nyrgravey9 wrote:
Of course the topic, from the get go, is confrontational in nature. And when pushed, you better believe ill push back harder.

But there's a difference between lively debate and public shaming and posting someone's personal info. No one said you did anything so just relax.

No one invited you either. So feel free to I abstain from the thread if you need to, no one will take offense.

Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Enough said about what? You decided to take it upon yourself to be confrontational from the get go and chime in when my post had nothing to do with you? I never posted the photo, and I don't intend to at this point. The only reason we had this exchange today is because you decided to stir it up. The next time you feel the need to stir up BS with people, do us both a favor and keep me out of it.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
If anyone cares, I'm not in favor of posting people's names or pictures. You can do what you want, but I don't advocate that.

The best you can do is call JCPD mon emergency number, get them to give the offender a ticket. Demand it.

Those are the proper channels that should be used.

Approaching irresponsible dog owners is as useless as pissing in the wind (or tits on a bull). Why put that on yourself? You can't reason with them.

You'd be better served calling cops, showing them the code and demand a fine be issued.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:

Funny you would refer to nazis. I'm a Jew you piece of crap.

And how does being a Jew entitle you to take the law into your own hands? You can't seem to post a coherent thought without labeling someone, including yourself.

You labeling me a "Nazi" and a "racist" has everything to do with me being a Jew. Seriously, you really should just leave that alone. I wanted to expose the person who let their dog crap all over MY street...that's what entitles me. It's the street I live on, and my street has enough dog crap on it. However, I never did do it, but you couldn't leave well enough alone. You felt the need to stir it up. Hence, I think JClist would be much better off without you here.

I did not call you a "Nazi" nor a "racist", but I did imply you were thinking like one when you threatened to take the law into your own hands. Big difference. Read what I posted again. I think you have reacted to a word or two and not the meaning.

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:

Funny you would refer to nazis. I'm a Jew you piece of crap.

And how does being a Jew entitle you to take the law into your own hands? You can't seem to post a coherent thought without labeling someone, including yourself.

You labeling me a "Nazi" and a "racist" has everything to do with me being a Jew. Seriously, you really should just leave that alone. I wanted to expose the person who let their dog crap all over MY street...that's what entitles me. It's the street I live on, and my street has enough dog crap on it. However, I never did do it, but you couldn't leave well enough alone. You felt the need to stir it up. Hence, I think JClist would be much better off without you here.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:

Funny you would refer to nazis. I'm a Jew you piece of crap.

And how does being a Jew entitle you to take the law into your own hands? You can't seem to post a coherent thought without labeling someone, including yourself.

Seagull wrote:
I would love for this thread to be closed and dtjcview banned from this site. I'm tired of their constant need for confrontation, and now their anti-semitism. Webmaster, please just close this thread. Thanks.

Seagull wrote:

Funny you would refer to nazis. I'm a Jew you piece of crap.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
I'm not telling anybody what dog they should own, so relax. If you live in a cramped, urban environment, and are unwilling, or lack the means (i.e. a car) to travel to towns with large dogs runs (North Arlington, Leonia), it's pretty selfish to expect an entire city to just adjust everything for you.

Lack or preparation and thinking ahead on your part does constitute an emergency on our part.

But to everyone else, maybe settle down a little on the name calling. Joking around is one thing, but the back and forth name calling doesn't get us any closer to a solution.

The original purpose of this message was to let irresponsible dog owners know there is a growing unrest around their behaviors, and that there is a formal and persistent effort to do something about it.

I know it's a sensitive topic. But the substantive discussions are happening within neighborhood associations and with ward councilpersons.

There have been a few good ideas thrown out there amongst all the blabbering, and all will be considered when the solutions are implemented.

Quote:

Area_Man wrote:
Are you seriously criticizing people for the kind of dogs they own?

Please, tell us which breeds you approve for urban living.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Correct djjcview. Asking an owner of an active dog why they bought an active dog in a cramped city with no official resources for them to utilize would be a much, much better question.

No one wants to answer that question, though. The usual answers are "who are you tell me what I can own" or something more rude to that effect. It's a reasonable question to ask to someone older than 5 years old, who, one would hope, operates on more than the id.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Service dog fraud is a problem in JC? Really?

I don't know anyone with a service dog in JC. But I know plenty of people in JC with serious disabilities like epilepsy that have companion dogs, but are not registered as service dogs. It's also why I have a concern with the confrontational tone of some folks on this thread. If you have an issue with dog owners violating ordinances, go through the proper channels.

Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Where I believe the abuse / fraud of the ADA is occuring is with those that use a psychiatic disability (where there might not be one) to have a certified 'service dog'. The link I provide shows how easy it is to get your dog certified which is then impossible for the authories to confirm. I'm not suggesting that store owners have the power to check the validity of a service dog owner condition as it would also be a privacy issue, but rather how do the authories check to confirm a persons need for a service dog - Its a huge grey area with no checks and balances.

If I had a dog, I could fill in the application on the link I provided, then take my dog everywhere I go and falsely claim I have a mental health issue and my 'service dog' helps keep me calm, gives me the opportunity or courage to venture outside my property plus helps reduce my anxierty in public. This then also exempts me from having my dog on a leash when its time for poop as its trained not to poop on leach.

The 'service dog' certification can be exploited and like disabled parking permits there seems to be a need to have checks and balances for authories to fall back on, then just the word of the dog owner!

Awwww. You have a problem with the "confrontational tone" of some people on this website. Happy Friday to you too, champion of dog crap.

Still assigning labels to people, because reading, thinking and debating is too difficult? Still threatening to dump dog crap on people's doorsteps?

Still being the same self-righteous defender of people who should be held accountable for their misdeeds? You love dog crap, hence you get the title you have well-deserved.

And you think YOU should hold people accountable, and not leave it to the proper authorities? Racists and nazis also took the law into their own hands. You exhibit the same bird-brain thinking. I suggest you leave your seagull crap elsewhere.

Area_Man wrote:
Are you seriously criticizing people for the kind of dogs they own?

Please, tell us which breeds you approve for urban living.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Correct djjcview. Asking an owner of an active dog why they bought an active dog in a cramped city with no official resources for them to utilize would be a much, much better question.

No one wants to answer that question, though. The usual answers are "who are you tell me what I can own" or something more rude to that effect. It's a reasonable question to ask to someone older than 5 years old, who, one would hope, operates on more than the id.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Correct djjcview. Asking an owner of an active dog why they bought an active dog in a cramped city with no official resources for them to utilize would be a much, much better question.

No one wants to answer that question, though. The usual answers are "who are you tell me what I can own" or something more rude to that effect. It's a reasonable question to ask to someone older than 5 years old, who, one would hope, operates on more than the id.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Where I believe the abuse / fraud of the ADA is occuring is with those that use a psychiatic disability (where there might not be one) to have a certified 'service dog'. The link I provide shows how easy it is to get your dog certified which is then impossible for the authories to confirm. I'm not suggesting that store owners have the power to check the validity of a service dog owner condition as it would also be a privacy issue, but rather how do the authories check to confirm a persons need for a service dog - Its a huge grey area with no checks and balances.

If I had a dog, I could fill in the application on the link I provided, then take my dog everywhere I go and falsely claim I have a mental health issue and my 'service dog' helps keep me calm, gives me the opportunity or courage to venture outside my property plus helps reduce my anxierty in public. This then also exempts me from having my dog on a leash when its time for poop as its trained not to poop on leach.

The 'service dog' certification can be exploited and like disabled parking permits there seems to be a need to have checks and balances for authories to fall back on, then just the word of the dog owner!

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Service dog fraud is a problem in JC? Really?

I don't know anyone with a service dog in JC. But I know plenty of people in JC with serious disabilities like epilepsy that have companion dogs, but are not registered as service dogs. It's also why I have a concern with the confrontational tone of some folks on this thread. If you have an issue with dog owners violating ordinances, go through the proper channels.

Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Where I believe the abuse / fraud of the ADA is occuring is with those that use a psychiatic disability (where there might not be one) to have a certified 'service dog'. The link I provide shows how easy it is to get your dog certified which is then impossible for the authories to confirm. I'm not suggesting that store owners have the power to check the validity of a service dog owner condition as it would also be a privacy issue, but rather how do the authories check to confirm a persons need for a service dog - Its a huge grey area with no checks and balances.

If I had a dog, I could fill in the application on the link I provided, then take my dog everywhere I go and falsely claim I have a mental health issue and my 'service dog' helps keep me calm, gives me the opportunity or courage to venture outside my property plus helps reduce my anxierty in public. This then also exempts me from having my dog on a leash when its time for poop as its trained not to poop on leach.

The 'service dog' certification can be exploited and like disabled parking permits there seems to be a need to have checks and balances for authories to fall back on, then just the word of the dog owner!

Awwww. You have a problem with the "confrontational tone" of some people on this website. Happy Friday to you too, champion of dog crap.

Still assigning labels to people, because reading, thinking and debating is too difficult? Still threatening to dump dog crap on people's doorsteps?

Still being the same self-righteous defender of people who should be held accountable for their misdeeds? You love dog crap, hence you get the title you have well-deserved.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Service dog fraud is a problem in JC? Really?

I don't know anyone with a service dog in JC. But I know plenty of people in JC with serious disabilities like epilepsy that have companion dogs, but are not registered as service dogs. It's also why I have a concern with the confrontational tone of some folks on this thread. If you have an issue with dog owners violating ordinances, go through the proper channels.

Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Where I believe the abuse / fraud of the ADA is occuring is with those that use a psychiatic disability (where there might not be one) to have a certified 'service dog'. The link I provide shows how easy it is to get your dog certified which is then impossible for the authories to confirm. I'm not suggesting that store owners have the power to check the validity of a service dog owner condition as it would also be a privacy issue, but rather how do the authories check to confirm a persons need for a service dog - Its a huge grey area with no checks and balances.

If I had a dog, I could fill in the application on the link I provided, then take my dog everywhere I go and falsely claim I have a mental health issue and my 'service dog' helps keep me calm, gives me the opportunity or courage to venture outside my property plus helps reduce my anxierty in public. This then also exempts me from having my dog on a leash when its time for poop as its trained not to poop on leach.

The 'service dog' certification can be exploited and like disabled parking permits there seems to be a need to have checks and balances for authories to fall back on, then just the word of the dog owner!

Awwww. You have a problem with the "confrontational tone" of some people on this website. Happy Friday to you too, champion of dog crap.

Still assigning labels to people, because reading, thinking and debating is too difficult? Still threatening to dump dog crap on people's doorsteps?

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Service dog fraud is a problem in JC? Really?

I don't know anyone with a service dog in JC. But I know plenty of people in JC with serious disabilities like epilepsy that have companion dogs, but are not registered as service dogs. It's also why I have a concern with the confrontational tone of some folks on this thread. If you have an issue with dog owners violating ordinances, go through the proper channels.

Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Where I believe the abuse / fraud of the ADA is occuring is with those that use a psychiatic disability (where there might not be one) to have a certified 'service dog'. The link I provide shows how easy it is to get your dog certified which is then impossible for the authories to confirm. I'm not suggesting that store owners have the power to check the validity of a service dog owner condition as it would also be a privacy issue, but rather how do the authories check to confirm a persons need for a service dog - Its a huge grey area with no checks and balances.

If I had a dog, I could fill in the application on the link I provided, then take my dog everywhere I go and falsely claim I have a mental health issue and my 'service dog' helps keep me calm, gives me the opportunity or courage to venture outside my property plus helps reduce my anxierty in public. This then also exempts me from having my dog on a leash when its time for poop as its trained not to poop on leach.

The 'service dog' certification can be exploited and like disabled parking permits there seems to be a need to have checks and balances for authories to fall back on, then just the word of the dog owner!

Awwww. You have a problem with the "confrontational tone" of some people on this website. Happy Friday to you too, champion of dog crap.

dtjcview wrote:
Service dog fraud is a problem in JC? Really?

I don't know anyone with a service dog in JC. But I know plenty of people in JC with serious disabilities like epilepsy that have companion dogs, but are not registered as service dogs. It's also why I have a concern with the confrontational tone of some folks on this thread. If you have an issue with dog owners violating ordinances, go through the proper channels.

Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Where I believe the abuse / fraud of the ADA is occuring is with those that use a psychiatic disability (where there might not be one) to have a certified 'service dog'. The link I provide shows how easy it is to get your dog certified which is then impossible for the authories to confirm. I'm not suggesting that store owners have the power to check the validity of a service dog owner condition as it would also be a privacy issue, but rather how do the authories check to confirm a persons need for a service dog - Its a huge grey area with no checks and balances.

If I had a dog, I could fill in the application on the link I provided, then take my dog everywhere I go and falsely claim I have a mental health issue and my 'service dog' helps keep me calm, gives me the opportunity or courage to venture outside my property plus helps reduce my anxierty in public. This then also exempts me from having my dog on a leash when its time for poop as its trained not to poop on leach.

The 'service dog' certification can be exploited and like disabled parking permits there seems to be a need to have checks and balances for authories to fall back on, then just the word of the dog owner!

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Where I believe the abuse / fraud of the ADA is occuring is with those that use a psychiatic disability (where there might not be one) to have a certified 'service dog'. The link I provide shows how easy it is to get your dog certified which is then impossible for the authories to confirm. I'm not suggesting that store owners have the power to check the validity of a service dog owner condition as it would also be a privacy issue, but rather how do the authories check to confirm a persons need for a service dog - Its a huge grey area with no checks and balances.

If I had a dog, I could fill in the application on the link I provided, then take my dog everywhere I go and falsely claim I have a mental health issue and my 'service dog' helps keep me calm, gives me the opportunity or courage to venture outside my property plus helps reduce my anxierty in public. This then also exempts me from having my dog on a leash when its time for poop as its trained not to poop on leach.

The 'service dog' certification can be exploited and like disabled parking permits there seems to be a need to have checks and balances for authories to fall back on, then just the word of the dog owner!

fat-ass-bike wrote:
I'd like to see that service or companion dog owners be required to carry a certificate from a doctor that states they do suffer with a disability - especially the one's with a psychiatric issue so Police and Animal Control can do their checks and balances on frauds!

http://www.servicedogsamerica.org/