What's wrong with revenge? I still like my idea better. This allows family or friends to decide NOT, but allows the victims to get a little of their own back. (Cause we can't put down the owner). I think anamial psychologists are going to be too lenient (since they, by their very vocation, have indicated their leanings).
(Remember, this is just for maulings). As for the "you can't", sure you can. Maybe you _shouldn't_, but you certainly can. The ACLU is not yet fighting against canine racial descrimination, and the SC has not yet weighed in on the topic. So breed hating is perfectly acceptable. =) On 10/31/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd modify this, taking the option to put down the animal away from the > victim, because in almost every case they'll do it out of revenge or > spite. I'd put that decision in the hands > of qualified veterinarians and animal psychologists, they would determine > if the animal can be rehabbed, then placed with an informed foster or > rescue family. > > The owner of the animal should be held accountable for the raising and > training of the animal that he or she owns. But you cannot paint braod > strokes and ban entire breeds. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:218842 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
