"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter"
I agree. It's the peoples' fault. But, we are a backward society, so
the
people are not taken to the pound, held for a period of time, and
then
killed. Someday, maybe.


Did I get this right?....The damn dog barks but it is the owners fault
and
not the fault of the actual dog doing the barking

Yes. That's right. Dogs that are appropriately cared for don't
constantly
bark. Brining the barking dog inside the house will generally solve the
problem. Dogs are both social and territorial. Dogs that are left
outside
get bored and bark, especially when they feel threatened or they hear
other
dogs barking. People who live in close proximity to others shouldn't
keep
their dogs outside, and when they do and barking becomes a problem, then
it
is the responsibility of the owner to find a solution.



And then there's the flip side - why the owners don't deserve to exist in
polite society:

1) They KNOW full well that the barking is bothering people, but they make
a
clear choice to do nothing about it. That means there's intent, and this
needs to be taken no further. Everyone will draw their own conclusions.

or:

2) They do NOT know it's a problem, which means they're too stupid to own
a
pet. So, it's the responsibility of SOMEONE to help them not own a pet. In
a
dream world, an animal control department takes care of this. In reality,
they do NOT take care of it much of the time, for a host of reasons.

I don't disagree with you on this point. In fact, it was my intention to
place the blame on the owner, not the dog. People who don't want to take
care of their pets shouldn't be pet owners. Owning a companion animal
involves more than supplying food and shelter. Dogs require social
interaction and discipline. They shouldn't be left alone to bark for hours
on end. Killing a barking dog doesn't seem to be a rational alternative.
If your neighbor's car was loud, you wouldn't be permitted to destroy it.

Being a good neighbor is an obligation and involves some effort. I don't
believe that money absolves people of all responsibilities or entitles them
to be obnoxious. If you pay the mortgage and taxes, you have not fulfilled
you obligation to society. That is an elitist attitude that implies that
property owners have more rights than others. I agree that people can be
stupid or aggressive, sometimes both. Killing a dog that barks because it
isn't appropriately cared for ignores the true issue - the owners. A better
solution would be a stiff fine and maybe a few nights in jail for repeat
offenses. The dog should be removed from an abusive/neglectful home and
placed for adoption at the owner's expense.

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter"
I agree. It's the peoples' fault. But, we are a backward society, so
the
people are not taken to the pound, held for a period of time, and
then
killed. Someday, maybe.


Did I get this right?....The damn dog barks but it is the owners fault
and
not the fault of the actual dog doing the barking

Yes. That's right. Dogs that are appropriately cared for don't
constantly
bark. Brining the barking dog inside the house will generally solve
the
problem. Dogs are both social and territorial. Dogs that are left
outside
get bored and bark, especially when they feel threatened or they hear
other
dogs barking. People who live in close proximity to others shouldn't
keep
their dogs outside, and when they do and barking becomes a problem,
then
it
is the responsibility of the owner to find a solution.



And then there's the flip side - why the owners don't deserve to exist in
polite society:

1) They KNOW full well that the barking is bothering people, but they
make
a
clear choice to do nothing about it. That means there's intent, and this
needs to be taken no further. Everyone will draw their own conclusions.

or:

2) They do NOT know it's a problem, which means they're too stupid to own
a
pet. So, it's the responsibility of SOMEONE to help them not own a pet.
In
a
dream world, an animal control department takes care of this. In reality,
they do NOT take care of it much of the time, for a host of reasons.

I don't disagree with you on this point. In fact, it was my intention to
place the blame on the owner, not the dog. People who don't want to take
care of their pets shouldn't be pet owners. Owning a companion animal
involves more than supplying food and shelter. Dogs require social
interaction and discipline. They shouldn't be left alone to bark for
hours
on end. Killing a barking dog doesn't seem to be a rational alternative.
If your neighbor's car was loud, you wouldn't be permitted to destroy it.

Oh DAMN! And I already went out and bought the explosives! :-) Are you sure
I can't do it?


