Unfortunately, yes. I understand that you think the dog didn’t attack, but I don’t believe you’ve made your point. The dog attacked two people, in my book. The owners should be held responsible, and the dog should be put down.
-Tofer
The COP, who was supposedly ATTACKED didn’t even see fit to call animal control (actually I’m not sure if animal control was already there or not. . .either way, either the cop or the animal control officer didn’t deem the dog dangerous enough).
Anyone of you think this whole story might have passed through a little filter before it made it’s way to the dope?
I think someone’s got a flair for the dramatic. . .(a snipped up OP)
Trunk - For someone who took the time to chop up my OP, you must not have read it very well.
I already stated that I got a call from Animal Control before the officer arrived at the house. They needed the address of the house to which to go. That’s why the officer took us there, to determine which house the dogs came from. And to get the street number of the house. Also (not already stated) they only had one officer on duty that evening, because it was the 4th of July, so there was no one on hand to rush to the scene of the attack.
I followed up with them later, gave them the address, made sure they had the facts of the first incident, as well as the officers own report of his attack that he filed. They said they would send an officer over and speak to the couple.
Even if you think that my wife wasn’t attacked (because she wasn’t explicitly bitten) then what do you call what happened to the officer? He felt its teeth through his pant leg!! His report said he was attacked
Silentgoldfish I’ve seen dogs that bark and growl when playing. My own mother has one that does that. Yes, you can tell because his tail is wagging and his ears are up. When the officer was attacked, the dog charged right at him, its tail straight back and down, not wagging, ears flat back. Like I said in my last post, none of the adults present thought that dog was playing, even it’s owners. … If you’re not going to believe the dogs owners as to its behavior… I’ve got nothing else to add.
Rick the fireworks weren’t going off yet that evening. It wasn’t even dusk. Admittedly they might have been setting off firecrackers (or whatever) on their own, I have no way of knowing. But I didn’t hear any ‘bangs’ for at least an hour afterward. I will admit that the dog may have attacked because of the stress of the day (people, kids, lots of activities, etc.) added to having heard fireworks the night before (kids in the area setting them off sunday night).
So it’s clear, we’re not pressing charges. $50 for an old (favorite) dress and a scare is fine with my wife. We’re not asking for the dog to be destroyed. We both love animals too much to do that, given that no one was harmed (physically). (Had someone actually been injured, that would be a different story.) We are letting the animal control office do it’s job. Whatever they decide to do, they’ll do.
All the attacks in this post have been bolded so that Trunk can find them. Just trying to make your job a bit easier… 
Normally I would hope the dog get’s a second chance. But vicious dog coupled with soon to be new born baby is not a reasonable combination, the dog should be put down or rehoused before it risks being a danger to the child.
As for the OP, the dog wasn’t attacking outright but was non the less acting extremely badly, so the penalty the owners got by paying to repair the dress, and now being on the animal-control books would hopefully be sufficient to make the owners mend there ways, or ensure they are heavily fined and the dogs put down if a similar thing happens again. But with the owner pregnant, I would fear for the action of a vicious teritorial dog when the newborn takes all it’s owner’s attention.
Hey, I never said I didn’t believe you and I think you handled the situation well. The only people I have an issue with are the ones up the thread who are advocating lawsuits and more police presence without even knowing the full story just because it makes for better drama.
Sorry to double post like this but if you read what I wrote up the thread I actually used your very sensible reactions to the incident as one of the reasons hysterically declaring that the dog should be put down and you should sue the owners was overreacting in the silliest way.
You misread, on this board a “Pit” bashing is a thread started in “THE BBQ Pit” forum, where flaming is allowed, so to “Pit” someone or something is to rant and rave and vent anger about it. 
[SUB]See the stickies at the top of the forum for the rules of behavior. [/SUB]
She’s talking about a pitbull, methinks. It’s a breed of dog.
Heh, I thought she was joking… but now I see that she was a guest and perhaps didn’t know about the BBQ Pit. I’m not sure what breed that dog was, but it wasn’t a pit bull, that’s for sure.
It was medium sized, long black hair with brown at the feet and ears. … It might have been a collie-something mix? It was larger than the collies I’ve known (all small-medium dogs) and only slightly had the nose-eyes that I picture with a classic collie face.
That’s OK, I’ll double post in order to reply…
You are correct and I apologize for attacking your non-attack at me. (I wonder how many more times I can use attack in this thread?.. just to tease Trunk, of course.)
As you pointed out, I should have originally said "Barking and growling, while having the ears straight back and not wagging tails are No Signs of Play.
Yes, I realized she was speaking of a breed of dog, but she misunderstood when people said “pit thread” and “bashing” in a sentence. She thought people wanted to bash the breed of pitbull dog, not that they were wanting to vent their wrath upon stupid pet owners.