Conference vmszoo::new_hampshire

    Yes, one would hope she has *better* things to do, but the question
    is "Should the govenor also involve herself with an issue that seems
    to be of concern of many of the state's residents?"  I would say,
    yes, she should try to find the time to do that as well as her
    regular duties.
    
    Nobody here is complaining about making bets with the govenor of
    Wisconsin about who won the Superbowl and trading maple syrup for
    cheese.  Now that is a waste of time and taxpayers money.
    
    				-John

    I guess she assumes that the majority of NH households own dogs and
    thus made what she thought was a proper (and politically wise)
    decision.
    
    For what it's worth didn't a local vet speak in favor of this pooch?
    
    I'd like to see what would happen if you put the dog in a large cage
    next to a cage containing another rooster. If the dog acts in a violent
    way to the rooster I'd say the Governor and vet are mistaken.
    
    Wonder why they haven't done this?
    
    Mike

    There is a state wide leash law, this dog has been out a number of
    times and there want to pardon this dog that is part wolf? I am so
    confused here. Why? There have been a number of people who have been
    hurt because their dogs were not restrained. This reminds me of some
    old black and white movies about 'every boy is a good boy' with Father
    Flanagin and Boys town. There is no such thing as a bad dog, all dogs
    are good dogs..... 

    If you apply the logic that it's of concern to a large number of
    residents, then perhaps she also has to become involved in national
    defense?

    What she is doing is interfering in local government.  This coming
    Tuesday, there will be a meeting in town to determine the final
    dissipation of the dog in question.  She's saying that no matter what
    you do, I'll overrule you.  Kinda like Clinton warning that he'll pardon
    Whitewater participants if they are brought to trail [but on a smaller
    scale].

    I was raised on a farm.  Dogs and chickens can co-exist.  And stray
    dogs are a problem.  We used to have a rifle that would end the problem
    on the dog's first visit. The dog in question repeatedly left his property
    to visit the chickens.  And a good distance from home.  The owners were
    warned multiple times.

    Cheese for Maple syrup during the SuperBore?  That doesn't concern me
    as much as you could chalk it up to publicity for the state.  Although
    the governor does prove she is a poor gambler if she bet on the Pats.
    
    ed
    

    
    Gee, I admit to not knowing the dog in question personally, but from
    what I saw of this dog on TV it doesn't appear to be vicious and it
    doesn't appear to be a wolf-hybrid.  To me this dog appeared to be a
    typical lab-mix.
    
    Clearly the owners of this animal should renumerate the rooster owners
    and pay whatever fines are legally allowable since the owners are
    responsible for the actions of their animal.
    
    I don't agree that the animal should be put down for killing a rooster. 
    I think many dogs in the state would do exactly the same thing given a
    chance.  Let's see, my dog once killed a mouse, maybe I ought to put
    him to sleep too, right?
    
    
    And I wonder just how many cats in NH have killed a rooster or other
    animal?  Maybe we should put them all to sleep too...
    
    

    RE: .5
    
    Yep.  While many dogs can co-exist with other animals, if you put
    every dog in the state in a cage with a rooster (not all at once
    however :-) ), you'd be killing dogs for quite a long time.
    
    				-John

    If the dog is a "repeat offender", get rid of it.  Put it to sleep.
    Kill it.  End of story.
    
    Then impose a LARGE fine on the owner.
    
    We would not be spending this much time if it was one of Father
    Flanagin's boys, would we?  We would just put the poor boy in jail for
    10 to 15 years to teach him a lesson.
    
    

    This is stupid.  Fine the owners, put them to work on a
    chicken farm (not fun), but killing what looked, to me also,
    be a Lab mix for hunting down what looked, to him, to be a
    bird is just stupid.  Labs are bird dogs.  Naturally they
    will go after 'birds' if the owners give them the opportunity.
    
    If he had attacked/threatened a child or even another person's
    pet It would warrant this type of action.  NOT in this case.

    >Nobody here is complaining about making bets with the govenor of
    >Wisconsin about who won the Superbowl and trading maple syrup for
    >cheese.  Now that is a waste of time and taxpayers money.
    
     What makes you think the bet was made in such a manner as to deny the
    state the governor's services? Or is she never allowed to take a break?
    
     And what evidence do you have to prove that the wager was paid for by
    the state. Typically, such bets are "paid" for by the individuals or via
    donations. I've heard no evidence to suggest otherwise in this case.

    
    
    	Ok, from what I've heard of this and from what I heard
    	directly from the owner on the radio yesterday:
    	(and yes, I know this is only her side of the story)
    
    	There is no proof that the dog is a wolf-hybrid
    	The people with the chickens are NOT that far away - at the
    	  end of her street if I remember correctly.  And they aren't
    	  supposed to have the chickens.  Portsmouth isn't zoned for
    	  farm animals
    	The owners of the chickens are not the ones making the stink.
    	  The dog's owner said they were very understanding, the dog's
    	  owner was willing to pay to cover the loss of the chicken. 
    	  The reason this issue came up is because the dog broke
    	  a city ordinance (she didn't specify which one)
    	The dog is not violent or vicious with people.  Many people
    	  that know the dog say they have never seen it act in a 
    	  malicious way.
    	As someone mentioned a reply or two ago, the breed of this dog
    	  is a bird dog, it was acting in accordance with it's nature.
    	
    
    	Killing a dog because it attacked a chicken in a city where people
    	aren't supposed to HAVE chickens, is ridiculous.

    RE: .9
    
    She made the bet and paid it off "on company time".  She should
    have spent her time on state business instead.
    
    Anybody complain when Steve Merrill ignored his state duties and
    ran around after Bob Dole?
    
    				-John

    Only way a governer pardons someone is if they have been in an abusive
    marriage. So, the dog was in an abusive marriage with the chicken?:)
    The dog was.... hen pecked.:)

    >She made the bet and paid it off "on company time".  She should
    >have spent her time on state business instead.
    
     Oh, please. Try a higher fiber diet.

    ...something sould be said to the frog and the pig about their
    marriage! As in perhaps marriage councling for Kermit and Ms. Piggy.:)
    

    To me its clear: 
    
    	The dog is not "at fault" here it's the OWNER!
    
    From what little I have read about this, it would seem to me that the
    SOLE cause of this problem was the dog owner's negligence.
    
    It seems thoroughly inappropriate, unfair and inhumane to kill the dog
    for the sins of the owner.   
    
    	db

The dj was ranting about how unfair/heartless the Portsmouth town officials are.
They're holding a candlelight vigil in the town tonight. I don't know all the
details, os won't comment, but it is becoming big news...

I'm generally an animal lover myself, but I can't count the number of times I've
been approached by growling dogs while mountain biking, hiking or cross-country
skiing. These are all in places that are clearly marked as "dogs must be
leashed". In my opinion, in most of those cases, the owners were to blame.

-Jeff

    ..the owners are to blame. So what do you do to the owners? Make them
    promise never to let the dog off the leash again? The failed that one!!
    Wait till the part wolf dog kills a kid? Gee.... thats one I don't want
    to gamble with.
    

>> Wait till the part wolf dog kills a kid?

Please!  It's just a Black Lab.!  It has no history of showing any aggression
towards humans.

We let repeat murderers, thieves and rapists walk the streets and we're going
to kill a dog because it killed a rooster?  It's not the dog's fault.  Punish
the owner.  Also, I have no problem with the Governor voicing her opinion on
this.  Hopefully, she won't have to act on it.

Dan

    This morning the 2 parties did a plea bargain the city dropped the
    complaint.  The owners will give up Prince.  Price has to leave
    the city.  It wasn't clear to me (or the announcer) if Price's
    owners will have the privilege of owning another dog in the city
    of Portsmouth.
    
    				-John

	Yea, but will he have to change his name to some silly
	symbol?

							mike

    > ..the owners are to blame. So what do you do to the owners? Make them
    > promise never to let the dog off the leash again? The failed that one!!
    
    Come on, isn't the answer obvious:  you take the dog away from the
    owners and give it responsible people.
    
    	db

    Don't worry about the dog, I hear he's got a lucrative book deal in the
    works.

Is Millie his ghostwriter?

    Cannot wait till the book on the pig and the frog comes out on their
    abusive marriage.:)

    I have a neighbor in Worcester, Ma. that ownes a Lab-mix. This dog is 
    often off his run, and has already bit 5 people. Last summer, the dog 
    bit a girl that was walking past the owners house. The girl called 
    police and when police tried to approach the house, the dog bit the 
    officer. The dog was taken away by the dog officer. 10 days later, the 
    owners paid a fine and got the dog back. The dog's owner has already 
    been sued once. Their insurance paid the claim and then dropped them. 
    This is a perfect example of a dog that should be put down, and the
    owner should be fined if not jailed for keeping a vicious dog and
    failing to restrain him. 
    
    	The dog in NH that killed the rooster was acting out of instict. 
    Just because he killed a rooster does not mean he will be vicious 
    towards people. I don't buy the line about him being a wolf-mix. All 
    dogs decended from wolves! 
    
    	Sound like the town has a stupid law that needs to be repealed.
    
    	Mark

    >...that the SOLE cause of this problem was the dog owner's negligence.
    
    Interesting tidbit: I happened to catch part of an interview with the
    owner on a local radio program called "Talk of the seacoast" (WERZ).
    She was discribing the lengths to which they were required to
    'restrain' Prince after he killed the rooster.  It sounded pretty
    substantial and the city's animal control officer (she claimed)
    inspected and approved the 'compound' in which Prince was kept.  But
    Prince managed to find a way to bend a corner of a nailed wooden panel
    enough to squeeze through and get out (the 1st escape).
    
    Maybe Prince was Houdini's companion in a previous doglife. :-)

    maybe this was a good thing after all, it distracted the governor from
    thinking about new taxes she could *try* to push down our throats.
    now, does anyone out ther have a pet turtle, or cat that is in trouble
    and needs the governor's attention?  we could keep her busy for the
    rest of her 2 years.
    
    ed
    

    .27 Nothing could be better said! Remember watching the our new
    governor and the entire staff of women on channel Nine all sporting the
    same dress! Talk about wierd. Hey lets call each other tomorrow and
    dress alike.... or worse... think alike.;P

    The dog has been pardoned! ... one less on death row.:)

>> .25
>> This is a perfect example of a dog that should be put down, ...

I disagree.  Why should this dog be put down?  If it were properly restrained
it would not be biting people.  Again, he was probably just acting out of
instinct protecting his property.  Just because a dog is aggressive doesn't mean
it should be killed!  There's no excuse for letting a dog run loose!  

Dan

    RE: .27
    
    Last time I checked, the governor can't force a tax on anybody.  You 
    need a vote from the legislature, right?  
    
    Now lets talk about that deficit that Merrill left us after assuring
    that the budget was balanced... (note that even the Rupublicans in the
    state legislature will admit to last year's budget shortfall).  Heck,
    even the Rupublican head of the finiance committee is in favor of
    raising taxes on cigarettes.
    
    				-John

    re: .28
    
    Would you same the same if it were a male governor and his entire male
    staff all wearing black suits?
    
    PJ

>> This is a perfect example of a dog that should be put down, ...

>I disagree.  Why should this dog be put down?  If it were properly restrained
>it would not be biting people.  Again, he was probably just acting out of
>instinct protecting his property.  
    
    I also disagree.
    
    By this logic, any good guard dog should be "put down".
    
    The problem is with the owners, not the dogs!
    
    	db

    There is a big differance between a trained guard dog and a vicious
    dog that is uncontrollable. A trained guard dog will stop immediately 
    if his handler orders him to, and they will not wander beyond the 
    property line to go after a person simply out for a walk around the 
    block. A guard dog will not jump a fence or escape a run to hunt down 
    a person and attack them. Dogs with this type of behavior are not used 
    as guard dogs. Guard dogs are generally hand-picked to have the right 
    combination of attributes. 
     
    The dog in my neighborhood poses a continuous threat to me and my 
    neighbors. This is not a potential threat. It has been proven to
    be a real threat with 5 victims that have already been bit. I am
    amazed that my neighbor was able to get the dog back after it
    bit a police officer.
    
	I believe I am in violent agreement with most of the people in
    this note as far as the dog that killed the Rooster. There is no
    evidence that this dog is vicious and no reason he should be killed.
    The dog's owners should be punished for failing to control him. If
    this dog was vicious toward people, then he should be put down. 
    The dog in my neighborhood is vicous towards people. There is no
    way he will ever out-grow his aggressive nature. Public safety
    greatly outweighs the families right to keep a pet.
    
    	To put things in perspective, I am a dog owner. We have a
    female Shepherd-mix that is ~6 years old. She is a very good 
    watch dog and puts up quite a stink if someone wanders into our
    yard. But She would not chase someone down and attack them simply
    because they are out walking. She is totally benign around kids,
    but becomes defensive when strange adults come around. I consider
    myself to be a responsible pet owner. I don't let her run lose,
    and keep her on a leash when I walk her. I also don't allow her
    to mess up other people's property. I wish all of my neighbors
    would do the same. Some do, some don't. Some refuse to take
    responsibility for their animals and in my humble opinion, they
    shouldn't have them.
    
	
	Mark

We'll probably be asked to take this to Canine soon, but....

>>    The dog in my neighborhood poses a continuous threat to me and my 
>>    neighbors. This is not a potential threat. It has been proven to
>>    be a real threat with 5 victims that have already been bit. 

I contend that this is not the dog's fault, but the owners.  The owner obviously
cannot control the dog.  The dog should not be out where it can get at people.

I had 2 dogs that would be considered, intimidating.  One was an English Bulldog
and the other was a Great Dane.  The Dane was very large even as far as Great
Dane's go.  He weighed 175 lbs. and when he stood on his hind legs he could
look me in the eye, and I'm 6'4".  He was usually a very gentle dog but he
was very protective of his family.  He could probably snap an arm off with
one bite.  The Bulldog was outright mean and nasty to strangers.  He sounds
a lot like the dog in your neighborhood.  He would probably go after someone
for no reason if allowed.  But that's the key.  He was kept under very tight
control.  Neither dog was ever let out loose, even by accident.  Should my dogs
have been destroyed because they could have injured someone?

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that there are some people who just 
should not have dogs.  But it's usually NOT the dog's fault if it bites
someone.  It's usually the dog's owner's fault.

Dan

    >There is a big differance between a trained guard dog and a vicious
    > dog that is uncontrollable.
    
    Could you please elaborate on why you think the dog is "uncontrollable"
    as opposed to merely "uncontrolled"?
    
    This certainly isn't apparant in anything you've written.
    
    	db 

I agree that a dog that is a danger is a danger because it is uncontrolled and
the onus is on the people who own the animal to control it.  But, that's theory.
In reality you cannot MAKE people control their animals, no matter what fines or
punishments are imposed.  A dog that is uncontrolled can be a serious threat to
people.  I believe that in ALL cases if a dog is a threat, that threat can be
removed by restraint and more importantly training.  But, if an owner refuses to
control a truly dangerous animal then somtimes the only course left is to
destroy it (the dog not the owner...although the latter sometimes seems like the
better choice :-)).  

	Last night I saw the dog that started all this on the news.  He looked
neither dangerous nor part "wolf".

George

    This fault on the owners part goes along with handguns? As in, its not
    the gun the commits the crime, its the owner? Anyone see the pig and
    frog?

    A dog should BARK to warn YOU of a stranger or intruder. YOU have the
    intelligence NOT THE DOG!
    
    If you choose to put all your worldly posessions in the dogs mouth,
    should they bite me or one of my family I will gladly relieve you of your
    posessions as best I legally can! I have been bitten and chased while
    on public ways enough times in my life to have ZERO tolerance for the
    99.4% of the dog owners who are <RO> about their dogs. BTW a dog
    breeder friend of mine agrees with the 99%
    
    I use to ride a motorcycle and would often be chased by free running
    dogs.
    
    -------------- LEASH LAW -------------
    
    Which word do people not understand?
    
    Steve

    One Sunday morning last Summer I went for a relatively long run. As is
    the case with most runners you tend to switch your course from time to
    time. On this Sunday morning I decided to turn up a certain street.
    About 50-60 yards down the street I could see a Collie sitting on his
    front lawn. Since it was early in the morning I had no idea if his
    owner had let him out without some type of restraint (leash) so I
    turned around and made a detour.
    
    I was wearing some headphones and listening to the radio so at first I
    didn't hear the faint barking but I did notice something out of the
    corner of my eye.
    
    What I had seen was this German Shepherd who was charging me and when
    he got about 5 feet from me I whipped off my headphones and yelled
    back at him. This usually works...not that day. He continued to bark
    and inch towards me...imagine a huge German Shepherd baring his teeth
    and getting closer and closer. He was checking out my shins as if he
    was checking out a buffet. I figured I was in for some pain.
    
    I kept on yelling at the dog, keeping him at bay. Finally the owner
    came out, along with his wife. He grabbed the dog and brought him over
    to his wife who was pretty shaken up. 
    
    The owner then charged me (like owner like dog?) and started yelling at me 
    as if I was to blame for all this. He may have also saw me getting
    ready to wrestle with the dog if the dog had latched on to me. He got
    the right message...if the dog had grabbed me I was ready to do
    anything to stop him...anything!
    
    I immediately went eyeball to eyeball with him and yelled at him for
    not having the dog on a leash. He held up a leash and said the dog got
    away from him. He continued to yell at me and at this point I thought,
    "This is one of those guys who give dog owners a bad name." I also
    thought that if either one of us took a swipe at the other that the
    wife wouldn't be able to handle the dog and the dog would be all over
    me.
    
    I turned to the owner and said, "Y'know...if you really cared about the
    dog you'd be more careful. If the dog had bitten me then you'd be out
    one dog."
    
    What if I had been a small child on a bike? How about a young mother
    walking her baby? Would the dog have attacked them? Who knows. I do
    know that while the dog was barking at me I was looking for a place on
    the dog's neck to grab just in case he locked onto me. Maybe that's
    what ticked off the owner.
    
    Hopefully the owner has learned his lesson and has taken steps to
    restrain the dog. To this day I wonder if I should have called the
    animal control officer in town and reported this incident. A visit
    by such an official would certainly have made an impression on this
    guy and hopefully would make him be more careful in the future.
    
    The onus is on the dog's owner to control the dog....the real question
    is "What to do when the dog is uncontrolled?" Killing a chicken is far
    different from maimimg a child or attacking an adult BUT an aggressive
    animal is an aggressive animal.
    
    With that in mind (get those flamethrowers out folks) it would seem
    that if an animal commits some type of offense involving injury or
    death to another animal or human why not do everything you can to
    prevent this from happening again. Eliminate the problem...put the
    dog to sleep. I know there are animal lovers out there who are violently 
    disagreeing with me but if such a deterrent was in effect then dog
    owners would be more careful with their animals. Dogs can and SHOULD
    be protective of their owners and their property but they should not
    go into attack mode unless provoked.
    
    Oh yeah. I now carry "Halt!" with me when I run.
    
    Mike
    

    As a former runner, I feel the same as the Dr. Deuce. 

    >With that in mind (get those flamethrowers out folks) it would seem
    >that if an animal commits some type of offense involving injury or
    >death to another animal or human why not do everything you can to
    >prevent this from happening again. Eliminate the problem...put the
    >dog to sleep.
    
     Why not? Because it is an unreasonably harsh response that is out of
    proportion to the infraction. If we put every dog that ever got out of
    his pen or off the leash to death there would be few if any dogs
    remaining. For me, killing a rooster is not the end of the world.
    Mauling a child is on a different different plane. Circumstances
    matter. The dog that bit my brother was in his yard on a chain. My
    brother went where he wasn't supposed to and got bit. Too bad for my
    brother. A child playing in her yard that gets attacked by someone's
    dog that's gotten loose is another thing entirely. There is no "one
    size fits all" punishment that makes sense.

    You could say the rooster was a "pet" couldn't you?
    
    If the dog had killed another dog or a cat what would the public
    consensus be?
    
    Mike
    

    .40 I had a runner friend who carried a starter gun. It worked very
    well. Esp when the owner watched the dog, unleased, go out onto the
    public roadway. 'Don't know who pooped their shorts first!', he said to
    me one day, 'the dog or the dam owner standing in the picture
    window...':)
    
    

   Re .40  
	Advocating Killing is just showing your
backside to fear.  I would much rather see society
calmly rehabilitate those that commit crimes.

   Re .43
	Most people snuggle with, groom, pet, bath,
and sometimes sleep in the same bed with their pets.
If you choose to do it with a Chicken, I am open minded.

	The people in question were breeding them for food.

   Re .44
	Firing what looks like a weapon when within 15
feet of someones property could be construed as a threat
to ones life.  NH does NOT take kindly to that and empowers
its citizens to protect themselves.  Sometimes mistakes get
made in bad situations.

    Oh yes. Just let mr dog come up and rip your throat out and calmy say,
    "Every dog is a good dog. There is no such thing as a bad dog."

    	Hmmm. And someone was concerned about the *governor* wasting time
    with this issue? What are we up to, 47 replies to this now? Well, in my
    opinion, if a dog wants to kill one of its own, I'll look the other
    way...unless its my dog. If I'm in a public place, public streets or
    whatever and I'm attacked by *anything*, then I feel within my rights
    to defend myself against the attacker with whatever force is necessary.
    I remember this one time when I was out jogging on a hot, summer day,
    feeling vulnerable in just my gym shorts, when suddenly a naked woman
    charged me from this old farmhouse....Oh wait, that was just a dream..
    Never mind.

    >But, if an owner refuses to control a truly dangerous animal then
    >somtimes the only course left is to destroy it
    
    That is hardly "the only course".
    
    There is another obvious course: take the dog away from the
    irresponsible owner and try to find it a better owner.
    
    	db

    re: .40 (Scopa)
    
>    I turned to the owner and said, "Y'know...if you really cared about the
>    dog you'd be more careful. If the dog had bitten me then you'd be out
>    one dog."
    
>    What if I had been a small child on a bike? How about a young mother
>    walking her baby? Would the dog have attacked them? Who knows. 
    
    What if the thing the dog had decided to chase and confront was a car?
    
    The point being that keeping your dog on a leash is not only a matter
    of concern for other people, it's also a matter of concern for the
    dog's safety!
    
    A few years ago, someone wrote a very dramatic letter to the Hudson
    News about how her family's pet was run over by a car "speeding" thru
    the neighborhood.
    
    Although I can empathize of the grief of losing a pet, another part of
    the letter made me want to call her up and give a lecture of my own.
    
    She went on and on about how people should realize that for many people
    pets are like "members of the family" and they should keep that in mind
    as they drive through family neighborhoods.
    
    Well... no member of *MY* family is allowed to run into the street!
    
    Does she let her young children run around unsupervised and unrestrained?
    
    As far as I was concerned, this women had every bit as much of a lesson
    to learn about pets as the kind of folks she was lecturing to.
    
>    With that in mind (get those flamethrowers out folks) it would seem
>    that if an animal commits some type of offense involving injury or
>    death to another animal or human why not do everything you can to
>    prevent this from happening again. Eliminate the problem...put the
>    dog to sleep. I know there are animal lovers out there who are violently 
>    disagreeing with me but if such a deterrent was in effect then dog
>    owners would be more careful with their animals. 
    
    Why not "eliminate the problem" by placing the dog with a responsible
    owner?
    
    The reason I disagree with destroying the animal is that there simply
    does not seem to be a need to do that to "eliminate the problem".
    
    BTW, I may be an animal lover, but if anyone is attacked by an animal,
    I believe they have every right to use whatever force is necessary
    to keep themselves from being harmed, including lethal force (if that
    is necessary).
    
    I've also been confronted by dogs while jogging (every jogger probably
    has) and one thing I know is that your best chance of coming out OK
    is to disable the animal as quickly and swiftly as possible.  
    
    I hope it never comes down to this, but if I get attacked by a dog, I
    will attempt to dispatch the animal with whatever means necessary
    (blow to the head, eyes, throat, whatever).
    
    I will feel very "bad" that it happened, but I will NOT feel "guilty".
    
    	db
    

>>>That is hardly "the only course"" 

That's not what I said.  I said SOMETIMES the only course.... 

IF a dog is truly vicious it's because an owner has already screwed it up.  You
can't just give such a dog to another owner.  It has to be someone with the
knowledge to undo the damage done.  Not everyone can do that and getting someone
else to take such an animal, knowing what they are getting into, is not an easy
task.

George

    RE: .49
    
>    Well... no member of *MY* family is allowed to run into the street!
>
>    Does she let her young children run around unsupervised and unrestrained?


    And to complete the analogy, if she did, would we shoot the children?
    Of course not.  In the worse case, the state will take children
    from parents that are unresponsible.
    
    				-John
    

    Yes, in fact, the more I think of it, I think this woman probably only
    had herself to blame for the death of her pet.
    
    But of course, she probably can't accept that, so she blames the
    driver as part of her "denial" process.
    
    I don't know whether or not the driver was truly being wreckless, but I
    do know that the animal had no place being on the road, and that was
    irresponsibility on HER part.   There's clear blame on her part.
    
    But there's another slant on this:  we've focused on the danger to the
    kids playing in the street and the animals in the neighborhood who are
    (irresponsibly) allowed to roam on the street.
    
    What we haven't talked about is the danger to the people in the cars!
    
    The first reaction of many drivers is to swerve to avoid the animal.
    This is admirable of course, but it's often unfortunate and generally
    viewed to be a mistake.
    
    This is a very very common cause of accidents.  In fact, recently this
    happened about three houses down from me: someone's car went off the
    road trying to avoid hitting an animal and ended up (I believe) in the
    hospital!
    
