Incident while setting up trail camera

[dstegjas]

Several years ago I talked to a game warden about wild dogs in the area. He told me that anytime I see a dog chasing a deer, go ahead and shoot it. He said that it didn't matter if they were wild or just a pet that was roaming free at the time. Any dog chasing deer in the field are fair game. It seems that our law enforcement officers have no sympathy for dogs in the wild.

Jim

 

[buck460XVR]

Several years ago I talked to a game warden about wild dogs in the area. He told me that anytime I see a dog chasing a deer, go ahead and shoot it. He said that it didn't matter if they were wild or just a pet that was roaming free at the time. Any dog chasing deer in the field are fair game. It seems that our law enforcement officers have no sympathy for dogs in the wild.

Jim

I suggest folks research the laws of their state before they start shooting any dog, wild or a pet, that isn't a direct and immediate threat to them. In Wisconsin, you better have bite marks on you somewhere on you or your property(dog/cat/livestock) before you shoot a dog. If it's chasing deer you need to report it, but you do not have the authority or the law behind you to shoot it. If you do shoot it, be prepared to dig deep into your pockets for reimbursement/fines and expect to see your name in the paper in the court document section being charged with animal cruelty.

A dog, 20 yards away, IMHO, is not a serious threat to an adult with a high powered rifle, even if it appears to be attacking. In the case of the OP, I certainly wold have waited to see if the dog was bluffing or going to back off. A warning shot would have seemed more prudent with the animals still 60 feet away. I would have been more concerned with what the OP described as animal bawls and if there was indeed an animal back in the brush, that was suffering.

Been bitten several times by dogs. I carry a revolver when walking my dog just in case. Have been charged by a multitude of dogs over the years that were just bluffing or acting tuff only to have them stop a few yards away. A defenseless child is one thing. An adult with a firearm with a high cap mag is another. I am not saying what the OP did was wrong. I'm saying he did what he thought was necessary for his safety. Some, in the same situation, may have done differently. Definitely a "one had to be there" scenario.

 

[rule303]

I had a similar situation a few years ago with a Blue Heeler that was roaming the area. I came home to it trying to get into our dog kennel, and managed to scare it off. A few days later it charged at me, but I had a Mini-14 with me. I took it out, and I felt bad about it. I am a hunter, but also a pet owner.
Dogs and cats have no business being left to roam. I live in a fairly rural area not too far from the cities, and dirt bags seem to think it is a good idea to drive up here to "set free" their unwanted pets. The reality is that they will be eaten by wolves or coyotes, hit by cars, shot, caught in traps, starve, or contract a disease causing a slow and painful death. If you can't care for your pet, give it to someone who can, or have it put down. Most dogs and cats that are released to the wild will die within a few weeks. The ones that survive and become feral have a very negative impact on game populations and livestock.

 

[dstegjas]

I suggest folks research the laws of their state before they start shooting any dog, wild or a pet, that isn't a direct and immediate threat to them.

I would hope that anyone that is a hunter or shooting a gun for any reason would check there local and state laws before discharging any firearm.

To help clarify what I said in my post. I live in Ohio and was talking to a game warden in the Wayne National forest when he made his comments to me.

Jim

 

[Berger.Fan222]

I suggest folks research the laws of their state before they start shooting any dog, wild or a pet, that isn't a direct and immediate threat to them. In Wisconsin, you better have bite marks on you somewhere on you or your property(dog/cat/livestock) before you shoot a dog. I ...

In most states a situation where a reasonable man would be in fear of bodily harm to himself, another, a pet, or livestock is sufficient.

Suggesting that one wait until ACTUAL injury has occurred is foolish. Imminent injury is sufficient.

But given that dog owners may be likely to seek legal damages, the best approach would be SSS: shoot, shovel, and shut-up.

 

[Iron Sight]

Was running / Jogging on a beach once. A pack of dogs came up on me at my side there was a mean looking one at the front. Decided to do something and threw a rock at the leader. He picked up the rock then came over and dropped the rock at my feet.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I haven't had to shoot a dog. My father has.

I was in the house one day and my daughter wants to go outside and play. I didn't really feel like going out, but my dad was outside (we lived next door at the time). I told he to stay where her papa could see her and she went out.

