My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/20/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
2/20/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:44 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 8:48:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/20/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
trained personal protection dog or a guard dog to protect their <br />business, they do not have to go out and purchase $100,000 of <br />special insurance or put a special collar on their dogs. With <br />regard to dog shows, it has been his experience that if a dog at <br />a show gets out of a vehicle or gets loose and shows any signs of <br />aggression, he will not be allowed in the show. It is his <br />opinion that vicious dogs do not have any place being in a show, <br />nor in society, for that matter. If a dog is truly a vicious dog <br />and cannot be rehabilitated or controlled, he has no business <br />moving about in society under the guardianship of the parties who <br />monitored and possibly aided him becoming vicious. Mr. Aston <br />noted that it is a myth that a dog is what his trainer makes <br />them, because there are times when dogs bite out of fear. In <br />closing, he wished to point out two more things. First, he never <br />saw a dog that couldn't get one of those wire muzzles off if he <br />wanted to, and secondly, there are some very adequate restraints <br />available that people can use for their dogs in the back of <br />pickup trucks. <br />Connie Ellis, a Vero Beach dog trainer, distributed copies <br />of the following letter and attached information: <br />This dog law, as it is written, is too loose and vague in its definitions of <br />A PUBLIC NUISANCE ANIMAL and A VICIOUS DOG; also in its use of such terms as <br />UNPROVOKED, ATTACK, ATTITUDE OF ATTACK and TERRORIZING. <br />It is too rigid in its application of the law as it relates to the dog and <br />represents an attempt to legislate owner responsibility through threat to the <br />dog. In the final analysis (Section 3,e), it is the dog who is ultimately held <br />responsible and pays the price for its owner(s) non-compliance with the law, <br />not the owner. <br />This law is too rigid in its application of human standards versus normal dog <br />behavior. The subject of this law is a DOG and it should be more sensitive to <br />the understanding of dog behaviors) and to the best interests of the dog. <br />As this law is written, it permits too great a latitude for personal and <br />individual interpretation of the dog's behavior and of the law by those involved <br />in the law's enforcement and by those who interact with or feel threatened by <br />the dog. <br />28 A <br />BOOK <br />FEB 0 199U <br />L_ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.