# Aggresive Animal Ordinance



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

This is a part of the new ordinance enacted in our county and they are trying to toughen it. It does not requie a bite and another provision will make landlords responsible also. Good luck to renters.

The “menacing and aggressive animals” ordinance is designed to fill a hole in current law, which states that the county can act against an aggressive animal only after it has attacked. The law is designed to head off attacks on people and other animals.
Although the ordinance isn’t aimed at a specific kind of animal, dogs are a key focus.
At a March 6 hearing, the board — and several members of the audience who testified — complained that the proposal was a good idea but was not strong enough.
The revised plan defines an aggressive animal as one “whose behavior indicates it is prone to unprovoked attacks against a person or animal.”
A menacing animal, the suggested ordinance continues, is one that “through its behavior, demonstrates an intention to inflict harm or otherwise place a person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of animals kept by him or her.”
The new definition of severe bodily injury reads: “Any physical injury which results in deep lacerations with separation of subcutaneous tissues, muscle tears or lacerations, fractures or joint dislocations, or permanent impairment of locomotion or special senses.”
Fines, should the board adopt the changes, would be $100 for a first occurrence, $200 for a second and $500 for each subsequent incident during the first year.
Another change makes landlords of property rented by the animal owner liable, not just the pet owner.

Read more here: County's aggressive pets law up for revision | The Tribune & SanLuisObispo.com​


----------



## Beau (Feb 12, 2012)

I have a cow that would be in violation of this ordinance.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

Beau said:


> I have a cow that would be in violation of this ordinance.


There will probably be a lot of cats that qualify.


----------



## Caitydid255 (Aug 28, 2010)

My chickens and their obsession with pecking shiny objects (my rings) would fall under this rule. Dear lord, imagine the cats that will have to be destroyed for scratching or biting someone.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Why exactly should pedestrians have dogs charging at them, aggressing toward them, with what, and invisible fence holding them back?

I read this as though if your dog lunges at a person and makes them afraid, you will be fined. Your dog will not be removed, but you will be fined. So the lady who has two formidable dogs on flexi-leads, charging at every dog they see, well she would be fined, and if she lets it happen again, she will be fined more. 

I guess I don't have that much of an issue with that, except that someone with a bit more money and maybe a lawyer will be able to fight it and win, while the normal Joe will get stung paying whether or not his dog did anything seriously frightening. Because I have had a full grown man terrified of my four month old puppy from across the parking lot, and the dog did absolutely nothing.

So people who hate dogs and want all dogs to be euthanized might get their jollies off by calling AC on everyone's dog, and it will be up to AC to determine whether or not whatever the idiots say is actually what happened. On the other hand, maybe people will be more careful about showing just a little bit of good manners when it comes to their dog. I mean, no, not everyone wants your dog to jump on them and mouth their hand. Not everyone wants to be greeted by seeing your dog running full fledges toward you with no apparent restraint. 

At least they are discussing incidents and not just saying that everyone who owns a dog must get a 100,000 $ policy in case their dog causes an injury to anyone. 

It sounds like the community has a number of problem dog owners, and they are suggesting fining the owners to produce some sort of behavior modification, which, if it works, probably will prevent some negative incidents. 

I don't know whether I agree or not about landlords being liable. I own a house. If my dog causes serious harm to someone, they will go after my home-owner's insurance or they could try to take my home. If the next guy rents, does not own a home, what recourse is there for him to maintain control over his animal? The victim can sue. Sue what? Some yayhoo who doesn't own anything, may not be able to pay the lawsuit so he is off scott-free. If landlords can be held accountable for renting to people with animals, then they can require an insurance policy or something in case the dog should do something stupid. People who have nothing to lose might not be as careful with their dog.


