Thursday, April 3, 1969: A bounty on dogs?
Posted on April 5th, 2007 – 11:59 PMBy Ben Welter
This 1969 letter to the editor in the Tribune caught my eye because dogs have been so much in the news of late. When I wandered over to the photo files in the Star Tribune library tonight, looking for a dog photo to go with this post, I found many, many dog photos. So many, in fact, that a dozen folders were needed to organize them. Sled dogs. Police dogs. Guide dogs. Vicious dogs. Dogs with ducks.
Dogs with ducks? Sure enough, that last folder contained a half-dozen photos of dogs frolicking with — or ignoring — ducks. The next folder was a placeholder, directing me to another file drawer a few feet away. The placeholder label: “DOGS - WITH MONKEYS. See: MONKEYS - WITH DOGS.”
I ended up using an unlikely find in the Vicious Dogs folder.
‘Bounty’ on City Dogs Proposed
 |
| David Andersen, a Minneapolis lad of 3, and his pal, King, a Lab-spaniel mix, were in the news on Feb. 7, 1952. The 8-month-old pup was charged with biting a leather goods importer in the leg twice. David’s mom landed in municipal court, where she was ordered to fence in King or pay a $50 fine. Doesn’t he look contrite? The kid, I mean. The dog looks … worried. |
To the editor: Why not a bounty on city dogs? Was there ever a more nerve-racking experience than trying to sleep when a near-neighbor’s dog is barking all night? Or to have your lawn destroyed by a pack of unlicensed mutts loose day and night? What useful purpose do these animals serve?
One cannot blame the dogs for barking and whining when they are tied in the yard while their owners are gone for the day, night or weekend. Nor is it the dog’s fault if he is running loose searching for food or company. The blame for all this annoyance and the destruction of property falls squarely upon the inconsiderate owners and their utter disregard for laws calling for licensing and keeping dogs confined.
Another reason dogs should be eliminated from the city is the waste of money spent to feed and care for them when it could be much better spent to feed the millions of men, women and children who go to bed hungry.
Roy W. Holst
Minneapolis
30 Responses to "Thursday, April 3, 1969: A bounty on dogs?"
Wow, what would this individual do if he lived next to the newly approved mass production kennel in Morrison Co.? The people who voted to okay this enterprise should have read this guy’s letter before the vote. But anything for a guy to make a buck, right?
DOGS ARE COMPANIONS!! If you don’t love them, fine, then don’t own them and don’t piss & moan about them! Dog lovers & owners know what I’m talking about - quit your gripe and focus it on caring and loving an animal. Rocks don’t count… If there wasn’t a need or a place for them, then God wouldn’t have created them. Instead of restricting them or griping about them try taking it up with God, I bet you’ll get just as far… while you’re at it, gripe to him about pollution - something we should all be more concerned about than not being able to sleep because of a dog barking.
As for production kennels - I’m against them, but purebred breeders are not mass production kennels. Remember what Bob Barker said at the end of each and every Price I$ Right…
In his defense, he’s absolutely right: the dogs are not to blame. It’s the fault of irresponsible owners that there are problems such as dogs tied up outside for days, barking their heads off because they are going mad with neglect. Dogs are social animals, like us. If they don’t get enough social stimulation, they can go a bit nuts.
That said, it’s a bit absurd to suggest getting rid of all dogs in Minneapolis because of a few bad apples, and even sillier to say that this is because it would be better to spend the money now spent by pet owners on their pets to feed hungry people. This sort of argument is only mildly less silly when people argue that wartime spending would be better used to feed hungry Americans. At least that’s something that could conceivably be done. Does he seriously think that if dog owners were forced to give up their pets, it would cause them to suddenly become more philanthropic?
You are entitled to own a dog, but with that comes a great responsibility. Once these pets becomes other peoples pests, your right to own them ceases to exist. They are not sentient beings (dumber than pigs according to most studies) and as such they possess no rights of their own. Also, why should someone who doesn’t own a dog be forced to listen to one or have one’s yard defecated on? This is no different than if I appeared outside your backyard at 2 am, cranked the Metallica and took a big crap on your lawn.
I run in the early morning through residential areas. Loose dogs can make it dangerous. Owners let them out under cover of dark to poop on the neighbors’ lawns. Sometimes they chase me; how am I supposed to know if they are friendly or not? Sometimes they bark at me or anything that moves. I wonder how their sleeping neighbors feel, especially if they have children or just ended a shift? Dog owners should be responsible and also be good neighbors. When I complain to them they usually turn away, totally self-centered.
I’d prefer a bounty on loud, thumping stereo-owners, anyone who has ever been cruel to an animal or a child, mortgage brokers who inflate housing values to make a buck and anyone who is pro-war who doesn’t have their children actively enlisted in the armed forces…
I’d also prefer that human beings spend more time considering whether or not to have a child than gripe about people’s need to be responsible for their pets. Other people’s children keep me up at night shooting at each other, screaming profanities and selling drugs. Where’s the outrage on that front? How about a leash law?
