Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Censorship FAIL - proto Animal Uncontrolism

So, here and here I made the case that censorship is the ultimate FAIL.  Is there ANOTHER case to be made?

Here is the rhetorical question for the day:  Why did I start this blog in the first place, considering that I had been content to write and comment on other sites for the past, oh, 20 years or so?

In any case, THIS post was censored from a supposedly ANTI-BARKING site about 4 years ago.

Anybody have a problem with this content?  Feel free to let me know:

 Hello [site host],

That is unfortunate, I think this was generally a good "venue".

In regards to "anti-dog"... how do you define "anti-dog" and why does one need to be "pro-dog"?  I think that "anti-dog" is an oversimplification. 

Would you consider any of the following "anti-dog", and if so, why?
- Using lethal force against a dog that is attacking a human being.  Note this is legally protected almost everywhere.

 - Insisting that any dog that has attacked a human being or killed another animal be summarily put down or incarcerated indefinitely, as opposed to being turned loose in the community.
- A preference for dog-free communities, public parks, etc...  Again, this is not a dog ban, merely a recognition that dogs are not appropriate in all venues.
- Preferring to not own a dog:  preferring another pet over a dog, i.e. a cat, rabbit, horse, etc...
- Recognizing that there is such a thing as a "bad" dog.  Consider Alexandra Semyonova, et. al.
- Recognizing that there is a down side to owning a dog, just as there is to Anything.  Dogs are not perfect, and owning a dog is not for everyone.
- Belief that a dog is inferior to a human.
- Belief that a dog is equal to other animals.
- Self help options are legitimate where and when the legal system has completely failed.

[Here] I'll give you MY answers to my own questions and leave that open for discussion:

- Using lethal force against a dog that is attacking, or otherwise threatening the safety of, another human being is legitimate.  I will not surrender to a vicious animal nor will I stand by and allow another human or animal to be mauled by a dog or any other animal.  This is a protected legal right in nearly every jurisdiction.   Again, I am contemplating SELF DEFENSE not initiating force for no reason.

- I insist that any dog that has seriously injured or killed a human being, or has killed another animal, be summarily euthanized.  I will not tolerate vicious animals being turned loose in my community.

- I prefer that some locales and public places be zoned "dog free".  61% of households in the United States do NOT have a dog and this large majority should be accommodated.

- I prefer cats over dogs.   Cats are lower impact and fundamentally superior in many ways.

- There is such a thing as a "bad" dog.  The worlds leading animal experts say so, and its clear that while to dog's behavior is the owners *responsibility*, the dog is acting with volition (i.e. choosing to bark over being quiet, meeting its needs with violence, etc...).  Furthermore, some dogs have been bred to be disruptive and vicious, and those breeds should be treated with extreme prejudice.

- There are many down-sides to owning a dog.  There are downsides to EVERYTHING including driving a car or owning a home.  Personally, I put dog owners in the same category as smokers.  They have a right to pursue their lifestyle choice to the extent that it does not adversely affect anyone else.  I'm sure they all love their dogs, but smokers love their cigarettes even more (I know, I'm an ex smoker!).  Hell, smoking improves concentration, brings on a sense of well-being, etc... if it were all bad no one would do it.

- Dogs are inferior to humans.   There is no equity between humans and dogs:  When the rights of a human and the interests of a dog intersect, the dog loses.  Discrimination against dogs is legitimate.

- Dogs are equal to other animals. 

- Self help options are legitimate where and when due process has been summarily denied.   This may include using force against the dog.

I am not "anti-dog" I am dog tolerant.  I'm willing to tolerate any dog that does not cause anyone a problem.  I want commonsense limits put on dog behavior.  "Dogs bark, its what they do" does not fly with me.  I think that the downside of owning a dog and harboring dogs in human communities needs to be presented as well as the upside, and the upside is ALREADY very well presented.   The hegemony of the dog-owning entitlement overclass needs to be broken.  Owning a dog does not entitle one to any special treatment.  Dog victims deserve due process.   I think that a large minority (say 20%-30%) of people who own dogs would be better off not doing so.  I think that dog owners should be taxed heavily as they externalize the costs of their high impact pets.  I will not subjugate my needs to those of a dog.  Human cities are for human consumption, and bringing ANY animal into that city is a privilege.

