Trona News

It would be nice to see some serious consequences for pet owners who don't keep their pets quiet! I like the idea of a hefty fine for pet owners who fail to control their pets. It's all about basic responsibility. If you own it, you take proper care of it and make sure that it doesn't bother anyone! As someone who sometimes has to work odd hours, I really resent individuals who fail to meet their basic responsibilities as pet owners!


Click here to watch at YouTube

Irresponsible dog owners should have their right to own dogs revoked! I'm in favor of major fines and even criminal prosecution for dog owners that allow their dogs to bark. I won't even use the word excessively! While I understand that dogs might bark a little bit now and then and I can tolerate a few minutes of barking during the course of a week, if it's a daily thing, then there is a problem. What makes absolutely no sense is why these people bother owning dogs in the first place if they don't bother taking care of them. Keeping your dog from barking is just a basic part of taking proper care of the animal!

Having a law fining dog owners who let their dogs bark is better than people taking matters in their own hands. In my the town my cousin lives in three dogs died because someone put radiator coolant in their water bowls. Apparently dogs like the taste or something and so they drink it and then croak (and not like a frog). It's not fair for people to have to put up with their neighbor's dog barking and it's not cool to kill dogs and so a fine is the best way to solve the problem!

Barking dogs rank above a lot of things that law enforcement wastes time on. I know it's not exciting for law enforcement to deal with issues like this, but they're supposed to serve for the public good, not indulge in exciting adventures and pry into the personal lives of citizens. If law enforcement would concentrate on basic issues like this we'd all be better off!

Bizkit the sleep walking Barking Dog

Click here to watch at YouTube

It's one thing to cook a dog, but it's another thing to put the poor thing in the oven while it's still alive and to...

Click here to watch at YouTube

I'm against animal cruelty, but I'm even more against human cruelty. Allowing a dog to bark within a block of a residence qualifies has human cruelty in my book! Not only is it inconsiderate, it's also irresponsible. I'm totally in favor of making an ANIMAL ABUSER list like they have for sex offenders and banning anyone who abuses animals from owning animals in the future. Anyone who allows a dog to bark so that it disturbs a neighbor should be labeled as an ANIMAL ABUSER and dealt with harshly. People who allow their dogs to bark are guilty of a greater crime than MOST individuals who wind up on the list of sexual offenders (but that's mostly because most people who wind up on the sex offenders list are guilty of petty and trivial crimes - although that's not true of everyone on the list).

Why are dogs so stupid?

Click here to watch at YouTube

Compared to public urination, public nudity, or sex between a twenty-year-old and a sixteen-year-old, I'd say you are correct. Animal abuse (including allowing a dog to bark and disturb a neighborhood) should be considered to be a more serious crime. If they're going to have a list that includes trivial matters like the ones I listed, then there should be a list for animal abusers too. The problem as I see it, however, is that that starts us down a slippery slope and so I'd prefer to see the current practice of listing sexual offenders cut back and modified. Rather than listing sexual predators, I would list all predators and only list individuals who committed crimes while using guns or who savagely beat up and physically injured their victims. Murderers, rapists who used physical force, people who maim others, etc. would be on the list while non-violent offenders (those who did not cause physical injury or explicitly threaten such violence) would be left off the list. Singling out those whose crimes had a sexual element seems discriminatory to me and reflects our society's hang ups concerning sex. It's not the sexual aspect of the crime that should be focused on, but the actual, physical violence (or threat thereof) that should be the focus. As for allowing one's dog to bark, I'd put that on a level slightly above public urination, public nudity, or sex between a twenty-year-old and a sixteen-year-old in terms of severity.

Shady: You make some good points, but the bottom line is money. There's lots of money to be made by hyping the sex offender scam while dealing with barking dogs just isn't sexy enough! The law enforcement industry makes a lot of money off of sexual predators and so of course they want to include public urination, public nudity, and consensual sex between teenagers on the list of offenses that can involve an individual in their little money-making game. You're right about how you rank the seriousness of these various "crimes" - BUT being right isn't enough sometimes!