"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

Let's dissect this. You used the word "cruelty". Although I have no
problem with someone slowly killing a dog (the sponge trick, for
instance), it's not something I'd do myself.

But it IS cruelty to animals,both legally and morally.

And,you recommend illegal things you would not do yourself.
There's that bad Usenet advice I mentioned.

I've already informed you that a dog is no different than a mosquito.

WHOA,I've been INFORMED(by you)...well,that just makes it gospel!

When you apply the same rules about cruelty to a mosquito, then we can
talk. If you don't agree that the two animals have equal value,
explain yourself.

Even if I did,you wouldn't accept it.
Who can decide "equal value",anyways?



That's not because I give
a damn about the dog. Rather, I'd want to be sure it was dead. If I
lived in a place where it was safe to do so, I'd opt for a bullet.
It would satisfy my desire to be thorough.

and in most urban areas,discharging a firearm for that purpose is
illegal. More of your bad Usenet advice.

Yes. I stated that fact about firearms in the paragraph you just
responded to. No need to repeat what I've already said. I'm already
well versed about what constitutes safe shooting.

Safe or not,it's still illegal in most urban areas.



As far as "exceptions", you can only make that statement if you
realize it's limited by your awareness of what dog catchers deal
with all day. Do you work for your local government, and have access
to those statistics? Or, do you go from door to door asking people
about their experiences with dogs?

As I said;Sure they are exceptions;the majority of the US population
lives in URBAN areas,and few of them have food-producing gardens.

If these are exceptions, then every municipality in this country is
wasting a whole lot of cash keeping dog catchers on the payroll, don't
you think?

How do you connect dog catchers with urban GARDENS?
I'm beginning to think you are not rational.



They need to find a dead animal first. The key word is "find".
Otherwise, all they have is a missing pet report.

Ah,so you advocate an illegal act,then compound it by hiding
evidence,a second illegal act.
You must be a wonderful law-abiding citizen.(not)

If an animal was destroying your handiwork and you could get
little or no help from the authorities, I'm sure you'd handle it
any way you saw fit. Or, if you had to shell out cash to have your
carpets cleaned because of some asshole's pet, again, I'm sure
you'd be over the top.

It's happened to me,tracked the crap right thru the living room and
into the kitchen,and I had to clean it myself.It's NOT any major
carpet cleaning
deal.And I did go "over the top",and let the manager know about it.
The woman moved out shortly after that.(sad,she was VERY hot!)

My one experience with carpet involved professional cleaning. Some
people have more sensitive noses than others,

Or are just too finicky or lazy to clean it themselves.

Nah...not at all. I do most things myself. But, it doesn't matter.
Even if you do it yourself, the owner of the dog has stolen something
more precious than money from you: Your time.



Dogs are attracted to the scent where other dogs have created a
bathroom. It doesn't matter if it's cleaned up. Nobody carries a
bucket of water with them when walking their dog. So, the spot is
attractive to stray dogs later, and the situation gets out of hand.
This is why I tell dog owners to go elsewhere, even if they intend
to clean it up.

It's not that they use your yard and then clean it up,it's that they
tend to NOT USE such places in the first place(the 1st category,not
the other 2). They curb their dogs in the proper places-not on others
property.

They tend to NOT USE what? Other peoples' property? That's nonsense.
If that were the case, their owners would not be walking around with
plastic bags and paper towels.

They might use a vacant property,a dog park(where it's allowed,even
expected),or at the curb.

Now,walking off one's own property means either exercise or an intent
to deposit the dog's wastes on someone else's property.Also that they
do not have a fenced in yard to allow the dog to relieve itself
without being in a
person's control.

Conclusion: Dogs are not appropriate as pets, unless they are owned by
exceptionally considerate humans, which we know is not the case.
Therefore, dogs are no better than mosquitoes (like their owners).

Irrational again.




So, the human walks the dog, which leads to the
antisocial behavior and disrespect for property rights.

No,some humans allow the dog to select the place for their
deposits,instead
of being in command and control themselves.No "psychology" about
it,just laziness and no consideration for others.

Unless the humans are told otherwise, they stop wherever the dogs tell
them to. You've seen this, but you do not trust what you see.



Therefore, the
dog is at least equally responsible.

Only in your mind.

Nope. Ask your veterinarian. The dogs follows its nose. It marks
territory, and returns to the same place repeatedly.


Only if the person on the other end of the leash allows it,thus THEIR
responsibility.The dog can only travel where the leash holder permits it to
go.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net