GaWd, does your little law dictionary tell you who’s qualified to make a decision about whether conditions qualify as neglect? Is it Any Schmuck on The Street, or is it a qualified law enforcement officer, backed up by a court of law?
Just curious, y’know.
And I’m not confused about the definitions of negligence, not in this context; I’ve been involved int he field for three years now.
Daniel
GAWD, the point is that it is not up to you, or to MILLER, to take it upon yourselves to decide when an owner has been so remiss in taking care of his or her dog that he or she should be completely and forever deprived of it.
Since you’ve drug the law into it, allow me to remind you that under the law YOU do not get to decide if ANYONE has been so neglectful, or so negligent, as to suffer some punishment you decide on, or to be deprived of some property you have no legal right to deprive them of. Those sort of determinations are made by the courts, or by the government agencies that are in charge of administering and policing the relevant laws – in this case, the laws against neglecting an animal or allowing an animal to run at large, which would be overseen by the humane society. Not by MILLER, and not by you.
I don’t think anyone who takes issue with MILLER’s actions thinks he should not have turned the dog in to the shelter. That’s not the problem: the problem is deciding to remove the tags first, thereby intentionally turning a dog with a home and an owner into a stray – just because MILLER decided the home and the owner were not good enough. That’s not his decision to make. Regardless of whether or not you agree – Do you at least see the problem?
What I don’t understand is why some of you claim MILLER did some extraordinarily “moral” thing by removing the tags and thereby preventing the shelter from investigating the case and the owner. I don’t find that particularly moral. I think his heart was in the right place, but I think he acted rashly and I certainly do not think it was the right thing to do.
So we’ve gone from the definition of “negligent” to a question of just whom can make that determination. Your argument keeps changing on me here. Not that it matters to me. You don’t like “do-gooders” and I have an affinity for them.
So you tell me who’s qualified. In my area, if I call the ACC and I say, “there a dog that is snapping at everyone through a hole in a fence, and he’s liable to bite a kid”, they’ll tell me something to the effect of “that’s too bad. Let us know when he bites someone”.
Now if THAT’S qualified in your eyes, well I certainly think a reasonable individual can come up with a better determination of neglect. At any rate, that’s the extent of aniumal control in my area. They pick up a few strays, dead animals, and when someone finally gets bit, they write tickets and confine the animal.
I know from experience just how little they are willing to do because I called on a guy around the corner from me. His fence was constructed out of thin pieces of stick-like material. The bottoms were all loose and when we walked by his dog would snarl and snap at us through the bottom of the fence. When we had our dogs, they’d come half way out the fence to try and bite us.
Eventually after months of I’m guessing other neighbors complaining, the ACC came out and they told him to get his dogs under control or to give them up. The guy just gave these poor guys up to be destroyed.
So if Miller’s area has an ACC group that is as weak as mine, I can understand doing just what he did.
Sam
The local humane society is so horribly understaffed, we can’t even get them to investigate a sick cat whose owner refuses to treat because “it costs too much.” Of course, said owner has plenty of money to buy cigarettes.
I agree here. Taking the dog to the Pound after the 3rd time (so that the owners would have to pay a fee, and get a lecture- and the Pound will also decide of the dog has been neglected) (or, if the owners did not pick up their dog, then we’d know they had no business with a dog, right?)would be the right thing. Taking the tags off was illegal & immoral.
Miller- you should take the tags to the shelter.
I had a female Siberian husky. Very smart, very strong. She would chew through chains, dig under fences, and climb trees to get out. We did not neglect her, we loved her, and made every attempt to keep her in. But she could have escaped from Colditz, let alone our back yard. We had to “ransom” her from the pound a couple of times.
But the point is, GAWD, that you don’t know that MILLER’s humane society would have handled the situation incorrectly or insufficiently. Again, you are making assumptions about the situation that are not warranted by anything MILLER has told us.
Compare:
“I took a neglected dog to the humane society, and I took the tags off to insure they won’t be able to return it to its owner.”
. . . and . . .
“I took a neglected dog to the humane society, and I took the tags off first because those worthless schmucks always give the dogs back, no matter how awful the owner is.”
MILLER told us the first. He did NOT tell us the second, which is a whole 'nother story. Again, you are making assumptions that are not warranted by what we were told by the person who would know – MILLER. If we knew we were dealing with the second situation, even my opinion would change and I’d agree MILLER did the right thing because the people whose job it is to handle this cannot be trusted to do it right. But that’s not the story we’ve been told.