If well-meaning dog owners can’t handle a large animal, consider getting a small rodent, like a rat or guinea pig. The most noise they make is an occasional squeak, they don’t take up a lot of room, and they don’t have to be walked. When’s the last time you read about a citizen getting mauled by a hamster? If shedding is something you’d rather not deal with, consider a lizard.
In response to “Cats Don’t Bark” - thieves run through residential areas in the early morning. I would rather have a dog barking to alert me then have my garage and car broken into. Ever try to spend an afternoon on a nice summer day sunning out on the deck only to hear the screaming children down the block? Get over it. Dogs bark, kids scream, cars make noise, that’s life in the big city.
Now comes the sad story in Mpls about the poor little kid being gravely attacked by an Akita. We don’t have the whole story, but it is interesting to note that this dog “got loose from its chain.”
That seems to be an element of many stories involving bad dog behavior — people who don’t socialize their dog well, if at all, and people who keep their dogs on a chain outside for long stretches of time. This is particularly an issue in areas where there is lots of foot traffic, as there are many sad stories of children tormenting dogs who are chained up. Of course, when the dog finally gets loose, it attacks a child — not necessarily the one who did the teasing. It is a wonderful responsible decision for people not to have a dog who aren’t prepared to spend a lot of time compassionately teaching the dog good manners and caring for it. Hats off to people who realize that keeping a dog is not for them.
Dogs that bark chronically are bored, ignored, or have not been trained. Dogs that are securely fenced or chained can’t chase or attack runners, neighbors or school children. Thieves may be high, armed or working with others. It will take more than a barking dog or flipping on a light to do much good.
dogs need nice, secure fenced yards to keep them safe from free-roaming threats on any number of legs… and vice-versa. with the exception of little yap hounds who never get outside.
and if you have pets, you need to show them care and spend some time with them.
if you can’t handle the requirements, get a stuffed moose head at a yard sale and pet it twice a night.
if you can, have fun. our yap hound and our cat decided to get along after a month, and both get along nicely with neighbor critters ranging from hunting dogs to whippets to jack russell terriers.
Reading the article, I’d say we’ve come a long way. I remember when more dogs used to run loose and dog poop was everywhere. When I visit other countries where dogs still run around in packs, I remember what it took us to get where we are.
This person who wrote this back in 1969 was obviously an idiot!
PETS are companions, and anyone who owns a dog for any other reason than companionship (ie fighting), is stupid.
The stories lately about these dogs attacking are truly sad, and the OWNERS need to take respondsibility for their dogs. There are breeds such as the Akita and Staffordshire Terrier (Pitbull) that are aggressive. Pitbulls were bred for fighting and even if yours doesn’t fight, it is in their bloodlines.
Let’s face it, there are a lot of people out there that should not be raising a dog, or children for that matter!!
Roy Holst had it right. I, too, am chased and barked at by dogs when I walk through my neighborhood. If I had a penny for every idiot dog owner who said “oh, he won’t hurt you” I would no longer have to work. How am I supposed to know that, and where are my rights to travel undisturbed through a public space?
And I think he’s right to say that people shouldn’t keep dogs until all the humans on this planet have at least enough food to keep them alive.
Chris,
I live in Brooklyn Park, people walk into my house and garage without right. They walk across my yard and threaten to shoot my dog. I feel threatened in my own house. Yet I’m supposed to let an f’n jogger or neighbor walk into my house and steal all my sh” because someone wants to run in the morning and my dog threatens them? f-off!
What this letter serves as is a meterstick to how tolerance in journalism has changed. This letter seems to be a pure ascerbic rant that many people most likely could find some agreement with then and now. However, I highly doubt the Strib would print such a letter in context these days. Rather it had to be “Dug up from the morgue.” The letter demonstrates “Anger” which is not part of Utopian Society but can’t be denied. Sort of like Mayor Rybak….”Everything is Peachy and NOTHING is WRONG Dammit!”
Big institution in DENIAL.
Many people “love” their dogs, affectionately exchanging kisses for each sloppy-tongued lick on their face by Bowser. They love the dog as a “member of the family.” This is fine, but multitudes of these same people who share sanguinity with a dog, openly reject their own grandchild, fathered by the black husband of their white daughter. In extreme cases, the “violating” daughter is kicked out of the family forever.
The hypocricy deepens when, in the same family, another grandchild born of their white son and his Asian wife is embraced as a family member with status equal to the dog!
Doggone it, I guess in the minds of some, “dogs are people too!”
Are you serious? A bounty, should we roam the streets looking for loose dogs, mean dogs, barking dogs pooping dogs or ataomic dogs then what’ we shoot them? Why stop there I’m sure we can come up some other group or personality type that we dislike or irratate us and we can put a bounty on them to. Wait, it just came to me we can put them in camps with the dogs and use them for medical experiments. It worked before! Get a clue no one wants to allows dogs to roam free and atack people, but attack the source not the other victim. Pet owners need to be accountable. The dog is a victim to in this case if read the article the dog was killed for doing what the onwer let him do and the ownwer can still get another victim and teach it the same skills. You want a bounty well pick a better target. Get a clue on the real problem. Have a nice day.
