This is a placeholder text
Group text
by TessJ10 on 18 December 2010 - 13:12
What's meant is to pick them up by their back legs, and keep their back legs high up off the ground. You have to be strong and have a grip of iron if they're big dogs, but I'm told that's often effective. Of course if he's a real fighter & he does let go he can swing around and latch onto you, but if you are really strong you could bash him against a tree or fling him to the winds. But for pet dogs in a fight I'm told it works.
The old remedy of having two people pick up the two dogs by the hind legs and throw them in the river isn't always available.
by GSDsRock on 19 December 2010 - 04:12
Good for you, Ric and LadyFrost. Like you, I'll protect my dogs if they're attacked (and I've done so).
But here's an interesting thing. Look at how many threads there are on PDB describing horror stories of being attacked or threatened by loose, out-of-control dogs. The stories are pretty much the same. Animal control does nothing. The police do nothing. The owners of the problem dogs do nothing or threaten the people who have been attacked. That's why I hope the lady who was attacked sues the hell out of the dog's owner. I don't care how much money she "deserves." The only recourse responsible dog owners have is a big fat fine imposed on negligent or outright hostile dog owners. If the lady wins big bucks, there will be a big fat fine. That's what punitive damages are all about--discouraging rotten behavior. Of course, the negligent owners probably won't pay it (their insurance company will if they have insurance), but hopefully the court proceedings will be sufficiently unpleasant to make them take the trouble to keep their dogs securely confined.
by Don Corleone on 19 December 2010 - 04:12
by TessJ10 on 19 December 2010 - 12:12
So if, as has happened (remember the story of the SAR dog who was visiting and a child left the dog out and it got killed by a car?) to so many, if one day someone lets out one of your dogs, and I see it and tell the cops it "threatened" me, I should "sue the hell" out of you and be awarded lots of money for your rotten behavior?
Remember the video posted on here of some poor dog tied to a car or something and the cops shot it because it "threatened" them, while the video clearly showed a calm dog? Ok, big bucks coming in for me and for everybody else who wants a little cash. Just wait until it happens to you, GSDsRock, and you'll be singing a different tune.
by Ninja181 on 19 December 2010 - 13:12
Beyond that, since we don't know all the facts it's difficult to come to a rational conclusion.
However she does seem to be playing a pretty heavy "Victim Card".
by GSDsRock on 19 December 2010 - 16:12
TessJ10, this dog didn't just "threaten." He bit the crap out of the lady. The owners are and should be held accountable for the lady's injuries. This is not vindictiveness. It is self-defense and holding people accountable for their behavior. It is neither necessary nor right to wait to see if the attacks become "chronic."
And I would much rather see the owners penalized than the dog. It's not the dog's fault.
Like so many others, I am tired of loose dogs terrorizing and injuring people and dogs. A few years ago, a friend of mine watched in horror as two loose pits charged up and tore her cowering, on-leash, tiny mixed breed dog to death--while the pits' owner stood there and laughed. It was over in seconds, and there was nothing she could do to save her dog. She didn't sue the owner, and the pits went on to kill another dog. The owner still has them, and they are still a menace--because no one wants to sue.
by TessJ10 on 19 December 2010 - 17:12
"The owners are and should be held accountable for the lady's injuries. This is not vindictiveness."
No, it's not. That is reasonable and fair. It's the definition of "accountable" where we disagree. Being accountable and desiring that this woman "sue the hell" out of the dog owners and "win big bucks" are not necessarily the same thing.
by MaggieMae on 19 December 2010 - 17:12
Also, some people are afraid to call the Police on neighbors' kids for vandalism because they fear retaliation. I can understand there may be circumstances that lead to the reluctance and fear of suing over dog attacks.
The attack on your friend's dog was terrible. Was she afraid to sue the owners of the Pits?
by GSDsRock on 19 December 2010 - 18:12
"The attack on your friend's dog was terrible. Was she afraid to sue the owners of the Pits?"
No, she thought suing the owner would be mean and "vindictive" and she doesn't believe in lawsuits. And so the pits killed another dog. They may very well kill a child someday.
Many years ago, I had a neighbor who turned a very nice pit puppy into a horribly aggressive dog by hitting and kicking him. Animal control and the police didn't give a crap about the way he abused the dog. Not surprisingly, the dog got loose and bit a neighbor lady in the groin--a really nasty bite. The police were called and the owner got a teeny little citation for letting the dog run loose. He had to pay about 20 bucks. The lady who got bit was too scared and too nice to sue. So the dog kept getting loose (always an "accident"), and the dog continued to bite people. Finally he put the dog down. Why? Because a lawyer told him that even though the police wouldn't do anything to him, sooner or later he was going to get his ass sued off because of the dog.
I am just being pragmatic. It would be nice if everyone did the right thing out of decency, but it doesn't work that way.
by MaggieMae on 19 December 2010 - 21:12
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top