A dog & canine forum. DogBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » DogBanter forum » Dog forums » Dog behavior
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

WA: incredibly stupid law proposed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 19th 04, 07:10 AM
culprit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old April 19th 04, 07:55 AM
Jo Wolf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 19th 04, 07:55 AM
Jo Wolf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 19th 04, 07:55 AM
Jo Wolf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 19th 04, 07:55 AM
Jo Wolf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 19th 04, 12:46 PM
Melinda Shore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 19th 04, 12:46 PM
Melinda Shore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 19th 04, 12:46 PM
Melinda Shore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 19th 04, 12:46 PM
Melinda Shore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 19th 04, 01:16 PM
Melinda Shore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 (Unauthorized Upgrade)
Copyright ©2004-2024 DogBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.