Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Misunderstanding Your Ground


I received a wake-up call last Thursday morning about 3am.  The ring-tone in question was in the form of frenzied dog barking.  I was confused for a bit… it was coming from my backyard!  It did NOT sound like the miniature daschund next door (it’s an indoor dog and doesn’t bark much).  No, this was some big, angry dog.

So, I grab my Sig Sauer (AC officers of last resort) and proceed to the sliding doors off the kitchen.  Flip on the floodlight, and there is that big, brown brindle PIT BULL (“Woggie”) I have seen at large quite often… he definitely has an affinity for my back yard.  How about helping out with the rent, pal?  He’s standing about 25 feet from the house barking his proverbial ass off at me. After a few seconds in the spotlight, he tears off into the woods.  Poor Woggie was probably heartbroken I didn’t toss my cat out the door to him.  How can he go on?

Cue the pit nuts that are going to claim that Woggie was doing me a favor by guarding my house for me.  Sure, I am genuinely thankful Woggie got my ass out of bed at 3am to notify me that there was a squirrel in “our” backyard.  How could I have gone on without that?

The anti-pitbull folks are probably wondering why my two AC agents didn’t dispatch Woggie to that great Pit Bull resting place in the sky, where toy poodles and 2 year old girls abound?  Of course, Mr. Sig and Mr. Sauer act strictly at my discretion.  They were kept in check.

Indeed, it has been burned into my conscious brain that Woggie and his slacker owner have full legal protections and I do not.  Did I bother calling county AC the next day?  Nope.  They never did anything tangible about any of the neighborhood pet problems before, so why should they start now?  How about the Police?  What is the point in calling police if they aren’t going to do anything, either?  Sure, it LOOKED like a dog I’d seen at large a bunch of times, but who knows.  How do you tell one brown brindle pit bull from another?

Anyone considering using force in a situation similar to mine should consider the following circumstance: http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/07/st_bernard_parish_man_kills_do.html

Russell Banks, Jr., fed up with a Pit Bull that had repeatedly trespassed and behaved threateningly in his girlfriend’s property, fetched a 12 gauge shotgun and shot the dog dead. This was during another “canine trespass” incident where the dog was allegedly “growling” at Mr. Banks.   Mr. Banks was arrested for animal cruelty and inappropriate discharge of a firearm and is being held on $26,000.00 bond.

One salient detail that stands out, relevant to any self-defense scenario:  Mr. Banks was in his GF’s backyard when he noted the Pit Bull trespassing and growling at him.  After observing the dog trespassing and behaving threateningly, he then proceeded back inside to fetch the shotgun, returned outside and shot the Pit Bull.

The articles are light on details.  A few things I would like to know:
-          Was the dog behaving dangerously when Mr. Banks returned outside with the weapon?
-          Were any complaints regarding the dog filed with AC or Police prior to this incident?
-          Were these complaints acted upon in a fast, efficient manner?
-          Does the neighborhood in question have recurring issues with dogs at large, off leash dogs, and other pet related offenses?
-          Had Mr. Banks or his lady friend contacted the dog owner prior to the incident?
-          Had anyone else complained directly to the dog owner about his pet?
-          Has the owner of the dog in question been cited for dog at large?
-          Does Mr. Banks have legal representation?  If so, have they made any statements?
-          Have any neighbors made statements regarding Mr. Banks, the dog owner or the dog itself?
-          Where is Al Sharpton when you need him?

Debate rages on whether this fits a “stand your ground” self defense scenario.  Mr. Banks was without his gun when the dog threatened him the first time (first time THAT day, it had allegedly trespassed and behaved threateningly in the past).  He went back into his house, then returned back outside with the shotgun and shot the dog.

One could argue that, Mr. Banks was safe in his home after the first confrontation (that day).  Did he need to return back outside and shoot the canine trespasser?  Why didn’t he just stay indoors and call police or AC?  Hmmmm…. Why indeed?  This is where we need more information.  I would say if local AC had completely failed (as it does in most places) and repeated complaints about the dog had been ignored, Mr. Banks was justified.  IN MY OPINION.

People say “Use the system!”.  Sure, and what do we do when the “system” completely fails?  What do we do when the “system” is systemically corrupt and completely owned by those who are bent on taking all of our rights?  Do we cower and live in fear forever?  Do we just wait until the miscreant comes for us for the last time?

