THIS woman is her dogs' best friend, judging from the money she is shelling out for them.
She paid a $6,000 fine, plus compensation to her neighbour because her five rottweilers went after another dog.
She spent $10,000 on renovations to help contain the dogs.
And she is paying to house two of them in pet hotels, as she was allowed to keep only three of the dogs in her home.
Now, she might face new bills for $100,000 insurance coverage and a banker's guarantee of $2,000 if she insists on keeping 'dangerous dogs'.
So are the authorities being unfair to dog lovers or do owners deserve to be leashed?
The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) told The New Paper that new rules were being considered following reports of vicious attacks by rottweilers on people and other dogs locally and in other countries.
One such attack happened on 26 Nov last year, when Madam Satpal Kaur's five rottweilers attacked a smaller terrier in Lengkong Tiga, Kembangan.
She was fined $6,000 for letting her dogs out unleashed and unmuzzled, and had compensated the other dog's owner.
Five potentially aggressive dogs, and inadequate control over them. So, who deserves the leash?
But Madam Satpal, 51, told The New Paper yesterday that she was upset to hear the proposed new rules.
She said it was unfair that rottweilers were being singled out by the AVA and said all large dogs should be placed in the same category.
The AVA had said it was thinking of creating a new category of dangerous dogs, with the rottweiler and its cross-breeds being included in this group.
Owners of such dogs would have to take up a $100,000 insurance policy and a banker's guarantee of $2,000.
The guarantee would be forfeited if the dog strays, bites someone or is reported lost.
Newly licensed dogs must also undergo obedience training.
But Madam Satpal does not think all these rules are 'right'.
'I am already paying a hefty price for their lodging, per month. This will be added cost for me. And already the economy is so bad. Everybody is feeling the pinch, including me.'
So, why keep rottweilers?
She said they were like any other dogs which could also be ferocious and harm humans.
'Why only categorise rottweilers? You should go for large breeds, then it's fair.
'It's the way you bring up your dog that actually matters.'
So it seems even dog owners agree that people and not the dogs are the real issue.
But Madam Satpal thinks the proposed new rulings should be for new dog owners as current rottweiler owners would have already sent their dogs for obedience training and would have been tamed by then.
But what about her rottweilers that attacked another dog? That's hardly the act of tame dogs.
She said the incident arose because her front gate had malfunctioned, allowing the dogs to escape.
Her case might well have prompted the proposed new rulings. How did she feel about that?
She said it was unfair for her to get the blame as her case was the one that had attracted the most media attention.
'Unfair'
Mr Jack Wang, 58, the executive director of a security company specialising in training guard dogs, owns a rottweiler and said the proposed rules were unfair to rottweiler owners as the coverage was too high.
He has been training guard dogs for 25 years and owned 20 rottweilers during this period.
He said: 'The insurance policy is quite unreasonable because if the owner looks after the dog properly, it would be quite unnecessary.
'Owners might put the dog down or let them out onto the streets. Not all rottweilers are killer dogs.
'Some are very friendly.'
According to the American Kennel Club, the rottweiler is a calm, confident and courageous dog that chooses friendships carefully.
It also has a desire to protect home and family, and is an intelligent dog with a strong willingness to work.
A veterinary nurse with four years' experience, who declined to be named, said she has seen around six or seven rottweilers and said they should not be 'punished' for being built the way they are.
She said rottweilers are meant to be guard dogs, which means they have a higher level of aggression compared to other dogs.
So, it's the owners who should be educated on what is required of a rottweiler owner instead of lumping the breed into a dangerous dog category, she said.
She added: 'The AVA needs to have a process to screen owners to see who is suitable to own such dogs.
'Whoever owns a rottweiler should be able to handle them. The aim should be to educate the public about this breed.
'If you slap on these rules, and the owner can afford it, and is still irresponsible, then it would be counter-effective.'
So should we make potential owners of potentially dangerous dogs go for a psychological screening and civic responsibility counselling?
Forget the obedience classes for dogs and apply them for owners instead, perhaps.
This article was first published in The New Paper on Nov 11, 2008.
