Saving Heidi when she doesn't need to be saved?

Question

Ok trying this again because YA is being well YA and thus slow
Now before the other regs assume I've lost my mind I am NOT trying to get signatures for Heidi the Doberman. I do have a question on what others opinion on the situation is however.

Here is the petition site so you can read the owner's side of things http://www.saveheidi.com/

Now when this first popped up a few minutes ago I went looking for news articles with more details
1 http://www.clickondetroit.com/community/Royal-Oak-woman-s-online-plea-to-Save-Heidi-grows/-/2207168/8586364/-/di3ohf/-/

2 http://www.examiner.com/dogs-in-national/royal-oak-responds-to-outpouring-of-support-for-heidi-the-doberman

Now both articles pretty much refute what this woman is saying. There are witnesses who back up the man who was bitten view's of event(he asked before approaching the dogs, vs just randomly went up to them) AND the hospital notes as well as police reports make it clear that this wasn't just a headbutt.

So my questions
1. Do you think this woman is just trying to get her way out of one of two fines levied against her since Heidi was also unregistered at the time?

2. Is it wrong of her to get people all worked up that her dog may be destroyed when there is NO pending order of destruction and the dog is still in her care?

-She can keep her dog if she simply pleads and pays the fine. If she pleads not guilty looses, fails to show to court then yeah obviously the dog will be put down, but they are giving her an out here and she's refusing to take it.

3. Do you think this gives other online petitions(while equally ineffective for the most part) aimed at saving dogs who really need saving a bad name?

4. What's your opinion on petitions aimed at saving the life of dogs who have proven to be dangerous? I've seen more than a few and I think the bleeding hearts need to focus on non problem dogs.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

I don't know, the second article says it refutes the VICTIMS claims, 

"The animal control officer's observation seems to vary from the "victim's" recount of an attack.

Small lacerations and "scratches" definitely are not the same as a purposeful bite."

I couldn't get the first article to load so I can't see what it says.

It definetly sounds just from the second article like she was blowing stuff way out of proportion.

However, I know cases where stuff like this has been legit. The case of Rolo. A german shepherd got loose, injured a woman walking. The woman claims she received a severe bite on her behind, claiming nerve damage and everything. She demanded the dog be euthanized, the city ordered the dog euthanized. However, it was the dogs first act of "aggression" even though Arvada had a 3 bite law. Numerous "experts" stepped in on behalf of the dog. The responding paramedics and animal control officers who stated it was NOT a severe bite mark, they couldn't even label it more then a mild scratch (and knowing the breeds habit of swatting with their paws, this is what I believe it was).  Numerous behavior experts claiming the dog could be helped with some training. The owner agreeing to do everything the city wanted, training and muzzles and new fencing. Finally, after a 4 month battle (and a 4 month stay in a local shelter), the dog was released on strict conditions. That, IMHO, was a case where a petition was very much needed and was supplied. Because honestly, sh*t happens. Personally knowing the shelter and knowing friends and close workers who were there at the time and interacted with Rolo, I know this was NOT a problem dog. If anything this was a dog that got excited and wanted to "play" with someone making funny sounds and running away. I very much believe it was a swat and not a bite. I very much think the "victim" was milking it for all she could. And I believe, living in the area, laws need to be upheld. We have a 3 bite law unless it is a severe attack, that should be followed. Because what happens when someone elses dog gets out and excitement or fear causes a very minor incident (as I strongly believe this was), and someone elses dog gets unfairly euthanized and a long legal battle ensues because of a stupid case like Rolos?

Anonymous · Answer

Sad how people will sign things willy nilly without getting facts. Judges don't even look at online petitions.

E · Answer

Now you're just spanning.
You put the same amount of questions up as I did. Thank you for your opinion but that is just hypocritical.

Saving Heidi when she doesn't need to be saved?

Related Questions

Trending Questions