There is a senate bill in Arizona proposing that it be lawful for a dog to run loose, off lead, as long as the owner carries $50K in "canine insurance". I see only harm being done to our breed with this ordnance. What do y'all think?
There is a senate bill in Arizona proposing that it be lawful for a dog to run loose, off lead, as long as the owner carries $50K in "canine insurance". I see only harm being done to our breed with this ordnance. What do y'all think?
We lived in an semi-rural area (each house had about 5 acres) where no one kept their dogs on leashes or behind a fence. There were several dogs that even walked right into the house while we were moving.We were the only dog owners in the area that contained our dogs so I was worried about one of the strays walking into a chain spot and being killed. I thought I was going to have to speak with the neighbors but I'm glad I didnt have to draw any unnecessary attention to the yard. Luckily, Once we got our chain spots set up in the woods behind the house our "visitors" stopped showing up...you know, self preservation and such. Even though we didnt see any of the strays around the yard I knew it didnt mean a wiff of one of my bitches in heat wouldnt bring them back. We diligently checked our bitches and made sure if they were in heat that we put them in one of the above ground kennels so we wouldnt end up with any mutts.
Basically there are several main issues with this type of legislation:
1. Potential for dog vs dog confrontations is greatly increased
2. A prized bitch could be impregnated and a heat cycle wasted and/or unnecessary heath risks taken
3. Humans more at risk for attacks (which are widely reported as being a "pitbull" attack even though many times the witness has no clue)
3. Some idiot who owns an APBT could let his dog loose and an incident occur causing even more harm to the image of the breed
I dont understand the logic behind these types of laws whatsoever
I agree with everything you just said, QCK23.
Essentially, this proposed "law" (idiocy) could properly be translated thus:
"We grant you the right to be completely irresponsible with your dogs; we don't care if they get hit by cars/cause accidents; we don't care if your dog hurts someone else's pet, property, or child; all we care about is that you have the right to 'let your doggie go free' ... just so long as you cover your ass with some insurance, in case he f***s $#!^ up."
That is essentially what this proposal says: who cares about the ramifications to other innocent people, so long as an insurance company can cover it with a check.
Jack
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote