philasurfer wrote:

FINALLY, for the record....I do not hate dogs. That is a cheap shot. I like dogs and have had some great ones, but I just happen to like people also and think they have an ABSOLUTE right to be free of dog attacks outside their home.

lindsbinz22 wrote:
Rumor has it they were about to be evicted... Not just for the size of the dogs but apparently also because it stunk outside their apartment? Not sure the truth to that since I don't live there, I just like to gossip ;)

elvis wrote:
seriously Phil,

you are never going to win this one. You are proposing something that will never be enforced, is a minor problem at worst, and is going to piss off every dog owner in the city. Do you honestly think, with it's multitude of real problems, JC is going to focus on passing your irrational dog laws? Just because you clearly hate dogs, doesn't mean most people do. In fact, your opinion puts you squarely in the minority. If you really hate dogs, you are in the wrong city.

And the car comparison, which you either refuse to understand or just plain do not get, is that you want to enforce a law that would inconvenience many people, so the few could feel safer. What Vigilante was doing was showing you a much bigger problem, that effects almost all of us in one way or another and is similarly not being enforced. Your priorities. They are out of whack.

Elvis wrote: car comparison, which you either refuse to understand or just plain do not get, i

Elvis wrote: you want to enforce a law that would inconvenience many people, so the few could feel safer

philasurfer wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante Wrote: So you give dog owners every reason to flee the scene of an incident? Insurance is for covering medical expenses etc. but if you want to just "sue the shit" out of people it gives them every reason not to be responsible citizens.

Vigilante, man, you could not be more wrong. Owners currently have every incentive to leave the scene regardless.

With insurance, they have every incentive to stay because they are covered. Do you think having car insurance encourages people to leave the scene of an accident? Ofcourse not, they know that they are covered.

Quote:

Nikkiinnj wrote: They obviously choose not to follow rules to begin with so how will adding more rules help. I just don\'t see the point.

We do agree that enforcing the current rules would be a start. I suppose the problem is there is no money for enforcement. What I am suggesting is a licensing requirement that would not only require more dog owner training, accountability, etc, but would also raise money for enforcement.

In addition, increasing the penalties for any dog related offenses would go a long way towards achieving both of our goals. The money raised through increased penalties could also add more enforcement.

BTW, I just went for a walk down my block and there was a massive, disgusting pile of dog shit in the middle of the sidewalk. (I'm not Kidding) Just thought Id share with you all!

Vigilante Wrote: So you give dog owners every reason to flee the scene of an incident? Insurance is for covering medical expenses etc. but if you want to just "sue the shit" out of people it gives them every reason not to be responsible citizens.

Nikkiinnj wrote: They obviously choose not to follow rules to begin with so how will adding more rules help. I just don\'t see the point.

philasurfer wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante Wrote: Yes, hysterical. Get insurance so we can sue the shit out of you? You are obviously deluded. .... It's not just dog owners, it's everyone.....2006 Automobile fatalities in US 43,000+ 2006 Dog Attack fatalities 30.

Vigilante,

Sir, I said get insurance so that ,if your dog bites me, I can sue the shit out of you. Imagine the case where a dog bites someone and the dog owner has no insurance and no assets, the victim will be left uncompensated, likely with costly medical bills. Requiring the dog owners, the ones creating the danger, to carry insurance would ensure that dog bite victims are compensated. Can you please tell me what is "deluded" about that?

Your vehicles statistics are so useless I don't know where to begin. Millions of people use cars everyday for essential processes of life, clearly there will be vastly more car associated deaths. What does that have to do with dog deaths? Dogs are a luxury or an amusement, not an essential mode of transport. I am actually surprised that 30 people die as a result, that is way too many. It also does not include tens of thousands of injuries, including permanent scarring, as a result of dog bites.

Croft,

You seem like a very responsible dog owner, and I commend you for that.

philasurfer wrote:
Quote:

NikkinNJ wrote: Clearly you have a problem with dogs...bottom line is people just need to act right.

Can we look at this from the perspective of a non dog owner for just one second?

So that dog owners can have the amusement of a dog, (I exclude the case of seeing eye dogs or working dogs that serve an actual purpose) I have to deal with (1) shit and piss on sidewalks, which ultimately ends up in our rivers and streams, (2) much of the already scarce park space being reserved for or taken over by dogs, and (3) the risk, albeit small, of being attacked by someone\'s dog. Is that fair to me, the non dog owner? I mean seriously, there are two tiny parks for tens of thousands of people in all of downtown JC, and we dedicate a quarter of one of them to dogs?

I don\'t dislike dogs, I am just resisting their take over of the universe. Someone has to represent non dog owners because dog owners do a superb job of representing their interests. (for example, calling anyone who describes dog attacks for what theyare is being hysterical. It must be a rather hysterical experience to be attacked by two massive dogs outside your home, don\'t ya think?)

This idea that people need to act right, I mean, that is a wonderful thought, but that is your solution to dog bites? People need to act right? You are going to tell the victim of dog bites, well...we are encouraging people to act right?

I guess you could say \"Despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary, eventually people will stop being irresponsible, reckless, or careless and our new policy of telling people to act right is going to work!\"

Stephanie wrote:
I was told the dogs were removed from the apartment this morning. They will be held at LHS pending the outcome of the hearing.

philasurfer wrote:
Quote:

skepticalhook wrote: you intend to fund your programs with TARP money?

