Legislation drafted by Sen. Lori Klein is absurd.
Apparently she has never been attacked by big dogs while walking her dog. It is a very scary event and many have been severely injured. She says that's ok as long as the dog owner is insured. Our legislators are supposed to pass laws to make us safer, not at risk as her SB 1065 would do.
I have been attacked more than once and it has taken all of the joy and relaxation away from the walk I used to enjoy. Shame on her for drafting such a bill.
Ralph Smith
Queen Creek
Dale Whiting posted at 12:29 pm on Fri, Feb 3, 2012.
Ralph,
Please tell us more! Where the dog owners present? Did you get id's from the dog tags and report them to the County? Did you bring suit for damages?
The issue here is: "Must responsible dog owners [those who know from experience with their dog that an attack won't happen] always walk their dogs on the leash, this to prevent an untoward event that is not at all likely to occur?" Or in other words, how to we balance the rights and freedoms of one dog walker against those same rights and freedoms of another dog owner?
Let's address the issues not the emotional feelings!
Leon Ceniceros posted at 12:39 pm on Fri, Feb 3, 2012.
If people want to let their dogs loose = no problem
Just as I have...."no problem" ...in pepper-spraying those same "loose" dogs if they come charging toward my dog. Same goes for the irate owner....get in my face and get sprayed. Be sure and buy the pepper spray with the highest capicum content...the one that really burns the eyes.....the so-called ..."bear sprays" are the best...stops the dogs and the owners at 10feet or more......[beam]
mesateacher posted at 12:48 pm on Fri, Feb 3, 2012.
Wait...this is Arizona, home of freely carrying guns. To heck with the pepper spray. If a stupid law like this passes I'm taking my .38 special with me when Fido wants to go for a walk. Any dog comes near me -- BANG!
Rich posted at 3:31 pm on Fri, Feb 3, 2012.
The fact is, governments making laws about dogs have gotten far too powerful and arrogant to be any good at governing. Passing laws about dogs is silly, current laws are silly and passing another one to say something else, the height of silliness. The problem with all this silliness is that, in the end, it costs a fortune.
Dale Whiting posted at 5:37 pm on Fri, Feb 3, 2012.
Rich,
We agree once again.
"mesateacher" I walk my dog in Chandler. But should he approach you, beware! If you're water soluable, he can lick you to death. And should you bend down and scratch him behind the ears, he just might follow you home!
Leon,
Don't be too quick on the draw with that pepper stray. My dog does not understand people who are mean to him. If "mesateacher' shoots and kills him, I can sue for another friendly dog.
Ralph,
I'm still waiting to hear your answers to my questions! You got any?
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:37 pm on Fri, Feb 3, 2012.
Your right for your freedoms end where my right to my freedoms begin. Dog's belong on a lease.....
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:37 pm on Fri, Feb 3, 2012.
typo: lease to leash....
Dale Whiting posted at 5:50 am on Sat, Feb 4, 2012.
Mr.666,
You say "Your right for your freedoms end where my right to my freedoms begin."
And just how is that?
You appear to conclude that [all] dogs belong on a leash, reasoning that otherwise your freedoms might somehow become limited. How does my walking my dog off his leash infringe on or otherwise limit your right to walk nearby? Or do your freedoms somehow get infringed by seeing a dog walking free? Are you deathly affraid of all dogs? Heck, in my neighborhood, even cats allow my dog to approach and with his tail waging rigorously give them an up close and personal friendly sniff!
No Mr.666. Some dogs belong on leashes, some dogs do not. Responsible dog owners know which dogs are which. And where an owner might be wrong and his dog might infringe on your rights by attacking you, they must pay for any resulting damages. This rule balances freedoms. And the rule of balancing freedoms is the correct one!
While we're on the subject of rights and dogs, did you know that a dog out of doors after 10 pm that is barking violates city ordnances for making noise? I enjoy walking through our private park in the early morning hours [after 6 a.m.] hearing a number of dogs that are out early barking through the fence at me and my dog walking free. And a few owners come out in their back yards scolding their barking dogs. But my dog only barks at the sound of my door bell. He's anxious for me to open the door so that he can greet another potential friend with his tail waging! He wants to receive an approving scratch behind his ears!
I'm lucky to have my dog "Lucky." And he's lucky to have me! The women greeted by Lucky on our walks all smile at his approach. They seem lucky, too. And we're all lucky to not live anywhere near anyone the likes of you!
Dale Whiting posted at 5:51 am on Sat, Feb 4, 2012.
P.S.
Got to go now. It's nearly 6 am and Lucky's telling me he need another scratch!
k33j88 posted at 6:13 am on Mon, Feb 6, 2012.
Dale, it seems quite obvious that you live a sheltered life. Her are some of the many reasons why dogs should be leashed, unless there are fences, cages, or an un-leashed animal causes no harm under the rules of a community. 1. Loose dogs are illegal to use while hunting, under most circumstances. 2. An unfamiliar, loose dog is no comfort to a citizen enjoying the outdoors. 3. Mountain lions, bobcats, coyotes are always on the lookout for an easy meal. 4. You assume that all dog owners are "responsible". If an individual has a vicious killer on the loose, what makes you think that they would "pay for resulting damages"?. That is if you are fortunate to live through the event. 5. Would a loving,responsible, parent allow an unfamiliar dog to charge their child? 6. Why on earth would you assume that the child would'nt forever be psycologically marred by such an event? 7. There are more packs of domesticated dogs gone wild due to home foreclosures than ever before. Need more reasons? Your logic holds no water. Just a side note, if you really loved your dog, you'd use a leash. My sidearm is my leash for unfamiliars.
Rational Human posted at 12:02 pm on Mon, Feb 6, 2012.
When you walk your dog always carry a snake gun filled with .22 bird shot. Kills close up but is safe for the public. No stray rounds killing bystanders. Even a starting pistol would scare them off. Personally, I carry a 9mm with mag safe rounds where ever I go. They won't ricochet, or go through walls and kill neighbors, and it has the lowest recoil by far. Never can be totally protected though. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Masterrogue666 posted at 2:27 pm on Mon, Feb 6, 2012.
Dale: Even if you don't like it, I have the right not to have your dog approach me for one reason, and one reason alone. I've been around dogs and cats all my like. I've seen the friendliest dog or cat attack for no known reason. You cannot GUARANTEE the actions of your animal, no matter how well trained. THAT'S WHY!
I'm also VERY happy I don't live in Chandler....
Dale Whiting posted at 8:41 am on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
"k33j88"
Here are the reasons why your reasons just don't apply.
1) When those of us responsible dog owners are out walking our dogs responsibly off lease, we are not hunting. Your reason applies to not using dogs to hunt for the safety of the dogs.
2) While some who are unfamiliar with dogs do experience fear, we responsible dog owners carry with us a lease so that when the truely very few do come along, we can help calm their fears. I have yet to fail to calm the fears of this phobicly ill people.
3) There are no mountain lions or bobcats in my neighborhood. And the one and only coyote we did find ran off with my dog chasing him/or her. Lucky is always trying to make more friends! He even snuggle up to domestic cats!
4) The potentially irresponsible owners of vicious killer dogs who do not pay up voluntarily are easily made to pay up. It's call the thrid branch of government and here in America the looser pays attorney's fees!
5) Living parents are protective of their young children. When we approach such potential situations, the leash comes out. When we leave, we leave a young child who has made its first acquaitance with a loving dog.
6) Since we leave friends, no irreversible harm is done. In fact, if we did not make friends, we might just leave some damage behind. And recall, we did approach on a leash. So parents whose children might suffer from this phobia do appreciate our help.
7) I have yet to see much less envision how the leash law would effect packs of wild dogs.
k33j88, as a child did you have an untoward event with a dog off leash? There is something quite irrational about your list of fears!
'Irrational Human"
What sort of experience did you have such that when "you walk your dog [you] always carry a snake gun." Are there snakes in your neighborhood?
Mr. 666,
Nor can you, the potential parent of the next Jared Laughner, guarantee your child will not kill the next Gabby Giffords. Look back dispassionately on the reasoning of your argument. You just might be another "flaming liberal!!!"
Masterrogue666 posted at 12:48 pm on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
Never. That why what I stated is correct. You rights end where mine begin. I don't know of any liberal that thinks that way....
Masterrogue666 posted at 6:14 pm on Tue, Feb 7, 2012.
I was against smoking in public places as far back as the 80's. In one on my college classes there was a debate between me and a lady that felt she had the right to smoke in public. My speech ended with the "Your rights end where mine begin" statement. I got an A. Also, I actually had several smokers come up to me after class and say stuff like, "I never thought about it that way".
By the way, your statement "the potential parent of the next Jared Laughner" is below the belt, IMHO. I've stated before that no one can guarantee the actions of another. However, applying it directly at me was uncalled for. Any respect I use to have for you is now gone. I should have expected it since you still seem to cling to name calling just because I didn't use my real name. I guess I expected too much from you....
TeaPartyPatriot posted at 9:17 am on Wed, Feb 8, 2012.
Masterrogue666, Mr. Whiting is in himself below the belt and in the rear. It has always been where he keeps his head. That is why everything he states sounds like flatulence.
Masterrogue666 posted at 8:11 pm on Wed, Feb 8, 2012.
I prefer not to debase myself to such dishonorable, unskillful practices like the one he used above.
Dale Whiting posted at 1:37 pm on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.
Now here’s a "dog bites anchorwoman" story just in from Denver. Let’s see how different our opinions on this will be!
“It was supposed to be one of those feel-good segments on a local television newscast: A rescued dog. A grateful owner. The hero firefighter who pulled the pulled the dog from the ice. But that's not how it turned out.
“It was supposed to be one of those feel-good segments on a local television newscast: A rescued dog. A grateful owner. The hero firefighter who pulled the pulled the dog from the ice. But that's not how it turned out.
“Michael Robinson, Max's owner, has been cited by Denver Animal Control for a "leash-law"" violation ("because the owner did not have control of the dog at all times"), for allowing a dog to bite and for not having the dog properly vaccinated.
“But animal experts say it was Dyer who was really at fault.
"The dog was trying to tell her, 'I am going to bite you,'" Colleen Safford, a prominent New York-based dog trainer, told Yahoo News. "Dogs 'talk' to us with their body with each and every interaction. This dog was repeatedly 'telling' the anchor that she was making him uncomfortable and if she didn't stop, he would bite."
"Basically, she did everything wrong," Ron Berman, a canine behavior specialist, told NBC. "She went up to a dog she didn't know--who didn't know her--and she either tried to kiss him or hug him or put her face too close to his face. He felt threatened and bit her."
Now the owner is facing a “dog at large” charge. But under Arizona standards he was not “at large.” He was on private property. He bit his host when the host approached him, arguably too closely.
So who is right and who is wrong?
Dale Whiting posted at 1:48 pm on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.
Ok, Mr. 666,
I'll restate myself so as to not offend you!
"Nor can any of us, the potential parent of the next Jared Laughner, guarantee that our child would not kill the next Gabby Giffords. Look back dispassionately on the reasoning of your argument. You just might be another "flaming liberal!!!"
Now explain to me why the sphere of rights encircling you is to be viewed as being stronger or more righteous than the sphere of rights encirciling others? Is there something special about you? We conservatives view each of us as having balanced equal rights. Where rights may seem to come into conflict, we work things out. That's called balancing. Some neo-cons like Jon Boehner call that compromising and refuze to compromise. But us Conservatives understand that compromising is what individual rights are all about. The King does not have rights superior to the common man. Are you a King?
Masterrogue666 posted at 8:20 pm on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.
I didn't see the report, so I need to know: How did the dog get loose in the first place?
If the owner WAS RESPONSIBLE, then how did it get on the ice BY ITSELF? So, it stands to reason that the owner wasn't using a leash. Further, if the owner was RESPONSIBLE enough not to let something like that happen in the first place, then there WOULDN'T BE a news story!
I don't know if he got the ticket(s) before the incident or after. In truth, it doesn't matter. The owner's IRRESPONSIBLE behavior CAUSED the chain of events. You've already proven to me that the owner ISN'T very responsible by writing: "not having the dog properly vaccinated".
