"Dangerously Devoted" On Animal Planet

[mommanessy247]

i didn't mean to offend anyone.
ER12 - i apologize if my remark has offended you in any way.
that rant was spurred on by my lack of proper sleep this last week + my pregnancy hormones + my tendency to get overly worked up by certain issues.
i know we all take risks and make potentially disastrous decisions every day and its those decisions that ultimately make us learn.
i just really hate it when friends/family members act surprised that someone close to them suffered some kind of tragedy when they knew the circumstances were bad and yet did nothing. thats all.

[kristan]

you should be allowed to keep whatever you want, and only you should be punished accordingly if something bad happens, not any other person who keeps said animal

extenuating circumstances such as a brain tumor are not the issue here. its the perception of "dangerous" pets. a brain tumor is 150% out of the keepers control. keeping your pet that you know "could" harm others safely kept, is the issue

Okay, my example was a bit of a stretch...one of those freak highly unlikely occurrences, so I'll move on.

I don't quite understand your post though..I'm not trying to argue, just trying to understand what you mean. You note that that my example of animal aggression is not the issue but you had previously noted that if an animal (you did not specify any one animal so I assumed it applied to any) is aggressive then the owner should be punished to the full extent of the law. So...do you mean that only certain animals (e.g. dangerous pets) or certain (foreseeable) acts of aggression should be punished, or perhaps that acts of aggression that are beyond the keeper's control should not be punished? Your statement of "keeping your pet that you know could harm others safely kept" also confused me..do you mean that if you're doing everything you can (your caging is adequate, etc.) and the animal still gets out and hurts someone then the keeper should not be held legally responsible? Again, not trying to argue, I feel that I may agree with you on some points but may be misunderstanding your posts.

[BAMReptiles]

ah, i mean: if through means that are controllable by the owner the animal, which is KNOWN to be dangerous, ie: tiger/lion/rattlesnake/cheetah/whatever, gets free or whatever because of negligence on behalf of the owner, then that should be when they are punished.

lets use the brain tumor dog for instance. the dog was otherwise fine, until the tumor correct? well that was nothing that the owner had ANY control over and couldn't really prevent, so that's kinda outside the range of owner responsibility. unless they knew it had made him aggressive and still let him free roam anyways.

on the other hand, lets say you want a liger, fine by all means have one. i think that's your God given right. but, you need to keep caged and handled in a proper manner. now if it got out though a fault of your method of keeping it, that's when the punishment comes in.

in any type of instance like that it would basically be a case by case scenario of weighing the facts and information basically.

hope that cleared it up a bit.

[dembonez]

i never care about stuff like this! haha i laugh it off! simply because there are ignorant people all around! if they wan't to choose a plain simple ignorant life....so be it!



i don't judge anyone not to be nice simply because i have better things to do then waste my time thinking negative thoughts of someone i barley know...