Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Follow up

A couple of topics for discussion.

First, I think "Dog People are Nuts" nailed "Goose's" breed.  Goose may be a Brindle Lurcher.   Or, WAS LOLOLLULZZZ!

From Wiki:  "The lurcher has as many varied uses as types can be crossbred, but generally they are used as hunting dogs that can chase and kill their prey"  This seems consistent with the behavior reported in the cop's back yard.   Sounds like a great dog to simply turn loose in your suburban neighborhood.  Its all good!

Second, the update on next door IS....

... The dog has not been seen or heard from in a week.  The guy must have been dog sitting, or the visit from AC turned him off REAL fast.  I am assuming the former.  If so, the guy is probably the worst dog sitter EVER - leaving a dog tied out on a short leash, in the broiling heat and then a dangerous thunderstorm?   Why do dog lovers think this sort of behavior is OK?   If we were to ban this type of behavior, the majority of nuisance barking would go away.  It SHOULD be a win-win.  However, when we complain, we are told to shut up and sit down.

The above appears to be more "bait 'n switch" from the dog loving crowd.  "See, dogs are incredibly intelligent, super sentient creatures superior to humans and all other animals!"  OK, then why the hell do you leave your dog chained to a truck axle 24x7??  "Who cares, its only a dog!".

This type of behavior is also referred to as "moving the goalposts" and dog lovers and apologistas must be super athletic from this nonstop frenzied moving of said goalposts.  It is hard to keep up with them!

Monday, June 22, 2015

Look what I got next door!

And, it barks!

Anyone care to guess the breed???


I called AC and reported the issue.   As predicted, the concern was only for the dog.  They are going to send an officer out today to talk to the owner about his lousy pet care.  All he will get at this point is a warning.   They weren't interested in seeing the photos or taking a full statement at this time.

At least the ball is rolling.  Its the first step on the paper trail.

On Tuesday (yesterday) the dog was only our for an hour or so (same conditions).   I can't see over there too well since a fence divides the properties.

Hopefully, I will still be alive to pursue this:  The character next door is very interesting.  He seems pretty mild *most* of the time, but will dial the aggression from a 1 to a 10 VERY quickly.

Does the fun EVER stop?

Friday, June 12, 2015

Down with the barkers!

A neighbor with a uselessly barking dog is the death of a thousand cuts.  The Dogocracy demands that we "get used to it", but the hell with them!

As usual: 

On to the topic at hand:  My esteemed peer, Dogs Bite Decatur AL is having some MAJOR difficulties with the pit breeder next door.  The most immediate problem being INCESSANT, USELESS, FOUL, NOXIOUS BARKING!  They cannot sleep in their home!

Nobody should have to live like this.  I found out the other day that some places ban ICE CREAM TRUCK BELLS for disturbing the peace!  Yes, but FIDO gets to make all the noise he wants!   Like, we are NOT living under the hegemony of the Dog?

Barnyard animals are banned except in rural areas and those zoned agricultural.  The biggest cat I can own is a Maine Coon (average weight ~18 lbs), yet Decatur's neighbor gets to have a backyard full of massive Mega Supermaulers?  How fair or reasonable is that?

In any case, read the article.  Think about it.  There has to be a solution here.  I have posted on the page in question a couple of times.

This blog has a VERY astute readership and commentariat.  I have exhausted my means (for now), but I'm sure some of you people have an idea or two.  There HAS to be a solution here.   Read the article, and comment here or on Dogs Bite Decatur Al.

Monday, June 8, 2015

Dangerous victims, part II

And it ends with a bang!  A Jacksonville, FL deputy shoots trespassing dog in the head.

Excerpts from the article [with my comments added].

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Off-duty Jacksonville Sheriff's Office Sergeant C. Bradley Shivers shot his neighbor's dog in the head Friday afternoon after the dog wandered into his backyard through a hole in the fence. [A head shot!  Now, THAT is some serious gun control!]

Sgt. Shivers was the one who called police, and he explained to on-duty officers that the dog, named Goose, had ran into his backyard through a hole in his fence while he and his family were around the pool.  [Aww.... Goose just wanted to join the pool party!]

According to police, Sgt. Shivers told officers he promptly found a rake and attempted to run the dog off. He said he'd had several run ins with the animal and a rake usually did the trick.  

However, according to Sgt. Shivers, the dog would not 'back down' and kept circling his pool, barking with aggression.   [Hey, I thought only Pit Bulls acted aggressively????]

After that, Sgt. Shivers ran into his home and retrieved his agency-approved personal Glock .27 with JSO-issued rounds inside. Before opening fire, Sgt. Shivers told police that he tried to scare the dog off again with a rake. 

At this time, Sgt. Shivers slipped in the soft dirt around his pool deck and fell, according to police. Sgt. Shivers then told police the dog lunged at him - and he opened fire, hitting the dog in the head.  [I'd be glad to know him!  (the cop not the dog)]

Just after the shot was fired, Goose's owner, Chelsea Pavish, 23, came over to Sgt. Shivers's backyard.

Lets stop for a longer comment.  This dog owner REGULARLY harasses her neighbors with her dog, refusing to control it in any way.  They typical dog owning assumption being, everyone can kiss my dog's ass and the hell with everyone else!   She doesn't do a damn thing to control her dog until a gun goes off!

If your dog is trespassing and threatening a neighbor, you IMMEDIATELY stop what you are doing and fetch the dog.  If you have to shoot the dog YOURSELF, then so be it.

Pavish claims there are problems in Sgt. Shivers's narrative of the events, wondering how, if the dog was so aggressive and such a threat, he could run inside and find a gun before trying to shoo it away with a rake. She was not a witness to the shooting, however.

The problem, you dog loving shithead, was that you let your dog run wild and could care less about the harm it brought to others.  The man ran inside to get his gun BECAUSE his family was still outside AND he is under no obligation to surrender HIS backyard to you and your dog!  He went for the gun because Goose was too nasty and too stupid to have any sense beaten into him with a rake.

Pavish claims she's never had any problems with Sgt. Shivers in the past. Pavish blamed Sgt. Shivers saying the officer had a broken fence that he neglected to fix.

Again, Pavish is your typical narcissistic, totally self-absorbed, dog worshiping social parasite.  Yes, SHE did not have any problems with HIM prior to the shooting because it was HER dog harassing HIM on HIS property!  This is a variation of the "Its not bothering me" excuse that owners of yard barkers deploy from time to time.   Again, as long as the dog and the owner get what THEY want, its all good!  I'm sure Pavish expected the neighbors to wait until the dog sent somebody to the hospital, at which point she would have blamed the victim.

Moreover, in regards to the fence:  Listen carefully dog people -YOU are obligated to keep your dogs confined to YOUR space.  WE are not obligated to keep them out of ours!  We have an unconditional right to dog free private properties!

I am 100% on the side of the shooter on this one.  Pavish, the dog owner, owns this result flat out.   She not only owned a nasty ass dog but she neglected to control it.  This was a repeat offender and no mercy or flexibility should have been given.   Dog owners - if you fail to control your dogs, someone else will and you may not like what they do.

Don't forget to check out the "Justice for Goose" Facebook page.  While good, its not a true classic like WMBC.


[Update on 6/11]

"The Breed Switcheroo"

Consider the related Care2 page soliciting signatures for.... what?  I am not sure exactly.  What is the penalty for shooting a nasty-ass dog on your own land?   I would say NOTHING in most places, just as it should be.

Note that the page has collected nearly 74,000 signatures as I write this.  Interestingly, this is about the same number of "likes" that dear St. Mick got on his FB page.  

In any case, Goose's owner has been claiming he is a "Basset Hound", and this was the picture put on the Care2 page:

The dog indicated in the photo above was/is not the dog involved in the Jacksonville shooting incident.  It appears to be a stock photo of a basset hound.

BELOW are photos of the actual Goose, taken from the same site and other news sites:

It is readily apparent that Goose is (was? LOL!) not a basset hound.  If Goose is a basset hound, I am freaking Godzilla.   While it might be tough to say what he IS, its pretty easy to say what he ISN'T.

Thursday, June 4, 2015

Dangerous victims, part 1

Canine immunity - one of my main overarching themes.  This violates a primary civilizational principle of due process.  Due process *should* be granted to victims as well as perpetrators.  Why is it only the dog and the dog owner that is protected by "the system"?  Do not the rest of us have rights as well?   The government tells us "Put your blood feuds aside and let us dispense justice.  Give the system a chance to work".   Riiiiiiight!   That works when the "system" is not in the hip pocket of a certain special interest (cough, cough).

I have noted in the past that while dogs and their owners have protection from the government, that government can't be everywhere all the time.  Whether dog lovers like it or not, Fido is still beholden to the laws of nature and physics (see here and here).   Dogs and their owners may also face retribution from outraged victims.