----------



## sashadog (Sep 2, 2011)

After reading that article, it sounds like they are mainly concerned with poorly confined, threatening dogs that worry people. I have to agree with this point. I've passed a couple houses on occassion that I get truly nervous about. Like that snarling, vicious looking dog that could pretty easily break through the chicken wire fence they have him confined behind. I also find the new difintion of physical injury intersting... that sounds completely reasonable to me! Bone fractures and deep lacerations? That's a big deal. The renting part is tough but I agree with Selzer. It's just another layer of accountability.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

I don't have a copy of the whole ordinance but the citzen complaints are that it is similiar to the (stand your ground law) in that if your neighbor complains and says your dog is doing something aggressive then the burden is on the owner to prove otherwise. The other problem is the side that got it enacted is not happy because they want it stronger.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Jack's Dad said:


> Read more here: County's aggressive pets law up for revision | The Tribune & SanLuisObispo.com​


Wow California is at it again. Pretty soon its going to be illegal to own a dog.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Jan 2, 2011)

Holy smokes, my parrots can give a nasty bite, can inflict major damage if they want... 
I guess I can understand the landlord part, when you rent your home, if you allow pets then you should know exactly what the pet is like and even expect the renters to carry insurance on the pet.... I have seen landlords not give a darn about the renters, if they have mean dogs or turn the dogs loose . It would also make the landlords have to care enough about the law to make sure fences are in good order and that they stay that way.
However, the backfire could and probably will be more landlords not renting to people with pets.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

It's really about dogs. It was PC to call it aggressive animal.

There is no harm in calling it that and it makes it so it doesn't look like they are picking on an individual animal or species.

I've had people walk across the street to get away from Jack and he is not aggressive. GSD's and other breeds make some people afraid just because. 

I think people should contain dogs that could be dangerous but this is a poorly written law. I also think it is one more step towards singling out certain breeds. The county supervisors passed it but a lot of citizens don't like it.


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

sashadog said:


> After reading that article, it sounds like they are mainly concerned with poorly confined, threatening dogs that worry people. I have to agree with this point. I've passed a couple houses on occassion that I get truly nervous about. Like that snarling, vicious looking dog that could pretty easily break through the chicken wire fence they have him confined behind. I also find the new difintion of physical injury intersting... that sounds completely reasonable to me! Bone fractures and deep lacerations? That's a big deal. The renting part is tough but I agree with Selzer. It's just another layer of accountability.





wyominggrandma said:


> ...
> I guess I can understand the landlord part, when you rent your home, if you allow pets then you should know exactly what the pet is like and even expect the renters to carry insurance on the pet.... I have seen landlords not give a darn about the renters, if they have mean dogs or turn the dogs loose .


Ill confined dogs are a massive problem where I live, so are those poorly managed dogs on flexileads. Absent landlords and slumlords are another problem. I agree with Selzer.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

Ask our United Kingdom friends on the forum if this isn't a reality in Britain already.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

but what does "inadequately confined" mean? If my dog is inside the house, just barking out the window I've had people be afraid that they will jump through the window. Mind you, the dogs aren't barking aggressively, just "Hey, someone pulled into the driveway"
I've had people consider my dogs are "inadequately confined" because I am a smaller woman walking a large dog on a leash.
I've met a few people who think that some breeds are "inadequately confined" if they are anything short of muzzled, chained, in a solid steel box, surrounded by a moat full of alligators. Others think that all dogs should be kept that way.

Sorry, punishment before there is a crime doesn't work. "I think he's going to bite me" could be ANYTHING to anyone. Bad law, bad idea, poorly written, and too easily manipulated. If it is written a certain way, the burden of proof will be on the owner to show, not "my dog isn't aggressive" but that my dog didn't scare this person on this date at this time in the morning. 
Say you have a 5 foot fence around your yard. Your dog barks at someone walking a small dog (maybe the small dog even started it). This neighbor has seen the youtube videos of GSDs climbing fences, jumping walls much taller than 5feet. Is your dog inadequately contained in their eyes?


----------



## Draugr (Jul 8, 2011)

Is there an exception if your dog is protecting you?

I had a guy start SCREAMING at me a few weeks ago when I had my dog with me for no reason. I guess he was under the perception that I wasn't allowed to have him where I was. Whatever. Most people would just politely ask if I could take my dog elsewhere (and I probably would, whether I had a right to be there or not - some people have phobias and unless I just *have* to be there for some reason I don't mind making some amends for others).

Guess what, my dog doesn't like it when people scream at me and act aggressive. He turned his head and let out several deep booming barks.

Yeah, that's "aggressive." But it's also a dog acting like a dog and defending me from a nutjob.

Would I fall under this new "aggressive animal" legislation? I shouldn't. If it was unprovoked, yes. If it was responding to the mere presence of this man, sure, but it wasn't.


