• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Sad story - neighbor shoots dog

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by Simkie View Post
    Nosing around? Where on earth did you get that the dog was "nosing around"? The article started the dog was "clawing at the backyard rabbit cage" and was undeterred by yelling and shooting over it's head. To me, that says the dog was pretty damned determined to get the rabbits, not simply "nosing around."
    This was clearly a running feud between the neighbors, and in the time it had been going on, the worst the dog managed was to claw at the hutches. I wouldn't appreciate it, if I owned the rabbits, but I'd keep some perspective.
    Most dogs, particularly ones whose owners are stupid enough to let them out the door to run free, are so used to being yelled at that it doesn't register. As for the gunshot it supposedly ignored? We have only the neighbor's word that he tried to scare off the dog with gunfire before aiming at the dog. Personally, I'm inclined to believe he's lying. You're pissed off that this **** dog is on your land again, harassing your property, and you know or suspect that the law will back you up - why would you even bother trying to scare off the dog? He probably just shot it.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by GraceLikeRain View Post
      Vacation1: So do you think that there are levels of life? Ie the life of the dog is more valuable than the rabbit being scared to death?
      Well, that was quite the leap. No, what I said was that it's too extreme to shoot a dog for the level of aggression being shown. As far we have heard, none of the rabbits in this situation ever so much as had a sore paw from hopping away from the desperately clawing Brittany. But the rabbit owner felt so strongly about their danger that he had to shoot the dog? I just don't buy it. I've had jerk neighbors, and this situation strikes me as two lousy neighbors coming into conflict - the jerk who can't keep his dog on his property because it's inconvenient, and the jerk whose response to aggravation is aggression backed up with guns. Since the first lot chose a dog that does not generally constitute a general menace, I think the second lot is the worse actor.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by Barnfairy View Post
        Absolutely, I was spitting mad when I found my rabbit in shock, and loose dogs irritate me to no end. Yet still I resolve the conflict without shooting anything or anyone.

        So? You made a decision to permit that animal to harass other livestock - perhaps killing more animals. This owner made a different choice. In his case - the problem animal will never kill again. You cannot say the same for the dogs you were too morally superior to take care of. Your choice - but others will suffer for it more than likely. If you're the type to poo poo that type of behavior in a dog, I suggest you obtain a very high limit personal liability policy.


        Not sure this guy's pet bun-buns qualify as livestock any more than my "precious horsies", and he's not a jerk for protecting them.

        Your opinion on that states laws isn't relevant. If the law permits him to shoot dogs harassing livestock, and in his state rabbits are livestock - then that is all that is required. He is not charged in the incident. If he had been - it would be pretty obvious he'd violated the law. He didn't. The dog's owner did.

        He's a jerk for resorting to deadly force. I wasn't there, and neither were any of you, but I strongly suspect that there could have been a resolution to this conflict which left both rabbits and dog alive.
        No, he's not a jerk for "resorting to deadly force." The article mentions that this problem had been continuous - and he'd obviously let the matter go for a while. The dog's owner is the guilty party. Period. It's sad for the dog, but the livestock owner doesn't exactly like coming upon his animals and seeing their guts hanging out, throats slashed, legs broken. The reality of dog attacks on livestock is horrific.

        Rallycairn - you need to read up on Virginia law. Shooting a dog passing through your property - whether or not that dog is a hunting dog - is a crime. The law only permits the shooting of a dog if it is in the act of chasing, harassing, or killing livestock.
        Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
        Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
        -Rudyard Kipling

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by Bluey View Post
          Not necessarily powerful.
          Assault weapons is just the name anti gun people love to use, sounds so dangerous, but the real name is semi automatic.
          Those come, like all guns, in different calibers, some wimpy ones too.
          I know. I got a semi automatic assault rifle, caliber 22...

          In any case, you want an accurate weapon when you shoot live things to possibly render them dead....
          Originally posted by BigMama1
          Facts don't have versions. If they do, they are opinions
          GNU Terry Prachett

          Comment


          • #45
            Sad the dog had to die at the dog owners expense. I have a couple of big hound dogs running around my neighborhood. They have GPS collars on and the owners are pushing them through the woods hunting. They terrorize my horses, cats, chickens and my other dogs. They ran my horses thru the fence last time. I sure hope they don't come around when I am not home, running my horses through the fence and my horses getting out on the road or something. If my barn doors weren't closed they would have had a couple chicken dinners last time. The chickens are able to squeeze in the barn with the doors shut out of harms way. Next time they come around they have a few bullets with their name on them.

            Wanted to add that if a dog really wants to get into a chicken or rabbit coop then it will. We had it happen to our little chickens, the dogs tore down the coop fence and killed all the chickens. The dogs even got into our FENCED yard, a 4ft privacy fence they had to get over. That is how we found the owners of the dogs, because they were still in our yard and had collars on. The police never did anything about it. My dad took the dead chickens over to the dog owners in a box and left them at their house and told them to keep their dogs locked up or it would be the dogs in the box next time. They didn't like this and called the police on us. No charges were filed, but the police were more mad at my dad for "threatening" the dog owners then they were at the dog owners for letting their dogs run the neighborhood killing chickens.
            Derby Lyn Farms Website

            Derby Lyn Farms on Facebook!

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by vacation1 View Post
              Well, that was quite the leap. No, what I said was that it's too extreme to shoot a dog for the level of aggression being shown. As far we have heard, none of the rabbits in this situation ever so much as had a sore paw from hopping away from the desperately clawing Brittany. But the rabbit owner felt so strongly about their danger that he had to shoot the dog? I just don't buy it. I've had jerk neighbors, and this situation strikes me as two lousy neighbors coming into conflict - the jerk who can't keep his dog on his property because it's inconvenient, and the jerk whose response to aggravation is aggression backed up with guns. Since the first lot chose a dog that does not generally constitute a general menace, I think the second lot is the worse actor.
              Rabbits can DIE just from being scared. Nobody is exaggerating or kidding when they say that. It doesn't matter the dog didn't actually touch the rabbits - stress can absolutely kill a bunny.

              The danger was real to the BUNNY in the situation. Just because you love dogs more than bunnies, doesn't make this guy in the wrong. I would have shot the dog too, and I like dogs as well as rabbits. If the dog had been on the property multiple times, I'd have to imagine the neighbor warned the dog's owners to keep the dog on their property. In this case the dog's owners ultimately failed the dog and are responsible for it's death.

              It also said in one of the articles on this case that the ex-cop didn't recognize the dog til after he'd shot it. Adrenaline can make you blind to things and this is absolutely plausible. Honestly, just cause he owns a gun and has had issues with these neighbors in the past doesn't make him a dog-hating, revenge-seeking lunatic His rabbits were in danger from the neighbor's dog's harassment and he was within his legal limits to shoot it.
              Last edited by shiningwizard255; Jan. 12, 2013, 07:59 PM. Reason: typos and clarification - I'm tired.
              *Wendy* 4.17.73 - 12.20.05

              Comment


              • #47
                . A second bullet struck the 6-year-old Brittney spaniel.
                What do they teach them in journalism school these days?

                This is a Brittney.

                This is a Brittany.

                And neither one of them is a spaniel! The latter is a small pointer. The "spaniel" was dropped from the name years ago.
                I'm not ignoring the rules. I'm interpreting the rules. Tamal, The Great British Baking Show

                Comment


                • #48
                  I 'll stand by my position and you all with your guns will stand by yours. Just like a lot of things in this country, there is a difference of opinion and action. I'll take my grandparents philosophy any day.
                  Ex cops do get away with a lot that the rest of us couldn't. Experienced that first hand. Until you've been in that situation, you have no idea how crooked the police are. There are afew good ones, but few and far between.
                  That dog couldn't reach the rabbits. This was an over reaction by a first class jerk.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by pezk View Post
                    I 'll stand by my position and you all with your guns will stand by yours. Just like a lot of things in this country, there is a difference of opinion and action. I'll take my grandparents philosophy any day.
                    Ex cops do get away with a lot that the rest of us couldn't. Experienced that first hand. Until you've been in that situation, you have no idea how crooked the police are. There are afew good ones, but few and far between.
                    That dog couldn't reach the rabbits. This was an over reaction by a first class jerk.


