Would you shoot ?

[Inebriated]

Okay, after reading that article...

1) The net obviously didn't prevent someone from falling into the enclosure. However, if the kid bounced and an adult would have gotten caught, then it might have been hard for people to get in.Who carries a gun, but not a knife? Would be easy to get through in a hurry.
2) It was a 14-foot drop into the enclosure. That's 1-and-a-half stories, probably onto a hard surface. You'd have to fight those dogs limping. Still better than a kid fighting them.
3) There were 11 total dogs. Grab one, the rest will surround you. Could distract them enough for someone to grab the kid.
4) For some reason, the zoo was afraid to use real tranq darts, but were willing to use live ammo on the one dog. That seems bizarre (the reporter thought so, too).Maybe you can treat a kid with a bullet wound easier than one full of chemicals? EDIT - I forgot police were the ones to use a real firearm.

The bold parts aren't supposed to sound like it would work out perfectly, or that jumping in was the best thing to do, only counterpoints.

Obviously it comes down to whose safety you value more. My child or family? I'd be in right behind them.

 

[Fotno]

So, Fotno, your reasoning is that these things can quickly rip something to shreds, so you'd rather get into the melee than use a ranged weapon?

My reasoning is based on a life time of working in animal rescue and raising large breed dogs, and my belief that a shot into a attacking dog pack, wild or otherwise, is unlikely to have the desired effect. I've seen it tried more than once on feral packs of attacking dogs (known deer killers), and not once did it scatter the pack. Once a pack of canines gets into prey mode, it's hard to get them out of it, even if one or more of their number falls. Add the possibility that you could very easily hit the child, and no, there's no way I'd take that shot.

 

[holdencm9]

In Africa, these dogs actively compete with Lions and Hyenas for food. They use coordinated pack attacks and they don't back down.

I doubt that handgun caliber firearms would have been able to stop these animals in time, but thinking to be able to physically separate these dogs from their prey is really ignorant.

Key word is they "compete" in the wild and often go a long time between meals, and in the zoo they are getting fed well and not desperate. I think taking a couple out with whacks from a stick would do the trick. I have also seen videos of one larger predator scare off a whole pack, and even a youtube video of a single domestic dog fighting off 3 wild dogs. But this is a gun forum not a wildlife behavior forum. So I'll just say we can't know for certain the exact state of mind (sort of speak) of the animals or the humans in the area.

If possible, if I felt I could make a difference, I'd grab whatever I could and hop in. I think the problem is that to get in would take scaling a pretty large ledge and leaping over a safety net (still not sure how the child missed that) and if I felt it was a serious risk to break an ankle or something, I'd probably not go in because in that case I would be just another victim.

Tigers on the other hand, heck no!

 

[Skribs]

11 large predators. I shudder to think of it. It also just occurred to me that my CCW only holds 10 rounds...

Even assuming every round stops a different threat, which chances are it won't (although shooting into a sea of dogs gives you a higher likelihood of hitting something).

My reasoning is based on a life time of working in animal rescue and raising large breed dogs, and my belief that a shot into a attacking dog pack, wild or otherwise, is unlikely to have the desired effect. I've seen it tried more than once on feral packs of attacking dogs (known deer killers), and not once did it scatter the pack. Once a pack of canines gets into prey mode, it's hard to get them out of it, even if one or more of their number falls. Add the possibility that you could very easily hit the child, and no, there's no way I'd take that shot.

So my question then is, what good will it do to go in there and manhandle them? If shooting is too dangerous, all you're doing by going in is adding to their meal.

2) It was a 14-foot drop into the enclosure. That's 1-and-a-half stories, probably onto a hard surface. You'd have to fight those dogs limping. Still better than a kid fighting them.3) There were 11 total dogs. Grab one, the rest will surround you. Could distract them enough for someone to grab the kid.

I still say all you're doing is giving them an extra meal. If the kid just had a 14-foot fall and is being actively ripped apart by almost a dozen dogs, he's pretty well done for. On #2, the kid will still be fighting the dogs. On #3, that means someone else would have to come with you, and fast enough for your sacrifice to not be in vain. This is of course assuming all eleven surround you. If not, then the second helper will still have to fight them off.

If the situation is too dangerous for you to bring a gun to bear, it is that much more dangerous to do something without a gun.

 

[ccsniper]

I have personally witnessed a pack of wild dogs maul a cat to pieces, they do offer decent gut shots when they are to busy attacking. They were on our land couple of years ago and My dad and myself killed them all with a couple of .22's, though the cat still died. The only shots they gave us were gut shots but then again, we weren't interested in saving the cat, only killing the wild dogs. So I would aim for gut shots.

 

[Warp]

A factor: It is much, much easier for the second person to enter than it is for the first. Break the ice/set the example/show that it's possible...you are far more likely to have another person take action if you initiate it than if you wait for them to do so.

So, in other words, the fact that nobody went in doesn't mean that nobody else would if you did.

Just a general behavioral thing to keep in mind.

 

[THe Dove]

I haven't read through all the responses to the OP. That being said, let me throw this in the mix, "your child fell or is in that pen?" What's your response? Does your response change now?

The Dove

 

[blindhari]

This is not a dog pack we are talking about. The name for this critter starts with the word LYCANON. It is a wolf and the only larger wolf is the Grey Timberwolf. They are Approximately 50 to 80 pounds and group themselves into hunting heirarchy based on long term interaction. These guys are capable of taking any punishment you can dish out and still take your leg or arm off. I was stationed in Berlin way back when and we trained in how to kill dogs armed and unarmed. But by the best guess any one could make you could only get one at a time. My arms room, yeah I was armorer, had 6 shortbarrel stevens pump shot guns for taking down war trained dogs. These were sent out in jeep patrols with a sharpshooter and a pintle mounted 30 cal. Our guys up until the 1950s were still getting ripped up on these patrols according to old morning reports. Jumping into an enclosure of Lycanos Pictis (African Painted Dog) with a concealed weapon will only win a Darwin.

blindhari

 

[Rail Driver]

This is not a dog pack we are talking about. The name for this critter starts with the word LYCANON. It is a wolf and the only larger wolf is the Grey Timberwolf. They are Approximately 50 to 80 pounds and group themselves into hunting heirarchy based on long term interaction. These guys are capable of taking any punishment you can dish out and still take your leg or arm off. I was stationed in Berlin way back when and we trained in how to kill dogs armed and unarmed. But by the best guess any one could make you could only get one at a time. My arms room, yeah I was armorer, had 6 shortbarrel stevens pump shot guns for taking down war trained dogs. These were sent out in jeep patrols with a sharpshooter and a pintle mounted 30 cal. Our guys up until the 1950s were still getting ripped up on these patrols according to old morning reports. Jumping into an enclosure of Lycanos Pictis (African Painted Dog) with a concealed weapon will only win a Darwin.

blindhari

There's a BIG difference between war trained dogs and partially domesticated zoo animals.

My kid falls in somehow? (not gonna be because I did something stupid because I have a bit more sense than that) I'm jumping in to do everything I can to save him, and if it's not enough, it's not enough but at least I effing tried rather than just stand there and watch my kid suffer and die while they scream for daddy to save them. Living with that knowing you didn't do everything you could, whether it did any good or not is something I don't ever want to have to face. I'd rather live with knowing that no matter what I did, it wasn't enough but at least I tried.

 

[Apachedriver]

There's a BIG difference between war trained dogs and partially domesticated zoo animals.

My kid falls in somehow? (not gonna be because I did something stupid because I have a bit more sense than that) I'm jumping in to do everything I can to save him, and if it's not enough, it's not enough but at least I effing tried rather than just stand there and watch my kid suffer and die while they scream for daddy to save them. Living with that knowing you didn't do everything you could, whether it did any good or not is something I don't ever want to have to face. I'd rather live with knowing that no matter what I did, it wasn't enough but at least I tried.

I couldn't agree more. Emotional or not, there's no way around that response.

 

[BADUNAME30]

In A, the child dies horribly and in B, maybe you save him or maybe you kill him quickly if you miss. After which you'll be charged with voluntary manslaughter and possibly be sued in to bankruptcy by the child's parents.

I would take that risk in a heartbeat.

 

[Skribs]

There's a BIG difference between war trained dogs and partially domesticated zoo animals.

There's also a difference between going armed with a shotgun ready to fight dogs vs. carrying a pistol and being generally prepared for the idea of being attacked by one assailant who might be deterred. The article did state that they had a pack mentality, and even the trainers couldn't get them all away from the kid quickly (the dogs came away in 2 groups, and even 1 dog had to be shot).

A factor: It is much, much easier for the second person to enter than it is for the first. Break the ice/set the example/show that it's possible...you are far more likely to have another person take action if you initiate it than if you wait for them to do so.

