Postings by Jin

(Page 1 of 50: Viewing entries 1 to 10)  
Page Links: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  [Last 10 entry]  

Jin I'm going with- you, right?     Barked: Sun Oct 17, '10 5:03pm PST  Dog licensing in my city is annual and is $7.50 for altered dogs, $15.50 for unaltered. If the dog is altered you must provide a spay/neuter certificate from the vet, and the rabies certificate must be provided when registering and each year it is given (i.e. since I get the three-year rabies vaccine I only need to provide the rabies certificate every three years). I do keep Jin's license registration up to date (and would even if she did not come to me licensed as part of her adoption), and my folks are good about keeping their dogs registered as well. I remember a couple years back the dog warden saying that he was going to send people around door to door to see if people's dogs are registered or not; they were not doing so to nail the people whose dogs were not registered, rather they were doing so to educate and inform them about the licensing law and encourage them to register their dogs -- so it was not a witch hunt, so to speak, but they were trying to get more people to license their dogs. I think licensing is well worth it knowing how great a thing it can be having the license numbers on the dog's collar in the event it gets loose and picked up by anyone: I've saved a dog from having to be kenneled because he had his license tag on him, and while the owner did not have to pay a fee to get him back, the dog warden told me he would give them a call to let them know where the dog was so he could give them a talking to about their dog being at large. my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals [notify]

Jin I'm going with- you, right?     Barked: Tue Oct 12, '10 1:54pm PST  Tiller, apologies if I was not entirely coherent on my compounding evidence idea. I fully agree that any reasonable indication ought to be a green light to go, as you stated, but perhaps it's the cynic in me that is cautious to be less than specific and concise in wording, especially given the anti-pit bull sentiments abound. I just can see all too easily how wording that is not careful could open the doors to wasting time and resources in an attempt to appear as though something is being done (remind a bit of BSL?), and that same wording could cost lives -- if a community allows it, or a local government is sneaky (in my own community they have held meetings without being truly open to the public in order to pass what they wish), legislation could be passed that would allow them to remove dogs from responsible owners simply because they have "paraphernalia" but no reasonable indication they are involved in fighting. We all know what too often happens then. Again, perhaps it's my cynicism, but given how strong anti-pit bull sentiments can be, I don't believe it's entirely unfounded. Stronger wording, I feel, would allow responsible owners to still own responsibly, would allow law enforcement to focus where it is better served in this area and observe and speak to owners if they are skeptical that there is truly any fighting going on on their part -- it would prevent malicious, anti-pit sentiments from being a factor. Plus, the stronger the wording in law the stronger the law itself: perhaps better warrants could be drafted so items found would not be dismissed in court, perhaps it would give law enforcement a better idea of what sort of indication gives them that green light, and perhaps it would allow for less interpretation when this is brought to court. Of course, stronger legislation in my opinion as regards dog fighting also calls for stronger sentencing terms. Given the general culture of "professional" dog fighters, stronger sentencing terms in dog fighting as well allows more of a chance of getting these people out of the community. I have no problem burdening some inconvenience for the sake of these dogs, none whatsoever, but knowing what I do of people and knowing what I do of history, there are some things I see going beyond inconvenience and opening the door for abuse. That I am unwilling to feel comfortable with. You touched on some of the reasons yourself: "culturally safe" being one of the biggest things, for me, and I will second your statement that "little changes until we address something so fundamental" as how these dogs are viewed. Much like with BSL, education is key -- early intervention, so to speak, is also key; unlike BSL, however, as has already been discussed, it's a situation where focusing on the people we turn our backs to all too often can also have huge, long-lasting impacts upon these dogs as well. As I have already said, I really do see where you're coming from and I understand what you're saying. I'll chalk it up to cynicism and strong belief in slippery slopes, as well as learning lessons from history, that leaves me not entirely comfortable with too much legislation here. I also get what you're saying with the major players being so adept at keeping under the radar, but I'm just not sure that legislation itself will necessarily make up for that -- rather I feel that careful legal wording will actually assist if it is done with great consideration that any law should receive. Now, moving on...haha, this isn't just so I can clarify my own take and views on all of this. I would also like to support your statement that often the most adoptable dogs are Pit Bulls and pit bull-types. I volunteered with a nearby SPCA for a while and I will say the pitties were always typically the best behaved, more well-mannered and balanced of the dogs there. Oftentimes the pitties picked up as strays were more stable and well-mannered than dogs surrendered by owners who had owned them for years -- dogs with unknown pasts opposed to dogs with well-known pasts. There was even a pittie girl, very dog selective from my understanding, who you would never know it walking her by all but the rare dog, and that includes the dogs barking for all manners of reasons in their runs: she simply ignored, and once she got to know you, she was a complete and utter sweetheart of a dog! The only dog she had visible problems with, even with distance between them, I knew to be an instigator and really that can't be held against her in my mind (though I'm sure some would). The average person might think a dog selective pittie is immediately less adoptable -- perhaps her potential homes were a bit more limited, but she was still better behaved and more well-rounded than many other dogs of other breeds that I had experience with there. It truly is sad how people would overlook these dogs when they're looking for solid, well-adjusted family pets in favor of non-pit bulls because I can say with complete confidence that the majority of these dogs in shelters would truly impress and often outshine other dogs when it comes to the average person. If only they weren't stigmatized... my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals [notify]

