# Mandatory Dog Training Bill



## Good_Karma (Jun 28, 2009)

S61-2011 - NY Senate Open Legislation - Requires all dogs and their owners to successfully complete obedience training - New York State Senate

This bill is REQUIRING that all dogs attend obedience classes at a facility and dogs must also wear a tag to show they complied. 

Has anyone heard anything on this topic? Opinions?


----------



## NewbieShepherdGirl (Jan 7, 2011)

I have never heard of anything like this, but it doesn't surprise me. I think it is sad that this is the direction that our country is allowing itself to go. Do I think that all dogs should be trained? Of course. A dog that is trained is nicer to be around, has a better quality of life because it's safer, and is less of a liability to its owner. However, JMO, I think that it isn't the place of the government to mandate such things. I know plenty of people, myself included, who have no problem training their dog on their own. That's not to say we all can't benefit from obedience classes (I'm thinking of taking Sasha for socializing purposes) but I would never want to be told that I HAD to take her.


----------



## kidkhmer (Jul 14, 2010)

Yeah sorry but that's hilarious and sad at the same time . Of course all dogs should be trained but to have your Govt make it a law ? Time to move in to the Michigan woods !!!!!!


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

Good for trainers!! It must be great for the bussiness...


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Oh wow! The government will let you home-school your children, but your dogs need to go to obedience training? LOL! 

And wear a tag saying they complied! 

Why don't they go full hog and require all dogs to get a title?

Yes, all dogs should be trained, but tax dollars and hours of congress should not be wasted on this sort of thing.

What is next, a bill saying every cat owner should clean their litter box? Owners of rodents should provide a twirly thing for them to get exersize on? The government needs to stick within its bounds or they will go broke, and ask for more and more and more tax increases.


----------



## sagelfn (Aug 13, 2009)

Bad idea. Too many reasons to list.

It is sad that so many people are such failures at something so basic the government feels it needs to make a law.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

selzer said:


> Owners of rodents should provide a twirly thing for them to get exersize on?


This made me laugh! haha!


----------



## lisgje (Sep 3, 2010)

Worst part is that if that got passed, the cost for training would probably sky rocket since trainers would know that people HAVE to do it and there would probably be even more bad trainers out there trying to make a buck. What next, if they do that, the trainers should be certified and wear a tag too! LOL


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Incontheevable!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think that snot is a public concern. 

We should make a law that says all noses must be blown into an approved tissue.

Used tissues should be put in an approved waste receptacle.

Noses should be inspected and stamped, "Blown."


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

And the snots in the legislature should be keeping their gigantic noses in check.


----------



## GSD Fan (Sep 20, 2010)

I agree with it. It will bring structure to the dog world and it will help dog owners. Training benefits dog owners and the dogs. 

As far as the government getting involved, they need to get involved. The state and local aren't doing enough.


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

ridonkulous!


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Oh goodness ........ we are cutting budgets left and write for police departments and you want them to see if some little old lady's chihuahua is an untrained menace to society?

I would rather they be stomping out meth labs and murderers than worry about dog tags


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

jocoyn said:


> Oh goodness ........ we are cutting budgets left and write for police departments and you want them to see if some little old lady's chihuahua is an untrained menace to society?
> 
> I would rather they be stomping out meth labs and murderers than worry about dog tags


 
agree completelely.


----------



## kidkhmer (Jul 14, 2010)

selzer said:


> I think that snot is a public concern.
> 
> We should make a law that says all noses must be blown into an approved tissue.
> 
> ...


Huzzah !

And farting .......

None before 7am without a permit and certainly not within 1m of your spouse ...


----------



## Franksmom (Oct 13, 2010)

jocoyn said:


> Oh goodness ........ we are cutting budgets left and write for police departments and you want them to see if some little old lady's chihuahua is an untrained menace to society?
> 
> I would rather they be stomping out meth labs and murderers than worry about dog tags


I agree, all the laws now are not being enforced, how would they ever enforce this type law.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

ONly in NY.........