Killing a dog that barks because it
isn't appropriately cared for ignores the true issue - the owners.

Well, it certainly solves the problem for a few nights, and sends a message.
Fortunately for the dogs, most gun owners are careful and responsible, and
know that they can only dream.


A better
solution would be a stiff fine and maybe a few nights in jail for repeat
offenses. The dog should be removed from an abusive/neglectful home and
placed for adoption at the owner's expense.

It's a rare judge that will do all that, although it's appropriate,
especially the jail time.

"Travis" wrote in message
news:yqFte.44$al.22@trnddc07...

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter"
I agree. It's the peoples' fault. But, we are a backward society, so the
people are not taken to the pound, held for a period of time, and then
killed. Someday, maybe.


Did I get this right?....The damn dog barks but it is the owners fault
and not the fault of the actual dog doing the barking?.....and with a
hopeful spirit you someday hope that people with whom you presumably
simply don't approve of will get killed simply on your whim? So may we
presume that you value trees and dogs more than you actually value
humans? I guess people pick their own values, too bad you picked
yours.....Rod

If a dog is a barker it should not be outside unattended.

Gee....ya think? :-)

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter"
I agree. It's the peoples' fault. But, we are a backward society,
so
the
people are not taken to the pound, held for a period of time, and
then
killed. Someday, maybe.


Did I get this right?....The damn dog barks but it is the owners
fault
and
not the fault of the actual dog doing the barking

Yes. That's right. Dogs that are appropriately cared for don't
constantly
bark. Brining the barking dog inside the house will generally solve
the
problem. Dogs are both social and territorial. Dogs that are left
outside
get bored and bark, especially when they feel threatened or they hear
other
dogs barking. People who live in close proximity to others shouldn't
keep
their dogs outside, and when they do and barking becomes a problem,
then
it
is the responsibility of the owner to find a solution.



And then there's the flip side - why the owners don't deserve to exist
in
polite society:

1) They KNOW full well that the barking is bothering people, but they
make
a
clear choice to do nothing about it. That means there's intent, and
this
needs to be taken no further. Everyone will draw their own conclusions.

or:

2) They do NOT know it's a problem, which means they're too stupid to
own
a
pet. So, it's the responsibility of SOMEONE to help them not own a pet.
In
a
dream world, an animal control department takes care of this. In
reality,
they do NOT take care of it much of the time, for a host of reasons.

I don't disagree with you on this point. In fact, it was my intention
to
place the blame on the owner, not the dog. People who don't want to
take
care of their pets shouldn't be pet owners. Owning a companion animal
involves more than supplying food and shelter. Dogs require social
interaction and discipline. They shouldn't be left alone to bark for
hours
on end. Killing a barking dog doesn't seem to be a rational
alternative.
If your neighbor's car was loud, you wouldn't be permitted to destroy
it.

Oh DAMN! And I already went out and bought the explosives! :-) Are you
sure
I can't do it?


Killing a dog that barks because it
isn't appropriately cared for ignores the true issue - the owners.

Well, it certainly solves the problem for a few nights, and sends a
message.
Fortunately for the dogs, most gun owners are careful and responsible, and
know that they can only dream.

The only message that it sends is that owner isn't responsible. All he has
to do is leave the dog unattended and let someone else take action. Dogs
are a dime a dozen to some people. If you kill one, they can get another
one "free to a good home" by tomorrow afternoon.

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
Well done.

Since I was simply addressing a blanket and rather ignorant statement " It
is never the animal's fault. Never. It is always the fault of the
people who leave animals out to bark incessantly" .......The statement had
no qualifier for time, duration or circumstance.....one could surmise a
barking dog for 10 minutes as easily as 10 hours (both can be rather
irritating)....as it is dogs bark...its what they do...and just because a
dog barks the owner does not inherently deserve the subsequently proffered
penalties. Now granted expecting any sort of reasoned discourse here may
have been a bit optimistic.....nonetheless I thought it worthy to at least
call attention to such sloppy thinking or even flawed values...besides I was
bored.

