Skip to comments.
S.F. Sets Dog Standard of Living
wpvi.com - AP ^
| January 12, 2005
| Staff
Posted on 01/14/2005 11:36:47 AM PST by EveningStar
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 next last
To: EveningStar
They should be setting recipe standards instead, and feed the stray dogs and pound puppies to the homeless.
21
posted on
01/14/2005 11:55:37 AM PST
by
pissant
To: IronMan04
you know there are already laws on the books for abusing dogs...
but they don't mind murdering babies there now do they!!!
this is just more BS from San Francissyco where homos can marry and people can defecate on your front door!
talk about having your standards screwed up!
you might like living there but I'll take a Pasadena! LMAO
22
posted on
01/14/2005 11:58:03 AM PST
by
kellynla
(U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
To: beezdotcom
My thoughts exactly. If you can't own an animal, then it's not your's to kill. IF you can't kill it, you can't eat it. Therefore the meat of killed animals will not be allowed in San Fransico.
23
posted on
01/14/2005 11:58:50 AM PST
by
massgopguy
(massgopguy)
To: kellynla
I like the law that makes it illegal for your dog's water dish to tip over. This is enforcible how?
24
posted on
01/14/2005 12:00:27 PM PST
by
massgopguy
(massgopguy)
To: PURPLE SHARK
Does this mean if the dog is a poor companion you can sue the dog for damages?Nope. But if you dump your dog for a younger dog, you might get sued for alpo-limony :^)
25
posted on
01/14/2005 12:00:35 PM PST
by
NeoCaveman
(Quote the DUmmie, we got Roved)
To: EveningStar
I would consider "guardian" to be a promotion. My two guys pretty much think of me as their faithful servant.
26
posted on
01/14/2005 12:02:29 PM PST
by
blau993
(Labs for love; .357 for Security.)
Comment #27 Removed by Moderator
To: sinkspur
28
posted on
01/14/2005 12:04:21 PM PST
by
NYer
("In good times we enjoy faith, in bad times we exercise faith." ... Mother Angelica)
To: NorCalRepub
I have to admit I agree with you.
You'd have to be pretty stupid not to know how to treat a dog, but we ARE talking about San Francisco here.
To: EveningStar; Flyer; technochick99; sinkspur; annyokie; Scott from the Left Coast; 88keys; ...
To: technochick99
Well, I'm sure these standards don't reach the actual living standards of my pups They won't come anywhere near the living standards of my 3 very spoiled cats
31
posted on
01/14/2005 12:08:34 PM PST
by
clamper1797
(VA-93 --- CVA-41 Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club 72-73)
To: massgopguy
My dog even has his own vehicle!
And don't you try pulling out of the driveway without him! LOL
32
posted on
01/14/2005 12:08:34 PM PST
by
kellynla
(U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
To: blau993
ROTFLMAO!
That's too funny.
Proud parent of a wonderful yellow-lab who is sooooo spoiled (and of course the pefect nine-yeard old daughter who is the dog's "real mommy" ;-)
To: EveningStar
Oh, give me a break. Every thread discussing animal cruelty on FR brings the usual lame "tough guy" talk out-- I'll beat an animal if I want to, none of the gubmint's business, blah, blah, blah. So grating. In this case the law is probably quite reasonable.
You know, it's not exactly oppression to require that people provide adequate food, water, and shelter for dogs. And if you live in a place like I do, which is like most of the United States, legal controls on dogs are far too lax. I see poor brutes chained up outside in the cold all night, with no adequate shelter. And no, it's *not* already illegal. Dogs roam around free in farm areas, to be hit by cars. And so on.
There is certainly *not* a problem with animal overregulation when it comes to dog care. The reverse is true: an abundance of cruel or negligent owners.
There are plenty of reason to bash liberals. Why not do it for good ones?
34
posted on
01/14/2005 12:14:10 PM PST
by
Timm
To: EveningStar
Every time I hear about another "big one" I check to see if San Francisco has slid into the ocean.
Comment #36 Removed by Moderator
To: Timm
Oh, give me a break. Every thread discussing animal cruelty on FR brings the usual lame "tough guy" talk out-- I'll beat an animal if I want to, none of the gubmint's business, blah, blah, blah. So grating. I don't meet your definition. I posted the article to make fun of the "pet guardian" designation.
To: crazy man michael
People who can't use common sense when it comes to animals shouldn't be allowed to own them.
(...tweak tweak twiddle...)
People who can't use common sense when it comes to "things that can be owned" shouldn't be allowed to own them.
There, I fixed it.
38
posted on
01/14/2005 12:32:29 PM PST
by
beezdotcom
(I'm usually either right or wrong...)
To: pissant
Even more, can your dog sue your estate for "palimony" when you croak or if you get another dog and transfer your affections to it?
39
posted on
01/14/2005 12:40:17 PM PST
by
45Auto
(Big holes are (almost) always better.)
To: EveningStar
Ha! our little guy (temple dog) is 19 y.o. Laso Ahpso. He definetly has my wie wrapped around his gray paw. Meats, Meats and more Meats. Mention meats at dinner time and he goes running around the house all excited for the Meats.
He sleeps on the bed with us and demands his half out of the middle--a bit of an idiot dog but just looks damn cute says mrsbigkahua. These days he sleeps 27 hours out of the day--what the hell he's an old guy and can do just about anything he wants...and he does. can't listen worth a damn when you call him, unless its "Meats Time"!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson