Zhou Xuanyao

Atleast 50% of dogs are "menacing" under that definition, I have heard about it before. It goes against the grain of a dogs character not to rush to the fence and bark at strangers.

If councils start enforcing these laws in any meaningful way, brace yourselves for people trying to tap in to the emerging "mute" breed market. Followed by mute and immobile, followed by statues

Hello Chipps. Thanks for posting.

My friend was raised in PNG, she says its a cuscus.

Absolutely, and animal welfare aside, what about human welfare ? We have police driving like maniacs on busy roads, swerving and cutting through public parks trying to run a dog over ? What if a pedestrian had been hit or he caused an accident ? We already have a kid thats been attacked by two dogs, not sure we need someone dead aswell.

What his saying is, it doesn't matter whose fault it is, if you get attacked by a dog or hit by a car your the one in hospital, fiar or not.

Think whatever you want, like I say your only hurting yourself.

Little old ladies, like anyone else, tend to choose dogs that are the most suitable for their capabilities and lifestyle. How likely is a little old lady to choose a large breed which requires alot of exercise and could cause injury if is not taught to heal properly ?

Common sense, there is no conspiracy.

Tapferhund, you can generalize all you want thats your problem. Nobody has to prove anything to you, if you reject reason then your only hurting yourself in the long run.

If these guys looked the way you say, i'd love to hear your definition of a bogan. It is not easy to look that way, it takes alot of dedication and discipline over the long term. I don't know any "bogan" that looks like "arnie in his prime". Maybe you ought to be less judgmental ?

WTF ? This whole thing is ridiculous, where does one start.

And Australians make fun of Americans. I think it should be the other way around

The point is, as far as some people are concerned, that there ought to be some discretion used when issuing fines, instead of treating everything like a dichotomy. Isn't that in everyones best interests ? Personally I think the answer is yes.

In this country, citizens have a right to appeal. When the government creates these by laws, they accept that it will create a greater burden on the courts, its a choice they make. The revenue they rake in more than covers the cost don't worry, and as soon as it doesn't they will either stop enforcing the law or scrap it all together.

One thing I think about dogs, either sex, is that what we call "bearing a grudge" is probably not a metaphor we should take too literally. Humans can "bear grudges" because we can think in words, so we tend to have little stories in our heads about people. Dogs don't have these stories and they don't think in words (so far as we know), so when we're confronted with what appears to be a dog "bearing a grudge" we're not exactly sure what to do. By describing the problem in human terms, we tend to think of human solutions, or worse, human-solutions dressed up as doggy solutions.

I would regard this paragraph as very good advice.

When you start anthropomorphizing you could be setting yourself up to fail, even when you think its just a minor unimportant comment.

Waoh impressive. A guy in my old neighborhood had a dog like that, it was an SBT x APBT.

Here she is climbing a tree.

He has precision control over her every movement, how many steps she took, and how fast she took them, it was extraordinary.

Subzero, its no big deal no need to worry. Lots of people have these kinds of problems. Anybody who has multiple dogs, of the same sex and similar size run the risk of this kind of situation developing.

Just keep them separate. It might sound like a hassle at first but when you have your method worked out and get into a habit its no problem. One dog here, one dog there, swap them at prescribed times during the day, and so forth.

If there is ever a mistake and they fight again, never try to break it up on your own. Always two people. One handler on each dog, hold the dogs firmly, wait until one lets go, and pull them off.

That doesn't sounds like a prank, although far be it from me to presume the nature of other peoples sense of humor.

Sounds like it could be some kind of religious/cult ritual as mentioned. Or maybe whoever is responsible has a grievance and is trying to intimidate the residents in the area.

But Bush now plans a round of interviews to coincide with the November 9 release of his book about his time in office, Decision Points.

"This will come as a shock to some people in our country who didn't think I could read a book, much less write one," joked the former president, who left office deeply unpopular amid the US economic crisis.

;)

Thats exactly what I was thinking when I read that. How is Bush going to release a book. Unless it is a picture book

''No Dogs on Beach or in Water''.

Sounds very clear to me.

This is what the law is about, this is what lawyers are for. They argue over rigorous interpretations all the time.

The government cannot have it both ways. Is rigorous interpretation only ok when it benefits the government and the prosecutor, but not ok when it benefits a citizen ?

Nice system of appeals. A ranger can give a fine for any reason he wants, and then if you have a problem with it, badluck.

Most people will not be willing or able to pay as they need a lawyer aswell, lest they be destroyed by the councils lawyer. And then on top they are criticized by people for enacting their right to appeal.

And LoPan, goats aren't oafs, they are beautiful and intelligent

I mean it in an affectionate way.

Yes that is the first thing I thought of aswell.

There are no buts. They say they have not killed any healthy dogs, but they have, so they are lying. Whether or not it is prescribed under the law is not relevant.

I'd like to see them state the facts, and let people make an informed judgement. State that they did kill x amount of healthy dogs on the grounds that they were suspected of being Pitbulls, because it is prescribed under QLD law.

Isn't that amazing. A big oaf of a goat and look what is possible. Just goes to show, whether human or animal, the biggest hurdle any of us have are the imaginary barriers that exist in our heads.

Pharaoh hound

What plea for reason ? She did not use the most obvious defense. The dog was not on the beach, it was in her arms, SHE was on the beach.

Im getting "Error: template file not found"

And the first thing she wanted was food, typical Rottweiler

I can imagine it would be hard for the guy now to have to do it again after she put up such a fight to stay alive

These changes include ending breed specific determinations. That means a dangerous dog will be defined by its behavior not its breed.

DERRRRRRR

What an epiphany. But atleast they got there.

Ha, good on him. Aside from his cataracts and his missing teeth he looks really good !

I hope that the female is ok and that she is returned safely. The poor male, a tragedy.

It is the zoo's responsibility to ensure the safety of these precious animals. I wonder what sort of security they have ?