Posted on 07/03/2006 7:10:02 PM PDT by GVnana
My sweet little cocker spaniel dog was nearly killed by two pitbulls who jumped a fence to get to her. She crossed a nearby driveway and they got her.
By the time my neighbors got the dogs off, (within seconds) the pits had grounded my dog, tore out her left eye, dislocated her left leg, and left ten gaping wounds in her body. She couldn't move or even howl in pain. That's how I found her.
My dog weighs 40 pounds. She's large for her breed. She's AKC registered and pedigreed. She was a very beautiful dog.
This happened 10 days ago and I'm still stunned at the viciousness of the attack. I don't know if a human child would have survived what those animals did.
I have since learned that homeowner's insurance will not cover pitbulls.
I'm posting this as a warning and also as an invitation to comment.
*sigh* YOu are equating the outlawing of religions with the outlawing of breeds that have been demonstrated to kill and seriously maim human beings. Dogs are NOT "people, too." They are DOGS. They should be treated as such, and people who insist that I regard their dogs the same as I would regard their children, are akin to homosexuals who insist that I regard their sexual perversions as "normal."
The PROBLEM is people who choose certain breeds that have the demonstrated will and ability to kill or seriously maim human beings. We can either regulate ALL dog owners on the ridiculous premise that all dog breeds pose equal dangers, or we can prioritizes and regulate much more heavily owners of breeds that have the physical capacity to kill humans. I'm all for adding Presa Canarios, etc., to the list.
Listen, most people who own dogs have asshole dogs that are ill behaved and a pain in the butt. However, those dogs mean an awful lot to those people and enrich their lives immeasurably, so I am VERY MUCH WILLING to tolerate a lot. Crap in the neighborhood, the risk of being snapped at or bitten, or the risk of being licked, sniffed, and affectionately mauled to distraction -- these are things I can put up with because I believe in "live and let live" and think its the best way to be free.
Jerknozzles who insist on having "kids" in the form of dogs who can and will KILL or MAIM humans and/or other people's harmless pets, are "live and let die" people. They need to be dealt with. Personally, I'd like to see the dog-owning community police its own rather than bring the government in, but above all, I'd like to be able to walk down the street or unload my groceries without fear of being killed or sent to the ER because of some dickhead's loose Rottweiler, pit bull, Presa Canario, or other attack dog. My neighbor's spaniel is hardly likely to send me to the ER even if it "snapped." My neighbor's pit bull, on the other hand ...
Yes, we can. Here's how:
<!-- a {font-family: Verdana; font-size: 9pt; color: #006699;} -->
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That § 3.1-796.93:1 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted and that the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 3.1-796.93:3 as follows:
§ 3.1-796.93:1. Control of dangerous or vicious dogs; penalties.
A. The governing body of any county, city or town locality may enact an ordinance parallel to this statute regulating dangerous dogs and vicious dogs.
B. As used in this section:
"Dangerous dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed that has bitten, attacked, or inflicted injury on a person or companion animal that is a dog or cat, or killed a companion animal; that is a dog or cat. however However, when a dog attacks or bites another dog a companion animal that is a dog or cat, the attacking or biting dog shall not be deemed dangerous (i) if no serious physical injury as determined by a licensed veterinarian has occurred to the other dog dog or cat as a result of the attack or bite, or (ii) if both dogs animals are owned by the same person, (iii) if such attack occurs on the property of the attacking or biting dog's owner or custodian, or (iv) for other good cause as determined by the court. No dog shall be found to be a dangerous dog as a result of biting, attacking, or inflicting injury on another dog a dog or cat while engaged with an owner or custodian as part of lawful hunting or participating in an organized, lawful dog handling event.
"Vicious dog" means a canine or canine crossbreed that has (i) killed a person; (ii) inflicted serious injury to a person, including multiple bites, serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impairment of a bodily function; or (iii) continued to exhibit the behavior that resulted in a previous finding by a court or, on or before July 1, 2006, by an animal control officer as authorized by local ordinance pursuant to the provisions of subsection E, that it is a dangerous dog, provided that its owner has been given notice of that finding.
C. Any ordinance enacted pursuant to this section shall prescribe the following provisions:
1 C. Any law-enforcement officer or animal control officer who has reason to believe that a canine or canine crossbreed within his jurisdiction is a dangerous dog or vicious dog shall apply to a magistrate of the jurisdiction for the issuance of a summons requiring the owner or custodian, if known, to appear before a general district court at a specified time. The summons shall advise the owner of the nature of the proceeding and the matters at issue. If a law-enforcement officer successfully makes an application for the issuance of a summons, he shall contact the local animal control officer and inform him of the location of the dog and the relevant facts pertaining to his belief that the dog is dangerous or vicious. The animal control officer shall confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. If the animal control officer determines that the owner or custodian can confine the animal in a manner that protects the public safety, he may permit the owner or custodian to confine the animal until such time as evidence shall be heard and a verdict rendered. The court, through its contempt powers, may compel the owner, custodian or harborer of the animal to produce the animal. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is a dangerous dog, the court shall order the animal's owner to comply with the provisions of the ordinance this section. If, after hearing the evidence, the court finds that the animal is a vicious dog, the court shall order the animal euthanized in accordance with the provisions of § 3.1-796.119. The procedure for appeal and trial shall be the same as provided by law for misdemeanors. Trial by jury shall be as provided in Article 4 (§ 19.2-260 et seq.) of Chapter 15 of Title 19.2. The Commonwealth shall be required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
2 D. No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor shall the local governing body prohibit is the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed prohibited. No animal shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog if the threat, injury or damage was sustained by a person who was (i) committing, at the time, a crime upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian, (ii) committing, at the time, a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the animal's owner or custodian, or (iii) provoking, tormenting, or physically abusing the animal, or can be shown to have repeatedly provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the animal at other times. No police dog that was engaged in the performance of its duties as such at the time of the acts complained of shall be found to be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog. No animal which that, at the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury, or was protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, or its owner a person, or its owner's or custodian's property, shall be found to be a dangerous dog or a vicious dog.
E. If the owner of an animal found to be a dangerous dog is a minor, the custodial parent or legal guardian shall be responsible for complying with all requirements of this section.
3 F. The owner of any animal found to be a dangerous dog shall, within 10 days of such finding, obtain a dangerous dog registration certificate from the local animal control officer or treasurer for a fee of $50 or an amount as set by local ordinance but not to exceed the costs incurred by the locality to administer this program, in addition to other fees that may be authorized by law. The local animal control officer or treasurer shall also provide the owner with a uniformly designed tag that identifies the animal as a dangerous dog. The owner shall affix the tag to the animal's collar and ensure that the animal wears the collar and tag at all times. All certificates obtained pursuant to this subdivision subsection shall be renewed annually for the same fee and in the same manner as the initial certificate was obtained. The animal control officer shall provide a copy of the dangerous dog registration certificate and verification of compliance to the State Veterinarian.
4 G. All dangerous dog registration certificates or renewals thereof required to be obtained under this section shall only be issued to persons 18 years of age or older who present satisfactory evidence (i) of the animal's current rabies vaccination, if applicable, and (ii) that the animal has been neutered or spayed, and (iii) that the animal is and will be confined in a proper enclosure or is and will be confined inside the owner's residence or is and will be muzzled and confined in the owner's fenced-in yard until the proper enclosure is constructed. In addition, owners who apply for certificates or renewals thereof under this section shall not be issued a certificate or renewal thereof unless they present satisfactory evidence that (i) their residence is and will continue to be posted with clearly visible signs warning both minors and adults of the presence of a dangerous dog on the property and (ii) the animal has been permanently identified by means of a tattoo on the inside thigh or by electronic implantation. All certificates or renewals thereof required to be obtained under this section shall only be issued to persons who present satisfactory evidence that the owner has liability insurance coverage, to the value of at least $100,000, that covers animal bites. The owner may obtain and maintain a bond in surety, in lieu of liability insurance, to the value of at least $100,000.
5 H. While on the property of its owner, an animal found to be a dangerous dog shall be confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked structure of sufficient height and design to prevent its escape or direct contact with or entry by minors, adults, or other animals. The structure shall be designed to provide the animal with shelter from the elements of nature. When off its owner's property, an animal found to be a dangerous dog shall be kept on a leash and muzzled in such a manner as not to cause injury to the animal or interfere with the animal's vision or respiration, but so as to prevent it from biting a person or another animal.
6. If the owner of an animal found to be a dangerous dog is a minor, the custodial parent or legal guardian shall be responsible for complying with all requirements of this section.
I. The owner of any dog found to be dangerous shall register the animal with the Commonwealth of Virginia Dangerous Dog Registry, as established under § 3.1-796.93:3, within 45 days of such a finding by a court of competent jurisdiction.
The owner shall also cause the local animal control officer to be promptly notified of (i) the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all owners; (ii) all of the means necessary to locate the owner and the dog at any time; (iii) any complaints or incidents of attack by the dog upon any person or cat or dog; (iv) any claims made or lawsuits brought as a result of any attack; (v) tattoo or chip identification information or both; (vi) proof of insurance or surety bond; and (vii) the death of the dog.
7 J. After an animal has been found to be a dangerous dog, the animal's owner shall immediately, upon learning of same, notify cause the local animal control authority to be notified if the animal (i) is loose or unconfined; or (ii) bites a person or attacks another animal; or (iii) is sold, given away, or dies; or (iv) has been moved to a different address. Any owner of a dangerous dog who relocates to a new address shall, within 10 days of relocating, provide written notice to the appropriate local animal control authority for the old address from which the animal has moved and the new address to which the animal has been moved.
K. Any owner or custodian of a canine or canine crossbreed or other animal is guilty of a:
1. Class 2 misdemeanor if the canine or canine crossbreed previously declared a dangerous dog pursuant to this section, when such declaration arose out of a separate and distinct incident, attacks and injures or kills a cat or dog that is a companion animal belonging to another person;
2. Class 1 misdemeanor if the canine or canine crossbreed previously declared a dangerous dog pursuant to this section, when such declaration arose out of a separate and distinct incident, bites a human being or attacks a human being causing bodily injury; or
3. Class 6 felony if any owner or custodian whose willful act or omission in the care, control, or containment of a canine, canine crossbreed, or other animal is so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard for human life, and is the proximate cause of such dog or other animal attacking and causing serious bodily injury to any person.
The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any animal that, at the time of the acts complained of, was responding to pain or injury, or was protecting itself, its kennel, its offspring, a person, or its owner's or custodian's property, or when the animal is a police dog that is engaged in the performance of its duties at the time of the attack.
8 L. The owner of any animal that has been found to be a dangerous dog who willfully fails to comply with the requirements of the ordinance shall be this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
9 M. All fees collected pursuant to the ordinance this section, less the costs incurred by the animal control authority in producing and distributing the certificates and tags required by the ordinance this section, shall be paid into a special dedicated fund in the treasury of the locality for the purpose of paying the expenses of any training course required under § 3.1-796.104:1.
D. Any ordinance enacted pursuant to this section may prescribe the following provisions:
1. All certificates or renewals thereof required to be obtained under this section shall only be issued to persons 18 years of age or older who present satisfactory evidence that the animal has been neutered or spayed.
2. All certificates or renewals thereof required to be obtained under this section shall only be issued to persons who present satisfactory evidence that the owner has liability insurance coverage, to the value of at least $100,000, that covers animal bites.
E. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision C 1, any ordinance enacted pursuant to this section may provide that an animal control officer may determine, after investigation, whether a dog is a dangerous dog. If the animal control officer determines that a dog is a dangerous dog, he may order the animal's owner to comply with the provisions of the ordinance. If the animal's owner disagrees with the animal control officer's determination, he may appeal the determination to the general district court for a trial on the merits.
§ 3.1-796.93:3. Establishment of Dangerous Dog Registry.