                    FWIW, I don't own a gun. I've never even shot a gun. But I don't think all guns owners stand in their yards playing Yosemite Sam, shooting everything that moves. That's ridiculous.

                    Again - rabbits are fragile animals and easily stressed. A dog barking and clawing at their cage; i.e., a PREDATOR in their eyes? Totally could scare a bunny to death. It doesn't matter if Rover just wants to give them kisses. The bunnies don't know that.
                    *Wendy* 4.17.73 - 12.20.05

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      I grew up in a farming community. People let their dogs roam. Dogs that harassed or killed livestock were usually killed by their own owners. It was the responsible thing to do back them. If an owner wouldn't take care of it, the person loosing animals would.

                      I don't own a gun. I will some day, I"m sure. In the meantime, I have a dog that watches after my livestock. She might very well kill any dog that gets on my property. If they are lucky, she will just chase them off. I won't fault her either way. She is doing her job.

                      I have lost a chicken to a neighbor's dog. It is very rare for either of their dogs to be out and they were very apologetic. They found where the dog got out and fixed it. That's what responsible neighbors do. I would not have shot that dog even if I had a gun because I know the neighbors would make sure it didn't happen again. If it was a regular occurrence and the neighbor wouldn't do anything about it, I would shoot the dog. And I love dogs. I have taken in more than one stray and found new homes for them. But I won't sit around allowing a dog to come on my property time after time and harass or kill my animals. MY animals are my responsibility. That means protecting them however I have to.

                      Not sure where people get the idea that dogs are more important than chickens or rabbits or goats. If a dog kills livestock, it must be the owners of the chickens/rabbits/goats for not having them penned securely enough.

                      Comment


                      • #51
                        Originally posted by pezk View Post
                        I 'll stand by my position and you all with your guns will stand by yours. Just like a lot of things in this country, there is a difference of opinion and action. I'll take my grandparents philosophy any day.
                        Ex cops do get away with a lot that the rest of us couldn't. Experienced that first hand. Until you've been in that situation, you have no idea how crooked the police are. There are afew good ones, but few and far between.
                        That dog couldn't reach the rabbits. This was an over reaction by a first class jerk.
                        you know that how?

                        You know the ex cop in question?
                        been to his yard?

                        What if it was his grand daughters bunny....care to explain to a child why the big bad dog killed her animal and you just let it go?

                        Considering that about all of the members are very much pro animal and anti killing....the line pretty much follows the property line!

                        I would love to hear the neighbor's account.
                        I am sure it would be an eye opener!
                        Originally posted by BigMama1
                        Facts don't have versions. If they do, they are opinions
                        GNU Terry Prachett

                        Comment


                        • #52
                          Originally posted by JSwan View Post
                          You made a decision to permit that animal to harass other livestock - perhaps killing more animals.
                          Hardly. I merely took a more reasonable and neighborly route, because not only do I want to stop my animals from being harassed, I also want to live peaceably with my neighbors. Sometimes using your words works. It's worth a try. I can see this particular conversation is a situation in which clearly mine will not, so I will no longer waste the effort.

                          I will say, however, someone *so concerned* over his rabbits' sensitivity would be wise to enclose them somewhere safe from fox and raccoons and mink let alone loose dogs. That is all.

                          Comment


                          • #53
                            Originally posted by JSwan View Post
                            No, he's not a jerk for "resorting to deadly force." The article mentions that this problem had been continuous - and he'd obviously let the matter go for a while. The dog's owner is the guilty party. Period. It's sad for the dog, but the livestock owner doesn't exactly like coming upon his animals and seeing their guts hanging out, throats slashed, legs broken. The reality of dog attacks on livestock is horrific.

                            Rallycairn - you need to read up on Virginia law. Shooting a dog passing through your property - whether or not that dog is a hunting dog - is a crime. The law only permits the shooting of a dog if it is in the act of chasing, harassing, or killing livestock.
                            JSwan, it would be a lot more productive for the discussion if you would not "cyber scream" with your boldface. I clearly stated that my animals are harrassed, and repeatedly (over the years), but I've never had to resort to shooting anything. But I _would_ shoot something if one of my animals were in immediate danger, at least I think I would.

                            No one discussing this current incident has stated, implied, or suggested that the shooter acted illegally. All some of us have said is that, based on the report and comments such as the law enforcement officer saying that the situation could've been handled differently (but again, was certainly legal) -- that perhaps this level of response was unnecessary.

                            JSwan, when you speak of "horsies" on the one hand but then talk about (in this case) completely nonexistent dangling limbs or disemboweled organs of the (in reality untouched) rabbits, it appears you are "poo-pooing" other viewpoints while painting an unsubstantiated and exaggerated picture of what happened in the current example to support your own view.

                            Perhaps I did the same with my own examples, of course, though I think we all like to believe we are being as neutral as possible! I appreciate you have a different take on the situation, but sticking more to the report linked in the OP, there weren't any wounds to any rabbits and I didn't see any note that the dog has any history of wounding anything, but maybe I missed that.

                            Again, as I've said in both my previous posts, if there was truly danger to the rabbits, fine. But there is clearly a "history" between the two neighbors in this current example, and like barnfairy and vacation1, given this reported history of disputes and the lieutenant's comments -- those things raise a question as to whether killing the dog was necessary. Legal, yes, again and again, yes. But necessary to save the rabbits? I'm not convinced.

                            It is indeed a sad story, as the thread title asserted, that a dog was not properly contained and paid with its life, and that neighboring people appear to be escalating conflicts. Doesn't bode well for their future as neighbors.
                            If thou hast a sorrow, tell it not to the arrow, tell it to thy saddlebow, and ride on, singing. -- King Alfred the Great

                            Comment


                            • #54
                              Originally posted by Barnfairy View Post
                              Not sure this guy's pet bun-buns qualify as livestock any more than my "precious horsies", and he's not a jerk for protecting them. He's a jerk for resorting to deadly force. I wasn't there, and neither were any of you, but I strongly suspect that there could have been a resolution to this conflict which left both rabbits and dog alive.
                              Good thing we still live in a nation where law, not opinions, rule.

                              Comment


                              • #55
                                Folks, don't bother replying. You can't inform those with made up minds.

                                The article is slanted against anyone owning a firearm. Period.
                                Anyone who owns a legal firearm and uses it for legal purposes is "trigger happy" and a killer.

                                Same on here. Those who read the article and agree that anyone who owns a firearm is a trigger happy killer will always believe that. No matter what you try to explain to them.

                                A outside rabbit isn't as sweet and cuddle as someone's dog to them. They will choose the animal they identify most with and side with that. And they'll side against anyone who owns and uses firearms.

                                They actually believe rabbits and horses are not livestock. Despite the legal definition of livestock. And apparently it is now up to livestock owners to fence OUT neighbor dogs...
                                You jump in the saddle,
                                Hold onto the bridle!
                                Jump in the line!
                                ...Belefonte

                                Comment


                                • #56
                                  Originally posted by MistyBlue View Post
                                  Folks, don't bother replying. You can't inform those with made up minds.

                                  The article is slanted against anyone owning a firearm. Period.
                                  Anyone who owns a legal firearm and uses it for legal purposes is "trigger happy" and a killer.

                                  Same on here. Those who read the article and agree that anyone who owns a firearm is a trigger happy killer will always believe that. No matter what you try to explain to them.

                                  A outside rabbit isn't as sweet and cuddle as someone's dog to them. They will choose the animal they identify most with and side with that. And they'll side against anyone who owns and uses firearms.

                                  They actually believe rabbits and horses are not livestock. Despite the legal definition of livestock. And apparently it is now up to livestock owners to fence OUT neighbor dogs...
                                  +1

                                  Comment


                                  • #57
                                    If you read the comments on some of the articles regarding this story there are wackadoos seeking vengeance against the rabbits, of all parties. I saw one comment where a guy said if it was his dog that was killed, the rabbits would be in stew.

                                    I really hope the ex-cop brings those bunnies in for awhile.

                                    I guess the moral of this story for a lot of folks is 1) Dogs > Rabbits and 2) if you own a gun -- and especially God forbid you use it, even legally -- you're automatically a trigger-happy loon
                                    *Wendy* 4.17.73 - 12.20.05

                                    Comment


                                    • #58
                                      Originally posted by Barnfairy View Post
                                      Hardly. I merely took a more reasonable and neighborly route, because not only do I want to stop my animals from being harassed, I also want to live peaceably with my neighbors. ....
                                      This is what I'm trying to get at -- that there are lots of contexts to this situation -- such as whether or not it's worth it to escalate a "feud" with a neighbor or not by killing his/her dog, vs. protecting one's own animals, keeping in mind immediate dangers, recurrent problems, etc. etc. Obviously different people are going to draw different lines in this situation. This person shot the dog. Somebody else might've tried another response. But then by killing the dog, other reactions/repercussions happen, so then those have to be considered.

                                      Although the circumstances were vastly different, this reminds me of the recent thread by a barn manager whose arena had been quite torn up by the property owner, and the BM's request here on the forum for repair ideas kept getting derailed into advice-givers telling her she should get a lawyer, make him pay for the damage, check her lease pronto, etc. etc., all of which seemed pretty reasonable to me and a lot of other folks, but the BM already knew she wasn't going to pursue anything like that, because the apparent ruin of the arena took place in a context of an otherwise good leasing situation for the BM. I am in no way comparing an arena to the loss of an animal, just saying that this situation with the dog and the rabbits sure seems to have been part of a context of human relationships, in this case not especially good ones per the report, and again maybe there were ways to solve things without an animal's death.

                                      Well, I am seriously rambling here so I will stop.
                                      If thou hast a sorrow, tell it not to the arrow, tell it to thy saddlebow, and ride on, singing. -- King Alfred the Great

                                      Comment


                                      • #59
                                        The guy was upstairs in his house, watching a dog -- that he said he didn't recognize until AFTER it was dead -- with the intent to do damage perhaps seconds away from getting into his rabbit pen. He fired a warning shot and the dog ignored it. So he did what he could in his position to protect his animals.

                                        You're acting like this guy lured the dog into his yard to shoot it. I see a guy in a panic doing the best he could to protect what was important to him.

                                        I feel bad the dog's safety wasn't important enough to its owners. The ex-cop said it's not the first time the dog wandered into his yard.
                                        *Wendy* 4.17.73 - 12.20.05

                                        Comment


                                        • #60
                                          It's a shame that it had to end with the dog dead, but I can't say that I blame the rabbit owner at all. Dog was clearly treaspassing, he felt his rabbits where in danger of being killed, so he did what was necesary to protect them.

                                          Sounds like this had been happening repeatedly, too. I would not have blamed him at all if this was the first time it happened.

                                          I have a neighbor who lets his dogs run loose. I live in a townhome development in a very densely populated area. These dogs will chase me and my dogs while I'm walking - and I have a dog that has been attacked by other loose dogs, so gets very upset about this. There are leash laws in the township, and also in the bylaws for my community. I've tried talking to the neighbor (he's a complete ahole), I've complained to the township, I've complained to the association. He's gotten warning letters but has not stopped letting the dogs run loose.

                                          Just saying that you can't reason with some people.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X