A news article in last week’s Progress detailed a case where a sheriff’s deputy shot a dog claimed to have been aggressive. It was the first incident of a dog being shot since an animal control ordinance adopted earlier this summer created local laws and protocols to handle animal complaints.
It would be an exaggeration to say there has been a public uproar on this issue, but we have received a steady stream of comments about it.
Some said that, albeit unfortunate, it’s time the county was able to deal with dogs that threaten people. Others, however, put forward the view it was a lack of training, some negligence, over-zealous enforcement or a form of dog-persecution that led an officer to shoot the dog ––one that was, according to the owner, playful, not vicious.
The officer involved was one with animal control training. And it makes sense he probably has some positive interest in animals. This officer could have just as easily stuck to regular duty if he weren’t favorably disposed to four-legged critters.
It comes as no surprise animal lovers weren’t happy with news of the dog’s shooting. Several said in public hearings prior to adoption of the animal control ordinance that firepower should be an absolute last resort.
But, assuming the case was accurately depicted on law enforcement incident reports, this is exactly what many people wanted in an animal control ordinance.
For years, this newspaper has taken calls from homeowners exasperated by a perceived lack of concern on the part of law officers when these folks felt threatened by dogs near their homes. In the case of this recent dog shooting, as in many cases reported to us over the years, the dog in question often wandered from his owner’s property.
Prior to the ordinance, the scenario was always the same: someone would feel a nearby dog was vicious and likely to maul them or, more commonly, their children. The homeowner would call 911 and would eventually be told by a law officer there wasn’t much they could do. Sheriff Donnie Craig stated when implementing the ordinance that those days were over.
In the case reported last week, according to the officer, the dog presented an immediate threat. With future cases, we hope, the officer can make other arrangements to subdue the animal, such as impounding it or requiring the owner to keep the animal properly secured.
The letter from the dog’s owner was heart-wrenching. Many employees of this newspaper have dogs. Some of us are even former officers of Pickens Animal Rescue, so we know the loss of a pet isn’t one to be taken lightly.
But we also recall a phone call last winter before the ordinance when a very worried woman said two large dogs had just killed her pet dog in her own yard. To make matters worse, the dogs were headed into an area where she knew children were playing. Deputies responded but had already told her they couldn’t do much.
Pickens needs this new ordinance. One unpopular incident, where proper protocol was followed, most likely, doesn’t diminish the threat roaming animals pose. National headlines were made near Athens this summer when a professor and his wife were both killed by a dog pack near their home.
Discussing this topic, Progress employees told stories of dogs in their vicinity at one time or another that would come out to bark and growl whenever they walked past. Owners often offered reassurances: “They don’t bite.” – “They just want to see who’s walking past.” – “They’re just big babies.”
Maybe owners were right. No one in our group had actually been bitten or mauled. But being defensive or protective is a good trait in a dog only when it’s home. A quick Internet search will show you roaming pooches aren’t always big babies.
The time arrived to add county animal control. Now it’s up to all of us to manage our pets within the codes put in place. If your dog is roaming around, you better do something about it – even if you think it wouldn’t hurt a flea.
|
|