True. But like I said, one or two people, especially bystanders who are not very experienced in handling animals, are probably not going to do much but get mauled themselves.

This isn't a "it isn't their kid, why should they bother?" It's about limiting the number of casualties.

 

[GLOOB]

If the child could be dropped over the fence it wouldn't be that hard to get myself (a fit young man ) over the fence. Given what little info I have I'd probably go over fence first, try to get between the child and danger, using firepower as needed.

This sounds crazy, but I agree. Unless I were willing to go over the fence and shoot the dogs at contact distance, preferably the ones that are now attacking me instead of the child, I wouldn't even consider taking a shot. I'd think that a large male aggressively approaching a pack of dogs would get their attention. I'm reminded of stories of how cougars have been fought off with kicks and sticks whenever there's someone there to help.

If you take pot shots from the sideline, there's only one way for a good outcome, and lots of ways to get a bad outcome. If you go over the fence, you're a hero, regardless.

Would I go over? Well, I guess it would largely depend on how big and scary African painted dogs look up close and personal... and how attractive the mother was.

This is not a dog pack we are talking about. The name for this critter starts with the word LYCANON. It is a wolf and the only larger wolf is the Grey Timberwolf.

I wonder what the statistics are for humans being killed by a pack of wolves. I know it has happened, but I don't think it was very commonplace.

 

[Skribs]

This sounds crazy, but I agree. Unless I were willing to go over the fence and shoot the dogs at contact distance, preferably the ones that are now attacking me instead of the child, I wouldn't even consider taking a shot. I'd think that a large male aggressively approaching a pack of dogs would get their attention. I'm reminded of stories of how cougars have been fought off with kicks and sticks whenever there's someone there to help.

Would I go over? Well, I guess it depends on how big and scary African painted dogs look up close and personal.

The concept of getting close for a better shot I can agree with. I still think you're only going to get through part of the pack before you get mauled, but it's better than the idea I've found absurd through most of this thread that it's safer to fisticuff than shoot.

 

[DAP90]

It's about limiting the number of casualties.

No, it’s not, though to be fair before I had a kid I might have taken your position.

If it were my son I’d go over before he even hit the ground regardless of what animal was inside or if I stood a snowballs chance or doing any good. Doing nothing would be far worse to have to live with.

As for shooting I’d get in close and if he was surrounded use contact shots if I had to; or my knife, or a rock, or a stick or some steel toed boots.

For a stranger’s kid I’d like to think I’d still try.

 

[dbp]

Is it even legal to be carrying at the zoo? Most I have seen are of the "gun-free safety zone" types. If so, now pulling your gun, even if nothing else, might lead to more complications

Moot point here in S.C. The zoo is no-concealed weapon and metal detector at entrance. But, I would like to think I would have tried something. If it were my grandson there is no questioning what I would have done. I might have ended up another victim, but they would have known I was there!

 

[Claymore1500]

I for one, would be right in there with the other fence jumpers.

Possibly in the event there were more like minded people in the crowd that would follow, the dogs would be out numbered and break off the attack to go into defense mode at which time the kid could be pulled to safety.

 

[dbp]

This sounds crazy, but I agree. Unless I were willing to go over the fence and shoot the dogs at contact distance, preferably the ones that are now attacking me instead of the child, I wouldn't even consider taking a shot. I'd think that a large male aggressively approaching a pack of dogs would get their attention. I'm reminded of stories of how cougars have been fought off with kicks and sticks whenever there's someone there to help.

If you take pot shots from the sideline, there's only one way for a good outcome, and lots of ways to get a bad outcome. If you go over the fence, you're a hero, regardless.

Would I go over? Well, I guess it would largely depend on how big and scary African painted dogs look up close and personal... and how attractive the mother was.


I wonder what the statistics are for humans being killed by a pack of wolves. I know it has happened, but I don't think it was very commonplace.

http://www.conservationsafaris.com/Pictures/African_painted_dog_John_Lemon.JPG

Size comparison with adult.

 

[Bobson]

There's also a difference between going armed with a shotgun ready to fight dogs vs. carrying a pistol and being generally prepared for the idea of being attacked by one assailant who might be deterred. The article did state that they had a pack mentality, and even the trainers couldn't get them all away from the kid quickly (the dogs came away in 2 groups, and even 1 dog had to be shot).



True. But like I said, one or two people, especially bystanders who are not very experienced in handling animals, are probably not going to do much but get mauled themselves.

This isn't a "it isn't their kid, why should they bother?" It's about limiting the number of casualties.

