Page 22 of 28 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 279

Thread: Victoria is Completly ****ed Up!

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rural NSW
    Posts
    5,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brookenseth View Post
    The councils in Victoria are on a search and destroy mission. An APBT named Buck was PTS this week even though he was registered as an APBT and a restricted breed. His family tried to do the right thing by the government and this is what they get in return. A little boy lost his best friend. A dog who had never shown aggression to anyone. This is heartless. They are not doing it for the safety of the people they are doing it because they're heartless bastards. Excuse my language.
    "They" didn't take the dog.
    The owners could not do the yard modifications needed in the time stipulated so they took their dog to be put to sleep at the vets.

    Any posts made under the name of Di_dee1 one can be used by anyone as I do not give a rats.

  2. #212

    Default

    Now that is just so sad.
    I am glad I asked as I think other would have asked to.
    If they had this dog I really think that they must give the owners the time to make these modifications to their yards so this would then deem theor dog safe.
    So unfair, from that reply.

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,292

    Default

    But the legislation relating to how to confine your restricted breed dogs is a few years old, isn't it?

  4. #214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Di_dee1 View Post
    "They" didn't take the dog.
    The owners could not do the yard modifications needed in the time stipulated so they took their dog to be put to sleep at the vets.
    Di, i wouldn't have 10 sq metres to be able to follow their laws, even though my dog is contained, never got out, never harrassed anyone, all the neighbours love him, spends an hour at the beach every day etc. Should my dog be put to sleep also?

    ps there is no risk of it as my dog is a stafforshire bull terrier, just making a point!

  5. #215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rid**** View Post
    Now that is just so sad.
    I am glad I asked as I think other would have asked to.
    If they had this dog I really think that they must give the owners the time to make these modifications to their yards so this would then deem theor dog safe.
    So unfair, from that reply.
    it is very sad. Said owners probably owned a beautiful, well trained an socialised american pitbull, but as they couldn't provide a stupid enclosure to satisfy a bunch of numbskulls they had to euthanase a perfectly good dog. But from what i've read, you'd rather see a perfectly well trained and socialised pet PTS rather than making your numbskull neighbour control his dog? Time to bring owners to account rather than continue to destroy perfectly good pets(actually better than any other breed but that would be biased!)

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mymatejack View Post
    Di, i wouldn't have 10 sq metres to be able to follow their laws, even though my dog is contained, never got out, never harrassed anyone, all the neighbours love him, spends an hour at the beach every day etc. Should my dog be put to sleep also?

    ps there is no risk of it as my dog is a stafforshire bull terrier, just making a point!
    If you read the Pit bull Description that the Vic Government will work off, every Staffordshire that is not a Registered pedigreed dog with reg papers could be in danger too.
    Next will be the GDS's, Doberman, Rottweiler or any Breed that will possibly show aggression due to ownership mismanagement.....This will just have a snowball effect.
    I feel this is just the beginning of the end of free dog ownership.
    It was wrong that the dog attacked the little girl. But that is saying that every person should be treated as a potential killer, because so many people kill people. Not sure what the answer is, but I feel this is not the way
    Pets are forever

  7. #217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mymatejack View Post
    Di, i wouldn't have 10 sq metres to be able to follow their laws, even though my dog is contained, never got out, never harrassed anyone, all the neighbours love him, spends an hour at the beach every day etc. Should my dog be put to sleep also?

    ps there is no risk of it as my dog is a stafforshire bull terrier, just making a point!
    Di isn't saying it's right. Those were the facts at the end of the day.

  8. #218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mymatejack View Post
    it is very sad. Said owners probably owned a beautiful, well trained an socialised american pitbull, but as they couldn't provide a stupid enclosure to satisfy a bunch of numbskulls they had to euthanase a perfectly good dog. But from what i've read, you'd rather see a perfectly well trained and socialised pet PTS rather than making your numbskull neighbour control his dog? Time to bring owners to account rather than continue to destroy perfectly good pets(actually better than any other breed but that would be biased!)
    Don't try to think you know what I am thinking.
    If you want to post then post, but don't post to get people to answer,
    To your, I think you mean this.
    Now I know you are going to go looking for posts that I have done.
    Go ahead but I will not be dragged into it.
    Just post responsible things and none of this I think you mean this.

  9. #219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brookenseth View Post
    The councils in Victoria are on a search and destroy mission. An APBT named Buck was PTS this week even though he was registered as an APBT and a restricted breed. His family tried to do the right thing by the government and this is what they get in return. A little boy lost his best friend. A dog who had never shown aggression to anyone. This is heartless. They are not doing it for the safety of the people they are doing it because they're heartless bastards. Excuse my language.
    Quote Originally Posted by Di_dee1 View Post
    "They" didn't take the dog.
    The owners could not do the yard modifications needed in the time stipulated so they took their dog to be put to sleep at the vets.
    I'm sorry but I just couldn't hold my tongue when faced with such rubbish.
    There is no proof "The councils in Victoria are on a search and destroy mission. "
    The Councils are staffed by people doing their job. They are not heartless automatons.
    The decision to PTS Buck was down to his owners. Rather than do what was required to modify the backyard they chose to PTS Buck.
    Save your anger for his owners.
    The little boy lost his friend because his parents choose that route rather than conform to the law.
    Did these people ever consider the responsibility of owning a restricted breed. I bet not. I know who I would label as heartless bastards. I have spent thousands on my various mutts of mine when it would have been much cheaper and easier to take the PTS option.
    What, these people couldn't have taken a loan?
    How much would it have really cost to make their yard conform to the law?
    By the way the law for how to keep a dangerous breed has been around for some time, it's just now that they have to comply. Easier to PTS their sons pet. These are the sort of irresponsible dog owners that the legislation is designed for.
    Good lesson for your son guys.

  10. #220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clubsprint View Post
    I'm sorry but I just couldn't hold my tongue when faced with such rubbish.
    There is no proof "The councils in Victoria are on a search and destroy mission. "
    The Councils are staffed by people doing their job. They are not heartless automatons.
    The decision to PTS Buck was down to his owners. Rather than do what was required to modify the backyard they chose to PTS Buck.
    Save your anger for his owners.
    The little boy lost his friend because his parents choose that route rather than conform to the law.
    Did these people ever consider the responsibility of owning a restricted breed. I bet not. I know who I would label as heartless bastards. I have spent thousands on my various mutts of mine when it would have been much cheaper and easier to take the PTS option.
    What, these people couldn't have taken a loan?
    How much would it have really cost to make their yard conform to the law?
    By the way the law for how to keep a dangerous breed has been around for some time, it's just now that they have to comply. Easier to PTS their sons pet. These are the sort of irresponsible dog owners that the legislation is designed for.
    Good lesson for your son guys.
    Buck's owners could not afford to build a 10sqm run in the backyard for him which is a requirement of the Restricted breed laws. Have you seen the cost of runs! It would have cost close to $1000 just for the run not including concreting, roofing etc.
    Because of this is was either take their dog and put him to sleep in their arms with his loving family nearby or let him be seized and euthanised by the council.
    At least Buck's owners had the balls to sit with him in his last moments, to pat him, to love him before he left, unlike some of the ferals who have dumped their dogs at the pound to die.

    Oh and BTW - The Vic Govt have themselves called it a "Search and Destroy mission".

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •