Page 12 of 28 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 279

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

  1. #111

    Default

    ok my little bro see my dog and start singing that dog it a killer that dog is a killer
    she not a killer
    If you are reading this then you're doing just fine as to
    I'm not going to tell ya I lost the ' , . ? ! " Keys to my head
    No grammar no problem I don't know how to fly it any way Bye

  2. #112

    Default

    In our local rag today there was a story about this new ruling that will soon take affect.
    It isn't going after the dogs that are already been registred. They are going to not be these big bad people that some are worring about.
    If you have a dog that is one of these determined dangerous breed but you are doing your best to hide it.
    They are sort of saying this will no longer work as they are going to ask people to dob them in using the histeria of the past to make people dob these dogs in.
    I can see it work, and it makes no difference if I agree with it or if I don't this is what will be here on the 26th of September.
    The government is using the death of that poor little girl to push home the law.
    I also think I read that if you own one you will have to have it muzzed out in the open and your backyard must have a fully enclosed area where your dog must live if it isn't inside.
    So I can see this going further, but I really would like to see the humans standing up and become better owners.
    Like we can't stop anyone from having a kid as we can't stop dopes from owning a dog.
    I am like many that think this will push these dog further underground and the dog attacks will not become less.

  3. #113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AngelanBatty View Post
    Not all dangerous dogs have moronic owners - quite a few have responsible, kind, caring owners. Some are ex police or military working dogs.
    No, if they are well trained police or military dogs they are NOT dangerous. They are dangerous if they are un-socialised, un-contained and bred for fighting.

  4. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by puggerup View Post
    No, if they are well trained police or military dogs they are NOT dangerous. They are dangerous if they are un-socialised, un-contained and bred for fighting.
    Well trained police or military dogs are dangerous when their handlers aren't around. They can and will bite, they are trained to know when to bite and when to bark and hold, and the really good ones work independently of their handlers and make their own decisions.

    A dangerous dog is one that *MAY* bite/attack human or animal. They are not all unsocialised, uncontained and bred for fighting.

    I appreciate what you are trying to get at, I really do. But to define a dangerous dog in such a manner is reckless and doesn't solve anything. Legitimately dangerous dogs may not fall into that category. There are some rescue dogs that I know that are dangerous, that should not have been rescued, much less rehomed. They are not unsocialised, they are not uncontained and they certainly weren't bred for fighting. The dangerous dog restrictions allow their owners to keep them safely.

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    melbourne australia
    Posts
    3,069

    Default

    I think that the response that states that they could not take their dogs to be around other dogs, as the dogs would go off, and it would not be good PR.

    er. well, you had me up to that point. WTF? if your dog is not socialised and well behaved around other dogs, isnt that a dangerous dog?

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    melbourne australia
    Posts
    3,069

    Default

    having had a dangerous dog. The dog warden was not telling me something i didnt allready know, when it had to get registered. Sometimes, we inherit dogs, way past socialisation phase, and its program is 'set'. It either likes or does not like without those vital few weeks of socialisation.
    Whilst i took precautions to protect others from my dog. Never did i rant on about my dog not being dangerous.
    It was. It was 8 stone, and its mouth was bigger than my head. Dangerous.
    But there are muzzles, retraining, clickers, etc. Not so you can run it off leash, free with other dogs, because that would be against the law.
    But enough to not have to walk your dog at a different time to others.

  7. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AngelanBatty View Post
    A dangerous dog is one that *MAY* bite/attack human or animal. They are not all unsocialised, uncontained and bred for fighting.
    Define a dangerous dog then? How would a socialised, contained dog, bite a human or animal? Even if unsocialised, if contained, then they certainly would not cause harm (well maybe to the owner, but surely they would know the risks of owning a dangerous dog).

    I appreciate what you are trying to get at, I really do. But to define a dangerous dog in such a manner is reckless and doesn't solve anything. Legitimately dangerous dogs may not fall into that category. There are some rescue dogs that I know that are dangerous, that should not have been rescued, much less rehomed. They are not unsocialised, they are not uncontained and they certainly weren't bred for fighting. The dangerous dog restrictions allow their owners to keep them safely.
    What made those dogs dangerous? If they were socialised and contained, and not bred for fighting or attacking, then in what way were they dangerous?


    Bernie, you are the exception to the rule.. you owned a dangerous dog, and made sure it was well contained and you kept the public safe.

  8. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bernie View Post
    I think that the response that states that they could not take their dogs to be around other dogs, as the dogs would go off, and it would not be good PR.

    er. well, you had me up to that point. WTF? if your dog is not socialised and well behaved around other dogs, isnt that a dangerous dog?
    I am not sure if this refers to something I said earlier, I might have to go back and read.

    But if it does, what I said was that it would not be safe for those of us with this particular breed to go out in public because they are in danger of being taken away, the last thing we want to do is go out in public and have our dogs taken away because of it. I said nothing about our dogs not getting along or getting into fights.

    ETA - Oh I also said that because in most States of Aus our dogs have to be muzzled in public due to the laws (not because our dogs will try to eat each other) that I don't think a bunch of muzzled dogs is good PR. I am trying to find my post but I have a feeling it was in a different thread.
    Last edited by Keira & Phoenix; 09-05-2011 at 08:17 AM.

  9. #119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by puggerup View Post
    Define a dangerous dog then? How would a socialised, contained dog, bite a human or animal? Even if unsocialised, if contained, then they certainly would not cause harm (well maybe to the owner, but surely they would know the risks of owning a dangerous dog).

    What made those dogs dangerous? If they were socialised and contained, and not bred for fighting or attacking, then in what way were they dangerous?

    Bernie, you are the exception to the rule.. you owned a dangerous dog, and made sure it was well contained and you kept the public safe.
    Fear. That is what made them dangerous. Scared to the bones of anyone new, anything new, anything outside their routine. Socialising did not work, neither did years of reward training.

    The way the dogs are kept under the dangerous dog restrictions keeps everyone safe - has nothing to do with their breeding and everything to do with their pasts.

    Any dog can and will bite under the wrong circumstances. Breeding rarely comes into it.

    Bernie is not the exception. The vast majority of people with dangerous dogs keep their dog/s safe and the public safe. Bernie did the right thing by their dog.

  10. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AngelanBatty View Post
    Fear. That is what made them dangerous. Scared to the bones of anyone new, anything new, anything outside their routine. Socialising did not work, neither did years of reward training.

    The way the dogs are kept under the dangerous dog restrictions keeps everyone safe - has nothing to do with their breeding and everything to do with their pasts.

    Any dog can and will bite under the wrong circumstances. Breeding rarely comes into it.

    Bernie is not the exception. The vast majority of people with dangerous dogs keep their dog/s safe and the public safe. Bernie did the right thing by their dog.
    Bolded bit - Exactly. I have a dog with Dog Aggression and severe reactivity to other dogs, she is kept securely contained inside my house and is watched when she is in the backyard. I am super vigilant when on walks with her and specifically choose to walk her in areas where very few people walk their dogs, I avoid walking at night so I can see everything that is happening. It might not be human aggression but it can be just as dangerous. I am responsible and vigilant.

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
  •