On that note, British pilot drowns his neighbor's chronically barking dog.

Excerpts from the article [with my comments inserted].

A pilot drowned his neighbour’s dog in a bucket because he was fed up with hearing it barking from ‘morning until night’. 

Stephen Woodhouse, 52, lost his temper as he mowed his lawn and grabbed Meg the border terrier.  [He could hear the dog barking over the sound of the lawn mower?  Well, yes... dogs are LOUD]
After killing the pet – which had been bought as a companion for his neighbour’s disabled daughter who died aged ten – he dumped its corpse under a hedge.

Let me insert a longer comment here:  Forcibly drowning something / somebody is VERY personal.  You have to dunk it in water and hold it there while it struggles. This guy must have been SUPER pissed off!!

There was some building work being done and a big bucket of water, so I stuck it in the bucket until it stopped moving. I never thought of the consequences.’  [Uhhh... I guess not!]

When the Boddingtons reported seven-year-old Meg missing, dozens of villagers began searching for the little dog.

But the terrier’s fate was only revealed when a suspicious Mrs Boddington searched the boot of Woodhouse’s car. She found a rope and dog hair and alerted the police.

Lets stop here for a minute:  Consider that "Mrs Boddington (the owner) searched the boot (trunk) of Woodhouse's car".  OK - how the hell does a dog owner have the right to trespass search other people's cars?   You can't go around searching other people's houses and cars based on a suspicion.  Hey dog owners - I think I lost my watch.... I am going to toss your homes and your cars until I FIND THAT WATCH!  Idiots.
Defending, Sara-Lise Hawe said Woodhouse had recently suffered a heart attack and was still recovering at the time. She said the dog had ‘barked from morning until night’.
Mrs Hawe added: ‘He found it impossible to be in his garden. Mr Woodhouse is not a man who likes to complain but he had spoken to the council and he was at his wits’ end.  [Authorities did absolutely nothing to ameliorate the problem - as usual].

The Flybe pilot, who was yesterday sentenced to 12 weeks in jail, suspended for two years, later told police: ‘I reached my wits’ end. All I could think of was that the noise had to stop. It was driving me bloody mad  [I've been there a few times!]. I walked across my paddock, up to their fence, and the dog was about five metres away.

‘All I had to do was whistle and it trotted over. When it got to the fence, I picked it up and walked back across my paddock.There was some building work being done and a big bucket of water, so I stuck it in the bucket until it stopped moving. I never thought of the consequences.’

Again, this is the act of someone who is SUPER pissed off.  Given that this guy was gainfully employed, and not already in jail, I come to the conclusion that he must have suffered substantial barking torment for a long period of time.  This was exacerbated by the fact that the local authorities blew him off (welcome to the party, pal!).

Pro-barkers and apologistas need to contemplate the following:  This man was allegedly prevented from sleeping in his home by the neighbors yard barker.  Lack of sleep is equivalent to intoxication, and that has been proven.  Had the problem persisted, consider that the barking might have been the indirect cause of an airline crash!   How would you like it if YOU and your dog were on that plane?  I do not think you would like it too much.

I cannot directly condone what Woodhouse did, nor can I encourage others to act as he did.  That said, if I were on a jury for a case like this, I would either vote to aquit or nullify.  I would NOT grant the dog or the owner any state protection.  

Consider that Woodhouse had no protection from the dog or the owner.  The dog was allowed to destroy the peace for an extended time.  The dog owner was allowed to trespass and search Woodhouse's private belongings.  Where is the justice in that?   Why is there protection FROM this man, but none FOR him?   Vice Versa for the owner - there is protection FOR them, but none FROM them.  In a situation like that, is it really that surprising someone like Woodhouse would take matters into his own hands?

Now, I would vote to convict in a case like this if:
A)  The dog owner was fined substantially for disturbing the peace, and 
B)  The dog owner was banned from owning pets, and
C)  The dog owner was arrested for trespass and "searching" others private belongings. 

Of course, none of the above were done.  The dog owner is free to get another dog and go back to tormenting their neighbors.  Its all good!

One interesting takeaway from this incident are the comments under the article linked above.  It appears that many of the commenters have at least some sympathy for Woodhouse.   I.E. "I don't condone what he did, but....", more or less my position.   Another takeaway is, Meg's owners didn't care about her.  If they did, they would not have left her out to bark all the time.  They are lousy pet owners with no standards and they should not be allowed to own pets.

My verdict:  Woodhouse and Meg are the victims.  Dog owners and authorities are the perpetrators.