Re: USCA's Aggressive Dog Policy - Page 5

The "Discussion" submissions on the news article site about this case make for some interesting reading...

Mystere, you are spot-on WRT the foolishness of posting photos, videos or even any written descriptions of dogs engaging in any type of aggressive or defensive behaviors where the dog and/or owner can be identified--why provide materials for someone to use to build a case against you and/or your dog?  It's not unheard of for someone who's taken a dislike to a neighbor or the neighbor's dog to falsely claim the dog bit a person or another animal, after all...

The information in the news article and the accompanying comments suggest that the most recent owner of this particular dog had difficulty keeping his dogs confined within the limits of his own property--never a good scenario for ANY dog/public interaction, whether the dog had prior training in bitework or not.  It is that sort of irresponsible ownership which blackens the eyes for everyone, and if true in this instance, I agree with the local citizens who commented that he should not be permitted to ever own another dog.

Sad situation for the dog and the people who were bitten by him.

 USCA  did the right thing banning the dog, destroying the scorebook and suspending the handler.

Was due process followed? Was there a BOI hearing?

 Dog brokers have a responsibility to the dog and the breed to make sure buyers are up to the task and properly homed for the temperment and drive and previous training.
 
Do you also believe that sports car dealers only sell to those that are "up to the task" of driving a sports car? Should we sue McDonalds because people are fat?

If you buy a dog it's your dog and you are responsible for that dog's well being and actions.

Due process is not the issue; read the policy. The notice and opportunity to be heard and address the allegations happens right there at the trial with the judge that always had the power to excuse the handler and dog for aggression. The BOI is not involved. However, that does not preclude filing of BOI charges, in light of the additional information that there are almost twice as many bites as the judge and EB knew about. Further, had the judge and EB treated this incident as a "typical" first offense, there would be howls of outrage at the deficient and inadequate response by USCA. Damned if you do; damned if you don't. p. If Greene feels so aggrieved, he can try to sue. Oh,but, there's that pesky arbitration agreement, not to mention the five or more potential suits that may be coming Greene's way. The EB of USCA handler this matter appropriately. The result is correct; I am not disturbed by how they got there.

I have no problem with a judge dq'ing a dog for that type of stuff, permanently.

As far as I'm concerned his "due process" was MORE than followed.  If you want to split hairs, fine, all the attacks did not occur on the trial field, but what people need to remember is the spirit in which the aggressive dog policy was written.  Not every situation in the world can be anticipated, and when something happens outside of the realm of the norm, like a dog who's owner is so out of control the dog has bitten on 5 separate occasions,  then the organization must act appropriately, if for no other reason than to protect the sport.  Had UScA treated this as a first offense, they would have been just as irresponsible as the dog owner.  What the hell do you think would have happened the next time the dog bit?  I tell you what, there isn't a dog in the world that's so important it's worth risking the sport just because his owner can't or won't control him.  The press would have a field day if UScA had only slapped the guys wrist even after knowing the history of this dog and his owner.  In this day and age?  Talk about a death knell.

 And I quote:
 
Bob Said:

"Dog brokers have a responsibility to the dog and the breed to make sure buyers are up to the task and properly homed for the temperment and drive and previous training."

Chris said:
 
"Do you also believe that sports car dealers only sell to those that are "up to the task" of driving a sports car? Should we sue McDonalds because people are fat?".

 Chris posted this last nite and I did,nt sleep well after I read it, Do you also believe... This really bothered me I can,t think this way I really don,t comprehend the mentallity of this statement, Do you also believe... Is it wrong to think that anyone in our venue has a responsibility to any one else?  can we always claim out of sight out of mind?.

This is why the whole world is in the shape it,s in, Do you also believe... If we all just stopped and thought about what we owe one another atleast once maybe just maybe we could straighten out this whole mess we call life.

Man, just think what positive change we could make if we all just tried to effect a little change in our own corner of the dog world where the bottom line wasn,t profit and politics, and one upsmanship on each other. A little ethics and responsibility to our fellows and our dogs would go a long way.  


Chris,


You ask, Do you also believe... Yes, Yes I do In this case We do owe each other the better part of our self,s .


                                                From the fat guy who STILL eat,s at McDonalds...
     
 

quote by Sueincc: "Had UScA treated this as a first offense, they would have been just as irresponsible as the dog owner.  What the hell do you think would have happened the next time the dog bit?  I tell you what, there isn't a dog in the world that's so important it's worth risking the sport just because his owner can't or won't control him.  The press would have a field day if UScA had only slapped the guys wrist even after knowing the history of this dog and his owner.  In this day and age?  Talk about a death knell."


Exactly, Sue.  And those who are spouting off about USCA not having followed the published policy, let's be clear:  the policy was not intended for a situation such as this anyway.  (Hopefully, it will be addressed and modified at the next GBM so that there is a more comprehensive policy in place.   The current policy arose from a specific event at a national championship).   Further, had NOTHING been done, because of the clear reference to "trial"  in the policy, those same USCA-slammers would be having a field day over USCA's failure to act with respect to such a serious, egregious and dangerous situation, due to the enormous impact it could have on the  organization, the sport and the breed.   Do not forget that there are communities enacting BSL aimed at German Shepherds, too. ( Check Saginaw, Michigan)  Incidents like this certainly play into the hands of the BSL proponents.

Do any of you remember the "Rottweiler Murder" in Kansas several years ago?  USCA dodged a BIG bullet on that one, too, because Sabine Davis (?  not sure of her last name right now) called herself doing "schutzhund."  The USCA clubs shunned her, because of her irresponsibility.  Club members testified at her trial.  The prosecutor made it clear to the jury that schutzhund, USCA, and the USCA clubs were in no way  responsible for the child's death.  In fact, in television interviews later, the parents expressed admiration for schutzhund and the people training dogs in it.  THAT's what we want from these types of incidents.  Not, "doom and gloomers" once again taking advantage of anything they can find to slam USCA. 




If you really have such a problem with USCA, it is very simple:  DON'T be a member and DO NOT enter any USCA trials.  Oh, but you want to enter those trials, don'tcha?    You are oh so "principled," but you don't mind pimping.

 

I haven't heard anybody saying the right thing wasn't done.  But I admit I stay in my own little world when it comes to gossip