I've come to the conclusion that enforcement of ANYTHING all depends on the class level of the town. I've never seen so many loose and menacing dogs as I have here in the last five years I've been here. It's been pretty eye opening to see areas neglected because they aren't affluent <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

My brother is a cop in a ritzy part of NYC, and if there is a stray and people are concerned about it, they will actually transport it to the pound if they arrive before animal control. Now that's service <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

 Quote:

I've come to the conclusion that enforcement of ANYTHING all depends on the class level of the town.

You nailed that! In Nichols Hills, The Village, Warr Acres, Oak Tree (All very "tony" and upscale suburbs or housing communities here, a stray dog call gets lightening-like response. In my neighborhood you can call till you wear out your phone buttons and you will see nary an animal control truck.

Ummm...have any of you worked for Animal Control before? I have, and it doesn't depend on the "class of the town", it depends on the funding of the department.

Yes, you'll get a faster response in the Ritzy part of town - but you're paying 3 1/2 times the amount of taxes compared to a rural area that will have slower response time.
The only saving grace of the Rural areas is that the home owners will deal with the problems themselves first ( ala shotgun )


For me, a few dollars in ammunition saves me at least a couple of thousand dollars in property taxes a year - a very fair trade off in my book.

 Quote:

My .02cents...

There is a family that owned (the dog passed a few months ago.)
a BIG rott., Great dog. and it would eat you if you stepped
into their backyard - so far so good...

This same dog would be walked by their 10 year old daughter.
It was a funny site, this HUGE Rott. pulling/yanking this
little girl. Can you see where this CAN lead to, though - in
the eyes of the Public?

In my area, the majority of pit owners are (I'm not exagerating)
teenage gang members. They walk their pits, no - their pits
walk them.

If you are a PBT owner, I have nothing but love for you. But
my point is (long winded <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> ) that their needs to be
responsible OWNERS who'll TRAIN their dogs to be social, and
not just to "look bad down the street" and fight their dogs.

I agree with you. As a person who owns 2 APBT'S, I cannot stand driving down the road and seeing this little skinny thing trying to handle their pitbull. I have two very well trained pitbulls, hell they listen better than my kids do, but I will not even let them run the 20 ft. to my backyard gate without being on a leash, just because my neighbors feel uncomfortable with them running loose. Stupid because they let their dogs roam the neighborhood. My male King, one weakness is kids, he loves them. We have a man who owns a mean lab that runs around, he attacked a girl one day walking home from school, had her by the leg, only me and one other person went to go help, well King come flying by us,( he climbed the fence) and attacked the lab, which gave the girl time to get up and run. The girl had 52 stitches in her leg, and the owner was only fined $50 for letting the dog run loose. Who by the way still lets the dog run loose. I have a bullet waiting on him if he comes in my yard at my kids.

No, I never worked for animal control. In my area, the same animal control covers lower class and high class areas, so the funding is there. Heck, in my crappy town taxes are high, and excessively high taxes can be found across the island and down state areas. In higher class areas you don't find dogs loose that are as dangerous as the ones loose in low class areas I've noticed. Of course, as with everything in life it all boils down to money, not need <where's that eye roll emoticon <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />> Having grown up in a very nice area, I would have sacrificed all the patrolling from police and animal control to towns that really NEEDED it.

We can use a shot gun to shoot a dog, but only if it's attacking. That is pretty stupid though. You'd have better luck not hitting the victim along with the dog with a more precision oriented weapon. So, if a dog is attacking, there's no way I'd try to shoot the dog for fear of hitting the person you're trying to save. Here, you can't just shoot a dog for being loose, it has to be attacking.

"You'd have better luck not hitting the victim along with the dog with a more precision oriented weapon. So, if a dog is attacking, there's no way I'd try to shoot the dog for fear of hitting the person you're trying to save."

Ummm, Barb....you do know that those "precision oriented weapons" have a range of a mile or more if you miss, right? And the ability to penetrate houses, etc.
Which is why most Police Departments use shotguns as their general utility weapon after the service handgun.

Since you think that my suggestion was "stupid", may I ask how many attacking animals that you've dispatched with a weapon?
I'm basing my statement on my direct experiences, I'm interested to know your experience level in the matter.

OMG! I didn't mean YOUR idea was stupid, just trying to shoot a dog attacking someone with a shot gun is not a good idea <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> I didn't mean it to be offensive as it sounds...

If someone has a precision oriented weapon, or would attempt to stop an attack with one, I would assume they would be a good shot and adept at handling the weapon. I wouldn't want to be the 'guy' shooting the dog with a shot gun as it's on a person attacking, and I'm a pretty good shot. I'd take my chances with a shovel or something.

Thanks for your answer in the other thread. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

to clarify, your statement wasn't what I called stupid. My animal control laws were. I haven't dispatched any attacking animals, but I have seen the police take out a racoon with distemper with a .22 to the head. Sniping the animal seems more sensible to me, and the shotgun doesn't have sniping capabilities.

Have you ever taken out an attacking animal with a shotgun? If so, could you describe it? If you can safely take out an animal with a shot gun in the process of attacking, I'd dust off the shotgun and keep it ready. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I'm waiting for the dog across from me to launch his bi-yearly attack and wondering how the heck I'm going to help someone if it happens if the owners not there to pull the dog off. The houses around me are weekend people, or never home during the day.

Barb,
Load your shotgun with a mix of a slug and number one buck every other shell, this will give you a choice when you need a spread verus pin point accuracy.
I have a Benelli Super 90 ( along with about five other shotguns, hey, I'm half owner of a gun store! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> ) that I can put slugs into a 4" circle at 35 yards all day long, so I'm fairly confident of my ability to hit my target.
And five combat tours hasn't hurt my accuracy, either.

I've dispatched many attacking animals ( three dogs also )with a shotgun, but most of the animals I engaged were men in combat. I've only had one crawl away after after a shotgun hit, and he had also been hit with four rounds of 7.62 NATO - a real tough fellow.

Believe me, dogs aren't a tough target if you get the experience and practice.

Definitely not biting you, but I can't help but think that the laws should be aimed at the people not the dogs. This reminds me of the gun bans, open container bans and things of that ilk. Such laws target mostly responsible law abiding people by limiting their activities in an attempt to resolve the real problem which is irresponsible behavior by a few. My thinking is punish the people who cause the problem while leaving the responsible majority alone as much as possible.

Did you know that in the Roman Army there was no prohibition against drinking, even on duty. However, the penalty for being drunk on duty was death. I guess I am saying shoot the owner not the dog; and I am more than half serious!

Hugh