About 15 minutes later I hear a .22 go off. I step outside and dad is holding his Marlin 60 and a huge black dog is limping off (He nearly always kept something handy when he was outside). It looked to be hit pretty hard (as hard as it can from a .22 anyway).

Now we lived in the sticks at the time and had strays or the neighbors dogs come up in the yard all the time. My daughter loved dogs and would play with the ones that would come up to her. Well she, being 6-7 years old at the time, just saw a dog and wanted to pet it. She took a step or two towards it and it lowered its head and started growling. She backs away when she sees this and the dog starts walking towards her, with fangs still bared growling. Next second, bang! That's all it took.

We're not necessarily animal lovers, but we certainly have no patience for people being cruel to animals. We never had a problem with the neighbors' dogs coming around, but the first time dad saw one show aggression towards his grandkid, it was lights out. Never saw that dog again, so I'm assuming it died. I hate it, but a big dog can do a lot of damage to a small child in a hurry.

 

[BigBore45]

About 4 years ago I went into a fenced back yard to work on an A/C unit for a lady in a very small town ( about 35 houses) and the lady came out the back door and told me not to move. ( i had talked to her and was given permission to go threw the gate on the side of the house.) I looked up to see a pack of un-registered wolfs surrounding me. Her reply to my concealed carry was overly dramatic. I walked out very slowly with gun drawn. they let me leave but walked with me until the gate was closed. She started apologizing to me saying her husband forgot to put them in there cage. Her "dogs" were not nice to strangers. just so happens there not nice to the animal control people either. they had found 7 unregistered wolfs on a anonymous tip. the fence was pretty bad shape and there where children in that community . so i made the call.

 

[swampcrawler]

Only ever had 2 issues with dogs. When I was young (8 or 9) we lived in the absolute middle of nowhere. Same kind of thing others have mentioned, folks liked to come out there to dump unwanted pets. At the time we had several Pit bulls. I love them. Ours were either fenced or chained even though we lived so far out. One was a small female that had been badly abused before we got her and was extremely timid. Being a kid growing up in the middle of nowhere I usually carried a rifle or shotgun around even then. A black blur came flying across the yard and tore into the female pit. It was a large black lab someone had dropped off. The timid dog wasn't one for fighting even though she was a pit. As soon as there was enough space between them my old winchester 94 resolved the issue.


Second time was just sitting on a deer stand when one of the same kind of strays came running by trailing something. I pulled my broad head arrow off and quickly knocked a flu-flu arrow with a large rubber blunt and thumped it in the hind leg as it ran past. Didn't want to kill it, just to let it know to avoid that particular section of woods.

 

[jmorris]

We have had more than a few dogs show up from time to time. Had a few that almost got shot for chasing the cows and calves around. Kind of liked having them rush into the barns before I entered. If the ever acted aggressive to me, I would have dropped them like a bad habit.

Guess that is one of the only thing good about feral cats. They get rid of the critters you don't want and they don't want to be seen.

 

[bldsmith]

in Oregon, Any dog acting in an aggressive manner, outside its own home area, is fair game. Any dog harassing livestock, wildlife etc, (with the exception of chickens) is also fair game in Oregon. If a dog was charging me in the woods or on my property in an aggressive manner it will be shot. Likewise if they are chasing the neighbors sheep or the cows down the road. And definitely if they are chasing deer.

 

[buck460XVR]

I would hope that anyone that is a hunter or shooting a gun for any reason would check there local and state laws before discharging any firearm.

We all hope that, but from many of the posts here and on other gun forums asking questions after the fact, it's pretty obvious that many folks wander into the woods without really knowing what is legal or not, especially when it comes to most anything besides what they may be hunting at the time.

Same goes for folks taking legal advice from random folks on the internet. No need and foolish. Google and your local LEO/DNR/F&G web site and their "contact us" link is a better place to ask.

In most states a situation where a reasonable man would be in fear of bodily harm to himself, another, a pet, or livestock is sufficient.

Suggesting that one wait until ACTUAL injury has occurred is foolish. Imminent injury is sufficient.

