| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 107119 | 2010-02-04 22:01:00 | Latest dog attack this morning (Friday 5th) | WalOne (4202) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 855440 | 2010-02-05 07:44:00 | "A two-year study has been carried out across 13 North Island district councils, covering the greater Waikato and Bay of Plenty, into dog attacks. Labradors were the second-most featured breed. " Then again...."These figures include “rushing”, which is classed as an attack. However, Mr Collins said there was no significant problem in Gisborne with dangerous dogs." www.gisborneherald.co.nz So, when they say Labradors were the second most featured breed in dog "attacks", unless there is more data that first statement carries little meaning. The word "rush" is emotive in its own right and was obviously coined by law drafters to satisfy those who are paranoid about dogs. Though I admit a strange dog running, bounding, rushing or what ever you want to call it, can be disconcerting. I'm just waiting for someone to say my Lab has attacked them when she goes up to them with a ball in her mouth, drops it and waits for it to be picked up. It is a ruse which never fails, even cyclists have been known to stop and pick up the ball. I hasten to add this is in a reserve area where many people walk their dogs. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 855441 | 2010-02-05 08:49:00 | Dogs are so much nicer and don't do that sort of stupid thing Don't be too sure about that. That dopey foxy in my avatar had a bad habit of running after bikes when he was young, then progressed to chasing motorbikes. He finally grew half a brain and decided that it's a waste of time but there were more than a couple of close calls. :( And although he is very well socialised with adults he has had almost nothing to do with children so we are very careful to keep him away from them, just in case. |
FoxyMX (5) | ||
| 855442 | 2010-02-05 08:53:00 | I don't wish ill of the dog owner in this case of course, but there is some poetic justice when it is the owner that gets caned . The usual thing is that it is a child, or a neighbour, or someone passing in the street minding their own business when the dog attacks . It is like the situation with drunk driving, or street racing, or idiotic motor cycle behaviour - most often it is the passenger(s)/people in another car passing by, who buy the one way ticket, whilst the idiot driving or riding lives through it when any form of benign justice would suggest they should be the one to go out as a result of their behaviour . And then the courts don't take the thing seriously - like the situation this week when the woman who killed a cyclist whilst driving drunk (and she had three previous convictions for drunk driving) was given a sentence of just over 2 years, and she will be out in 8 months! If she had killed the cyclist with a gun, she would get life imprisonment with a non parole period of over 10 years . Why is it that drunk driving causing death and dog attacks causing horrendous injuries/death are considered to be accidents, and therefore attract a lesser sentence? :mad: |
John H (8) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||