 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / General Topics / January 2005New law
New law in San Francisco sets minimum requirements for dogs kept outside. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/01/11/national202 8EST0753.DTL On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:19:43 -0500, Amy Gray <JudgeAmyGrayNOSPAM@hotmail.com> >New law in San Francisco sets minimum requirements for dogs kept >outside. > >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/01/11/national202 8EST0753.DTL Seems reasonable to me. Benson, Arizona, it is now illegal to keep two animals of the same breed Rob > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:19:43 -0500, Amy Gray > <JudgeAmyGrayNOSPAM@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Seems reasonable to me. >New law in San Francisco sets minimum requirements for dogs kept >outside. > >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/01/11/national202 8EST0753.DTL And, this has exactly **WHAT** to do with cats? eq >>New law in San Francisco sets minimum requirements for dogs kept >>outside. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >eq Here is a hint: animal rights. First dogs, cats may be the next object of laws....laws that state things you need to provide your cat with food/water/shelter. >>>New law in San Francisco sets minimum requirements for dogs kept >>>outside. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >object of laws....laws that state things you need to provide your >cat with food/water/shelter. Well, at that time, such a news item would be on-topic for this forum, which is entitled "alt.cats". Usenet has a set of "laws", known as etiquette. Try using Google and perhaps you might learn something about them. There are plenty of newsgroups dealing with the subjects of dogs. This isn't one of them. Next time you feel inclined to post off topic material, please follow established norms and put "OT:" into the subject line so we know the post doesn't deal with cats. Thanks On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:10:15 -0500, equalizer <> >>>>New law in San Francisco sets minimum requirements for dogs kept >>>>outside. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Thanks Well, you are technically correct of course, but you didn't have to say it like some netcop. These "laws" are simply etiquette as you say. By excluding OT: from the topic, she committed a faux pax. There's no need for you to be rude about it. I would also think the including "(NCC)" (No Cat Content) would also be acceptable for this group. There are often topics relevant to many people reading a group (such as laws regarding pets in this group), but aren't strictly on topic. It's not on-topic, but it's a helluva lot closer than say a funny joke that doesn't involve animals at all. | >>>New law in San Francisco sets minimum requirements for dogs kept | >>>outside. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] | | Thanks Well, I thought this topic was interesting, but then again it's a shame that we need to be told by law that a pet needs food/water/shelter. Carola The one about a tip-free bowl seems silly. Maybe if the dogs would learn to quit tipping the bowl over they wouldn't get thirsty. Well actually, ALL of it is silly. How an animal is cared for is between the animal & the owner, but then in wacky San Francisco, what else is new? LRH > | >>>New law in San Francisco sets minimum requirements for dogs kept > | >>>outside. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Carola >The one about a tip-free bowl seems silly. Maybe if the dogs would learn to >quit tipping the bowl over they wouldn't get thirsty. > >Well actually, ALL of it is silly. How an animal is cared for is between the >animal & the owner, but then in wacky San Francisco, what else is new? Here is a thought: go out with the animal rescue league, see all the dogs/cats they see who are skin and bones because they haven't had food for a month, haven't had water in a month, and are living outside in 40 degree below zero temperatures with no shelter from the cold, wind, snow, are living in a room that hasn't been cleaned in a year, are infested insects, etc. Also you may want to check out: http://animal.discovery.com/schedule/episode.jsp?episode=14&cpi=86926&gid=0 if you get Animal Planet. There is alot of animal abuse out there, Here is another thought: try going without water yourself for a month or so and then come back and tell us how you feel about having your water in a bowl that was tipped over. That's my whole point. If the dog wouldn't tip the bowl over, then it wouldn't be a problem. That would annoy me a LOT personally to keep having to re-set the bowl because the dummy kept tipping it over. | That's my whole point. If the dog wouldn't tip the bowl over, then it | wouldn't be a problem. That would annoy me a LOT personally to keep | having to re-set the bowl because the dummy kept tipping it over. That's exactly why some smart designers have created pet bowls! I use one for the rabbits too, just an ordinary cheap plastic one, it's great! That's my whole point. If the dog wouldn't tip the bowl over, then it wouldn't be a problem. That would annoy me a LOT personally to keep having to re-set the bowl because the dummy kept tipping it over. >The one about a tip-free bowl seems silly. Maybe if the dogs would learn to >quit tipping the bowl over they wouldn't get thirsty. > >Well actually, ALL of it is silly. How an animal is cared for is between the >animal & the owner, but then in wacky San Francisco, what else is new? So you don't believe in laws against animal cruelty? If you do believe in them and you've seen the conditions some people subject their animals to you wouldn't say this was silly. If you don't believe in laws against animal cruelty, then f.ck off. >LRH I basically DON'T believe in laws against animal cruelty, or at any rate I think they go too far sometimes. And in nutty San Francisco, though, just about nothing surprises me. LRH >I basically DON'T believe in laws against animal cruelty, or at any >rate I think they go too far sometimes. And in nutty San Francisco, >though, just about nothing surprises me. > >LRH Translation: the above person believes in animal cruelty. The more cruel the more he likes it. Go along with the authorities and see some of the horrible animal abuse and you'll be singing a different tune. >>I basically DON'T believe in laws against animal cruelty, or at any >>rate I think they go too far sometimes. And in nutty San Francisco, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Translation: the above person believes in animal cruelty. The more >cruel the more he likes it. Slip sliding away, Slip sliding away........... >Go along with the authorities and see some of the horrible >animal abuse and you'll be singing a different tune. > >----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- >http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups >---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > >I basically DON'T believe in laws against animal cruelty, or at any > >rate I think they go too far sometimes. And in nutty San Francisco, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Go along with the authorities and see some of the horrible > animal abuse and you'll be singing a different tune. That may well be the case. And understand: I am NOT, NOT saying animal abuse is not MORALLY wrong, not at all. But I think sometimes it can be overcriminalized, or the perspective can become skewed. A really good example is that, around here, if someone kills a neighbor's dog they act all horrified about it etc, but they never consider the possibility that it might have been a dog which was a major nuisance--barking dogs are a common complaint of neighbors, and rightly so--and if the person who killed the dog did so because the owner refused to control their dog's barking and if drove the neighbor bananas, then it's the dog's OWNER that I would take to task more. But the newscasts here NEVER consider that angle; they NEVER consider the possibility that the death was because the owner was irresponsible and didn't care about the effect its dog's barking has on the resident who had every right to expect some quiet. LRH > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- >That may well be the case. And understand: I am NOT, NOT saying animal >abuse is not MORALLY wrong, not at all. But I think sometimes it can be >overcriminalized, or the perspective can become skewed. Show me a dog who hasn't had food or water for two months can't stand up and tell me the it's overcriminalized. Go ahead. I double dare you. >A really good example is that, around here, if someone kills a >neighbor's dog they act all horrified about it etc, but they never [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >didn't care about the effect its dog's barking has on the resident who >had every right to expect some quiet. Around here though you can't go and kill the dog just becuase it is barking. That would be illegal. Yes some owners are not the most reposonsible people, but that doesn't mean you have the right to kill the dog. You do realize that around here thay arrest people becuase they do things like not feed their dog/cat for two months, don't give them water for months at a time/breed dogs for fighting/have them live in filth/etc.? After you see a few thousand of these abuse cases like this and you get the idea you have to pass laws giving guideslines like this to dog/cat ownsers of how often you should give them food/water/etc. I agree with the laws in San Fransicso. Every state should do it and have stiff penalties for animal abuse. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect fresh food and water every day for the dog/cat in your care. If you had a kid in your care and you refused to feed it CPS would remove the kid. >>That may well be the case. And understand: I am NOT, NOT saying animal >>abuse is not MORALLY wrong, not at all. But I think sometimes it can be >>overcriminalized, Do tell us what the maximum penalty is in your state for animal abuse. (Arizona, isn't it?) Do you even know? Animal abuse laws are *badly* under-criminalized in all states. Some states it's still a misdemeanor, and it's not uncommon for the maximum sentence to be a $500 fine/1 year in jail. Sherry Sherry > >>That may well be the case. And understand: I am NOT, NOT saying animal > >>abuse is not MORALLY wrong, not at all. But I think sometimes it can be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Sherry That is as it should be. Heck, I'd say, no jail time at all. I'd have no problem with them being forbidden from owning any animals in the future. I just think jail-time is excessive, unless you're talking about live-skinnings, live-boilings, that type of thing. But run-of-the-mill kicking etc, it's way-excessive. The problem I have is not necessarily with there being punishment, but with persons acting as if it's as serious as harming a human. Where I come from, humans outrank animals in the important of any & all things, even when it's a criminal human vs an animal. That's just how it is, and all the kooky San Francisco laws being enacted to try & make it as if animals are just as important as humans (if not more so) won't change a thing. It wouldn't be the 1st case of San Francisco showcasing themselves to be just a little bit nuttier than the rest of the world, all that glorification of it in TV shows and movies notwithstanding. As for the previous post about dog-barking--a person who is being disturbed by a neighbor's dog and has asked repeatedly that the neighbor take care of it--only to be told to go to you-know-where--that person shouldn't have to wait weeks to document every single case of noise etc before FINALLY obtaining relief. That's how it typically goes if you're the neighbor of someone with a noisy dog, and that's ridiculous. The relief should be immediate and instant, and if shooting a dog is the only way to do it, then bang bang I say--and shame on the dog's OWNER, not the shooter. If animal control would act quicker rather than expecting you to tolerate the barking for hours a day, several days or even weeks in a row, before they act--there would be less shootings. But regardless, the MAIN thing is that I don't like how around here if such a thing happens they express such shock and digust over the killing regarding the one who did the killing but they NEVER talk about owners who allow this noise to continue and disturb others. That is just as newsworthy to me as the shooting itself, but you NEVER hear about that. That's what bothers me. LRH On 24 Jan 2005 15:02:43 -0800, "Larry R Harrison Jr" <larrytucaz@yahoo.com> >> >>That may well be the case. And understand: I am NOT, NOT saying >animal [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >That is as it should be. Heck, I'd say, no jail time at all. Even in the case of people who are not simply neglecting their own animals, but torturing other people's pets? It does happen. Sorry, but I don't think people who would purposely inflict pain on a defenseless animal just for the sheer pleasure of it deserve their own freedom. Not surprisingly, many who commit violent crimes against other humans have a past history of abusing animals. Do you really think people should be able to get away with cruelty to animals with impunity and wait until they decide a human is as good as a puppy? What if that human were you or your child? You'd want to lock them up for a good long time, I'm sure. > I'd have >no problem with them being forbidden from owning any animals in the >future. I just think jail-time is excessive, unless you're talking >about live-skinnings, live-boilings, that type of thing. But >run-of-the-mill kicking etc, it's way-excessive. "run-of-the-mill kicking"? WTF is that? Would you kick your child? I don't know anyone who would kick an animal. There is no such thing as a "run-of-the-mill kicking". >The problem I have is not necessarily with there being punishment, but >with persons acting as if it's as serious as harming a human. Where I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >if animals are just as important as humans (if not more so) won't >change a thing. Name 1 place where cruelty to animals is treated more severely than torture of humans. Make no mistake about it, cruelty to animals (not simply neglect) is torture. How would you feel if someone started shooting your children with a pellet gun. You'd want them brought up on charges of assault and sent away for years (or at least I would). Doing the same thing to an animal isn't going to be treated nearly as seriously, but it is still a crime and should be punished by more than a slap on the wrist. "It was barking" is not a viable defense. >It wouldn't be the 1st case of San Francisco showcasing themselves to >be just a little bit nuttier than the rest of the world, all that >glorification of it in TV shows and movies notwithstanding. The "glorification" you think you see is in your own head. Just because a journalist doesn't pass judgment and proclaim SF as "nutty" as you think it is doesn't mean they're glorifying it. Try to look at the news more objectively than that. >As for the previous post about dog-barking--a person who is being >disturbed by a neighbor's dog and has asked repeatedly that the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >a dog is the only way to do it, then bang bang I say--and shame on the >dog's OWNER, not the shooter. Hey, if you want to serve the time, then do the crime. "It was barking" isn't gonna fly in court. >If animal control would act quicker rather than expecting you to >tolerate the barking for hours a day, several days or even weeks in a >row, before they act--there would be less shootings. Fortunately, there really aren't very many shootings. Most people aren't as sick as you. >But regardless, the MAIN thing is that I don't like how around here if >such a thing happens they express such shock and digust over the >killing regarding the one who did the killing but they NEVER talk about >owners who allow this noise to continue and disturb others. That is >just as newsworthy to me as the shooting itself, but you NEVER hear >about that. That's what bothers me. Can you show us even ONE example of what you describe happening? >LRH > >>That may well be the case. And understand: I am NOT, NOT saying animal > >>abuse is not MORALLY wrong, not at all. But I think sometimes it can be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Sherry That is as it should be. Heck, I'd say, no jail time at all. I'd have no problem with them being forbidden from owning any animals in the future. I just think jail-time is excessive, unless you're talking about live-skinnings, live-boilings, that type of thing. But run-of-the-mill kicking etc, it's way-excessive. The problem I have is not necessarily with there being punishment, but with persons acting as if it's as serious as harming a human. Where I come from, humans outrank animals in the important of any & all things, even when it's a criminal human vs an animal. That's just how it is, and all the kooky San Francisco laws being enacted to try & make it as if animals are just as important as humans (if not more so) won't change a thing. It wouldn't be the 1st case of San Francisco showcasing themselves to be just a little bit nuttier than the rest of the world, all that glorification of it in TV shows and movies notwithstanding. As for the previous post about dog-barking--a person who is being disturbed by a neighbor's dog and has asked repeatedly that the neighbor take care of it--only to be told to go to you-know-where--that person shouldn't have to wait weeks to document every single case of noise etc before FINALLY obtaining relief. That's how it typically goes if you're the neighbor of someone with a noisy dog, and that's ridiculous. The relief should be immediate and instant, and if shooting a dog is the only way to do it, then bang bang I say--and shame on the dog's OWNER, not the shooter. If animal control would act quicker rather than expecting you to tolerate the barking for hours a day, several days or even weeks in a row, before they act--there would be less shootings. But regardless, the MAIN thing is that I don't like how around here if such a thing happens they express such shock and digust over the killing regarding the one who did the killing but they NEVER talk about owners who allow this noise to continue and disturb others. That is just as newsworthy to me as the shooting itself, but you NEVER hear about that. That's what bothers me. LRH On 23 Jan 2005 14:25:25 -0800, "Larry R Harrison Jr" <larrytucaz@yahoo.com> >> >I basically DON'T believe in laws against animal cruelty, or at any >> >rate I think they go too far sometimes. And in nutty San Francisco, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >owner refused to control their dog's barking and if drove the neighbor >bananas, then it's the dog's OWNER that I would take to task more. If you're child were misbehaving would it be okay if I took her to the woodshed? > But >the newscasts here NEVER consider that angle; Actually, they do. > they NEVER consider the >possibility that the death was because the owner was irresponsible and >didn't care about the effect its dog's barking has on the resident who >had every right to expect some quiet. There are legal avenues for you to deal with dogs and neighbors like that. Resorting to violence is still a crime. >LRH > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>100,000 Newsgroups >> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- On 23 Jan 2005 02:01:19 -0800, "Larry R Harrison Jr" <larrytucaz@yahoo.com> >I basically DON'T believe in laws against animal cruelty, or at any >rate I think they go too far sometimes. Well which is it? Do you think it should be legal for me to beat my kitten with a baseball bat? What about your cat? (or dog or whatever) > And in nutty San Francisco, >though, just about nothing surprises me. Well, SF is the city where Bob Weir got busted for smiling on a cloudy day. >LRH I think we should all just ignore the ridiculous rantings of the lunatic who persists to post cruel messages which I think are intended to taunt and inflame the others posting here. Posting about sticking tacks in a window ledge to injure a cat for trying to look outside or shooting dogs for disturbing the peace is evidence of either his sadistic insanity or his pathetic need for attention. If he's looking for attention - why reward such asinine behavior? If he is as insane as he sounds - we'll never change the thoughts and behaviors of a hard core lunatic, there isn't enough medication or therapy in the world to strighten this guy out. Personally, I think we are being baited. On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:07:20 GMT, "Lynn via CatKB.com" <forum@CatKB.com> >I think we should all just ignore the ridiculous rantings of the lunatic who persists to post cruel messages which I think are intended to taunt and inflame the others posting here. Posting about sticking tacks in a window ledge to injure a cat for trying to look outside or shooting dogs for disturbing the peace is evidence of either his sadistic insanity or his pathetic need for attention. If he's looking for attention - why reward such asinine behavior? If he is as insane as he sounds - we'll never change the thoughts and behaviors of a hard core lunatic, there isn't enough medication or therapy in the world to strighten this guy out. Personally, I think we are being baited. I didn't see anything about sticking tacks in window ledges or the other crap you mentioned. BTW, learn to wrap your text >BTW, learn to wrap your text It came out wrapped here. Check your newsreader settings and enable wrap.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.