Very funny....as I suggested I would charge high fees for licensing. In other words make dog owners pay for it.

I was joking about sending dogs to a farm. My point was to make the penalties for ignoring the leash laws so harsh that no one will ever ignore them. For example, potentially lose your privilege, the license, to own a dog.

And I agree there are more serious problems in the world, but this goes much further than just dog attacks. It is quality of life and worthy of some attention. I am not suggesting taking detectives off the beat, just set up a regulatory structure that works. Obviously the dog regulations we have were put in place before every other person in the city had a dog.

skepticalhook wrote: you intend to fund your programs with TARP money?

Vigilante Wrote: Yes, hysterical. Get insurance so we can sue the shit out of you? You are obviously deluded. .... It's not just dog owners, it's everyone.....2006 Automobile fatalities in US 43,000+ 2006 Dog Attack fatalities 30.

philasurfer wrote:

I would propose dog owners must get licensing, similar to a obtaining a car license. It would involve (1) basic dog owning knowledge test, (2) evidence of insurance so that, if your dog bites someone, the victim can sue the shit out you and (3) maybe some other requirements that would be useful. People keep saying dogs have to be licensed now and I know that, but as these dog lovers love to say, it is not the dogs its the owners. So owners should need a license, as well as the dogs. Also large fees should be charged for these licenses so that more money can be put into doggy law enforcement.

As for urban areas, dog owning should be much more restrictive. In the suburbs or rural areas you can make a better argument for dog freedom, but not in a city. I would require a mandatory license to evidence that every single dog you own in a city has gone through some form of obedience training. A dog seen off a leash should be immediately confiscated and sent to live with a family on a farm. I would also only allow dogs in certain areas of the city, not on every street of the city. Some areas would be off limits to dogs.

Thats what I can say Just off the top of my head...

philasurfer wrote:
Quote:

Elvis: You do a good job of stating how you feel and the problem with other's solutions. What is your solution?

Elvis, you must want to really see dog owners lose their minds because my solutions would be highly restrictive of dog owners rights.

I would propose dog owners must get licensing, similar to a obtaining a car license. It would involve (1) basic dog owning knowledge test, (2) evidence of insurance so that, if your dog bites someone, the victim can sue the shit out you and (3) maybe some other requirements that would be useful. People keep saying dogs have to be licensed now and I know that, but as these dog lovers love to say, it is not the dogs its the owners. So owners should need a license, as well as the dogs. Also large fees should be charged for these licenses so that more money can be put into doggy law enforcement.

As for urban areas, dog owning should be much more restrictive. In the suburbs or rural areas you can make a better argument for dog freedom, but not in a city. I would require a mandatory license to evidence that every single dog you own in a city has gone through some form of obedience training. A dog seen off a leash should be immediately confiscated and sent to live with a family on a farm. I would also only allow dogs in certain areas of the city, not on every street of the city. Some areas would be off limits to dogs.

Thats what I can say Just off the top of my head...but any rules would best come out of a dialogue between dog owners and people like myself.

philasurfer wrote:
Quote:

NikkinNJ wrote: Clearly you have a problem with dogs...bottom line is people just need to act right.

Can we look at this from the perspective of a non dog owner for just one second?

So that dog owners can have the amusement of a dog, (I exclude the case of seeing eye dogs or working dogs that serve an actual purpose) I have to deal with (1) shit and piss on sidewalks, which ultimately ends up in our rivers and streams, (2) much of the already scarce park space being reserved for or taken over by dogs, and (3) the risk, albeit small, of being attacked by someone's dog. Is that fair to me, the non dog owner? I mean seriously, there are two tiny parks for tens of thousands of people in all of downtown JC, and we dedicate a quarter of one of them to dogs?

I don't dislike dogs, I am just resisting their take over of the universe. Someone has to represent non dog owners because dog owners do a superb job of representing their interests. (for example, calling anyone who describes dog attacks for what theyare is being hysterical. It must be a rather hysterical experience to be attacked by two massive dogs outside your home, don't ya think?)

This idea that people need to act right, I mean, that is a wonderful thought, but that is your solution to dog bites? People need to act right? You are going to tell the victim of dog bites, well...we are encouraging people to act right?

I guess you could say "Despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary, eventually people will stop being irresponsible, reckless, or careless and our new policy of telling people to act right is going to work!"

Greenvillechick wrote:
but what should we carry a bottle of cleaner with us and spray the sidewalk while were at it

Elvis: You do a good job of stating how you feel and the problem with other's solutions. What is your solution?

greenville chick said: Which two tiny parks are you speaking of? I know of at least five in JC two of which are very big. Lincoln Park is huge.... and their dog run is all the way in the back across a bridge... so what math are you doing? As far as crap and piss on the sidewalk... ok I give you the crap part... clean up your crap! but piss?? I mean I dont allow my dog to pee in the middle of a sidewalk most dogs wont... but what should we carry a bottle of cleaner with us and spray the sidewalk while were at it? Dont just blame dogs for piss and feces in the water system thats the least of your worries... what about stray cats, birds, raccoons, possums, HOMELESS people.... your post was ignorant to say the least... and quite HYSTERICAL!