The Commissioner shall establish the Commonwealth of Virginia Dangerous Dog Registry to be maintained by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Office of Veterinary Services. Each owner of any canine or canine crossbreed found by any court of competent jurisdiction to be a dangerous dog shall be required to register the animal as a dangerous dog within 45 days of such finding. The State Veterinarian shall receive, post, and maintain the information provided by the owner, animal control officers, and other such officials statewide on a website. All information collected for the Dangerous Dog Registry shall be available to animal control officers via the website. Registration shall include the name of the animal, a photograph, sex, age, weight, primary breed, secondary breed, color and markings, whether spayed or neutered, the acts that resulted in the dog being designated as dangerous and associated trial docket information, microchip or tattoo number, address where the animal is maintained, name of the owner, address of the owner, telephone numbers of the owner, and a statement that the owner has complied with the provisions of the dangerous dog order. The address of the owner along with the name and breed of the dangerous dog, the acts that resulted in the dog being deemed dangerous, and information necessary to access court records of the adjudication shall be available to the general public. By January 31 of each year, until such time as the dangerous dog is deceased, the owner shall submit a renewal registration that shall include all information contained in the original registration and any updates. The owner shall submit such a renewal every year until the dog is deceased. The owner shall verify the information is accurate by annual resubmissions. The owner shall submit to the State Veterinarian a $100 initial registration fee and a $35 renewal registration fee. In the event that the dangerous dog is moved to a different location, or contact information for the owner changes in any way at any time, the owner shall submit a renewal containing the address of the new location or other updated information within 10 days of such move or change. There shall be no charge for any updated information provided between renewals. Any funds collected pursuant to this section shall be used by the State Veterinarian to maintain the registry and website. The website list shall be known as the Virginia Dangerous Dog Register.
Actions of the Department relating to the establishment, operation, and maintenance of the Commonwealth of Virginia Dangerous Dog Registry under this section shall be exempt from the provisions of the Administrative Process Act (§ 2.2-4000 et seq.).
2. That § 3.1-796.117 of the Code of Virginia is repealed.
3. That the provisions of this act may result in a net increase in periods of imprisonment or commitment. Pursuant to § 30-19.1:4, the estimated amount of the necessary appropriation cannot be determined for periods of imprisonment in state adult correctional facilities and is $0 for periods of commitment to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice.
4. The State Veterinarian shall provide to the General Assembly report of the progress in development of the Commonwealth of Virginia Dangerous Dog Registry on or before November 1, 2006, and shall have the Commonwealth of Virginia Dangerous Dog Registry operational on or before July 1, 2007.
With a spaniel or a lab or far and away the majority of dog breeds, "has bitten" with regard to a human may at worst have meant a trip to the doctor for a relatively minor flesh wound. With a pit bull or a Rottweiler or a Presa Canario or a certain selection of specific breeds, "has bitten" with regard to a human has in hundreds of cases has meant and will continue to mean death or severe injury and disfigurement. A little late for the "has bitten, therefore ..." enforcement to do the trick.
But it would be better than nothing, and sure, we CAN regulate all dog owners by the same standard regardless of breed. But it would either a) be so diluted that owners of lethal breeds would be relatively unaffected or b) would be so heavy-handed that it would create an extreme invasion of government in private lives, that the cure would be almost as unpleasant as the ailment. For that reason, I think the alternative that preserves the most freedom for the most people, would be to be breed-specific in certain kinds of regulation.
Listen, I don't particularly like dogs (though they seem to like me!!! *sigh*) because most of them are ill-behaved in a friendly way, but as I said, I am willing to tolerate a lot because I understand how important dogs are in people's lives and how cruel it would be to deprive them of them. If I had my druthers, we wouldn't even have leash laws (we didn't in the town where I grew up, and there was never any serious problem that I recall, but lots of beloved friendly neighborhood pooches that ran with groups of kids after school). We COULD enjoy such a live-and-let-live world again, but not by holding ALL dog owners to the same standards as owners of dog breeds that kill people.
We have become such a sissified politically correct culture that we cringe at making judgement calls on DOGS, for God's sake!!! Whether it's profiling the Middle Eastern young man in line at the airport, or doggy-profiling the pit bull or Rottweiler behind the insufficient fence in the average neighborhood, few people have the guts and honesty to call a spade a spade, and differentiate it from a heart.
>Fex Ex<
D'oh! Fed Ex!
>If I had my druthers, we wouldn't even have leash laws (we didn't in the town where I grew up, and there was never any serious problem that I recall, but lots of beloved friendly neighborhood pooches that ran with groups of kids after school). We COULD enjoy such a live-and-let-live world again, but not by holding ALL dog owners to the same standards as owners of dog breeds that kill people.<
I'd love to live in that world (wait, no I wouldn't - my parents lived in that world and we had a string of dogs squashed on the road). Heck, you could leave your doors unlocked.
That world is gone. And, the same people who cause us to lock our doors, are essentially the same people whose dogs are most likely to hurt a person.
I want sane, applicable to everyone, laws. Laws that work, and that ban dangerous dogs, no matter what their breed or combination thereof.
Very sad...This is why I don't walk outside without a weapon of some sort. I've almost been attacked a couple of times, but both times I had a heavy wooden cane with me...When I started to swing it the pooch decided he had better things to do and ran away.
When I was a kid, every dog "ran loose", even the "mean ones". If your front yard was fenced you would have been some kind of anti-social weirdo.
I didn't see pitbulls when I was a kid. (I'm in my 50s BTW.) Our dogs didn't always stay in the yard, but they did mostly. They didn't put up with other dogs coming into their yard. These things got worked out by the dogs. Not the humans.
I was bit by a dog once when I was 16. I passed this "mean dog" every day and every day it would come into the alley and charge and growl and I would stop still and talk to it, and then it went back into it's yard. The dog never became friendly, or wagged his tail, he just never attacked me. This went on for years.
Then one day the mean dog didn't stop charging and he bit me on my thigh. I was stunned. The magic was over. Come to find out, a big male teenaged friend of mine walked that same path everyday and swung a big stick whenever he came near the dog. Sort of raised the level of antagonism.
The dog bit me hard enough that I remembered it real well, but he didn't set on me with the intent to rip me to shreds. Dogs will naturally defend what they know to be their master's but property boundaries in the human sense are meaningless to dogs. They move on what they perceive to be necessary to create their turf and their defence. That's why I was bit on a public alleyway and why I never bothered the "mean dog". A simple dog bite was my tough luck and a lesson. I had to change my route because the dog had decided against me.
I remember seeing dogs with part of their ears torn off from dog fights. I never heard of a dog getting killed or suffering any life-threatening injuries from another dog.
A dog that viciously attacked humans simply wouldn't be allowed to live, unless it was a guard dog on some fenced and patrolled industrial site. Nobody kept dogs like that as pets. A dog that savaged other dogs wouldn't have been allowed to live.
Now we have dogs fenced in yards or worse, living in apartments, who never roam or sniff or work out their turf with the neighbor's dogs. And we keep dogs that would kill as pets.
Times have changed.
And have you done that? Surely you must have, what was the response?
But they would listen to YOU, kanawa
Pay my plane fare, put me up in a nice hotel and pay for my lost wages
and I'll go and have a talk with the owners.
Alternately have you thought of contacting the local breed clubs and asking for their advice or help?
but guys like you don't have the balls to take care of your own. You're too busy attacking the symptom to take care of the cause.
You know next to nothing about me.
You haven't a clue of the time, money or energy I have spent lobbying
for effective dog bite prevention education and legislation.
Why haven't I been more successful?,
because brain dead liberal politicians make feel good laws,
which they don't back up with enforcement,
that only attack the symptom and do nothing about the cause.
Pit bull lovers like you have to police your own if you want to keep the privelige of owning pit bulls and stop putting it off on the victims and denying the problem
I am not a policeman or a vigilante, you silly person.
I'm not some gang-banger with street cred that the idiots will listen to,
more like they'd kick the $hit out of me as soon as look at me.
"My own" are law abiding, responsible and educated dog owners.
I'm a 55 year old grandfather, trying to make a living and be a responsible member of society.
My job as a citizen is to
1. Press for effective legislation that is actually backed up by enforcement
2. To assist law enforcement by reporting problems, real or potential.
3. To lobby for Responsible Dog Ownership education and to play my part in that endeavor through our dog owners associations
If I saw the problem that you have previously described
I would have immediately contacted animal control using the my preprogrammed cell phone.
If that brought unsatisfactory results I would be on my local elected officials case
until something was done about the problem.
Which is exactly what you should be doing.
