Dogs are not cargo.

[Guest grscott]

Here's what it boils down to:

 

Ben Franklin said, ?"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither.?

 

Back to dogs in pickups: 70 mph with a dog loose in a pickup? Stupid. But I reiterate, that doesn't justify a law that infringes on the 99% of the people who don't do that in order to TRY to stop the 1% who do.

 

Regards

[Lunar]

I'm just curious - how does a law punishing you from keeping your dog in the back of your truck infringe on the 99% of people who don't do it anyways??

[Dixie_Girl]

I believe he meant the 99% that don't put their dogs in the back of trucks and go 90 down the freeway.

 

But it infringes on the rural people who take their dogs where ever they go. And mostly at slow speeds.

[Dixie_Girl]

Sorry GR, shouldv'e let you answer for yourself!

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by Lunar:

My dad always said that he'd be more afraid of one of his kids sneaking in in the middle of the night and getting accidentally shot, than a burglar in the house. I personally won't allow guns in my house, or any house my future kids go to. Too many accidents. But that's a different issue. (I'm also canadian, where the gun laws are much different.)

Decisions. If one doesn't know what his target is, he shouldn't be shooting. I will always have firearms in my house, and my children who were interested were taught to handle them responsibly, as will my grandchildren who are interested. Once again, the "accidents" that occur to a miniscule percentage of the population must not infringe on the rights of the vast majority. There is no such thing as ultimate safety. As you can surmise, I am not one of the "if only one life is saved, it is worth it" crowd.

 

Regards

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by Dixie_Girl:

I believe he meant the 99% that don't put their dogs in the back of trucks and go 90 down the freeway.

 

But it infringes on the rural people who take their dogs where ever they go. And mostly at slow speeds.

Precisely.

 

Regards

[Joe Anne]

I knew it, I knew it! someone would argue the absolute logic of reckless irresponsibility costing big bucks. I do believe the stats provided by Mark, were on a lot larger scale than helmet laws in Ca. and your personal insurance costs. Let us not forget age, gender, driving records, where you live etc. (not just in a particular state), but where in that state, ie: city, country etc, does influence your insurance.

Sounds to me like you had some lying politicians (hmmmm, now that's a novelty!)

And the logic of waiting until a defenseless animal or child or some other innocent individual, is maimed, mutilated or killed, to do "something", about it, totally bypasses my common sense. What happened to prevention, whether it is animal abuse, spousal abuse, child abuse, drunk driving etc, the list goes on and on.

Oh by the way Dixie Girl, you should be more careful about telling the whole world about your unlocked doors , I am sure your homeowners insurance wouldn't like that either. I don't care if you live on the top of Mt. Olympus, for heavens sake (or the sake of your family) lock your doors! What do you think?? crime dosen't happen in the country???? Makes no sense to me that you are ready with your guns to blow an intruder away, but you don't take the most basic of precautions, I really don't understand that, especially after all your posts of sounding a tad bit on the paranoid side?

I'm not trying to be mean spirited, but whether we like the world as it is today or not, scum bags are everywhere, EVEN, where you live!

Oh and just because one is paranoid, dosen't mean it ain't happening!! haha! (excuse the bad English !)

[Guest grscott]

Originally posted by Joe Anne:

... I'm not trying to be mean spirited, but whether we like the world as it is today or not, scum bags are everywhere, EVEN, where you live!...

Do I detect a modicum of (shudder) paranoia here? If I lived in Maryland I would probably handle my security issues differently than how I do where I live. I think Dixie_Girl is the best judge of what she needs to do regarding the locks on her doors, and what intruders she blows away.

 

Regards

[Atlanta Smitty]

Originally posted by nancy:

Here in North Carolina, kids can ride loose in the back of pick=ups (and of course, all the Hispanic workers) because - get this - they are farm vehicles and not out on the open road. Honest! I guess I-40 is part of the farm?

It's the same in Georgia too. If your in a truck you don't have to wear seatbelts either. Which is fine by me. Evolution theory and all. Let the stupid die. I will admit I have riddin and still do ride in the back of pick ups. But I was stupid too. Ever tried car surfing???

 

Right now the debate wether to require seatbelts in pick up trucks has kind of caught fire recently. Trucks have become as much of the city as the country anymore. The non-metropolitan areas are fighting this one tooth and nail in support of not requiring seat belts to be worn in trucks. For farm purposes. Which is fine because I feel the government should have no say in how a person decides to secure themselves. I always wear seatbelts.

