I recently saw the second episode last night (the one about the snake collector). I am now quite angry and disappointed with the show. When I saw the commercial previews, I first assumed the snakes were being removed for a worthy reason (i.e. they were neglected, not properly cared for). However, when I saw the program, I was disgusted that the snakes were being removed for the mere fact that they were constrictors. I too am a snake collector (herpetoculturist) and I will say that all of that guy's snakes were in excelent condition. Many colubrid snakes (corn,king, milk, rat,bull/gopher,fox snakes) are constrictors as well as dozens of smaller boid species seen on the show, none of which are dangerous to people. Needless to say, I am no longer watching the San Francisco show (at least until they change their snake policy).
[This message was edited by areptileguy on 02-02-05 at 08:08 AM.]
I agree. If a person proves that they know how to care for the snakes properly and has the right kind of enclosures, etc, there shouldn't be a problem. But this is typical of San Francisco. The cops and district attorney would far rather go after somebody like that reptile guy than bother real criminals.
what I see so far in this show is a scary example of too much power and too little education. Not only was it inappropriate to treat that snake owner like a criminal, but they also murdered....yes murdered....a lovely little dog. The lady with two little (maybe 20-25lb) fluffy dogs had both of them taken away from her. One was a nipper, the other quite innocent. When the "expert" animal behaviorists from UC-Davis evaluated them, the nipping dog had a high prey drive. That was shown by lunging toward someone jogging by. That, folks, can be controlled with some clicker training. I have done it. Instead they said that the dog would continue to bite and they euthanized it. The woman's cousin was even willing to take the dog to San Diego. No, they had to kill it. Bound and determined to.
Result....one woman (who needed education and help) whose beloved dogs were taken away and she is in anguish. One dog (Spicy) taken away from its only home. For no good reason other than punitive. One dog (Ocito) dead, its life needlessly wasted. For shame. You should call this show, San Francisco Animal Killers.
I agree with you about that show. I was horrified and ashamed to see the dogs taken away and one killed. I am especially ashamed because I volunteer at the SPCA and have liked many people at ACC. I think this whole vicious dog thing came about after the dog mauling case and is somewhat out of the hands of ACC. Still it is horrible and I am now ashamed of the show.
I agree with goodsteward. I was both ashamed and horrified to see the dog killed and the other taken away. This is an aftermath of the dog mauling and may be partly out of the control of ACC but still the Vicious animal commission is way too deadly to animals. Maybe we should ask Gavin Newsom to look at this commsision?
if you are from that area you might be able to drum up some media attention. in attempting to avert serious mauling and injury, they have written a law far too broad in its application....with disastrous results.
I looked at the face of the officer in charge of the hearing. And the ACC officer trying to help the lady. And what I saw was guilt and shame in them both. The hearing officer obviously does not understand canine behavior and goes along with whatever the "experts" tell him. All I saw in the eval. was prey drive....no teeth bared, just a chasing response. It's not a biggie to control that. Give me a clicker, hot dogs, and two weeks. But then I am only an amateur, not an "expert".
Also if I were that lady I would find Johnnie Cochran and sue the pants off the ACC. Probably the ACLU would get involved as her rights were violated. Pain and suffering too.
I agree that the small dog should not have been killed. I also am not convinced that it should have gone back the the woman. She had already been given a chance and instruction on how to prevent it from happening again. She was walking both (against orders) and had leashes on them but wasn't holding the leashes so she had no control of the dog.
I feel that the dog could have gone to an adult only home or possibly even a home with older children (no babies or toddlers).
I do feel that they did the right thing with the dog the night before though. The amount of damage done to the guy and to the other dog was signifigant. And it wasn't the first time for it to attack the other dog. To send it back the home would put the other dog in severe risk and also anybody that tried to break up the fight.
Another thing to consider on the first dog on the first show is what if it got loose and attacked someone elses dog and the owner of the dog being attacked stepped in. Then the public would be in danger.
I personally know about this type of situation because I was in one. When I was 12 yrs old, I was bitten by a pitt bull. I recieved 62 stiches. The dog was not after me, but after my dog. I had jumped its fence and went after my bassett that I was walking on the other side of the street. At 12, I didn't know any better than to try to get my dog from it. I picked up my dog (dead) and heald it to my body and tried to back away. The pitt jumped up to get my dog and got my face and shoulder, doing a lot of damage. I had to be taken to the hospital by ambulance. I still do not blame the pitt though, the owner was to blame. He had trained the dog to "guard" his property and made it mean. And my dog was the third animal it had attacked (killing 2) and I was the second person. Due to this I can see why the need for the bite dogs to be distroyed, though they did seem to anxious to do so last night.
I was so horrified at this show with that beautiful dog been KILLED! that I came to this site last night looking for a message board, this is the first time I've posted here and my post last night was probably not even intelligible because I was so upset. Thankyou that there are others who feel the same way!!!
Something has to be done in San Fransisco, I live in LA and I'm not even sure of the animal laws here, but the public has to do something!!!
Why, Oh WHY, did they "destroy the animal"? The terms that people use to depersonalize a situation . . . I watched the officer go to the judge "on the former owner's behalf" and she made no effort to argue for the life of the "dangerous" dog despite the fact that she told the former owner that she would really try to save it's life. How proposterous! That officer's attitude reminds me of the cynic saying "well, what are you gonna do?" When one becomes a cynic in that profession it is time to get out!
, come on...watch the show, you know you want too, just because there are laws and mr. snake man broke them, so? he was cool, its a great show....okay???
