“’It’s crazy,’ Roland said, sighing. ‘I don’t walk outside anymore. No way.’” That’s a quote from an latimes.com’s article, Dallas has a stray dog problem — about 9,000 of them. And some killed a woman. And so . . .
Across the low-income, predominantly black and Latino neighborhoods of southern Dallas, so many stray, sometimes vicious dogs roam the streets that many residents have given up on going outside without a bat or pipe for protection. Some carry pepper spray, others ride in golf carts to outpace the canine cliques.
You may notice what’s missing from that list: firearms. Pepper spray? Sure. Excellent choice. Bat or pipe? Maybe not the best thing to carry in a high crime area given police patrols and all. And I wouldn’t want to be bashing dogs with a blunt instrument if I had a choice. But OK. Now if you’re facing this . . .
A tipping point came in May, when at least four dogs fatally attacked Antoinette Brown, 52, in an overgrown lot just across the street from Roland’s home. The mauling was so vicious — fang marks dotted her body and a chunk of her bicep was missing — that a police officer compared it to a shark attack . . .
Essicka Wilson, 40, said heard a desperate scream from outside her red-brick home in southern Dallas in July.
“Stooooooop!” she heard a woman shout. “Get away!”
Another attack. This time the woman survived.
A few days after the mauling, the family of the woman who was bitten dozens of times told Dallas television station WFAA that she had been released from the hospital and would recover.
Four-legged predators. Just another reason why minority communities — where this problem is prevalent — need to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
Those dogs are dangerous, ergo the cops don’t shoot them as often.
These dogs are the result of the irresponsible and uncivilized people who populate these neighborhoods in South Dallas.They simply refuse to control their pets and many of them breed dogs for fighting. The problem’s been growing for years. Recently, several people have been seriously injured by these wild dogs. The city’s Animal Control can’t cope with the problem thus, the need to call in the police.
Those dogs in the picture are brown. The cops would get in trouble for shooting them.
No, they wouldn’t. Black dogs matter.
With 9,000 strays on the street, what does that even mean, other than that Dallas Animal Control is completely ineffective at its job?
You could have a strict no-moisture policy for Lake Superior, and enforce it, but if all you have is one apathetic civil servant with a drinking straw it means nothing.
“Zero tolerance.” Another meaningless buzzword when used by politicians.
The law here in Wyoming, at least in rural areas, is that any dog roaming loose, especially if it is a danger to people or livestock, can be shot at will without any repercussions. Funny thing about that… we have very few stray/feral dogs here.
The little town near me (population about 2400) has a serious feral cat problem, and the “animal control” person in the police department has all she can do to round up the few stray dogs and scrape up the deer and other critters people splatter on the streets at times.
Out here in the county, we don’t have a cat problem at all. The difference? .22 long rifle, and various pellet guns. We shoot them, period. And we take care of any large roadkill, while allowing the crows and other birds to take care of smaller ones. The folks in town are not “allowed” to shoot feral animals.
… seems like a very clear solution to the problem of vicious dogs, anywhere.
I’m curious. What’s the feral cat problem in rural Wyoming? I would’ve thought any cat population would be kept well under control by coyotes and other relatively small predatory mammals and even birds.
When I lived rural in WVA people dumped cats and dogs on the side of the road all the time. Cats are smart and slick. They hide real well and I’ve actually seen a large house cat beat a coyote bad enough that the coyote left limping. The cat v. coyote was in CA in a small city, of all places.
Feral cats are deadly to small game populations. They effect quail and squirrel numbers. They can go anywhere. In farm country strays were normally shot out right.
That’s just the point, mark. There is no feral cat problem, or stray dog problem in the rural areas. Since most of the towns and cities prohibit shooting these critters, they DO have a problem. Most of these towns also don’t have enough of a budget to hire sufficient “animal control” to gain any meaningful reduction in the numbers of such critters… so the problems remain, and often grow because some silly city people actually feed the ferals. So far, the taxpayers don’t respond well to tax increases to help much.
Oh, and we shoot coyotes and other such things too. I’m sure they account for some of the cats, but not significantly… and certainly not in the cities.
Now I know that shooting any gun in a town is generally frowned on, but out here in the county areas we manage just fine, and nobody has so far shot anything that shouldn’t be…
Thanks for the responses. I live in a suburban area, and our big problem is skunks. I’d luv to shoot them, but it’s illegal, of course. And disposal would present special problems, too.
Mark, I feel your pain as to the skunks. We have them everywhere and they seem to believe they have the right of way.