Don't worry, our leg comes up with some super crazy stuff. I doubt it will pass.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

eeek, my wrists are out. Spelling infraction. Arrest me! right, not write


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

Lol, good luck enforcing this one. 

It would be nice if dog training was mandatory to dog owners because they believed in the necessity of it, not because their government was forcing them to do it.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

GSD Fan said:


> I agree with it. It will bring structure to the dog world and it will help dog owners. Training benefits dog owners and the dogs.
> 
> As far as the government getting involved, they need to get involved. The state and local aren't doing enough.


Government is local, is state, is federal. I believe this is a local government thing, just NY or maybe NYC. 

This kind of thing is actually scary. Why? Because if your government can force you to provide obedience training on your dog, what prevents them from requiring agility training for your dog, a requirement that every dog pass a hunting test, a requirement that every dog participate in dock diving, or flyball, or fill in the blank? 

This is another way to punish everyone because there are some dog owners out there that are SO irresponsible, or downright criminal, that they allow their dogs to become a menace. 

Do you think the video with the lady in the mu mu, could not have happened if that dog was trained? 

I have seen some dogs that have passed obedience training classes. Not only can they not perform even basic commands, they are also not always stable and might end up biting someone. 

Lastly, I strongly believe that if people would just train their dogs, there would not be a problem with dogs being abandoned. Yes, people will still die, and leave no one to take care of the dogs, so shelters will still be there, that and for those whose circumstances have gotten completely out of hand. But with training, people build a bond with the dog, and those dogs have an excellent shot at a good long life with their owners. 

BUT, if you require obedience training, mandate it by law, set up requirements for passing by law, you will have people dumping dogs that they would have otherwise worked with. You will have people showing up and not wanting to be there, and making classes awful for all of us. You will have people paying and receiving money for classes that were not taken or passed. You will have money taken away from people who do and don't own dogs, spent to set up this huge, unmanageable, unenforceable system.

It is an appauling idea.

The government cannot even ensure that children, after 12 years of public education, can read and write, spell, and do arithmetic. And you want _them_ in charge of our dogs???:help:


----------



## DnP (Jul 10, 2008)

GSDElsa said:


> ONly in NY.........
> 
> Don't worry, our leg comes up with some super crazy stuff. I doubt it will pass.


Agreed...only in NY.

You'd think with all the other issues NYS is facing, this would not be a priority or even a blip on the radar. What a crock...

Leah, thanks for finding this and putting us on notice. I've seen stranger things in the assembly get passed. Gonna keep an eye on this one.


----------



## beaderdog (Dec 23, 2010)

This is not only intrusive, it's not going to work & it would cost taxpayer money that would be better spent on other things. Can you imagine all the bureaucratic crap that would be necessary to implement this? Who's going to approve the trainers & how will they decide who's okay & who's not? Who's going to develop the standardized form? Who's going to read & approve the applications & distribute the tags? For that matter, who's going to design the tags & who's going to make them? And does the constabulary of _any_ jurisdiction want to be bothered enforcing this? I seriously doubt it. The goal is admirable, but this surely isn't the way to accomplish it!


----------



## Good_Karma (Jun 28, 2009)

Diana, no problem. I thought it was pretty interesting, and wondered about who came up with the proposed bill. And also about enforcement. If passed, I could almost forsee a decline in dog ownership over it. If you have to take a class with your rescue dog, are you as likely to adopt?


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

Good_Karma said:


> Diana, no problem. I thought it was pretty interesting, and wondered about who came up with the proposed bill. And also about enforcement. If passed, I could almost forsee a decline in dog ownership over it. If you have to take a class with your rescue dog, are you as likely to adopt?


This is true, but people might also be less likely to buy a puppy-mill puppy.

I wonder if they did something where it was the dog that needed training, not the owner+dog unit. What if rescues came with dog-training tags already, thus making rescues in higher demand because owners don't have to go through training with it?

I could see that being a bonus for shelter dogs if it worked that way, although I doubt it will.


----------



## CassandGunnar (Jan 3, 2011)

Imagine the money that will spend, and taken in by, the State of NY. Of course they're going to require that trainers be "certified" or licensed. Of course you have to PAY for a license to be a dog trainer, where does that money go? 
Of course, within 15 minutes of the first "tag" being issued, someone will have it copied and be selling them on the street.
I can also say, as a 25 year veteran of law enforcement, not too many cops I know are going to spend a lot of time "tag checking". Way too many other things to do and not enough time or resources to do them.
How hard is it going to be to copy a tag, not very, unless they have some really elaborate system of issuing the tags. Then, of course, you need a database to double check for counterfeit tags. Now you're talking big money.
It would almost be funny to see them pass it, just to see how fast it would implode on them............
GOOD LUCK citizens of New York.


----------



## CassandGunnar (Jan 3, 2011)

:gsdbeggin: Pull your dog to the side of the trail - MANDATORY TAG CHECKPOINT. :gsdbeggin:


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Oh, I bet they have to be certified tagged thru a petsmart obedience class...
whose pocket will be lined in this bill?


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

CassandGunnar said:


> Of course, within 15 minutes of the first "tag" being issued, someone will have it copied and be selling them on the street.


I thought it happened only in Chile... Wait! the guy selling the tags on the street will be Chilean!

Sadly, the only thing you will get if this is approved is more dogs that do not leave their yards in their entire life .


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Syaoransbear said:


> This is true, but people might also be less likely to buy a puppy-mill puppy.
> 
> I wonder if they did something where it was the dog that needed training, not the owner+dog unit. Wh*at if rescues came with dog-training tags already, thus making rescues in higher demand because owners don't have to go through training with it*?
> 
> I could see that being a bonus for shelter dogs if it worked that way, although I doubt it will.


But, what good will this really do? I mean, if an owner takes a ten month old pup that is through basic and advanced obedience and does NOTHING with it for three months, they will STILL have a crazy teenager, and they will not have the first clue what to do with it. 

This is simply not what government is designed for, and they will do an awful job.


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

selzer said:


> But, what good will this really do? I mean, if an owner takes a ten month old pup that is through basic and advanced obedience and does NOTHING with it for three months, they will STILL have a crazy teenager, and they will not have the first clue what to do with it.
> 
> This is simply not what government is designed for, and they will do an awful job.


That's another thing that makes this bill impossible to work. How much training does a dog need? We all know that training is a life-long process. Would the owner and dog have to continuously get the dog's obedience training reevaluated every year? It's not hard to cram training into a dog for one little tag and then forget about it for the rest of the dog's life.

Plus, there's some training facilities that will NOT fail a dog. When I worked at petsmart, the trainer there said that no matter how poorly a dog did, she was not allowed to fail it.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

also, it is skipping the most important factor - the best trained dog in the world is only as good as the human at the other end of the leash.


----------



## Dogaroo (Mar 4, 2003)

Hrmph, how about first requiring people to attend parenting classes & train their CHILDREN in basic manners??!? Maybe after we accomplish that, we can talk about mandatory training for dogs.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

Dogaroo said:


> Hrmph, how about first requiring people to train their CHILDREN in basic manners??!? Maybe after we accomplish that, we can talk about mandatory training for dogs.


I'd settle for people learning to control THEMSELVES... that would be a huge first step


----------



## Dogaroo (Mar 4, 2003)

Dainerra said:


> I'd settle for people learning to control THEMSELVES... that would be a huge first step


AMEN to THAT!! :thumbup:


----------



## Jax's Mom (Apr 2, 2010)

selzer said:


> But, what good will this really do? I mean, if an owner takes a ten month old pup that is through basic and advanced obedience and does NOTHING with it for three months, they will STILL have a crazy teenager, and they will not have the first clue what to do with it.
> 
> This is simply not what government is designed for, and they will do an awful job.


...


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

Dogaroo said:


> Hrmph, how about first requiring people to attend parenting classes & train their CHILDREN in basic manners??!? Maybe after we accomplish that, we can talk about mandatory training for dogs.


 
THAT might help me like other peoples kids. My 3 year old has more manners than most 10 year olds around here.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

If they want to do something positive, they would make people pass a test and get licensed to be a pet owner, prior to them being allowed to get a pet. 

I mean kind of like a driver's test. 

Sample questions:

A dog's diet requires the following:
a) Milkshakes
b) fried vegetables and rice
c) meat
d) rice

A puppy can be crated for how many consecutive hours?
a) no more than 4
b) no more than 18
c) crates are cruel and should not be used for puppies
d) it depends on how old they are

True or False, If you have unwanted visitors at your front door, you should let the dog chase them away.

If your dog gets into an altercation at a dog park which is your best course of action:
a) plead with your dog to let go of the other dog
b) pull your dog away from the other dog and separate them with fencing
c) let them work it out for themselves
d) pull out a pistol and shoot the other dog

Dogs need the following:
a) training
b) veterinary care
c) food and water
d) shelter
e) all of the above

By law, dogs are required to be vaccinated for which of the following:
a) parvo, distemper, rabies
b) lepto, parvo, distemper, rabies
c) rabies 
d) bordetella

True or False, It is ok to leave your dog in your home while you go on vacation for a week if you leave them plenty of fresh water and food. 

True or False, Leaving a dog in an automobile for twenty minutes is ok as long as the outside temperature is below ninety degrees.

True or False, Chaining dogs can make them more aggressive.

True or False, A dog that is under ten pounds will not be issued a bite history.

Ok, I got carried away, and no, I do not really want the government to waste time or money licensing people for pet ownership either. But it makes more sense in my opinion than requiring obedience classes.


----------



## HankGSD (Oct 28, 2010)

kidkhmer said:


> Time to move in to the Michigan woods !!!!!!


I can only dream that I could live in the Michigan woods and not 5 miles north of 8 Mile Road. Detroit suburbanites will know what I mean. 

You need a license to drive, a license to build or plumb, a license to practice medicine, but not a license to bear (human) children and be a parent. 

The proposed legislation in NY is not a terrible idea in theory, but is a very bad idea in practicality.


----------



## HankGSD (Oct 28, 2010)

Oh, and I've been in training with my GSD since he was 11 weeks. Tonight we received a certificate that we "graduated," yet we were strongly encouraged to retake the class. And we will do so. Probably numerous times. 

Hank is a great dog. Him being my first dog, I'm not such a great handler. Together we are a work in progress. I will probably be taking this class till the end of summer.


----------



## kidkhmer (Jul 14, 2010)

CassandGunnar said:


> :gsdbeggin: Pull your dog to the side of the trail - MANDATORY TAG CHECKPOINT. :gsdbeggin:


I just had a vision of walking the dog, seeing some flashing lights and then....

_*you......will......RESPECT MY AUTHORITAY !*_

** Photo removed for copyright violations. Admin**


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

LOL, 

I can see it now....

What are you in for?

Armed robbery, you?

Yeah, well, I didn't get my pup to training classes. 

Boy, you must be a real jerk! What was it time or money?

Both, I was working over-time to save up the money...

Well, I knocked over the pizza delivery guy to pay for my dog-classes.

Can't win for losing.. 

Yeah.


----------



## kidkhmer (Jul 14, 2010)

**Photo removed for copyright violations. Admin**

Eric " God **** it Sparky.....I said KENNEL UP !"

Cartman "One more time ! Now...don't make me arrest you..........."


----------



## Toffifay (Feb 10, 2007)

Samba said:


> Incontheevable!


OMG! Thank you for your response, hehehe! Made my day!


----------



## AuberryShortcake (Mar 9, 2010)

Taking your dog to training classes? Fabulous, and I think every pet owner should if they are clueless about training. The government, however, needs to stay out of it. This country was not founded to have the government so intimately involved in our lives.


----------



## keinfranzösisch (Jul 3, 2012)

I'm disappointed at the closed-mindedness regarding this legislation. Did anyone who is against it even bother to look into what inspired it and why it would be useful? Or did you all just get up on your anti-guberment high horses and poo poo it down?


----------



## DTS (Oct 19, 2010)

If this thing does pass why exactly is my dog required to learn? What if we have already been to classes.. Does it count? Is there going to be a list of commands my dog must learn and be able to follow at the drop of a hat? Are they going to provide low cost training to those who can't afford it? Or those who have no transportation are they going to do home sessions? What do they feel my dog needs to be able to do? Am I going to be fined if I don't do this? 
I'm all for going to training. It made my dog a completely different dog and without it, I don't want to know where we would be. But I just don't see this working.. Too many variables


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Original post from 2011. 

In NYS. 

*VOTE: COMMITTEE VOTE: - Agriculture - Mar 30, 2011* 
*Ayes W/R (1):* Huntley 
*Nays (9):* Ritchie, Gallivan, O'Mara, Ranzenhofer, Seward, Young, Kennedy, Avella, Valesky​S61-2011 - NY Senate Open Legislation - Requires all dogs and their owners to successfully complete obedience training - New York State Senate
*S61-2011 Actions*



Jan 4, 2012: REFERRED TO AGRICULTURE
Mar 30, 2011: DEFEATED IN AGRICULTURE
Feb 22, 2011: NOTICE OF COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION - REQUESTED
Jan 5, 2011: REFERRED TO AGRICULTURE


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

This whole thing is annoying.​ 
Are they going to pass a law that requires everyone that has a child to take child training classes?

There are alot of out of control and dangerous children out there.​


----------



## kiya (May 3, 2010)

LaRen616 said:


> This whole thing is annoying.​
> 
> Are they going to pass a law that requires everyone that has a child to take child training classes?​
> 
> *There are alot of out of control and dangerous children out there.*​


There sure are. There should be a "breeding restriction" for some humans and definitely the equivalent of BSL "Child Specific Laws".


----------



## LaRen616 (Mar 4, 2010)

kiya said:


> There sure are. There should be a "breeding restriction" for some humans and definitely the equivalent of BSL "Child Specific Laws".


Agreed. :thumbup:


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Without reading the article or the reason behind it..

Pros
1) Reduction of out of control, mannerless dogs.

Cons
1) People thinking there are no longer any mannerless dogs or dogs with behavioral issues due to required training so have a false sense of security
2) Not everyone has access to a good trainer
3) "back alley" trainers without a clue popping up everywhere to take advantage of people
4) What if I don't want my dog to not jump due to sports but that is a requirement?
5) How would this affect dog sports?
6) Who is the "expert" to say what the dogs have to be trained in?
*7) Make one law that takes away a "freedom" and more will come.*


----------



## Nikitta (Nov 10, 2011)

** comment removed by Admin**

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/administrator-messages/132753-02-25-09-policy-regarding-political-discussions.html


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

** comment removed by Admin**

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/administrator-messages/132753-02-25-09-policy-regarding-political-discussions.html


----------



## kiya (May 3, 2010)

Nikitta said:


> Actually it is not just the fact that they want to make people take their dogs to training classes. It's the blatant obtrusion into an individuals personal freedoms. *What's next? How much and what kind of food we can eat? *How many children we can have? Not being able to go from state to state without permission? It happens in other countries.


Your not from NY there is a war on sugar now. First it was salt, then fat now sugar. They are even trying to control the size of drinks, so instead of getting 1 20oz soda you will have to buy 2 24oz to get the large drink.
I agree 100% that the government should not be able to control every move you make, but unfortunately they do and they are.


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

** comment removed by Admin**

http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...9-policy-regarding-political-discussions.html


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

Great IDEA, horrible to ever execute by the government. 

-what counts as a training class?
-what qualifies a trainer?
-what methods are approved/disapproved?

Better to have schools invite area trainers for a fun session learning about dog safety and positive training methods (because they can help in dealing with humans). Kids eat those things up. Encourage 4H, have local trainers offer apprenticeships to high schoolers, etc. instead of making it a law, EDUCATE!


