Posted on 05/24/2006 8:42:10 AM PDT by rawhide
Cecil Wallace awoke about 4:30 a.m. Saturday to the bawling of cows and the howling of dogs. The Buford farmer grabbed his shotgun and went running out the back door.
His son and next-door neighbor, Kenneth Wallace, also jarred awake — also carrying a shotgun — joined him. Father and son ran toward the pasture...
...Reaching the pasture, the Wallaces saw a cow, bloodied and torn, its calf standing nearby. As they approached the animal, according to reports, two dogs came running towards them.
Kenneth Wallace raised his 12-gauge. Boom! The larger dog hit the dirt, howling. Wallace fired again, and the dog was quiet.
The female kept coming. Kenneth Wallace fired a third time, the blast echoing along the darkened reaches of Bart Johnson Road.
The Wallaces dragged the dogs' bodies aside and tended to the cow, Betsy. She looked bad — right ear torn off, the left shredded like paper. Her nose was ripped and torn. Two teeth were knocked loose. Not long after daybreak, Cecil Wallace took Betsy to a Cumming veterinarian, who prescribed painkillers and antibiotics for the Angus/Hereford cross.
"She's still in bad shape," Cecil Wallace, 73, said Tuesday. "She tries to eat, but she can't; her mouth's too sore."
Animal control officers have cited one dog owner with failing to have the animal on a leash.. They also charged the owner with violating the county's vicious-animal ordinance, which requires owners of a dangerous dog or cat to have it muzzled whenever the animal is off the owner's property.
Meghan Martin, who lives near the Wallaces, said she is the owner whom officers cited...p>
When I went to sleep, my dog was in bed with me," she said. A roommate let out her dog, plus a friend's pit bull, Martin said...
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
I think Grannyx4 summed it up pretty well back in post #63...
"He is a dog; dogs bite. Only a moroon would think their dog is incapable of biting anyone."
Hate to rain on the Pit Bull Freeman parade but there was just another Canadian dogicide. Round up the usual suspects...
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2006/05/30/1606125.html
Welcome to FR SaveUS !
Sure you do....
Yes, I'm sure that they would. A rat is a pig is a boy, remember that, LOL! Watch out for firebombs if they ever set up shop down there.
I know I've read your profile before, but always seem to forget that you're from Australia. My folks were just down there recently, on a cruise. New Zealand too. They had a great time.
Do people complain about dogs in Australia a lot?
I know they have been campaigning against Australian wool outside Australia in places such as the US. However, they have been dismissed here as an extreme group and you never hear of them at the local level. I have not heard of any branches here.
I have a very old dog, and you'd think he has no strength left, until he gets an ear infection, and you have to give him ear drops.
;-)
LOL, I live near the clickish, party street in the city. (Near a univ)
I always love coming home from hunting, and bringing gun cases into my apartment. So many times, I've heard trendy (unquestionably liberal) idiots say to their friends "Oh my, heeees got a gun!".
Never any shrieking or awe though, when I lower my 17' sea kayak onto my car from my 3rd floor balcony. Certainly much more 'potential' for injury.
That's good news.
Keep them out if you can.
:-)
Cool, pretty interesting debate on this thread. Amazing how 'conservatives' can use the same gun-grabber logic and apply it to dogs.
If you have any good PeTA/pitbull ban info, you'll see who to post it to ;-)
We have fairly strict rules regarding keeping a dog on your property etc. Australia has a much narrower definition of "pitbull" than the US and Canada. Breeds such as Amstaffs, Bull Terriers and Staffordshires are not classed as "pitbulls" in Australia. In fact the Staffy is one of the most popular breeds. In the state where I come from it is the second most popular breed and it is noted for its excellent temperament. The breed started in England c1935 and has been in Australia since c1970. Breeders have made a point of making temperament an important aspect of the breed.
Not Charlie??
The farmers are prepared to take them on:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s1319562.htm
If PETA & the rest of the knee-jerk,
social fascist dog-banners are right,
here are just a few of the reputable national
animal advocacy organizations which must be wrong:
(full sized file here)
Also see:
Canada Safety Council:
Aggressive Dogs Threaten Public Safety
(ends with stand opposing 'breed ban' laws)
Don't forget the Aussie vets. They are also gainst it.
Like all right-thinking people.
No, it was an issue already when city police officers had encounters with dogs and also a few local news reports providing some bad press for our city. That is when the city manager directed staff to begin work on the issue.
An intelligent person always seeks out information from reliable sources. Dumb people, on the other hand, keep repeating the same rubbish even when people are not listening. As we say here in Aussie, "they keep flogging a dead horse". So here is what the experts with first-hand knowledge and training have to say:
Education and enforcement the answer to vicious dogs: AVA
Friday 7th October 2005
The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) says the latest vicious dog attacks in the Hunter Valley demonstrate that breed specific legislation will not stop these incidents.
Dr Norm Blackman, immediate Past President of the AVA says that the breed reportedly responsible for the latest attack is not statistically prominent in reported dog attacks.
“The Johnson American bulldog, the breed reportedly involved in this most recent attack, does not appear in the top 8 breeds responsible for serious attacks in NSW,” Dr Blackman said. “As a breed though the Johnson American bulldog is larger than the pit bull and they are also very powerful dogs. It is important to recognise that factors associated with the socialisation, training, care and control of any large dog have a much greater influence on whether or not a dog will be involved in an attack than the breed. Banning particular breeds may be a distraction to tackling the real issues,” he said.
“While there are occasional incidents of dog attacks involving a dog that is normally well behaved and which has a responsible owner, they are not common. Where a dog has a dangerous temperament and it is in a position where it can attack someone, the failure of the owner to responsibly care for and control the dog is generally the major underlying problem. The breed of the dog is not the cause,” he said.
“International experience shows that banning particular breeds such as pit bulls has no impact on the number and severity of attacks, people who would ordinarily seek to have a pitbull will acquire other types of large and powerful dogs and the risk to the public remains,” said Dr Blackman. “We believe that with better enforcement of current legislation and better pet owner education most of these attacks can be prevented. The vast majority of the individual dogs within the breeds that appear prominently in lists of dog attacks have responsible breeders and owners and are not dangerous. Banning the breeds would be both ineffective and unfair.”
Thanks! Good to be here!
Hey, if this is what you are proposing, it is a start. I sure don't see anything like that now. At present anyone can go and buy a "tough breed" dog.
Yes, put them through an education course before the can own the dog. Then if they don't follow what they have learned, take the dog and yank their ability to own another one in that jurisdiction.
The program can be paid for with fees for the course and increased license fees, with fees for "strong/tough dog" breeds being higher.
Are you really alright with this as a start? I mean, it is a suggestion that moves solving the problem forward.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.