Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Toothless dog laws bite councils

  1. #11

    Default

    Just read the quote the tribunal found the dog did not fit the guidelines of being large and powerfully built, with a deep chest and big teeth. So Julia Roberts is 25% pitbull?

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spiderwick View Post
    well, the truth is with most council laws, they cant be truly enforced in the first place.
    mostly just bully tactics to get unwilling people to comply and give them some sort of control over the public.
    when they are pretty much powerless in most case's if someone pushed.

    Spiderwick - Please would you explain what you mean in the above quote ?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bayswater, Western Australia
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Menageriemanor View Post
    Just read the quote the tribunal found the dog did not fit the guidelines of being large and powerfully built, with a deep chest and big teeth. So Julia Roberts is 25% pitbull?
    At least! Probably 75% Pretty woman/pretty pit bull LOL!

    ricey

  4. #14

    Default

    I think Mr Ozzimo should let the world know what blood test was used as evidence along with the vet letter, Vcat seems like a basket case, when evidence is accepted by one yet rejected by another. Veterinarians letter.

    Blood test*

    I can only think it is paternal DNA which is also available in B&K's case. It couldn't have been that stupid bitzer dna rubbish surely which is all I can think was the other alternative.

    Does anyone at all know Mr Ozzimo contact? facebook or anything? He could be a great help to many people.
    Last edited by Beau; 06-01-2012 at 06:45 AM.

  5. #15

    Default

    By the look of him and the fact his dog was unregistered and wandering the streets, I think you could find him at dero.com

  6. #16

    Default

    And ?
    Your point realist ?
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  7. #17

    Default

    I am against breed specific legislation because it is not the dogs fault that he was not trained that he should not kill the neighbours cat/dog/(heaven forbid)child. I would rather see that irresponsible owners face hefty fines AND jail terms (no options) for any damage done by any dog at any time - irrespective of the breed.

    The councils/local /state and federal governments could then switch their focus away from this unworkable myre and refocus on the puppy mills.

    If you know you will be put inside for a month or two because your dog escaped your yard and mauled the neighbours dog, you will ensure your yard is 1000% escape proof and you will ensure your walking gear is top notch and escape proof. You will ensure your dog is fully and properly trained and socialised.

    Even the idiot criminal who has already done time and thinks it cool to have a pitbull will think twice about going back inside because he failed to prevent his dog biting someone.
    Nev Allen
    Border River Pet Resort

  8. #18

    Default

    Great post Nev!
    GageDesign Pet Photography
    Site still in construction so will post link when it's finished.

  9. #19

    Default

    So it would seem everyone is in accord and feel that BSL, in all it's varied and wonderfull forms in the various states, is a crock of poo.

    Does anybody else feel that the proposal I posted above would be any more acceptable?
    Does anybody feel this proposal would have the desired effect of having BSL repealed?
    Does anybody else want to suggest alternatives to BSL?

    Maybe if we come together and produce an alternative that clearly shows our esteemed pollies the way out of the myre, we may be able to make a meaningfull contribution to dogdome.

    I know it will be pushing s*** up hill, but if nobody does anything it is just going to get worse.
    Nev Allen
    Border River Pet Resort

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,290

    Default

    Pollies won't like it because it is acting after the facts. They already have laws in place to hand out prison sentences to owners of dogs who kill people. But once it gets to that stage it's a bit too little too late.

    My plan would be way more out there and no pollie is ever going to want to throw any resources or funds at it. I am for licensing of all dog owners, linked to mandatory training courses and/or evidence that you are aware of the responsibilities of dog ownership and have socialised and trained your dog.

    A more watered down solution would be for the rangers to be more hands on and have more direct interaction with 'risky' dog owners to ensure they don't let the situation get out of hand. But of course the only reason why the pollies supported BSL was because it would not cost them a cent. We all know that staffing their domestic animals agencies is really at the bottom of their priority list. Hence the knee-jerk token legislation...

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
  •