On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:04:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:24:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

That's a FAR better solution than Doug's "vanishing" act.



Mine's just another version of the same thing.

No it's not. An animal control person is acting within the boundaries
of the law. You are not. And they merely remove the animal. You kill
it.

Quite a few animals picked up by animal control end up euthanized, Dave.
Call your local dog catcher and ask. Yes, there are animal welfare groups
which try and rescue as many as they can, but the fact is that if your pet's
taken away due to negligence on your part, you should assume it'll be worm
food soon. The law does not define how dead your pet will be. Dead is dead.

Various animal shelters and SPCA organizations will euthanize an
animal if not adopted within a certain time. If a pet owner does not
reclaim their "captured" pet, there can be only 2 possibilities. They
either A) don't know where the animal is, or B) do not want to pay the
costs associated with adoption.

The euthanasia policy for these shelters has nothing to do with the
animal crapping on your yard.



But hang on....something's
wrong here....the animal shelter stole someone's cat. That's OK with you?

It's not considered theft. Why do you have so much trouble
differentiating these differences?

Cat scratches car. Cat is taken by animal control. Cat is gone.
Dog damages private property. Dog is taken by landowner. Dog is gone.
Same thing. Pet is gone.

One is legal, the other is not. The ends do not justify the means in
your case. A cop is legally allowed to shoot criminals. It doesn't
mean that I am, in most circumstances which do not involve imminent
threat.

I don't have a problem with you calling animal control to complain
about a neighbor's pet and, if they feel that your complaint is
reasonable, they respond and remove the animal. I do have a problem
with you going above the law and doing it yourself. That's the long
and short of it.


What if your dog is hit by a car because you let if off your property
unsupervised. Would it bother you if the driver stopped for a moment,
looked
in his mirror to see what he'd hit, saw that it was not a human and just
kept going?

What does this have to do with the original topic? Why do you feel
the need to go off on slightly related, but not relevant, tangents to
deflect from that which makes you uncomfortable?

I dont' do it to deflect. I do it in a pointless attempt to make you think,

Maybe you should think a little. Your problem is that if you think one
course of action is appropriate in one set of circumstances, that the
same course of action is appropriate in others. That's binary thinking
to the extreme.

You might be justified in killing a neighbor's dog if that dog attacks
you. But not if it simply craps on you lawn. It is that fundamental
difference which you can't seem to resolve.

or sometimes to befuddle you because it's entertaining.

You try to tell a nut that he's nuts, and he'll swear that you're
crazy.........


Dave