Further, if the dog's owner was around during the interview, shouldn't HE be RESPONSIBLE enough to "read" that his dog wasn't comfortable? Wouldn't a dog owner want to be RESPONSIBLE enough to be able to "understand" his pet's language, then be RESPONSIBLE enough to prevent such an attack?
And finally, should it be the RESPONSIBILITY of ALL CITIZENS, including those that have no desire to have ANY CONTACT by ANYONE'S pet, be required to learn to read "dog" body language, just because they are entering a public location? Why stop there? What about CAT body language?, et al.
Something else to consider. A dog without a leash can FORCE an encounter simply because the dog approaches a human, even if a human is backing away. What if said human has a terrible fear because of something that happened to them before? Now you are FORCING that person to relive it. Is that being RESPONSIBLE to another person?
In conclusion, you mentioned it yourself. I'm not familiar with the laws in CO. You are comparing apples and oranges, and you know it. In any event, if there's a law that states he's responsible, even in his own home, then HE made the decision to have a pet, and ALLOWED people into his (and the dog's) home so soon after the tramatic event. He's RESPONSIBLE by his actions, and possibly in the eyes of the law. I have two dogs. If they get out from my private property, and hurt someone, I'm liable. If I'm not willing to live with that RESPONSIBILITY, then I shouldn't own any.
You mentioned a story, here's one that I lived:
When I was a kid, me and a buddy was minding our own business, walking down the side of the road (legally, mind you). A large FREE ROAMING pack of dogs, led by a German Shepard, noticed us, starting barking, then began to run towards us. My buddy ran.
Having some experience with dogs, I knew that was a mistake. Dogs naturally give chase! If I maintained my position, they would surround, then smell/sense my fear, and attack since they were already in "chase mode". The distance to the closest tree/house/protection was too far, we would have been run down.
The interesting part was that I was FASTER then Jimmy (my buddy) and was use to running long distances. The pack would probably have spent their time and effort attacking Jimmy because he was the "weaker" target. I could have probably escaped harm. However, I didn't like the possible cost of that.
I did the one thing that I thought would be best. I grabbed two of the largest stones I could find, then starting running directly towards the German Shepard. As the distance rapidly closed, I began growling and snarling and "snapping" my teeth. At about 50', the German Shepard came up short. The pack stopped as well. I increased my speed and the volume of the noise I was making. The German Shepard turned and ran, followed closely by the pack. That was my hope.
I was prepared to fight (and kill if necessary) the "leader" for dominance. I'm glad that it didn't come to that. I wasn't mad at the dogs, I was mad at their IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS.
What's sad is that such laws have to be created in the first place. Put yourself in the other person's "shoes". Pretend you don't like dogs, no matter how they behave. You're walking down the street, and see a person walking their pet. You try to keep as much distance between yourself and them because you DON'T WANT CONTACT. As long as the pet owner doesn't walk directly towards the other person, problem adverted.
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:05 pm on Thu, Feb 9, 2012.
You won't believe it, but had you stated you felt insulted by one of my statements (giving a reasonable, valid reason), I would have apologized. I also wouldn't continue to claim all those persons that use screen names other than their real names "chicken" (as you continue to do) if someone gave me a reasonable, valid reason why they decided not to take the same RISKS that you chose to take.
Perhaps it's not the difference between "Liberal" and "Conservative". Perhaps it's the difference that I respect your rights to do as you please, but you seem unwilling to do the same.
If your dog wasn't on a leash, you can't ensure it wouldn't try to come up and "greet" me, or run out in traffic to greet a cat that crossed the street to avoid your dog.
Reasonable or not, it's my right not to be "greeted" by your dog. If I met a person, and they wanted to shake hands, I have the choice to "greet" said person in that manner, or decline it. If said person forces the issue, then there a laws that cover that. That's why there is a leash law now.
You now have a choice to make. Comply, move to where such a law doesn't exist, or accept that you may get a ticket for breaking the law (which you can then try to argue in court). Do as you will...
nocgirl posted at 11:16 pm on Sun, Feb 12, 2012.
Responsible dog owners would not walk their dogs off of a leash. I am going to have an issue if I take my 2 kids to the park and I have to deal with the pits and rotties and large dogs running around unrestrained.If you have to have 50k insurance on your dog...then it sounds like fido doesn't belong off a leash.