Doberman Forum : Doberman Breed Dog Forums banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,136 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
UDALL — A rural Udall man has been ordered by authorities this week to dispose of a pit bull dog that killed two other dogs belonging to his neighbors, a Cowley County Sheriff’s Department report said today.

Michael Carter, 8257 Skylane Drive, must dispose of his pit bull by Friday, authorities said.

“They have a week to get rid of it or face charges,” said Sgt. Jeff Elston.

Carter’s dog attacked and killed a poodle belonging to Tim Klingenberg, also of Skylane Drive. A Doberman pinscher owned by Sara MagLaughlin, another neighbor, was also killed. The dogs died Monday, according to the report. Skylane Drive is located south of the city of Udall.

Elston said the pit bull was allowed to run freely around Carter’s property and was not kept in a pen. The officer said Carter was ordered to get rid of the dog because it poses a danger to children living in the area. If the man fails to remove the pit bull from the property by the end of this week, he could face charges for permitting a dangerous animal to be at large.

Elston said he had not ordered Carter to destroy the dog but thought the man might be able to take it to the Cowley County Humane Society. The dog killings are currently being worked as a public nuisance case.

The two victims in the case have asked that the dog be removed from the neighborhood, but they weren’t requesting that it be killed, the sergeant said.

Exotic animal regulations adopted by Cowley County in December do not extend to dangerous dogs, according to the county administrator’s office. Pit bull dogs have been banned within the city limits of Arkansas City, Elston said. The City of Udall has a vicious dog ordinance that regulates dogs with a known reputation for biting but does not single out specific breeds, the Udall city clerk’s office said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,136 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
I thought this was a bit intresting no Dog should be allowed to roam around where ever it wants another Bad decision by a owner
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
What a shame that the situation was allowed to escalate to such concenquences :( What a sad display of poor pet ownership.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,136 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
A few days ago on a Columbus news channel they said cops found 5 dead Horses and 10 dead dogs on some ladys property that just totally makes me sick I think it was in Medina county...
 

·
Sea Hag
Joined
·
12,933 Posts
crxman321 said:
Elston said the pit bull was allowed to run freely around Carter’s property and was not kept in a pen. The officer said Carter was ordered to get rid of the dog because it poses a danger to children living in the area. If the man fails to remove the pit bull from the property by the end of this week, he could face charges for permitting a dangerous animal to be at large.

.
It's a shame those dogs were killed..but I'm kind of having a problem with the ruling that was made in this case. There's NO mention the dog was off of the owner's property when these dog fights occurred. All it says is that the dog was allowed to run freely on the owner's property and wasn't kept in a pen. It could very well be the dogs that were killed were strays-and wound up paying the ultimate price for the "sins" of their owners for letting their dogs run free.

I'm just thinking of the dogs I've owned that were very high prey drive. If a neighbor's cat came onto my property, there was a good chance that dog would kill it. But I didn't consider those dogs to be dangerous to anything but small prey type animals, and I didn't (and don't) consider keeping an animal ON MY PROPERTY to be allowing an animal to be "at large". At large to me means the animal is roaming the neighborhood unleashed and without human control.

Additionally, dog aggression doesn't necessarily always go hand in hand with aggression directed towards humans. I've known many a dog aggressive animal that never ever looked wrong at a human.

Obviously if this pit bull was running loose and killing dogs in the neighborhood, then some action needs to be taken. In that situation, I can see both removing the dog from the home and laying a hefty fine on the owner for being a bad dog owner. But I'm just not real comfortable with the way this scenario was described. If the dog was on his own property, then the people who owned the strays who came onto that property were the ones at fault-for not restraining their dogs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,169 Posts
You've raised a good point Murreydobe. I paused when I read "on the owner's property" too, but was in too big of a hurry to make a lengthy comment on it this morning. What were those other dogs doing on somebody elses property? Maybe that's why the other owners seem to be so understanding and are only asking the dog to be removed. I know that if my dog was attacked and killed in my yard or on a walk with me by a dog running loose, I would not be nearly so understanding.
And you're right, aggression toward another animal doesn't automatically equal aggression to people. This Pit could be the biggest wiggle butt in the world when a child enters his yard but is just plain aggressive toward other dogs (not unheard of qualities with Pits).
It's an interesting topic. Is the owner liable to keep strays and people out of his yard so his dog won't hurt them? It is his property. He could easily have an invisible fence installed that keeps his dog in but doesn't keep others out. I can't see how he should be faulted for that.
I wasn't overly impressed with the quote of "Elston said he had not ordered Carter to destroy the dog but thought the man might be able to take it to the Cowley County Humane Society." What is the HS supposed to do with the dog?
I'm thinking there has to be more to this story than what was reported. If the dog was on his property and as you said the other strays entered - it is unjust that he has to get rid of the Pit - especially if there has been no complaints of human aggression with this dog. It would make more sense to ask the guy to put a fence up around his yard to keep strays and children out...

Another thing that doesn't make sense is that the Pit killed a Doberman and we all know that a Dobe can knock a pit unconscious with only a bark! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
However, if this dog has shown signs of aggression in the past to humans or dogs, which I'm sure it has at some point, it should not have been allowed to roam freely even on the owners property. A responsible pet owner would take into consideration the possibility of a person wondering on the property. Whether it be a neighbor child, etc... and not take that chance with their animal. Even if it had shown no previous signs of aggression to people, chances are it has shown them to other dogs, and was still allowed the possibility of injury or death to itself, should another dog encounter it. It should have been restricted to the eyes of the owner at all time, if the owner was concerned for the well being of the dog.

