Zhou Xuanyao

SkySouringMagpie - That reminds me of "How many forum members does it take to change a lightbulb ?" KoalatheBear - Agree. But I do not think it is empty rhetoric. I think most of them really would like to see these beatings, castrations, drownings, burnings at the stake, ect Aside from that the attitude alone says it all. "He\she committed an act of cruelty, therefor I should also commit an act of cruelty. But for me its ok because I feel justified, for someone else its not"

Poor little mate There is no increase, this is how it has always been. Media controls the mix of what they report on based on feedback from readers\listeners. The more interest people show in animal cruelty cases, the more of them they will report.

Whether or not it is high is relative. High compared to what ? I have found it goes by area, and it is the same with most products and services. Smaller the town, the more you pay. In Sydney I would expect to pay upto $150 for a 30kg male. Here, the same thing costs $300 +. My bitch cost close to $400, in Sydney I would expect to pay $200 - $220. Hope his surgery goes well.

Food Don't give her too much because then you can potentially bring on other problems including bloat, gastric something or rather, and so forth. Yes my terminology is brilliant I know Her condition will return just fine don't worry about it, fortunately she is eating so its all good.

julzjc, so glad to hear it.

Try not to panic. My mothers dog ate a whole heap of rat pellets once aswell. She took him to the vet, ect he was fine. And your dogs look to be between 25 - 30kg. What does your average rat weigh ? Probably 1/2 kg. Plus your dogs have had these injections.

Fancy that ay. I wonder if the dog was a Pitbull ? More than likely Soon, instead of just shouting "SHUTUUUUP !!!" over the fence, people will be ringing their lawyers, to ring the neighbors lawyer, to negotiate a cease bark.

The rescues I have had first hand experience with, either adopting a dog or volunteering, have been perfect. The people I didn't like were the RSPCA in Yagoona, who said they wanted to do a home check. I considered that intrusive so I left. This is where it is in the best interests of registered breeders to be careful aswell. I have seen alot who are very judgmental of other people, and will refuse to sell a dog to someone for all kinds of presumptuous reasons that are either completely wrong or have nothing to do with the customers ability to look after the dog. With this attitude they only marginalize themselves and encourage people to look elsewhere.

The "loser" contention was a fringe issue. I have as much chance of proving he is not a loser as you have of proving he was, none. Why, because opinion on the matter can only be based on moral preference not evidence. Who should be to blame for a police dog being hurt on the other hand can be rationally backed with evidence, especially if I can first establish someone's opinion on the Joe and Ted example. Likewise

You are still explaining why you regard him a loser, why he brought it upon himself, why the police were justified. Its beside the point !!! I cannot say anymore i'v already been redundant as it is. All the information is there if you choose to consider at again. Let logic dictate your opinion, instead of the other way around. Wanting something to be true really really badly, does not make it true. edit - typo's

Ha. I give up dude.

Alyosha - The police, like Joe, felt justified in deploying the dog. This seems to be where your main opposition lies, but the only thing that separates the two is your subjective opinion on who you think was more justified. So as I say, I suspect that anyone who would say that Joe is to blame for his dog being hurt, cannot argue that the police are not to blame for their dog being hurt unless they are being led astray by the law enforcement context. Take away the human constructs for a second, and focus on the dog. As far as the dog is concerned, it is being deployed to attack. In both cases the handlers chose to use the dog as a weapon and willfully deployed it into a dangerous situation. The result to the dog is the same, and the dogs position as a dependent under the care of the handler, willing to intimidate or attack under the handlers command is the same. In one situation you consider Joe to be at fault, and in the other you consider the suspect to be at fault, but everything is the same, EXCEPT that you think that the Joe was not justified and the police were, but this is not relevant to the dogs situation, only to the humans. DoIt - Lol. Thats not what I have said at all. This is why I ignored your first post because it was full of strawman fallacy. I have not said that these dogs should not be used by law enforcement. I have said that I do not disagree with the use of police dogs. I did not say bans should be lifted because the dogs are working breeds. I said that is a large reason why they are banned, and I said that no matter what a breeds originally intended work was, if they are no longer tested for and work bred they soon become neither here nor there as a whole.

I'll take that as a "yeh but ...". What you have come up with there does not make any sense. Read my sequence again, and answer the question with no "yeh buts", and no answering a question with a question. Then you will have your answer. If you have a "yeh but", then you are probably just letting the law enforcement context cloud your judgment.

Poor elephants 20 in a year. They have built a train line straight through elephant habitat. All they can do to save them now is built a some kind of fence line and provide tunnels or bridges so they can cross. Probably wishful thinking

Edited - redundant

Edited due to redundancy

I am still reading explanations of why the police were justified in deploying the dog. You are preaching to the converted. There is no contention from me about whether or not the dog should have been deployed. Remove the law enforcement context, and apply the same logic to another situation. 1. Joe feels justified in deploying his dog to attack Ted. 2. Ted hurts the dog in self defense when it attacks him. 3. It is Teds fault the dog is hurt. Anybody that still thinks that is sound, thankyou and I agree to disagree. Anyone who thinks there is a problem and has a "yeh but ...." needs to think it over again.

Thats right, and further to that a dog is not rational, cannot be communicated with, does not have a duty of care, ect. So this can only heighten desperation and/or panic in the suspect.

Double post

Alyosha - Who did what with regard to the alleged crime, resisting arrest, ect is not relevant. The contention is with who bears responsibility for an attack trained police dog injured in the course of duty, not with whether or not the police were justified in deploying it.

I have read both articles Ravyk. Not necessarily. My issue is with the irrational way the buck is passed to the suspect, when it is clear that it is the police who should be bearing the responsibility. Although having said that I do see the use of dogs in this kind of work being phased out in the long term. Within a generation of their disuse, people will be wondering how we could have ever been reckless enough to willfully put a dog in such a dangerous situation.

I don't have any sympathy for him either he doesn't interest me. My issue, this time, and in all the other (many) occasions when something similar has happened, is the fact that the police train these dogs for attacking people, deploy the dogs to attack, and then blame the suspect if the dog gets hurt. Firstly, dog is attacking, most people are going to defend themselves, myself included. Second, the suspect has already (presumably) shown he is belligerent. Third, they are sending the dog in because they judge the situation too dangerous for themselves. So who has deliberately put the dog in danger ? The police. Who is responsible for the dog ? The police. Who is at fault when the dog obviously and inevitably gets hurt ? The police.

Oh yeh a loser. For defending himself against a vicious large breed dog which was in the course of attacking him. The police deploy these dogs to attack and then blame the suspect when the dog gets hurt. I can tell you, if a dog attacked me, i'd defend myself, I must be a "loser". Cool i'm ok with that

They did it to my dog, I was pretty angry about it. I was not advised, if I were I would have refused it. We are in the car on the way home, and then I notice her ear is tattooed. So I ring them, and her choice of words was very poor, annoyed me further. She said, paraphrase "Oh yes we do tattoo all the dogs, is that ok ?". Err, im ringing you complaining, a bit late to ask me if its ok after its too late.

It is a tough situation isn't it. What are they supposed to do ? Using tazers does not seem ideal though. They are not designed for small fast moving targets like dogs. There have been a number of reports in the past where they end up getting bit after trying to use a tazer on a dog. The other thing is, you have to hope the dog will run away after it is electrocuted, they can hardly go and put it in handfcuffs while it is incapacitated. Having said that though, for every time they have been bitten, how many times have they succeeded ? They cannot shoot the dogs for a number of reasons, not least of which, when they raid someone they are raiding the home of a suspect not someone who has been found guilty of any crime. The police cannot just go into a suspects house and start shooting their pets.