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

Inadequately confined can mean different things to different people, but I am talking about chicken wire fencing, boards up against holes in fences held in place by a concrete block, very low fencing, fencing that has been bowed over from repeated lunges of the dog, fencing separated from its supports, and other such situations. With aggressive dogs, these types of things are a tragedy waiting to happen, and I have seen it happen to others and had it happen to me.


----------



## wyominggrandma (Jan 2, 2011)

Or nasty aggressive dogs that are chained up and can just reach the end of the yard, but not quite "touch" the sidewalk. That to me would be inadequate containment. This type of law is going to be a mess, people claiming dogs are aggressive because it barked behind a window, aggressive because it is barking in its own yards. I would think the funding to have available people to check out the hundreds of calls they will get everyday will be huge. 
They just tried to pass a new "law" in the small town I live near. Called a clean neighborhood law, it would have been okay for your neighbor to not like things( remember we are in rural Wyominglike an antique tractor/plow type things, decorations,etc) and could complain and then the city could either make you remove it, or they would remove it and charge you the cost to remove it to make the town prettier.(The Morman religion is very big here, the town is getting a Temple in two years, so now everything has to be pristine and pure)... So if you neighbor didn't happen to like the pretty flowerbed, they could call it ugly and a nuisance and have it removed. Thank goodness it didn't pass, mainly because the mayor's brother owns a nasty trailer court in town and he would have had to basically plow it under and move all the trailers.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Falkosmom said:


> Inadequately confined can mean different things to different people, but I am talking about chicken wire fencing, boards up against holes in fences held in place by a concrete block, very low fencing, fencing that has been bowed over from repeated lunges of the dog, fencing separated from its supports, and other such situations. With aggressive dogs, these types of things are a tragedy waiting to happen, and I have seen it happen to others and had it happen to me.


So because some people are idiots we all get legislated to death? Sorry, I would vote strongly against this or anything like this. Until we enforce the rules and regulations we already have on the books we shouldn't be adding more. Especially stuff that is so subjective it can be abused and misused for personal vendettas. I can just see the lawsuits coming from this one.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

My husband (who is an avid hunter) could fall under this ordinance. I wonder if they have prong collars 'old man' size. Maybe set him out on a zip line run for exercise. If he's quiet, I might let him have a beer, or not. 

But he can clean up his own poop. I gotta draw the line somewhere.


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

shepherdmom said:


> So because some people are idiots we all get legislated to death? Sorry, I would vote strongly against this or anything like this. Until we enforce the rules and regulations we already have on the books we shouldn't be adding more. Especially stuff that is so subjective it can be abused and misused for personal vendettas. I can just see the lawsuits coming from this one.


Be happy you don't live like so many others do, unable to safely walk the streets themselves, let alone with their dogs, because of ill contained dogs.
Ill contained dogs are the norm here, not the oddity.

How would you feel as you passed a six foot wooden fence with the bottom all chewed out with a pit bull's head sticking out raging to get to your dog? Especially when you see the wood boards giving with each lunge of the dog? Do you really believe your children would be safe walking past with their dog? Should anybody, let alone children, be subjected to that?

Where you live, it may be legislation to death, where I live, it would be woefully inadequate and more needs to be done.


----------



## codmaster (Aug 5, 2009)

Like many laws it will depend on how it is enforced.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Falkosmom said:


> Be happy you don't live like so many others do, unable to safely walk the streets themselves, let alone with their dogs, because of ill contained dogs.
> Ill contained dogs are the norm here, not the oddity.
> 
> Where you live, it may be legislation to death, where I live, it would be woefully inadequate and more needs to be done.


Where I live most dogs are not contained at all. I wouldn't dream of taking my dog for a walk outside my property. That being said more legislation is not going to help the problem when there is no one to enforce existing laws. The problem with this kind of law is anyone can accuse anybody of having an inadequately 
confined dog. You said it yourself 



Falkosmom said:


> Inadequately confined can mean different things to different people.


Now innocent homeowners are forced to defend themselves against any Tom, ****, or Harry who decides that they are scared of your dog and wants to file a lawsuit. 

Frankly I find little poodle type dogs scary and most of the time I do not think they are adequately confined but because they are small and cute so their owners feel like it is safe to have them run around wherever they want. If it comes down to a court decisions who do you think is going to have to deal with the fall out from this law? Do you think those with the little cute ankle biters are going to have to worry about the courts or is it going to be those of us who have real dogs that look scary?


