WreckitWhippet Posted March 31, 2009 Author Share Posted March 31, 2009 Hotwyr, I try not to dwell on the what-ifs and attacks on other animals do not idicate that a dog is aggressive towards adults or children. I have expressed that I am thankfull that it was not my dogs that were attacked, given that we share a fence. We are now taking additional precautions that will cost us several thousand dollars ( even though our dogs cannot get out of our yard ) to ensure the remaining two dogs have no way onto our property. It's rendered our major run useless until we have finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotwyr Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 So who in this thread should well I hope you are caught and dealt with sooner rather than later BEFORE your dog(s) does/do something... Hotwyr ? Come on now dont hold back mate.. speak out, many would like to say the name but for some reason cant bring themselves to do it, I asked a few pages back and it' went silent or redirected.. Hi there, I wasn't picking on anyone specifically (in this thread) I just meant anyone who thinks it's a joke not to obey the rules..... It's not a joke - in the end someone get's hurt.......be it the dog/owner/another dog or someone's child...... Personally I like APBT's and have met many a well tempered one......I just don't like people who think they are above the law. But if a banned breed moved in next to my place - well I probably would call Dog Control too just to check all was above board...... Rae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStarPits Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) Thats the thing htwyr, In NSW where the OP is, the dog has to be proved to be a 'banned Breed' in the first place via a notice of intent to declare the dog a restricted breed. Then they must comply with any law, during the NOI period, and if found to be a restricted breed, comply for life. This did not happen. And people do get there backs up over vigilantes, it is dangerous ground where many innocent dogs fall victim to the wims of neighbourhood clashes. This has been happening ever since those laws were created. Thats the way the law works in that place not a reversal of that. Edited March 31, 2009 by NorthernStarPits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotwyr Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Thats the thing htwyr, In NSW where the OP is, the dog has to be proved to be a 'banned Breed' in the first place. Then comply with any law.Thats the way the law works in that place not a reversal of that. Exactly why I said I would not presume to talk about your laws specifically....... sadly at the end of the day it's the dog that suffers the consequences - be it attacker (PTS) or attackee (vet's visit) Rae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~SL~ Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 (edited) I dont think we have hijacked the thread, and no one is condoning what happened. if it did happen, then the full force of the law should be applied, and agreed, the owner should be coughing up for vet bills etc etc.Half the time, PPS is looking for debate on the subject, with its continuous negativity and pigeon holing of APBT owners. What do you mean if it did happen? Edited April 1, 2009 by StaffordLove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peibe Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 If the owner surrendered the dog to the pound no NOI has to be issued The dog then belongs to pound and they can do with it as they wish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 So someone who trains socialises and manages a dog correctly is an irrisponsible owner? someone who has not had a NOI? Someone who allows their dog to savage another in its own backyard is irresponsible. A pity that such owners can't wear a collar indicating they're dangerous. A pity that such people are allowed to own dogs at all. It is the dog that wears the collar; it is the dog that gets pts because its owner is a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I dont think we have hijacked the thread, and no one is condoning what happened. if it did happen, then the full force of the law should be applied, and agreed, the owner should be coughing up for vet bills etc etc.Half the time, PPS is looking for debate on the subject, with its continuous negativity and pigeon holing of APBT owners. What do you mean if it did happen? I believe that's a way of saying that A_Nomad believes PPS is lying about seeing the dog attacking the other in its backyard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Lol You characters are unreal the OP was not simply recounting a story of an attack and a boohoo story, it mostly had to do with the fact she wishes to become a vigilante on BSL as she openly said in her first line. So then many are playing the same ole same ole APBT owners are irrisponsible card, and APBT owners are the breeds downfall, well who else exactly then?. The guy in the OP is obviously but we dont know about the breed do we, because there was never a NOI, only an owners account of the breed, unless I missed that part. I knew a bloke with a staffy who called his dog a Pit when speaking to no nothings because he thought it was cooler and liked the reaction he got, does that make the dog a pit? So, you're okay with an old dog, indeed any dog, being attacked in its backyard? Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~SL~ Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I dont think we have hijacked the thread, and no one is condoning what happened. if it did happen, then the full force of the law should be applied, and agreed, the owner should be coughing up for vet bills etc etc.Half the time, PPS is looking for debate on the subject, with its continuous negativity and pigeon holing of APBT owners. What do you mean if it did happen? I believe that's a way of saying that A_Nomad believes PPS is lying about seeing the dog attacking the other in its backyard. I did gather that but I would really like to hear where A_Nomad gets off saying it Easier to stick his/her head in the sand and act like it never happened.