Is anyone following this show?? First of all, they found a stray cat in S.F. that had a micro-chip linked to someone in Florida. The cat was apparently 6 or so years old and looked in great condition. They called the Florida people who said they only had the cat for a few months--many years ago. So they make a big deal out of flying the people to S.F. to get the cat that they haven't seen in years. This cat belonged to someone in SF!! It didn't board the plane alone, and it was in great condition! My opinion is that someone found the cat, took it in, moved to S.F., and it got out here. It seems to me that this story was all for the cameras. Did anyone even look into what kind of owners these were in Florida--they lost the cat when it was just a kitten. That's just the beginning..... Nice dogs being killed. Snakes in good condition confiscated. Captains yelling at "suspects" with absolutely no proof. What's next? I don't know but I won't be watching it.
So the people from Florida don't deserve the cat then? Maybe it was stolen from them years ago. They had the chip implanted for a reason, obviously they still wanted the cat if they flew cross country to get it.
Is anyone following this show?? First of all, they found a stray cat in S.F. that had a micro-chip linked to someone in Florida. The cat was apparently 6 or so years old and looked in great condition. They called the Florida people who said they only had the cat for a few months--many years ago. So they make a big deal out of flying the people to S.F. to get the cat that they haven't seen in years. This cat belonged to someone in SF!! It didn't board the plane alone, and it was in great condition! My opinion is that someone found the cat, took it in, moved to S.F., and it got out here. It seems to me that this story was all for the cameras. Did anyone even look into what kind of owners these were in Florida--they lost the cat when it was just a kitten. That's just the beginning..... Nice dogs being killed. Snakes in good condition confiscated. Captains yelling at "suspects" with absolutely no proof. What's next? I don't know but I won't be watching it.
Okay, so somebody took the cat in and moved to SF. I hate to sound cold, but that doesn't mean it belonged to them. They weren't the ones that chipped the cat. And if they did go to chip her, I would imagine that the vet/shelter that was chipping her would probably have scanned her first to make sure she wasn't already chipped.
Plus, they check identification for a reason. They checked and saw it was from Florida, then they reunited them with the Florida owners. Their job is to check identification and restore the cat to the identified owners, not to launch an all out search for someone in SF that took the cat in. They try to reunite animals to owners, not to good sameritans.
They said the cat was one of the first animals to be microchipped in the Nation (or Florida I'm not sure), so perhaps the person who found him had never heard of microchipping. I agree that an attempt should have been made to locate the local owner, since the cat appeared to be in great shape - and maybe the attempt was made, but this was cut out of the story.
just becuase sf handles dog bites doesnt mean it should fill 3/4 of the show and I guess that's up to the producers. but it's not just the fact that it's the main focus of the show, its that the cases are ridiculous. Out of all the cases I have yet to see an actual vicious dog. Owner supidity-yes,ignorance-yes.Did anyone catch the rottie episode? Did you here the judge ask if there'd been any complaints in the past and the officer answered that there had been calls of concern regarding the fence and people feared the dogs would get out? Why didnt animal control go out then in response and give a cite to have proper enclosure? I know we get bits and pieces but I think dumb and ignorant people court would serve the taxpayers better.
ItsaBreak seems to have a chip on her shoulder, so let me correct some facts.
First, anyone who believes that we are seeing the entire proceedings of "dog court" is woefully ignorant of how television shows are edited. If you want to see the entirety of legal proceedings you need to watch C-SPAN. Animal Cops is about entertainment.
Second, if you want to assert that 3/4 of the show is devoted to animal agression cases you might want to get out your stopwatch. ACC officers spend about 30 percent of their time with bite cases and AC SF devotes about 1/3 of its time to these cases.
Honestly, I can't tell from your post whether you are upset with the show's producers or the SF ACC officers depicted on the program.
Maybe you should take a breath and try to organize your thoughts.
Who needs to breathe? both upset me! And why am I naive, because injustice brought on by those who should serve justice is upsetting? There must be a lot of naive people here because I certainly am not the first to express displeasure in regards to this show. Who's got the chip? Please spare me another 1/2 page long post full of excuses and numbers justifying the acts of the officers etc. as I have read previously by you in response to those other naive people. Its just as easy to disagree or try to prove a point w/out the names.
I'm with you 100% when you say it's never necessary for anyone to call names, belittle, or demean another to get a point across. It's good to hear it being said. Argue yes, even strongly argue, but let's argue objectively and fairly and with facts....never making it personally insulting. When name-calling is used, it shows a poor ability to present a strong opinion and/or argument. The name-caller has already lost his/her believability.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. What does this mean? This is why I suggested that you pause to take a breath before writing a response, because these postings don't make a whole lot of sense.
Of course, M. Free_Animals may be able to interpret for us. But I doubt it because s/he thought I'd called you names (not true, look at the thread) and so forth.
Why is it that these bulletin boards eventually end up being such boring collections of self-referential claptrap? The quality of the posts suggests that we are being overrun by 14-year-old girls.
[This message was edited by jeffreyjward on 02-16-05 at 11:15 PM.]
I agree. Some of these posts are off the deep end. And I didn't see any namecalling-other than from itsapitsa who seems to fill every post with calling people dumb, ignorant, naive, etc.
Did I follow this exchange correctly? GPAB says dog bites shouldn't "fill 3/4 of the show." JJW corrects that number with, "ACSF devotes about 1/3 of its time to those cases." GPAB responds with, "spare me another post...full...of numbers..." Does that mean GPAB prefers to go with a phoney-baloney made-up number (is that name-calling?) than the correct number?
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't do interpreting.
Also, I'm sorry you assumed that I was saying something (or 'thinking' something) about you in any manner at all. I wasn't. In fact, I don't believe I mentioned your name at all, nor was I thinking of you in particular as regards name-calling.
From your Post, though, you seem to be somewhat sensitive about that subject. Please forgive if I was unclear and did not clearly say that I was not referring to you or anyone in particular. I didn't think it was necessary.
If you take a moment to read my Post, please note that I was merely responding positively to the laudable idea that people should not be called names, belittled, or demeaned in an effort to prove a point. I would have also agreed with you on that point, if you had said it.
My best to you, JeffreyJWard, and please forgive if I wasn't clear enough, causing you to assume what was not intended.
do you read the posts or just skim? You said it was "unclear" as to who I was upset at, the producers or the officers? so I stated "both upset me". I dont get how that's confusing or why I should need to breathe again. Maybe because you didnt scare me off? I stated in that post (almost the last sentence) that "I know we get bits and pieces" so why would you comment in such a way as to imply I would be so ignorant to think we see the whole story? As far as numbers, I never tried to put a percentage of cases handled, versus anything. I simply asked if the court cases really needed to take up 3/4 OF THE SHOW. The only people Ive called dumb or ignorant are the people on the show. Maybe people have been misinformed or have given misinformation but I wouldnt call or imply that anyone is naive or ignorant for expressing their likes or dislikes. That's what its all about. This show hasnt been on for a couple weeks. There's no new subject matter as far as the show goes to discuss. And since I wont be watching if/when it does come back I wont be on this thread. I only posted in response to your rudeness from my post that was dated back on the 6th and today to try and help with all your confusion. I thinks its unfair to the other posters when people start going back and forth on personal attacks. Peace!
P.S. I would say from the quality of your posts that we were being over run by older feminist men. Though I'm far from 14 and could care less if you knew I was a woman, I think your comment was a huge insult to those girls who are 14 (give or take) and brave enough and care enough to express their views and ask questions on this site.
I think the idiot in the dog court should find another job more suitable to his arrogant personality. I watched the first week of that show and being from the bay area, I found it ridiculous. They are killing dogs for no good reason. San Franciscans are still reeling from the Diane Whipple case and the two Presa Canario dogs that killed her. Now they are killing dogs that attempt to chase someone that is running. That is normal animal behavior know as prey drive. The dog has to be trained not to chase. The humans that have the dogs should be euthanized if you ask me.
GPAB suggests that the forum is being overrun by "older feminist men" rather than, as I suggested, "14-year-old girls." And Cheryl Strait calls Bill Herndon an "idiot" because his job requires him to authorize euthanasia for some dogs deemed vicious and a danger to the community.
First, I *am* an older feminist man. I'm undoubtedly older than GPAB, who strikes me as somewhat puerile, and I'm definitely a feminist. My mom was one of those women who entered the work force back in the early seventies and earned the respect of the male-dominated corporate elite.
Or, being ill-schooled in the English language (due to being fourteen years old), was GPAB trying to imply that I was "feminine" rather than "feminist"? If so, you can certainly trust me that I've never been mistaken for a woman!
As far as Cheryl is concerned, she thinks anyone who is tasked with determining the fate of vicious dogs is an "idiot." But I have an excellent suggestion for her. Perhaps she should establish a refuge for all the dogs deemed vicious by the dog court; she can adopt them and care for them. Of course, she'd have to sign a release indemnifying the city and county of San Francisco from any liability.
What'ya think, Cheryl? Willing to put your money where your mouth is?
I'm sure if your child or pet (or any family member for that matter) that was bit or killed, you would not be so quick to judge those who have the enormous responsibility of protecting innocent people and pets from dogs that bite. If people aren't able or willing to control their dog well they don't deserve to have them. No it is not normal for dogs to lunge or whatever prey drive term was used. Last time I checked, humans aren't prey. And because a woman was killed by 2 dogs is an EXCELLENT reason to keep the dog population under control. I can't believe you think everyone should just forget such a senseless death!
If so, you can certainly trust me that I've never been mistaken for a woman! 
