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!