 

What really kills me in South Carolina is when I watch people on motorcycles with no helmets. It still trips me out seeing people cruising down the road without brain buckets.

 

I can't stand dogs in the back of trucks either. Cats on the other hand. (Just Kidding)

[IronHorse]

Originally posted by BigD:

Two wrongs don't make a right. Wanting to keep your guns because the bad guys out there have theirs isn't right.

Oh really?

Personally I believe it to be fundementally one of the primary reasons to keep my guns.

 

 

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."--Thomas Jefferson

 

 

"Arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."Thomas Paine

 

I would be one of the first to defend your right NOT to possess firearms because I believe you have that right.

Just don't lose sight of what gives you that right.

[Joe Anne]

Guess I missed something here. What does living in Maryland have to do with the discussion of security any more than ANY, other state? Certainly we are not gearing up for another civil war between the North and South, hasn't that already been done? And remember usins here in Maryland could go either way, we are real close to that ol Mason Dixon line, ya'll !

Are you seriously saying that scum bags don't exist any or everywhere human beings exist? That has nothing to do with paranoia, that is plain everyday fact.

Oh and by the way, we have been locking our doors since my hubby and I set up household 39 yrs. ago, to me it's always been just plain "common sense"! of which I realize is sorely lacking in todays society no matter what we are talking about.

[IronHorse]

Joe Anne

This might be of interest to those who choose to live in the state of Maryland,

Gun laws cause Maryland's sky-high crime

Not exactly an encouraging endorsment to live there.

 

[edited to include]

2000 are the most up to date FBI stats available

[Jodi]

Ok ... hang on ... I didn't mean for this to go so far. My point is this. Someone is driving down the road. The dog is in the back of the pickup unrestrained. The dog jumps out (for whatever reason) and I run over it. This is not all that unreasonable. By law, I need to stop, give the person my information, and they have the right to sue me for killing their dog, yes? Where is the law saying that they need to keep their dog properly confined in the back of that pickup? Where is THEIR responsiblity in all of this? Isn't it their responsiblity as a dog owner to keep their dogs safe? I am not concerned with rural areas. Since moving to Idaho, I understand the rural area thing. I also understand how people don't want the "guvmint" coming down on them. I get it. I admire it. However, here in Boise, this is a growing city. And I see dogs loose in the back of pickups all the time. In fact, just the other day, my husband and I watched a dog, who was on the top of a toolbox, slide from one end to the other when the owner made a right turn. Had the turn been any "deeper," the dog would have slidden right off the side into traffic.

 

Comparing this to children/humans is just not the same thing. I'm not even going there.

 

As far as comparing this to a DUI and pulling over the ones who only do bad ... I don't think that would work. We have a BAC (blood alcohol level) where under .08 is legal ... and anything above that is not ... because it impairs your judgment. I would like to hear ideas on how to fit that very idea into the dogs-in-pickups legislation and I would be happy to propose it. For instance, if you have a dog in the back of your truck, are you only allowed to drive 25 mph? What's the cutoff? Is it only in the "cities"? Here ... the only counties that are really heavily populated is Ada County and parts of Canyon County. Believe me, I understand what you're staying about not infringing on your rights because of a few idiots. But I don't see where the cutoff point is.

 

Fact of the matter ... you have the right to have your dog in the back of the truck, but I do NOT have the right to hit your dog and drive off without being in violation of the law. How fair is this?

 

Jodi

[DeltaBluez Tess]

Once, as in a long time agao...I was walking on the side of the road when I heard a HUGE SWISH next to my ear and I jerked back. A huge rottie mix had leaped out of a truck that had stopped at the red light. That dog that was in the back of the bed went after me and meant to hurt me. Lucky for me, the mean dog was chained to the bed of the pickup otherwise my face would have been ripped.

 

I screamed and believe me, it was a loud scream. The dog was hanging off the truck trying to get at me or anyone else in reach.....there were other folks....i think we all screamed.

 

The dog owner looked out of his truck and I yelled at him that your dog attacked me and he then gunned his truck and drove off fast.....with the dog still hanging off the side. He did pull over and tossed the dog back in and drove off and never stopped to see if anyone of us were hurt.

 

Wonder if that dog ever bit anyone and also if we didn't yell at the guy, how far would have he drove with the dog hanging off the side of the pickup

 

Diane

[Dixie_Girl]

Jodi, I said it before, IF a person has a dog in the back of the pickup and the dog some how ends up out of the pickup, they should get punished for animal cruelty. If it were a refridgerator and you hit it, you can sue them. Same thing here. If your dog comes out of the truck, and causes an accident, they are responsible and should be punished accordingly. That doesn't punish anyone but the one doing the wrong. What is so wrong in that? Must we always make laws for assumption of wrong doing?

[IronHorse]

Jodi,

 

Ok ... hang on ... I didn't mean for this to go so far. My point is this. Someone is driving down the road. The dog is in the back of the pickup unrestrained. The dog jumps out (for whatever reason) and I run over it. This is not all that unreasonable. By law, I need to stop, give the person my information, and they have the right to sue me for killing their dog, yes?

Have you looked into the Idaho Laws regarding such an incident?

Seems to me that the opposite might be the case and you would have the right to sue the person whos dog, due to their neglect caused you injury or damage be it material or emotional or both.

But then I don't know about the laws in Idaho.

[Dixie_Girl]

Melanie, I call it the war of the Northern Aggresion because that is what it was. To call it a Civil War does a disservice to the whole point of it. You say you grew up in VA, what does that mean? Then you should know the history behind the war. It was not a Civil war. That would indicate one group trying to take the country away from another group. It was fought because the south was tired of being bullied by the north and the federal govment. And they wanted to cede from the nation.

[Dixie_Girl]

JoeAnne, do you know how many hunters there are around here? Do you know what the chances are that any given home is armed? About 97%. What is locking my doors going to do? Who is going to break in here? Whoever it is would have to live around here, and they ain't gonna do it. You would have to be lost to get to my place. And if you were lost, you ain't gonna drive by and say, what the heck, let's break into that place while we're here. There is a certain amount of logic you gotta use. Like I said, if I lived in town, it would be different. Hey, you know what else? Sometimes when I come home, if I think I am going out again, I leave my keys in my truck. Sometimes over night. The only danger is me forgetting where I left them. Look, I don't take un-neccesary chances. You have no idea the places I have had to spend the night at in my big truck. Alone. But I took the right precautions and I am still here. There just isn't a reason to lock my doors. Someone wants in here bad enough it won't take much. I guess locking the doors would give me a little extra time to load up another gun.

[Black Watch Debatable]

Civil War.

 

The War of Northern Aggression.

 

The Great War of the Californias. :cool:

 

Major General Juan Gomez de los Angeles:

 

 

Northern Brigadier General Susan Hwang:

 

[Pipedream Farm]

Ben also said:

 

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

"When there's no Law, there's no Bread"

 

Mark

[Pipedream Farm]

Originally posted by Dixie_Girl:

Melanie, I call it the war of the Northern Aggresion because that is what it was. To call it a Civil War does a disservice to the whole point of it. You say you grew up in VA, what does that mean? Then you should know the history behind the war. It was not a Civil war. That would indicate one group trying to take the country away from another group. It was fought because the south was tired of being bullied by the north and the federal govment. And they wanted to cede from the nation.

"History" is always biased by the person re-telling the history. History has two sides to the story.

 

For example are the US troupes in Iraqi a liberating force or a conquering force? The answer will depend upon which side of the war the re-teller was/is on. Were the Apache insurgents or defenders of their freedom and property rights? Were the British in 1812 invaders or property owners trying to reclaim what was taken from them? Was Santa Anna an invader or a representative for the property owner attempting to reclaim his stolen property (which he stole from the previous "owner")?

 

Mark

 

Added later: FYI on the causes of the US Civil War/War of Northern Agression

 

Although the majority of the American people-- including many moderate politicians like Abraham Lincoln--wanted to avoid Civil War and were content to allow slavery to die a slow, inevitable death, the most influential political leaders of the day were not. On the southern side, "fire-eaters" like Rhett and Yancey were willing to make war to guarantee the propagation of their "right" to own slaves. On the northern side, abolitionists like John Brown and Henry Ward Beecher of Connecticut were willing to make war in order to put an immediate end to the degrading institution of slavery.

 

These leaders, through either words or action, were able to convince the majority that it was necessary to go to war, and in order to convince them they justified the war with arguments that only indirectly referred to the subject of slavery (i.e., state rights et. al.).