They do.
“With 9,000 strays on the street, what does that even mean, other than that Dallas Animal Control is completely ineffective at its job?”
What? Are you suggesting that a government agency is ineffective? I am shocked, SHOCKED I SAY!
rural TX employs the 3 S’s technique to control dangerous critters.
I know what you’re talking about, but the first 3Ss that came to mind were “shit, shower, and shave.” For a while there, I was a little lost as to how that would help. Maybe if Dallas residents were refreshed and ready to face the day, even packs of wild dogs are a surmountable challenge?
That’s for a different set of dangerous critters. It might not control them per se, but when combined with coffee it does make them more civilized and employable.
Is it see them, shoot them, shovel them?
Over here with the wolves, it’s
Shoot, shovel, and shut up.
So what’ll happen is a bunch of paranoid ignorants will propose, push and pass BSL that, to borrow a phrase, only affects the law abiding.
Then licensing and registration fees will rise which only affects the law abiding.
Follow it up with higher fines for not complying which only affects the law abiding.
And the cherry on top will be law suits and quarantines which only affect the law abiding.
Since to be an irresponsible ghetto dog owner you obviously want and actively seek out the banned breed then procede to neglect it because after all you’re a ghetto trash moron who can’t even take care of yourself and the absolute last thing you ever want to do is leash, tag or otherwise appear to own the animal because you want to be able to tell the cops “nah, that ain’t my dog” when things inevitably go bad.
But it’s okay because they confiscated the Smiths family dog and euthanized it for being one of those breeds.
That was basically my thought as well.
I’ve never registered a dog and I never will. Pay more money to an inept and corrupt gubment or maybe have them tell me what sort of dog I may or may not have? I think not.
Those fees are actually a tax. Why the fuck should I pay a tax on having my dogs? Car registration makes some sense because my car does actually put some wear on the road which the gubment has to pay to fix.
What wear do my dogs put anything other than my carpet and sometimes my sanity? What articulable reason is there for me to pay yet more money to the State over a dog when the dog isn’t getting out and causing trouble, which would result in fines anyway? There is none. The dog causes no wear on anything the State has an interest in so the State can keep it’s hands out of my wallet thank you very much!
Licensing and registration of animals is just another BS way the government reaches into your bank account and exerts unwarranted control over your life. Fuck the law. You’re a fool if you pay those fees and get a permission slip.
A fool to pay the fees?
Here, if you don’t pay the fees, you don’t have a dog, unless you keep it in the house out of sight. A dog caught outside with no tags is subject to being taken straight to the shelter, and then it’s a much larger fee to get it back — except that without tags, you have to have paid an even larger fee to get a computer chip implanted to establish ownership, and if you claim your dog you then face an even larger “fee” (fine) for having an unregistered animal.
Outside town, people occasionally manage to avoid paying the fees, but if someone finds your unlicensed dog wandering and makes off with it, unless you have the computer chip implanted they can just take it and keep it (if you have the computer chip, see above) [Oops — I just got reminded that the vets here will no longer implant an ID chip unless you have the dog license.]
So not paying the fees is just a way of saying you don’t care about your dog.
The issue has been in the news for a little while in the DFW area. I haven’t heard any better idea than responsibly capturing and humanely euthanizing a lot of stray dogs. You can talk about the cultural and economic roots of the issue afterwards. In the mean time, you probably didn’t actually need another reason to carry a firearm in south Dallas.
I could be wrong, but I’m get the impression the the Dallas Animal control agency is under the control of the animal rights groups. Since Brown was killed there has been meeting after town hall meeting and even hired a consulting group out of Connecticut. Their solution was to sterilize 40,000 animals over the next 3 years, not to round up the 9,000 strays and euthanize them. So they are willing to pay to sterilize 40 thousand animals and then complain they don’t have the funds to hire more animal control officers.
Serious question: what does everyone think is a “minimum caliber” and capacity in a handgun to promptly incapacitate LARGE stray dogs?
I have had multiple run-ins with BIG loose dogs and always felt good with a medium/full sized handgun in .40 S&W with a 15 round magazine. Of course the ONE DAY in the last two years that I downgraded to micro-pistol in .380 ACP with a 6-round magazine I ended up working within 50 yards of several LARGE German shepherds that someone was literally training to attack people. (We are talking a dude in a padded suit with a giant pad over his arm for the dogs to bite.) In that case I figured my micro-pistol would be totally ineffective if the dogs had decided that I was the next training dummy.
