If you can’t trust your dog not to attack other animals or humans when off a lead, then in my opionion, you should not have the dog. It has been poorly trained.
I think the point is not about you trusting your dog.
Let’s assume I have a dog and I can trust/swear 100% that he will not attack anything ever. In his playful mood, he comes running up to somebody he doesn’t know (and that person doesn’t know my dog). In my opinion, it is 100% reasonable for that person to feel his/her safety is in jeopardy. This person does not know if my dog is being playful or attacking. Any actions taking in defense - real or perceived - would (again, in my opinion) be 100% justified.
It makes no difference what I feel/trust/swear about my dog. Therefore, leash your dog.
But a book and a dog are different.
For example, assume you throw a strawman on my property. If this strawman is just sitting there not doing anything (say, like a book), a reasonable person should have no fear of this strawman. HOWEVER, if this strawman were to be running towards me (or my family) and I know there are documented cases of strawmen attacking and killing people (as seen on Fox’s “When Good Strawmen Go Bad”), a reasonable person could have fear of this strawman. Therefore, any action taken against this strawman (in my opinion) is justified.
Ah, yes, Threatening Manor, ancestral home of quietman1920!
(It’s “manner;” I just couldn’t resist the easy gag!)
So, only stray animals attack people. Pets never attack people???
If I don’t personally know an animal, I consider it a possible threat unless it is physically controlled by its owner.
One dog comes back with a chipped tooth and cut lip, sounds like it got in a fight with someone or something.
How far ahead were these dogs that the owners couldn’t get to the third before whoever shot it left?
How can the owners not know whether the animal “may have run onto private property?”
Wouldn’t surprise me to see another pit thread on the boards from someone who was out walking their dog, when all of a sudden three dogs come running in out of nowhere and attack, and he was forced to shoot to defend his dog. I am a dog lover, and if I had to shoot someone’s dog that was attacking mine you bet I would. Maybe the shooter couldn’t follow up on his shot because he had to rush his own dog to the vet because it was in the fight?
Or, could be some redneck just wanted to shoot something. (The chipped tooth though…)
I know I didn’t expain the situation very well as I was pressed for time. Had to leave work.
Maybe you don’t understand what these dogs are. I didn’t either, we got her from the pound about 8 months ago, we were told she was an Australian Shephard. Well, after this behaviour became appearant we took her to an expert trainer. That’s when we found out what she really is. These dogs were bred from Spanish wardogs(Mastiffs and Greyhounds), red wolves and a French herding dog called a Beucheron (sp). They are bred to hunt wild boars and work hard headed live stock. They are fearless but extremely smart, have incredible jaw muscles and very strong stalking and herding instincts. They are fast, strong and nimble. She is being trained but as we were told it’s not likely that her instincts can be trained out of her. So no I don’t trust her around strangers, small children or animals. We have another dog that, although 10 pounds heavier than her, she tore the shit out of. After about twenty minutes she had the Shephard by the hind legs and was flopping her back and forth like a rag doll. The other dog couldn’t run away from her fast enough, she would chase her down. Needless to say they have to be separated now. Will this change with training? I don’t know, but I don’t want to find out at someone elses expense either.
Having said all this I must also say that this is but a small part of her personality. The rest of the time she is such a sweet dog that you just can’t believe the incongruity of the situation.
All I was trying to say though was that since having her (and I’ve had plenty of dogs in my time) I now view all dogs in a different light.
Yes, which is why my VERY NEXT FREAKIN SENTENCE was:
Shame you only know how to quote out of context, yes?
My point is that when you shoot someone’s dog, you’re destroying their property (at a minimum). You don’t get to do it just because in your own head you’re facing a threat; there are laws that circumscribe your behavior whenever you’re destroying someone’s property. People’s cavalier attitude here is IMO wrongheaded and courting illegality.
Speaking of straw men…
In animal control parlance, “Stray” refers to “an animal not on its owner’s property or under its owner’s direct control.” It is not the opposite of “pet.” This is twice you’ve removed context from what I’ve said; it doesn’t speak highly for the strength of your position.
Although you couldn’t know it, I’ve been vociferous on these boards in telling people to keep their animals on-leash whenever they’re not on the owner’s property (or, obviously, in a car, at a guest’s house, etc.). I don’t excuse the owners in this case from their responsibility – but from the facts we have here, there’s a good chance that someone out there was practicing felony-level animal cruelty, and I’m encouraging the dog’s owner to contact local law enforcement to pursue this option.