----------



## LARHAGE (Jul 24, 2006)

** comment removed by Admin**

http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...9-policy-regarding-political-discussions.html


----------



## NewbieShepherdGirl (Jan 7, 2011)

kiya said:


> definitely the equivalent of BSL "Child Specific Laws".


ROFL!!! I can just see it now:

"Ma'am, I'm gonna have to confiscate your child. We have had multiple complaints alleging you have biter." 

"Ma'am we've been getting some noise complaints, apparently every time your child is outside it screams like a banshee at the other children. We're gonna have to ask you fix this problem or we will have to fine you." 

Oh the fun could go on and on....perhaps I'm too tired.


----------



## dOg (Jan 23, 2006)

This whole topic is so absurd. What we obviously need is more law schools, so we could have more lawyers, because we really need more to generate more laws, as there are not quite enough, in fact so many more will be so much better. This might work for sheeple, but who's dog is going to read the fine print? Dunno about your dog, but mine, after years of schooling, can be a complete dufus. He already has tags indicating his wonderfulness, can we please have another? 

So say your dog is tagged NY dufusness worthy, do you get discount on air, water and sunshine?


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

DianaM said:


> Great IDEA, horrible to ever execute by the government.
> 
> -what counts as a training class?
> -what qualifies a trainer?
> ...


:thumbup: /this ( had to choose my response carefully so it would not be removed!) I am all for dogs being trained but government needs to stay out of it! I would be worried about the methods they would require. A positive only class that refused to allow any humane use of aversives? If this were the case Benny and I would not be enjoying off leash hikes and beaches...


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Ok, MaggieRoseLee, I wish you could PM me my post because I am sure that I did not post anything that was pro-democrat or republican in my post, and politics with regards to dog issues are allowed. For heaven's sake, this is talking about passing a law that would require people to do dog training. 

I am sure my post just discussed why such a law would cost an awful lot of money, etc., and be unenforceable, be a total nightmare. I think it was well within the rules, and it really bothers me to have it totally wiped out without any explanation save some link to the politics rule. 

It was a dog issue. And I did not attack anyone's politics. This is unreal! I am really angry about this, because I cannot even go back and determine what it was ANYONE could have had against my post. The proposed law is ridiculous, but striking posts that are clearly about dog current events, and have no political component in them save dog-current-events is infuriating.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

selzer said:


> Ok, MaggieRoseLee, I wish you could PM me my post because I am sure that I did not post anything that was pro-democrat or republican in my post, and politics with regards to dog issues are allowed. For heaven's sake, this is talking about passing a law that would require people to do dog training.


The rule is below and since I got a few PM's reporting the post it was an issue for more than one poster and I also found it needed to be removed.

You can alway do as you are doing, and repost your opinion in a manner that allows it to stay up and not become a controversial topic with a political basis.



> Notice
> Effective immediately there are new rules for what types of posts are allowed on the board.
> 
> Most political topics such as discussions of political parties or specific politicians, government policy and legislation, and the economic crisis, will no longer be allowed. Examples: the stimulus package, the mortgage buy outs, the auto makers buy out, anti-gun legislation, Gitmo and topics of similar content. This is a GSD board, not a Political board. While it is nice that we can make friends here, the overwhelming amount of political posts and the conflict that always seems to follow is not what this board is intended for.
> ...


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

I don't see how that rule applies to DOG legislation though. It specifically exempts discussions that are dog related, from the way that I read it.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

I think people were extrapolating into regular old politics. 

Kind of like that conversation you have with someone. 

"Sure is hot today."

"Yep, darned __________________ (political party hated by that person)!"

I'm not sure, but think that is the possible answer. 


PS - the law did not go through so this is all...what? Wheel spinning? Board-om?


----------



## DogGone (Nov 28, 2009)

I think a law mandating institutionalized training for dogs is a horrible idea. I feel it is unconstitutional, because it is unnecessarily and unreasonably cost prohibitive, therefore discriminates against the poor and especially against the poor disabled.

My dog is better trained, then most dogs that are trained by professional dog trainers. In my opinion most professional trainers are not as good as I.
You can't mandate common sense.

If this idea is such a good idea, then wouldn't it make more sense, that there should be a law against sex unless the people had jobs and took and passed parenting classes? How about mandating that all parents have to pass a parenting class?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> I think people were extrapolating into regular old politics.
> 
> Kind of like that conversation you have with someone.
> 
> ...



No way Jean. I did NOT do this. But the way it was zapped it sure makes it look that way. That is why it is so infuriating. It looks like I did not follow the politics rules. But this was DOG SPECIFIC LEGISLATION and perfectly legal here. 

Of course Admins can decide that we do not need to think about this today, so we will just zap any unpleasant dog-related issues into cyber-space. 

A while back they locked a thread, not sure but may have been the same person. But I stamped my foot, and a few people that actually matter around here agreed and it was opened again because it did NOT break any rules because it WAS pertinent, legal, and dog-related. 

So instead of locking a thread, the admins will just delete posts they dislike. Because like it or not ya'all got the power. Because the rule says the admins can decide what is fair and what is foul. What is fair is anything they don't have a problem with, anything they agree with, what is foul is anything else -- deleate. Ooooh! Feels good to just delete someone's post that they did not break ANY rules with, did not attack ANYONE's politics, did not call ANYONE names. Ooooh! Mufasa! Say it again! It sends shivers all down my spine! 

Ya'all got the power. Have a great day. 

Maybe someone did not want to hear about dog-related politics, and notified because they felt it was breaking the politics rules. Afraid we might have an actual discussion on here, and no one really wants that. They are in no way as uncomfortable and angry as I am right now about this. 

So, MRL, if you really wanted to apease people by getting rid of the offensive dog-related politics, you failed miserably because you made other people, or at least me, very angry, and very confused. I cannot possibly rephrase my post to keep you happy because I cannot look and see what it is you objected to. So sorry, no way to learn anything from this, except that there are people on the board that can just remove posts at will.


----------



## Nikitta (Nov 10, 2011)

They zapped mine too Selzer. Not sure why.


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

keinfranzösisch said:


> I'm disappointed at the closed-mindedness regarding this legislation. Did anyone who is against it even bother to look into what inspired it and why it would be useful? Or did you all just get up on your anti-guberment high horses and poo poo it down?


:rofl: Me, I climbed up on my high horse and threw poo-poo down at this ultra controlling, ultra bloated, ridiculous, arrogant and frightfully stupid piece of non-legislation!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

keinfranzösisch said:


> I'm disappointed at the closed-mindedness regarding this legislation. Did anyone who is against it even bother to look into what inspired it and why it would be useful? Or did you all just get up on your anti-guberment high horses and poo poo it down?


I am going to try this again. 

I do not NEED to look at what inspired the legislation, nor whether it would be useful. 

I find it incredible that this post survived. They called us closed-minded and anti-guberment. But I guess that is ok. 

I do not need to look at what inspired it, because it will be a nightmare to put into practice, and to enforce, and it only effects some of the population, but will cost everyone a LOT of money. And it really should not fall into the realm of something the government spend expensive time and public funds on. 

First you have to standardize training, determine what training must be completed or included in basic obedience, train and certify people that will certify people and their dogs. Then it will have to be enforced. There are so many reasons it does not make sense to spend ALL the people's money on dog training and all of what will have to be put in place to enforce it. It is not like the government can just print more money to fund this program. The program would be funded by tax money and would fall under government jurisdiction which would require audits, etc. 

Dog owners own dogs. They need to provide for their dogs. But they should not be required to provide for their dogs what some of the people think they ought to. Who gets to make that determination. I own a GSD. GSDs are often trained in Schutzhund, maybe I think all dogs should be trained in Schutzhund. So all you Yorkie owners, get off your duffs and train those little dogs to track, do obedience, and bite the sleeve.

I am glad they shot this down. What is disturbing is that it got a vote.


----------

