If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
WA: incredibly stupid law proposed
apparently, the city of Auburn, WA, is trying to get all dogs over 30 pounds
declared "potentially dangerous". this is possibly the stupidest idea i have ever heard of. basically, if your dog is ever found outside your property, offleash, and the dog is over 30 pounds, it will be classified as dangerous. dangerous dogs must be registered with the city for $100/year, must be muzzled in public, and must have signs posted on their property. this will affect ALL dogs over 30 pounds, regardless of breed, temperament, training, or anything else. the city council is meeting about this tomorrow. let's hope there are enough intelligent people in Auburn to keep this law from passing. -kelly |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I just got a post from a friend in Seattle about this. Apparently it is
a HOT topic locally, and a council meeting Monday night is expected to be packed with people strongly opposed, and the municipal computers are melting down from the email. An attorney was on TV this evening (Sun), blasting the law. As usual, it goes back to a poorly funded Animal Control service that doesn't have the resources to enforce the very adequate existing laws..... and the usual collection of jerks who don't give a flip for anyone else.... Jo Wolf Martinez, Georgia |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I just got a post from a friend in Seattle about this. Apparently it is
a HOT topic locally, and a council meeting Monday night is expected to be packed with people strongly opposed, and the municipal computers are melting down from the email. An attorney was on TV this evening (Sun), blasting the law. As usual, it goes back to a poorly funded Animal Control service that doesn't have the resources to enforce the very adequate existing laws..... and the usual collection of jerks who don't give a flip for anyone else.... Jo Wolf Martinez, Georgia |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I just got a post from a friend in Seattle about this. Apparently it is
a HOT topic locally, and a council meeting Monday night is expected to be packed with people strongly opposed, and the municipal computers are melting down from the email. An attorney was on TV this evening (Sun), blasting the law. As usual, it goes back to a poorly funded Animal Control service that doesn't have the resources to enforce the very adequate existing laws..... and the usual collection of jerks who don't give a flip for anyone else.... Jo Wolf Martinez, Georgia |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I just got a post from a friend in Seattle about this. Apparently it is
a HOT topic locally, and a council meeting Monday night is expected to be packed with people strongly opposed, and the municipal computers are melting down from the email. An attorney was on TV this evening (Sun), blasting the law. As usual, it goes back to a poorly funded Animal Control service that doesn't have the resources to enforce the very adequate existing laws..... and the usual collection of jerks who don't give a flip for anyone else.... Jo Wolf Martinez, Georgia |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
diddy wrote: considering that breed bans are so incorrect, I don't think it's a bad idea. I do. And I don't. But mostly I do. It seems asinine to me that businesses are using the government to force consumers to pick up the tab for the business's bad decision-making and risk assessment. This is similar to recent credit legislation giving credit card companies first crack at a person's assets when they go bankrupt. These companies are issuing credit willy-nilly, to people who can't hold down a job, etc., and then they expect to be insulated from the consequences of loaning these people money. C'mon. If an insurance company can't figure out where the risks are and how to cost out those risks when selling a policy, maybe they shouldn't be in business. So that's an argument on one side. Here's the argument on the other side, and it's something that I think needs to be discussed with legislators: a lot of people have mentioned losing or being threatened with losing their homeowner's insurance because they have dogs of certain breeds. If this legislation also requires insurance carriers not to discriminate on the basis of dog breed, or doesn't allow carriers to cancel coverage because of the presence of a dog, that's a very good thing and should be promoted. However, it doesn't. There's other legislation before the state assembly and senate that do that (boy, I love the web). -- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - If the Bush tax cuts really create 300,000 jobs/month through 2004, it will have cost $871,046 per job |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
