Dog kills cat, cat owner shoots dog, dog owner shoots 5 people.

[Kodos]

If a development where I'm thinking of moving has a ban on dogs, that's a plus. Too many people let their dog sit outside and bark all day and night.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Noticeably lower.

Those breeds are almost a separate issue at this point, and as for them I'd like to see their possession in the U.S. outlawed entirely.

Completely disagree with this one and it is a mentallity that gets me a bit hot under the collar.

If you look at statistics/research the dog breed isn't the problem. It's the owner. If you ban Pit Bulls and Rotts, then it will just move to a different dog breed. I have several articles that follow the trend from breed to breed. At some point it's been German Shephards. At some point Dobermans. Etc, etc. It's not the breed itself, but whatever breed is trendy with the crowd that likes to make trouble.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Kodos

If a development where I'm thinking of moving has a ban on dogs, that's a plus. Too many people let their dog sit outside and bark all day and night.

A lot of places have rules on this, I think neighbors are generally unwilling to "rat them out" and/or talk to their neighbor.

I'm very cognizent of other people with my dogs, especially because (and this should get good) I have a dog that is very prone to biting and all 3 of them are barkers to an extent. So, I'm very aware of what noise they are making and try to make them stop and/or bring them inside. I am also super cognizent of what's going on around me when walking the biter and am sure to let the neighbors know (they have a 4 year old) so that we avoid any mishaps at the fence.

[wade moore]

Dola: I do recognize that many dog owners are not so polite/aware.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Noticeably lower.

Those breeds are almost a separate issue at this point, and as for them I'd like to see their possession in the U.S. outlawed entirely.

I'd rather see the idiot owners that train their dogs to be violent outlawed.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Dola: I do recognize that many dog owners are not so polite/aware.

You can say that about anything. I recognize that many motorcycle riders are not polite/aware.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Completely disagree with this one and it is a mentallity that gets me a bit hot under the collar.

If you look at statistics/research the dog breed isn't the problem. It's the owner. If you ban Pit Bulls and Rotts, then it will just move to a different dog breed. I have several articles that follow the trend from breed to breed. At some point it's been German Shephards. At some point Dobermans. Etc, etc. It's not the breed itself, but whatever breed is trendy with the crowd that likes to make trouble.

I agree with you on this Wade, Pits only tend to be unstable if they are raised wrong. If you work to train the aggressive traits out of them they are actually very loving and affectionate Dogs. What I would like to see is stiffer penalties for the owners of Dogs that attack/maim people other animals as a result of the Dog being improperly supervised or restrained. In the end the Dogs are just exhibiting the behavior they are allowed to exhibit.

I know someone who owns wolves, who are a lot more prone to violence than any Dog, but he has established himself as the "pack master" (Yeah I watch Dog whisperer) and they behave fine.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

You can say that about anything. I recognize that many motorcycle riders are not polite/aware.

Yup.

Dogs just tend to be something that can impact you while you're sitting at home minding your own business.

A dog owner as a neighbor that doesn't have any common courtesy can be an absolutely miserable experience.

[Travis]

Bingo. I've been planning on getting a Malamute for a long time (just haven't gotten to a place where it'd be fair to the animal to get one yet) and have already done a lot of looking into what would be needed as far as training to make sure it behaves in as safe a manner as possible. It kills me to see how many bad/ignorant/inattentive owners there are out there (and thankfully most of the one's I know own smaller animals, cats and dogs) and that's where the major issues lie.

As was said, if you remove the current "aggressive" breeds, those same owners will just get the next biggest/available breed in line and those same statistics will reappear in a few years for new breeds.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Kodos

If a development where I'm thinking of moving has a ban on dogs, that's a plus. Too many people let their dog sit outside and bark all day and night.

This guy could probably help you with that

[wade moore]

As a side note:

Trust me, having a dog that bites, even if small (like mine) is not fun at times.


Edit: And no, "get rid of it", is not a valid solution.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by molson

I think it's funny that people are taking this estimated 5 million dog bite number and distributing those bites to 5 million different dogs, all of whom apparently bite one person, one time, each year.

I mean, come on.

Most, if not all, of the people quoting that statistic have recognized this fact.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Most, if not all, of the people quoting that statistic have recognized this fact.

I've also seen the "1 in 15" number analyzed, and I'm just saying that's not even valid as a starting point.

[SportsDino]

The penalty for idiot owners should be more severe.

My very stupid little sister insisted on petting a big dog some jackass was walking down the street one day. Of course the stupid thing bit her, and I had to yank her away before it did any more damage. The owner of course thought the appropriate response was to laugh his ass off.

Several days later here he comes again, my sister appropriately trembled in fear at our steps far away from the sidewalk, and I watched like a hawk while they were walking. The asshole sees us, makes an incredibly rude comment, laughs and LETS THE DOG OFF ITS LEASH!

The stupid mutt charged right into a roundhouse kick to the face and another one in the ribs while it was turning after it fell down. Owner started to fluff up some big ego shit about what he was going to do (I was maybe 2/3's his height, half his weight, and probably a fourth of his age... very brave of him)... I told my sister to run to my mother and call the cops and did my best rabid animal impression until he had leashed his dog and I chased him out of sight.

So I'm under the theory that most dog attacks are caused by chickenshit wannabe bully owners, with a little bit of stupid kids that don't know better to be wary of animals mixed in. Other than that one experience, despite having a dislike of dogs ever since, every other dog has been a decent creature. I think it takes very little training to get a dog to non-hostile behavior, most aggressive dogs are due to their owners stupidity so I think they should be fined harshly.

[gstelmack]

I agree with all of your post, especially the "very stupid little sister" part (we work hard with our kids making sure they get permission from the owner, which of course may or may not have helped in this case). We used to have a neighbor that would take his dog to work or whatever and would let him out of the truck when he was turning onto the street, and the dog would immediately chase all the kids playing in the neighborhood. People like that are what give dogs bad names.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by molson

I've also seen the "1 in 15" number analyzed, and I'm just saying that's not even valid as a starting point.

Again, the reality of the number has been recognized by everyone mentioning it. I don't see the need to act like we don't know what we're talking about when we acknowledge the same thing you are saying. If the numbers quoted are correct there is 1 person "attacked" per 15 pet canines in the United States each year. That is a factual statement (if the 75mm/15mm # is correct). That probably means that there are a number of "repeat offenders" in the bunch, but we don't know how many. We have been careful to note that, but all we can do is quote the "1 in 15" until we have more facts.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Again, the reality of the number has been recognized by everyone mentioning it. I don't see the need to act like we don't know what we're talking about when we acknowledge the same thing you are saying. If the numbers quoted are correct there is 1 person "attacked" per 15 pet canines in the United States each year. That is a factual statement (if the 75mm/15mm # is correct). That probably means that there are a number of "repeat offenders" in the bunch, but we don't know how many. We have been careful to note that, but all we can do is quote the "1 in 15" until we have more facts.

My opinion is that number was even more of a stretch then those qualifications. You don't agree.

I don't know why this is such a big deal for you.

You said:

"OK, we have gotten on MBBF's case about what the "vast majority" of a percentage of a population is, but... 1 in 15 dogs is a LOT. And that's PER YEAR. I'm sorry, but I'm with JIMGA that the number surprises me. Granted, "1 in 15" doesn't actually mean 1 in 15 dogs. There could be 5 dogs attacking 3 times per year. Regardless, I would have guessed PER YEAR that roughly 1 attack per 100 or so dogs was reported."

So yes, you acknowledged it, but you're still using 1 in 15 as a starting point, which I just think is silly. You said you would have guessed that roughly 1 attack per 100 or so dogs was reported. But the 5 million bite stat this is based on is an estimate of ALL bites (not just those that are reported).

And I'm nots ure what "roughly 1 attack per 100 or so dogs was reported" even means. Does that mean that 1 in 100 attacks are reported? Or that for every 100 dogs, there's 1 reported attack? Neither guess is in any way contradicted by the data, which includes estimates of all dog bites, reported and unreported. You though, found a contradiction because of the "1 in 15" number, which again, I think is silly.

I would guess (total guess) that mabye 1 out of 50 dogs bit someone last year, and the majority of those were playing "accidents" at home involving the owners. I would guess that less than 1 out of 100 dogs bit a stranger last year. And probably far fewer than that. The stats don't contradict those guesses. You think they do, and that's my disagreement.