The issues at hand, as stated by Mr. Holst, are two-fold. First, dogs seem to serve little social purpose. While undoubtedly useful as search dogs or seeing-eye dogs, the numbers of those compared to dogs that many seem to feel represent a nuisance is miniscule. So, it may be argued, that, in general, dogs do indeed serve little social purpose.
The second issue is that of consumption of resources. It has been suggested in these writings that it would be more socially responsible to feed humans before spending billions of dollars feeding animals. Just a glance at the stark number of humans living in poverty and going hungry every day is enough evidence to support this claim.
What, then, can be done about the situation at hand? While it is obvious that some dogs do indeed serve useful and needed services, there is in general an over-abundance of these animals. Additionally, there is a constant need and shortage of food made readily available to the poorest of the country and world. My simple suggestion is as follows: Use the abundant dog population as a source of food. An easy solution would be to rear these dogs until such an age that they would be sacrificed for human consumption. Doing this would solve both of the problems brought forward by Mr. Holst–dogs would then have a useful purpose and hungry people would be fed.
**(Author’s note–the above ideas are not solely my own but were presented in another form in 1729.)
Is “Simple” serious? Then maybe that is what is happening in my county?! I was wondering what a breeder could possibly do with so many animals, not of a food source, but this could be what to do? Seriously, do not get a pet of any kind if you can not be responsible for its actions and safety, whatever the kind of animal. I support causes, both of human and animal, but most animals do not go out and get drunk, high, or gamble away their new benefits, but many a human taker has.
Dan,
I am sorry if you don’t feel safe in your home. Everyone should have that right, too. But how does my right to walk down a public sidewalk (which I helped pay for with my tax dollars)equate with my wanting to go into your house and steal your stuff? If your dog bites a child or me, an innocent passerby, does that make you feel ok because at least no one was able to steal your stereo?
Seriously, we humans need to have a little more respect for each other and not keep animals that could hurt someone.
Part of the past problem appears to be animal control officers. Animal control people not knowing what dogs could be seized (after) an attack; and their lack of a follow-up to ensure dangerous dog owners were complying with ordinance requirements.
It appears training of animal control officers needs to be upgraded in many areas. It’s hard to deal with these issues if they don’t know the extent of their authority.
An issue of concern regarding the problem with dogs that bite people/animals is the July 21, 2006 amendment to the “dangerous dog” ordinance (64.110)passed by the Minneapolis City Council.
Before a dog is (now) defined as “dangerous” it must inflict “substantial bodily harm” on a human or kill a domestic animal. This definition brings with it confinement requirements for the attacking animal. Does it make sense we should suffer “substantial bodily harm” before a dog is defined as “dangerous?”
A dog can now attack you, inflict “substantial bodily harm” or just chew you up but not meet the elements of the definition; and the owner has 14-days to provide evidence this “dangerous” dog is being confined as required. Why 14-days?
Why the amendment that requires we suffer “substantial bodily harm” or our pet be killed. The former Ordinance was fine. Unprovoked attack of a human/animal and it’s defined as dangerous with confinement requirements.
I suggest readers take a look at this eye-opening web site: http://www.unchainyourdog.com
This latest attack was by an Akita (a large guarding breed) that had been kept chained in his unfenced yard. He attacked the child after breaking his chain.
Dog’s are fine if they belong to you. But please, please please, respect those of us who don’t love them. I do not want your dog to sniff me in the crotch when I’m running by at the lake. Nor do I feel the need to leap over their leash because they take up the entire sidewalk or path. I’m glad you are happy with your pet. But please, remember where you are and the others around you!
Is it just me or is it utterly ridiculous that we are even commenting on this?
More people are careless and reckless on a daily basis with their own personal habits that endanger others lives than all the dogs in MN. How many dogs have killed because they were distracted talking on the phone while driving.. none. How many dogs have killed after knowingly or thoughtlessly geting behind the wheel after a few too many drinks…none. On the other hand, how many dogs are injured in car accidents?
Maybe we should have a discussion about removing all drivers with tickets from the road. They’ve proven they can’t obey the laws of the road. While we’re at it maybe cell phones, make-up, books and magazines should be banned from the cars too. If you drive rush hour you know what I’m talking about.
And yes, my dog barks when he’s happy to see me or one of his buddies out for a walk. The barking may be annoying to one of my neighbors, but she’s annoying too so at least there is a balance of sorts.
I wonder what disgusting and annoying little habits the original letter writer, that the City of Minneapolis could place a bounty on?
There should be a required license to own a dog within city limits. This license should have a minimum fee of something like $3000. Can’t afford that? Maybe you shouldn’t have a dog.
“There should be a required license to own a dog within city limits. This license should have a minimum fee of something like $3000. Can’t afford that? Maybe you shouldn’t have a dog.
I second that idea! While were at it why stop at just dogs? How about a $10000.00 fee to have kids? Can’t afford that? Maybe you shouldn’t have kids!
How about a $1000.00 fee for a cat? After all cats cause more damage to the bird population then dogs do to humans.
