Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Viewers Rush to Rescue Penny

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Well, I guess you can label every dog as 'dangerous'. If you really want to you'll find always something. So, yeah. Why not muzzle a dog without teeth. I mean... just to be sure

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by margoo View Post
    Well, I guess you can label every dog as 'dangerous'. If you really want to you'll find always something. So, yeah. Why not muzzle a dog without teeth. I mean... just to be sure
    Exactly.

    If a dog is dangerous because someone can trip over it, every dog is dangerous.

    As the reporter said: a victory for commonsense.

    All that said, owners can be pretty stupid as we have all seen. This dog was in danger of being sacrificed to her owner's lack of responsibility and realisation that not everyone loves dogs.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Northern NSW
    Posts
    751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by margoo View Post
    Well, I guess you can label every dog as 'dangerous'. If you really want to you'll find always something. So, yeah. Why not muzzle a dog without teeth. I mean... just to be sure
    Hey Margoo.

    I can see where your coming from and kinda agree it may be overkill.

    I feel muzzling this particular dog may not be necessary. But I'm not a vet nor a regulatory officer likely to be involved with this case, so clearly I can't make that call with this dogs potential to injure with one tooth

    But

    I personally label every dog as (potentially) dangerous. Regardless of their pedigree or cross. Just me being being careful I guess.

    Those that have been labelled dangerous for a proven act of aggression whatever the reason, should be appropriately managed and restricted. This Chihuahua falls into this category.

    Teeth or lack of not isn't the issue with this particular dog....It is it's aggressive manner whilst unsupervised.
    Last edited by Chipps; 07-31-2011 at 01:10 PM.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/Chippo/Dogsx4blackbackground.jpg
    ... Jade ...

    Aha yeah me too! wee wee or pee pee and poo poo's or poopie

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Northern NSW
    Posts
    751

    Default

    Edit:

    I wrote "Regardless of their pedigree or cross."

    Meant to say "Regardless of their breed or cross."

    And...

    Changed unnecessary to necessary....





    Need to proof read more carefully
    Last edited by Chipps; 07-31-2011 at 01:12 PM.
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/Chippo/Dogsx4blackbackground.jpg
    ... Jade ...

    Aha yeah me too! wee wee or pee pee and poo poo's or poopie

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    Dog ought to be on lead. And dog ought not to be allowed to harrass other people.

    Owner fails on both counts. Owner should accept responsibility and get her act together instead of manipulating reporters and public opinion to evade any kind of consequence.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    423

    Default

    I aggree the dog ought to be on leash but to label it dangerous is just silly, the owner could have simply been fined and warned, $300 which would be payable yearly for a dangerous dog is over the top.

    Annoying or a ladder in a stocking is hardly a danger to life or limb, and anyway in all it's years it had not bitten anyone it would seem.

    If it were younger or at least active I might aggree with harsher views, but just cannot see the merit in that councils action, if some person can claim a dog who is clearly not capable of doing serious damage to them has scared them and that dog is going to be declared dangerous because they 'might ' be diabetic, or it 'might snag a stocking with one tooth God help us all.

    Hya you do make the best posts most times, and most times I totally aggree with you but not on this, these issues do need some leeway on a case by case basis to be allowed.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    945

    Default

    I think Hyacinth is right by saying that annoying dogs are given a hard time because people are annoying their councils over it. As sad as it is... but I can kind of see why a council officer would not want to take responsibility for such a matter... or in fact any matter. Not as long as people can sue coffee shops for ridiculous amounts of money because they burned their lips on a cup of hot coffee.

    Can you imagine what would happen to the poor soul who dismissed such a ridiculous application to register a toothless dog as dangerous, when in a freak accident really the odd diabetic comes along and gets harmed because the dog scratches it.

    Perhaps sometimes labelling a dog as 'dangerous' says more about us than the dogs

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    12,581

    Default

    I think the lady that complained was old and frail - and possibly a bit of a whinger, but her skin would be thin and slow to heal up, and she would be wobbly and easily put off balance. Falls at that age are pretty terrifying because they usually result in a busted hip, then a hip replacement, which is no fun.

    So the dog should not be let off lead. The dog is dangerous in that context. The owner has already been fined for letting it run round off lead and doesn't seem to be learning her lesson or have any empathy for anyone else that lives there.

    I'm surprised she didn't get some more fines for carrying it out in public unmuzzled - it having been declared dangerous. And she didn't let it down on lead so the viewers could see what it was like. I've seen dogs like that and they're best kept on lead or in the owner's fully fenced yard.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    203

    Default

    Legally the dog should not have been off lead.

    Legally it should not have harassed anyone.

    The woman broke the law, the consequence of that is for the dog to be labelled as dangerous. Just keep in mind that by law if your dog (no matter size, age or breed) knocks someone over, harasses them, or even if your dog gave them a fright they stepped backwards and fell over. Your dog could be labelled dangerous and possibly PTS. Instead of saying this is ridiculous perhaps from this we can hope that someone can take a look and think well perhaps this dog is not dangerous and all those other dogs we have labelled as such may not be either
    "In order to really enjoy a dog, one doesn't merely try to train him to be semihuman. The point of it is to open oneself to the possibility of becoming partly a dog." - Edward Hoagland

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
  •