How would you handle this?

[mjbskwim]

Dogs are one dimensional,they only have their mouth to attack with.Yes they do use their weight too. But if you have good timing,you can take them down fairly easy.

No this isn't for everyone.I just have a bad enough temper that I would get pissed off if bitten.
Yes you have to do what you think is best and I'm not risking my gun rights when I know I can handle it without a gun.

If young ones are involved,I would go another route,as long as they were behind the muzzle of the gun.I would never shoot at a dog with people in view.Too many variable then.
Like what if the kids start running towards their dog? The owner gets in the way?

How about your name sake? A baton across the nose will stop most any dog NOW
A knife will do the same.If he was gardening,he could have used a hoe,a shovel,rake,anything from a tool bag will work.

I like my freedom and my guns enough to take a bite and then take the dog down,other than shoot the dog,with children around and end up like this guy.
BTW I have used pepper spray on dogs while riding bikes and it works most of the time

And YOU don't register the pain on a dog.That would mean the dog's brain doesn't make the body feel the pain when in attack mode.

YMMV is the truth.And if you aren't mentally or physically able,my idea isn't for you.
I just believe if others are around,then the gun should be the last resort.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I wish I had it that easy! The Rotts I had to deal with were not intimidated by anything and were obviously bent on getting through my fence and attacking. The sounds coming out of them could have been used as sound effects for a cheap SyFy channel movie and they bounced around like rabid Wolverines whenever I was out. Many times I would leave a beater 12 Ga. prepositioned at my woodshed during the day I knew I could get to quickly if necessary. Vicious dogs are FAR more dangerous than any gun ever was or will be. Beat me up if you want over the worn out excuse of 'No breed is genetically dangerous it's just how they were raised' Well that may VERY well be but if a dog (such as these Rotts) can flip on a dime from being their owners' loving little fur balls to schizo, vicious, slobbering and snarling creatures slamming at a fence JUST because someone opens a door then there is something wrong with them mentally and there is only one answer for that. I had one of those loving fur balls also once - but he was the same when ever anyone was around - probably too friendly but then he was a Black Lab, of good lineage and great disposition. Of all the Labs I have been around only one I encountered in my life concerned me. On the flip side probably 80% of Rotts I have even been around have been of similar disposition as my neighbors. A few years ago I drew down on a charging Rott when I was hiking with my daughter at Fall River Falls. The owner was only a few feet behind and called it back. There are far more vicious dogs now than I ever remember when I was younger. But then again there are far more, shall I say non-mainstream people who seem to be the predominate owners of said dogs also.

I raise bluetick coonhounds. They are usually easy going if not systematically abused. A few years ago I had a 90 pound male that became a little food-aggressive. I made the mistake of putting up with it for about a year. Then one day I reached for his collar and pulled back a hand dripping blood. After a few stitches I was ready to deal with him, but I'd made the mistake of telling the doctor the dog bit me. Due to that I was forced to quarantine him for 2 weeks. Luckily my kennels are judged "secure" by the county, so I didn't have to pay to board him. Let's just say that he's in a happier place now. There's no reason to put up with a vicious dog or pawn it off on someone else by selling it or turning it in to the humane society. I have an 18 month old daughter and even though my coonhounds are always mellow and playful with her, I never turn my back on them when she's around. It makes me shudder to think about little kids living with notoriously aggressive breeds in the home. It'll never happen at my place.

 

[notazombie]

This debate could go on forever. There are so may factors in play here. The dog had "threatened" him repeatedly and the owner was unreceptive to the man's requests for assistance. On the day of the attack the dog was off leash. The dog was off the owner's property and not "under control". The dog was charging. On the other hand, the article did say that he emptied on the dog and it died in the street. Was he a poor shot? Was the dog ever technically on his property or did he shoot it in the street?
One thing to keep in mind is that both German Shepherds a Rotts were initially bred as herding dogs and those genes still have a strong presence. Working breeds need work to do. If they don't some get lazy while others can get creative and invent work -- that can translate to aggressive behavior. I think the dog's owner is most at fault in the Estacada situation.

 

[WolfTrap]

Why too many "Ghetto-Dogs" in my section of Inland Empire! Granted...yet to see one lose, but...doesn't mean they're not dragging the owner on a 10 foot leash, ready to munch you leg? As this topic has picked upped a ton steam...I'll just say "Get your Chunk'n Animal" out of my property proper or it's going down!

 

[CharonPDX]

609.150 Right to kill dog that harms or chases livestock.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, any dog, whether licensed or not, which, while off the premises owned or under control of its owner, kills, wounds, or injures any livestock not belonging to the master of such dog, is a public nuisance and may be killed immediately by any person. However, nothing in this section applies to any dog acting under the direction of its master, or the agents or employees of such master.
(2) If any dog, not under the control of its owner or keeper, is found chasing or feeding upon the warm carcass of livestock not the property of such owner or keeper it shall be deemed, prima facie, as engaged in killing, wounding or injuring livestock.
(3) No person shall kill any dog for killing, wounding, injuring or chasing chickens upon a public place, highway or within the corporate limits of any city. [Amended by 1975 c.749 s.6]


I value my own skin at least as much as I value my livestock.

Yeah, before he passed away, my next door neighbor (inside Portland city limits) took shots at dogs going after his sheep and goats on more than one occasion - hitting a dog once. Never had any police trouble for it. (Latest time would have been probably 8-10 years ago.)