Consider that, unless one lives in a bunker or the International Space Station, no one is “safe in their home” from a Pit Bull.  The “home invasion” attack is a Pit Bull exclusive.  Mr. Banks had no confidence that the Pit Bull would not return to invade the home and attack either he or his lady friend.  Furthermore, Mr. Banks may indeed be lucky he saw the Pit Bull before it saw him.  The next “confrontation” may result in Mr. Banks in the hospital with an arm missing, and the dog destroyed.  Would that have been a good outcome?   Additionally, Mr. Banks may have saved a neighborhood child from being mauled.

It is also my opinion that “Castle Doctrine” and “Stand your ground” type laws do not necessarily apply when someone uses force against an animal.  The two laws indicated are relevant when a human being uses force against another human being in a potential self-defense scenario.  That’s not to say you can’t use force when an animal threatens your safety:  I’m contemplating that the same standard does not apply.  In my opinion the threshold for using force against an animal is lower than that for a human being.  I am not saying we should just all go out and shoot dogs for the fun of it, but that full burden of proof is not required when using force against a dog or any other animal. 

Lastly, the dog owner bears a burden of responsibility.  If he had not been using his dog to terrorize the neighborhood, as many Pit Bull owners do, his dog would not have been shot dead.  Q.E.D.

Monday, August 13, 2012

Letter to my neighbor's landlord

Here is the content of the letter I sent to my "dog rescuing" neighbor's landlord.  Note that after this, the nuisances have been few and far between.  In fact, they have been SO good, sometimes I think they gave up their dog!   The yellow lab indicated in the prior letter is long gone. 

Its also noteworthy that I managed to STICK it to this guy via the county tax collector.  A little background:  In my state, owner occupants are allowed to deduct up to $50,000 of their  property's assessed value for tax purposes.  For example, if your property is assessed at $200,000 and you occupy it for at least 6 months out of the year, you need only pay taxes on $150,000.  This is usually referred to as a "homestead deduction".

In any case, as I was "investigating" this issue, I learned that the numbskull landlord was claiming a "homestead deduction" while renting out his property to the rescue nincompoops!  I went to the tax collector's office in person and reported him.  The tax collector investigated, removed the deduction and went after him for some steeeeep fines!   GOTCHA!



Mr. Tax Cheat
9990 whatever Blvd.
Anyplace, FL 32999

RE:  Your property at 9990 whatever Blvd.

November 14, 2011

Dear Sir,

The purpose of this letter is to put you on notice of several disruptive, tortious, and illegal activities being committed on and around your property at 9990 whatever Blvd by the tenants to whom you are supposedly renting.
Over the past 18 months those activities include, but are not limited to, the following:
·         Numerous pet related offenses including frequent loud barking of dogs, dogs at large, depositing of dog feces with subsequent failure to scoop, and destruction of property.   This has resulted in numerous complaints to Animal Control by multiple parties.   The loud animals have disrupted my work, my sleep and my other interests.  Note their doing so is in violation of St. Johns County ordinance 89-62.   I sent your tenants a certified letter a year ago regarding the issue (attached). 
·         Bright lights aimed at my home.
·         Loud music.
·         Inappropriate/unsafe discharging of firearms.  Police were called.
·         Hostile, loud, and belligerent activity aimed at myself.   Your tenants apparently take issue with my reporting their offenses to authorities, something I have a right to do.   Basically, I have been *screamed and cursed at* for merely trying to uphold the law and protect my interests.

Juxtapose the above with the fact that I have broken no laws, committed no torts and have always been outwardly polite to them.   Also consider that I am not the sole party complaining to authorities regarding your tenants.

Therefore it is apparent that:
·         Your tenants are degrading the local environment.
·         Your tenants are committing code violations and torts.
·         Your tenants are disregarding the laws.
·         Your tenants are disregarding the right of others to live in peace.

I believe that the above is of keen interest to you because:
·         Your tenants are exposing you to lawsuits and other legal issues.
·         Your tenants are exposing you to issues with your insurance carrier and your lender.
·         Your tenants are exposing you to loss of property value.


Mr. Tax Cheat, you can be held liable in various ways for the activities of your tenants.  Consider the following:
·         You are enabling the various pet offenses, as you have a right to revoke or modify your tenant’s pet privileges.   If that dog is not vaccinated and/or it bites someone you are facing serious civil liability. 
·         Your insurance carrier will likely take issue with these various activities.   You may face premium increases or loss of coverage.
·         Your lender will likely take issue with any and all activity that degrades the value of the property.  Refer to your mortgage agreement and any relevant laws:  They may have the right to “recall” your loan if they have reason to believe the occupant is degrading the value of the property in any way.
·         The activities outlined above have seriously degraded my quality of life and imposed numerous costs on myself.  I am a computer contractor who works from home.  Your tenants have disrupted my work numerous times.  This is a serious civil liability:  I cannot, and will not, allow that to continue and will take whatever steps necessary to return peace to my work space and my home.  
·         If I am forced to move out over this issue (and it may come to that) then that creates an additional civil liability in 2 ways:
o   The owner of THIS property now has an actionable damage.  She has lost a paying tenant AND she is required by law to disclose any “nuisances” to all prospective buyers and tenants, further aggravating that financial hardship.  Furthermore, another empty house in this neighborhood will further degrade local property values including yours.
o   I would have a right to file for and recover any moving and other costs related to my relocation.
·         You have already suffered negative exposure in this situation.  Your “loss” of your property tax homestead deduction is indirectly related to the problems noted above.   Again, your tenants are drawing significant negative attention that is only going to become more costly for everyone the longer it continues.

Mr. Tax Cheat, I insist that you take whatever steps necessary to cure this problem. 

I also insist that you contact me, at my email address above, with your contact phone number and address.

Regards,

John Q Public

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Letter to my state park director

As I noted in my "trouble in paradise" essay, I have been involved first hand in improving the park-going experience for our state park guests.  Note that the following has netted some decent results this year.

In addition to this, I have also been in direct communication with various individual park directors regarding various other pet related problems including:  Dog at large, dogs behaving threateningly towards people, pooping with failure to scoop, dogs harassing wildife, etc...

Anyway, here is the letter.  Note that a few details have been changed to protect the not-so-innocent!

"
XYZ Blvd
Tallahassee, Florida 32399

RE:  Dogs in State Park Campgrounds    
January 10, 2011             

Dear Mr. Director,

I am writing to inform you of a growing problem in your state park campgrounds.  First, let me say how much I enjoy the Florida state park system. Our State Park system is truly something for all Florida residents to be proud of!   It is one of the primary reasons I decided to relocate myself and my business to Florida from New Jersey 6 years ago.  Your staff has always been polite and helpful.

 I am a volunteer activity leader for the XYZ Chapter of the Trail Association and I organize and lead group hikes in the Northeastern Florida area.  I lead a group hike of 46 new hikers at Little Talbot Island this past Saturday, January 7th.   Everyone enjoyed the hike and you have many new State Park enthusiasts!   Additionally, this activity brought hundreds of dollars into the park coffers and increased park attendance significantly.  I have also lead group hikes at O’Leno SP, Washington Oaks Gardens SP, Torreya SP, Suwanee River SP, and many other locations.  I also assist is work hikes maintaining the Florida Trail and I participated in a work hike at Gold Head Branch SP this past fall. 

One of our charters is to promote outdoor activities in the state of Florida:  Hiking, Biking, Bird Watching, Camping, etc… for a variety of reasons not the least being that this is a very challenging fiscal environment and we are facing a “use it or lose it” scenario in most of our natural areas.

I was also a registered camper at Little Talbot that weekend.  That is a SPECTACULAR campground… truly a world class destination!

So, imagine my dismay when I returned to my campsite this past Saturday to find the campground swamped in barking dog noise.  A camper in site #29 had left their dog alone in their pop-up unit and the animal was screeching and yelping constantly and in a most offensive manner.  The noise was loud enough to be clearly heard throughout the campground.   I notified park rangers who were able to locate the owner and demand that he return and quiet the dog.  However, it took 2.5 hours for the individual to return and do so, therefore nearly all the campers were subject to loud, offensive and useless noise pollution for almost the entire afternoon!   Clearly, other campers were agitated… walking over to the campsite looking for the owner, etc… The peace was destroyed in a most profound way.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time I have encountered an issue similar to the one described above.  I stayed in St. George Island SP over Christmas holiday and the situation was a bit similar.  The campground was full of dogs, several of them over-stimulated by the surroundings and unable to refrain from barking at anyone in the vicinity.  In that situation, no one dog or dog owner was a true nuisance, but loud barking could be heard throughout the campground more often than not due to the sheer number of dogs present.  One of your rangers referred to it as “dog city”.

Mr.  Director, this is a serious problem that needs to be solved.  Again, your rangers at Little Talbot were pro-active in locating the owner and ultimately resolving the problem but I am concerned that the problem erupted in the first place.  I understand that you want to accommodate as many folks as possible, but each of these troublemakers is going to drive away many, possibly dozens, of others.  If this problem is allowed to continue, I believe it would be a disaster for the State Park System.  Most people find loud barking offensive and the parks NEED to be a place people want to go.  I was crushed this past Saturday when I realized that much of the good I had sacrificed for that morning was offset in a negative way by an irresponsible dog owner.

Further, the State Constitution clearly states SECTION 7. Natural resources and scenic beauty.—
(a) It shall be the policy of the state to conserve and protect its natural resources and scenic beauty. Adequate provision shall be made by law for the abatement of air and water pollution and of excessive and unnecessary noise and for the conservation and protection of natural resources”

Clearly, none of this noise pollution was useful or necessary.  These irresponsible dog owners are destroying the natural environment as well as violating other camper’s right to peaceful use of the space they have paid for.  Do all campers need a loud alarm to go off whenever someone walks down a park road or leaves their pet alone in their camping unit?   Further, the World Health Organization has determined that repetitive loud noises, such as barking dog noises, are a full blown threat to human health.  A barking dog can generate noise in excess of 105 decibels, loud enough to damage hearing!

With that said, I insist that the park service do more to preserve the peace within the State Park system.  Bringing any animal into a state park is a guest privilege, not a right.  I recommend any or all of the following:

-          Sternly remind all dog owners of their responsibilities.  If their dog is driven into a loud frenzy by the mere sight of another person, or if it’s uncontrollable for any reason, it should not be welcome in the park.  Have phone numbers and addresses of local kennels available.
-          Limit the number of dogs per campsite.
-          Empower park rangers to write citations for those disturbing the peace.  Irresponsible dog owners impose a cost on others and they should be held accountable for those costs.  These citations should be in excess of $100.00
-          Take affirmative action.  Require that all campground hosts and rangers patrol and work to ameliorate all nuisances immediately. Please do not wait for a complaint from another guest.
-          The status of dogs in the park system to be put on probation pending a review.  If the situation does not improve remarkably in the next 12 months, dogs to be banned completely from the park system.

Mr. Director, thank you for taking the time to read my letter.  The Florida State Park System is a true, world-class, gem and I want it to stay that way!

Regards,

John Q Public

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Letter to my county administrator

The following letter was sent to my county administrator and county attorney in response to a proposed noise ordinance that granted malicious dog owners EVEN MORE LEEWAY in creating noxious noise pollution with their yard barkers!  Note the offending legislation was SHELVED, fortunately!

Note that names have been changed to protect the not-so-innocent!!!

"
                          John Q Public
                          999 xxxxxx Blvd.
                          AnyPlace, FL 32999
                          000-000-0000
                          MyAddress@hotmail.com


The Honorable  Michael D. Wanchick, County Administrator
500 San Sebastian View
St. Augustine, Florida 32084

RE:  Revised noise ordinance.   Sent via Certified Mail.

September 27, 2011

Dear Mr. Wanchick,
I am writing you today to inform you of several potential issues and problems I’ve found with the revised St. Johns County Noise Ordinance (Attached).  Of particular interest is Section 5, Subsection J titled “Animals”.  I believe the subsection in question raises the following issues:

1)      It neglects noise victim’s right to peaceful use of his/her home.   Refer to US Constitution Amendment 4.  Specifically, having loud pet noises broadcast into the home for frequent and/or extended durations is not only a threat to health, it prevents the occupant from using their property for what they want, i.e. Sleep, relaxation, quiet conversations, anything requiring concentration, etc…
2)      It neglects the noise victim’s right to equal protection of laws.  Refer to US Constitution, Amendment 14.  The 30 minute rule and multiple household rule represent a clear double standard when dealing with loud noises generated by pets.  I am unable to find similar rules under any of the other subsections.   Therefore, it appears that a vastly different standard is applied to pet owners as compared to the standard applied to fireworks enthusiasts or rap music aficionados.  
3)      It violates the Constitution of the State of Florida .  Article II, Section 7 of the state constitution clearly states:  Adequate provision shall be made by law for the abatement of .....excessive and unnecessary noise.  Loud pet noises of any frequency and/or duration are typically of an unnecessary nature.   For example, any household pet that creates loud noises for an extended period of more than a minute or two when there is not an emergency in progress is clearly generating unnecessary noise. 
 

I propose the following changes to the County Noise Ordinance, section 5 subsection J titled “Animals”:

1)       Remove the multiple household rule.  To my knowledge, no other laws have this requirement:  The requirement that multiple “vicitims” must step forward to trigger a citation is a clear violation of our right to equal protection.   A single complainant submitting suitable “evidence”, i.e. a video with sound of the violation in question, should be sufficient to trigger a citation.
2)      Reduce the duration.  The duration of animal noise sufficient to trigger a citation should be reduced from 30 minutes to FIVE (5) minutes without a break of 30 seconds or more.  Furthermore, video with sound should provide adequate evidence that a violation took place.  Again, no household pet should be generating loud noises for more than a minute or two when there has been little or no real provocation.   The reduced duration gives pet owners ample flexibility in controlling their pets.
3)      Active enforcement.  Police officers should actively cite owners of noisy and/or dangerous pets when on patrol or called to the pet owner’s location for another reason.  In addition to protecting the rights of others, this should generate significant additional revenue for the county.
4)      Provocation.   I believe that it is the responsibility of pet owners to control their pets and keep them quiet in normal circumstances.   The only exception(s) to the proposed changes I indicate above would be if there were a crime, medical emergency, fire, or some other similar emergency in progress on the property on which the animal is housed.   For example, pets should be prevented from behaving in a loud, threatening manner towards passersby in the street or occupants of neighboring properties.

Mr. Wanchick, thank you very much for taking the time to read my letter.  My only wish is that St. Johns County remain a great place to live for people AND animals!  

If you wish to discuss this issue further, you and/or your staff should feel free to contact me via mail, phone or email as indicated above. 

Regards,



John Q Public

CC:      County attorney Patrick McCormack
           

Attachments:  St. Johns County Revised Noise Ordinance.
                        Florida Constitution.



Letter to my neighbor

The following content was sent to my neighbor with the nuisance dogs a couple of years ago.  I have shared this content on other sites in the past.

Note the dogs in question had ALSO been off leash, using my front yard as a toilet, overturning my trash cans and digging holes all over my property.

Note that names have been changed to protect the not-so-innocent!

Feel free to plagarize... if a variation of this helps your case then more power to you!  Again, I do NOT advise contacting the neighbor face-to-face... that is a mistake that can have deadly consequences.  Consider my "Dangerous owners" essays for more information on that.

"                                            John Q Public
                                              9999 xxxxx Blvd.
                                              AnyPlace, FL 32999
                                             000-000-0000
                                                                                                                       

Mr. and Mrs. crappy dog owner
9998 xxxxxx Blvd.
AnyPlace, FL 32999

RE:  Animal control issue.   Sent via Certified Mail 11/3/2010

October 29, 2010   (updated 11/3/2010)

Dear Neighbor,
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that you have been broadcasting loud, unnecessary pet noises into my home and I demand that you stop doing so immediately.   This problem has been apparent for approximately 4 months.

Pursuant to our prior, in-person conversation(s) on 9/27/2010, 10/27/2010 and 11/2/2010 regarding this issue, I am putting the situation in writing so there is no misunderstanding as to my position.   This letter is primarily a summary of what we’ve already discussed with a few other facts added for emphasis.  I suggest you read this letter in its entirety and contemplate what I am saying carefully before you come to any conclusions.  

When I refer to “Pet” or “Pet’s” I am contemplating the yellow dog you acquired around late June of this year.

First, I am going to make 5 statements to you.   I don’t mean to provoke, insult, or sound threatening, but this needs to be said.  These 5 statements are not debate points or anything I am going to argue further:

1)       Your pet/barking dog noises have been penetrating my home.  This happens frequently, for long durations, and is not welcome.   There have been barking incidents in excess of one hour in duration.  I can hear them/it loud and clear inside my house with the doors and windows shut.   As a result of this I have been awakened prematurely, have had my work disrupted, had telephone conversations disrupted, and have been subject to various other hardships and disruptions.  This is seriously impacting my quality of life.  As a matter of fact, it disrupted me while I was composing this letter!!

2)      You are required by law to confine your pet’s noises to your space.   Pursuant to (1), your pet’s noises should not be penetrating into my home:   Doing so is in violation of St. Johns county ordinance 89-62.   Refer to attachment “Table 1” and Section 5, Subsection “ee” in attached county ordinance 89-62 (highlighted page 2 and page 4).  To summarize, if the noise level you are generating exceeds a given level *at the property line*, you are committing an actionable offense.   I’m confident that, if your pet is clearly audible inside my house with everything closed up (doors shut, windows shut, blinds drawn, etc…), it certainly exceeds the acceptable limit at the property line (street line).   Consider that, irrespective of the county ordinance, such things can be actioned in civil court. 

3)      I have a *right* to peaceful enjoyment of my home.    The noise level inside my home is for me to control, not you or anyone else.  You’ve been broadcasting noises into, and thereby raising the noise level, inside my home without my permission.   Any opinions of anyone other than *me* regarding the noises in question are totally irrelevant:   When at home, I should only be listening to what *I* want to listen to.  I don’t want my home awash in the sound of your barking dog(s).

4)      It is self-evident that the pet in question has become a nuisance.   I dislike the fact that I’ve had to deal with this in any way or at any level.   It’s general knowledge that, when living in the suburbs, pet owners are required to restrain their pets and keep them quiet.    The pet in question barks in an explosively loud manner that can be heard through closed windows, multiple walls, and distances of several hundred feet.   This situation should not have erupted in the first place.    
  
5)      The pet noises in question serve no purpose.  Your pet barks frequently, loudly, unreasonably, and unnecessarily.  Your pet, at present, is not a legitimate watchdog.    The constant “false alarms” are a nuisance that needs to stop.   Consider that as I write this, your dog is barking and there is no one in the immediate vicinity, certainly not a crime in progress.   

UPDATED ON 11/03/2010:  Regarding our conversation on 11/2:  Consider that this problem is entirely your fault.   You are the ones who need to modify their behavior, not me.    *I* have broken no laws.  *I* have not violated your space in any way.  *I* have been nothing but polite to you.  So, before you make this personal, you should consider that I’ve done nothing to you.  I have done nothing to you while you have disrupted my life in many ways.    You, on the other hand:  You have created a nuisance.  Your failure to properly restrain your pets has caused me numerous problems.  You have disrupted me and offended against me repeatedly even after I have asked you to not do so.  You have wasted a considerable amount of my time and other resources.  You are the one’s breaking the law(s).  You have been hostile, rude and argumentative with me.  You blatantly ignored the letter I left for you yesterday.  YOU are the offender.  YOU created this problem.  Consider what you would do if you were me.

You apparently did not read the letter I left for you on 11/2, even though you’d previously requested that I send a note/contact you directly instead of contacting authorities.   You returned it to my mailbox in what appeared to be an unopened condition.   In any case, I do know that you did not give me the information I requested, your contact telephone numbers.  I left you that note in response to an incident that afternoon where my work was disrupted yet again by your out of control pets:   They had escaped their pen, were barking loudly and furiously for an extended period, and interfering with the water company meter reader.  There was no one around, besides myself, to restrain them or look after them.  I did you a huge favor yesterday and you repaid that by being rude and argumentative with me on my own front porch.

That said, I do not intend to give you any more flexibility on this.  I have had it.  I am not going to debate this further.  I am not going to because, in your words “I don’t have to!!”  From now on, when you offend against me I am going to contact the proper authorities:  You may save your foolish arguments and hostile attitude for them, but I’m sure they will appreciate that even less than I.   If this persists long term I will consider litigation.   Despite what you may think, reporting an offense is not itself an offense, in fact it’s what I SHOULD do.  I’m confident it’s what you would do if you were me.

I also intend to continue to document any offenses against me.   I have a right to record, tape, photograph, make note of, etc… anything that can clearly be seen and/or heard from my property.   If you want me to stop documenting your offenses, you should simply stop offending.

Again, I request you cure this problem before I am forced to action it further.

Regards



John Q Public"

Thursday, August 2, 2012

HaterZ


The acid does more damage to the vessel in which it is stored, than on to what it is poured”.   Quote passed down to me via my grandmother from my great-great grandmother.  Indeed, the concept may go back even farther than that.

Like Godzilla rising from the depths to wreak havoc, the dog hater movement has arrived.  It is an unstoppable juggernaut burning everything to ash with its white hot fury.

Who are these people?  Don’t they know that dogs are man’s best friend?  Don’t they know that dogs make us live longer?   Why do they not understand that any problem they have had with a dog or its owner must be their fault, as dogs and their owners are strictly, by definition, noble creatures!None of this matters to them as they absolutely DO NOT CARE.  They have zero tolerance for dog lovers, dog agnostics, and any bad behavior on the part of dogs or their owners.  They would prefer the earth be wiped clean of the canine species.  While I do not share their POV, I do admire their “purity”. 

Here is an excellent “hater” site.  This is a well authored, well managed site:  http://doghatersunite.com/

Here is a facebook page that I find rather humorous: http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-hate-dogs/419363194769014

It was inevitable that a “counter” hater movement would evolve to counter the extreme dog-lover movement.  You can’t have the Ying without the Yang.  You see bumper stickers that say “My poodle is smarter than your honor student”.  Why the need to insult everyone within 30 feet of your automobile?  Will the poodle give you emergency surgery after you have had your arm ripped off by a pit bull?  Do poodles grow up to be astronauts, brain surgeons or captains of industry?  Go ahead and hate children, dog lovers, but we were ALL children once.  NONE of us were dogs once!

I am sure you dog lovers despise the haters.  Consider this:  Have you ever considered why they hate in the first place?  Do you think they just woke up one morning and decided “I really hate dogs, no real reason, I just hate them”?  Maybe they flipped a coin to decide whether to hate dogs or electric mopeds?  No, most of these people woke up at 3am (for the Nth time in a row) due to a neighbors yard barker and, ill with fatigue, finally became a hater.  They landed in the hospital after a dog attack and after being further abused by the dog owner, authorities, and apologistas went off the proverbial deep end.

Indeed, the dog hater is made not born.  The efforts of dog lovers to foist their lifestyle choice on everyone else have bred the dog hater movement.   You dog lovers have earned this hatred.  It’s not rocket science, folks.

I was visiting a state park (out of my state) the other weekend, and some bozo had a border collie that was clearly nasty… barking and snapping at everyone. It was pulling at its leash constantly; the owner barely had it under control.  Many were clearly afraid and/or offended.  Why ruin everyone else’s good time with an animal like that?  The damn thing almost bit me.  I tell you, every malicious dog owner breeds at least a dozen haters.

It seems to me that the response of the dog lovers, so far, has been to relentlessly troll and spam every dog “hater” site.  Unfortunately, for them, they do not realize that the dog hater is not the source of the problem.  Indeed, it is the actions of the malicious dog owner that is spawning and nurturing this explosion of hatred.  Dog lovers are attempting to put out the fire with gasoline.  If dog owners simply controlled their dogs, the dog hater movement would dry up and blow away.   That said, the dog hater movement will grow in power and size until either the dog owning population self-regulates, or at least concedes to a few commonsense limits on their behavior.   Dog lovers need to realize that a MAJORITY of the population chooses to NOT own a dog and those people have a right to live free of various dog-related nuisances.  If the dog lovers keep “doubling down” on this absurd policy of blame-the-victim, they will lose in the long run.  I am convinced of this.

Going back to the opening paragraph of this essay:  Dog haters – This hatred may be your undoing.   Some of you have been critical of ME, but realize that I am actively working to reduce the frequency and intensity of pet related offenses in my community.  If I were you, I’d channel that hatred into something useful…. Engage your local government and law enforcement and stress the importance of strict animal control.  Owners of biters belong in jail and yard barkers must be silenced.  Your passion and energy can do a lot of good if it is channeled in the right direction. Sitting around hating doesn’t do anyone any good, including you.