diddy wrote: considering that breed bans are so incorrect, I don't think it's a bad idea. I do. And I don't. But mostly I do. It seems asinine to me that businesses are using the government to force consumers to pick up the tab for the business's bad decision-making and risk assessment. This is similar to recent credit legislation giving credit card companies first crack at a person's assets when they go bankrupt. These companies are issuing credit willy-nilly, to people who can't hold down a job, etc., and then they expect to be insulated from the consequences of loaning these people money. C'mon. If an insurance company can't figure out where the risks are and how to cost out those risks when selling a policy, maybe they shouldn't be in business. So that's an argument on one side. Here's the argument on the other side, and it's something that I think needs to be discussed with legislators: a lot of people have mentioned losing or being threatened with losing their homeowner's insurance because they have dogs of certain breeds. If this legislation also requires insurance carriers not to discriminate on the basis of dog breed, or doesn't allow carriers to cancel coverage because of the presence of a dog, that's a very good thing and should be promoted. However, it doesn't. There's other legislation before the state assembly and senate that do that (boy, I love the web). -- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - If the Bush tax cuts really create 300,000 jobs/month through 2004, it will have cost $871,046 per job |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
diddy wrote: considering that breed bans are so incorrect, I don't think it's a bad idea. I do. And I don't. But mostly I do. It seems asinine to me that businesses are using the government to force consumers to pick up the tab for the business's bad decision-making and risk assessment. This is similar to recent credit legislation giving credit card companies first crack at a person's assets when they go bankrupt. These companies are issuing credit willy-nilly, to people who can't hold down a job, etc., and then they expect to be insulated from the consequences of loaning these people money. C'mon. If an insurance company can't figure out where the risks are and how to cost out those risks when selling a policy, maybe they shouldn't be in business. So that's an argument on one side. Here's the argument on the other side, and it's something that I think needs to be discussed with legislators: a lot of people have mentioned losing or being threatened with losing their homeowner's insurance because they have dogs of certain breeds. If this legislation also requires insurance carriers not to discriminate on the basis of dog breed, or doesn't allow carriers to cancel coverage because of the presence of a dog, that's a very good thing and should be promoted. However, it doesn't. There's other legislation before the state assembly and senate that do that (boy, I love the web). -- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - If the Bush tax cuts really create 300,000 jobs/month through 2004, it will have cost $871,046 per job |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
diddy wrote: considering that breed bans are so incorrect, I don't think it's a bad idea. I do. And I don't. But mostly I do. It seems asinine to me that businesses are using the government to force consumers to pick up the tab for the business's bad decision-making and risk assessment. This is similar to recent credit legislation giving credit card companies first crack at a person's assets when they go bankrupt. These companies are issuing credit willy-nilly, to people who can't hold down a job, etc., and then they expect to be insulated from the consequences of loaning these people money. C'mon. If an insurance company can't figure out where the risks are and how to cost out those risks when selling a policy, maybe they shouldn't be in business. So that's an argument on one side. Here's the argument on the other side, and it's something that I think needs to be discussed with legislators: a lot of people have mentioned losing or being threatened with losing their homeowner's insurance because they have dogs of certain breeds. If this legislation also requires insurance carriers not to discriminate on the basis of dog breed, or doesn't allow carriers to cancel coverage because of the presence of a dog, that's a very good thing and should be promoted. However, it doesn't. There's other legislation before the state assembly and senate that do that (boy, I love the web). -- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - If the Bush tax cuts really create 300,000 jobs/month through 2004, it will have cost $871,046 per job |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
diddy wrote: I would think if you liked your breed AT ALL, you would protect it AND' it's reputation by installing something substantial to insure something like this didn't happen. You know, it's a long, long road from thinking that this particular piece of legislation is unnecessary to being in favor of dog bites or breed bans, and I'm impressed that you were able to make the trek so quickly. The proposed legislation is to require dog owners to carry liability insurance on the dogs, much like what you're required to carry for your car (but not your home, interestingly). It's not going to stop dog bites and it's not even going to stop breed bans. It's a mechanism for shoveling more money at insurance companies. -- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - If the Bush tax cuts really create 300,000 jobs/month through 2004, it will have cost $871,046 per job |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_lyhsikux | Scott | Dog activities | 0 | November 7th 04 04:04 PM |
What's your favorite Stupid Pet Trick? | Susan Fraser | Dog behavior | 56 | January 29th 04 12:54 AM |
What's your favorite Stupid Pet Trick? | Susan Fraser | Dog behavior | 0 | January 28th 04 04:45 AM |
What's your favorite Stupid Pet Trick? | Susan Fraser | Dog behavior | 0 | January 28th 04 04:45 AM |
Stupid, stupid people--rant! | _michael | Dog behavior | 0 | July 20th 03 05:27 PM |