I volunteer at ACC and am a huge fan of Animal Cops. I think people should understand that the show is not to blame for government's actions. However, I must admit that the AC show in San Francisco is for some reason showing too many vicious dogs and blaming them for what they have done...Owners should be prosecuted! They are resposible for most cases- walking dogs without leashes and leaving doors open- why blame doggies for those actions? It is easy to euthanize dogs because any dog can be classified as vicious- and I saw many accidents when it happened for no reason... I think that the judge should prosecute the owners, rather than repeat the same thin over and over again about being able to euthanize pets...Maybe, the key is to educate owners and order them to go to classes if they are not responsible etc... ACC is about rules and those rules have no emotions... However, it is important to show more of owners who get prosecuted for abusing animals and less of animals who get euthanized for things that could have been prevented by their stupid owners.
it would be great to see the irresponsible owners get thrown in a cage for 2 weeks while their fate hangs in the balance. I'm not sure I like the show S.F. animal cops. I love the other animal cop shows but I also think SF spends too much time on vicious dog(which is really stupid people)cases. I dont like the way they showcase the owners as heart broken victims while because of their ignorance their beloved pet is labled vicious and put down. I dont think I heard any fines or recorse laid upon the lady who ignored restrictions and walked the dogs together unleashed or the idiots with the broken door.
I watched every night, and was happy to see that many shared my feelings. I would rather see the show report on more cases of owners prosecuted for cruelty, rescued animals later adopted and living in better conditions, than cases of dogs destroyed for unnacceptable behavior (guess I'm a bit of a wimp). I was very disturbed by the owner/guardian of the rotties saying he was willing to "replace" his neighbor's pets! What a jerk, that should have been a red flag as to his concept of pets! But I was also bothered by the scruffy terrier (can't remember his name) being destroyed for nipping and for lunging at the jogger during his assessment. Geez, billions of dogs lunge at moving objects. I realize though that this was not the only reason, and that the owner is to blame for not obeying the restrictions and warnings. I really like the officers,however, and feel they have a good heart and a lot of compassion. SFCAC seems is portrayed as a bit harsh on the vicious animal cases, but at least it's better than Miami Dade where pit bulls are banned, and destroyed if the owner doesn't pay a fine and move to another county. Hope there will be more SF COPS.
I'll just refer you to my postings in other threads rather than go into detail here. AC SF is the only show in which the agency handles BOTH cruelty AND aggression cases. That's why you don't see dog bite incidents on other cities' versions.
Yes, I stand corrected. Of all the other cities Miami is the only one that also combines cruelty and aggression cases, because the police department handles both. I think I may have mentioned that on other threads, but neglected to mention it here, perhaps because Miami doesn't seem to appear in the Animal Planet listings any more.
On the other hand, the Miami show has been heavily weighted toward the wildlife and exotic animal stuff because it's so interesting to viewers. In fact, they follow Pesky Critters around a lot, and they aren't even part of the city agency.
I can tell that you're as addicted to these programs as I am!
Thank you JeffreyJWard. After looking at most of the posting in all topics, I found out why there are so many vicious dog cases on the show. Makes sense, it's what they deal with...
I felt the decisions about euthanizing or not euthanizind these dogs were very random and ridiculous. I took particular exception to S.F. idea of "Temperment testing". I don't believe in it to begin with, but their methods are the dumbest I have seen yet. They walk dogs on a leash and have someone run by. If the dog tries to give chase, they deem that "disturbing" behavior? Are these people insane, or do they just like killing dogs? First of all, most any dog will react different when they are leashed then they will off leash. That's one reason dog parks REQUIRE that the dogs be off leash. Second, giving chase to someone running is an instinctive behavior. It doesn't mean a damn thing.
I'm appalled that these so-called experts are determining which of these animals survive.
I would love to see the whole SF force replaced by folks from another city. They are tooo smug and Holier-Than-Thou. A lot of their ideas are ridiculous, not based on much adult experience owning animals, and more of a 4-year-old child's fantasy of being an "animal helper". Their power has corrupted them, get them out. I see the same sanctimonious power-mad trip on some workers at Kill animal shelters who get overly vicious with the background check on wannabe animal-adopters, the more info adopters give them, the worse the investigation gets. They'd rather put the animal down. I was in dog 4H for many years, studied dog obedience, and trained dogs for dog obedience shows. I watched their ridiculous assessment of "vicious" dogs. I thought the dogs were rowdy, maybe assertive, but needed heavy obedience training...not killing. Put the owners on a time schedule for heavy obedience training (owner financed) or face heavy fines, with trainer feedback to Animal Control. I'm not talking about the Granola-type dog training with reasoning with dogs, hugs and halters. By the SF Animal Cops standards, ALL dogs would have failed at one time or another, most dogs do get rowdy, barky and confrontive at one time or another. They aren't stuffed animals. All dogs do need obedience training.
I saw one show where one of the owner's relatives tried to separate two dogs fighting and was severely bitten. Hello! How many times did Mom say not to do that, use a mop, hose, anything but direct contact? How dumb is that? I do support the death verdict in that case because the dog had repeatedly attacked humans and animals. Legally, I would think actual photographic evidence of injuries would be required before euthanasia. Without that, I'd love for a lawyer to represent the dog owners and sue the "victims" and SF Animal Control for harassment, unfairly causing the death of a pet, animal cruelty, etc..