My intuition says I want at least a full-size pistol in 9mm with 135 grain hollowpoints and 15+ round capacity for one or more large (80+ pound) attacking dogs … and a medium/full-size pistol in .40 S&W with 165+ grain hollowpoints and 15+ round capacity is even better. What does the TTaG armed intelligentsia think?
Here’s an interesting story from 2007 that has some relevance: “S.F. cops tell how they killed raging zoo tiger.”
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/S-F-cops-tell-how-they-killed-raging-zoo-tiger-3252335.php
“Ahead of them … the sight of a 243-pound Siberian tiger sitting in front of her next victim, toying with the man as a cat would play with a wounded mouse. … The man with the tiger was screaming, begging for help.
“Armed only with their .40-caliber handguns, the officers had to figure things out in a heartbeat. Shoot. Don’t shoot. Distract the tiger. Wait for help. …
“It was later determined that Tatiana had been hit seven times: twice in the head and five times in the chest.”
So, it IS possible to kill a tiger with .40 cal. ammo, but unfortunately the article doesn’t make clear which hits made the difference. Bottom line: .40 should work on even the biggest, meanest dogs.
I would say a good expanding 9 would be good enough, although .357SIG, .40, or .45 in a double-stack full-size (or a compact with full-size magazines) would be better. A revolver or a single-stack anything would not be my first choice since dogs tend to attack in packs. Of course, you could also lug around an AR or AK pistol…
Dog packs don’t continue to attack after you start shooting. I fired 1 shot with a .22 rifle and drove off a pack. A man and woman were killed by a dog pack in Georgia near where my sisters lived and the first deputy arrived to find 2 dead people and a dog pack in full attack mode. He fired one shot and they scattered.
A revolver will work fine for these cases.
A S&W Governor with (4 pellet) 00 .410 would be handy no? That’s my solve every issue revolver. Need more umph! load it with Hornady Critical Defense rounds – 41 cal hollow point and two buckshot per pull of the trigger. Love it.
jwm,
Are you willing to bet your children’s lives on the idea that a pack of attacking dogs would scatter with one shot?
In my case, right now (or very recently) I have to be prepared to fend off:
(a) a pair of 120 pound rottweilers
(b) a pair of 80 pound doberman pinschers
(c) a pair of 90 pound German shepherds
(d) three coyote-wolf hybrids weighing 50 pounds each
Call it paranoia if you wish, I have this hankering to have as much caliber/gun/cartridges as possible for those critters.
James69, I live in CA where the judge type revolvers are banned. My wife would love to have one.
Uncommon sense. None of my comments are meant as rules to live by. I’m just giving my experience and outcomes in these matters. Carry what makes you comfortable.
If it was my place to make laws you could buy a preloaded glock 18 in a blister pack at the 7-11. Or a(insert whatever type of currently banned weapon you fancy here: with the exception of NBC weapons)
I must concur. After all, nobody needs NBC for hunting.
(Feral dog caliber recommendation) ” What does the TTaG armed intelligentsia think?”
Wow. I’d say, at a minimum, .357.
I’d feel better with something like a Ruger Alaskan in .44 mag.
Then again, jwm has been around the block a few more times than me, and he says they’ll scatter.
I’d rather have and not need than need and not have…
Come on, now, we’re talking dogs, not bears.
The last bear I encountered in the wilds I had a .22 rifle. He never got aggressive. But I would have liked to have had a .357 as back up.
How good of a shot are you?
.22LR in the right spot drops a dog like a sack of cement pretty much regardless of the dog’s size.
For dogs actually attacking you… .22 would get it done if you’re not the panicky type. 9mm JHP will do the same job but with a bigger margin for error.
You really don’t have to be a good shot. If the dog is truly a threat he’s coming to you. In my case I fired a .22 rifle nearly straight down between the dogs ears. The bullet went thru and thru and exited at the area where his lower jaw and throat met.
Dogs, like zombies, have to make contact to inflict damage.
In my case I was in thick brush. Swinging that .22 rifle around was not that easy against a pack of milling animals. A handgun might have been a better option for that specific case.
You still need to be able to make the headshot. Some people might find that difficult (I have no idea the OP’s actual level of skill in this area).
My dad’s neighbors flouted the law on dogs in their area for years by letting their pack of five run wild. They attacked joggers and other animals but getting the courts to do anything about the situation was taking years. Finally they cornered a coyote pup in my parents courtyard/front garden area when I was visiting. My dad was concerned about the mess they’d make when they tore the pup apart so… A Ruger MKII dispatched two of them post haste and the others ran off.