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

shepherdmom said:


> Where I live most dogs are not contained at all. I wouldn't dream of taking my dog for a walk outside my property. That being said more legislation is not going to help the problem when there is no one to enforce existing laws. The problem with this kind of law is anyone can accuse anybody of having an inadequately
> confined dog. You said it yourself
> 
> 
> ...


Correct me if I am wrong, but you must live in the country. City living is very different and the yards are minscule, if existent. Many dog owners live in apartments and take very good care of their dogs, but must walk the streets to exercise them. My yard is so small to even begin to think that it is large enough to adequately exercise my dogs is not even remotely feasible. 

Although I rarely walk locally with my dogs because of the ill contained/loose agressive dogs in the neighborhood, it is not always an option to take my dogs out to a park for exercise. 

The elderly in my area still think they are living in the good old days and continue to walk their only companions. They are the most frequent victims here. It is common for dogs which have escaped to attack these old people's dogs and the elderly frequently get bit trying to save their often elderly dogs. It is also common for the elderly's dog to be killed. There is no way in h*** that this should be permitted to continue. The existing laws are pathetic and do little to put a stop to these attacks. Most often, once the dog is loose, nobody even knows whose dog it is to take further legal action.

People have legal rights to walk safely in their neighborhood. Period. The rights of dog owners that do not adequately contain their dogs does not trump the rights of the safety of people peaceably walking the streets. Let them go to court and fight it out, I don't care. They can easily accuse me and my dogs. I wish they would pass such a law in my neighborhood as I would eagerly look forward to walking the neighborhood again without fear of ill contained/controlled/managed dogs.


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

Update, as I sit here watching the noon news, the headline story is regarding a loose dog. In a neighboring town, as children were walking to school this morning, a loose pit bull came at the kids, frightening them. One 7 year old child ran into the street when the pit came towards him and was hit by a car. He will survive, but will need further surgery. The loose pit fled the scene when the adult in the car got out. Yet, another fine example of an unidentified, ill contained dog and the damage done.


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

And yet another story, one county over, which is more countrified, of a big black dog which is known to run loose on its property, coming off its property and attacking a 1 year old child. The child will live but will need plastic surgery.

How many more children will it take?


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Falkosmom said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but you must live in the country. City living is very different and the yards are minscule, if existent. Many dog owners live in apartments and take very good care of their dogs, but must walk the streets to exercise them. My yard is so small to even begin to think that it is large enough to adequately exercise my dogs is not even remotely feasible.
> 
> People have legal rights to walk safely in their neighborhood. Period. The rights of dog owners that do not adequately contain their dogs does not trump the rights of the safety of people peaceably walking the streets. Let them go to court and fight it out, I don't care. They can easily accuse me and my dogs. I wish they would pass such a law in my neighborhood as I would eagerly look forward to walking the neighborhood again without fear of ill contained/controlled/managed dogs.


People should have the right to walk their dogs safely without infringing on the rights of people who have big dogs. However, This type of legislation does not stop idiots. This type of legislation hurts legitimate owners and people who might be looking to rent. Those who let their dogs run free don't give a hoot about the reglations anyway. 

BTW my dogs have plenty of room for exercize in the yard. 

This is my Buddy










This one is my Shadow who passed away in November 








and here is our new boy Ivan.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Falkosmom said:


> And yet another story, one county over, which is more countrified, of a big black dog which is known to run loose on its property, coming off its property and attacking a 1 year old child. The child will live but will need plastic surgery.
> 
> How many more children will it take?


You can't fix stupid. You can't legislate it either.


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

Most of those dogs that I know of are not allowed to run free, they are ill contained and get loose. This law is exactly what is needed in my area.

You are lucky that you have somewhere for your dogs to run safely. Unfortunately, many people do not have the space that you do.

You wrote: "*People should have the right to walk their dogs safely without infringing on the rights of people who have big dogs*." I am not so sure I understand this, but I am by no means singling out large breed owners. And there is no way that people rights to own big dogs should ever trump the rights of people to walk safely with their dogs. If your dogs present a danger to people passing by, I don't care how big or small, it should not be legal.

If I read OPs post correctly, the law is for legitimate threats, not to coddle somebody's fear of dogs in general. I know that leaves huge areas of gray, but things cannot remain status quo. It is far too dangerous.

There is no way that I should sit and watch the news and see two small children in one day being injured by loose, unsupervised dogs.