Choosing the Right Dog > Our Trash and Our Angels

Jin I'm going with- you, right?     Barked: Mon Oct 11, '10 11:35pm PST  All right, I just wanted to be sure given the purpose of the e-mail -- sometimes I get mildly paranoid an e-mail hasn't gotten through when it's of pressing importance. As for the rest, I can see what you mean. Yes, it is a fine line to walk, and as I said I can certainly see where you're coming from. I do agree in many areas the laws need to be strengthened, but being a very strong believer in slippery slopes my desire is that careful consideration be taken when strengthening these laws. I suppose one could see it as trying to protect my own interests or whathaveyou, but at the same time careful consideration allows for stronger wording and a guarantee of as few loopholes as possible without necessarily dragging responsible owners into the mix. For example, I know some areas ban treadmills and spring poles, breaksticks as well. Plenty of responsible owners also possess these -- it just seems a far more logical and efficient course to include all dog fighting paraphernalia in a law but state that possession of individual items is not enough, that it must be in conjunction with more substantial items (i.e. items or other evidence which point more definitively to the idea that dogs are, in fact, being fought). Laws such as this would also strengthen the prosecution power, not to mention save from having to put too much effort into dealing with owners who have treadmills for rainy days, spring poles because their dog absolutely loves them, or breaksticks because they would rather be safe than sorry in the event a dog fight accidentally occurs. If there are strong suspicions of dog fighting, certainly pursue and get a search warrant of the property (again, strongly, carefully considered legislation would be beneficial even here); but if there is no suspicion of actual dog fighting, or no/feeble basis for suspicion, stronger legal wording would allow officers to speak to the owner, get a feel for the situation, assess the situation, rather than have to pursue because the person owns a spring pole or a treadmill. That saves time, energy, and other resources for where they ought to be applied. I also see what you mean in regard to the more professional dog fighters, the ones truly serious about it and well entrenched in the culture. I hear all the time about major busts, multiple, serious charges, and then...nothing. Acquitted or a slap on the wrist. Never anything about why, however. It baffles me as there is never much to go off of, not much about the case nor the reasons why convictions were not made. Does the discussion you linked to cover that at all? If not, do you know why so often the convictions and sentences are so weak even when the charges are strong? I will read the discussion, but I was dozing off not long ago and wanted to get this typed out and posted first (therefore I make no guarantees that I adequately addressed everything, haha). I'll get started on it tomorrow...er, later today, however. my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals [notify]

Choosing the Right Dog > Our Trash and Our Angels

Jin I'm going with- you, right?     Barked: Mon Oct 11, '10 3:38pm PST  I can see that, Tiller, but I suppose I read the post more as addressing BSL also addresses dog fighting, rather than addressing dog fighting also addresses BSL -- the flow between them isn't exactly equal both ways. Yes, addressing dog fighting does impact BSL, but I think it impacts it far more strongly than perhaps BSL does dog fighting for the same reason that it doesn't really affect the people who get a dog for the status or cool-factor: they'll just move on if it's that much of an issue for them. Dog fighting is already illegal and they still do it, so making the dogs illegal may or may not change whether they have them -- for those who it does change things, they'll just get a "legal" breed. Like you said in your next paragraph, there's an entire other element that BSL contends with that dog fighting does not, and dog fighting has a history separate from breed discrimination and what is often at the root of it in a widespread sense (as in the sort of discrimination Dobermans, Rottweilers, GSDs, Chows have faced before Pitties took their turn). That is why I see them as pieces of the same puzzle, but not necessarily close pieces. They do have very different elements that are not shared between them, but they also have elements that are. I suppose, as regards the conflict of interest in addressing the two problems, I have a couple things going for me that minimize such a conflict. As mentioned already, I prefer to shoot things straight -- I do not deny the fight history of Pits and other breeds, in fact I feel people should know about it and truly understand it if they love the breed and are interested in the dogs, because it is very much a huge reason why they are the dogs they are. Certainly a Pit might lick you to death, I've known several who would gladly lick someone with enthusiasm for hours, but that does not detract from the dogs they are otherwise and in fact their history plays a part in why they are like this: a dog who bit inappropriately usually did not live long after the fact for various reasons. Another reason is because I'm, for all intents and purposes, a libertarian. There's laws already on the books addressing the issues in both of these problems and I prefer to see enforcement of those laws, strengthening of those laws, rather than additional laws unless those new laws are needed. Of course I'm a realist, I understand these issues are not top priority for most law enforcement, but that can be worked on. People can be educated that this will address their concerns, the ones that lead them to back BSL, and that they can work within the system to ensure these laws are taken seriously. Politicians, too, can be forced to face these facts. I can certainly see where the two parties as wholes might have certain conflicts of interest, but I suppose my particular views in general, not just on these, safeguard me against such conflict. Also, as an aside, did you happen to get my e-mail? Should a send a p-mail instead? my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals [notify]

Choosing the Right Dog > Our Trash and Our Angels

Jin I'm going with- you, right?     Barked: Sun Oct 10, '10 3:58pm PST  I haven't read all responses, I'll admit: largely I've skimmed and read a handful. It's been a long day and my concentration just isn't there. Duncan, I can see what you mean about BSL and anti-pit fighting are two pieces of the same puzzle, but I suppose the way I see it is that people prefer to focus more on the BSL piece and largely ignore the pit fighting piece unless it's brought up, often specifically. BSL affects a wide number of breeds, and one of the biggest pushes for getting people interested there has been "what breed is next?" Certainly it is intertwined in the world of pit bull-type dogs, and dog fighting as well, at least here, but personally I'm not entirely comfortable saying that campaigning against BSL necessarily has a large impact on the dogs affected by dog fighting. I'm not sure how well I'm explaining it...I suppose, in a way, it addresses some of the same things but still generally skirts addressing dog fighting head on? Maybe that's how to word it. Also what Tiller said. BSL is typically due to "public safety concerns" due to headlined incidents involving dogs and people. A lot of people do relate it to dog fighting, and they use that as argument as well, but they're not really one and the same. Two pieces of the same puzzle, but they're not exactly close pieces. And Tiller, once again, to sum up my response to much of what you have said: Far more eloquent than I could put it. I am, of course, anti-BSL and luckily my state has few problems with it -- I believe there is actually a state law against BSL. I educate when I can about any dog or dog breed I hear bad-mouthed and have often discussed news about "another pit attack" when my mother mentions them. I am adamant against BSL, and realizing that dogs are dogs and education and responsibility are key: we're supposed to be the species in control so we need to act it and stop blaming the dogs. But my heart lies even more strongly with the Pitties in particular because of all the abuse, the ill-fate, the fighting, and the ignorance and bigotry they face -- not to mention as you said, so often they stand so little chance in shelters. So far I have yet to find conflict in this, but I'm a straight-shooter on both accounts and emphasize that people need to know what they're getting into and with Pits, they are just as much dog as any other dog. As any other dog. I emphasize that. Hopefully I won't come to a day where I feel I need to distance myself from one cause for the sake of the other. Right now I can only do so much...but one of those things...well, Tiller, you have an e-mail coming. my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals [notify]

Jin I'm going with- you, right?     Barked: Sat Oct 9, '10 7:58pm PST  Tiller: Seriously, this has to be brought to attention at the very least from time to time because it seems as though Pits and their plight are often the equivalent of the homeless: people prefer to not think of it unless forced to, unless confronted with it. Fortunately, unlike the homeless, these dogs have a far better chance, individually at least, of garnering compassion when their plight is brought to attention. Beyond BSL it seems people "forget" or ignore what is going on with these dogs. They're stirred to action when a dog such as Gypsy is brought to their attention, those helping her seeking donations for her recovery -- they send money and feel they have done something significant to help the problem. Sadly, while it reminds of the starfish story, they too often go back to "forgetting" that there are so many other dogs suffering the same fate. How many people were outraged by Vick and then satisfied with the end results? A quick search would reveal that far more could have been done, if the prosecution wished, but the outrage was largely because they could not ignore this one: Vick is too widely known, the news was everywhere, he and his accomplices were prosecuted so this was good...right? Not when they received a slap on the wrists for all the outrage and national attention that was put forth. I would love nothing more than to be able to help these dogs. Many of the greatest dogs I have met, three of the handful of dogs I would have took home in a heartbeat, were pitties. Unfortunately, to borrow the words from an actor, I need to keep my own side of the street clean for a while first -- I have too much in my own life that needs to be addressed before I can put any focus on other issues, otherwise I simply won't be of any help. It's unfortunate, but I can only do so much at this time. my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals [notify]

Small Dogs > Please pray for Treader

Jin I'm going with- you, right?     Barked: Thu Sep 23, '10 1:48pm PST  One thing...(watch the first scene; the entire thing is good, but the first is the relevant part) Hope Treader gets better! my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals [notify]

Grooming > Whitening Shampoo

Jin I'm going with- you, right?     Barked: Wed Sep 22, '10 2:20pm PST  From my understanding (and experience) whitening is a general brightening shampoo opposed to a truly "whitening" shampoo. At work it often is recommended for dogs that are buff-colored as well (of specific colors it tends to be white, black, and buff) or for dogs whose coats are generally dull. At the very least it couldn't hurt. my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals [notify]

Dog Laws & Legislation > Need Help/Advice for Unfair Court Case

Jin I'm going with- you, right?     Barked: Thu Sep 16, '10 6:08pm PST  If you would like honest advice, here would be mine: find a better lawyer and file for appeal. Your lawyer should be handling finding the answers to those questions: not you. You're paying him to handle your case and it honestly doesn't sound like he is, which means you're wasting your time and money and possibly gambling with much more. To be truthful, a lot of this doesn't add up for me at all, and I have a fairly decent grasp on law and legal processes. Whether that is just what has gotten "lost in translation", so to speak, who knows. But much of this just doesn't make sense to me on a number of bases. I repeat: your lawyer should be the one finding the answers to these questions. He should be finding the experts, consulting them, bringing them in as witnesses, and demonstrating for the court (judge or jury) that the prosecution hasn't met the burden of proof (which if everything you've said is true and accurate, and nothing was left out, they honestly haven't). From what I've seen there's more than enough grounds for appeal. So do that. Hire a new lawyer and file for appeal. my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals [notify]

Jin I'm going with- you, right?     Barked: Wed Sep 8, '10 9:32pm PST  Thank you, Miss Lola. Those sound like the clippers we have at work, which I was thinking of buying and found at a locally owned pet supply store, but suppose I wanted to see how they ranked against other nail clippers out there. Not sure the brand of the black-handled ones for small dogs, but I know the orange-handled ones for medium and large breeds are Millers Forge, which did seem as though they were of at least good-quality but, like I said, I suppose I wanted to be sure how they stacked up against others out there. A friend also recommended these, and it looks like I'll be picking up a pair tomorrow after work. I was also provided a link, and it seems nail clippers can be sharpened in much the same way a knife can be: with a wet stone. Don't yet have one myself, but good to know all the same. Seems a number of clippers at work are getting dull (and are annoying when those are grabbed and not cutting the nail efficiently), but it seems a shame to me to just toss them if they can be sharpened. my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals [notify]

(Page 1 of 50: Viewing entries 1 to 10)  
Page Links: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  [Last 10 entry]  

PLEASE NOTE: Due to the rapid nature of forum postings, it's quite possible our calculation of the number of ensuing forum posts may be off by one or two or more at any given moment.