It's not right, but I do understand

Well, I would like to think I would have handled this situation better, but I won't say for certain that I wouldn't have ended up here.

Yesterday, an owner of two pit bulls shot at an Independence Animal control officer that was trying to take his dogs.  It's my understanding that a "well meaning" meter-reader called animal control about the dogs (even though animal control says they were taking the dogs in because they were not licensed).  The dogs are pit bulls, which are now basically illegal in Independence.

When animal control was trying to take the owner's dogs (to their most certain death), the man fired a gun at the animal control officers.  When animal control left, the man tried to escape before AC came back with police but police caught him escaping in his El Camino.

By all reports, the dogs are good, well-behaved dogs, but are guilty of being pit bulls.

This story shows two things: 1) the most dangerous mammal when a person is walking a pit bull is most likely the person holding the leash and 2) people love their dogs and can be willing to fight for them.

While I can't condone the behavior of the man shooting at the officers, I do understand. 

As a side note, I hear through the rumor mill that the man's girl friend is going to take the dogs and move them to another city.  The man, likely, won't have much use for dogs where he's going.

Comments

[Marjorie Darby]

If I owned a breed targeted by bans, freedom restrictions, muzzle requirements, etc., I'd have left the area a long time ago. But that's just me. I still intend to leave Ontario, if the 'pit bull' ban stands. (But the freaking case is taking so long to be adjudicated, and the DLCC - or is it Banned Aid, or both? - vows to keep up the fight until the law is overturned. So, now I don't know...)

Still, the phrase "cold, dead hand" comes to mind for anyone even touching my dog without my consent.

In this particular case, I maybe understand the owner's actions but, then again, I don't; because if one really care about one's dog, one ensures it is 100% compliant with the law, and one doesn't put it in harm's way (physically or psychologically), no matter what some inexpert politician or animal control officer says.

Spilled milk now, I guess.

[Cheryl]

Interestingly enough when this pitbull ban was being voted on, only one city councilwoman in this city, Independence, MO, had the guts to vote NO. Councilwoman Lucy Young cited several reasons for her dissenting vote, but an important one - most of the citizens of her city could not afford to comply with the cost of the registration, wolf pen, insurance requirements, etc. to keep their dogs. Maybe that is why the owner did not license his dogs.

[Brent]

Yeah, that's the problem. I sometimes have to check myself because my fallback is that if my city passed BSL, even if it was a "restrictions" BSL, I'd just move. But I'm fortunate to have the financial means to do so. Most people really aren't that fortunate, and they're stuck with where they are. Not only could many not afford to move, the insurance and fencing requirements were going to be VERY expensive for people who stayed with their dogs (one friend of ours estimated it was going to cost her about $11,000 in year one).

Most people can't handle that...which is sure the situation these people were in. And like Cheryl said, Lucy Young was the one council member that actually cared about her constituents enough to get that...

[crissa]

I don't condone the conduct either, but I can say that if the gov't ever wanted to take my dogs for no good reason, other than their breed - they might want to send in SWAT, because that's the only way they will succeed. ;) If the dogs had no history of aggression and were not called about for being "vicious" (for non-breed reasons), the city needs to allow them a chance to get out, to remedy the situation - for goodness sake, they give amnesty for parking tickets, taxes, warrants, and all kinds of other stuff, but seem so happy to take your dogs and kill them . . .