Keeping Pets Is Reprehensible

[Turtle]

Ahh what the hell. Let's have us a go. This aint the article yet, but it'll do for filler. Silly human sacks of water. :cocktail:

 

More Dogs Bite Kids in the Summer, Says Study :: Oregon Injury Lawyer Blog

Children and Dog Bites

Dog bites can cause serious harm to a child. A dog that mauls a child can cause serious bodily harm and/or facial disfigurement. Sometimes, it may take years until a child is fully-grown before he or she can undergo all the necessary reconstructive surgeries. This can lead to ongoing physical suffering, as well as mental and emotional trauma. Serious scarring from dog bite wounds can also deprive a boy or girl from experiencing a normal childhood.

 

In the US, about 44,000 dog attacks each year result in facial injuries. 1% of all emergency room visits involve a patient who was injured in a dog attack or a dog mauling. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about 800,000 dog bite victims a year will require medical treatment. Nearly 50% of people injured in dog attacks are younger than age 12. ...

 

PS So many to choose from. This still isn't the one I had in mind, but I'll pop 'er in as a free bonus.

 

http://www.katu.com/news/41866777.html

ALOHA, Ore. (AP) - A 10-year-old Aloha boy is recovering from bite wounds inflicted by a dog Wednesday afternoon.

...

Washington County Animal Control says this is the third documented bite from the same dog.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Your last bit is unsubstantiated twaddle. (I said "twaddle! ) I think the most recent attack by dogs here in the area was when repeat offenders got out of the good dog-owner's properly built fence and killed some neighbor dogs. Want that story referenced? Or would that be too visceral & emotionally charged? Meow!

BAD OWNER!! BAD!! No biscuit for you!:cocktail:

 

Obviously the owners failed somewhere.

My dog has never been loose nor has she had the opportunity to be so...when we aren't here she's in the house...when she's outside one of us is always with her in our back yard which has an 8' fence all the way around...when not behind a fence outside she's in her harness (no cheesy collar hook up for my pup) which is securely tethered to papa (dat would be me)....not because I wory what harm she could cause but I worry very much about the harm that could befall her....of which, irony of ironies my biggest fear is other dogs which are not under their owner's control attacking her.

 

(BTW I am a good owner, my dog is always kept safe, we constantly work with her on her training to maintain her AKC Canine Good Citizen standing, she see's the vet regularly, she's well fed and exercised, and of course receives lots and lots of affection.)

AKC's Canine Good Citizen (CGC) Program - Certificates

 

And thanx for the clippin reguardin the third offence attack...which only reinforces my viewpoint that it's lousy pet-keepin

100% of all pet related injuries and death can be traced exclusively to bad pet-keeping or in short bad owners... a pet that is under it's owner's control at all times will not have the opportunity to harm others.

not just pet keepin in general. BTW training animals to be vicious is bad pet-keeping just as raising a child to be so is bad parenting:naughty:

[Turtle]

BAD OWNER!! BAD!! No biscuit for you!:cocktail:

 

Obviously the owners failed somewhere.

My dog has never been loose nor has she had the opportunity to be so...when we aren't here she's in the house...when she's outside one of us is always with her in our back yard which has an 8' fence all the way around...when not behind a fence outside she's in her harness (no cheesy collar hook up for my pup) which is securely tethered to papa (dat would be me)....not because I wory what harm she could cause but I worry very much about the harm that could befall her....of which, irony of ironies my biggest fear is other dogs which are not under their owner's control attacking her.

 

(BTW I am a good owner, my dog is always kept safe, we constantly work with her on her training to maintain her AKC Canine Good Citizen standing, she see's the vet regularly, she's well fed and exercised, and of course receives lots and lots of affection.)

AKC's Canine Good Citizen (CGC) Program - Certificates

 

And thanx for the clippin reguardin the third offence attack...which only reinforces my viewpoint that it's lousy pet-keepinnot just pet keepin in general. BTW training animals to be vicious is bad pet-keeping just as raising a child to be so is bad parenting:naughty:

 

Well, what else should I expect you to say? "I'm a bad pet owner?" I here this BS all the time about "don't blame the dog", but that's baseless nonsense. I have to go out a while but I'll be back later with at least one example of an attack being the animal's fault & that'll be the end of your unsupported 100% claim.

 

Well, aren't we all feeling fine that of the 44,000 facial maulings referenced above, only a few resulted in death. Stupid human sacks of water. :eek2:

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

"I'm a bad pet owner?"

:hihi:Yah....that woulda been funny and original sadly I didn't think of it.....too distracted bein a bad father.....damn kids can't they figure out stuff on their own...

 

And yes 100% is baseless (unsupported by documented facts?) but built on solid logic backed up by no less than 20 years of working with dogs and common sense...a dog that can't get out in an enclosure where unauthorized people can't get in that is not abused nor trained to be violent, nor suffering from disease, and is not starved will not have the opportunity to attack others nor the inclination to attack his owner.

[CraigD]

Meantime we have the Coast Guard risking their lives & expensive equipment, risking the lives of others, using time, and consuming resources to rescue pets from the flooding. :doh: Good grief. :)

 

Dogs and Cats Rescued from North Dakota Floods | Hero | News | PEOPLE Pets

Turtle, I think you need to distance yourself from your own “good grief” reaction, consider that most people, (including Coast Guard rescue crews) view stories of the Coast Guard risking their lives and expensive equipment to rescue pets favorably, and what this attitude indicates about present day US and world culture and human psychology. Realistically, you must realize that your opinion that actions like these are reprehensible is shared by only a very small minority of people, and that the large majority of people who disagree with you are unlikely to change their opinions to agree with yours, and that thus your attitude is not an accurate representation of the human culture and psychology.

 

Rather than concluding that most people are wrong or mentally deranged to like pets, and be willing to risk their lives to protect them, I believe that this attitude reveals a good quality of our culture and psyches. It reveals empathy, extended not only to our own species, but to others. I consider this extension of empathy to be not only morally good, but an important factor affecting civilization. I believe it is related to our ability to empathize with human beings outside of our own immediate families, neighborhoods, nations, and people who share our language. In short, I believe being a human supremacist, or “speciesist”, is related to being a racial supremacist, or racist, is bad, and is a trait that one should strive to not have.

 

This is not to say that we should not have a strong sense of priorities. I have pets, and would sacrifice wealth and comfort to protect them, but if faced with the true dilemma of being able to save either the lives of my pets, or the life of an human adult or child who was a complete stranger to me, would without hesitation chose the human. I also know, who, among humans I know, I would save if faced with the same dilemma involving two of them. However, in any but a very unusual situation that I doubt I will ever face, I am not faced with a dilemma requiring that I chose between the lives of humans or pets. As I stated in posts #166 and #183, I consider the argument that, by caring for pets, I am causing the injury or death of humans, to be a false dilemma.

 

On a fictional note, I think Dick’s 1968 “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” made an insightful point about empathy for non-human animals and what it is to be human. If you’ve not read the novel (where this element is concerned, having seen the movie “Blade Runner” doesn’t count), I strongly recommend you do.

[Turtle]

Yeah...so let's see. My right to feel secure is trumped by the rights of others to keep pets. :doh: Story of my bad little life. Shame on me for asserting my unpopular view. :)

 

As to deciding to keep a pet, it is not a false dilemma it is the "horns of a dilemma." Two choices and you must make one; either keep a pet or do not keep a pet. It is that simple, it is black & white, it is not a logical fallacy. As I said to DD, I don't expect you to get rid of your pets or change your minds, but my little minority mind wants to make damn sure all you paragons of pet-keeping have considered all the real risks & costs. With any luck it will continue to be other peoples' pets doing the harm and not yours, and you won't be harmed by pets either. Story of your lives I suspect. :shrug:

 

As to most peoples' views, well that's a dynamic thing now isn't it? I mean it was barely 100 years ago when the majority of people viewed keeping slaves favorably and the science of the day supported that view as well. Realistically, I think standing up "popularity" of a behavior as support is a lame and baseless argument.

 

Meh. :shrug:

[modest]

Turtle, I think you need to distance yourself from your own “good grief” reaction, consider that most people, (including Coast Guard rescue crews) view stories of the Coast Guard risking their lives and expensive equipment to rescue pets favorably,

 

I put myself in harm's way once to rescue a dog.

 

I was on a nature walk (of sorts) with my dog at a county park. The path went over several streams, but it had stormed heavily over the past few days and the streams had become more pond-like. A young couple was letting their lab swim in one such collection of water—perceiving no danger to the animal.

 

They didn't realize that what looked like a pond was really a fast-moving stream which flowed under the path we were walking on through a pipe of about 1.5 meter diameter. The dog was being pulled toward the inlet and these people had no idea what was about to happen. I was a good 30 paces from them when I noticed, so I ran at them hollering "get 'em out!"

 

They both stared at me like I was a deranged lunatic. I said "your dog" and pointed. By the time they looked, it was already underwater. The debris from the storm the day before (mostly tree branches) had collected at the mouth of the inlet partially plugging it up. This is actually the reason the stream had formed into a pond.

 

The water was too murky to see where the dog had gone, and these people were not quickly figuring out what happened. I handed my leash off to the lady and jumped in (there was about a 3 foot ledge off the path to the water). I was able to support myself against the flow of water by gripping a tree branch with one hand while I reached underwater with the other, and by blind luck I felt the dog's collar right exactly where I reached.

 

Gripping the collar I tried to pull it up, but it was being sucked under pretty good and the collar slid off it's head. It took a bit of time and repositioning myself, but I was finally able to pull it up by it's front leg.

 

Long story... still kinda long: I doubt I would have put myself in that much danger to save a hundred dollar bill, but it did not feel unusual doing it for a stranger's dog.

 

I think there is a kinship between people and dogs. Thousands of years ago hunting parties followed migrating woolly mammoths. Following the people were wolf packs which cleaned up what was left of the human's kill. The more-docile wolves which submitted to humans were able to get closer to us. They evolved because of us. We shared our food with those that had traits we found favorable and those were the ones more-likely to survive slowly evolving into dogs.

 

We used them to help us hunt and protect us and warn us against things like bears. It became a symbiotic relationship. Dogs are now totally dependent on humans for survival. We domesticated them. Unlike pigs and sheep which humans domesticated for food, we domesticated dogs to be our loyal companions.

 

And, so, we feel a kinship toward them and they have a genetically encoded kinship for us. There truly are some reprehensible human traits, but keeping pets is about as far from those as you can get.

 

~modest

[Turtle]

It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare. ~Mark Twain

[CraigD]

Yeah...so let's see. My right to feel secure is trumped by the rights of others to keep pets.

Yes. The rights of others to keep pets, firearms, automobiles, or any other thing not prohibited by law, trumps your “right to feel secure”.

 

The “right to feel secure”, or the “right” of any individual to feel any specific emotion, is nowhere guaranteed by the formal laws of your state nor informal standards of your community, nor can it even be meaningfully defined, as agencies outside of your own psyche lack the power to assure that you feel any particular way.

Shame on me for asserting my unpopular view.

As a US resident and virtual resident of hypography, you enjoy the right to assert an unpopular view, even if, as the views you’ve asserted in this thread have, doing so is emotionally upsetting to pet owners. As a hypograpther, this right is more limited than your US First Amendment right to freedom of speech, requiring that you support your view and express it politely, but as you’ve done so, your right to assert your unpopular view is assured.

As to deciding to keep a pet, it is not a false dilemma it is the "horns of a dilemma."

I didn’t claim that deciding to keep a pet – expressed as a dilemma, “to keep a pet, or not to keep a pet”, is a false dilemma. I wrote

I believe that the either-or scenario you propose, Turtle – either have starvation and pets, or no starvation and no pets – is a false dichotomy fallacy.

A false dichotomy fallacy is then one implies that only two choices can be made in a particular situation, when really three or more can be. My claim is that a third choice, no starvation and pets, is possible – with the qualification that “no starvation” excludes a small number of cases such as anorexics and shipwreck victims.

With any luck it will continue to be other peoples' pets doing the harm and not yours, and you won't be harmed by pets either.

Here, Turtle, I think you grossly overgeneralize and violate the principles of evidence based logic and actuarial science.

 

You overgeneralize, because nearly half of all pet owners own only pet animals that account for practically no injuries or deaths, namely cats. Many of these owners confine their cats for their entire lives, so these animals have effectively no potential to cause any injury or property damage outside of their residences.

 

You violate the principles of evidence based logic and actuarial science by ignoring the statistical rarity of injuries and death due to pets described in references to various posts in this thread and other common sources of public health information. Based on 800,000 animal-related ER visits per year and the US population of 303,000,000, the raw probability of being injured by an animal in a given year is less than 0.3%. It doesn’t require much luck to avoid a mishap with a probability this low.

Story of your lives I suspect.

This quip is just plain rude!

:)

You’re implying that we – every reader who owns a pet, or permits another to own a pet – rely exclusively on luck, rather than planning, ability, and skill.

Realistically, I think standing up "popularity" of a behavior as support is a lame and baseless argument.

In a republic such as the US, and after a fashion, nearly every society in history, popularity is ultimately the only argument of substance in determining the legality of a behavior. What is and is not legal or socially acceptable does in fact change as public opinion changes.

[REASON]

I put myself in harm's way once to rescue a dog.

 

Reading your story, modest, gave me a bit of a chill, and as you read further, you'll understand why.

 

True Story:

 

I was managing a project we had with Five Rivers MetroParks in Dayton, OH two years ago when I found out that the gentleman who was my contact had tragically died with his wife on Christmas Day. He, his wife, and their two teenaged daughters were taking an afternoon walk with their dog, which was not on a leash, on a trail along the banks of one of several rivers which run through Dayton. They were passing by a very large culvert which had a low water dam to slow the flow of water as it entered the culvert. This made the water flow seem deceivingly calm.

 

At some point, their dog got into the water in this area. The mother, in a panic, was either reaching from the bank for the dog and fell in or jumped in after the dog. Soon it was apparent that both the dog and the man's wife were being pulled away from the bank of the river. In a panic, he then jumped in after her. All three were sucked down before their daughter's eyes.

 

In the short time I associated with him, I could tell he was a kind and loving person. This dog had replaced their other beloved dog which had died of old age and had caused a lot of grief for the family. I have gone over this tragic scenario in my head many times trying to understand how I might react in the same situation and the only answer that makes sense is to allow the dog to perish alone.

 

You should consider yourself very fortunate that you were able to survive what may have been an unnecessary risk for you to take. I am extremely glad that you did. Your contribution to the world is most valuable.

 

Both of these stories indicate the depth of our emotional connection to our pets. In many cases, people are willing to risks, or even sacrifice, their lives to save them. I don't believe this type of emotional connection can just be cut off by some restricive law. People will continue in their endeavor to find some fulfillment of love and affection in relationships with pets.

 

To me, it's part of the joy of life.

 

As I've said before in this thread, it is not keeping pets that is reprehensible, but rather keeping them poorly and irresponsibly. This is where the law has a practical application.

[Turtle]

Sorry to be gone a bit, but my neighbors dogs are loose again, in my yard, barking, and menacing me. Since animal control doesn't work on Sunday and the 911 operators don't consider this an emergency on account of no one is bleeding yet, guess I should just shut my mouth and stay in my room where I belong. :)

 

True Story:

Dogs Bite Blog: Girl Attacked by Pit Bull in Vancouver, Washington - DogsBite.org

Girl Attacked by Pit Bull in Vancouver, Washington

Pit Bull "Just Snapped"

Vancouver, WA - 20 miles north of Happy Valley, where a 7-year old was attacked by a pit bull last week, is Vancouver, Washington. On Saturday, an 11-year old was attacked by a pit bull that was being walked by it's owner, Mark Robinson. Elena Allison told reporters, "We asked (Robinson) if we could pet Presley. The dog was being really nice to all of us for about 10 minutes and then he just snapped." Elena's parents took her to the hospital where doctors used 26 stitches to sew her upper lip back on.

At the time of the attack, the pit bull was leashed. ...

[modest]

Reading your story, modest, gave me a bit of a chill, and as you read further, you'll understand why.

 

True Story:

 

I was managing a project we had with Five Rivers MetroParks in Dayton, OH two years ago when I found out that the gentleman who was my contact had tragically died with his wife on Christmas Day. He, his wife, and their two teenaged daughters were taking an afternoon walk with their dog, which was not on a leash, on a trail along the banks of one of several rivers which run through Dayton. They were passing by a very large culvert which had a low water dam to slow the flow of water as it entered the culvert. This made the water flow seem deceivingly calm.

 

At some point, their dog got into the water in this area. The mother, in a panic, was either reaching from the bank for the dog and fell in or jumped in after the dog. Soon it was apparent that both the dog and the man's wife were being pulled away from the bank of the river. In a panic, he then jumped in after her. All three were sucked down before their daughter's eyes.

 

In the short time I associated with him, I could tell he was a kind and loving person. This dog had replaced their other beloved dog which had died of old age and had caused a lot of grief for the family. I have gone over this tragic scenario in my head many times trying to understand how I might react in the same situation and the only answer that makes sense is to allow the dog to perish alone.

 

You should consider yourself very fortunate that you were able to survive what may have been an unnecessary risk for you to take. I am extremely glad that you did. Your contribution to the world is most valuable.

 

Wow! That's eerie, and tragic, I'm sorry to hear it.

 

I did feel lucky after the whole thing was over. I judged the danger before I acted as 'not very'. But, that's such an easy situation to be wrong about... and I can only imagine... not a very good way to go.

 

Both of these stories indicate the depth of our emotional connection to our pets. In many cases, people are willing to risks, or even sacrifice, their lives to save them. I don't believe this type of emotional connection can just be cut off by some restricive law. People will continue in their endeavor to find some fulfillment of love and affection in relationships with pets.

 

Great point. No power in the 'verse would compel me to give up my dog. Of all the things that have a potential for misuse or the potential to cause an accident—pets are the most loved and some of the least dangerous.

 

~modest

[Turtle]

So until or unless these dogs owners show up, I can't check my mail, I can't take my refuse to the curb, and I can't walk to my car without coming under attack. I know the offical routine so I have my camera running. I'm blind in one eye and walk with a cane and while arguably the cane can make for a substantial weapon, I lack the depth perception to accurately use it and by raising it I loose the necessary support to wield it.

 

On another note, these comparisons between pets and cars, or guns, or whatever inanimate object with inherent danger, have no merit as none of these inanimate dangers have the capacity to act on their own.

[modest]

So until or unless these dogs owners show up, I can't check my mail, I can't take my refuse to the curb, and I can't walk to my car without coming under attack. I know the offical routine so I have my camera running. I'm blind in one eye and walk with a cane and while arguably the cane can make for a substantial weapon, I lack the depth perception to accurately use it and by raising it I loose the necessary support to wield it.

Does this happen often? If so, I would recommend getting some Bear Spray. When I was a teen visiting my cousins who had a mountain home in the Rockies I had to carry Bear Spray when playing in the woods around their home. Black Bears were apparently a problem in the area (I didn't see any).

 

You certainly should feel safe from any pack of dogs with some bear spray in hand.

 

On another note, these comparisons between pets and cars, or guns, or whatever inanimate object with inherent danger, have no merit as none of these inanimate dangers have the capacity to act on their own.

I hope you're not replying to this:

Of all the things that have a potential for misuse or the potential to cause an accident—pets are the most loved and some of the least dangerous.

which makes no mention of anything so specific as inanimate things.

 

In a strictly pedantic way: the analogy between dogs and guns passes your objection about "capacity to act on their own". An average of 776 people are accidentally fatally shot (either shooting themselves or being shot by another) each year(source). In this case the weapon acts without being controlled (there is no intent on the part of the gun owner or the victim for the gun to kill. Yet, the death is caused by the weapon.

 

The analogy then: Just as a person who owns a gun irresponsibly might end up accidentally getting somebody shot; so too might a person who owns a dog irresponsibly end up accidentally getting somebody mauled to death. The only significant difference is that more people are accidentally killed by guns than pets. Given this statistic, I think it's fair to say: if owning a firearm is not reprehensible then neither is owning a pet.

 

I personally am interested in the response society takes to perceived dangers to public safety. Cars can be dangerous when used as unintended. If the car is unsafe (maybe it doesn't have seat belts) then the state can say: that car shall not be driven on the road.

 

If a person is known to drive unsafely (drunk driver perhaps) then society takes it upon itself to intervene saying: driving is a privileged and it's one that you just lost.

 

So, does it follow that society should feel empowered to take away a person's animal if it is being mistreated and/or is uncontrolled? Society thinks so... in some cases. It requires the licensing of some animals such as dogs and horses, but not others such as mice and goldfish. One distinction is pretty obvious: dogs and horses can represent a public concern for safety.

 

I think it behooves us to examine the danger pets represent and the legal president in mitigating such danger as a society. My city runs an animal shelter and has an animal control department as part of the police force. They enforce city and state ordinance involving the keeping of animals.

 

I suppose it would be possible and legal for some city to make a law prohibiting pet ownership outright. A city could, in fact, round up all the animals anybody owned and kill them all. Denver did it to Pit Bulls, so it can be done. But, the level of danger is just not that great. Is that what you're advocating Turtle? Outlawing all pets?

