Another Government power grab of your rights: Dog Ownership

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States ^ | Cherie Groves, chairwoman

[Liberal Classic]

I don't deny that dog attacks are tragic, but they are the fault of the owner. An individual animal involved in an attack should be destroyed.

...sadly the least responsible owners are usually the least able to meet their legal and financial obligations...

So, because of these few irresponsible people, the millions of responsible owners should be punished by breed bans? That's what I don't buy. I am highly in favor of strong criminal penalties for dog attacks, prohibitions against the owners from keeping dogs to prevent further attacks from occuring, etc.

What I fear is that this issue is becoming an emotionally charged issues that gun ownership is, that dog ownership will carry the same stigma that gun ownership does among some people. I believe these are very closely related issues, and it concerns me when I hear folks talking like gun grabbing democrats on the dog issue. Not that you personally did so, just in general.

We must be forever on our guard against feel-good legislation that would take away our rights. "Pit bulls tear the faces off of children" is a "what about the children" argument, and I encourage people on this board to avoid this kind of thinking. It is my opinion, that the ownership of large breed, even agressive large breed dogs is not a serious enough of a problem to warrant breed bans. If there is a problem, it exists in the enforcement of current law against dog fighting and animal abuse.

[CSM]

Doggie list woof (ping)!

[L98Fiero]

"Responsible dog owner, the rarest breed of all. If only that breed was as common as pit bulls, rotties, chows, etc..."


Best post yet.

So far, not one comment on this thread about dogs having minds of their own. You think we have strict gun laws now? What if those guns had minds of their own? What kind of anti-gun laws do you think we would have then?

Some breeds are more disposed to undesirable bahavior than others. Anyone denying that is lying to themselves. Generally, it is the responsible dog owner who can curtail this behavior with proper training of the animal. Still, there are "bad dogs" just like there are bad people and no amount of training will fix them.

[cspackler]

Dogs are property. As such, crimes commited with dogs, and torts involving dogs are the fault of the property owner -- the dog owner

So, if you own a "dangerous dog" that, despite all of you attempts at safety, manages to escape your property and kill a child, you would be willing to face murder charges? If you are not willing to say yes, then all of your blustering to the contrary are meaningless. I have know too many people who have had childrem mauled and disfigured by Billy Bob's Rotweiller or Pit down the street.

It may be your right to own a dangerous animal, but it's everyone elses right to not get their face chewed off by your "rights".

[HairOfTheDog]

Ping!

Other articles with keyword "DOGGIEPING" since 12/29/04

[cspackler]

Jet ski's kill people.

Sorry, but I don't think that your jet ski is going to dig its way out of your garage, run into my yard, and attack my daughter.

Your Pit, however...

[Smokin' Joe]

Sounds like a group worth infiltrating, to me.

More armed "red state folks' about, with arrest powers, and the discretion to use them appropriately.

[Gabz]

The bottom line is that banning dogs because they are dangerous is like banning guns because they are dangerous. In both cases, it's irresponsible owners who are putting people at risk. The sad part is most of those owners don't even realize they are being irresponsible with their dogs.

Excellent summatation.

[Liberal Classic]

So, if you own a "dangerous dog" that, despite all of you attempts at safety, manages to escape your property and kill a child, you would be willing to face murder charges? If you are not willing to say yes, then all of your blustering to the contrary are meaningless.

Trying to give a serious answer, a charge manslaughter would be more appropriate in my opinion.

[doc30]

Tell me about it...The jackasses that live across the street from me claim their dog (I think it is half pit-bull) "escapes" their yard at least twice a week. My wife talked to the "owner" once during the day and after previous apologizing about the incident she then claimed that dogs are no different from cats and should be able to roam. She also screamed "What, we can't own a dog!"

We have a similar problem with one specific neighbor that doesn't care one iota if their dogs get loose. My wife and I have rounded them up on several occassions. They don't have any ID or microchip (the family doesn't own a lawn mower, judging from their yard) so next time we will take them to animal services. They are medium sized and friendly so they will likely be adopted by people who care about their animals. On the other hand, my heart really goes out to people who look after their animals and a once in a dog's lifetime accident happens and it gets loose. I've seen many people in tears hunting for their pets up and down the street.

[longtermmemmory]

Yes, you can under tresspassing and illegal dumping.

seriously.

yes.

You need to set up a camera and have CLEAR images of the person and file a police report. The most important part is to PRESS CHARGES, don't let the police dodge witht he BS that "this is a civil matter" (code for: I don't want to move my fat posterior from the donut box to do the paperwork I am actually paid to do.)

[Red6]

Every year people are run over by Jet ski's while swimming. Want to bet money?

[CJ Wolf]

Just pour some old bacon grease on the poop, it will disappear overnight.

[doc30]

So, if you own a "dangerous dog" that, despite all of you attempts at safety, manages to escape your property and kill a child, you would be willing to face murder charges? If you are not willing to say yes, then all of your blustering to the contrary are meaningless. I have know too many people who have had childrem mauled and disfigured by Billy Bob's Rotweiller or Pit down the street.

It may be your right to own a dangerous animal, but it's everyone elses right to not get their face chewed off by your "rights".

The crux of the matter is what constitutes a dangerous animal. What is dangerous? An animal that has proven itself dangerous based on its performance or an animal, through simply being born as a specific breed yet does not show any 'dangerous' qualities?

[Smokin' Joe]

Some breeds are more disposed to undesirable bahavior than others.

True. I have been around dobermans, rottweillers, wolf hybrids, and pit bulls, and those sneaky little toy poodles have bitten me more than all other breeds put together.

Time to wage war on those yappy dustmops.

Besides their owners let them run like cats, and the poop is small, so they don't think I'll notice when the three year-old comes in with squishy stinky stuff between his toes from the lawn. WRONG!

It isn't the breed, it is the owner, regardless of the dog.

If you wanted to carry this whole mentality in an uncomfortable direction, we could discuss which ethnic groups perpetrate the most crime, and then what?

If the owner cannot control their animal, be it a horse, dog, python, whatever, they should not have animals. How far you want the government in that is a topic for real debate.

[cspackler]

Every year people are run over by Jet ski's while swimming. Want to bet money?

No, they get run over by a person riding a jet ski. Without a person physically doing something with that piece of metal and plastic, it will do nothing.

An animal, on the other hand, works of its own free will.

If you can't see the difference, you probably go around telling everyone that "guns kill people".

[cspackler]

Trying to give a serious answer, a charge manslaughter would be more appropriate in my opinion.

So, if you own a dog that gets out and kills a child, you would be willing to do 20 years in prison, right?

[SheLion]

She Lion - I think this is a good one for both of our lists. It's a long article, but it smacks of so many of the same arguments we have been using in regard to the smoker bans.

Ok.  It sure is a long read, though.  ~whew!

She Lion - I think this is a good one for both of our lists. It's a long article, but it smacks of so many of the same arguments we have been using in regard to the smoker bans.

Ok.  It sure is a long read, though.  ~whew!

[Publius6961]

The bottom line is that banning dogs because they are dangerous is like banning guns because they are dangerous. In both cases, it's irresponsible owners who are putting people at risk. The sad part is most of those owners don't even realize they are being irresponsible with their dogs.

Silly, silly, silly...
Way beyond silly.

There seems to be a profound misunderstanding of the word "property" and its evolution over time as it applies to animals.

Clearly it is irrational to equate a dog to a buffet, or to a chest of drawers, which is never likely to escape and seriously injure or kill anyone. So using the word "property" in this sense is inherently dishonest.

And now, in 2006, the "other" application of the word "property is no longer true either: to do with as we wish, whenever we wish...
A long time ago this was a distinct and clear right with living things. No longer true.

Bottom line? this whole argument is a waste of time, and will never ever find legitimacy in either argumentation or law.

[jsh3180]

This may be a bit off topic, but my local County Commission (Monroe County, Fl) passed a law about two months ago requiring dog and cat owners to have their pets neutered by six months of age. The only way around it was to obtain a "kennel" license at a cost of $500 per animal per year. They also passed law stating that you were allowed no more than five pets per household, with fines beginning at $500 for each animal over their limit.

Well, local citizens got up in arms and flooded the next County Commission meeting, the CC then backed off and put the laws on hold, pending "further study".