You've been listening very closely to Mr President, I can tell

Politics? I'm sure there is a connection here however obscure....Does the
Presidents dog bark incessantly?

will get killed simply on your whim? So may we presume that you
value trees and dogs more than you actually value humans?

If you presume that, I shall deduce that you are a somewhat naive
person who has probably never heard of Lilliput or Swift and wouldn't
recognise irony if a large chunk of rusty metal crashed onto your nose.

I don't think I'd actually put this newsgroup prose quite in the same
category in either style or content....are you actually familiar with such
writing? Incidentally in follow-up posts such values were again propagated
so I'd seriously question such subtle irony as either intended nor
achieved.....One may hope it was simply hyperbolic exaggeration.....or the
writing tool of choice for the less gifted.

I guess people
pick their own values, too bad you picked yours....

Rod, you aren't equipped to pick anything deeper than your nostrils.
Janet

And your choice of such purposeless insult demonstrates your own
intellectual prowess? Rod

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message
...

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
Well done.

Since I was simply addressing a blanket and rather ignorant statement " It
is never the animal's fault. Never. It is always the fault of the
people who leave animals out to bark incessantly" .......The statement had
no qualifier for time, duration or circumstance.....one could surmise a
barking dog for 10 minutes as easily as 10 hours (both can be rather
irritating)....as it is dogs bark...its what they do...and just because a
dog barks the owner does not inherently deserve the subsequently proffered
penalties.

I think assigning "fault" to a dog for barking is at best pointless. Under
the right circumstances a dog will bark. If your only point is to place
blame and not come to a resolution, then blaming a dog for baking would meet
your goal. On the other hand, if you goal is to resolve the noise problem,
then the only rational conclusion is to find fault with the owner for not
managing the problem. A barking dog will seldom, if ever, take steps to
make the neighborhood quite. The dog has other goals. Gun owner will
quickly point out that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Blaming
a gun for making noise or killing people is exactly the same as blaming a
dog for barking. We could argue into eternity about whether guns kill
people and not change the fact that tens of thousands of people are killed
by guns each year, just as you could blame a dog for barking and not make
things even a tiny bit quieter.

"Bourne Identity" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:02:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

opined:


"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter"
I agree. It's the peoples' fault. But, we are a backward society, so
the
people are not taken to the pound, held for a period of time, and then
killed. Someday, maybe.


Did I get this right?....The damn dog barks but it is the owners fault
and
not the fault of the actual dog doing the barking?.....and with a
hopeful
spirit you someday hope that people with whom you presumably simply
don't
approve of will get killed simply on your whim? So may we presume that
you
value trees and dogs more than you actually value humans? I guess people
pick their own values, too bad you picked yours.....Rod


Actually, I think killing the dog is the way to go, because of the misery
it
may cause the owner and its family. But, try and get people to agree with
THAT idea. Not easy. As far as "people I don't approve of", the word "you"
(meaning me) doesn't fit. ***NOBODY*** approves of humans of allow their
dogs to bark endlessly. Yes, that's an absolute statement, and is
inarguably
true, all the time, everywhere. Period.

Now, if you have some spare time, conduct a survey. I already know the
results, but you'll want to find out for yourself. Ask 100 people "If, for
one day, you could pick one unbelievably obnoxious neighbor, take a rifle
and shoot that person dead, and know that there would be no legal
consequences, would you do it?" I promise you that the results would shock
you. If you asked the question face to face, at least half would respond
"yes". If you conducted it anonymously, on paper, I think more like 80%
would say "yes".


For the record, my answer would be, unquestionably NO. I am gleefully
among the
20%.

How about a potato in the dog owner's exhaust pipe?

"Bourne Identity" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:55:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

opined:


And then there's the flip side - why the owners don't deserve to exist in
polite society:

1) They KNOW full well that the barking is bothering people, but they make
a
clear choice to do nothing about it. That means there's intent, and this
needs to be taken no further. Everyone will draw their own conclusions.


