posted September 4, 2008
In response to the story about the canine murder by the park ranger:
Having only the Chattanoogan.com story to go on, apparently jumping on people and perceived aggression is enough for your pet to have its death warrant legally issued by a single, gun-toting government employee.
If this is indeed true, my dogs would have been killed the first week I had them. Dogs get easily excited, and by nature, play rougher than humans do. Rough canine play is often mistaken for aggression, but once someone is a witness to true canine aggression, there is no mistaking it.
Details about the aggression were not provided in the story, but simply barking is not aggression. Maybe the dog was showing his teeth, but maybe his teeth were showing because it was 90 degrees outside and he was panting. In my experience, a true sign of canine aggression is growling...not barking...growling, coupled with the showing of teeth and forward movement.
The story stated the dog jumped up on a little girl and was frightening a group of tourists. If that dog was truly aggressive, he would have done great harm to that little girl.
Would the ranger have acted in the same way if it was an unarmed person that was perceived as aggressive and frightening tourists? Would the ranger have acted in the same way if it was a Lab or Golden Retriever with perceived aggression? Pit Bulls have been receiving a bum wrap ever since they became the 'chosen' ones for low-life scum who fight dogs against each other for sport. The police chief said the dog was listed as a 'vicious dog'. I don't know the history behind that, but it's sad to think a dog is damned forever because of one incident.
Unless this ranger was built like Barney Fife, I have a hard time believing he was unable to manhandle this geriatric dog into submission if it truly was aggressive, Pit Bull or not. Aren't law enforcement officers trained in self-defense without firearms? If the dog was aggressive, would the ranger have received scratches, scrapes, maybe even a bite? Perhaps, but being sure of the aggression is better than killing someone's pet and family member on a hunch.
Any South Park fans out there? This reminds me of the Season 1 episode where Uncle Jimbo and Ned justify their hunting and killing by yelling out 'It's coming right for us!? before each animal they kill.
Keith Guillot
Chattanooga
* * *
As a police officer who has had past encounters with owner-less dogs, I can state that Mr. Guillot's rhetoric is neither logical nor realistic.
Before we go any further, I own several dogs of various sizes, some of which are large and do like to play rough. I have owned dogs of numerous breeds for over 55 years. Therefore, I may have a little experience to draw on.
While Mr. Guillot is generally correct about true canine aggression, nothing is absolute. I have encountered dogs that were aggressive while wagging their tails. I have seen dogs that would act scared while looking for an opening to attack. I have also seen dogs that did absolutely nothing before they bit someone: no growl, no ears laid back, no display of fangs, no standing hair on the back. But they bit anyway.
Now we will address the inane idea of manhandling a pit bull. Nothing in any police manual requires an officer to get scratched, scraped, or bitten. Any attempt to "manhandle" an aggressive dog such as a pit bull is not only very dangerous, but is as incredibly stupid as the mere suggestion.
It is unfortunate that the dog was killed. Again, my dogs are not only pets but they are my friends, as well. I would not want any of them hurt or killed, but that is a far better alternative to having one of them hurt or kill someone else.
"Details of the aggression were not provided in the story" but that apparently hasn't kept Mr. Guillot from formulating a letter that accuses an officer of "canine murder" and grousing about how a "gun-toting government employee" issued a pet's death warrant.
In addition to having owned dogs for over 55 years, I have been in law enforcement for over 35 years. We, as officers of the law, have better things to than shoot a dog, especially at a tourist attraction in front of a group of tourists. Under these circumstances, this is not a casual, callous action. It is done as a last resort to protect the people in the vicinity.
Again, neither Mr. Guillot nor I know all the details, but I feel that all the facts should be known before we develop a lynch-mob mentality.
Ed Bradley
s10drivr@yahoo.com
* * *
Jumping on the little girl should be enough reason for complaint. Does the little girl need to have her arm torn off before the animal is considered to be dangerous? The answer should be no; enough psychological damage has already been done. The little girl was merely on a trip to the park with her family. She will now probably face diversion against all dogs for at least the remainder of her childhood.
Also, the dog was not killed on a hunch by some "Barney Fife." It was already listed as a vicious dog because of prior reports.
The bottom line is that people need to keep their dogs in their own yards. Everyone is entitled to have a pet, but with that comes responsibility. When someone's dog attacks a child or anyone for that matter, consequences should follow (maybe even jail time for the owner if they have previously been warned.)
Tonya Sadler
Harrison
Tonya1011@gmail.com
* * *
Has anyone considered the obvious danger created by a ranger, or anyone else, firing a gun in a crowded area such as Point Park?
Would a private citizen have been "justified" in firing a pistol for any reason in this crowded area?
Joe Sliger
* * *
Mr. Guillot should check his facts before forming an opinion as to matters he knows nothing about. If he would have, he would have discovered that the ranger involved in this incident in not a "gun-toting government employee," but a 16-year veteran of the Park Service, involved in the community and dedicated to preserving the resources of the battlefield, as well as ensuring the safety of visitors to the Park. He would also know that the dog in question had shown real, not perceived, aggression previously to those who live and work in the neighborhood.
Why does Mr. Guillot fail to question why the owner of the dog failed to follow town ordinances or provide a safe fenced area for the dog? Instead, he chooses to attack an individual just trying to do his job and keep people safe.
If I ever face a threatening, aggressive animal, though, I'll be sure to contact Mr. Guillot so that he can "manhandle" it into submission. Then, maybe he can take it home to his neighborhood.
By the way, I have six pets, all but one a rescue, so do not question my commitment to caring for animals.
Angi Smith
smithadl@hotmail.com
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |