RE: Petfinder, etc

that sometimes financial and other constraints lead pet owners to have to find other homes for their pets- BUT what I hate is that they don't SAY this is the case. In other words, the ad COULD and SHOULD say, "We are miserable at being put in this situation by our landlord who is evicting us with only 30 days to find another home". Or anything like that. Cuz I hate those ads too about how much they Love so and so, so please take him/her!
Up here in the Boston area, most ads (cuz I've been looking) say "no pets". It makes me crazy. It's too judgemental. Oh!! I really hate an owner who says, "Well, if I let one tenant have a cat, I'll have to let others have big dogs." NO, that is not true! An owner can specify what animals are ok and how many!! Such jerks!!
And then I explain, my cats don't spray. No, is the answer. So I lie. My cats are declawed. No, is the answer. So what the friggin f** * is the problem? Why "NO"? what are they worried about? Seems like a control issue to me. They aren't even THINKING about the whys of why they have this "no pets" rule!!!!!!!! Ok, I'm done venting!!!!!!!

I look at it like this, there are people who like animals, and people who love animals, like the members on PT, and they are the ones who would never ever shift to somewhere that could not have their pets.

This was posted not too long ago on another forum I visit.

AUBURN, Wash. - Soon, any dog over 30 pounds could be classified as "potentially dangerous" in the city of Auburn under a proposed ordinance.
The ordinance is known as "Fritz's Law." Fritz, a poodle-terrier, was attacked and killed by a pit bull on Jan. 10. The pit bull had previously attacked other dogs, and Auburn residents were not happy with King County Animal Control's lenient treatment the pit bull and its owner.
The city council wants to reclassify bigger dogs as "potentially dangerous," and dogs with a history of biting or killing people or other animals as "dangerous."
"If you're a responsible owner this will not affect you at all," said Auburn Councilman Gene Cerino. "The only people that this will affect are people who are not responsible in their ownership."
Pet owners crammed Auburn's city council meeting Monday night, saying parts of the proposal don't make sense, especially the weight clause.
"To say a dog is dangerous because of its size is completely ridiculous. My dogs lay around the house 85 percent of the time. The only time they get excited is when the food bowl is being brought out or the leases," said dog owner George Gray.
Owners of dogs classified as dangerous would have to follow some pretty strict rules, including a yearly fee
HERE IS A LINK TO THE CITY OF AUBURN WEBSITE (YOU WILL NEED A AC0RBAT READER TO VIEW THIS)

http://weblink.ci.auburn.wa.us/councilpacket/index1.htm

CLICK ON
CURRENT COUNCIL PACKET ON THE LEFT SIDE THEN SCROLL DOWN TO WHERE IT SAYS

VIII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

Ordinance No. 5829* (Cerino/Heid)
O3.4.2.1.2
An Ordinance of the City of Auburn, Washington, creating a new Chapter 6.35 of the Auburn City Code related to dangerous dogs

I was unable to read the link myself because I wasn't at a decent computer, but, I'll probably read it tomorrow from home. Anyway, just kinda goes along with the restrictions placed on people with pets. I'd live in a shack with my dog before I'd live in a mansion without him.

ANy dog over 30 lbs is dangerous??? Wait... let me tell Charlie, cuz I don't think he knows. And I mean, Corgis are pretty violent anyway. I mean, just look at his picture! I see "killer" written all over it. (can you HEAR my sarcasm??? ugh... ) :rolleyes: I dunno, I've seen some Yorkies who are a hell of a lot more dangerous that some rotties I've encountered. WHY are people SO stupid??? Ignorance.... pure ignorance!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by heinz57_79
ANy dog over 30 lbs is dangerous???

---

Well, they're not labelled "dangerous" until they've harmed someone. I think, honestly, that they should nix the "potentially dangerous" part of that, for the simple fact that nothing is restricted on "potentially dangerous" dogs, it doesn't seem like you'll have to do anything differently with your "potentially dangerous" dog until he hurts another animal or another person. So, I don't know why that label is even necessary. But, I'm in complete agreeance with the restrictions on dangerous dogs. But, I think the weight thing is pretty goofy. I'd like to see ANY dog that has proven to be dangerous to people or animals, leashed at all times, and, even muzzled. I mean, if you have a chihuahua that bites every dog it sees or every kid that approaches it, it shouldn't be running around freely or unmuzzled. Same as if your big dog is agressive. Honestly, I think they DO need to crack down everywhere on that kind of thing. But, they also need to crack down on humans abusing animals, maybe they shouldn't be allowed off leash, either. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by guster girl
AUBURN, Wash. - Soon, any dog over 30 pounds could be classified as "potentially dangerous" in the city of Auburn under a proposed ordinance.

---

So all this time I've been living with 'potentially dangerous' dogs?! :eek:

Ay. Think people, think! :rolleyes:

I agree the weight thing is silly, but, I think the whole point is they're just trying to be a little more PC and not making it breed specific. But, I think they're missing the mark, cuz they're just stereotyping a larger group, now. I think their intentions were good, but, like I've said before, they should drop the "potentially dangerous" label altogether, and, just make restrictions on dogs that ARE dangerous. If they have to make a label like that, they should just put it on all dogs. I mean, technically, there aren't many animals (humans, dogs, cats, rodents, reptiles, etc) that don't have the capability of being dangerous. I dunno.... I'm glad I'm not in politics, sheesh. :)

I am also living with a "potentially dangerous" dog :eek: :p