Most likely not. These "types" have this grand ability to ignore
everything
which is no consequence to them. Seeing dogs tied out to trees and
whatever else
literally breaks my heart.


or:

2) They do NOT know it's a problem, which means they're too stupid to own
a
pet. So, it's the responsibility of SOMEONE to help them not own a pet. In
a
dream world, an animal control department takes care of this. In reality,
they do NOT take care of it much of the time, for a host of reasons.


This is more close to truth than not. For this reason, I sometimes wonder
if
animals aren't the ones who are more evolved.

There's a school of thought which says that while we think we're selectively
hybridizing other species, it's actually we who are being "trained".
Fascinating idea. Book: "The Botany of Desire"

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message
...

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
Well done.

Since I was simply addressing a blanket and rather ignorant statement "
It
is never the animal's fault. Never. It is always the fault of the
people who leave animals out to bark incessantly" .......The statement
had
no qualifier for time, duration or circumstance.....one could surmise a
barking dog for 10 minutes as easily as 10 hours (both can be rather
irritating)....as it is dogs bark...its what they do...and just because a
dog barks the owner does not inherently deserve the subsequently
proffered
penalties.

I think assigning "fault" to a dog for barking is at best pointless.
Under
the right circumstances a dog will bark. If your only point is to place
blame and not come to a resolution, then blaming a dog for baking would
meet
your goal. On the other hand, if you goal is to resolve the noise
problem,
then the only rational conclusion is to find fault with the owner for not
managing the problem. A barking dog will seldom, if ever, take steps to
make the neighborhood quite. The dog has other goals. Gun owner will
quickly point out that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Blaming
a gun for making noise or killing people is exactly the same as blaming a
dog for barking. We could argue into eternity about whether guns kill
people and not change the fact that tens of thousands of people are killed
by guns each year, just as you could blame a dog for barking and not make
things even a tiny bit quieter.



Please post the number for the telephone that rings closest to your bed.
We'll wake YOU up at odd hours for a week or two and see if it changes your
tune. :-)

"Bourne Identity" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 03:36:04 -0700, "Rod & Betty Jo"
opined:



Since I was simply addressing a blanket and rather ignorant statement

" It is never the animal's fault. Never. It is always the fault of the
people who leave animals out to bark incessantly" .

......The statement had
no qualifier for time, duration or circumstance.....one could surmise a
barking dog for 10 minutes as easily as 10 hours (both can be rather
irritating)....as it is dogs bark...its what they do...and just because a
dog barks the owner does not inherently deserve the subsequently proffered
penalties. Now granted expecting any sort of reasoned discourse here may
have been a bit optimistic.....nonetheless I thought it worthy to at least
call attention to such sloppy thinking or even flawed values...besides I
was
bored.

Maybe you aren't that well read, or don't have comprehension of four
syllable
words, but what does the term "incessantly" mean? Is that a word you'd
use to
describe a ten minute barking session? OR, would the word "incessantly"
imply
constantly, continual, ongoing, perpetually, never ending, non-stop? One
word,
thesaurus.

In this case, you know exactly what it means and what it does not. It does
NOT mean that the dog is out there 24/7. It does mean that it's out there
barking long enough to **** you off, often in the middle of the night, and
that it happens pretty much every day. If new dog owner puts the dog out
once and it barks, and the owner realizes "Hmmm....can't have that happening
any more", that's a different story.

The message
from Bourne Identity contains these words:

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:02:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
opined:

Now, if you have some spare time, conduct a survey. I already know the
results, but you'll want to find out for yourself. Ask 100 people "If, for
one day, you could pick one unbelievably obnoxious neighbor, take a rifle
and shoot that person dead, and know that there would be no legal
consequences, would you do it?" I promise you that the results would shock
you. If you asked the question face to face, at least half would respond
"yes". If you conducted it anonymously, on paper, I think more like 80%
would say "yes".


For the record, my answer would be, unquestionably NO. I am gleefully
among the
20%.

But your karma would be better without the gleefulness, which suggests
attachment and comparison.

:-)

Janet.

The message
from Bourne Identity contains these words:

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:55:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
opined:

These "types" have this grand ability to ignore everything
which is no consequence to them.

Well on the Buddhist path to Enlightenment, then.

Seeing dogs tied out to trees and whatever else
literally breaks my heart.

So where exactly are you atm? On a bypass machine, waiting for a
transplant? Or communing from the Other Side?

Janet.

The message
from Bourne Identity contains these words:

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 03:36:04 -0700, "Rod & Betty Jo"
opined:



Since I was simply addressing a blanket and rather ignorant statement

" It is never the animal's fault. Never. It is always the fault of the
people who leave animals out to bark incessantly" .

......The statement had
no qualifier for time, duration or circumstance.....one could surmise a
barking dog for 10 minutes as easily as 10 hours (both can be rather
irritating)....as it is dogs bark...its what they do...and just because a
dog barks the owner does not inherently deserve the subsequently proffered
penalties. Now granted expecting any sort of reasoned discourse here may
have been a bit optimistic.....nonetheless I thought it worthy to at least
call attention to such sloppy thinking or even flawed
values...besides I was
bored.

Maybe you aren't that well read, or don't have comprehension of four
syllable
words, but what does the term "incessantly" mean? Is that a word
you'd use to
describe a ten minute barking session? OR, would the word
"incessantly" imply
constantly, continual, ongoing, perpetually, never ending, non-stop?
One word,
thesaurus.

LOL. Oh, and Ray, while you're there...look up the meaning of
"presume", before you misuse it again.

Janet.

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from Bourne Identity contains these
words:

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:02:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

opined:

Now, if you have some spare time, conduct a survey. I already know the
results, but you'll want to find out for yourself. Ask 100 people "If,
for
one day, you could pick one unbelievably obnoxious neighbor, take a
rifle
and shoot that person dead, and know that there would be no legal
consequences, would you do it?" I promise you that the results would
shock
you. If you asked the question face to face, at least half would respond
"yes". If you conducted it anonymously, on paper, I think more like 80%
would say "yes".


For the record, my answer would be, unquestionably NO. I am gleefully
among the
20%.

But your karma would be better without the gleefulness, which suggests
attachment and comparison.

:-)

Janet.

Scottish Zen? :-)

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
...

"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message
...

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
Well done.

Since I was simply addressing a blanket and rather ignorant statement "
It
is never the animal's fault. Never. It is always the fault of the
people who leave animals out to bark incessantly" .......The statement
had
no qualifier for time, duration or circumstance.....one could surmise a
barking dog for 10 minutes as easily as 10 hours (both can be rather
irritating)....as it is dogs bark...its what they do...and just because
a
dog barks the owner does not inherently deserve the subsequently
proffered
penalties.

I think assigning "fault" to a dog for barking is at best pointless.
Under
the right circumstances a dog will bark. If your only point is to place
blame and not come to a resolution, then blaming a dog for baking would
meet
your goal. On the other hand, if you goal is to resolve the noise
problem,
then the only rational conclusion is to find fault with the owner for
not
managing the problem. A barking dog will seldom, if ever, take steps to
make the neighborhood quite. The dog has other goals. Gun owner will
quickly point out that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Blaming
a gun for making noise or killing people is exactly the same as blaming
a
dog for barking. We could argue into eternity about whether guns kill
people and not change the fact that tens of thousands of people are
killed
by guns each year, just as you could blame a dog for barking and not
make
things even a tiny bit quieter.



Please post the number for the telephone that rings closest to your bed.
We'll wake YOU up at odd hours for a week or two and see if it changes
your
tune. :-)

Why? You would be better off calling the police or your attorney to deal
with noise problems rather than throw fule on the fire by duplicating the
irresponsible behavior of the pet owner.