Since you’re a selective reader, allow me to repeat a point I’ve already made repeatedly:
Daniel
I’m not even going to comment on your accuation about quoting out of context since you are the one comparing dogs and books.
Yes, you do get to defend yourself if you feel you are facing a threat. In 1992, Yoshihiro Hattori was killed in Louisiana since the homeowner felt his life was in jeopardy. He was acquitted.
And in general population parlance, “stray” refers to an animal that has no home and not a pet.
And do explain how I removed this from context.
No, I did not know you have been vociferous in telling people to keep their animals leashed. I sincerely commend you for that.
However, the facts in the OP are:
1: My friends were jogging with their dogs outside of town
2: the dogs had been running ahead of them when they heard shots
3: Two of the dogs came back right away, one with a chipped tooth, and a cut lip
4: They found the third dog, who had been shot in the body
5: She died on the way back to town.
6: They don’t know exactly what happened
So, how did you get that “there’s a good chance that someone out there was practicing felony-level animal cruelty”???
They heard two shots, and they didn’t hear any sounds of any other kind of a disturbance. Of course that doesn’t mean much as fighting dogs may not be that loud. They believe the chipped tooth resulted from one of the shots hitting it, which isn’t too far fetched if the shooter were aiming for the head.
That’s one of the things about it. They were not that far from the dogs, as they were able to find the third one fairly quickly. They never saw anybody shoot at it, and when they found the dog, it wasn’t on anybodies property, nor was it apparent that there was any private property in the near area.
As I said above, when they found it, it wasn’t on private property, and there wasn’t any near by that they could see. They were in a fairly heavily forested area, so their visual range would be somewhat limited, though. They didn’t look for the shooter either, as the dog was still alive, just not doing well, and they wanted to get her back into town.
And I would be fully supportive of them if this were the case. Especially if it were a case of three dogs versus one.
That as well is could have been the case.
Unfortunately, in this area of the country, this is not uncommon at all, and may be why I jumped to this conclusion. As I said in the OP, there was another dog in this area who was shot and left for dead days before. That case was not one of self defence, an the vet who fixed the pup up, said the wound that was dead centre on the muzzle was caused by a small calibre weapon at point blank range.
Very. Slowly.
When I point out that they are not the same, I mean that they are not the same. I pointed out one way in which they are the same, then said that they are not always the same.
Capice?
I was hoping you wouldn’t embarrass yourself further. When I set the definitions for animal control calls in our humane society’s database, I referred to a dictionary to make sure that I’d set the animal control parlance to match general population parlance, inasmuch as dictionaries reflect general population parlance.
From Merriam-Webster:
The first freakin’ definition is the one I used.
Gah! Can I use words with two syllables in my explanation?
Look, buddy: I said that “if you know that there are dangerous stray animals, talking to the appropriate authorities should be your first resort.” Since we were talking about pets that have “strayed from a proper place” (the obviously relevant definition of the freaking word), it is balderdash for you to reinterpret that as the obviously false:
You’re blatantly dishonest in your argumentative strategy here.
Because, as you freakin said yourself,
"They don’t know exactly what happened."
For the fifth or sixth time, the shooting may have been legal. BUT THEY DON’T KNOW! And, just as I recommend doing any time a crime MAY have occurred that causes a person to suffer greatly, I recommended that they contact the appropriate authorities.
I can’t figure out whether you’re stupid, dishonest, or just drunk off your ass. A little help, please?
Daniel
Emperor Penguin interesting. Too bad for your friends that they lost their dog, sounds to me like the chipped tooth is the key to what happaned. Do you think it likely that a shot could chip a tooth and not do any more damage? Any idea what the gun was that killed the dog? (Shotgun vs. rifle vs. handgun) I suppose a bb from a shotgun could chip a tooth, but I would think there would be multiple impacts if that were the weapon being used. A rifle or handgun chipping a tooth? Possible, I suppose, but damn unlikely don’t you think?
Even though I find the chip hard to account for, for some reason I am inclined to think redneck here. Again, sorry for your friends.
I can understand shooting a strange dog if it were running towards me while I was walking my dog or with a child. But how often do people happen to be carrying a gun while walking their dogs or their child? For that matter, outside of hunting season, how many people just happen to be carrying a gun around? Maybe they do. I really don’t know.
The only situation I can think of is that the dogs have been on someone’s property or been seen by that person before and were perceived to be a menace. So this person was ready with a gun when the dogs came around again.
Of course, if people frequently walk around armed, then my guess is totally off.
Listen, Fucktard. You used the book as an example how you can’t destroy somebody else’s property. Now you are saying that are not the same. Which is it - the same or not the same?
Yes, and the definitions in the dictionary are NEVER different than popular usage. Exit your world in the humane society and ask people on the street to define “stray dog”. I’m willing to bet most (if not all) say something like a dog with no home. Few or none will say an escaped dog. Given that I don’t work in the world of the humane society, I did not go to that definition.
Yes, if you know that there are dangerous stray animals you should talk to the authorities. However, I am going under the assumption (yes, assumption and not fact) that we have a situation where somebody felt their life/health was in danger. If a dog is coming towards me, the first action is defense and not calling animal control.
As for my “balderdash”, my statement was made hours ago when I believed the word “stray” meant “wild” dog and not an escaped dog. Given that I don’t work in animal control, the definition you provided did not come to mind.
And you freakin said yourself “there’s a good chance that someone out there was practicing felony-level animal cruelty”. You did not say “MAY” have occurred intil just now. Sure, it is possible that a crime was committed but you said it was a good chance - a statement that you cannot possibly defend - the evidence is lacking.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. You blame me for your ignorance of the primary definition of “stray.” You’re incapable of understanding that two situations may be alike in some ways and unalike in other ways. And you somehow seem to think that “there’s a good chance” is not functionally equivalent to “may”. I’m not wasting any more time with you; I’ve got plenty of brick walls I can bang my head into.
Daniel
And now to talk with the non-raving-imbeciles folks.
Rhum Runner, I agree that the chipped tooth is weird – one more reason to investigate this case. The injured dogs, of course, should see a veterinarian, who should be able to diagnose (to some degree) the cause of this injury – if it’s from a dogfight, there are likely to be other injuries, e.g., teeth marks on the injured dog’s gums and tongue.
It’s also possible that the dogs’ injuries resulted from thrown rocks, from boots to the face, even from the butt of a gun.
Having worked for a humane society for several years, I’ve seen a lot of fucked up stuff that people do to animals for kicks. Not too far from where I live, some folks doused a dog in kerosene and set him on fire because he barked too much. While it’s possible, of course, that whoever shot the dog did so legally, it’s also quite possible that some asshole was out for kicks. And in many jurisdictions, willfully causing injury and suffering to an animal rises to the level of felony cruelty.
Daniel
“Having said all this I must also say that this is but a small part of her personality. The rest of the time she is such a sweet dog that you just can’t believe the incongruity of the situation.”
Even so, Skankweirdall, I think the dog should be put down if this behaviour has been observed. Like children, there will always be that odd moment when you don’t have them in your sights or under control.
I love dogs and have had them all my life but this arguement is constantly used by the owners of dogs who have destroyed a child’s face or limb. I would destroy my own dog should I ever witness this behaviour, however hard this action may be.
Yes in some states we do frequently walk around armed. I don’t carry every single day everywhere I go, but some people do. I generally would if I was going hiking in the woods.
Sure, run away. Do you always do that when you know you are wrong??
First, I don’t see where I “blamed” you for anything. I merely stated that I when used in describing animals, I believe that the general population has a different definition of “stray”.
Second, while I understand that two situations may be alike in some ways but not in others, I would never try and use it as an example to prove a point. Then again, I don’t know when a book would ever be like a dog.
Third, you actually think the words “may” and “there’s a good chance” mean the same? May - be in some degree likely to. Chance - the degree of likelihood of such an outcome. So, a good chance - a high degree of likelihood - is the same as some degree likely to?? You know, I may win the lottery. Should I start spending the money now since “there’s a good chance” I will win??
It’s spring. Although your friends were in a wooded area, they may have been near pasture. When baby animals are new, farmers/ranchers/whatever-your-call-livestock-owners-in-your-region patrol looking for stray dogs to shoot or shoot at.
The tooth problem being caused by a kick or gun butt is a good theory.