Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(some legislator)   Iowa Legislature wants to outlaw "dangerous dogs"   ( divider line
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

33 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Apr 2003 at 8:46 PM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

44 Comments     (+0 »)
2003-04-15 06:05:36 PM  
Actually it doesn't "outlaw" any dogs at all, it just says you can't let your dogs run around unattended. It sounds like a pretty standard leash law.
2003-04-15 08:49:12 PM  
Some doggies can be evil.
2003-04-15 08:50:30 PM  
As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise
requires, "dangerous dog" means a dog which is any of the following:

1. Unmuzzled or unleashed.
2. Unattended by its owner, keeper, or a competent and
responsible person.

WOW-Huge Story...I'm surprised this didn't make the national news.
2003-04-15 08:50:55 PM  
I'm cool with these laws SO LONG AS there are also designated no-leash areas in communities.
2003-04-15 08:51:22 PM  
Yeah, they make it seem worse than it is. But of course, you know people are going to try and extend this to certain breeds... perhaps pitbulls?
2003-04-15 08:51:57 PM  
Better watch out. Under their definition your poodle is a dangerous dog if it gets out of the house unleashed.
2003-04-15 08:53:10 PM  
Dogs are like children, they're fine as long as they're someone elses dogs. But I wouldn't want to change their diapers pick up their poop, especially when it's friggin raining outside.

At least cats don't shiat all over the place.

2003-04-15 08:53:40 PM  
But what are they going to do to protect innicent dogs from accidently running off of cliffs. Oh, it's Iowa.
2003-04-15 08:53:50 PM  
First breed on the list:
[image from too old to be available]

Oh shut up - I just did it first, is all.
2003-04-15 08:53:56 PM  
I'm sorry to interrupt this thread, but for the next ten minutes we have a challenge grant. If you donate $5 to $10 a month to PBS, then FARK will match that grant.

You'll get a T shirt, Coffee Mug, 21 issues of Newsweek, Lotion, Soap Bar, and a cup of Peets.

It costs $20,000 per month to pay for FARK's NPR feed. Please help out and join.

Do it right now.
2003-04-15 08:57:20 PM  
I personally would like to outlaw dangerous Iowans.
2003-04-15 08:58:57 PM  
[image from too old to be available]
2003-04-15 08:59:19 PM  
I'm from the area of where this is happening. There have been several near-fatal dog attacks in the area and people are claiming that they have a right to keep the dogs without restraints even in residential areas. Just yesterday a young girl had to have plastic surgery on her face after a pit-bull attack.
2003-04-15 09:01:39 PM  
I advocate the immediate seizure or destruction of a dog owner who taught their pet to be mean.

Then I'll turn the dog loose on a PETA gathering. :)
2003-04-15 09:05:02 PM  
...may seize or destroy the dangerous dog while it is on the property.

I think PETA will have something to say about "destroying" dogs...
2003-04-15 09:06:09 PM  
My neighbors dogs (plural) have invaded my backyard. They even bark at me when I go out there. Since there are 22 people living in a 3 bedroom house, there is no centralized leadership (noone to complain to)- They also suddenly don't understand english when I approach them.
My question is this:
Does this make it legal to shoot all my neighbors in the face? I really hope so.
2003-04-15 09:07:17 PM  
I'm okay with the destroying. Apparently, a woodchipper works quite well.
2003-04-15 09:13:24 PM  
You need to know the background.

A bunch of (stupid) people have been getting mauled by dogs lately in Iowa.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2003-04-15 09:17:07 PM  
"Dangerous" means "unleashed and unaccompanied". This means you can shoot any dog that comes on your property without a person. And if you let your dog off your property, you go to jail.

If they keep this up we'll need to swap out the Floriduh tag in favor of Iowa.
2003-04-15 09:20:07 PM  
My orange tree in the back yard is "unleashed and unaccompanied." Does that make it a dangerous orange tree?
2003-04-15 09:29:15 PM  
Hmm, I suppose I should quit doing this for kicks in my neighborhood..

[image from too old to be available]+[image from too old to be available]
2003-04-15 09:30:58 PM  
[image from too old to be available]
2003-04-15 09:34:54 PM  
It's obvious who the "dog people" are.

I hope the "dog people" are the only ones mauled to death.
2003-04-15 09:35:02 PM  
Unmuzzled or unleashed, right?

[image from too old to be available]
Yo no quiero muerte!

Crap-ass legislation at its finest, I hope the rep that originally wrote this POS gets it thrown back in their face during next re-election campaign.
2003-04-15 09:37:21 PM  
PS: This was tabled. I still want the constituents of this numbnut's district to be notified though...
2003-04-15 09:45:48 PM  
KidSock2004: Yeah, those idiots, they should know that when you're walking down the street, you are GOING to get mauled by a dog! Some people are just plain stupid! They think they have the right to not get killed... who do they think they are!
2003-04-15 09:56:13 PM  
That young woman who was mauled to death in San Francisco would have appreciated this.
2003-04-15 09:59:24 PM  
"Dangerous dog" is defined in the bill as unmuzzled or unleashed or unattended? Although I have no trouble with the idea of requiring leashes, typically "dangerous dog" has been defined as one showing some kind of aggression or tending to be unruly in some way towards humans and/or other animals; clearly the author of this bill has some kind of stick up his arse about canines in general, especially considering the parts allowing anyone to seize or destroy one without liability, merely if it steps onto their property and for no other reason, and prohibiting a person's well-behaved dog from, evidently, being let out for a moment to pee on the owner's own property. Good ghod, what planet was the legislator raised on?
2003-04-15 10:03:57 PM  
Shih Tzus all over the place!! Run! Run!!!

I <3 Dom Joly
2003-04-15 10:04:57 PM  
"I used to paint the Princess,
I used to paint the frogs,
now I paint mustaches on dangerous dogs..."
(Don Henley, Drivin' with your eyes closed.)

Is there anybody _else_ where seeing that title didn't instantly cause that song to pop in your head?
2003-04-15 10:24:50 PM  
According to this... technically, if I have a poodle on a 2-foot-chain attatched to a tree outside my house (if I were to live in Iowa and this bill were to pass into law) with no muzzle on, it would be considered a "dangerous dog", and since I'm not around to watch it, and it has no muzzle, it can be "seized or destroyed". Yay?
2003-04-15 10:25:55 PM  
oh, dogs.. i thought it said drugs.
2003-04-15 10:55:12 PM  
Call me when the "no fat chicks" law passes, mmmkay?
2003-04-15 11:20:11 PM  
Heh... poodles can be savage little bastards.. My wife hates them for just that reason ;)

Dogs already have more rights to defend their territory than people do, I don't think leash laws are so much to ask..
2003-04-16 12:16:27 AM  
I don't agree with this legislature's definition of "dangerous dog," but I have LONG been in favor of outlawing certain types of vicious dogs, namely pit bulls and Rottweilers. Over the years, mean-spirited people have repeatedly inbred and tortured these dogs (sorry, didn't mean to sound like PETA there, but it's true) to make them more vicious and violent, and to maul any person it happens to come in contact with that isn't its owner. It's sick. Only an asshole would own one of these dogs. If you enjoy owning a pet whose sole purpose for existing is to inflict gruesome injuries on passers-by, you're a sick individual who needs some serious psychiatric help. What really pisses me off is the "Beware of Dog" signs. What they really should say is "It would really please us for our ill-tempered pet to tear you apart limb from limb, so if you're smart you'll keep your little pansy ass away from our property, before our flesh-hungry hellhound feasts on your sorry flesh." As for the dogs themselves, I feel sorry that they've been bred to the point where they are literally insane and don't know any better than to maul everything in their path. Honestly, I think the only way out for these animals is to just shoot them and put them out of their misery. I know if I had a neighbor that owned one of these voracious animals, I would find a way to kill the sorry bastard sooner or later (the dog, not the owner, although my opinion of him wouldn't exactly be too high either). It would be worth the lawsuit and/or possible jail time for ridding the world of a member of a species that just should not be, for the love of all that is good.
2003-04-16 01:32:42 AM  
Leash Law. Isn't this the norm everywhere?
2003-04-16 05:00:21 AM  
Gohanmastaflex You missed a couple of points- the dog would have to be on somebody else's property or have attacked someone in the past.

GuinnessDrinker I've heard tell that those "beware of" signs can increase damages if they get sued, because they knew of the danger. (I could have heard it in one of my damn too realistic dreams, though, so it's probably not true. Damn CIA brane ray always messing with me!)

2003-04-16 09:44:46 AM  
It just means people have to be responsible for their dogs. If you can't handle a dog, you probably shouldn't have one anyway. I think it's aimed at the wierdo dog owners, the ones who would raise a dog without training it properly.

/pitbulls are lovable and huggable until they gnaw the neighbor kid's leg off. Asshats.
2003-04-16 10:28:34 AM  
Breed specific legislation is possibly the stupidest way to attempt to deal with dangerous dogs. While it is true that there are people out there who acquire dogs whose breeds have a "tough" repuatation for the sole purpose of having a four legged weapon, these are the same people who carry other weapons around. A dog receives its attitude toward people from the way its owner trains it as a puppy and not from any inherent genetic code. People who believe that are also likely to believe that pit bulls have "locking" jaws or that Doberman's brains keep growing after their skull stops growing, which causes them to "snap" (yep, that old canard was going around back in the '80s).

Any pictures of the Rottie?

2003-04-16 10:51:28 AM  

"He's the biggest sweetest baby."

That's EXACTLY what EVERY Rottweiler owner on the planet says about their dog. Until it snaps one day and eats someone. If I had a nickel for every time I heard "Rottweilers aren't vicious, they're nice, affectionate dogs", I'd have....quite a few nickels.
2003-04-16 12:19:03 PM  
Sure is easy to sort out the "dog people."
2003-04-16 12:19:13 PM  
You are so wrong. There are not "dangerous breeds" There are dangerous owners.
Proof... Between 79 and 98 Rottweilers and pit bulls HAVE been involved in the most fatal attacks. But in the ten years before that it was other breeds. I think it was german sheppards and great danes or something like that. Rottweilers were at the bottom of the list and pitbulls were not on the list at all. This is from a CDC report.

People who want dangerous dogs tend to get dogs who have dangerous reputations. If the types of dogs that are involved in attacks changes over a short time (20 years) then it's not a change in the general temperment of the dog, it's a change in the way those dogs are being trained.
2003-04-16 02:08:28 PM  
GuinnessDrinker, not all pit bulls and Rottweilers are vicious, nor are all of them inbred. On the other hand, inbred and abused or not, they WERE originally bred for pit-fighting and guarding, respectively, so if you're going to keep them it's pretty damn irresponsible to let 'em loose unleashed around strangers or strange dogs, and I'm all in favor of punishing anyone whose dog mauls someone because of its owner's lack of responsibility.

Incidentally, one of the top "dangerous" breeds (in terms of how prone to biting people, NOT in terms of how much damage it can do) is the cocker spaniel.

-Matthew J.
2003-04-16 04:56:13 PM  
Why keep the dog in the first place? You're going to have to keep it chained up anyway. What happens when someone comes to the house to visit? Better safe than sorry. As I've said, I can't count the times I've read in the papers about someone's Rotty that's been such a good, friendly dog for years and years, then goes senile and lacerates some 4-year-old's skull. Owning one is just asking for trouble IMHO.
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.