"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:48:03 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


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".


Ok, if we stick to your binary view of property, you are either on
your property or someone else's. When you leave your property, am I to
assume that you are intending to damage someone else's property?

Don't say stupid things. We're talking about a dog, not a person.

Why not? The principle's the same.

Don't be ridiculous. I define **** on my property as damage. It's my
property, so my definition is the only one that's valid. All stray dogs ****
someplace, and it's rarely on their owner's property. No dog can be told
"Have a nice walk, and don't **** at these addresses". With these absolutes
in mind, we've already established that the dog owner accepts these truths
and continues to make these things happen.

To say that a human intends to do damage every time he leaves his property
is, for the most part, false. Except for my wife's cousin's kid.



Assuming that a dog owner knows that the dog has left his property
(And many don't), while you may assume that they may mark some
territory along the way, many times they roam just to roam.
You seem to harbor this notion that dogs do nothing but destroy
things. A notion brought about from your hatred of dogs, no doubt.

Right. And nobody would look at a naked lady in the park. Dave...we're
talking about dogs, not cartoons. I have NEVER seen a dog wandering off
its
leash without lifting its leg at least once or twice on someone's
property.
It's not much of a stretch to assume that if that same dog doesn't ****
on
someone's property today, it'll do so tomorrow.

But those things aren't going to damage your "crops". You are fighting
a two front war here. You justify the "vanishing" of offensive animals
by citing damage done to crops. Yet, you extend the same rationale for
something as trivial as "droppings". They are not worthy of the same
consideration.

As I've said in other conversations, I can accept quite a few sexual
orientations, even though I don't want to share all of them. Coprophilia is
one I don't want to share. Some infants will handle their feces for
enjoyment, but they usually grow out of it quickly. You have every right to
enjoy it, though.



As far the the owner not knowing that the dog left the property, forget
that
nonsense.

So you assert that pet owners are intimately aware of the every
movement that their pets make? Hell, some people have a hard time
keeping track of their kid's every movement.

By law, they are required to keep the dog on their own property, unless
they're being walked. If there's no fence and the dog is allowed outside
unsupervised, then only an idiot would assume that the dog will not roam
eventually.


When we finally got a real dog catcher who was good at seeing
through peoples' excuses, I stood and watched as he warned a dog owner
NEVER
to try that line on him again.

Why not, does he have a problem with the truth?

Because he'd gotten complaints from several neighbors about the same dog.
There was no mistaking this dog for another. Therefore, it was NOT the truth
in this case.



Then, he took her dog away. I went home and
celebrated with a beer.

If the dog is properly licensed, and has not attacked anyone, which
would lead the animal control people to consider them dangerous, then
the owner has every right to reclaim the dog. I have YET to see or
hear of a case where a dog was euthanized for crapping on someone's
lawn. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong by providing the
particulars (verifiable of course).

I never said dogs were euthanized by the animal control department simply
for being strays. Here, you get a warning for the first violation, a hefty
fine for the 2nd, and for the third incident, your dog is taken away and you
are slapped with a VERY annoying fine. I believe it's $300 now, but I'm not
sure. Your dog is gone for good. It goes to a place called Lollypop Farm
where it's kept for a period of time, waiting for adoption. Because so many
people don't get their pets vaccinated & neutered, the place charges a
nominal fee when you adopt a pet. So, you pay more than once to get your
vermine back, if you're dumb enough to do that after 3 violations and a
scolding from a judge. If an animal's not adopted after a period of time,
it's euthanized.

Lately, they instituted some sort of rebate plan. I believe the way it works
is that when you go to the vet a year later for the next round of shots, the
vet fills out a form and sends it to the farm, which rebates most of the
money you paid them in the beginning. They keep the nominal cost of the
medical stuff. This ensures that people are serious about adoption, and
encourages them to keep their new pets for the first year.


Incidentally, whatever television judge you base your ideas on would've
also
slammed a dog owner for saying "I didn't know....". That's an insult to
anyone's intelligence.

It doesn't change the fact that an irate neighbor is civilly liable
for killing their neighbors dog regardless of the reason.

You're the legal expert, based on your television judges. I guess you're
right.