Resume your thread policing, I hope I've explained myself to your satisfaction.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by molson

Resume your thread policing, I hope I've explained myself to your satisfaction.

Hello pot, meet kettle.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Hello pot, meet kettle.

I don't know what about my post made you so pissy. Sorry about that.

I didn't agree with the statistical methodolgy being used. You...didn't like that I pointed that out? or that I had an opinion?

sorry

[Passacaglia]

molson, I think that LS said "1 in 15 dogs is a LOT" he meant that one BITE in 15 dogs is a lot. He even later mentions that it "doesn't actually mean 1 in 15 dogs" (although I think his example of 5 dogs attacking 3 times per year is not the best to illustrate that point).

[Pumpy Tudors]

It's been a long time since I had an internet fight. I need to start some shit.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

It's been a long time since I had an internet fight. I need to start some shit.

not since this one

Stories from the Felt

[molson]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

It's been a long time since I had an internet fight. I need to start some shit.

Who's that guy that called you Frumpy Tudors? I don't think you ever settled that shit.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

molson, I think that LS said "1 in 15 dogs is a LOT" he meant that one BITE in 15 dogs is a lot. He even later mentions that it "doesn't actually mean 1 in 15 dogs" (although I think his example of 5 dogs attacking 3 times per year is not the best to illustrate that point).

Right, he basically said "1 in 15 seems like a lot, I would think it would be more like 1 in 100". And JIMGA said that the more he thought about it, 1 in 15 didn't seem like that much. And then there was some debate about whether "1 in 15" meant this was a "regular occurrence".

I think the whole "1 in 15" premise is faulty. Both in the statistical assumptions, and the assumptions that these are all "attacks". Not just that "1 and 15" isn't the exact number, but the whole ratio is an incredibly misleading starting point.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by molson

Right, he basically said "1 in 15 seems like a lot, I would think it would be more like 1 in 100". And JIMGA said that the more he thought about it, 1 in 15 didn't seem like that much. And then there was some debate about whether "1 in 15" meant this was a "regular occurrence".

I think the whole "1 in 15" premise is faulty. Both in the statistical assumptions, and the assumptions that these are all "attacks".

Everyone in every post regarding 1 in 15 used the number knowing it was flawed. You seem to be the only one here who doesn't appear to get it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Everyone in every post regarding 1 in 15 used the number knowing it was flawed. You seem to be the only one here who doesn't appear to get it.

I'm not just saying it's flawed. I'll try again.

I was responding to points like:

""OK, we have gotten on MBBF's case about what the "vast majority" of a percentage of a population is, but... 1 in 15 dogs is a LOT. And that's PER YEAR. I'm sorry, but I'm with JIMGA that the number surprises me. Granted, "1 in 15" doesn't actually mean 1 in 15 dogs. There could be 5 dogs attacking 3 times per year. Regardless, I would have guessed PER YEAR that roughly 1 attack per 100 or so dogs was reported.""

So he's implying that because of this 1 in 15 number, his previous guess of "roughly 1 attack per 100 or so dogs was reported" is way off.

IN MY OPINION, the 1 in 15 number is SO invalid that it doesn't disprove his prior guess of "roughly 1 attack per 100 or so dogs was reported". Both because of the problem with the numbers, and the distinction between "bites" and "attacks".

Later, JIMGA thought that the 1 in 15 number (THOUGH FLAWED) was actually supported somewhat by his anecdotal evidence.

So the 1 in 15 number, though admitted by everybody to be flawed, is still being used to show us how scary dogs in to some degree, and I disagree with the degree.

I don't know why this is such a controversial stance.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

It's been a long time since I had an internet fight. I need to start some shit.

Bring it on, cowboy stache.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And then there's the llamas and emus.

I worked at the safari at Six Flag Great Adventure for a sumeer. Llamas are pretty much cowards. They certainly are jerks and will try to sneak up on you, but you grab a big stick and run at them and they'll take off like their tail's on fire.

Now ostriches, those things are fucking assholes. I had one that tried to pick a fight with me at least a half dozen times a day. He'd walk up to me, do his "I'm so going to fuck you up." dance and it was go time. There was one time when I thought the battle was over, turned my back and he got within a few yards of me before I noticed him and prepared myself. That was close. I pushed him away (with the big stick with a plastic "U" on top) just as he tried to kick me.

