Murreydobe· Sea Hag
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.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.
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.