But given that dog owners may be likely to seek legal damages, the best approach would be SSS: shoot, shovel, and shut-up.

Any suggestion of SSS is generally an indication of doing something wrong, either legally or ethically. If there is sufficient proof of imminent injury or death, why would one need to hide any evidence? In the case of a dog attack, there is always a chance of Rabies, especially when the attack is done by a dog from an unknown origin with a lack of vaccination records. Why would one stupidly bury any evidence of a local rabies threat?

In those states where reasonable fear of imminent injury is a legal defense, those folks doing the shooting generally are protected against civil and criminal charges by the dog owners. Again, simple case of knowing your local/state laws.

As I said in my first post, I carry a gun when I walk my dog, not only for defense against two legged predators, but from 4 legged predators and dogs roaming loose. There is a certain amount of threat from all of them. But shooting a dog at the range of 20 yards/60 feet would be questionable as to whether or not there really was/is an imminent threat and would probably be questioned as such by LEOs and the owners of the dogs. At a distance where a bite could be made or where there is evidence of a attack, there would not be any doubt. Here's an example. Few years back, the local K-9 officer lived two houses down from me. His dog was very aggressive towards my dog and frequently attacked it to the point of even following my dog and 4 year old son into our house when they tried to get away from it. I complained several times to the local Fire and Police commission but got nothing but claims of being over reactive. Wasn't until I went to a board meeting with a torn pair of pants from an encounter on the street in front of my house, with witnesses claiming my dog was on a lease and the K-9 dog was loose, was there any type of action taken. 60 feet is halfway across our neighbor's yard. Even with prior complaints, I doubt very much if I would have been exonerated for shooting the K-9 at that distance.

But, an adult with a high powered, hi-capacity weapon should have little or no fear from two dogs in the woods. There is not much of a threat because the adult has so much firepower available and easily has the upper hand. Again, as I said before, I am not saying what the OP did was wrong or that he indeed was not afraid of being attacked. I'm only stating that I would have had to have more evidence of there being a real threat than a dog running at me from 20 yards away. I've watched my own dog, just a week ago, act very aggressively towards my oldest son as he walked towards the cabin dressed in full camo, face painted and smelling like a doe in heat. At twenty yards my GWP barked and snarled at him even tho they have known each other since she was a pup. She was only defending her territory. Altho she did not attack him, she did get to within 20 yards while acting aggressively. Once she realized it was him, she ran up to him wagging her tail and ran around him excitedly, licking his hand and sniffin' his boots. What was a threat @ twenty yards, was nuttin' at 5. Now, what if that bow hunter had been the OP and not my son and shot my dog @ twenty yards because she was protecting her territory from a stranger like she has been taught?


....maybe that's where the SSS comes in.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Dogs in the wild or otherwise roaming free don't bother me when it comes to taking action against them. It's cut-and-dry with no real emotional involvement in it.

The ones that really get me riled up, though, are other people's pets that aren't properly cared for and restrained. Those people deliberately place their pets in harms way, not to mention placing other people in harms way, when they don't properly care for their them.

Several years ago I delivered a pizza to a guy and his little dog came racing around the corner and proceded to gnaw on my ankle like the weasel in the old Foghorn Leghorn cartoons. No warning posted, no sign that the dog was there before I walked up to the house.

I leaned over and did a full arm swing like a golf club and smacked that dog so hard he sailed halfway across the yard before coming to the end of his chain (yeah, the little runt was on an actual chain), jerked to a stop and fell back to the ground.

THEN the owner started chewing me out for attacking the dog! I told him that he's free to call the police and explain to them why he had a dog with an attitude problem out where it could bite the guy he called to deliver a pizza. And then I told him that if it ever happened again to me when I delivered a pizza to his house, I'd be serving the dog up on the pizza.


Dogs roaming around are one thing and I can be dispassionate about them. But pets? If they're causing problems, it's because the OWNERS are allowing it.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Any suggestion of SSS is generally an indication of doing something wrong, either legally or ethically. If there is sufficient proof of imminent injury or death, why would one need to hide any evidence?

In America, a desire for privacy should never be taken as evidence for guilt. The Constitution guaranteed this, but this guarantee is increasingly ignored.

