important that it have the chance. I think the difference between being destroyed and being given a chance–however remote–is significant.
I was trying to express exasperation with your tactic of portraying my argument has irrelevant because everyone agreed with what I was saying–clearly that wasn’t the case. I wasn’t trying to injure you or express personal disdain. Can you say the same regarding your comments?
Nope - better be proactive and shoot every dog in the city. Cats too - they bite too, you know. Besides, they eat mice - a cat that would do that will suck the breath out of any baby it can get at. :rolleyes:
'Fess up - you been watching Invasion of the Corpse Grinders again, haven’t you?
Regards,
Shodan
We have different definitions of the term, then, and that’s okay by me. A normal prey drive that is significant enough that it causes a dog to catch and kill a neighbor’s cat is, imho of course, one that requires an owner to prevent such an event. Otherwise, said owner is keeping what is, in essence, a vicious dog. We can split hairs about definitions all day, but this guy refused to restrain a dog that he KNEW would kill pets. He created a situation that allowed his dog to be vicious.
Interesting, because it sounded like you were implying I didn’t read the thread. And maybe it’s just because I have two teenagers, but any response that ends with “Whatever” seems to me to express disdain.
Trust me, no injury done. As I said, I have two teenagers. Not much gets under my skin.
Metacom The dog wanders throughout the neighborhood, and it fatally wounded her cat ON HER OWN PORCH! Read the thread she linked for details on the attack before you post next time. The dog IMO is vicious, and in Kansas I do believe it is considered a vicious animal if it kills pets. Did you see where she mentioned it had bit her too in the OP here? Of course the owner is to blame, however, that dog is a menace and something needs to be done about it.
Rubystreak I’m so sorry you had to go through that. I’d be very angry too. Have you looked into laws in your state? Maybe the control officer was “mistakenly” quoting a slanted version of them? I’d investigate that too. I’d at least sue him in civil court, if not keep trying to get that dog under control/euthanized. Maybe you should consult an attorney about your legal recourses? Find your lease first. Good Luck.