 

Southern politicians convinced their majority that the North was threatening their way of life and their culture. Northern politicians convinced their majority that the South, if allowed to secede, was really striking a serious blow at democratic government. In these arguments, both southern and northern politicians were speaking the truth--but not "the whole truth." They knew that to declare the war to be a fight over slavery would cause a lot of the potential soldiers of both sides to refuse to fight.

 

So-was the war about slavery? Absolutely. If there had been no disagreement over the issue of slavery, the South would probably not have discerned a threat to its culture and the southern politicians would have been much less likely to seek "their right to secede." But was it only about slavery? No. It was also about the constitutional argument over whether or not a state had a right to leave the Union, and--of primary concern to most southern soldiers--the continuation of antebellum southern culture. Although the majority of Southerners had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians--and consequently the underlying cause of the South's desire to seek independence and state rights.

 

Source: Causes of the Civil War: A Balanced Answer

 

But even as the need to protect it [slavery]grew, the ability, or at least the perceived ability of the South to do so was waning. Southern leaders grew progressively more sensitive to this condition. In 1800 half of the population of the United States had lived in the South. But by 1850 only a third lived there and the disparity continued to widen. While northern industrial opportunity attracted scores of immigrants from Europe in search of freedom the South's population stagnated. Even as slave states were added to the Union to balance the number of free ones, the South found that its representatives in the House had been overwhelmed by the North?s explosive growth. More and more emphasis was now placed on maintaining parity in the Senate. Failing this, the paranoid theory went, the South would find itself at the mercy of a government in which it no longer had an effective voice. Never mind that slavery was protected under the constitution, and that it would have been impossible to make amendments to abolish it. Jefferson Davis, at the time a Senator from Mississippi, summed up the sectionalist argument himself. Speaking, in effect, to the people of the North concerning slavery, ?It is not humanity that influences you? it is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the Government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement? you want by an unjust system of legislation to promote the industry of the United States at the expense of the people of the South.? There, in plain English, is the shrill, accusatory language of sectionalism.

 

Nothing but bitterness and bad feeling could come of it. From such a position it was a short step to the proposition that if a state or section of the country no longer felt itself represented in, or fairly treated by, the Federal Government, then it had the right to dissolve its association with that government. It could secede from the Union. The use of force to stop a state from seceding was, the argument went, unconstitutional, since the Union itself was a creature of the states. It had been wholly created by them. Moreover no provision had been made for such an eventuality in the Constitution.

 

The Unionist response was that the Preamble of the Constitution stated that the Union derived its power from the people as a whole, and that they alone could dissolve it. President Andrew Jackson, himself a Southerner, had threatened in 1832 to send troops to force South Carolina to allow the collection of the Federal tariff if that state persisted in its assertion that it could ?nullify? any Federal law it did not agree with. Jackson?s message to the people of the offending state read, ?Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent the execution of the laws deceived you. The object is disunion. Disunion by armed force is treason.? On that occasion South Carolina had backed down.

 

We see this same State?s Rights argument brought forward again in the 1860?s to justify secession as a solution to what amounts to a sectional inferiority complex. The section I refer to, of course, the deep South as whole. Please note that it feels itself to be a ?section?, not because of simple geography, but because its society is based upon slavery. So the problem, once again, came down to that ?peculiar institution.?

 

Of course there was agitation in the North for the abolition of the slavery on purely moral grounds. Abolitionist leader William Lloyd Garrison, holding aloft a copy of the Federal Constitution before a crowd in Massachusetts called it ?a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell.? The abolitionists believed not only that slavery was wrong, but that the Federal government should move to abolish it. Although they were always a small minority they were very vocal about their beliefs, and projected themselves into the minds of southerners as a threat out of all proportion to their actual power and infuence. This threat was greatly magnified in 1859 by John Brown's seizure of the Harper's Ferry arsenal and his call for a general insurrection of the slaves. This caused many of the Southern states to implement plans for more effective militias for internal defense.

 

While some in the North hated slavery because they felt that it was wrong, most people held no opinion of it at all, and some even condoned it because abolishing it would be bad for business. Without slaves there would be no cotton. Without cotton the textile industry would suffer. To many it was just that simple.

 

Source: The American Civil War: The Causes

[Jodi]

Dixie girl - I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this one. I don't understand putting the cart after the horse, which is what you're essentially proposing by having the dog already jump out of the car, and letting me hit it. The problem is, I don't want to hit it. I don't think it's fair that I get to go to sleep that night knowing I hit that guy's dog -- whether or not he's sitting in jail or what kind of penalty he gets tagged with. I still hit (and probably killed) his dog.

 

Hey Vicki - your story is awful. It's the very thing I am afraid of every time I see a dog pacing in the back of a truck. In all of that, did you happen to catch the guy's license plate so he could be reported and people can sue him for damages, or he could be reported to the police to face criminal charges? Did the guy even know he lost his dog, no less damaged at least two cars and traumatized a bunch of people and killed his dog by not properly securing it?

 

Jodi

[Dixie_Girl]

Jodi, I really do understand how you feel. I, too, would feel awful if I hit an animal. You are not the only one who feels bad about this. I guess it comes down to the fact that I have personaly watched in the last 32yrs. so many of my rights taken, make that given, away. There has to be an end somewhere. I am tired, very tired, of rights being handed over because of how someone else feels. Statistics get skewed depending on who is wanting what. I don't let my dogs ride in the back of my truck without my shell on because it scares me to death to think something could happen to them. That is how I feel. But I can not say that's how everyone should feel. I understand you don't want to hit a dog in the first place. But, if you really feel that strongly you won't ever drive. There are loose animals everywhere. You never know what's around the corner. It would be ironic if a law is passed you can not have dogs loose in back of truck, then hit a dog wandering the streets, also against the law. But, you are right, we probly won't see eye to eye on this, other than perhaps we neither one want to see an animal hurt.

 

I hope the people in on this debate can all take a deep breath and remember that disagreement should not be a reason to attack personaly. We are suppose to be a "family" of Border Collie lovers.

 

Mark, thanks for the history lesson, even if I, and others disagree with some of the stuff stated there. I will not get into a debate over it as this is not the place to do it.

 

The thread was started because Kit felt it awful for dogs to be allowed to be loose in the back of pickups. I got in on it only when it was mentioned to make a law against it, which, by the way IS already the case in some states. CA for one. You not only have to have them restrained but they have to be restrained in such a way that it is impossible for them to get over the sides and hang themselves. But it doesn't stop people from doing it.

 

So, this is where I stand. I don't want a law restricting what I choose to do. I would however vote for a law punishing those who do harm or cause harm. If what I choose to do does no harm to anyone or anything else, I should be free to do it. If what I choose to do causes harm to others, then I should be held accountable.

[sea4th]

In all of that, did you happen to catch the guy's license plate so he could be reported and people can sue him for damages, or he could be reported to the police to face criminal charges? Did the guy even know he lost his dog, no less damaged at least two cars and traumatized a bunch of people and killed his dog by not properly securing it?

No Jodi, I didn't. Since he was two or three cars ahead of us, the plate was obscured and DH was not up to driving fast that day. I kept looking to see if he was pulled over somewhere but didn't see anything. Hopefully one of the others in the group of cars was able to get his attention, but I don't know. Thankfully, my girls were zonked out in the back seat and saw nothing. Just wonder when he realized his dog was gone. Always wondered if he ever did this again with another dog.

 

It's a sight burned in my memory, seeing this dogs body bounce around like it was in a pin ball machine.

 

It's been mentioned about children riding in the back of an open pick up. I remember having done that myself when I was a kid, but if something happens, all the forces of the law will go after the parents and whoever else is responsible. That's why I said nothing about children.

 

OTOH, dogs are deemed different. So if the least they can be considered are "unsecured loads", you better believe that if I sustained any property damage from a situation, I'd rattle every legal cage I could to get the shlump responsible---that might even include mental anguish. (Whether or not it holds up in court, that's another matter, but the point is, it would be worth the try to draw attention to that fact.)

[Kit]

For those of you with working dogs, I completely understand that they may ride in the back of your pickup, that is your choice, BUT it doesn't make it RIGHT! I also know if a farmer treats his animals well it will be to his benefit. If you lose your working dog because of an accident, it is your time, and training that will be a cost to you. I know it would also cause heartache to loose a friend that you work so close to. Please understand if someones dog falls out, it could kill the dog and along with it my family. If you think it couldn't happen you're wrong, talk to any trooper, vet, er nurse or physician. As for the anti-goverment anti -law comments, think of this definition of AUTONOMY: "my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins". Michael and Kari