gonzo914 wrote:What a lot of smug, self-righteous hypocrits, for does it not strike you as more than a tad hypocritical to be so aghast about treating a dog as described above while at the same time opposing legislation that would prevent something even ghastlier from happening to human being ? Does this not in some small way suggest to you that your priorities need to be given at least a cursory re-examination?
Hold on there gonzo... My position on the pit bull ban in Denver as a
Citizen of this community is well documented
here. That doesn't mean that I endorse the animals being tortured to death, or being fed sponge rubber soaked with anything until the dog becomes septic with its own waste. (a situation, incidentally, that could quite possibly make the dog more irritable and likely to attack)
There is a big difference between clinical euthanization an the subterfuge required to kill a menacing neighbor dog.
gonzo914 wrote:
Did I do something like that? Of course not; it's just plain wrong. But the fact that I even considered it underscores the degree of frustration I had with the authorities inability or unwillingness to deal with a situation that was a very real threat to my family. We had a trash family of druggers living next door, and they had a pit bull to protect their inventory. They kept it chained in the back year, but it regularly broke the chain and hit the fence whenever we were in the yard. Several times my wife was forced to run for the safety of our own, more substantial fence. It took two of us to mow the lawn -- one to mow and one outrider to watch for the dog. My kids were unable to play in their own front yard because of this dog. We couldn't even walk around the block for fear of it it breaking its chain and jumping the fence when we walked past its yard.
This dog was affecting the entire neighborhood this way, and an entire neighborhood of kids played inside for a year. But when animal control was called, people were told that until the dog attacked some one, and by their interpretation, "attacked" meant actually bit someone, they could do nothing. In other words, someone had to get hurt before the authorities could take action, and since this wasn't some little ankle-biter terrier, when someone finally did get hurt, they were going to get hurt badly. The city had a "vicious dog" ordinance, but unfortunately, the dogs had more teeth that it did.
A bad situation to be sure. Not a matter of
if, but
when.
gonzo914 wrote:Breed-specific legislation would have prevented an entire neighborhood living in fear of a single animal for a year. Breed-specific legislation universally enforced would probably cut the number of dog-bite fatalities in this country in half. And I don't think breed-specific legislation is unreasonably restrictive of people's individual rights because it does not outlaw dog ownership; it merely places limits on the kinds of dogs one can own.
Agreed.
gonzo914 wrote:Do you want to know how we ended up handling this particular dog? This house was a rental house, so we identified the property owner, an absentee landlord in California, and then we went and got the biggest shyster of a plaintiff's attorney in town and had him contact the property owner. The attorney sent the landlord a list of incidents involving the dog (not just our family's but others as well) and informed him that should anyone be injured as a result of this dog's actions, he (the property owner) could count on being a party to any resulting legislation. Subsequently, the tenants were told to get rid of the dog, and they, figuring that all they had to do was get the dog out of sight, relegated him to the garage. An un-airconditioned garage in Kansas in August, and we found out later he baked to death when his owners left him unattended for the weekend. Unfortunate, but no tears were shed in the neighborhood. (And the tenants lease was not renewed.)
This makes me ache.
There was no reason for that kind of suffering.
Under Denver's laws, this animal would have been removed from the neighborhood and probably put down, euthanized, destroyed, killed...(I say probably because a good number of the seized dogs have been relocated to new homes elsewhere) what ever you want to call it. Simply removed from the equation, thus restoring relative peace in the neighborhood. Barring that, its death in the garage would have been grounds for an earlier Denver law that would have allowed punishment as a felon for animal cruelty. And an even bigger problem could have been fixed with the removal of your trash neighbors.
gonzo914 wrote:I would wager that none of you have been in this situation, except maybe TomB, and I'll bet his neighbor's dog isn't a pit bull. Until you have, please spare me the self-righteous, dog-lover's rhetoric. Yes, a dog is a "living, breathing, feeling creature," but so are my kids, and their well-being has to take precedence. Would I have actually taken the steps described above had the all legal options been fruitless? I'd like to think not, but when one's family is at stake, one's reactions can be visceral.
Agreed.
(even if it's not actually your dog)