I've seen two shows so far, where the "victims" showed giant bandages but we didn't see if there were actual wounds beyond scratches, or anything that might've been self-inflicted for pumping up a court-case and lawsuit. I'm surprised the Lawyers aren't knocking down the dog owner's doors.
Pertaining to "finding homes (for parrots, etc.) where owners stay home all day, leave radios/TV's on for the animals"...like how often are you going to find an owner like that? How many animals are going to get euthanized while the officer living in fantasyland is waiting for the "perfect" home? Tax dollars are burning.
[This message was edited by mod_kelly on 03-12-05 at 02:45 PM.]
[This message was edited by mod_kelly on 03-15-05 at 10:11 AM.]
I'm positive your attitude would change drastically if you were bitten or mauled.
Yes the owner should be punished but the dog still be euthanized after just one attack so it will not get a chance to repeat it. People who think there dog is so good and innocent usually don't commit to change. The woman who walked her 2 dogs together is a classic example of this.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by chlban: I felt the decisions about euthanizing or not euthanizind these dogs were very random and ridiculous. I took particular exception to S.F. idea of "Temperment testing". I don't believe in it to begin with, but their methods are the dumbest I have seen yet. They walk dogs on a leash and have someone run by. If the dog tries to give chase, they deem that "disturbing" behavior? Are these people insane, or do they just like killing dogs? First of all, most any dog will react different when they are leashed then they will off leash. That's one reason dog parks REQUIRE that the dogs be off leash. Second, giving chase to someone running is an instinctive behavior. It doesn't mean a damn thing.
I'm appalled that these so-called experts are determining which of these animals survive.[/QUOTE]
did you ever hit anybody when you were a kid? If you did and were judged on your guidelines the you would have been put down a long time ago without a second chance. Dogs are like children they need love, guidance, and dislipline. (second chances)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by hummingbird_1968: I'm positive your attitude would change drastically if you were bitten or mauled.
Yes the owner should be punished but the dog still be euthanized after just one attack so it will not get a chance to repeat it. People who think there dog is so good and innocent usually don't commit to change. The woman who walked her 2 dogs together is a classic example of this.[/QUOTE]
"I dont think I heard any fines or recorse laid upon the lady who ignored restrictions and walked the dogs together unleashed or the idiots with the broken door."
I don't think I did either! At the very least, these owners should have had to pay the medical bills for the victims.
"I took particular exception to S.F. idea of "Temperment testing". I don't believe in it to begin with, but their methods are the dumbest I have seen yet. They walk dogs on a leash and have someone run by. If the dog tries to give chase, they deem that "disturbing" behavior? . . . Second, giving chase to someone running is an instinctive behavior. It doesn't mean a damn thing."
I think it would mean something to any stranger who runs by the dog and then sees the dog running after him or her. The stranger doesn't know anything about the dog, and wouldn't know what the dog had in mind to do.
"I saw one show where one of the owner's relatives tried to separate two dogs fighting and was severely bitten. Hello! How many times did Mom say not to do that, use a mop, hose, anything but direct contact? How dumb is that?"
Civil court is also now starting to "punish" the owners of vicious dogs with hefty judgements against them. A woman whose cat was killed on her doorstep recently received a large court award and the dog owner will have to pay it.
The people who own vicious dogs will be have to pay for the deeds of their animals. The number of lawsuits is only increasing.
I so agree with you. These people don't have animal's interest at heart, or simply they just don't have heart at all. A lot of time, they claimed that it was the city of SF's policy that they had to follow, and as a result, they had to treat animal the way they did on the show. As claimed, I conclude then that by employing such policy,the city of SF is unethical and by being OK with such policy, the employees are far unethical. Not all the people on the SF animal cops are like that. There are great people there too. For instance: The other day I watched the SF animal cop. It was the show about a dog that was suffering with a large tumor at the bottom of his stomach. He was taken in by an officer, whom I don't get his name but remember that he was an English man. However, after being examined by the city's veterinarian( a man with partly bald head), the dog's condition was seen to be severe and required more than one operation. As a result, the veterinarian told the officer that the dog wouldn't be saved then by the city. However, the English officer decided to spend his own money to save the dog himself, which was about $1500, by taking the dog to other pet hospital. After cured, the dog was adopted by the officer and his girlfriend. The English officer here is a true hero
quote:
Originally posted by chlban: I felt the decisions about euthanizing or not euthanizind these dogs were very random and ridiculous. I took particular exception to S.F. idea of "Temperment testing". I don't believe in it to begin with, but their methods are the dumbest I have seen yet. They walk dogs on a leash and have someone run by. If the dog tries to give chase, they deem that "disturbing" behavior? Are these people insane, or do they just like killing dogs? First of all, most any dog will react different when they are leashed then they will off leash. That's one reason dog parks REQUIRE that the dogs be off leash. Second, giving chase to someone running is an instinctive behavior. It doesn't mean a damn thing.
I'm appalled that these so-called experts are determining which of these animals survive.