.22 was optimal to not damage the property in this circumstance. If the other three had turned on me however I’m not 100% sure I’d have been able to drop all three of them with headshots if they rushed me. In that case I would prefer something a bit bigger so that if I shot over the top of their head I still would have landed a JHP in their back with good effect. It might not be instantly lethal but a JHP 9mm round to the hips and the dog won’t be moving in to bite any more.
My first thought is that it’s a very strange place that allows someone to train dogs to attack people.
It’s relatively safe to shoot a dangerous animal in rural areas. However, in a large populous area such as South Dallas, the shooter should be an excellent marksman. I know my limitations, I’m not sure I’d hit the dog on the first shot. I go to the range once or twice a week, shoot 200 to 300 rounds each time, but my target doesn’t move.
Judging by the headlines of children shot and killed by a stray bullet in drive-by shootings while sleeping in their beds in South Dallas, capturing and euthanizing these dogs is the best idea. But, 9,000 won’t be captured over night
Allow bow hunters to sort this out. Silent, unlikely to have any lethal stray shots, easily recyclable ammunition. ;$
Using the bow is a great idea. The should hold a weekend long dog roundup like they do here in Florida for pythons. Of course, the PETA folks would shit-hemorage.
Bonus points.
Although the reality is clear, I still don’t prefer to stomach shooting a dog if there’s a choice. This doesn’t strike me so much as a gun issue as a spaying and neutering issue. Low-income families are all about fancy purebred dogs until the real cost of ownership becomes clear. As harsh as it sounds I think this is a case of paying for one’s own mistake. If it were not a domesticated animal I’d feel different but this is man’s fault.
Not even a S&N issue, is a people issue.
You might not be able to stomach it, but at 9,000 dogs and attacks on the rise, we’re way past spaying and neutering. Spaying and neutering doesn’t stop attacks, it just slows down the rate of growth. This absolutely is a self defense issue, and by extension of self defense, a gun issue.
There’s a 10 mile swath of border south of Tuscon which is not patrolled, for some reason. Collect the 9000 and turn them loose there, they can drink from the river and eat whatever they can kill.
You a bad man, boss.
I remember long ago seeing a video of Montreal cops taking on a large pitbull. Three cops had emptied their revolvers into the beast – so 18 shots of, I’m guessing, .38 Spl., and he was still trying to attack. A fourth cop ended it with a shotgun shot to the head.
I’ve knocked around in the woods all my life. Only once have I ever felt the need to defend myself against an animal attack. I have encountered bears and a couple of mountain ;ions but the only time I’ve ever fired in defense was when I was cornered by a pack of dogs.
1 shot thru the head with a .22 rifle dropped a large shephard type dog and scattered the rest.
Regardless of what caused the problem in dallas human life is worth more than dog life. It’s time to sweep the city with kill teams.
We can discuss whether human life is worth more than gangbanger life in a different post.
Ah, but are human lives worth more than Democratic Party votes?
I’m not sure how to qualify that one since half of all dem voters are dead already.
Half the rest are probably pet dogs.
I saw this math in another forum .. D/FW is 292.5 sq/miles of land if you remove all the buildings and ignore large bodies of water. @9000 dogs, that works out to 30 dogs per square mile. hmm. that’s assuming an even distribution as well.
not likely.
I’m calling Media Math. (no basis in reality)
Thirty per square mile isn’t amazing at all to me. There were people in the last city I lived in who fed strays because “It’s cruel to make them go hungry”. Additionally, dogs are good at finding garbage food to eat.
I have to wonder as well: if all those dogs suddenly disappeared, what would happen to the rat population?
I carry a 9mm and a small knife on my person when running outside. I’ve ran in numerous places all over the country to have quite a few interaction with stray or loose dogs. Most just want to run up and play. But there are some who have tried to bite or attack me. Luckily, I never had to pull out either weapon to end it, but I still carry them just in case.
“I’ve ran in numerous places … with stray or loose dogs. Most just want to run up and play.”
Sounds about right!
Find them, kill them, butcher them, give the meat to homeless shelters. No more dog problem, and the needy get fed.
Win for everybody.
Dunno, but I’d bet money the gubt will not allow shelters to serve dog meat. Probably not horsemeat, either.
Under federal law horse meat is illegal for sale in the United States.
Horses are slaughtered in the US for food purposes but the meat must be exported.
Mmmmmmm. Yellow dog. Yummy.
Sounds like they need a doggone solution to this problem.
On a scale of 1 to Ralph I give you a 3.
Comments are closed.