FWIW, the only problem I have with “do-gooders” when they take the law into their own hands is that there’s no guarantee they will actually do good, as opposed to merely doing what they think is good.
So you tell me: Where is the “good” in removing the tags? It prevents the humane society from investigating the owner. It prevents the owner from offering a reasonable explanation for why his dog was out loose at night three times – unlikely he’ll be able to, but not totally impossible. It prevents the humane society from knowing who the source of the neglect is, and possibly preventing this individual from adopting another dog in the future. What “good deed” did MILLER do by preventing the humane society from doing its job? Do you have some information indicating it would not have done that job correctly? Because from MILLER’s posts, I see none.
You’ve got two choices:
Number one for me, please. And remember, Miller had legal, ethical alternatives; either he didn’t think of them, or he decided not to take them. There’s the rub.
Daniel
I drug nothing into it. Smartass simply wanted a clearer definition of neglect in the eyes of the law. I provided that.
I’m not even TOUCHING the subject of law regarding this because there can be no doubt in my mind that what was done here was approaching the realm of not so legal. Despite that, the owner could be found neglectful and be given a lecture :rolleyes: and pay a small fee :rolleyes: BFD.
Just to have it all happen again, and eventually the dog gets killed, or bites someone and THEN gets killed. Great solution people.
Sam
Yeah, that’s exactly what we’ve been saying, Sam. Glad to see you’re great at reading and comprehending arguments. Want a job at animal control? We can always use level heads like yours.
Daniel
GaWd, let me tell you a little story about two dogs I owned.
They were brothers, and good dogs for the most part. I had a fenced yard (3/4 of an acre) for them to play in. They were fed, watered, loved, played with.
But they absolutely would not stay in the fence.
I tried everything. They dug under the fence, so I would block their holes with crossties (big mutha heavy pieces of wood used to support railroad tracks). They would dig in a different place. Eventually I lined the entire inside of the fence with crossties, at no small expense.
So they began to dig underneath the gates.
Can’t put crossties in front of the gates; that kinda renders the gates useless, since the crosstie prevents them from being opened. So I pounded two-foot-long wooden stakes into the ground, about three inches apart, underneath the gates. The dogs couldn’t dig past the stakes. I thought my problems were solved.
Until I saw the dogs literally climb the chain-link fence one day.
My point? Had Miller been my neighbor, he would have seen my dogs in the neighborhood (or, in some cases, wandering a mile or more away) multiple times. The dogs were happy, healthy, and loved; they just didn’t want to stay in the fence.
Would Miller be correct in automatically assuming I was neglecting my dogs? For that matter, do you believe I neglected the dogs?
And what is happening in Miller’s story that also didn’t happen in my instance?
I’ve left out your eye-rollies. Hope that’s okay. I’d jut point out that you’re making assumptions about what would happen again. You assume that if the owner was found neglectful, he’d still be given the dog back. You assume he’d be willing to pay the “small fee.” You assume that, having received the lecture and paid the fee, he still won’t mend his ways as it will “all happen again.” You assume the dog bites someone, or gets killed, because the humane society failed to do its job.
You can rationalize this up the ying-yang by adding doom-laden scenarios, but you’re not going to be able to convince me MILLER did the right thing, when we have no reason to believe any of this would really ever have happened.
I think the difference Sauron is that had Miller returned your loose dog back to you, you would have fallen all over yourself thanking him for doing so. I didn’t get the impression that the owner of the dog in his example wouldn’t be the sort to spend a fortune on fortifications for his fence to keep the dogs in.
I don’t know where Miller lives exactly, but other cars and angry neighbors ain’t the only concern for a dog running loose in most parts of Marin - you’ve got mountain lions, coyotes, very large raccoons, etc.
Jodi, you’re assuming you know more about my local ACC than I do. You’re wrong.
I’m not going to sit around here arguing with you two anymore. You don’t like do-gooders, you think you know all about my local laws. I’m not trying to convince you of shit. I frankly don’t care what you think at all and I’m sorry you feel as if I’ve been trying to persuade you into seeing things my way.
This isn’t my fight, it’s Miller’s. I give him a thumbs-up, end of story.
Sam
Letting the dog run free is inexcusable neglect. It’s not “obnoxious”. It’s illegal, unsafe, unethical and the paramount of irresponsible. The primary role of a dog owner is to keep the animal safe, and it’s flat out impossible to do that if you’re not in control of the animal and aware of his whereabouts. It doesn’t matter if these people let the dog roam because they think it’s good for him or because they can’t control him, there is no excuse for it – it is improper management of their animal that has been ongoing and has repeatedly imperiled the animal’s life.
Sabbath will be much better off if he’s given a chance to live with people who will care for him properly. I wish Miller had left his tags, though, because as jodi pointed out, they *might[/i have served to prevent Sabbath’s schmuck of an owner from adopting another animal, which would be a step in the right direction if nothing else.
However, I can understand Miller’s fear that leaving the tags would enable Sabbath’s schmuck of an owner to regain possession of him again. I feel no reason to refrain from saying that three strikes, this guy is out. He should not ever have this dog again. People who repeatedly allow their animals to wander off (or fail to prevent it) do not deserve to keep those animals, period. If it happens once, that’s one thing. After that, it’s something entirely different.
If your dog has wandered off once, you don’t continue to let them go outside without any restraints or a human to watch over them continually. If you have a gap in your fence, you damn well get the thing fixed. Beyond traditional fences, there are electronic systems and a variety of reliable tie-out systems which can be used to prevent dogs from leaving your property. Get one and use it. Use two in combination, if that’s what it takes.
Why do people insist that it’s such a freaking imposition to properly care for their animals who are supposedly oh-so-beloved? Would you prefer that they were stolen (outright, not taking to a shelter but appropriated as someone else’s pet or, worse, lab animal) or run over by a car?
It’s the pit, but I’m afraid that needs a hell of a corroborating cite. Unless NC legislators or judges have taken leave of their senses, the most that the owners could’ve recovered for this “damage” to their property is the loss of revenue they might’ve gained from hiring the dog out to stud/selling his semen, and only if the could show some evidence that the humane society had not exercised due care in attempting to find them and that their stray/wait period was improperly short and/or restrictive. And all of this is, of course, presuming that the animal was a registered pedigree whose offspring would be worth something. That a humane society would be forced out of business due to damages incurred for neutering an animal under any other circumstance is extremely hard to believe.
Miller should’ve left the tags, and should probably take them to the shelter now. But I hope beyond hope that this will serve as a means for Sabbath to get a new home where he will be properly and lovingly cared for. It’s the least that he deserves.
[hijack]
Just curious Sauron, but what did you do to rectify your situation with those escape artists? Have they become inside dog? Did you build a 10 foot tall fence? Did they eventually grow out of it? Or did you have to give them away?
If he’d called the ACC, they would probably either a) ignored the issue or b) taken the dog to the local pound where it would have stood a very high chance of being euthanized in a few days.
By doing what he did, Miller allowed a neglected dog to go to a no-kill shelter and have a good chance at a happy life.
I don’t see the problem.
He made assumptions about the dogs owners, did not report the incidents about the dog to the proper authorities, took the dog illegally, removed the tags, lied to the shelter, and caused undo stress to the owners of the dog, the shelter operators, and possibly the next people that wanted to drop off a dog at a no-kill shelter but will now have to settle for the other kind of shelter.
Do you really believe that the poor dog has a chance at a better life, or is that an assumption you are making to justify his actions?
DanielWithrow, you are more qualified than I-could you please tell some of these “rescuers” what happens to a lot of these animals?
Thank you Autz. That is exactly my point. The ACC is ineffective at best. They take dogs to the pound, euthanize them and wash their hands of them.
Czarcasm…I don’t think he lied once to the shelter from what we’ve been told. He told them he removed the tags and then left his contact info in the letter. I’d say he took reasonable steps to identify himself and remain available to the shelter workers if they wanted to find the original owner of the animal.
To what animals, Czarcasm? Animals taken to no-kill shelters? They’re fed, housed and hopefully adopted. The ACC takes animals to shelters where they euthanize them(at least around here). Having looked for a missing dog there and looked for a new dog there, I can definitely say that they’re not very nice places.
Why does everyone assume we’re trying to “justify” his actions, or “rationalize up the ying yang” here? I haven’t had to stretch my morals a damned inch to see that he probably took a step that may get this dog into an environment where he’s cared for and watched after.
Can you see me from your high-horse?
Sam
Really? Do you know the owners of the dog?
Why know the owners when it’s much easier to make assumptions about them based on info from someone who steals from them? :rolleyes: