This was Tweeted by a vet who then whined like an abandoned cocker spaniel puppy when she got blowback.
Because if vets are crying into their cappuchinos over having to put 'Killer' down, why haven't they been raising a fuss over having to stitch up Killer's multiple victims? Is it because they can earn multiple amounts from treatment for them, when it's a non-repeating fee for euthanasia?
Either way, it's hard to see that the welfare of the animals is uppermost, isn't it?
3 comments:
Presumably these dogs, all breeds, come to these Veternary surgeries to get chipped and jabbed. So the Vet knows the dog and its owner. So after "an incident" both can be identified and traced.
No, forget it.
I was thinking along the same lines as Doonhamer. Perhaps they need to give a personality certificate. They can charge the chav and if it goes wrong they can be one of those up for prosecution and, compensation.
I'm not a supported of blanket bans. They are happy to discriminate between these and other muscle dogs.
I am a supporter of personal responsibility though. Have what you want and if it goes wrong you have to pay a price but in todays society nobody is responsible for anything. It's all communal in a supposedly conservative government.
"So the Vet knows the dog and its owner. So after "an incident" both can be identified and traced."
If the owner complies, yes. How many owners of these things do that?
"I am a supporter of personal responsibility though. Have what you want and if it goes wrong you have to pay a price..."
I'd agree, but apart from those times the hellbeast mauls the owner's own child, it's usually others paying the price...
Post a Comment