[This message was edited by mod_kelly on 02-03-05 at 03:59 PM.]
I GUESS IF THAT SWEETIE PIE WAS A PIT, YOU WOULD THINK DIFFERENT, YES IT BIT, AND BIT BEFORE AND BEFORE AND BEFORE, WHATS IT SUPPOSED TO DO NOW? THE OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DOG BITING, SO BY THEM PUTTING THE POOR THING TO SLEEP, THEY WERE IN THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO, THEY DID NOT MURDER THE DOG, HE IS IN HEAVEN NOW, BECAUSE HIS STUPID OWNER LET HIM BITE OVER AND OVER AGAIN,
[This message was edited by mod_kelly on 02-03-05 at 04:00 PM.]
I THINK YOU ARE TOTALLY RIGHT LAST PSTER IF THAT DOG WAS A LARGE PIT OR BULL MASTIFF NOTHING WOULD'VE BEEN SAID.
THE FACT THAT THE DOG HAD ALREADY BIT THREE PEOPLE AND THE RO HAD REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH ANY V/D REQUIREMENTS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PTS. I'M SURE THE TAKE GREAT SATISFACTION IN PUTTING TO SLEEP ANY TYPE OF DOG, NOT!!!!!
Whatever type of dog it doesn't matter. IT IS MURDER!!!
There are stupid humans that keep committing crimes over and over again...are they murdered? Some sit on death row for years and usually get off.
Until humans can treat animals as equals, and , yes, become EMOTIONAL at their destruction, there is not much hope for the spiritual evolution of the human species. And if humans are dying of diseases such as cancer ect., caused by their stagnant attitude...THEY ONLY HAVE THEMSELVES TO BLAME!
Capespi - I did watch the show and that's what I was responding to.
Also, I have watched the other show Animal Precinct and noted the difference in how they deal with a biting dog on that show versus this show. On Animal Precinct there was a cherry-eyed Bull Mastiff who was tested to see if he would bite. The testers put the food down and in went the rubber hand. He snapped at the rubber hand. The testers speculated that he might have to be put to sleep. The point is that there was all this anguish about this animal being put down on the part of the ASPCA, not the former owner. Finally, the officer who rescued the dog adopted him and he was saved.
From watching the show (and, no Capespi, I was not there) I did not see that kind of anguish on the part of the officer of San Francisco Animal Cops.
Further, when we watch these shows, it is certain that we do not see everything that happens in regards to the animals in every case, I mean, we are not God. So, what we have to look at is what is filmed. It's only fair that viewers (animal lovers) respond to what is filmed.
It is possible to train dogs not to bite. It requires money and time, money to train the personnel and time implement it. It also costs money to kill animals and to train personnel to do that to. It depends on where the public wants their money to go.
It seems that the SF Animal Cop wants to go into the legal profession (read her bio). Therefore, the avenue that she is most likely to take in animal rehab is a legal one. Watch the show's rerun and tell me what you think.
I have been reading all the posts concerning the execution of the vicious dogs. I watched the episodes involved. As a rescuer of feral cats, I have anguished over many episodes in NYC, Detroit, etc in which all the cats taken from hoarders had to be destroyed because they had not been socialized. I feel that killing an animal should be the last resort. I also do not believe that there should be breed specific ordinances which mandate certain death for a specific breed.
That being said, however, there are cases where there is not much of an alternative. It is very easy to say the dogs in question should not have been killed, the cousin would relocate etc, but if a dog has bitten, especially if it was not an isolated instance, the danger to the community has to be weighed. Relocating the dog could very possibly just be putting unsuspecting parties at risk. Retraining does not always work.
Another consideration is that we as a society have become very litigious; America is the land of the lawsuit. If the dog were returned to the owner, or even rehomed elsewhere, and that dog were to bite again, it is almost certain that a lawsuit would be instituted against all the parties who contributed to putting a known biter at large.
And, finally, if it were your child that was bitten, and possibly killed, by a dog who had a previous history, how would you feel about the fact that it had been allowed to live?
Rescue workers do not take these issues lightly; and I think a little piece inside of them dies with every animal.
On another note: does anyone else find the blurred camera work and geometric lines distracting? Really makes it difficult for me to watch the show.
I don't understand how the dog that had bitten more than 1 time was allowed to return to his home under restrictions, but the PITBULL that attacked another dog and an owner in the process of breaking up a fight never had any restrictions she was put to death. I an an owner of 3 pitbulls and this angers me more than anything else. People who don't know the breed should keep their comments to their self and put aside what type of dog it is. ANY DOG CAN BE VICIOUS. To me this is discrimination against the breed. Just because there are idiots out there who have gave the dogs a bad name doesn't mean they are all the same. If every person was sent to death because of there race(or breed so to speak)it would be discrmination would it not???????
I think that San Fransico should rethink their laws on dog bites. Sometimes behavioral training will cure the problem. Dogs do not bite for no reasons. Plus there should be more time then 2 weeks to detemine the life of the dogs. Then during that time have several animal behaviorist review the dogs to see if training is possible. After watching several shows about dogs attacks I think Heron jumps too quick to killing the dogs before even trying other reasons as to why first. I have been around a pitbull and a rottwieller together and they are the sweetest dogs. I fact I had a pittbull in a 14' x 70' with 9 cats and played with some but was afraid of others. So pittbulls are not anymore dangerous that any other dogs. I think that in San Franisco area have is too confine for the many dogs to get exercise and to socialize with others. ACC should start some kind to education program to help the dog owners retrain their dogs to behave popular first.
