Recently a man in Colorado Springs shot and killed a dog that attacked his dog while out for a walk: http://www.krdo.com/news/27062645/detail.html. What annoys me the most about this story is the attitude of the owner of the offending, now deceased, dog: "...she thinks the greyhound's owner did not give her a chance to regain control of Flato before using his gun." The simple fact is that Flato would be alive today had his owner not been so irresponsible and lost control of him. If I had been the owner of the greyhound, I would have done the same thing. Of course, I'd need a gun, but that's a story for another day.
It's something I encounter regularly when I'm out walking our dog, this holier-than-thou mindset on the part some dog owners that makes them think keeping their dog under control at all times doesn't pertain to them. Or maybe it's just careless stupidity. Controlling your dog means more than keeping him on a leash; it also means being able to prevent him from, say, bolting after another dog (or squirrel, cat or kid). If your dog is big enough to make you lose your balance or prevents you from having complete control of the situation, then you have no right bringing him out in public. I see it all the time at the park: tiny women "walking" their Pit Bull or Boxer or Rottweiler or Lab and almost falling over trying to stop it from breaking away. Big dogs are like bottom-shelf tequila; if you can't handle it, don't order it.
"Oh, but he just wants to play." Well, dude, we don't want to play with him, so get him the f**k away from my dog.
With some big dogs there's not enough time to "regain control" before the damage is done. A dog as big as a mastiff can seriously hurt if not kill another animal by the time the owner "regain[s] control" of it, which is why owners of big dogs need to have complete control of their dog at all times when out in public. Have you ever noticed that owners of big dogs that attack animals and children universally place the blame on the victim? They will claim their dog has never hurt anyone or anything before, and that the dead dog or maimed child must have done something to provoke the attack. If you can't control your dog, you don't deserve to have him.
But it's not just big dogs that need to be kept under control. Those yappity, snarling bundles of fearless fur are no less dangerous when not controlled. I don't care if your dog is the size of a football and can't hurt anything but itself; just keep him away from my dog. Sometimes I take a spray bottle with me when I walk Boo to keep him in-line (it's called RESPONSIBLE dog walking), and one time this little Jack Russell muttly thing came running up behind us and sniffing at Boo. I shot the f***er square in the face with a stream of water and sent him hightailing it back to his no-good hippie owner who, then, leashed him. In a fight, Boo would've taken him, but that's not the point: keep your dog under control and away from my dog, or else.
Or else what? Well, I don't have a handgun, and despite the effectiveness of a spray bottle, I doubt it would do much good against a dog hell-bent on doing harm. But know this: if your dog hurts my dog (or cats), I will go medieval on its ass. I may be a card carrying member of the ASPCA, HSUSA, and Best Friends Animal Society, but I will not let your irresponsibility go unchecked if it threatens my dog. I love dogs, I truly do, but I love mine more than I love yours, and if I have to kick, beat, bite, gouge, scratch, strangle or run over your dog to protect mine, trust me, I will. So, keep your dog leashed and under control, and there won't be a problem. Someone should have told as much to Flato's owner.
While I wholeheartedly agree that people need to control their dog I don't necessarily agreee that it always is the owner of the dog who is at fault (Maybe it wasn't your intention to say that, but it was what I read from this statement: "They will claim their dog has never hurt anyone or anything before, and that the dead dog or maimed child must have done something to provoke the attack.")
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean to say is that people should be able to control their children and themselves around dogs as well.
My sister's family (wife, husband, 2 young children) has a 180lb mastiff that is as mellow as they come. During a BBQ party that they hosted, one of the guest's "little darling angel" tore at this dog's head and finally he let out a loud bark that scared the kid and she fell down. The mother freaked out and tried to sue my sister's family for their "dangerous dog." Nevermind that the the other 15 kids at the party played with the dog with no incident or that the dog truly never did growl or snap at anybody before that day. My sister still had to bring the dog to a specialist to get it evaluated--by the way, the specialist agreed the dog was not aggressive. It turns out that this guest is a sue-happy freak so I guess another lesson that my sister learned is to never invite someone like this to your home.
OK, I'm rambling now. Sorry.
Anyway, I do agree that you just shouldn't have a dog you can properly train and control and especially if you can't avoid public areas. I would just add the caveat that people need to be responsible for themselves too. I almost think that puppy kindergarten should be mandatory for dog owners.