    Concern for drivers still not enough motivation to keep your pet off
    the road?   Well, how's this one.  My understanding is that he may sue,
    and if I were on the jury, I'd definitely believe he was entitled to
    damages from the owner.
    
    In any case, I think the women I mentioned (who wrote the letter) has
    absolutely NO right to lecture to anyone else about how pets are like a
    "member of the family".   True "family members" are not allowed to play
    on the street!
    
    She's just an irresponsible owner who wants to shift the blame to
    someone else.
    
    	db

    .49 You would not shoot the children, you would have the state remove
    the children from the household as the state does so often.
    
    The real issue is that the dog is in a state that has a STATE wide
    lease law. The owners have had more than three accounts of the dog
    breaking out of a pen and breaking out of the house. Getting into
    garbage, trouble, etc. The owner went to the media making chicken the
    blame fault for the dogs problems. The governor pardoned the dog and
    pardoned the ineptness of the dog owners. It will be interesting to see
    how the dog and the new owners workout. Esp if the dog makes more
    problems in its new home and town.
    
    Anyone see the pig (Ms. Piggy) doing her slap stick violence on tv these 
    days? So much for premoting a vioence free society... 

re::<<< Note 3644.53 by MKOTS3::RAUH "I survived the Cruel Spa" >>>

    
>>    The real issue is that the dog is in a state that has a STATE wide
>>    lease law. 
      ----------

I knew that somehow the "dog" discussion would somehow merge with the
"apartment lease" discussion.  Thanks George!!  ;-) ;-)

Anne.

    Thanks.... missed that one...8*}

Back to Region
Wire for the            Associated Press, 03/13/97 02:31
latest
headlines               BOW, N.H. (AP) - The fate of two
                        pit bulls likely will be determined
Globe                   in court after police said they
Metro/Region            seriously injured a Labrador this
section                 week after killing a little dog
                        last month.
Globe weekly
sections                The dogs attacked the 10-year-old
(Sunday)                black lab Monday in Bow, ripping at
                        its flesh and badly injuring one of
Boston.com's            its legs, police said.
"Around New
England" page           Last month, the pit bulls killed a
                        dog in Concord, police said.
Other news from
the region              Concord and Bow police said they
                        will ask the court to destroy the
Interactive             animals.
features:
                        ``Our concern is children or other
Pass It On:             people,'' Bow Deputy Chief Robert
Send this story         Graves said. ``If it's going to do
to a friend             this to a dog, what if it met a
                        kid?''
Is this story
important? Add          The pit bulls' owner, Matt
it to The Daily         Greenwood, could not be reached for
User                    comment.

Related                 Police charged Greenwood violated
Stories: Find           nuisance laws, and planned to
other news on           summon him to Concord District
this topic              Court.

                        State law says if a dog bites or
                        attacks a human being or domestic
                        animal, the owner must pay a $100
                        fine. If a second attack occurs
                        within 12 months of the first, the
                        fine is $200.

                        Greenwood was visiting friends in
                        Bow when Cocoa and Colby ran next
                        door, where Cara, the Lab owned by
                        Suzanne Rush, was standing. Rush
                        heard what she thought was the
                        high-pitched screams of children
                        playing, but when she went to the
                        door, she said she saw one of the
                        pit bulls had latched onto Cara,
                        and Greenwood and two others pulled
                        her off. As the lab tried to run
                        away, the second pit bull latched
                        onto her and Rush pulled it off,
                        she said.

                        Cara was taken to an animal
                        hospital in Concord and came home
                        Tuesday night.

                        Last month, the two pit bulls
                        attacked and killed Biscuit, a pug
                        and terrier mix, at a condominium
                        complex in Concord, where Greenwood
                        lives, police said.

    The owner should be more responsible for having dogs that might have
    natural tendencies to fight in a setting (ie, condo complex) where
    the dog has access to other dogs or small children.  The laws for
    owner responsibility should be made tougher and the condo association
    should augment their rules to prohibit having a dog in the complex.
    
    				-John

	I just don't understand what people see in that breed of
	dog. I certainly would NOT allow one around my kids, that's
	for damned sure. (If I had kids that is. :))

							mike

    
    
    	They're not ALL mean, Mike.  One of the sweetest, most
    	timid dogs I've met was a pitbull.  If the owners are 	
    	irresponsible, it's their fault, not the dog's.  (the guy
    	is an idiot for letting them roam free when he knows they've
    	been violent before)
    
    

	We're in violent agreement that maybe the dog owner should
	also be put down Judy.. But pitbulls, are by nature and
	breeding, a more unpredictable type of dog than most.

