WHO LET THE DOGS OUT – vicious is as vicious does

Good Morning Nefarious Dogs,

It has come to my attention that one of our own was involved in an unfortunate accident involving his own pet; a vicious dog. I had my own experience with this mean spirited animal and frankly not surprised at the outcome. I happened to be visiting with my fellow committee member and asked to use the bathroom. Not knowing this cantankerous mutt’s favorite place to hang was in the bathtub. I walked in, unzipped, and began to relieve myself. Bladder half drained, I heard growling directly behind me. The flow immediately dried up as my sphincter clenched in fear. Keeping my aim true I turned my head around to see this beloved albeit savage pet standing in the tub frothing his displeasure flashing teeth. Needless to say I was in serious doubt about its intention and unable to finish, so I wrapped things up and left never turning my back on the growling animal. This heinous beast is the very same one causing its owner to fall from atop the porch and break a limb!

How many times do we read about dog attacks on innocent joggers or children? I’ve often wondered if dogs and their owners share attributes or tendencies, and actually happened upon an article regarding this very thing. I’m not talking about those nimrods that want to look like their canines; rather do vicious dog owners have a penchant for anti-social behavior? “Laurie Ragatz and her colleagues at the University of West Virginia in Morgantown examined whether owners of vicious dogs – those classed by the American Kennel Club as breeds with a high risk of causing injury to humans – were different in personality and behavior to others. Their online questionnaire of 758 students, 563 of whom owned dogs, revealed owners of vicious dogs were significantly more likely to admit crimes such as vandalism, illegal drug use and fighting than other dog owners and those without dogs. It wasn’t just the dog’s breed, but also the character of its owner that make the dog aggressive.”

The above study supports what I’ve always thought and now casts a shadow of suspicion on our dear associate and his motives. Those who frequent Dewey’s know this person to generally be a decent sort when he’s not calling for the nuclear obliteration of Arabs or public sodomy. Yet I can’t help but wonder if this attack on his spouse was more than a terrible accident. Let’s face it. It wouldn’t be a stretch to add physical abuse to the litany of immoral comportment contained within his life’s resume. I fear for the safety of his partner, as I’m positive a broken limb was not the intended result. The new $100,000 policy taken out on her certainly could be considered motive and would come in handy right about now, but I suppose nothing can be done but wait and see.

The two or three of you reading this kibble remember where you heard it first!

zuki

Posted in Uncategorized