Anyone who finds fault in my logic or feels that my position is somehow driven by irrational hatred, please show me my error.

Anyone who considers me a "hater" should take heed that I have had numerous opportunities to eliminate the source of my torment and have not done so.  And, I mean quickly and efficiently.  How?  In my jurisdiction, I have a legal right to shoot dead any canine trespasser.  For anyone who did not fully absorb that last sentence, I will say that again:  I have a legal right to summarily kill any canine trespasser by any legal means at my disposal.
[EDIT:  That may not be 100% accurate, as the dog may have to be behaving dangerously or destructively at the time.  There are the 3 S's, also] The numbskulls across the street, to this day, continue to REGULARLY turn their dog loose on my property to pee, poop, and destroy my property after dozens of demands for them to restrain their dog as required by law.  I have regular opportunities to kill that dog, legally, and get away with it.  If I were to do so, they can't sue me and I cannot be charged.   I have not taken this option as I desire no harm to come to the animal.  Hater?  Don't think so.  Hell, I'm avoiding doing something that I HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO DO.   Anyone who considers me, or anyone like me, a hater can STUFF IT.

I would take over the venue, but I would rename it to "Dog Problems" as focusing on chronic barkers is too narrow.  I have sympathy for the 5 Million Americans bit by dogs every year, with the hundreds of thousands hospitalized.  I am concerned about the high level of water and soil pollution resulting from dogs defecating and urinating everywhere.   I am concerned about dog overpopulation.  I am concerned about dog attacks on other animals.   I am concerned about the bad treatment of dogs.

[animal uncontrol]


  1. Ah, yes. THAT group. Count me as another former member.

    1. Yes I remember you - you were another big contributor. Its rather sad when the READERS contribute more worthwhile content than the site owner, isn't it?

    2. That site is now a Facebook page. Compared to the many anti-pit bull groups on Facebook and in the blogosphere, it's a ghost town.

    3. Yes, I believe its called "barking dog problems". The problem that the host(s) has is that they only tolerate a VERY narrow range of viewpoints. Its a dog cult site that takes VERY polite issue with excessive barking.

      Their position appears to be that - dogs and their owners deserve their place on a pedestal, everyone must respect and defer to the expanded "rights" of Fido, no one may ever use force against a dog or their owner for any reason, ever etc... BUT excessive barking is a very polite no-no. It is an appeasement at all cost philosophy.

      Of course, I would call BS on all that. That approach is stupid and dangerous and serves no purpose but to further promote and enable the problem. Carefully measured uses of force by authorities (and others) in certain scenarios is perfectly legitimate and the only solution to any of these problems.

      Again, what would happen to YOU if you stood in the street screaming the same word over and over for hours? How about if you attacked passerby with a meat cleaver and tried to remove their arms, legs, and heads? You would be removed by authorities, that is what would happen. So, with that said, dangerous and nuisance animals need to be likewise removed.

    4. I have similar problems with some of the anti-pit bull groups and blogs. Some of them seem to have this viewpoint: My dog is wonderful! But those pit bulls? Ick!

    5. Agreed. That is why I don't necessarily trust all of the Anti-Pit, Pro BSL people. At least a few of them promote the notion that "dogs are vastly superior to everything and everyone else and aren't I so GRAND that I LOVE ALL DOGS and DOGS R the best thing EVAH... Oh, and by the way, lets ban pit bulls!". Kinda seems like they are trying to have it both ways.

      It strikes me as an internecine conflict.

  2. I'd say well spoken. The only error I see is when you state that 20-30% of the people who own dogs would be better off without them. I'd guess the percentage much higher.

    1. Perhaps. I am a follower of the "Pareto Principle", better known as the 80-20 rule. That being a minority is creating the majority of the problems.

  3. I like well behaved, well controlled dogs. You want to know something funny? Small dogs are usually the noisy and more or less anti-social ones. I think the senior apartment complex across the street might be a great argument for it being how the little ones are trained from an early age. I've met about 20 of the pocket size dogs in the complex. None have barked, nor do I ever hear barking when walking by the building. all of them have been friendly, even to my 7 year old. We're talking shi tzus, chis, poodles, and poms. You can wallk through the whole area and never worry about stepping in a mess. It's like an oasis of older people and little dogs. Obviously that generation knows better than most of today's. I wish everywhere was like the senior apartments across the street. It would make for a much more peaceful world. Nice owners, very decent people, and great little dogs. I'm not usually a pocket size dog person, I prefer something quiet but a little bigger like a beagle, or a well trained, well mannered retriever. These people and their dogs are good neighbors, something I wouldn't have known was possible with mostly ankle biting breeds.

    1. I think what you are seeing there is the result dog control policy on the part of the apartment manager. I.E. affirmative action against nuisance animals.

    2. I wish everywhere enforced such a thing. It's nice seeing well behaved, friendly but not pesty little dogs. It's great being able to talk to their owners, they take to my son, and tell him about their grandkids, or things they did when they were younger. It's as ideal as you can get, living so close to so many dogs.

      It's much better than the monster next door. The BIG abused pit bull that barks or snarls every chance it gets. Of course, it hasn't bitten anyone yet, and proving the abuse is impossible, because you only hear it, or about it. I don't hate the dog, I despise it's moronic owners. It's their fault he's mean, and they're the ones who let him bark and snarl. I wonder how much they'll leave him out back this summer? I don't want to be around to find out, the fence isn't strong enough to contain him. If he barks, I'll call the police, and be out there to record the abuse, then maybe, just maybe he'll be gone. If he gets out and goes after any of the innocent people around here, I'll do my part to make sure he's gone.

    3. "If he gets out and goes after any of the innocent people around here, I'll do my part to make sure he's gone."

      You'll be arrested long before anyone does anything about a dog - even a dog that's attacked someone.

      A boxer that lived behind me for a year attacked three people on three separate occasions. During the last attack it tore through a screen door and attacked a woman and her dog in her own house. You know what the police did? Held the dog for a 10 day rabies quarantine, then gave it back to the owners. No fine, no warnings, no nothing.

      This "it's not the dogs, it's the owners" nonsense is why nothing is done about these useless animals. You can't blame the dog because it's the owner's fault, but the owner didn't actually do anything so...nothing gets done. It's a frustrating, ridiculous paradox that everyone seems to willing accept and the reason dogs have become such a widespread problem.

    4. And how about that other tune? The one that says that it is NEVER the dog's fault? When we complain about barking, that one is frequently sung in response.

    5. The question: "Is it the dog, or the owner?" is a binary logic fail. A problem can have more than one cause. A problem can also have more than one CURE.

      My position is to take action against BOTH the dog and the owner. While the dog is, technically, not responsible (as it is not sentient and has no rights) it clearly acted with volition and is/will use violence to meet its needs. In these cases, the dog must be euthanized or removed from circulation indefinitely.

      However, the above does NOT get the human owner off the hook. Here is a good rhetorical question: Who created the risk? No one is forced to adopt a Pit Bull (or any other dog). You OWN the dog, you OWN WHAT IT DOES. Your dog kills somebody? That is murder and YOU are the perp. HELLO NEEDLE!

      Will write more in an essay later.


  4. I think it is the owners. The monster wouldn't bark if they didn't let it. If I'm never hearing any of the small ones across the street, and that building is on the way to our IGA and library so I go through the parking lot any time from early morning to almost ten p.m., yet have never heard a barking dog, how is not the owners? If the dog Is barking, or attacking, or anything else, it's because the person who owns it allows it. As a kid, in the country, if you heard a dog bark, you checked it out. The odds were good it was an opossum, coyote, or fox in the henhouse. The dogs all around weren't problem barkers, they were working dogs, and family pets who took their jobs seriously. Not to mention, the houses were far enough apart that you rarely heard a neighbor's dog, unless you were visiting them. Most of those dogs didn't roam either, but they would come when called, often the St. Bernard down the road would walk me home, play with the little kids in the neighborhood, get a drink and go back to his place. We did have one who came in a few times, she was scared of thunder and would come to our door if her owner wasn't home. She didn't break in, my parents let her in and helped her stay calm. In town, I hear dogs barking because they're bored, on a chain, or because they're vicious. None of those are good reasons, and all of them are because of bad owners. I blame the people, because I've seen enough normal dogs, who only barked to alert their master to something honestly wrong. I can forgive the dog who lets an owner know a predator is attacking their livestock, it's what they're born to do. As long as the owner responds, it's quick and isn't nearly the problem that the constant braking of the dog on the chain, or left in the yard and ignored is.

    If a dog ever attacks off of it's own property it should be put down. If it's defending it's owner from a vicious dog, while on a leash, that's different. Dogs shouldn't be allowed to commit unproved attacks, that's a bad dog, a bad owner, and a seriously flawed system. Still. my shovel is at the ready, as is my big knife, if the monster gets out, I'll stop it. I would complain about the barking, but after hearing them throw firecrackers at the dog last year and laugh each time he yelped, and hearing about her hitting him upside the head with hiking boots, I don't want to imagine what else they would do to him. I do feel bad for him, as with any creature that undergoes abuse. I can't prove the abuse, and even if I could, he would be someone else's problem. He's been taught to be people aggressive, he's rumored to be animal aggressive, and he's been abused. Still we all know, he would be farmed out to a rescue to be adopted. That's not what I want for other people or the dog. I'd like to see him peacefully euthanized before he hurts someone and dies badly.

  5. Meanwhile, over in Europe... http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2796/muslims-ban-dogs-europe?anid=7

  6. Well spoken, but I equate dog owners as smokers in the sense that it is a cancerous habit to have. It will kill you later on in your life. Dog barking is like second-hand smoke. Dog bites are the initial start of the bodily harm, like lung cancer. Dogs and smoking are both not cool and ruin the lives of everyone else around them for the sake of the selfish only. Smoking does not improve concentration and well-being. It's just giving the brain more nicotine to give it a false sense of that. It's a hazardous addiction that can kill anybody and everybody around them if we're going old-fashioned cigarettes and cigars. There are "no smoking" signs and "no vaping" signs everywhere. There aren't any "no dogs allowed" signs everywhere.

    No leniency for ANYBODY with an annoying dog or a vicious dog, like no leniency for smokers in public areas due to the harm that both life choices cause for everybody else who does not care to participate in them. Consequences, people! Cause and effect! Domino theory!

    1. Speaking of secondhand smoke and barking...


    2. I'd say dogs are WORSE than smoking. Smoking takes decades to kill, a dog can kill in minutes; sometimes with the first bite. "The dog had tore into his calf and when he let go, he just snatched and pulled all the arteries out. He was lying on the steps, and when I checked his vital signs he was already dead then." http://blog.dogsbite.org/2008/08/2008-fatality-detroit-man-killed-by.html Plus people don't LOOSE CONTROL of their cigarettes. Their cigarette doesn't run down the street trying to kill someone, or jump a six foot fence or off a second floor balcony. http://www.startribune.com/nation/159368875.html

    3. Very interesting when you consider that smoking went from totally acceptable "cool" to reject status in less than one generation. Dog owners, are you paying attention?

    4. I'm well-aware of that KaD, and we can throw around all the information we want about it, but if nothing's being done about this problem, then we might as well put down Dog Owning = Smoking. Cigarettes have caused fires due to careless people. Dogs have completely destroyed lives due to careless people. They're one in the same. The only difference is that one of them is being rejected while the other one remains the same.

      We reject both, we grow healthier as a species and as a society.

  7. Thank you so so much for your blog. Our weird dog insanity is insane. Dogs are ruining the environment. And pitbulls are the apex of the dog excrement pyramid. They need to be the first to go. Thank you, please keep writing

  8. Thank you so so much for your blog. Our weird dog insanity is insane. Dogs are ruining the environment. And pitbulls are the apex of the dog excrement pyramid. They need to be the first to go. Thank you, please keep writing

    1. "pitbulls are the apex of the dog excrement pyramid"

      Great analogy. Thanks for writing.