TexasCHLforum.com

barstoolguru wrote:

Should something be done about unrestrained animals? ABSOLUTELY! Let's see a campaign targeting every pet store that talks about the potential harm and helps to educate owners. Let's see public service announcements that encourage owners to be responsible with their pets. Lets NOT put another law on the books that does little or nothing the address on the problem.

So let’s say we implement this great plan to educate the public (or should we say over educate them). Who is going to pay for all this education… the tax payer…again...no because these programs are generally paid for through fines levied from people that choose to ignore the law.
As far as putting another law on the book that does no good is a bunch of bull. Laws to control bad driving and leaving fines have been going on for nearly a 100 years. What you and other anti-government people see as a bad law I see as a law that just might save a life and who knows it might be yours!


"A sampling of New Jersey pet owners showed support for the initiative, even as some motorists cruised local highways with dogs serving as co-pilots."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/sto ... 55305178/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


"If I took my three-year-old son, and placed him unrestrained in the backseat of my car, this is what would happen: He’d be jumping all over the place. He’d definitely try and climb into the front seat. He’d probably attempt to take the wheel. He’d end up on my lap. He’d punch me in my nose. We’d probably crash and die and maybe take a few people with us."
http://www.trentonian.com/article/20120 ... -state-law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

N.J, is not the only state ...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2 ... d-driving/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the link you provided (NJ is not the only State) this quote makes the opposite point.

He said that even though his company did not advocate laws such as New Jersey’s, it had partnered with AAA and Toyota to get the message out.

“Our biggest thing is to get the word out that [restraints] are available,” he said. “Things are available [and] the cost is low. You should be doing this.”

So the advocates and I agree that getting the word out is more important than the law.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of no laws. What I want to see is the number of ridiculous laws reduced so that we can allow LE to focus on those most important ones.

As a reminder, NJ bans individuals from pumping their own gas. It is a ridiculous law. It is ridiculous because 48 other States don't have it with no ill affects. NJ has a ban on hollow point ammo for anyone who isn't in LE. It is a ridiculous law because 49 other States don't have it and there are no documented ill effects in those States. NJ bans concealed handgun carry (through "May issue" policy) yet Newark and Camden are heavily armed as BGs walk the the streets. It is a ridiculous policy because it prevents people like me from defending themselves. Coupled with the "must retreat" rules on self defense, NJ residents are very much defenseless against the rampant lawlessness that exists in pockets. Go to Atlantic City and ask the police department how may illegal guns are on the streets in the hands of convicted felons. The areas are around the casinos were well controlled, similar to the tourist areas in Mexico but when the casinos cut back on their security, the overall rates went up. LE seems powerless to change it.
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/comm ... 03286.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NJ has a patchwork of ridiculous laws. I lived there and have first hand experience. It, along with NY, is a typical Nanny State that tries to control everything and everybody. I moved there for business advancement but got us out of there as quickly as I could - 3 years to the day. I can promise you that with all of the other ridiculous laws that LE there has to enforce, any good effects of the pet restraint law has will be very, very limited.

Regarding funding for public education, some of the most successful programs have not been government sponsored. There are a lot of us who would financially support a campaigns to help other animal owners better protect their pets. Like not depending on laws to solve the ills of society, I refrain from putting the money for campaigns in the hands of politicians. Mysteriously, those funds seem to end up serving different purposes.

barstoolguru wrote:

puma guy wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:

puma guy wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:
thats a lot of road pizzathats 99,999 more then the 1 thats someone claimsl

Before you start quoting me please get the facts correct. I never said anything about dogs falling out of trucks in my anecdote. The dog I referenced was injured in a car wreck as stated in the story. I still don't see the data you are quoting for 100,000 dogs dying as a result of falling out of a vehicle, truck or otherwise. I did read the blog on the Parade story which quoted Humane Society information about 100,000. I don't know if those are the same "facts" you refer to from Edmunds.

While they don't let them fall out of trucks ask the Humane Society how many animals they euthanize a year nationally. Years and years ago there was a real Humane Society in Houston. I know because I spent many hours helping my dad perform pro bono services for them. The gentleman that ran it (a retired attorney) would never have an animal put down unless it couldn't be saved and that was precious few. As Forrest Gump says. That's all I have to say 'bout that!

So your saying it’s OK for dogs to get killed because the will be put down? The fact is god never intended for every animal to live. Out of a litter of 8; 6 of them would be part of the food chain in the wild. Sorry but a dog falling out of a truck is an accident. All I am saying is it’s a good thing to strap a dog in wither it be in the vehicle or out. People don't like to be regulated but when that animal is subjected to someone’s poor judgment maybe someone needs to step in

I think that this subject is typical in the on-going war on big government.

I don't think that one of us who opposes the NJ law wants to see dogs harmed, especially at the hands of an irresponsible owner. For me, the answer comes down to "can the government prevent it?" Sadly, the answer is no. The fine could be $10,000 and it will have little effect on the outcome. The big brother of the pet seat belt law, enacted in every State, still finds many people, including those who are killed in traffic accidents, not wearing their own seat belts. The simple fact is that the law is not going to fix the problem..... period.

"But it will have a deterrent effect" is the counter-argument. "If you just save one dog's life, having the law is worth it." But let's look at the facts. In nearly every case of government enforcement, the wrong "perps" are targeted. Let's take my favorite subject "weapons in schools" as example. We all here know that schools are gun free zones. Except in the very places where the law was written to address in the first place. In the mean time, a cub scout has been thrown out of school for bringing his camping set to eat with, an honors student was suspended because his father forgot and left a hunting. We won't even look at the deterrent effects on banning alcohol for minors or drugs in general.

With the fine in place, we can all feel good about protecting the animals. The LEOs will write a few hundred or maybe even a few thousand citations and 6 months from now, after all the furor dies down, things will be pretty much as they are today. LE does not have enough manpower to enforce the laws on the books today and this one will slip, along with the 9,999 others into obscurity in the daily actions.

I ride my bike 3 times a week for cardio exercise on designated bike paths in our Town. There is a strict 6' leash law with the provision that the animal "must be under control at all times" yet I've been attacked by dogs at least twice each day for the past several weeks. I've learned that even gently reminding their owners about the leash law is most likely to spur a confrontation. Going to animal control to complain goes no where because they have to personally witness the attack in order to pursue it. So as long as I manage to keep from actually getting bitten, no one is going to do anything. My personal opinion is that the small percent of dog owners that are scoff laws are rabidly so and that they feel deeply that they are above whatever laws are written for them.

Should something be done about unrestrained animals? ABSOLUTELY! Let's see a campaign targeting every pet store that talks about the potential harm and helps to educate owners. Let's see public service announcements that encourage owners to be responsible with their pets. Lets NOT put another law on the books that does little or nothing to address the problem.

When will we as a society get past the folly that the existing 10,000 laws that we have are doing anything good? Wasn't it Einstein that said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

WildBill wrote:

i8godzilla wrote:It is about power and control and then a revenue source. Can you imagine campaigning on a platform of refusing to pass any more laws? When people and the press stopped laughing, you would be questioned about your mental capacity.

I always thought it would be good if a candidate ran on a platform where he promised to repeal two laws for every new one that was passed.

How about another suggestion? Congress could pass laws that were effective for only 5 years with a simple majority. To make a law effective for 10 years, 2/3s of both the House and the Senate would be required.

This process would require the everything be renewed and we could force the current members of Congress to stand up and be counted on votes to continue programs rather than simply ignoring them and allowing them to perpetuate. My guess is that the tax code would be down to 5 pages in less than 10 years.

george wrote:This is how we get all of those stupid "no tolerance" laws.

...because were are trying to pass laws to fix "stupid". That is not possible.

barstoolguru wrote:N.J is so money hungry they look to any way to bleed the public for something

We lived in the State for three years and couldn't wait to get out. Actually, the news is saying that the fine could be up to $1,000 for an unrestrained dog. And that it was done "in conjunction with animal cruelty groups." Poppycock. It is another revenue enhancement opportunity. Don't get me wrong. I"m not a fan of dogs riding around in the back of pickups or of people holding their dogs in their laps while driving. But why not single those situations out? Nope. Have to have a blanket law that covers everything and with a fine that is many times the similar fine for people not using seat belts. That makes no sense to me but neither do half of the other laws that NJ has. Don't get me started about their gun laws.