A few weeks ago, I let my dogs out of their kennels when I got home. They ran out to greet my daughter who was still getting out of the car. There was a couple walking down the street and the man was carrying a golf club. The dogs barked, telling me that the man was there and telling the man that they were there.

My puppy, an 8-month Border Collie, went over to say "Hello" and was hit in the head with the club sending her head over tail. There was not a poke get away or even a shout to get away but a full teeing off golf swing.

Now I will admit that I did not have them chained at the time. I was in the process of doing so and was standing right there. But I do not believe that the man should have been able to take a swing at my dog. But when I called the police and then talked to the animal control office, I found out, much to my horror, that not only did he have to right to swing at the dog once they stepped onto public land but that he had the right to kill the dog if he felt threatened.

I think that this off-leash law and many in other communities are going too far and is too subjective.

First off, it is a law based on "feeling." All the person has to do is "feel" that the dog is aggressive, or "feel" threatened and they can do whatever they want. But feeling is highly subjective. A person can hate dogs, or have been bitten in the past so any dog doing anything could "feel" threatening.

There is no burden of proof on their part, they can say whatever they want and it does not even need to be investigated. Dogs can literally be put down because someone feels threatened with no other proof other then how they feel.

Also, in talking with the animal control officer, she informed me that she tells people who are walking to arm themselves with sticks. To me, a man walking down the road with a club is a bit unnerving and aggressive. To a dog it would be, too, and would at least warrant a bark and probably an investigation. Especially if their 9-year-old human is standing right there. There needs to be a distinction between a bark of aggression and one of defense.

Since when it is OK to take the law into your own hands and arm ourselves based on a feeling? I was told by two officers that they had to right to walk down the street and not be afraid. In an idyllic world, yes. But is it OK to arm one self to achieve this goal? If so, what is there to stop someone from arming themselves against the man walking around with the golf club?

Every few months there is a news story about an animal being shot with an arrow or pellet gun. Can these people just say "Well, I felt threatened," and it be OK? Under this law, yes. A weapon is a weapon.

There have to be non-aggressive methods of control. I have always been told that if you walk around looking for trouble you will surely find it. Walking around with a golf club is looking for trouble in my opinion. The animal control office talked about how "she had a baton," but she is trained not only how to use it but when to use it.

The animal control officer seems to be there solely to protect humans from animals. Who is there to protect the animals? Who is there to make sure that the law is not being used to abuse animals? If I were to hit my dogs with a golf club, it would be cruelty. Why can a random stranger?

Now I know that there are problems with aggressive dogs. But who should make the laws? I understand that it should not be the owners of the aggressive dogs saying that dogs should be able to do what they want. But it should also not be the people who do not like dogs and feel that they all are aggressive.

There is also research by the CDC and the American Veterinary Medical Association that dogs who are chained are more aggressive then unchained dogs. Ours system of law is based on "innocent until proven guilty." This law is not only based on "guilty until proven innocent" it is "well I feel they are guilty."

These laws are too subjective to a persons own feelings on dogs. There are no checks and balances on the law.

Sean Michalik

Des Moines