 

[Kevatc]

"No one goes out with a full clip (in a gun) to garden unless they intend to use it."

That is so incredibly stupid. I thought judges were smart folks? Apparently not. This would be like saying "No one goes out to drive across the country to go on vacation with a full tank of gas unless they intend to use it."

 

[RVTECH]

I thought judges were smart folks?

Well they might be as far as the scores on their SATs or BAR exams but as ignorant and naive as a box of rocks in the real world. Her full - clip statement is really a moot point and has no bearing on the case. How about this, "No one goes out with a full case of beer unless they intend to drink it" Of course they intend to drink it! Maybe not right away, or all at once but they DO intend to drink it.

 

[Kevatc]

Well they might be as far as the scores on their SATs or BAR exams but as ignorant and naive as a box of rocks in the real world. Her full - clip statement is really a moot point and has no bearing on the case. How about this, "No one goes out with a full case of beer unless they intend to drink it" Of course they intend to drink it! Maybe not right away, or all at once but they DO intend to drink it.

That is a great example and one I wish I would've thought of!

 

[RVTECH]

I don't know what it is like in the city but here in the rural areas there is much less tolerance for loose, vicious or nuisance dogs running around. LEO attitudes are not on the dogs' side either.

 

[Redcap]

I don't know what it is like in the city but here in the rural areas there is much less tolerance for loose, vicious or nuisance dogs running around. LEO attitudes are not on the dogs' side either.

Yup. Drop 'em where you see 'em.

 

[jimboshooter]

You could always call the Judge's office and leave a complaint with the way the case was handled. Or I guess vote her out next time if you live in her district.

The Honorable Susie L. Norby
Judicial Assistant: Regina M. Watkins
Judicial Clerk: Loree Brand
Phone: 503.650.8902

 

[Slowpoke]

"I'm shocked," Norby said. "No one goes out with a full clip (in a gun) to garden unless they intend to use it."

I don't know about you guys, but I always carry with an empty "clip". If I need to discharge my weapon, I know I have enough time to run back inside the house, load some rounds, then go back outside, and then take 1 shot (I never miss) to take care of the situation.

<Sarcasm off> What was that judge thinking???

 

[jimboshooter]

I take back what I said. I do not think you can vote her our. I think she is currently unchallenged for re-election.

 

[jbett98]

I've had my share of dealing with problem dogs over the years.
I have found that the owners are the usual source of any behavior issues.
Same as raising children, it takes time, energy, consistency of training to properly bring out the best in a dog. Most people love them to pieces when there cute little puppies, but know next to nothing when training them.

 

[RVTECH]

I have found that the owners are the usual source of any behavior issues.

I agree with the above. I also agree with an episode of some show I saw on one of the Edu channels specifically dealing with dog behavior in that some dogs have a have the temperament to be more aggressive than others. Rottweilers and pit bulls were first two of the examples given. Besides they are ugly animals and look mean. Put a set of tusks on a rott and you have a wild boar.

 

[Asp]

How about this, "No one goes out with a full case of beer unless they intend to drink it" Of course they intend to drink it! Maybe not right away, or all at once but they DO intend to drink it.

If you find yourself in Portland we should go drinking.

 

[WFO]

Circuit Judge Susie L. Norby had no sympathy for Nagle and sentenced him to 30 days in jail and two years supervised probation for the misdemeanors. Prosecutor Matt Semritc had asked for 20 days in jail and a year of bench probation.


Anybody else notice that Judge libtard sentenced him to MORE than the prosecution was suggesting?

 

[drew]

I saw this from the OFF. They made an exception to mention Norby.

https://www.oregonfirearms.org/

OFF does not normally rate Judges because of the difficulty of establishing important information about them. But we are going to make an exception in the case of Clackamas County Circuit Court Judge Susie Norby. (503 650-8902) She is currently seeking re-election to Position 11 in that court. Unfortunately, as is so often the case in Oregon's twisted judicial race system, she is running unopposed. Norby gets an F- from OFF for being openly biased and astonishingly ignorant. We suggest Clackamas County voters write in anyone if only to send a message to Norby. For more on this moron, see here.

 

[soberups]

One point that is easy to overlook here; he was not convicted for shooting the dog. He was convicted for endangering the children who were supposedly in his line of fire when he shot the dog. He may have been 100% justified in shooting the dog, but still criminally liable for the manner in which he did it. I am not saying I agree in any way with the judge, but unless I am missing something it was a jury that convicted him. I would be interested to know some more facts about the case itself, such as the exact location of the children in relationship to the position of the dog when it attacked him. I still think the judge is a moron, but before jumping to any conclusions about the merits of his conviction it would be good to have more facts.

 

[Cougfan2]

One point that is easy to overlook here; he was not convicted for shooting the dog. He was convicted for endangering the children who were supposedly in his line of fire when he shot the dog. He may have been 100% justified in shooting the dog, but still criminally liable for the manner in which he did it. I am not saying I agree in any way with the judge, but unless I am missing something it was a jury that convicted him. I would be interested to know some more facts about the case itself, such as the exact location of the children in relationship to the position of the dog when it attacked him. I still think the judge is a moron, but before jumping to any conclusions about the merits of his conviction it would be good to have more facts.

I agree. The exact position of the children in relation to the shooter means everything in a case like this and I haven't seen that evidence. That being said, the sentence was ridiculous given that no one was hurt.