Trigger-Happy Pooches

A report from Yahoo! indicates that a pack of Iowa hunting dogs opened fire on their master (or as PETA would call him, their domineering enslaver). No word yet on whether the dogs were Dick Cheney's.

Now, the real problem with this whole scenario is the word "dogs." The article states that the "dogs" stepped on the gun, causing it to fire. Unless these dogs have extremely tiny feet, we are really referring to one dog, no doubt a radical troublemaker.

I suppose it is possible that the other dogs may have quickly gathered around the gun to protect the guilty party, or that all the dogs wanted a shot at this poor bloke and only one was "lucky" enough to get his paw on the trigger. However, I can't see this being a "Murder on the Orient Express" sort of denouement, given the relative inability of dogs to get together on so much as a plan for nicking a bone¹.

So, how to find the single, guilty dog? First off, look for the one named "Lucky."

No "Lucky?" Then we need to rule out any kind of radical sympathies. Were any of the dogs named "Adolf," "Osama," "Che," "Josef," or "Donny²?" Did they have swastika tattoos or wear burkas with bomb belts? Probably not, as any tattoos would have been the owner's choice and if you've got a bomb belt underneath a burka, you're probably not keen on mucking about with a large, unwieldy shotgun, especially given the lack of opposable thumbs.

You may argue that dogs are simply not malicious enough to fire a gun at a human. You probably believe all that claptrap about man's best friend and dogs loving people more than themselves, despite the poop. Remind yourself of that the next time you're eyeball to eyeball with a snarling Doberman, if it's not already munching your eyeball.

I suspect our own dog would shoot me in a second, given the chance and the brains. Fortunately for me, she currently and irrationally fears me so much that she would have to shoot me from an adjacent room with the doors closed, which would give me a fighting chance.

As for the Yahoo! story, in the end, it may simply have been a case of dog stupidity. Let's face it, the dog(s) hit the hunter in the leg. Their eyesight is so poor, even a scope wouldn't have helped, and their idea of good aim it to stand perfectly still and point to gamefowl with their noses. If the idea was just to wing him, then what next? Hostage demands? Waterboarding? A quick round of poker?

Indeed, the most likely "accidental" possibility is that the dogs mistook the gun for a large chew toy.

There is one other possibility. The hunter was going to pick up a downed pheasant when he was shot. It could be that an enraged bird quickly landed, set off the gun, and they dashed away to leave the befuddled hounds to take the fall.

Now this is a theory I can buy into. After all, they are out to get us, and they know we have the advantage.

**********
1. See numerous Warner Brothers and MGM cartoons for evidence of this evolutionarily dim trait.

2. You'd be surprised.