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

shepherdmom said:


> You can't fix stupid. You can't legislate it either.


I think you can, legislate at least. We are fortunate enough to have strict anti-cruelty laws in place where I live. It is amazing to see the care these animals receive today as opposed to the past. It now is odd to see a dog that is starving or left without shelter or other basics. All it took was some good laws and willingness of average everyday citizens to pick up a phone.

When the tools are in place, it can be surprisingly easy to be part of the solution. 

You might not be able to fix stupid, but I believe it can be managed and controlled in the hands of the right people!


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Falkosmom said:


> You wrote: "*People should have the right to walk their dogs safely without infringing on the rights of people who have big dogs*." I am not so sure I understand this, but I am by no means singling out large breed owners.
> 
> If I read OPs post correctly, the law is for legitimate threats, not to coddle somebody's fear of dogs in general. I know that leaves huge areas of gray, but things cannot remain status quo. It is far too dangerous.


The OP said "*I don't have a copy of the whole ordinance but the citzen complaints are that it is similiar to the (stand your ground law) in that if your neighbor complains and says your dog is doing something aggressive then the burden is on the owner to prove otherwise"* and he also said *"I think people should contain dogs that could be dangerous but this is a poorly written law. I also think it is one more step towards singling out certain breeds. The county supervisors passed it but a lot of citizens don't like it".*

My contention is that laws like this do single out large breed owners and place unfair burden on them. My example from before if you have a little dog that can be punted away no one is going to be complaining that he looks scary he might get loose.


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

Thanks for clearing that up, I did misunderstand your statement.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Falkosmom said:


> You might not be able to fix stupid, but I believe it can be managed and controlled in the hands of the right people!


Depends on who you let do the managing and controlling. I don't think the locals are much better than the feds and this is what I think of the feds.


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

I'm going to try whenI have time to get a copy of the ordinance because I'm going on what has been reported and the positions both sides have put out.

To clarify though, this county already had a loose dog ordinance as well as leash laws.

This law was aimed at what some percieve to be aggressive animals. As others have already posted like Dainerra, who decides what is aggression.

If my dog barks at the neighbors dog through the fence and the neighbor doesn't like it. Might mean nothing except dogs being dogs but to the neighbor my big mean GSD is very threatening.

Falkosmom: Just for the record it's not about junk yard dogs either.
San Luis Obispo County is ranked as one of the safest areas in Calif. and the nation. That is not to say there are no serious crimes but it's nothing like some areas. 

I think it's a few people who are like some who run HOA's.
They have nothing better to do than pass ordinances like this.
I'll also bet most of them don't have dogs or have poodles with pink ribbons in their hair.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

exactly Jack's Dad.  There are already laws about letting your dog run loose. There are already laws about aggressive dogs.

Who gets to decide what is aggressive is the problem. Is my neighbor going to be scared of my dogs barking and playing in the backyard? A lot of people who aren't used to GSDs are terrified when they hear them going on with all of that noise and rough and tumble playing. 

Again, it's a case of trying to look like they are doing something.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

This is why when I read threads where the dog is allowed to go down the road and visit with the neighbor children; or when people kind of flippantly say, "accidents happen;" or when people are mad about someone shooting dogs that come onto their property; or when they claim a reason to spay/neuter is to keep them from roaming; I go off a bit. 

It should make every one of us furious when we hear people being irresponsible or accepting of irresponsible behavior on the part of dog owners. Might we slip or lose hold of a leash and have an accident? Of course. But that does not mean we do not do everything humanly possible to provide safety for our dogs and people. Everything humanly possible does not equal teaching the dog the boundary lines. 

(Yeah, I ran the perimeter of my property with Babsy this morning, of course off leash, but I at least was right there with her, and Babs is highly trained with an excellent recall and can be safely walked in a village on lead or off. She will be seven in August and I know her inside and out.) 

The problem are not dogs that are under control. The problem is that people get a dog and then let them take themself out to potty at night, put up an invisible fence that no one knows about, right up to the sidewalk, collars on the dogs, done. I love this one, my brother did this one. Put the one dog in a chicken wire home-made kennel and the other dog (the vicious chow) in the basement, and then go on vacation. The dog climbed up a stack of old mattresses, chewed out of a window, and attacked the high school principle's wife taking her morning walk.

Crap like this should make us pop a vein in our foreheads, because it is crap like this that causes people to legislate crappy ordinances that appear to be zeroing in on large dogs, but are in fact zeroing in on dogs that can instill fear in people. Certain breeds of dogs and dogs above a certain weight can do this. 

When people let their dogs run up to people they do not know, let them rush up to dogs, let them pull them down the street, walk several at once with little or no control, let them be a dangerous nuisance, it sparks people to make up laws governing them.

The people we put into office are not put their by how much of a dog-person they are. That is just not on the litmus test. There are bigger fish to fry. So legislation can be heavy handed and not too dog- smart. Yes they can make laws if they feel that the public's safety is compromised, that is why they are there. 

So when people are doing something that is point blank stupid and unsafe, get angry, give them some unsolicited advice, give them a piece of your mind, start a responsible dog ownership educational program that isn't all about spay/neuter. 

One of the reasons there are German Shepherd Dogs, and we have German Shepherd Dogs, is that they are formidable and they can be a deterrent to crime. Along with that goes responsibility. We have to be a whole lot more careful with our dogs and we have to get on people of our breed and other breeds who aren't being careful.

Dog ownership is a privilege. For those in the US, there is nothing in the constitution that makes it a right for us to be able to own dogs. People are banning dogs nowadays, and not even putting in grandfather clauses for dogs that already exist. If we view it as a privilege, maybe we will be a little more careful to hang onto it.


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

Wow, Selzer, you nailed every thought I had on this one... except... I don't agree dog ownership is a privilege. But I digress, that doesn't matter.

Something needs to give -- we can't have these crazy dogs running wild and scaring/attacking others, dogs or humans. 

I don't believe for a second that some evil force is sitting in an office somewhere trying to figure out how to eradicate certain breeds or dogs in general.

These proposals come up because there are issues in their communities and they're trying to get a hold on it. No, most of the law-making types are not dog people so their ideas often are whacky sounding. 

None the less, there are serious issues in some places and something needs to be done. I don't know what, I don't know how, but do we not all hear the stories here; how someone's dog went after another, etc and so on.


----------



## Falkosmom (Jul 27, 2011)

Jack's Dad said:


> Falkosmom: Just for the record it's not about junk yard dogs either.
> San Luis Obispo County is ranked as one of the safest areas in Calif. and the nation. That is not to say there are no serious crimes but it's nothing like some areas.


Just want to clarify that these are not junk yard dogs. These are family pets. The majority being purebred.


----------



## keiko (Dec 4, 2011)

It's not a dog crime to frighten someone. We can't help it if some people are ignorant and aren't dog people. They should be fined for not tolerating dogs who serve society more in their short lives than most people do in their entire lives.


----------



## keiko (Dec 4, 2011)

The cases where dogs attack are almost always from irresponsible owners, not responsible owners making honest mistakes. Responsible dog owners are like porn. You know it when you see it. And so enforcement of such laws will take that into account.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

keiko said:


> And so enforcement of such laws will take that into account.


I don't believe this for a second. All we have to do is look at the TSA. While not all TSA people at airports and such are jerks there are way too many of them that are. Give certain people a little bit of authority and they take it way over the top. Get a rabid non dog person in charge of enforcing this type of law and innocent dog owners will wind up in the cross hairs.

I used the TSA but just thought of an even better example. Look at the rabidness of some of the HOA's. I wouldn't live in a HOA if you paid me.


----------



## keiko (Dec 4, 2011)

shepherdmom said:


> I don't believe this for a second. All we have to do is look at the TSA. While not all TSA people at airports and such are jerks there are way too many of them that are. Give certain people a little bit of authority and they take it way over the top. Get a rabid non dog person in charge of enforcing this type of law and innocent dog owners will wind up in the cross hairs.
> 
> I used the TSA but just thought of an even better example. Look at the rabidness of some of the HOA's. I wouldn't live in a HOA if you paid me.


That depends on the person of course. Luckily most people like dogs.


----------



## GsdLoverr729 (Jun 20, 2010)

keiko said:


> That depends on the person of course. Luckily most people like dogs.


That depends on your area. For example, people where I live now love dogs. Regardless of breed. But where I grew up less than 50% of people actually liked dogs. And most of the people who did hated certain breeds (rotties, shepherds, pits, etc).


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

keiko said:


> That depends on the person of course. Luckily most people like dogs.


?? That has not been my experience.


----------