The burden of proof should ALWAYS be on the prosecutor or plaintiff. In "animal cruelty" cases, the burden of proof is often shifted to the defendant.

I can cite numerous cases of self-defense against animals where criminal charges have been brought by overzealous prosecutors because the evidence of legitimate self-defense was ambiguous once investigators decide to ignore the only available eyewitness accounts.

When an animal is charging a person and a person shoots it, it is hard for the shooter to prove the distances involved, much less the speed and apparent disposition of the aggressive animal. If the plaintiff or prosecutor ignores the available eyewitness account, there may be little physical evidence to discount alternate theories by overzealous plaintiffs or prosecutors. Avoiding possible legal entanglements seems like the best policy.

In a legitimate self-defense shooting of an animal, the best course of action is usually to leave the scene for a safer place, because one should be concerned with ongoing aggression from the original aggressive animal or others (they often travel in packs). If one makes a sufficiently hasty exit, one may not even know if further aggression was deterred by a hit or by the muzzle blast. One only knows that the attack was deterred and that one successfully escaped and evaded further harm.

 

[buck460XVR]

In America, a desire for privacy should never be taken as evidence for guilt. The Constitution guaranteed this, but this guarantee is increasingly ignored.

The burden of proof should ALWAYS be on the prosecutor or plaintiff. In "animal cruelty" cases, the burden of proof is often shifted to the defendant.

I can cite numerous cases of self-defense against animals where criminal charges have been brought by overzealous prosecutors because the evidence of legitimate self-defense was ambiguous once investigators decide to ignore the only available eyewitness accounts.

When an animal is charging a person and a person shoots it, it is hard for the shooter to prove the distances involved, much less the speed and apparent disposition of the aggressive animal. If the plaintiff or prosecutor ignores the available eyewitness account, there may be little physical evidence to discount alternate theories by overzealous plaintiffs or prosecutors. Avoiding possible legal entanglements seems like the best policy.

This has nuttin' to do with privacy. It's about whether or not one made the correct decision. Covering up and destroying evidence is not a sign of good judgement. It ain't hard to prove one needed to defend themselves if they have bite marks on them or torn pants. Easier to prove Self Defense if there are powder burns on the dogs face as opposed to empty rifle cases twenty yards from the dead dog. If you think the need to defend yourself is that questionable, then you should be questioning whether you really need to take the shot. In the case of the OP, these are two domestic dogs against an adult with a high powered weapon capable of firing multiple rounds. Not really a fair fight. The reason the shooting of dogs is so scrutinized in general is because folks tend to shoot them for no good reason.....duh. IMHO, prosecutors should be zealous in prosecuting these morons. The best way to avoid legal entanglements is to be legal. Not to bury evidence that may later be dug up and makes you look even more guilty. This on top of the fact you may be burying evidence of a rabies outbreak.

In a legitimate self-defense shooting of an animal, the best course of action is usually to leave the scene for a safer place, because one should be concerned with ongoing aggression from the original aggressive animal or others (they often travel in packs). If one makes a sufficiently hasty exit, one may not even know if further aggression was deterred by a hit or by the muzzle blast. One only knows that the attack was deterred and that one successfully escaped and evaded further harm.

You're right, in the case of a legitimate self defense shooting of an animal one should be worried about ongoing aggression from that animal or others. Why then, would you ever suggest taking the time and effort to dig a hole and bury the animal to protect your privacy? Again, the suggestion of SSS means you are well aware the threat(if there really was one) is over and you now have the time to reconsider what you did and are worried you made the wrong choice. So you take the time to cover your tracks so to speak. Really no other legitimate reason. If the dog did pose a real threat and attacked you, not only have you done the right thing by putting it down, but you need to alert others to the fact there may be more risks involved. Such as rabies or more aggressive pack animals in the area. Why would you want to keep that from others? Is this "privacy" you speak of more important than some kid later being bit by a rabid dog or even being killed by a pack of feral dogs?

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

They like to bluff charge and posture. Don't show them any sign of fear. The little ones are usually the first ones to bite. If the dog doesn't make contact, who cares. Otherwise stop the attack in whatever way you see fit.

 

[95XL883]

Okay, how about a slightly humorous encounter? I have 40 acres out in the country. Neighbors on the north and south let their dogs run free. These are medium sized dogs but they are a pack of up to 6. My trail cameras routinely get pics of them crossing to go play. One of the dogs looks like a pit bull and almost always barks very aggressively at me, even crossing the fence and approaching while ferociously barking when I am in the field. Now I like dogs and would talk calmly to it but it always kept snarling and barking, ears back and tail up and still.

So a couple of weeks ago, I’m in the woods in a far corner and I see the pack coming. I’m by a fence line, freeze, put my hand on my weapon and wait. The biggest one sees me first, freezes for a second and then turns 180 and runs as fast as it can. (This dog was never friendly but certainly wasn’t intimidated by me before.) The next two see me and make a right turn quickly disappearing into some tall grass.

Now comes the pit bullish looking one. This is the one I do expect some trouble from. He finally sees me and freezes. After a few seconds of this, I start calmly saying “Hi pup. Nice pup.” He starts barking but this time his tale is between his legs and he is lowering his head submissively. I try to re-assure it that I’m friendly only to have it snarl, bark louder and lower itself even further. It finally occurred to me that the dog was so scared in couldn’t think to go a different direction. I move away from the fence and he finally starts to crawl, that’s right crawl, on his belly, all the time barking and snarling like he would rip me to shreds if he could. Once he was past me, he was up and gone at full speed.

So all that barking and snarling was either bluff or just his way of saying he was scared to death. I’m glad I was alert but also not quick on the draw. I grin every time I pass that dog’s house now. He can bark and snarl at me all he wants. As he long as he stays at least 5 feet away I don’t mind.

 

[jyeatts]

I have been charged numerous times but they always stop within 10 feet or so. I would probably never shoot unless bitten. A warning shot would most likely deter it.
Breeds I don't trust are pit bulls, Doberman, and German Shepherds.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

This has nuttin' to do with privacy. It's about whether or not one made the correct decision. Covering up and destroying evidence is not a sign of good judgement.

I've buried many varmints that I've shot, not to destroy evidence (there was no crime) but simply to reduce flies, maggots, and smell around the farm. I've never had a defensive occasion to shoot a domestic dog, but I've killed lots of coyotes, foxes, coons, etc. protecting livestock. If I ever had a similar occasion to shoot a dog, I don't see why I should treat it any differently. The law allows dogs threatening humans or livestock to be shot. There is no legal requirement to make a report or to preserve "evidence" in the case of shooting a domestic dog anymore than when legally shooting a wild varmint.

It ain't hard to prove one needed to defend themselves if they have bite marks on them or torn pants. Easier to prove Self Defense if there are powder burns on the dogs face as opposed to empty rifle cases twenty yards from the dead dog.

One reason for privacy is because there are a lot of ignorant people in the world who do not understand that many animals can run 20-100 yards even after a hit to the vitals with a well-performing bullet, so that the rifle cases may end up further away from the carcass than the distance when the shots were fired.

Those who have experience with aggressive animals that move as fast as dogs (or bears or humans) also know that they will cover some ground before most victims can get off an accurate shot. The standard rule for knife wielding (human) attackers is 21 feet (look up Tueller drill). If you let them get closer, you are going to get cut. Seeing as a charging dog moves faster than most people, it seems a bigger margin would be warranted. Widespread ignorance of these facts may be an additional reason for privacy.

If you think the need to defend yourself is that questionable, then you should be questioning whether you really need to take the shot. In the case of the OP, these are two domestic dogs against an adult with a high powered weapon capable of firing multiple rounds. Not really a fair fight. The reason the shooting of dogs is so scrutinized in general is because folks tend to shoot them for no good reason.....duh.

Each year there are over 350,000 hospital admissions annually for dog attacks with an average hospital bill over $18,000. Most LE agencies have far more justified shootings of domestic animals than threatening humans. In most states, a dog that presents an imminent threat to humans or livestock may be legally shot. One need not wait for injury to actually occur or for the threat to be within powder burn distance.

When dogs are legally shot for threatening humans or livestock, the fault lies with their owners for allowing them to roam uncontrolled and present such a threat. Blame shifters provide additional motive for privacy.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Not hunting, but I put down a pit bullish looking thingy while out walking my dog. I always carry an asp baton with me as well as my CCW and used it to dispatch this dog while it was biting my dog. Don't really feel good about it to this day but it left me no other choice and I still have my dog with me. That one did not have a collar and I was out in the sticks so who knows.

 

[buck460XVR]

I've buried many varmints that I've shot, not to destroy evidence (there was no crime) but simply to reduce flies, maggots, and smell around the farm. I've never had a defensive occasion to shoot a domestic dog, but I've killed lots of coyotes, foxes, coons, etc. protecting livestock. If I ever had a similar occasion to shoot a dog, I don't see why I should treat it any differently. The law allows dogs threatening humans or livestock to be shot. There is no legal requirement to make a report or to preserve "evidence" in the case of shooting a domestic dog anymore than when legally shooting a wild varmint.

First it was to avoid questions about whether the shoot was justified or not. Then it was because of privacy issues. Now it's sanitary reasons that one needs to SSS? That's a pretty far reach when grasping for straws. SSS means Shoot, Shovel and Shut up and refers to hiding the evidence after doing something that is either not legal or ethical. Always has.

One reason for privacy is because there are a lot of ignorant people in the world who do not understand that many animals can run 20-100 yards even after a hit to the vitals with a well-performing bullet, so that the rifle cases may end up further away from the carcass than the distance when the shots were fired.

Again grasping for a straw that is not there. In the case of the OP, he did not SSS, nor did he feel the need. He told the landowner and told all of us here. While I feel he truthfully felt a serious threat and was justified in what he did, I only stated I may have done things differently because of my experience with dogs. I have been bitten by dogs more times than I have fingers. I also have been bluff charged and growled/snarled/barked at countless other times. None of those occasions would have really justified pulling a gun and start shooting.

Those who have experience with aggressive animals that move as fast as dogs (or bears or humans) also know that they will cover some ground before most victims can get off an accurate shot. The standard rule for knife wielding (human) attackers is 21 feet (look up Tueller drill). If you let them get closer, you are going to get cut. Seeing as a charging dog moves faster than most people, it seems a bigger margin would be warranted. Widespread ignorance of these facts may be an additional reason for privacy.

You claim you've never had a defensive occasion with a dog and now claim to be an expert. You are correct, there is widespread ignorance, but it is on both sides of the coin. This is again, why I advise folks to know the laws in their state before taking advice from internet social forums. While in some states, one can freely shoot any dog chasing deer, in my state and others only a Conservation warden or LEO has that authority. If a private citizen does it they open themselves up to a fine and reimbursement costs. The indiscriminate shooting of dogs is why most laws are so protective of them. Again, I have no problem shooting a dog that is clearly a threat, I just want folks to be sure there is a legitimate threat as opposed to the SSS option of shoot now, think later. Dogs bluff, dogs bark, that's what they do. Neither is a legitimate reason to shoot them.

Each year there are over 350,000 hospital admissions annually for dog attacks with an average hospital bill over $18,000. Most LE agencies have far more justified shootings of domestic animals than threatening humans. In most states, a dog that presents an imminent threat to humans or livestock may be legally shot. One need not wait for injury to actually occur or for the threat to be within powder burn distance.

I wonder how many of those bites were obtained when walking in the woods with a high powered rifle? I'm betting the majority of them came from the family house dog biting someone on the owners property. Those attacks by free roaming Pitbulls randomly attacking folks on the street are highly publicized, but very rare. If the victim had a high powered rifle with them, odds are it would be back page news instead of front page. Yes, there are many legitimate attacks from dogs and one should be able to defend themselves.......if the attack is legitimate. If the attack is legitimate, one needs to inform others for the possibility of other threats, especially in the case of rabies or a pack of dogs that got away......as in the OP's scenario. Not SSS and put others at risk. Have you ever shot a rabid animal? I have and the local authorities were all over it like stink on manure. If you think the animal is rabid, avoid shooting it in the head if possible.

