Jap Akita PTS beacuse of owner

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

Actually it ended because AJ decided that it had run it's course & not because of any real nastiness.

Actually it ended because the last 2 pages were getting out of hand.

Cherry Blossom

Discodog wrote: »

Your conscience should be clear because in your past you appear to had a compassion that seems to have departed.

Thankfully I've never felt the need to resort to emotional black-mail to push my viewpoint on other people. Luckily the thing that has departed is my pre-disposition to attempted brain-washing :rolleyes:

FoxyVixen

Hellrazer wrote: »

Reminds me of this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056501260

and that didnt end well so can we keep this one nice.

I honestly don't think this has gotten too far out of hand . So far as I can see it's been well kept in order compared to most discussions that occur on the API board. Hence me putting my two cents in as it's a discussion rather than view points getting rammed down throats

That other thread was differant as it was in relation to an incident which occured to the poster who started the thread, this discussing a news article.

Would like to see this discussion continue. It's interesting seeing others viewpoints

adrenalinejunkie wrote:

a. The dog may die as a result of your negligence

I completely see the angle that you're coming from. But hasn't this already proved to not have an effect? Generally at this time of year there are plenty of incidents of roaming pet dogs worrying livestock and farmers having no tolerance for such.

I don't have any links or statistics to prove that however the rise in cases, but IMO I really don't think current court actions are aiding in highlighting an incentive of proper pet care/responsibility. As for having to explain to the kids, well the dog just went to play on a green farm with loads of space to play :rolleyes:

adrenalinejunkie wrote:

b. It's grand, carry on as you are because the worst that can happen is a judge will order someone else to clean up your mess

Or the worst that can happen is a slap on the wrist losing E50?! Most wouldn't blink twice on it, costs the same as a parking ticket - that's what a dogs life costs in this country!! However imposing a 5 year ban to owning animals with a fine AND community service to a pound or shelter might actually have some incentive of making a person think twice. Money to the government, volunteers provided for centres crying out for them as well as perhaps teaching the individual something about animal welfare which, fingers crossed, might get passed down to the next generation.

Hands up, I know that sounds like something in a perfect world which we are most certainly not in. But I don't think a E50 fine as well as an animal acting as an animal PTS constitutes as fair or making others think twice about letting their dogs roam.

planetX

The max fine was 1269 euro - and they got 50? They didn't even have to pay for the disgraceful 6 months that the dog was in the pound.
In one way though this makes a mockery of the RB law - they got no additional punishment for not having the dog under control (not saying they should have, but what message does that send regarding RB?)
The most worrying thing is that despite their neglect and stupidity they got no worse punishment than someone whose pet slipped under a fence one time. 99% of dogs would do the same if they find themselves in a field of sheep.

Discodog

I totally agree & my suspicion would be that the Judge considered having the dog killed as the major part of the punishment which is totally unacceptable. Maybe he reduced the fine to balance this.