I mean no disrespect, but how old are you, Skribs? I usually get the feeling you're in your early 20s - and now I also assume you're unmarried and not a father. Of course there's nothing wrong with any of that. I'm only in my late 20s, been married under three years, and been a parent less than two years. The point is, the way I think has changed dramatically in the last three years, and that's a significant understatement.

In my opinion, there's a time to limit casualties, and there's a time to take risks. When a toddler is being ripped apart by dogs, thats a great time to take risks, if ever there was a time to do so. Five years ago, I'm fairly certain I would have agreed with you.

 

[holdencm9]

Bobson,

The ironic thing is that it makes more sense (if you can call it that) to jump in when you are single and unmarried, as opposed to when you have a family to take care of. Likewise most guys give up their risky habits when the wife and especially kids come along. Motorcycles especially Just thinking out loud. I get what you are saying though.

 

[Skribs]

In my opinion, there's a time to limit casualties, and there's a time to take risks. When a toddler is being ripped apart by dogs, thats a great time to take risks, if ever there was a time to do so. Five years ago, I'm fairly certain I would have agreed with you.

If there was a chance you could save him, yes. But the situation you will be in - possibly injured from the fall, in the dog's own territory, probably unfamiliar with that breed's mentality and physiology, outnumbered, and the kid's probably already a goner. It's like jumping into a volcano to try and save someone.

You were close (and I just realized it the other day, I'm no longer early twenties): I'm mid-twenties, single, not a father.

 

[Warp]

If there was a chance you could save him, yes. But the situation you will be in - possibly injured from the fall, in the dog's own territory, probably unfamiliar with that breed's mentality and physiology, outnumbered, and the kid's probably already a goner. It's like jumping into a volcano to try and save someone.

You were close (and I just realized it the other day, I'm no longer early twenties): I'm mid-twenties, single, not a father.

And a great many parents would do that.

If there is a chance...no matter how small...there is still a chance.

 

[scaatylobo]

YES

I am reasonably sure I would attempt to take out at least the few dogs that were not in line of fire of the child.

I might go to jail,or not succeed at my goal,but I would be able to live with myself.

If I took no action [ and was armed ] I would regret that forever.

Besides the actual firing of a gun 'might' [ or might not ] have the effect of scaring the dogs away.

I truly believe it would be worth CAREFUL shots at the dogs.

And yes,I would have to destroy them due to the moronic action of a 'parent' - if you can call the jerks that.

And I also agree that if you were in really good physical condition and could vault the fence [ as was already mentioned and kudos to him - I was many decades ago ] then IF anyone followed = you might save the child.

Worth the effort,and with a blade or ANY tool/weapon a possible save .

1*,either you get it or not.

 

[303tom]

Yesterday in Pgh at the zoo a 2 y/o child was mauled to death by a pack of african painted dogs when he fell into the exibit after his mother stood him up on the top of the fence.

Now, without goin into a tangent about how the parents should suffer the same fate.

If you were to witness something like this and were carrying, would you immediately attempt to shoot these animals in an attempt to save the childs life or would you take the time to think of possible legal ramifications ?

As the story goes. While zoo attendents attempted to distract the dogs away from the child, when local Police arrived they immediately began shooting the one remaining dog.

For the record, to me, a child's life is worth far more than any concern of myself, and I personaly don't think i would hesitate at all and would immediately begain shooting.

Yes I would...................

 

[rduchateau2954]

Skribs "The real issue here, as I said, is having a cage where it is possible for a kid to fall into. If the animal is dangerous, then it needs to have barriers that can't be easily penetrated by a climbing third-grader or a toddler on his father's shoulders. The family SHOULD sue the zoo for not child-proofing the exhibit."


Jim, West PA "Yesterday in Pgh at the zoo a 2 y/o child was mauled to death by a pack of african painted dogs when he fell into the exibit after his mother stood him up on the top of the fence."

Lawsuit? Seriously? The mother put the 2 yr. old on top of the fence! She should be charged. And if she has charge of any more children they should be taken away for their safety.

Are you serious??

Wild animals subjected to a horrible life are killed for doing exactly what nature created them to do because of the actions of an irresponsible parent and the logical response is to sue the zoo?

The perfect example of the nanny state allowing people to lose every ounce of personal responsibility.

If anything, the other zoo goers should sue the parents for emotional trauma and social services should seize the children from their unfit parents.

Edit: Didn't even realize there was a second quote in there mirroring my response.