When dogs are legally shot for threatening humans or livestock, the fault lies with their owners for allowing them to roam uncontrolled and present such a threat. Blame shifters provide additional motive for privacy.

In most instances where a dog is roaming freely off the owners property, it's hard to shift the blame. You are correct, the owners are clearly to blame and that is recognized by everyone. Again, I have no problem with folks defending themselves against a dog attack, whether it is against themselves, their loved ones or their livestock. None of those cases tho, needs to implement SSS for privacy, sanitation or to avoid prosecution.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

You claim you've never had a defensive occasion with a dog and now claim to be an expert.

Not so. In my very first post in this thread, I described one defensive encounter I've had with a dog. I've had several others as well. There's a difference between never having shot a domestic dog in self-defense (or defense of others) and never having had a defensive occasion. I'm an adult male of above average size, strength, and agility. I have a level of training and ability that enable me to deal with most dog-sized threats without need of firearms. Of course, I recognize this is not true for everyone and may not always be true for me as I age.

As an avid cyclist, encounters with dogs are frequent. Usually, speeding away, a verbal challenge, or a request for the owner to control the animal is sufficient. On one occasion, a German Shepherd came between my children and I while riding and maintained an aggressive pursuit and failed to respond to the owner's command to desist. I had a pistol on my hip on that occasion, but having had numerous dog encounters before on a bike, I had worked through the mechanics of drawing and firing before, and the combination of mechanical challenges and my children downrange made that approach unworkable. Instead, I closed the distance on my bike and gave the dog a solid whack with an aluminum rod that I kept handy as a less lethal dog deterrent while bike riding. One good whack was sufficient to both deter the attack and convince the owner to maintain better control of the animal.

On another occasion, a dog succeeded in biting me on the backside. My jeans were ripped, but the skin was not broken and my advantages in size allowed me to prevent further bites. The animal had not been vaccinated for rabies so there were a tense few weeks while the animal was under observation.

In addition to these three defensive occasions where some level of force was employed, I've also owned numerous dogs through the years so I am well acquainted with both sides of the issues. There is also ample scholarly literature on the issues. This web site is a good place to start:

http://www.dogsbite.org/

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Here's the TX law on dogs and livestock:

Sec. 822.013. DOGS OR COYOTES THAT ATTACK ANIMALS. (a) A dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by:
(1) any person witnessing the attack; or
(2) the attacked animal's owner or a person acting on behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the attack.
(b) A person who kills a dog or coyote as provided by this section is not liable for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in control of the dog or coyote.
(c) A person who discovers on the person's property a dog or coyote known or suspected of having killed livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may detain or impound the dog or coyote and return it to its owner or deliver the dog or coyote to the local animal control authority. The owner of the dog or coyote is liable for all costs incurred in the capture and care of the dog or coyote and all damage done by the dog or coyote.
(d) The owner, keeper, or person in control of a dog or coyote that is known to have attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls shall control the dog or coyote in a manner approved by the local animal control authority.
(e) A person is not required to acquire a hunting license under Section 42.002, Parks and Wildlife Code, to kill a dog or coyote under this section.

 

[Art Eatman]

"Why then, would you ever suggest taking the time and effort to dig a hole and bury the animal to protect your privacy?"

To avoid hassles if some person is so against killing any misbehaving, feral or wild animal that they sic the law on you--even though you're legally and morally correct.

Example: A friend of mine mentioned having shot a coyote. I've no idea who then told whom, but he received a death-threat via telephone because of his "evil deed".

Sure was a pretty shot, though. Offhand, 125 yards on a running-away coyote--and no entry wound.

 

[Sol]

I've had quite a few run-ins with dogs, never shot one.

Though I did see a cop blow away a vicious golden retriever about 20 years ago.
It was in the suburbs so the outrage against the cop shooting the dog was huge.

I saw my neighbor on the news crying and whatnot carrying on about how cops shouldn't shoot dogs. She was a hippyish animal lover so kinda got the gist of her mentality.

The fact of the matter is the dog was vicious and the guy sic'ed the dog on the cops.

Good shoot in my opinion, but to a busy-body suburban housewife it was unjust and cruel.

It really knocked her chakras out of alignment.