Better in Paradise

Pursuant  to this post, serious dog related problems had been noted in the state parks.  Over time, I have noted gradual improvement.  While things are not perfect, they are a lot better.  It appears that the park apparatus has taken these problems seriously.

Consider this sign, now posted throughout all parks:

 

Best part is this:  "Noisy, dangerous, intimidating or destructive pets will not be allowed to remain in the park".   Amen to that!

Additionally, the park reservation page now has the requirement that the reservee state how many pets they intend to bring with them, and the species of each pet.  There is now a 4 pet maximum per site.  This new limit is another huge improvement.  In the past, I have noted individual campers with an excess of eight (8) (!!!!) dogs per site.   I understand that a lot of people, particularly RV'ers (caravans for those of you outside the USA) travel with pets, but bringing a dozen dogs to a state park is absolutely ridiculous.  It pegs the abuse meter.

I would urge those of you in the other 49 states, and around the world, to print off the photo above (or perhaps this entire article) and forward it to your park director. 

Pass the word!

The more things change...

... the more they stay the same!   As  follow up to this post, I received a visit from 2 AC officers a few days ago.  They asked me a few questions about the at-large dogs and we had a brief follow up conversation about it.

One thing about that conversation I really did NOT appreciate were the logical contortions they went through to absolve Rover and Fido.

Here is what I am talking about:  I mentioned that another neighbor had seen the dogs kill and dismember a cat on her front lawn.  They responded "ALLEGEDLY killed...".   Apparently, the other complainant had not actually seen the dogs attack the living cat, merely tear it apart.  I estimate she heard a commotion, and proceeded to a door/window after the dogs had already begun their dirty deed.

My response?  A facepalm and a big eye-roll.  This is insulting to the intelligence.  Look, this block does not have a problem with dead cats strewn everywhere.  The theory that the cat had a heart attack and died just prior to Rover and Fido happening along is REALLY far fetched.  We are contemplating way past reasonable doubt here.  Did a necropsy show the cat was already dead?  No?  Then the most likely explanation is Rover and Fido chased down the cat and killed it.   No sane society would grant these sort of due-process protections to DOGS.

This was nothing but a big cop-out engineered to get Rover and Fido off the hook.  

In any case, they did state that they intended to continue to cite the dog owner with escalating penalties as the offenses racked up.  So, there is that.

Enjoy your Sunday afternoon!

Collecting on a Judgement

There have been many discussions over the years on suing the owner of the dog that bit you / barks all night / has engaged in other destructive behavior.

Say you win that suit, and the court awards you damages?   Remember, the court is not a collection agency:  Its not like the bailiff is going to hand you a check on the way out the door.   Unless the defendant agrees to pay you, you will have to pursue a collection action against them.

I saw this video on YouTube the other week.  The host specializes in automobile law, but his monologue on collections would apply regardless of the complaint.

Here is the video:

"Lehto's Law" is a good channel to follow if you have any interest in legal issues.  Steve is licensed in the state of Michigan, but most states have similar laws.  As always, Your Mileage May Vary.

Steve makes the excellent point that very few people are truly "Judgement Proof".  To be truly Judgement Proof, one must meet all of the following requirements:

1)  Not have any sort of real job.  No W2 or 1099 wages.
2)  Not Participate in the financial system in any way.  No checking account, no brokerage accounts, no CD's, etc...
3)  Not own anything of any value.

If you are suing a dogger, consider that this activity may not pay for itself.  However, you don't sue a dogger to become rich, you sue the dogger to punish the dogger for their destructive, anti-social behavior.  In the current legal, social and political climate dog owners are virtually above reproach.  The civil court system is just about the only way to go after them.  You want to make their life a living hell, just like they made yours into the same.  If you make them miserable enough, they may modify their behavior.

Good luck, and happy new year!

Double Trouble or "Here we go again!!!"

I awoke from my long slumber to find my neighborhood terrorized by 2 at large pit-type dogs.  Given the current social, political and legal climate such a thing was bound to happen sooner or later.

Here are the photos, courtesy of one of my "game-cams":

Consider the butt-ugly mutant on the left.  It should be illegal to even house something that hideous, much less turn it loose in the neighborhood.  The low-quality game cam shot does not do it justice.... this dog is U.G.L.Y!

In any case, they ripped the lid off my trash can (Which had been secured with multiple bungee cords), and spread trash all over my yard.  Thanks, doggers!

A couple of days later, I learned from another neighbor that these two had killed a cat in her front yard.  The cat was literally ripped to shreds.   She told me she "never wanted to see anything that horrible again".   Long story short, the entire neighborhood is on alert, and everyone is now carrying weapons.  County AC has been to the owner's home multiple times (They have received at least 4 complaints over 2 weeks that I know about), yet we still observe the dogs running loose!   I'm not absolutely sure who owns them, but my nextdoor neighbor thinks they belong to a party that closed on a home about a month ago.

I think I need to pay these folks a visit.  I wonder what would be a good way to welcome them to the neighborhood?

1)  Pass along a hard copy of the "Best use for a dead pit bull" article?
2)  Delivery of a restraining order?
3)  "No, I haven't seen your dogs, but try some of these really tasty meatballs I made this morning"?

Happy holidays, everyone!

Flying the Dog Friendly Skies!

Listen up good, peons!  Fido's right to fly exceeds yours!  Suck it, proles!

A woman was dragged off a Los Angeles-bound Southwest Airlines flight Tuesday after telling crew members she had a life-threatening pet allergy. There were two dogs aboard.
“Everything was very quiet up until a decision was made that this woman would have to be physically removed from the plane,” said Bill Dumas, who provided video of the incident to KTLA. “She just put up a lot of resistance and was adamant about not being taken off the plane.”
In a statement, Southwest said... any passenger without a medical certificate may be denied boarding if he or she reports a life-threatening allergic reaction and cannot travel safely with an animal on board. The passenger was unable to provide a medical certificate, the airline stated.

Get your ass off that plane, you two legged hooligan!   How dare you be allergic to DOG!

Here is the video:

Flying just keeps becoming more and more ridiculous.  Perhaps soon, humans won't be allowed to fly at all?  

The comments on YouTube are absolutely priceless.  Consider such priceless gems such as "stop acting like a privileged bitch! follow the instructions and get your ass off the plane. why does everyone think they're entitled to some special treatment these days?"   I suppose that is due to the fact that some people cling to the antiquated notion that human rights exceed dog rights?  What right does someone have to bring a dog on to a plane, anyway?  Oh, I'm sure it was some sort of "comfort animal" (i.e. pet) the dog worshipper could not do without. 

Have a great evening, everybody!

Blog Update

Run for your lives!  Its MickZilla!

Blog update.  Haven't written much recently - my attention has been primarily on other matters.  Animal Uncontrol may become dormant, but never dead.  Some bloggers do a "grand exit":   Farewell world!  I am sailing off into the sunset forever!   Yeah, right, until they again desire to become the center of attention.

The dogocracy / animal supremacy is a rather arcane social issue.  I started this Animal Uncontrol "Project" about 5 years ago when I realized that almost no critical thought or analysis had been applied to said social issue.  At this point, however, I feel like most of the issues have been covered, and unlike a lot of bloggers/writers, I prefer not to repeat myself too often. 

Blog statistics show the blog still gets about 150-200 unique visitors a day (~5,500 per month) MOSTLY this one.   Problems with barking, anyone?

I have ideas for a few essays that include but are not limited to:
- Lawsuits.
- Invasive species, particularly snakes taking over the Everglades.
- Gun P0rn.  (Never gets old).
- More outrageous Mickey memes such as the one depicted above. 

Speaking of lawsuits, long time commenter Eileen is preparing to sue her bark-crazed neighbors.  I hope Eileen keeps us up to date on the progress of that. 

I am also considering changing the blog format:  I'd like to categorize all of the articles, i.e. "Pit Bulls", "Barking", "Humor", etc... I plan to get moving on that in the near future. 

Like many blogs, the comments section attached to each article is often pure gold, so anyone with anything interesting to say is welcome to comment on any article. 

Have a great weekend!
  

Null Hypothesis

Convinced that there is no causal relationship between 2 events?  Firm believer in "innocent until proven guilty"?  That is the Null Hypothesis. 

The Null Hypothesis makes sense when applied... well, sensibly.  While correlation is a necessary prerequisite for causation, correlation does not necessarily indicate causation.

From Wiki:

For any two correlated events, A and B, the different possible relationships include:

• A causes B (direct causation);
• B causes A (reverse causation);
• A and B are consequences of a common cause, but do not cause each other;
• A and B both causes C, which is (explicitly or implicitly) conditioned on.;
• A causes B and B causes A (bidirectional or cyclic causation);
• A causes C which causes B (indirect causation);
• There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is a coincidence.

The last bullet item would indicate a Null Hypothesis:  No causal relationship.

Moving along...

'Twas another pit bull mauling in OK a few days ago.  An elderly woman walking her dog was killed by 2 at-large pit bulls.  Her head was nearly removed from her body. 

Of course, those coming to the defense of those dogs, and those like them, insist that the breed background of the mutt perpetrators had nothing to do with it.  Indeed, it was just something that happened.  Like having it rain on your birthday.   The fact that the dogs involved had the capacity to decapitate somebody was merely a coincidence.   Hey, she could had her head cut off by a goldfish, right?

Remember, according to dog worshippers and pit bull fanatics, the facts that pit bulls were bred to fight, and have the overall physical capacity to take down a grown man have nothing to do with any of this carnage.  To them, horrific events of this sort are strictly a coincidence.  Remember, its not pit bulls that kill, or even dogs.  Hell its not even mammals, or anything alive!   The victim in question could have died of anything, and the fact that this death involved game bred fight dogs with a bite strength of an industrial hydraulic press was strictly a coincidence.  The physical capacity and breed history of pit bulls to fight to the death is not implicated in any way, ever.  This is the Null Hypothesis of almost every dog mauling.   

Dog apologists and pit bull fanatics always try to act and sound smart.  I consider most of them to be a "95 IQ genius'" at best.  If you are on a forum and need a retort, try this: "You are abusing the Null Hypothesis".   I dunno if that IS smart, but it sure SOUNDS smart, doesn't it?

Have a great week!