The kangaroo will kill the dog and the human. They use those big legs and toe nails to rip open your belly. They are dangerous if you get on the wrong side. Alex
"Having the right" assumes there is a structure by which to judge his actions. What structure do you propose is in place here? Urban city bylaw? Law of the jungle?
My dog is a family member, the roo is a big, dangerous pugnacious rat. The roo is lucky all he got was punched.
The dogs will chase the kangaroos and if handy the roo will jump in the dam, the dogs swim after it and the roo rips them open. I have not witnessed this personally but have heard many stories in my area. I have been in the bush when a mob of roos have been after a female and we hid. I changed my view that day about them being cute. My nephew was attacked and was badly injured and got away up a tree. Alex
Hi Alex, Looking at other large herbivores it seems they don't like dogs and will attack the person bringing the dog into their territory - which (to me) seems rather smart. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...deadly-large-animals-in-britain-a6727266.html "Of the 18 members of the public [killed by cows], all were present on public footpaths or commonly used rights of way, all but one were accompanied by a dog and with exception of one man who had wandered away from a family group, all were lone walkers or accompanied by one other person." As a matter of total statistical insignificance... Did your nephew have a dog with him when he was treed by the kangaroos? If I could buy a gun permit to control people with badly behaved dogs I'd probably get one.
More footage here shows the kangaroo was restraining the dog. I have been in exactly the same position myself - I attach no blame to any of the animals - this was just Mr Dickhead doing what Dickheads do best.
Really? Did you have a chance to ask the roo why it was restaining the dog? For its own good? To give it a big hug? What do you think the roo was going to do next? That dog belongs to the owner. Dickhead just saved its life.
Leaving aside the option of keeping two large dogs within sight and under control - just that alone is a complicated option for a complete dickhead. Why should a complete dickhead want to keep his dogs under control when (as we saw) there's no need whatsoever? Moving on. Having been in the same position with two dogs I can say the reason for restraining first dog was that I could easily kill it if the second dog attacked - an attack by one dog is more easily managed than an attack by two - is that too complicated for you? With hindsight I should have broken its neck (bit dickheadish but that's who and what we're dealing with here). In my situation (one out of two large dogs restrained) - when the owner finally arrived did they call both dogs to heel? I would have let go of the dog I was holding and the dog bouncing round me would have gone to the owner. In the event the dog I was holding decided it didn't want to be strangled and would rather get away from me and the second dog didn't attack. The owner played no part in the scenario. In fairness the owner (a female) didn't try to attack - I (like the kangaroo) was just minding my own business when I encoundered this Dickheadess (?) and her dogs. Did the Dickheadess save any dogs lives? - I don't think so. You can't apply any sort of reasoning to Dickheads - some they win and occasionally they lose.
Far be it from me to give advice to Dickheads but - cows (uk) and quite possibly other apparently harmless animals will kill you if you if you don't keep your dogs under control. Winning once doesn't mean you'll win every time.
In parts of Australia, Kangaroos are literally in Plague proportions, in excess of 50 million, [double the human population] and the government employs professional roo shooters to keep the numbers down. It is certainly a necessary evil, to keep numbers under control in certain areas.
Let me add, the Kangaroo was holding the dog, in preparing to rip its guts open. That's what the Big Grey and Red Knagaroos do.