Updated rants for next VC: EEEERRRESPONSUBLE OWNERRRZZZZZ

 Today's topic:  EEEEERRRESPONSIBLE  OWNERRZZZ!

"Irresponsible dog owner" is a redundancy.  Its like saying "wet water".  Dog ownership is essentially an irresponsible activity.   While there is some nuance and leeway here, for the most part, responsible people do not own dogs.  Pursuant to that, anyone who advocates for dog ownership, makes excuses for bad dog behavior, agitates for "dogs first" public policies is likewise irresponsible regardless of whether they own a dog or not.

Anyone familiar in the space knows, or should know, that 99+% of "pet" and/or "animal" problems in society involve a dog.  This is due to the public policy double standard that restricts anything else that is even remotely like them.   If anything else caused more than 1% the problems of dogs, that would be restricted.  Yet, there are dogs everywhere.  That said, the fact that this "excess" is technically legal does not make it ethical or responsible.  Owning the absolute worst pet, by a huge margin, on the planet is by definition irresponsible.

Actual offences aside, what defines an irresponsible dog person?  Owners and dog apologists.

• Anyone who owns a pit bull.  There is no such thing as responsible pit bull [or similar] ownership, and bringing any pit bull into any human occupied space (and, by that I mean anywhere on Earth) is by definition irresponsible. 
• Anyone who brings a large dog (25+ lbs, say) into any crowded community.  Shepherds, retrievers, herding dogs, protection dogs, etc... are essentially farm animals and do not belong in cities and crowded subdivisions.  For example, keeping a border collie in an apartment is irresponsible:  Doing so would be as bad or worse as keeping a large pig in an apartment.  In fact, the pig might be less bad than the border collie.   Goats, sheep, pigs, etc.... are zoned out farm animals and any dog breed other than a toy dog [perhaps mini breeds] should be, also.  
• Anyone unable to meet the basic needs of the animal, or keeps it in a way that is by definition neglectful   For example, anyone who owns a Husky [or similar] south of, say, 45 degrees north latitude.  Everyone who owns a Husky in Florida (or any warm climate), or in anyway advocates for them, is by definition irresponsible.  Huskies in Florida are a per-se animal welfare fail and a public nuisance.  
• Anyone in any way related to the "servus dawg" dumpster fire.  The most "legit" service dog handler on earth is by definition irresponsible.  This is true for at least 2 reasons:  1)  Anyone with a disability or health problem has a duty to themselves to mitigate the problem in the most effective way possible.  Service dogs fail at an epic rate and in fact may be worse than doing nothing.  Service dogs are snake oil, and the "servus dawg" people need to realize that most people won't take your health problem seriously when its obvious that you do not.  They may as well take a stone age medicine man with them everywhere.  2)  Pursuant to the prior point, being disabled or sick does not empower anyone to break all the rules, trash the rights of others, and cause all sorts of other problems.  Its incumbent on that person to mitigate their problem in a way that is not harmful to others.  Consider a diesel powered wheelchair:  That would be a good analogue for a servus mutt.   Moving along, any medical professional that prescribes or in any way recommends a service dog to patients/clients is likewise irresponsible:  Professional people have an obligation to promote efficient, effective solutions to patients, not push animal worship on gullible people.  Anyone else promoting service dogs is, again, likewise irresponsible:  You are either lying or incompetent.  Any due diligence on the issue will reveal the fact that service dogs are a huge scam, perhaps one of the largest medical scandals of the last 100 years.
• Anyone in any way involved with the police K9 disaster.  Similar to service dogs, EVERYONE involved in the K9 supply chain, use thereof, or anyone who promotes them in any way is by definition irresponsible.  And, I mean ALL of them are by definition irresponsible.  Look up Florida v Harris, pursue some due diligence on police dogs violating the 4th and 8th amendment rights of suspects, attacking random people for no reason (including 2 legged "police officers") anyone who has done any research would know that police dogs are a civil rights and public policy disaster and that ANYONE claiming that a dumb animal [dog] is a police officer is irresponsible.  
• And, of course, anyone who breaks dog laws, allows their dog to become a burden on others without consent, and anyone who excuses said lawbreaking and burdening.

While dog ownership is spread across all the usual demographics, its apparent that Dog ownership appeals to low-iq, immature, low-class, mindlessly selfish, marginal people.  Consider my prior and current across the street neighbors.  Dog ownership appeals to those unable to consider any consequences, and generally cannot think more than 30 seconds into the future.

So, what defines RESPONSIBLE dog ownership?  I presume those are inclusive of dog owners that do NOT meet any of the points made above.  So, we are at, what.... 5%?  10% tops?

Self defense wrap up.

 A few remarks about last week's self defense discussion:

1)  Educate yourself in applicable laws.  What you think is legal might not be and vice versa.

2)  Become fluent in the use of your self defense article, even if that is a body part (fist, foot, etc...).  Get professional training.  (closely related to below point).

3)  Get over your resistance to use violence.   You may want to try hunting or varminting:   As opposed to shooting at a target or punching/kicking a bag, you may not find killing (or otherwise harming) a living thing as easy as you thought.  This may be one reason why bystanders in dog attack scenarios don't do much - they haven't gotten over their reluctance to use violence.

4)  Think through all possible scenarios beforehand.

5)  Be the first to call police.  The default assumption of police is the first one to call police is the victim.

6)  Think through how you are going to present yourself in the aftermath.   How you present yourself to authorities is critical.   Avoid an aggressive posture, and do not apologize.

7)  Learn to recognize bad advice.  Many people giving "advice" in this space are either dogs-first agitators, incompetent, appeal to perfection and so forth.

Mick Invasion!

 Mick is FURREVER!  He lives on in video games!

The Ten Commandments of Dog, King Rover version.

 

Read them.  Learn them.  LIVE them!

The dog culture creed:

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF DOG

1. Thou shalt worship each and every Dog unconditionally.
2. Thou exists to serve every Dog keeper, and must pay respects daily.
3. Thou shalt realize that each and every dog and his keeper is the epitome of absolute perfection and wonderfulness.
4. Thou shalt pay alms, and put the almighty Dog ahead of all else.
5. Thou shalt offer no unkind words against Dog, nor shalt thou lift a finger against Dog or his Keeper for any reason.
6. Thou shalt spread the word of Dog, and convert the Heathen where thy find them.
7. Grant that what is Dog's upon Dog, also grant everything that is NOT Dog's upon Dog.
8. Thou shalt respect that the life of each individual Dog is of Infinite Value.
9. Torment and death must come to thou that not serve the almighty Dog and His Keeper.
10. Thou shalt go forth and wage war for the sake of Dog.

Letter to my Senator regarding service dog fraud

                                        John Q. Public

                                        123 Main St.

                                        Pensacola, FL 91234

January 31, 2023

Senator Marco Rubio

284 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

RE:  Curbing service dog fraud via Revision to ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).

Dear Senator Rubio,

Service dog fraud is an extremely serious problem that needs to be solved.  Under the protection of the ADA, dog owners are abusing rules meant to help the truly disabled.  This behavior violates Federal, State and local health and safety laws as well as the association rights of others.   Fraudulent service dogs have injured bystanders and legitimate service dogs.   This extremely damaging behavior needs to stop.

The ADA requirement under consideration is expressed here:  https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-2010-requirements/   under “Inquiries, Exclusions, Charges, and Other Specific Rules Related to Service Animals”.   It states that “When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform. Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.”

The clause highlighted and underlined above is the root of the problem.  Without a straightforward proofing system, any dog owner can lie about their disability and / or service dog credentials.  That said, I propose the following change to the ADA, Service Animal Requirements:

⦁ Remove the clause stating “Staff cannot…. Require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog”.

⦁ Special permits, issued by a regulatory body, should be a requirement for any and all service dog related activities.  Permits may be issued to those that meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. Provide formal training documentation for the dog in question to the regulatory body indicated, OR

2. Demonstrate the dog’s ability to perform the service or task indicated to said regulatory body.

⦁ Penalties should be applied to those who do not comply with the revised provisions.

Pursuant to the above, the committee should open an investigation into exactly who is protected by these laws, and what constitutes legitimate service dog tasks.

Senator, thank you very much for taking the time to read my letter.  Your attention to this matter is very much appreciated.

Regards,

{signature here}

 

Pet ownership ethics - an overview

 Good Afternoon!  (Hey, its always afternoon SOMEWHERE, right?!)

The DogMageddon continually raises issues and questions regarding the keeping of animals in our communities.  

As I have noted in the past, just about any animal that can be a nuisance (aggressive towards humans, noise polluting) has been zoned out.  By "zoned out" I mean they are banned or severely restricted in neighborhoods, and possession of such creatures is typically only allowed on farms, zoos, or in remote / rural areas.   How many sheep are living in your downtown apartment tower.  I thought so.

So, what are the boundaries of pet ownership in cities and suburbs?  I believe that pet ownership is a *privilege* in such places, and the privilege may be maintained if the following 2 criteria are met:

1) The animal must be kept in a humane manner.  For example, you can argue that a gerbil can be kept humanely in a small apartment BUT a horse cannot.

2) The animal must be kept in a socially responsible manner.  The keeping of said animal should not violate the rights of anyone else.  The ONLY person subject to the downsides of owning the pet should be the pet owner.  

I estimate that dog people fail both of the 2 criteria on a regular basis.

This raises the question, what sort of animals CAN be kept in human communities, given both of the criteria set above?   I believe that any animal kept in a human community should meet the following 3 general guidelines:

1) Non-aggressive towards humans.

2) Quiet.  If the animal vocalizes at all, it should be at human-level volume or LOWER *and* for short durations.

3)  Small and light enough to be easily handled by the average adult.

Again, dogs and dog owners flunk the above on a very consistent basis.  Small dogs typically flunk 1 and 2 above, and large dogs flunk all 3.  

Think about it.

Service dog fail - A summation.

 

So, what is wrong here?   Why is the ADA service animal [dog] provision such a fail?

It empowers dog people to take their dog everywhere COUNTER to:

- Local and state health and safety laws.   Feds came in and USURPED the rules set by all these states and municipalities that said NO ANIMALS in places that sell or serve food, among other things.

- Feds ALSO usurped the rights of proprietors and the public to a dog-free space.  I have a right to seek a dog free dining experience.  

All of this is VERY heavy handed, and I believe, of dubious constitutionality.   For example, the my state government does NOT allow pets on state park beach areas.  The feds came in and said, YES you must allow mutts everywhere, including the beach as long as the dog owner says "the magic words!".  This is a breach of home rule protections.

I believe it is also a breach of association rights and property rights.  Say you are a proprietor of a restaurant, and you want to offer people a dog free space.  Thanks to the ADA, you are now no longer allowed to do that:   You MUST accommodate the dogs, or else.  

The worst problem with this is:  The Feds bestowed all this *power* upon dog owners WITH NO OVERSIGHT.