the dog aggression is probably because of the pregnancy and the baby being born.
Normally I'd agree:
Her 1st "dog aggression" thread was posted in January. So she wasn't pregnant at that time, the new baby was just born within the past month.
The only reason I even mention the dog, is that BOTH parties mentioned the dog's behavior in this thread, which reminded me of the other posts.
reticguy76 said:
i dont think that shows anything bad about animal keeping, in respects to the "dog aggression".
Oh I totally agree!
I posted the links above ONLY because THEY brought it up, and I think it's SAD Ashley actually allows the dog to chase her rabbits around the house, knowing it's behavior problems. THAT's what bothered me about her animal keeping, not the fact that she has a "problem child".
I'm also concerned as Ashley mentioned in a previous post her pending custody battle for her 5yr old son against her Mother:
A curious and playful 5yr old boy, and an aggressive dog aren't a good mix. Again, off topic, but since they both mentioned the dog, and the custody suit here, I'll feel it's fair to comment on it.
reticguy76 said:
everybody has their opinions on everything. government assistance is a very sensitive subject in general. i dont really see how it horribly relevent here though. she applied for it, and didnt get approval because they make too much. for me, that discussion should be closed. had she gotten it and was buying snakes and whatnot, that would be a whole different story.
Unless I read wrong, she had been on WIC after her surgery/release from military service. She just went to reapply and thanks to unemployment, now makes too much under the Texas income guidelines:
which are
TEXAS WIC INCOME GUIDELINES 2010
$33,874-$40,793 for a family of 3 up to 4 members.
Wonder if she included her recent baby Bolivian Boa sales on her "income"?
Doesn't matter really, like you said.
We ALL need a helping hand at times, I don't see a problem with that, but during that time, she WAS buying snakes, attending shows...etc...and THAT seems wrong to me.
Sorry for introducing all this other stuff really, the whole thing started after my curiosity:
Ashley had time to post all over other forums and FB all aspects of her life but not come here and back up her accusations against Yvonne, and it seemed strange.
It raises some about character and motives when someone can spend large amounts on things that aren't necessities, but try to get assistance from government progams..and that's the ONLY relevance the post had here.
I tend to be a "whole picture" person, and if someone is questioning another person's character, ESPECIALLY without proof, they should know that a light may be shined on their character as well.
reticguy76 said:
but she is not on government assistance at this time (unless i read something wrong or didnt read something properly), that should be thrown out of this thread. applying and wanting assistance doesnt mean much here, unless she actually got approved and was taking advantage.
If I'm understanding other posters correctly, she is on disability for an injury/surgery on her ankle involving torn ligaments, but apparently is fully able to ride a motorcycle, go clubbing and dancing, handle large constrictors, and train to keep venomous snakes.
There's a lot that should be thrown out of this thread..since it's really not got ANYTHING at ALL to do with reptiles or a reptile deal gone bad.
I apologize for adding to it, but there's so many things that keep cropping up in replies and other areas,and I feel it's best to try to look at the WHOLE picture.
Yvonne has AGREED to pay what she owes when the AMOUNT is proven and agreed upon, and her items are returned to her. At least that's what I gathered in her post.
I hope Ashley gets her money back! However, I really think the Texas small claims courts would be her BEST bet, and even there, she's going to need more evidence of the arrangement than she's brought so far.