pitcess wrote:It is sad that paople lose their animals, but i have to ask why was the dog able to get out of the yard more than once?
I don't agree with the animals current situation, but why did the owner not take proper percautions with her dog?
Sorry, but i just can not support something that seems to be so shady and misleading.
Miakoda wrote:Irresponsible owners such as the one in question do NOT deserve to get their APBT back.....or any dog for that matter. It's "innocent" owners such as herself that are causing bans to be in place all over the country.
Save the dog? Maybe. But the dog should in NO WAY go back to the owner or anyone closely related to the owner.
Tiffany's beloved 4 y.o. Pit Bull, Knuckles, got loose from her backyard
She also knows that Knuckles' clownish way of "playing" is to run up to people and make a game of chasing them if they run from her. Unfortunately for Knuckles, this style of play is what landed her in jail.
was handed down a long list of conditions she would have to meet in order to spare Knuckles' life. Tiffany complied with all the conditions (including building a roofed kennel in her backyard) but one: Purchasing the required $100,000 liability insurance.
(1) "Potentially dangerous dog" means any dog that when unprovoked: (a) Inflicts bites on a human or a domestic animal either on public or private property, or (b) chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack, or any dog with a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury, or to cause injury or otherwise to threaten the safety of humans or domestic animals.
(2) "Dangerous dog" means any dog that (a) inflicts severe injury on a human being without provocation on public or private property, (b) kills a domestic animal without provocation while the dog is off the owner's property, or (c) has been previously found to be potentially dangerous because of injury inflicted on a human, the owner having received notice of such and the dog again aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans.
And so it was, when on March 18, 2006 -- nearly a year after the first incident and while Tiffany was out house searching -- that Knuckles chanced to get loose again
And again, Knuckles saw some neighbors and ran to them. The neighbors, not knowing Knuckles, panicked
Knuckles was impounded. But this time, because Tiffany had forgotten to notify Animal Control that she'd termporarily moved Knuckles to her brother's house, the relatively minor omission was declared a violation of the year-old court conditions and so Animal Control decided to make an example of her, refusing to release Knuckles to her pending a hearing to determine if Knuckles was a "dangerous" dog.
msvette2u wrote:The thing what I don't get is wanting "visitation". To a dog, it just is more stressful to see their owner.
Believe it or not most dogs settle in quite nicely, even if stressed the first few days, to a shelter routine.
It's more distressing to the people involved by far, and I understand them wanting to see the dog, but it's not even feasible and I would rarely let anyone visit their dog at the shelter. The owner leaves and it's almost worse for the dog then.
Because the shelter shouldn't be equated, in the dog's mind, with the owner.
If that makes sense...
I think owners want to see for themselves the dog isn't falling apart, but they also want to believe the dog WILL fall apart when at the shelter.
Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media