[CU Tiger]

Ok I pulled a quick google number and it is wrong...I apologize pleease stone me to death...

Secondly I intentioanlly used a non domestic cat as I feel a bobcat (much smaller than a NAML btw) is as fit a pet as a pit bull both have their place niether is in the home.

As someone who has lived in Buffalo, if you think for a minute the dog/cat population is similar or even remotely close enough to compare between rural NC and Buffalo NY you are sadly mistaken.

My neighbor has over a dozen dogs, none on leashes or chainss andmy kids know them all by name. All stay in the yard and none weigh over 10lbs...thats pretty common where I am, in Buffalo these dogs would freeze to death. Same goes with cats, thats why I made my statement..

The fact that you feel the need to attack me when, as far as I can recollect, we have haad no previous interaction or confrontation does strike me as a bit odd unless you harbor some personal vendetta I have long forgaotten...but to each his own.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Ok I pulled a quick google number and it is wrong...I apologize pleease stone me to death...

Secondly I intentioanlly used a non domestic cat as I feel a bobcat (much smaller than a NAML btw) is as fit a pet as a pit bull both have their place niether is in the home.

As someone who has lived in Buffalo, if you think for a minute the dog/cat population is similar or even remotely close enough to compare between rural NC and Buffalo NY you are sadly mistaken.

My neighbor has over a dozen dogs, none on leashes or chainss andmy kids know them all by name. All stay in the yard and none weigh over 10lbs...thats pretty common where I am, in Buffalo these dogs would freeze to death. Same goes with cats, thats why I made my statement..

The fact that you feel the need to attack me when, as far as I can recollect, we have haad no previous interaction or confrontation does strike me as a bit odd unless you harbor some personal vendetta I have long forgaotten...but to each his own.

What's the deal with all the hate for Pit Bulls? Having we already coverred that it's not the dogs it's the owners? Plus the breeding of dogs with agressive characteristics AND breeding dogs for certain traits, such has as much muscle mass as possible.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know why this is such a controversial stance.

Same as I don't really get any controversy in believing that 1 in 15 isn't out of the realm of possibility when you live in a neighborhood that has less than a dozen dogs but two of those have instigated three incidents in less than a year that involved human emergency rooms, veterinary surgeons, animal control, police, and attorneys. (and my personal experience was exponentially the mildest of the bunch)

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

What's the deal with all the hate for Pit Bulls? Having we already coverred that it's not the dogs it's the owners? Plus the breeding of dogs with agressive characteristics AND breeding dogs for certain traits, such has as much muscle mass as possible.

While I agree the owners are the problem, I think my reasoning is for a slightly different reason that your own.
Pits were bread over dozens of generations to be adept at killing other dogs. As a result dogs that showed timidness, or docile behavior were bred out of the gene pool.
I have an APBT, and have had 3 other pits...that said especially non neutered males, are very dangerous and have been proven more prone attack without warning.

Can an owner train this behavior out? Yes, a very small percentage of dog owners are smart enough or attentive enough to train the behavior out however do to past breeding practices you have by rule a dog more apt to aggressive behavior.

It sucks that humans did this to the breed, but then again it is one of the few pure man made breeds to begin with so no big loss there....

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

While I agree the owners are the problem, I think my reasoning is for a slightly different reason that your own.
Pits were bread over dozens of generations to be adept at killing other dogs. As a result dogs that showed timidness, or docile behavior were bred out of the gene pool.
I have an APBT, and have had 3 other pits...that said especially non neutered males, are very dangerous and have been proven more prone attack without warning.

Can an owner train this behavior out? Yes, a very small percentage of dog owners are smart enough or attentive enough to train the behavior out however do to past breeding practices you have by rule a dog more apt to aggressive behavior.

It sucks that humans did this to the breed, but then again it is one of the few pure man made breeds to begin with so no big loss there....

I think you're a bit inaccurate here.

Certain bloodlines have been trained to attack other dogs, yes. But there are a ton of responsible breeders that have not done this. If you understand the bloodline and breeder, this is not an issue. To claim that this is some rampant thing for Pit Bulls is patently false.

[KWhit]

I think all of you who are saying that "It's not the dog. It's the owner" are off base a bit. You're right in that there are a whole lot of shitty dog owners out there who encourage aggressive behavior in their dogs by playing really rough with them or beating them, etc. But these are animals. Even the well-trained dog will attack given a circumstance where it feels cornered and threatened.

My son was attacked by a family dog just because he hopped up from the freaking sofa too fast and scared the damn thing. And the owner of the dog is not what you'd call a bad owner. She treats them like they're her children (creepy, actually), but still, she does nothing at all to promote aggressive behavior.

But this particular dog is a little high strung and was in a new place (visiting my house), and got spooked and nipped at my son. Tore his lip up pretty good and he needed stitches. Could have been much worse.

What's odd is that we had been very clear to him that he needed to be calm and careful around the dogs and treat them very gently and carefully. Well, he was doing a great job of that all day, but then heard someone come in the door and hopped up to see who it was. That's all it took in this circumstance to get a bite in the mouth.

These are animals. Sometimes they are dangerous animals.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I think you're a bit inaccurate here.

Certain bloodlines have been trained to attack other dogs, yes. But there are a ton of responsible breeders that have not done this. If you understand the bloodline and breeder, this is not an issue. To claim that this is some rampant thing for Pit Bulls is patently false.

But when a pit bull attacks, people can die.

When a terrier attacks (or a house cat for that matter), it's a different story.

I get very uncomfortable around dogs that weigh more than me. I don't care how 'good' their breeding and owner.

[Travis]

Fair enough KWhit, but to go to one line you said, it's not always about whether or not an owner encourages aggressive behavior (in the way they play with the dog, etc), but if they discourage it. I know a lot of owners who aren't aggressive in their interaction with their pets, but also don't do a lot to discourage "playful" aggression, especially when they're puppies. This can lead to bad moments as well.

Like you said though, dog or cat, good owners or bad, they're animals and situations like that will happen sometimes no matter the training, just like some people, no matter their upbringing, will snap and do things highly uncharacteristic of the "norm". It's very sad what happened to your son and hopefully he never has to go through anything like that again.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Travis

Like you said though, dog or cat, good owners or bad, they're animals and situations like that will happen sometimes no matter the training, just like some people, no matter their upbringing, will snap and do things highly uncharacteristic of the "norm". It's very sad what happened to your son and hopefully he never has to go through anything like that again.

Travis hit it on the head right there.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Lathum

not since this one

Stories from the Felt

Yeah, MRobot can kiss my ass.

Originally Posted by molson

Who's that guy that called you Frumpy Tudors? I don't think you ever settled that shit.

I had forgotten about that. He still shows up every once in a while, but he doesn't mess with me anymore. He must have seen my bowling video.

Originally Posted by Logan

Bring it on, cowboy stache.

Sorry, what's that? I couldn't hear you with Jon Bon Jovi sitting on your face.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Same as I don't really get any controversy in believing that 1 in 15 isn't out of the realm of possibility when you live in a neighborhood that has less than a dozen dogs but two of those have instigated three incidents in less than a year that involved human emergency rooms, veterinary surgeons, animal control, police, and attorneys. (and my personal experience was exponentially the mildest of the bunch)

When I was a kid, I had a dog bite me in the mouth. It was the only dog in the neighborhood. So by your rationale I should have concluded that 100% of dogs attack humans?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

It's been a long time since I had an internet fight. I need to start some shit.

I was gonna start something just for fun, but I figure the Arena Football League cancelling their season is painful enough for you.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I was gonna start something just for fun, but I figure the Arena Football League cancelling their season is painful enough for you.

Losing the AFL this year did hurt. They'd be entering the playoffs right about now.

[SportsDino]

I'll second that you need to discourage the aggressive behavior actively, we had a cat (I was at college so wasn't around it enough)... never really trained it to be the spawn of satan, but never discouraged its very aggressive 'playful' behavior (well basically attaching itself to your arm with its teeth and hanging on for dear life as you swing your arm around trying to get it off).

That cat mellowed a little bit, but was always a very aggressive cat because of it never being trained against that (my mother babied it until it got to be too big and clawed her good one time when she spooked it).

Another thing that ticks me off is people that spoil an animal rotten and then never take accountability for its misbehavior, but when it comes back and bites them they just dump the animal to the shelter.

Even good pets though should probably be treated like the plague around very small children.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by KWhit

My son was attacked by a family dog just because he hopped up from the freaking sofa too fast and scared the damn thing. And the owner of the dog is not what you'd call a bad owner. She treats them like they're her children (creepy, actually), but still, she does nothing at all to promote aggressive behavior.

Not to be mean here, but you're just wrong.

This owner treatment often actually encourages the exact behavior you saw.

Not to get too deep in this, but if the owner does not take control of situations, the dog will not feel calm and will react badly when they feel scared or threatened.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by KWhit

But when a pit bull attacks, people can die.

When a terrier attacks (or a house cat for that matter), it's a different story.

When you say "pit bull", are you refering to the breed known as the "American Pit Bull Terrier"?

[EagleFan]

There are way too many openings in this story to really judge everything.

Was the cat wandering free and went into the neighbor's yard where the dog was outside?

Did the cat owner shoot the dog with the dog owner standing right there?

Was the dog threatening in any way at that time, or the dog's owner.

Did the dog's owner have a gun on him at the time of the dog being shot (if you are standing there with your dog and someone pulls out a gun and shoots I think it's fair game for you to return fire at that point as you have no idea what this guy is about to do).

Did the dog's owner have to go and get the gun? It becomes much more deliberate in that case.



Once he shot the daughter he went WAY too far. The shooting of the cat owner could potentially be justified depending on the circumstances and the perceived threat.


The good news is that no one died but one of the idiots who was shooting.

[johnnyshaka]

My wife will be in our yard watching our two little girls and then all of sudden there will be a dog or two in the yard, or close enough to it, that she has to quickly gather up the girls, shuttle them inside, all the while watching out of one eye to make sure the dogs aren't heading her way. Luckily, there haven't been any attacks but I'd prefer it wouldn't get that far.

We've called the cops several times and the city several times regarding these two dogs who are seen regularly wandering the neighbourhood. We started calling back in March and we know a few other neighbours have called, too. It's absolutely ridiculous because nothing has been done or else the deterents aren't steep enough because the situation hasn't improved.

Instead, I'm currently shelling out $2000 (money I don't really have to spend on something like this in the first place) to have a fence built to deter these dogs and any other unwanted visitors into my yard...something we haven't had to worry about during the first 7 years in this neighbourhood. Why the hell do I have to put up a fence to keep pests OUT OF MY YARD when irresponsible pet owners should be making sure they are keeping their animals in their yard. Friggin' annoying!!

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

90% or so of American humans regularly receive a paycheque once every 15 days during a year.

I've never received a "paycheque" - I think that must be a Canadian thing.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

I've never received a "paycheque" - I think that must be a Canadian thing.

You're just one of the 10%!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

We've called the cops several times and the city several times regarding these two dogs who are seen regularly wandering the neighbourhood. We started calling back in March and we know a few other neighbours have called, too. It's absolutely ridiculous because nothing has been done or else the deterents aren't steep enough because the situation hasn't improved.

Assuming that there are laws in place that should cover this (and not everywhere has those so I'm taking a leap of faith on that) then I have to ask to make sure that you've both gone up the food chain within law enforcement to try to get satisfaction and if so then taken steps with whatever political entity has authority over the cops.

Kind of like my observation in one of the education threads, the key to getting appropriate action out of folks sometimes is as simple as making it more painful not to do what you want than it is to just do it.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Not to be mean here, but you're just wrong.

This owner treatment often actually encourages the exact behavior you saw.

Not to get too deep in this, but if the owner does not take control of situations, the dog will not feel calm and will react badly when they feel scared or threatened.

Shurg.

I don't know enough about raising dogs, or in fact all of the details about what she has done about their behavior (nor do you, so I don't know how you can call me 'wrong' with such certainty).

But, I do know that she has sent them to obedience training (more than once, since they often get some form of 'training' class whenever she boards them) and is generally very good about rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior. So I would say she is a better owner than 90% of the dog owners I've been around who basically let their dog either run wild or tie it up in the yard for it's whole life.

The statement I made about her treating them like her children is more along the lines of the fact that most of the pictures of her in her house or on Facebook have the dogs in them, she gets them gourmet dog treats from a specialty store, she puts bows in their hair, she takes them to a doggy chiropractor and some sort of dog whisperer type thing. Crazy stuff like that.