"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:46:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:



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.

The law would seem to disagree with you.

Actually, the simple concept of "private property" is the basis of a whole
slew of laws. Regardless of how these laws are picked apart, only one phrase
is needed to shut down arguments: private property. This is why people can
get away with painting a house pink and putting stupid stuffed sheep and
plastic flamingoes on their front lawns.


All stray dogs ****
someplace, and it's rarely on their owner's property.

Really? Then I guess all those "doggie donuts" in my yard are a
figment of my imagination?

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.

To say that a dog intends to do damage every time he leave his lawn is
also false. A dog is a four legged anarchist. He's just doing his
thing.

I never said the dog intended to do it. I said that the owner intends for
the dog to do it. The owner lets the dog roam because the owner is lazy. He
doesn't want to take the time to walk the dog, and/or the owner doesn't want
to take the time to clean up dog crap in his OWN yard. So, the owner
transfers that work to other people.

If it was discovered that a person didn't change his baby's diaper for 3
days at a time, that person's baby would quickly be taken away by a local
child welfare agency until it could be determined just what was wrong with
the parent. You would have no problem with this. It's the same type of
negligence being practiced by the dog owner. Some people aren't fit to be
parents or pet owners.


I still don't understand your continual reference to coprophilia. What
does this have to do with anything? Who handled dog crap?
The fact that you place a greater importance, than most people, to
normally trivial things like dog droppings, paints the picture that
YOU are the one suffering from coprophilia.

Coprophilia is the practice of handling feces for enjoyment, especially
sexual enjoyment. If your dog craps where innocent people will step in it,
chances are good that it will need to be cleaned off that person's shoes
before they can reenter their home. You feel this is not such a bad chore. I
have chosen to take it further and say that you haven't told us everything.
Not only do you find the cleaning process "not so bad", you actually enjoy
it very much. Therefore, you are practicing coprophilia.

I feel that if you want to use hand puppets 100% of the time when having sex
with your wife, that's fine by me. I don't need to know about it. You're two
consenting adults. Same with coprophilia. Keep that sort of thrill to
yourself. If I want to know more about it, I'll ask.

As far as my "suffering from coprophila", wrong. You have interpreted the
word to mean "obsessed with NOT coming into contact with feces". Check a
dictionary.


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.

And if you had a fence, there's no way that dog would be able to
wander onto your yard. Case closed.

In another message, I explained the fallacy of your repeating this fence
thing. Go find the message.


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.

But it doesn't change the truth that the owner may not have been aware
that the dog left the property.

Anywhere there are laws prohibiting dogs roaming off the leash, those laws
are based on the very assumption which you claim to be false. If you think
this statement is incorrect, explain why. In other words, why do YOU think
such laws exist?


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.

In the Philly area, they have trouble removing dogs which are
mistreated, bread for combat, or to attack people (Pit Bulls are
especially bad), or create a public health hazard. I find it hard to
believe they respond so forcefully to such trivial issues like
dropping on lawns. I guess in your area, they don't have better things
to do.

That's a slam. How about this: In my part of town, we have less people who
feel so threatened by intruders that they need to keep mutant dogs. Five
miles from me, in the city proper, it's just like Philly. The cops are
trained to put down mutant dogs right on the spot. It's a wonderful thing.


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.

The venue with which the case was presented is irrelevant. The laws
are sound, and proven in court. I watch Court TV on occasion. I find
it interesting. These are REAL cases, not Perry Mason re-runs.

I prefer to get my information direct from the source, especially local
sources. Next thing, you'll be telling me zoning laws are the same here as
they are in your town, because you believe they are.