Don't accuse me of putting it off on the victims and denying there is a problem
because that would be a damn lie.
Woof
"Get a lawyer involved and let him do the talking for you."
Lawyers will tell you that any settlement will be limited to damage amounts you can prove.
Vet bills, for instance would be reasonable. OTOH any thought of "hurting" them by some huge monetary lawsuit is not likely in the cards.
Thought you might be interested in post #263.
Had I thought of contacting local breeding clubs, maybe I'd have done so and maybe I will in the future, but again, that's not MY duty because I am not an enthusiast of these breeds and beyond general principle, I don't care whether or not they become outlawed. People who are enthusiasts of the breeds must be the proactive ones here. They SHOULD be near-vigalantes, ala the Minutemen.
I'd LOVE to see ads in papers and on TV from local pit bull and Rottweiler breeding clubs inviting people who observe risky pit bull, Rottweiler, etc. dog ownership situations to report it to them and they will follow up in order to protect their own rights and interests and to protect the innocent from serious mauling or death. I don't see them organizing and patrolling likely neighborhoods where pit bulls/Rotts can be seen in plain sight behind inadequate fences or loose in the streets. Instead, these groups go for the easier and I will say COWARDLY alternative of sinking money and effort into fighting popular movements to have the breed banned. They choose to fight the symptom, not the cause.
I know you are no gang-banger and that you are a dedicated and sincere pit bull enthusiast. It is why a guy like you comes to my mind as a primo example of the kind of MAN who should be part of an organized effort to take bad owners aside and say, "What you're doing is not cool and it's hurting all of the rest of us who respect what these dogs are capable of." I would bet my bottom dollar that the marjority of irresponsible owners of these dogs are insecure young men raised without a father in the home, who are now trying to exhibit their macho through their dogs. They've had no fathers or other adult male role models in their lives to kick their butts when they do wrong. It looks glamorous and fashionable in part because of guys like you, who because you ARE responsible, make it look easy and cool to own a large, powerful, potentially killer dog breed.
If all pit bull owners were like you, kanawa, there'd be no problem. But you are the exception, not the rule. Therefore, if you want to see a stop to the demands to have your favorite dog breed banned, you have a DUTY to follow up on your unusual choice of dog breed by going out of your way to see that others who want to own powerful potentially killer dog breeds do so responsibly, instead of pushing it off on people like me. When I say "you," kanawa, it must be understood that I mean all passionate organized enthusiasts of these particular breeds.
But therein lies the problem. You pretend that the breed doesn't matter. As long as you do that, the more likely that the potentially dangerous breeds will be banned. As long as you pretend that the breed doesn't matter, you are HELPLESS and indefensible.
I've been reading your pro-pit bull posts on FR for ages, now, Kanawa, and never once have I seen you cop to the fact that the BREED of dog you favor, along with other BREEDS, pose a much more serious risk when they are uncontrolled than other more common breeds.
They will need to hire a lawyer of their own, which will hurt plenty! The plaintiff's lawyer can also sue for legal costs in addition to direct costs, including time off from work, etc. A claim for mental anguish arising from the neighbors' negligence is also worth pursuing, IMHO. It need never go to trial; the key is to hit 'em hard and extract a settlement through their throat.
Me too. I'd kill them then post the video on youtube.com and email the link to the owner of said ex-pitbulls.
That video is literally YEARS AND YEARS OLD first of all, and you must know that the crazy lady sicked her dog on the animal control officer. It didn't just come running from out of nowhere to wreak havok, as most of you would love to think.
Let's get something straight right now: Pit bulls are not the problem. Whine all you want, but educated people out there that study these dogs as their chosen field of expertise disagree with you. Why? Because they bothered to get off their lazy butts, stopped freaking gooogling "pit bull attacks" and did their own damn research!! Lo and behold, they came up with the exact opposite of your shamefully ignorant opinions!
Hi Solo!
How it going? There's only been two more Americans killed by Pit Bulls since our last chat. Keep up the good work!
Attack...Attack...Attack...
An update. I was informed today by a neighbor that the dog's owners have taken them to the pound in the hopes they will be adopted. Apparently they were unable to find any takers on their own.
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.