	Note that if I had kids, I also probably wouldn't have
	a Rottie or a Doberman, as much as I admire the breed.

	I'd probably end up with a Lab, an Aussie Sheepdog, 
	or my favourite,  Jack Russell terriers. Fierce little 
	creatures in their own right!

							mike

It isn't the breed of dog it's the owner.  If you don't train a dog, if you
don't discipline a dog, or if you want a mean dog then you will have a mean dog.
 I worked in the veterinary field for a number of years and have seen cocker
spaniels and labs that would put pit bulls to shame in the mean category.  Some
of the nicest animals I worked with were dobermans and pit bulls.  Because
people decide to use and train a breed for a particular purpose, like guard
duty, does not mean the breed is bad.  
	
	I'll bet that most of the animals involved in attacks are owned by men. 
What I have seen is that certain breeds have a reputation for being mean.  Some
people think mean, read macho, dogs are cool.  They buy the dog not because they
like the dog but because they think it reflects well on a particular part of
their anatomy.  They want a macho, fear inspiring dog so they buy a breed that
they think will be just that.  Get the dog, make it mean don't train it and the
stereotype gets perpetuated.

George 

> It isn't the breed of dog it's the owner.

	Sorry, but this is only partly true.  One can not totally discount
	genetics.  It's a combination of both genetics (animal instincts)
	and environment (training, etc).

	Like any animal, including humans, they can come out of that
	conditioning and revert temp. to their animal instincts.
	Sometimes the reversion can be brought on by factors such as
	health or injury that are noticable, sometimes it's never known
	what the trigger was.

	Would you want a Lion or a Tigger living next door to you
	when you have small children playing in your yard?  Even if
	the animal was trained by the best, from birth, by the best
	trainer, and has never attacked a human before?

First, a lion or tiger is not a valid comparison.  They are not domesticated
animals. A trained wild animal, no matter how well trained, is just that - a
trained wild animal.

>>"Like any animal, including humans, they can come out of that conditioning and
>> revert temp. to their animal instincts."

Agreed.  But that is true of ANY breed of dog.  It is not dependent on the
breed. That is not to say that different breeds do not have different
personality traits.  If I had children I would not buy, say, a Bull Terrier.  It
is a perfectly nice dog but it tends to attach itself more to one owner rather
than a family.  And it can tend to be agressive around other animals.  That
doesn't mean that it is a mean breed.  If I wanted a dog that was good with
children and would take a lot of "pull toy" abuse I would maybe go for a Golden
Retriever.  That doesn't mean that all goldens would take the abuse.  But, no
matter what a dogs personality traits are they can all be managed through
training....if an owner wants to take the time and do the work.  

	Of course, none of this applies to the toy breeds which aren't real
dogs anyway :-) :-)

RE: .62

	I wouldn't mind a Tigger (cuz tiggers are wonderful things).

	:)

	The breed is a deciding factor, regardless of training.

							mike

    I agree with George in .61, especially his second paragraph.

    Long ago during the great "pit bull controversy" these topics were the
    subject of a panel discussion I saw on TV.
    
    Nothing said by the experts on that panel really conflicts directly
    with anything anyone's said here if you look carefully at what the
    experts said.
    
    WHat I remember was that they said that there is nothing about the
    breeds (note plurality) of dogs generally referred to as "pit bulls"
    that makes them inherently/genetically "prone" to attack.  They are
    not a "viscious breed".  
    
    However, there are properties of the breed that make them more
    dangerous when one does attack.   For example, those breeds tend to
    have very strong jaws and instinctively clamp on and don't let go
    (unlike most other breeds).
    
    Simply put, a pit bull is no more likely to attack you than a collie,
    but it is generally capable and prone to inflicting more damage when
    it is provoked into aggressive behavior.
    
    So, to continue the lion/tigger analogy, "no", I wouldn't want a large
    cat living near where my children might play, but the reason is NOT
    because I feel they are more prone to attack, but because if they are
    provoked in some way, they are far more likely to do serious damage.
    
    I think the thing to note from this is that an attack is likely to be
    the result of human error rather than animal breed or temperment.
    
    I'm not sure I would trust the owner of a lion, nor would I trust
    children (except perhaps Patty Weier's - see hunting note) to be
    both smart and disciplined enough to avoid problems with the lion.
    
    	db - who would LOVE to own a tiger