Sorry, John. Snares are off limits for me this afternoon. People have been
setting them for me all day.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:jRyjc.31659$YP5.2502550@attbi_s02...
Doug,
You seem like a true humanitarian. Don stated that if someone violated
his
rights, the law required him to shot the person in the face, do you think
that might be a little drastic of a solution?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
1) Dog catcher was a one main operation.
2) For small claims, the plaintiff usually isn't reimbursed for lost pay
because of having to take time off from work to sit in court.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Tlxjc.52420$aQ6.3937372@attbi_s51...
I would start with the dog catcher's supervisor and if that did not
work,
then the town supervisor and my council representative.

Somehow I feel this is a trick question, but my point is, I can think
of
no
reason to kill a dog, unless the dog was placing someone in immediate
danger. As soon as the dog left, or was under control, I would use
the
courts to resolve my differences with the owner and/or the town
council
for
not obeying the laws.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
The dog catcher's supervisor, or the town supervisor?

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:2bxjc.42680$GR.5971547@attbi_s01...
It seems that you provided your own answer to the question. If
you
had
talked to the supervisor instead of the dog catcher, it would have
solved
your problem.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Actually, one dog catcher was fired several months after my
biggest
problems
occurred.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:qywjc.31332$YP5.2471000@attbi_s02...
Doug,

It makes me wonder if your complaints with the dog catcher
were
viewed
as
irrational. Has the dog catcher decided to ignore all roaming
dog
complaints or just yours?

To answer your question about what I would do: I would video
the
dog
roaming free, I would video the damage the dog has done either
to
my
garden
or to my carpet when I walked in with dog poo on my shoe. I
would
then
file
a complaint in small claims court and seek damages. The dog
owner
would
find it is more trouble to go to small claims court than to
keep
his
dog
from roaming.

As far as the dog catcher, I would contact my local elected
representative
and ask him why the dog catcher is not performing his job.
Have
you
ever
noticed that other people tend to ignore your complaints or
view
you
as
unreasonable?



I would use a video to record the dog on my property and the
damage
he
did,
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
And if, after perhaps a dozen calls, the dog catcher does
nothing,
then
what
would YOU do? To assist you with your answer, I'll point
out
that
the
word
"you" refers only to YOU, not to some hypothetical person,
or
people
in
general.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:cjwjc.42536$GR.5946965@attbi_s01...
It does appear that we see it differently, but that should
not
surprise
either on of us. Neither the dog or the kids belong on the
other
person's
property. The correct course of action is to call the dog
pound
or
the
police if the dog or kids are coming onto your property.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Interesting logic. I see it thusly: Two objects are
capable
of
causing
harm
or damage: A dog, and a pool. If you choose to allow the
dog
to
roam,
then
you will probably not care if a kid falls into your
pool.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:nYvjc.50666$w96.4558920@attbi_s54...
Doug,
It is the law that the owner of a pool should put a
fence
around
his
pool.
But, if we followed your logic concerning trespassing,
it
would
be
the
pool
owners right to shot any of the kids who came onto his
property,
The
parents of the kids did a poor job of teaching his
children
not
to
violate
the neighbor and it will teach the parents and other
kids
in
the
neighborhood not to step on other peoples property.



"Doug Kanter" wrote in
message
...
"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Dave Hall wrote:
... I guess in his mind, he should not have to
be
"burdened" with the chore of constructing a
fence
to
keep
the
unwanted
out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone
else's
responsibility
to keep them out for him.

Still refusing to take responsibility for your
actions,
eh
Dave?
Well
a
leapord never changes his spots.

It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to
keep
his
pet
out
of
other peoples' yards.

Same as it *is* the responsibility of every boater
to
operate
his
vessel
safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every
boater
to
not
create
a
large wake in places where it isn't wanted. Funny
how
you
cannot
grasp
the simple principles of responsibility &
accountability.

DSK


It's called "selective personal responsibility". You
only
need
to
be
responsible about your dog when it's sunny and you
don't
mind
stepping
outside to hook it onto a leash in your yard. But,
if
the
weather's
lousy,
or there's a football game on TV, it's fine to let
the
dog
out
the
front
door and wave as it heads toward your neighbor's
place.

Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law in
most
towns
says
that
if
you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate
that
locks.
Do
you
think
that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the
neighbors
to
keep
their
kids from drowning in your pool?

Actually, I tried to make it very easy for you to agree, that ever for you,
Don seems to have be too radical.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Sorry, John. Snares are off limits for me this afternoon. People have been
setting them for me all day.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:jRyjc.31659$YP5.2502550@attbi_s02...
Doug,
You seem like a true humanitarian. Don stated that if someone violated
his
rights, the law required him to shot the person in the face, do you
think
that might be a little drastic of a solution?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
1) Dog catcher was a one main operation.
2) For small claims, the plaintiff usually isn't reimbursed for lost
pay
because of having to take time off from work to sit in court.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Tlxjc.52420$aQ6.3937372@attbi_s51...
I would start with the dog catcher's supervisor and if that did not
work,
then the town supervisor and my council representative.

