I agree inconsideration should be gauged by the offenders intent.
Obviously a dog has no idea about how its behavior impacts the property
owner. In addition, I am an animal lover, and to a vastly greater extent,
a dog lover.

I would never shot a dog, and it would be under rare circumstances that I
would ever approve of anyone killing a dog. Even if the dog is ****ting
on the lawn and digging up the garden. Even if the property owner
conveyed the problem to the dog owner, I don't believe killing the dog is
an appropriate course of action. I would view people who make the choice
to kill a dog who was only defacing their property as mean spirited.

Still, if a dog went on to someones property and the owner shoots it, even
if its my dog, I wouldn't even consider holding them legally responsible
for thee act.

Even in the most unflattering circustances in which the owners kills my
dog without ever first attempting to communicate or pursue legal efforts,
while I'd think my neighbor to be the biggest prick on God green earth,
I'd still acknowledge the fact that it was my dog, it was my
responsibility to keep this dog under my control, and I failed to meet the
responsibility. Even if the the law gives me the right to seek
retribution, does not make it morally acceptable for me to do so.
Obviously, the rule of Dave applies, and this mean spirited little prick
will be promptly removed from my Christmas card list.

If the property owner warned the dog owner about problem and the intended
consequences, then shame on the owner. Once again I don't agree with the
action, but I really can't comprehend why every one is putting the owness
of the problem on the shoulders property owner and not the dog owner. If
my neighbor told me to build a fence to keep their dog from defacing my
property, they will not have made a friend that day. In the most
reasonable tone I could muster, my replyto their comment would be: "Aside
for the fine point that it is YOUR DOG, it would be quicker and cheaper
solution to put your dog on a restraint when you let it out."

As for any comment about it being legal for dogs to roam loose, while I'm
not an attorney, I'd assume anything citing a dog may run loose implies it
is within the confines of YOUR PROPERTY. I'd love to see any type of
ordinance that even remotely suggest otherwise.

Bob Dimond


In article , Dave Hall
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:14:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

How about this: I'm creating a new art form. It's sort of like etchings. I
use a key on the side of your car. It won't be just a scratch, mind you.
It'll be an actual picture. This is identical to your allowing your dog to
crap on my lawn. Is my new art form OK with you?



Another strawman?

You also seem to be unable to grasp the difference between deliberate
and malicious intent, and incidental, consequential actions.

The dog craps because that's a natural act. In some places, it's
illegal to allow a dog to roam loose. In other places it's perfectly
acceptable (and legal). I suggest you move to one of those uptight
areas where people share your outrage at such trivial incidents.

Dave