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStarPits Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 So someone who trains socialises and manages a dog correctly is an irrisponsible owner? someone who has not had a NOI? Someone who allows their dog to savage another in its own backyard is irresponsible. A pity that such owners can't wear a collar indicating they're dangerous. A pity that such people are allowed to own dogs at all. It is the dog that wears the collar; it is the dog that gets pts because its owner is a moron. It sure is hey, it happens what 100's of times each and every day across this great nation of ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStarPits Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Lol You characters are unreal the OP was not simply recounting a story of an attack and a boohoo story, it mostly had to do with the fact she wishes to become a vigilante on BSL as she openly said in her first line. So then many are playing the same ole same ole APBT owners are irrisponsible card, and APBT owners are the breeds downfall, well who else exactly then?. The guy in the OP is obviously but we dont know about the breed do we, because there was never a NOI, only an owners account of the breed, unless I missed that part. I knew a bloke with a staffy who called his dog a Pit when speaking to no nothings because he thought it was cooler and liked the reaction he got, does that make the dog a pit? So, you're okay with an old dog, indeed any dog, being attacked in its backyard? Interesting. Nope not at all, but it's typicle for a responce like that I have noticed, I am sure many see it. Any more 1 liners to come? or is that it for your input to the topic titled, should have called the ranger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 It's been reported to council, so it will also now have been reported to the DLG as per DLG requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rhapsodical78 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Do you have any thing positive to say about the breed PPS, all we ever get from you is your sprouting of how irresponsible all APBT owners are. Most people know how you feel about APBT and your feelings on how all owners are flouting the laws and they are the cause of BSL. After reading a number of your posts in the last few months, i question if it happened at all, just so happens that its a APBT, and its next door to you...and you got to see it,It gives you a good chance to try and confirm what you have been babbling on about!! Sheesh, thats some coincidence isnt it!!!!!!!!! I agree. I've seen nothing but thinly veiled breed bashing from PPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rhapsodical78 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Your joking arent ya, that is almost laughable. Lmao, it was laughable. Funny actually. I have a feeling she actually supports BSL. ---- I don't keep my GSD in a concrete pen. Never will. He isn't registered either. Ohh the horrors. Something tells me if it was the law to stick pins in your eyes and sing the Popcorn Song naked every time you crossed the road, PPS and some others in here would unthinkingly comply for fear of appearing irresponsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Lol You characters are unreal the OP was not simply recounting a story of an attack and a boohoo story, it mostly had to do with the fact she wishes to become a vigilante on BSL as she openly said in her first line. So then many are playing the same ole same ole APBT owners are irrisponsible card, and APBT owners are the breeds downfall, well who else exactly then?. The guy in the OP is obviously but we dont know about the breed do we, because there was never a NOI, only an owners account of the breed, unless I missed that part. I knew a bloke with a staffy who called his dog a Pit when speaking to no nothings because he thought it was cooler and liked the reaction he got, does that make the dog a pit? So, you're okay with an old dog, indeed any dog, being attacked in its backyard? Interesting. Nope not at all, but it's typicle for a responce like that I have noticed, I am sure many see it. Any more 1 liners to come? or is that it for your input to the topic titled, should have called the ranger? No pet, I've written some other posts. Put your glasses back on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStarPits Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 haha ok then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Someone who allows their dog to savage another in its own backyard is irresponsible. A pity that such owners can't wear a collar indicating they're dangerous. A pity that such people are allowed to own dogs at all. It is the dog that wears the collar; it is the dog that gets pts because its owner is a moron. It sure is hey, it happens what 100's of times each and every day across this great nation of ours. And what? You don't care? Do you feel anything for the dog that was attacked at all? Anything for its owner? Or is it that because the attacking dog was an APBT the dog must be innocent or must have been provoked by the old dog in its own backyard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStarPits Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Hmmm keep em comming OB1. APBT on whose account, ah yes the OP's neighbour said so, not the council, not anyone else. Of course I feel for the old fella. Let me ask you this. This guy sounded real irresponsible yeah, could'nt even manage the dog under a normal law, what makes you think that anything would have been different if the dog had been declared by an NOI by Warley some time back? An irresponsible owner is an irresponsible owner after all is it not? whats the thread about sheridan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Hmmm keep em comming OB1. APBT on whose account, ah yes the OP's neighbour said so, not the council, not anyone else.\I would bet my left knacker that warley knows a pitbull better than the rangers do. Of course I feel for the old fella.Let me ask you this. This guy sounded real irresponsible yeah, could'nt even manage the dog under a normal law, what makes you think that anything would have been different if the dog had been declared by an NOI by Warley some time back? An irresponsible owner is an irresponsible owner after all is it not? whats the thread about sheridan? Actually, if the dog was contained in the correct fencing then this wouldn't have happened. Why is it so hard to understand the ramifications with each attack. There is a knee jerk reaction every time a pitbull or pit cross or similar is involved in an attack, the laws get worse because those who don't understand deed not breed use it as ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts