Skip to comments.Shooting dogs not necessary say owners, advocates
Posted on 03/08/2012 8:22:39 PM PST by Altariel
TAYLORSVILLE Joshua McGillis could hear the puppy yelping and knew he had to pull his dog off the smaller animal.
He grabbed the hind legs of his dog, Clementine, a 53-pound bull terrier, and was about to "wheel-barrel" him backward, when the owner of the puppy with his .40-caliber gun drawn pulled McGillis out of the way.
"I looked over my shoulder and saw Mr. Talbot had already had his gun drawn and was coming towards us at that time with the weapon drawn. He just began shouting he was going to shoot our dog," McGillis said. "He shoved (my girlfriend) Caitlin away from the dog and pulled me back by my hood, out of the way of them, and then shot Clementine."
The bullet entered and exited the bull terrier, miraculously missing all vital organs. Clementine was resting at home Tuesday, expected to make a full recovery once the bullet wounds heal.
The incident is now being investigated by West Jordan police who received the case Monday because of potential conflicts of interest with West Valley City, Taylorsville and Unified police authorities.
The Saturday shooting happened at the Millrace Dog Park, 1155 W. 5400 South. The puppy owner who allegedly shot the older dog is Skylar Talbot, an off-duty West Valley animal control officer and a registered concealed weapons permit holder.
Talbot did not return messages for comment. The director of the West Valley Animal Control said Talbot was off duty at the time of the alleged shooting and he had no comment.
The incident was one of two over the weekend in which a dog was shot. In Payson, a 3-year-old Lhasa-Cocker Spaniel mix and an 8-month-old Beagle were both shot and killed after wandering onto the property of an off-duty Utah County sheriff's deputy. The deputy claims he was protecting his livestock as the two dogs were allegedly engaged in a confrontation with a turkey. Both incidents were under investigation Tuesday.
Gene Baierschmidt, executive director of the Utah Humane Society, said on the surface, Utah law is in favor of the gun owners protecting their property.
A person can harm or kill a dog that is chasing, threatening, harassing or "worrying" another dog or livestock, he said.
But just because deadly force is legally justified, Baierschmidt along with the owners of the dogs that were shot said the shootings weren't necessary. He called the incidents "over-use" of deadly force.
"You shouldn't be going to a dog park with a gun expecting to have a confrontation like that," Baierschmidt said. "People shouldn't go to dog parks with guns. It's supposed to be a pleasant experience."
Furthermore, Baierschmidt contends Utah law is far too vague and changes need to be made.
"How do you define worrying? To one person, worrying is one thing and to another person it's a completely different thing," he said.
"In my eyes with the way that law is written, you can say that dog over there looks pretty scary," he said, noting its flaws.
He said he knows the law is not on his side on this incident, but he contends his dog was not "attacking" the puppy.
"I personally don't feel it was an attack, more of an altercation I suppose. She didn't sprint across the park to get this dog. I think the history of them playing together that day for the 15, 20 minutes that they were there, clearly shows she was not a threat to the dog or to other people that were there or any other dog," McGillis said.
He said he and Clementine were at the dog park for about 15 minutes before Talbot and his dog showed up. At one point the two dogs were playing together but it got a "little rough." But McGillis claims Talbot told him not to worry about it.
Later, the two dogs met up again. A few moments later, McGillis could hear the puppy yelping and saw the two dogs in a confrontation.
"She had the scruff of the puppy's neck in her mouth," he said. "(I) felt it was playing that got out of hand. ... I do not feel it was life threatening toward the puppy for any means and I don't think the injuries the puppy received showed that either."
McGillis said the puppy suffered a puncture wound about the size of an eraser but was otherwise in good shape. He said he wasn't given enough time to attempt to separate the dogs before the shot was fired.
Rather than guns, Baierschmidt believes dog owners should carry a whistle, air horn, peppery spray or water bottle with them and should try those methods first rather than immediately resorting to lethal force.
Taylorsville police, who were the initial responders, said there were conflicting stories between the two owners about whether Clementine's owner was also threatened during the encounter. That was also expected to be part of West Jordan's investigation.
Yes, always take the time to have an interview with an attacking dog to make sure what his intentions are.
Pit Bull? Shoot it when it is 50 feet from property. With great prejudice.
Bull terrier. Not the same dog as the American Staffordshire Terrier.
“I’m curious to know how old this “Puppy” is. I believe on the sign before entering the enclosed area, it states that your dog has to be a certain age.... Puppies not allowed. As an animal control officer, he should have followed what is stated on the sign just like everyone else. But again, we don’t know the age of the puppy. I think the officer was a little trigger happy and could have gone about it a different way. “
I didn't see anything on the sign on the video about puppies not being allowed. Only that "vicious or aggressive dogs" are prohibited.
Did I miss something?
We already have the right to arm bears, we need to fight for the right to arm dogs, that’s all there is to it!
I hate to say it but what moron brings a gun to a dog park and then uses it at the first sign of trouble on another dog?
A Moron who knows that dog owners do not always control their vicious dogs, in fact many dog owners of vicious dogs refuse to admit their dogs have problems and bring them to parks and other public places where they may attack other dogs and people. Bringing a gun in only prudent, I wouldn't go to a dog park without one, or at least pepper spray or Mace. From the article, when you read around the prejudice of the terrier owner, it seems to me the guy was justified in shooting the dog in order to save his dog.
By looking it up in the dictionary, Mr Humane Society Moron.
4. to seize, especially by the throat, with the teeth and shake or mangle, as one animal does another.
5. ( tr ) (of a dog, wolf, etc) to lacerate or kill by biting, shaking, etc
6. to bite, tear, or gnaw (at) with the teeth: a dog worrying a bone
Pepper spray or mace is fine at the park. A gun is too but should be a last resort. Carry is for walks where you DON’T anticipate your dog getting into a scuffle. A dog park has dogs getting into little scrapes often.
The dog parks I go to have the dogs separated by size. Why did this moron put his puppy in with a 53 pound dog?
I’m not familiar with that particular park; however, if there is such a sign anywhere around the enclosed area, then it means that the animal control officer took a foolish in bringing a puppy in an enclosure meant for adult dogs.
What makes you think there WAS a sign prohibiting puppies then? Like I said, I don’t see anything on the video like you described. Only the sign saying that aggressive dogs are prohibited. Sounds like the kind of place he should feel comfortable bringing his puppy.
>>...Shooting dogs not necessary say owners, advocates...<<
The “owners, advocates” need to have *full* control of their animals 24/7 to prevent them from getting shot! If they can’t or won’t, then they are not responsible enough to own that animal.
Whether it’s a pet lizard, cat, dog, goat, llama, emu, elephant, bear, one of those gorillas who can use sign language to ask for grapes — it matters not *what* sort of animal it may be — it is the *owners* bloody responsiblity to keep it under control.
The owner is responsible to the public to prevent these incidents (on purpose or accidental) *AND* the owner is responsible to their animal to protect it from itself and other animals as well as from other humans (the stupid-panicky types or otherwise).
In my opinion, this owner failed pathetically on both counts in this situation.
Just FYI, if you have a CCP, and are carrying, you can’t have mace too.
“People shouldn’t go to dog parks with guns. It’s supposed to be a pleasant experience.”
LOL, unless you have - which you will - dogs who are angered or just plain bullies.
Dog parks are just not smart. Anything can happen with loose animals.
I don't know if that is true in here in Florida. Florida doesn't consider chemical sprays to be weapons for the purpose of the concealed weapon statute. Anyone can carry them at any time without a permit.
So I would think that it would be no problem to carry mace and your carry firearm at the same time.
“Dog parks are just not smart. Anything can happen with loose animals.”
Absolutely. I’d never take a dog to a dog park, and it has less to do with the animals than with the owners that either won’t or don’t train or discipline them, as well as the ones that think it’s great their dog is a macho bully. As for this incident, the animal control officer should have recognized that the proper technique for separating fighting dogs was being followed and he should not have interfered with the owner, but rather grabbed his “puppy’s” back legs and done the same. The man is unqualified for his job, and by such a misuse of a firearm is unqualified to concealed carry.
That may be the case.
“Absolutely. Id never take a dog to a dog park, and it has less to do with the animals than with the owners that either wont or dont train or discipline them,”