 

~modest

[Turtle]

Does this happen often? If so, I would recommend getting some Bear Spray. When I was a teen visiting my cousins who had a mountain home in the Rockies I had to carry Bear Spray when playing in the woods around their home. Black Bears were apparently a problem in the area (I didn't see any).

 

That's right; put the responsibility on me. The owners and dogs being blameless of course. :doh:

 

The dogs have run loose since the people moved in; yes it continues and the dogs get more aggressive with time and the owners less attentive. Yes I reported it and I think I posted here on it earlier.

...

I suppose it would be possible and legal for some city to make a law prohibiting pet ownership outright. A city could, in fact, round up all the animals anybody owned and kill them all. Denver did it to Pit Bulls, so it can be done. But, the level of danger is just not that great. Is that what you're advocating Turtle? Outlawing all pets?

 

~modest

 

Look, I'm too distraught right now to handle your posts with any clarity; please allow me to respond later.

 

At ~4pm things quieted and so I took the camera down to review the recording and get the clips the authorities want to see. While doing that at ~4:30 pm I heard the dogs out my door in the yard & went out to run them off. It so happened the owner had just rolled in & when I called over to him to get his dogs they attacked more viciously than ever. I screamed at him to call his dogs, but he was walking away & only made a half-hearted call and has no control over them in any case. I had forgot my cane and they seemed to notice that and pressed their attack closer than ever, snarling, barking, ears back, and working as a team making charges one at a time & then withdrawing as I backed along the wall and made it to my door. So careless of me not to get that recorded; stupid Turtle!

 

Of 2 other neighbors as near as the dogs, 1 family owns pets and simply kept their kids in and said & did nothing. (kids were out 3 minutes after the last confrontation & the guy finally recovered his pets). The other came out, but is an immigrant from Africa and speaks little English & likes to keep a low profile. He's not pleased though as he checked his yard for yet another pile of ****.

 

Most of the other nearby homes are either empty or have pet owners residing there, and they all stayed the hell in their homes after seeing what was up & hid out 'til things quited.

 

Anyway, here's the recording of a few of the events over 5 hours of this; I will be mailing it in with a report as I am far too upset to talk to a person. I'm gonna go watch some TV comedy now and drink a beer. :friday:

 

YouTube - aggressive dogs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSDpsm7_wnU&feature=channel_page

[Moontanman]

Turtle, dude! You have dogs threatening you on your own property and you don't do anything about it? Where you live do they not sell shot guns? where I live if I was threatened by a dog i would tell the owner to please control the dog, 2nd time I would tell the owner I was calling the police , then do it. 3rd time i would shoot the bastard (the dog) and call the police. If the owner threatened me I would call the police, 4th time I would shoot the bastard, the owner! seriously, you can take this ******* to court, if you are in fear of your safety shoot the damn dog, let the law clear it up after the dog is dead. What can they do? fine you for discharging a fire arm in the city limits? Big hairy deal, the dog will be dead you pay a fine and the walk to your mail box is safe again. Do i live in the only civilized place on the planet? Here you are legally allowed to defend your self with deadly force, a large dog is a real threat. You could take the owner to court but killing the dog saves the lawyers fees. Around here people get arrested and dogs are put down all the time if they are deemed dangerous. Hell they are going to put a dog down locally here just because he can't kept pent up if a female in heat is within a several miles. so far all he's done is father several liters of puppies and he is under the needle if cutting off his gonads doesn't work! I honestly cannot imagine allowing a man to threaten me on my own property much less a dog. Buy an aluminum ball bat, have a talk with the dog, if he's got half a dog brain he'll figure out you are not be messed with.

[REASON]

Suddenly, your feelings behind this thread have become all too obvious. I gotta admit, that would drive me insane as well and I would be considering a shotgun instead of bear spray. That neighbor would hear about as much ranting from me as I had to hear from his stupid dogs.

 

I wonder if you would still feel that keeping pets is reprehensible if you didn't have to deal with that on a regular basis. It's worth asking.

 

This is a perfect example of reprehensible pet ownership, and you have every right live in your home without the threat of being attacked or having your peace disturbed. But I don't think this is typical of pet ownership in our society.

 

Good luck with the authorities.