Somehow I feel this is a trick question, but my point is, I can
think
of
no
reason to kill a dog, unless the dog was placing someone in
immediate
danger. As soon as the dog left, or was under control, I would use
the
courts to resolve my differences with the owner and/or the town
council
for
not obeying the laws.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
The dog catcher's supervisor, or the town supervisor?

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:2bxjc.42680$GR.5971547@attbi_s01...
It seems that you provided your own answer to the question. If
you
had
talked to the supervisor instead of the dog catcher, it would
have
solved
your problem.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Actually, one dog catcher was fired several months after my
biggest
problems
occurred.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:qywjc.31332$YP5.2471000@attbi_s02...
Doug,

It makes me wonder if your complaints with the dog catcher
were
viewed
as
irrational. Has the dog catcher decided to ignore all
roaming
dog
complaints or just yours?

To answer your question about what I would do: I would
video
the
dog
roaming free, I would video the damage the dog has done
either
to
my
garden
or to my carpet when I walked in with dog poo on my shoe. I
would
then
file
a complaint in small claims court and seek damages. The dog
owner
would
find it is more trouble to go to small claims court than to
keep
his
dog
from roaming.

As far as the dog catcher, I would contact my local elected
representative
and ask him why the dog catcher is not performing his job.
Have
you
ever
noticed that other people tend to ignore your complaints or
view
you
as
unreasonable?



I would use a video to record the dog on my property and the
damage
he
did,
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
And if, after perhaps a dozen calls, the dog catcher does
nothing,
then
what
would YOU do? To assist you with your answer, I'll point
out
that
the
word
"you" refers only to YOU, not to some hypothetical person,
or
people
in
general.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:cjwjc.42536$GR.5946965@attbi_s01...
It does appear that we see it differently, but that
should
not
surprise
either on of us. Neither the dog or the kids belong on
the
other
person's
property. The correct course of action is to call the
dog
pound
or
the
police if the dog or kids are coming onto your property.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in
message
...
Interesting logic. I see it thusly: Two objects are
capable
of
causing
harm
or damage: A dog, and a pool. If you choose to allow
the
dog
to
roam,
then
you will probably not care if a kid falls into your
pool.


"John Smith" wrote in message
news:nYvjc.50666$w96.4558920@attbi_s54...
Doug,
It is the law that the owner of a pool should put a
fence
around
his
pool.
But, if we followed your logic concerning
trespassing,
it
would
be
the
pool
owners right to shot any of the kids who came onto
his
property,
The
parents of the kids did a poor job of teaching his
children
not
to
violate
the neighbor and it will teach the parents and other
kids
in
the
neighborhood not to step on other peoples property.



"Doug Kanter" wrote in
message
...
"DSK" wrote in message

. ..
Dave Hall wrote:
... I guess in his mind, he should not have to
be
"burdened" with the chore of constructing a
fence
to
keep
the
unwanted
out of his garden. He feels that it's everyone
else's
responsibility
to keep them out for him.

Still refusing to take responsibility for your
actions,
eh
Dave?
Well
a
leapord never changes his spots.

It *is* the responsibility of every pet owner to
keep
his
pet
out
of
other peoples' yards.

Same as it *is* the responsibility of every
boater
to
operate
his
vessel
safely, and it *is* the responsibility of every
boater
to
not
create
a
large wake in places where it isn't wanted.
Funny
how
you
cannot
grasp
the simple principles of responsibility &
accountability.

DSK


It's called "selective personal responsibility".
You
only
need
to
be
responsible about your dog when it's sunny and you
don't
mind
stepping
outside to hook it onto a leash in your yard. But,
if
the
weather's
lousy,
or there's a football game on TV, it's fine to let
the
dog
out
the
front
door and wave as it heads toward your neighbor's
place.

Hey....here's a question for little Dave: The law
in
most
towns
says
that
if
you have a pool, you must have a fence with a gate
that
locks.
Do
you
think
that's nonsense, and that it should be up to the
neighbors
to
keep
their
kids from drowning in your pool?

"Dave Hall" wrote
"Don" wrote:
No one has the right to govern others.

Anarchy is fine as long as you have the upper hand.

Who has the upper hand right now?

When someone else
decides that they don't like YOU, and they exercise their lawless
"rights" to your detriment, then you'll cry for "justice".

What lawless rights are you speaking of?

Except that
there won't be any.

Why not?

Don't give yourself any rights that you wouldn't want someone else
using against you.

Rights aren't *given*.

"Dave Hall" wrote
Right, which is why someone who is as concerned about crop damage as
you are, would be well advised to take preventative measure, such as
erecting a fence. Don't rely on everyone else to protect your
investment. You have as much (if not more) responsibility to keep your
valuables away from harm.

Was this clipped from the Marxist manifesto? Seriously.....LOL

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:05:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"jim--" wrote in message
...
So you think that money makes one happy? You sound pretty shallow to
me.

And are you friendly to anyone on this board? It does not look like
it.

He's pretty friendly to me, even though we disagree on a few things. But
see....here's the deal: Neither he nor I say outrageous things that fly
in
the face of logic.


What? Most of your arguments thus far on this topic have been
outrageous.

It appears that way to you because you are viewing it from a socialists
perspective.
You have nothing of value so you thusly place no value on anyone elses
stuff.

Both of you guys are projecting the position that you are
justified in taking the law into your own hands, despite written law
to the contrary.

Now you're outright lying.
I am not talking about *taking the law into my own hands*, only you are.
Again, that is because you seem to be a socialist so everything to you is
*collective* in nature.
Rather than solving your problems, you would prefer the state to solve them
for you, that is why you continuously use the *law* reference.

You bemoan "inconsiderate" neighbors, who may be guilty of some degree
of negligence, but "retaliate" against them with an equally
inconsiderate response.

You're outright lying again, why?
Doug has tried to work things out with the neighbor, he has mentioned this
several times, yet the neighbor continues to disregard Dougs property
rights.
He didn't fly off the handle and kill the neighbors dog upon the first
infraction as you stated above.
So again, why are you lying your ass off?
Is it because it's the only way you can make an argument?

I'm sorry but you will never convince me that
you are morally or legally authorized to terminate the life of another
living being no matter what "damage" or inconvenience they may have
caused you. There are proper channels to seek out compensation or
retribution for these acts. That these proper channels are not "good
enough" for you is not our problem.

It seems to be a problem for you though.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:57:05 -0400, "Don"
wrote:

I design million dollar+ custom homes for wealthy island residents and
live
in an area called *Simply Paradise* (run that past google for a clue) and
am
always in a good mood and in good company.
I get a little frustrated at times when I go into usenet and encounter
legions of complete idiots like you.


"legions of idiots" who understand the law,

**** you and the law you rode in on.
YOU have no say at all in how I conduct my life and that galls you something
fierce.
YOU are one of the members of the *legion* I mentioned above.
Completely devoid of logic and socialist in nature.

The rest of your whining was snipped, post haste.....

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:19:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:sUcic.11851$w96.1132701@attbi_s54...
Don,

Do you believe you have the right to do whatever you please?

Everyone has the right to do as they please, as long as they understand
and
accept the consequences.

Because there are certain laws which address specific consequences to
certain unlawful activities, does not mean that you have a right to
"take your chances" and do as you please. Any moral person should
understand that.

I always find it humorous when a socialist attempts to talk bout morals.
LOL

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:07:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Fxgic.13266$_L6.1028222@attbi_s53...
Nope, I do not believe in Anarchy, I believe in a society governed by
laws
to protect my family from people like you.

When the system protects people whose animals destroy property, is that
not
anarchy?

Maybe they just feel that you're one of those perpetually belligerent
A-holes who does nothing but complain about trivial matters, and
respond accordingly. Maybe they're waiting to catch you taking the law
into your own hands so they can come and cart you off to a place where
no one has to hear you complain again.


How's that for a hypothetical?

None whines so loud as the socialist that cowers behind laws.

"Dave Hall" wrote
So you are of the opinion that every dog owner who's dog digs under
the fence or breaks off of his tether is plotting to "screw with the
neighbors"? Even those who simply "let them out", do not do so with
the intent of making your life miserable.

Shove your *intent* directly up your ass.
We're talking about the end result here, that the loosed animal caused
anguish to another.

That's an unfortunate
consequence.

If someone shoots you in the face for being a socialist, some may consider
that an unfortunate consequence to your stupidity.
But most would not.

You're trying to debate with a socialist.
It's not possible to do so, they lack the intellect.
The best you can do is ridicule them.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:21:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



Who said anything about SENDING the dog over. Pardon the pun, but
****
happens. It's not the dog's fault that you live in its toilet.


If your answer is "yes", then you must also
believe I have the right to roll my trash barrel down to HIS
property
and
dump it on his porch.

You are supposed to know better. A dog does not.

You're a piece of work, boy. The neighbor knows that he is doing wrong
by
letting the dog roam.

Does he?

Let's make this simple, Dave. There are only two kinds of property: Yours,
and someone else's. If the dog ****s or destroys things on your property,
that's fine. If the dog leaves your property and ****s/destroys, it's
doing
so on someone else's property. Now, please explain how any dog owner can
see
his dog leave his property and say "I didn't know it was going to mess up
someone else's property".



Here, when you go to get a license for your vermine,
you're given a brochure which explains the law regarding leashes.
Therefore,
if you let the dog roam the neighborhood, you are doing so with the
clear
intent of ****ing off your neighbors.

So you are of the opinion that every dog owner who's dog digs under
the fence or breaks off of his tether is plotting to "screw with the
neighbors"? Even those who simply "let them out", do not do so with
the intent of making your life miserable. That's an unfortunate
consequence.

See above. If the dog's not on your property, you KNOW it's on someone
else's. Since there are no other outcomes, it's safe to say that the owner
is either fully aware of what his dog is doing, or the owner is
monumentally
stupid and probably will never understand what it means to be responsible
pet owner.