UB: * And I know that animal rights whackos think that they know what is best for dogs and their owners, but every dog that I’ve known loved riding in the back of the truck. *
Ain’t nobody saying that dogs don’t love riding unrestrained in vehicles. It’s just that riding unrestrained is demonstrably less safe, for the dogs and for the humans. Children love riding unrestrained in vehicles too (“whee! I can stand on my head in the back seat!”), but it makes them a lot more vulnerable in case of an accident. Them’s just the facts.
UB:And so fucking what if they’re buckled up or not? It’s not your dog. It’s not any of your Goddamned business, much less the States.
If you don’t care about the safety issue, well, it’s your right to ignore it. Unless they pass a law about it, that is. Drive carefully and don’t get into any accidents, and you’ll be less likely to generate the kind of horrific bad press (“100-lb. Dog Catapulted through Windshield, Driver Killed after Losing Control of Vehicle”) that tends to whip up support for such laws among appalled and distressed voters—excuse me, “whackos”.
Dogs aren’t kids. And, in my case, the mutt’s usually in the back. And “whackos” is polite term that I use for the lowlife scumbags that hate freedom and elevate animals to human status that support this type of bullshit legislation.
Don’t say it too loud, or someone might do it. Not many years ago, some moron wanted to require seatbelts on bikes. Imagine that. You take a tumble, your big bike is cartwheeling down the road, and you’re strapped to it and can’t get away. :eek:
UB:And “whackos” is polite term that I use for the lowlife scumbags that hate freedom and elevate animals to human status that support this type of bullshit legislation.
Man, it amazes me how hysterical people can get about simple safety regulations. I don’t support legally mandating pet restraints in cars myself, because I’d rather trust the common sense and rational concern of pet owners. But howling that people who support restraint laws are “whackos” and “lowlife scumbags” and “freedom haters” doesn’t really give the impression that common sense and rationality are your top priorities, y’know what I mean?
(By the way, you’ll notice that the only person in this thread who actually “elevates animals to human status” by maintaining that “dogs are people”, namely The Gaspode, explicitly said that he didn’t support such legislation.)
UB: And, in my case, the mutt’s usually in the back.
Are you suggesting that that somehow makes him safe? I don’t think so. Even if he didn’t crash into you in case of a serious accident, he could be thrown clear of the truck and crash into somebody else. Either way, of course, the dog himself would be toast.
Like I said, you have the right not to belt your dog, and if there aren’t too many nasty car accidents involving flying pets getting into the news, I doubt that anybody will bother passing a law about it any time soon. But just because you aren’t required to do it doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea.
I would just say to be glad that this troll of a legislator (can I call a legislator a troll?) while holding “There oughtta be a law” contests, and then pushing them through is not working on far more insidious and reprehensible legislation.
OK, Unregistered Bull, I’ll concede that dog breath in your truck cab is not a good thing, but can’t Fido be placed in a nice large cage securely tied-down so that he won’t fly into someone’s windshield if you have to panic brake for any reason?
I don’t own dogs but have had occasion to take my daughter’s dogs to the vet when one of them has done something stupid and son-in-law has their car at work. Stinky, stinky, stinky–for days afterward.
We travel with our ferret because to leave him cooped up in his cage for a week while we vacation would be cruel, to leave him out to rile up the cats would be pandemonium, and daughter barely has room at her place for her animals.
The ferret sleeps all wrapped up in a blanket in a rear floorwell,waking only to eat and relieve himself of tiny quantities in a small litter pan. Easiest critter in the world to travel with.
People who drive with their dogs slobbering down their necks ask me "Doesn’t he stink? " Yes, his emanations do have an odor, but he doesn’t emanate nearly as much or nearly as often as a dog does.Nor does he do it all over the place.
Today’s Patriot News editorial page blasted this schmuck for pushing this through via a stupid “There Ought to Be a Law” contest. On the one hand, it’s nice to see kids interested in the legislative process. On the other hand, think of all the wasted time and money because of this shit.
UB has been doing some really interesting drive by posting and if I ever get around to do a proper search, I’m gonna pit his sorry ass.
I just wanted to make it clear that I don’t elevate dogs to human level. They’re animals and as such don’t have neither the rights, nor the responsibilities of humans. I do claim, and not as a joke, that dogs are people. They’re the animals that live closest to us, in the largest numbers, with a distinct social life, not too far removed (emotionally) from humans: Fear, anger, hatred, lust, hunger, sorrow, longing, joy, curiosity… Dogs display all these emotions. They can easily learn a couple of hundred words, even though they might not be able to distinguish them in sentences. So yeah, they’re people.
As for letting the dog ride in the back of the truck and never be in the house - I can’t help but wonder why people who treat their dogs this way have dogs. There must be a reason, but I don’t get it.
To play devil’s advocate a second. I do seatbelt my dog, but mostly for my safety and the safety of other cars. Before I seatbelted him, he would have a tendency to jump into the passenger seat and eventually try to get in my lap. He is 75 pounds and this is a legitimate safety concern at 75 miles per hour.
If I remember correctly, the dude who ran over Stephen King a few years back was preoccupied with his dogs who had gotten into the trunk compartment from the back seat and were eating his steak…
It’s not the law itself that’s the problem. Well, there are issues with it, but that’s neither here nor there. Among these is that no part of a dog could be outside the vehicle, which means a bigger distraction from a restrained dog’s whining than the minor one of a dog in the passenger seat with his face out the window.
The problem was that the legislator who introduced the bill did so because this was the winning idea in a contest for 11-year-olds. IOW, the rep didn’t come up with the idea; a 11-year-old did. This bill didn’t result from a huge safety issue on Pennsylvania’s highways. It resulted because a child thought it was a good idea and the rep agreed. At issue is the fact that so many kids have ideas that seem good but really do nothing but clog the legislative process and keep more legitimate bills from reaching the floor. Not to mention all the time Stevenson wasted on this stupid contest – to the tune of $81,000+ a year.
If this asshole wants to have a contest to get kids excited about government and the legislative process, great. The grand prize can be a trip to Harrisburg to see the legislature in action. The opportunity to have this shit legislated into law shouldn’t be the prize.
Which, you have to admit, is an absolutely perfect King-ian situation. It almost sounds like a plot point from one of his books, that everyday-annoyance-before-the-horror-descends thing…
And remember, the dude who ran King down also died mysteriously after bad-mouthing the author over being “treated unfairly” by the courts due to King’s fame.
Then the character in “The Dark Tower” who ran King down was not portrayed in a good light either, to add insult to unnatural death.
I consider a law requiring Dog Restraints to be as vital to the future of the Republic as an amendment to ban flag burning.