Accidents do happen, dogs do get off leash, gate get left open etc, but this states that the pit was granted free reign to the yard all time. so it was clearly not under the watchful eyes of the owner. The only thing that could give me a moments pause is if the yard was fenced. But then that comes full circle to how did the other dogs get in. If there was no form of fencing, electric fencing, tie out, etc, then in my opinion that puts the owner smack dab in the middle of irresponsibility in my book. I mean you can't just assume in good conscious that your pet will just stay in your yard at all times unwatched.

The two dogs that were killed were defientely not strays, as it states they belonged to neighbors. Off leash and allowed to wander, yes it appears so, owners neglectful, if they did wander off leash? Yes. But that puts them in the same boat as the pit owner, dog off leash, no control to keep the dog safe. I come back to my point, you can't assume your dog will stay in your yard safe, if there is no restraint. Maybe just my opinion on it though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
i would think we are reading into this maybe a little too much. first off the press is never acurate...never... so in light of that we are assuming that three dog owners let there dogs rome unattended, i sort of find it hard to believe, possible yes, but still hard to believe.

my girl, Nariko has never been outside penned up, when she needs to go potty i open the door, out she goes, i watch her, and then she comes back to the door (shes very good with that) if we go out to play in the yard she is not on lead, were playing, if we go for a walk she is on lead... so lets say that she got the bright idea to go check out the neighbor dog while i was out with her, and i called for her but she got a stubborn streak in her and went anyhow, was i wrong, umm yeah maybe debateable (knowing she has no agression in her) and the other dog attacked and killed her, id have a problem with that... now if i KNEW that i had an agressive dog in the neighboirhood then id probably keep a tighter leash onm my girl knowing the possible conflict. i still find it hard that 2 dogs went into the pits yard, the way i see it was the pit waas free to rome his yard, unwatched and it decided to go out and check out other dogs, the rest is sad... but thats my take on it
 

·
Sea Hag
Joined
·
12,933 Posts
Lexus said:
The only thing that could give me a moments pause is if the yard was fenced. But then that comes full circle to how did the other dogs get in. .
I have two acres, the entire property fenced with six foot chain link. None of my dogs have EVER jumped that fence, or escaped from my yard in any way. They've been trained to respect boundaries, they've been gate trained to not crash through if/when the gate is open (the only time the gate being open is when a car or person is going in or out).

Yet I've had stray dogs try to dig INTO my yard..I've had a chihuahua-type dog squeeze under the bottom bar of the chain link gate, making it all the way onto my property.

I wouldn't have felt it the least bit just if my dogs had been taken away from me for what happened when another dog came onto their turf. Why should the responsible dog owner (and their dogs) pay the price for someone else not containing their animals? I don't think we have enough information about what happened with this pit bull to say it was a good decision one way or the other..but the precedent DOES make me uncomfortable with the way that article is worded.

To me (and the Animal Control facility in my town), a stray is any dog running loose, unleashed and not under the control of a human.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,069 Posts
I totally agree with Lexus on this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,169 Posts
Lex,
To an extent I agree with you. If a person knows their dog is aggressive toward humans or animals, I do think the "right" thing to do is keep it under control, even on their own property. But I'm picturing my inlaws property in very rural South Eastern KY; they have about 1.5 acres and it's not fenced. They have a pack of 5 or 6 (the number regulates itself, as soon as one of the old ones die, they end up with picking up another stray) mutts, most of them are under 20 pounds or so. They are all in the house with the exception of Old Sugar Dog who has free roam of their property but seldom wanders from the immediate yard. Most of their neighbors allow their dogs to run the "neighborhood" many of them with aggressive Pits and Rotts (not a safe place to go jogging by any means). But if a stray were to come on their property and Sugar killed it, would my inlaws be responsible? I don't think so.
On the other hand, if Sugar Dog were to wander down the hill and into the yard of the idiot with the pack of VERY aggressive Pits and was torn up, the fault would fall on my inlaws for not keeping her contained. If this story happened in the city or in a subdivision it would be completely different but since it is in a rural community...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
I can see your take on it too Tracy, being "farm dogs" and being a pet dog in a rural neighborhood, and the difference.

Murreydobe, I hear your perspective also, and yes there isn't enough info in the article to truly understand. But IMHO from the way it was described, that the offending dog was allowed to roam "freely not in a pen" on the guys property, that doesn't sound like he has a fenced in yard to me. I have a fenced in yard, and I certainly don't, and I don't know if anyone else would, describe my three dogs "roaming freely" safely inside their fencing. That is my take on it, from what I read, I see irresponsibility, on part of the pit owner for sure, and possibly on the owners of the two dead dogs, that is an iffy one, as we don't know where they were killed, in the pits yard or their own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,758 Posts
I just wonder that the dog being a pit was going to get blamed even if the others had been wrapped in filet mignon. I have a sneaking suspicion that if it had been a lab or a golden the article might have read differently (even even written) and the community response would have been different too.

cc
 

·
Sea Hag
Joined
·
12,933 Posts
Codysmom said:
I just wonder that the dog being a pit was going to get blamed even if the others had been wrapped in filet mignon. I have a sneaking suspicion that if it had been a lab or a golden the article might have read differently (even even written) and the community response would have been different too.

cc
Good observation, and I agree 100%.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
I agree also to a point, negativity does follow bully breeds and misdeeds, however a golden retreiver recently attacked a child here in Ohio pretty near me, and it did make news. According to the news report the dog attacked "unprovocked".

While it is NOT nice to see any reports that reflect negatively on dogs obviously, it was a relief that it finally wan't a pit, dobe, rott, etc...
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top