The abandoned dog, called Crackers, had been brutally attacked by a previous owner who had beaten him about the head with a metal pole.
The dog carried out the attacks in Malvern just 12 hours after being adopted by the couple where it was hoped he would go on to live out a better, happier life. Although the dog will not be destroyed, he will now have to spend the rest of his life in a rescue centre to protect the public and must be muzzled and kept on a lead at all times if he goes outdoors.Wait, what..? Why on earth wouldn't this thing be disposed of immediately?
The rescue dog, previously known as Kaiser (but renamed by the couple), had been in their possession just 12 hours when he bit Geraldine Price on the hand in Duke of Edinburgh Way in Malvern on March 15 this year.
The dog, which the couple adopted from Birch Hill kennels in Worcester, bit John Southall later the same day at Malvern Retail Park, the couple claiming they had been at the shops to buy a muzzle after the first attack.
/facepalm
By chance the two victims met in A&E at Worcestershire Royal Hospital in Worcester where they were both receiving treatment. When they began a conversation they 'both realised they had both been bitten by the same dog'.
You couldn't make it up, could you?
The dog, which had been described as ‘nervous’ by the kennels which rehomed him, had given instructions that the animal was to be properly managed and should have a harness and sign to say he was a nervous dog.
“It seems that had not been done” said the prosecutor.
Ya think?!?
In interview Prangley claimed the victim of the first attack had been ‘flicking keys which had scared the dog’. She said she had not been fully informed about the dog’s temperament.
Well, of course she did...
Mark Sheward, defending, said the couple had never been told the dog should be kept on a muzzle. He said of the kennels: “It would seem they are seeking to minimise their responsibility in allowing their dog out when they had concerns about it themselves.”
Wouldn't the sensible thing to do be put down any large, powerful dog who shows signs of a poor temperament?
Magistrates ordered Prangley to pay £150 in compensation to Miss Price. Hiles was ordered to pay £150 to Mr Southall. The pair were disqualified from keeping dogs for two years.
And presumably the kennels get off scot free?
And presumably the kennels get off scot free
ReplyDeleteAs did the dog
Someone should disqualify the rescue from keeping and rehoming dogs to idiots. Too many times dog rescues are not honest about the temperament of their dogs and have little in the way of skill or experience in assessing dogs for temperament.
ReplyDeleteIt's all very well ordering the dog to spend the rest of its life in a rescue, but how is this going to be monitored? I see this dog being advertised for fostering/adoption in a couple of years time. The cycle will continue with the dog being adopted/returned/adopted out - it happens.
Putting the dog down would probably have been kinder.
The kennals will get off free with this. When we adopted a rescue dog that attacked my wife the kennals didn't want to know so having made a generous donation to them when we adopted the dog we then had to pay the vet bill to have it put down.
ReplyDeleteDO we need to wonder why the previous owner beat the dog with a metal pole?
ReplyDelete"As did the dog"
ReplyDeleteYes, incredibly enough! I did like this comment under the article though:
"The dog was going to have therapy but was previously told not to climb on the couch!"
🤣
"Someone should disqualify the rescue from keeping and rehoming dogs to idiots."
Are they even required to be qualified? It seems any soft-hearted moron can run one of these places, no licencing required...
"...we then had to pay the vet bill to have it put down."
Should have dumped the body at the gate!
"DO we need to wonder why the previous owner beat the dog with a metal pole?"
In a desperate attempt to prevent having his throat torn out?