Re: [PyrNet-L] Debate

["Donna Coffman" <dcoffman@erols.com>]

I don't have a problem with the proposition.  Obviously, there's been
problems in Cleveland or it wouldn't be considered.  It may be another
method to make people more responsible dog owners -- and we all know that
many people are NOT responsible dog owners.  If the law makes a difference
in one person's life (not being attacked by a vicious dog), then it will
have been worthwhile.  
My opinion is the same about Adrianne's post of the fictional story.  If it
makes a difference in one animal's life, then it's worthwhile.  Let's not
be so critical and look for hidden meanings and hidden agendas -- life's
too short!

Donna


----------
> From: PgSing2u <PgSing2u@aol.com>
> To: pyrnet-l@gamerz.net
> Subject: Re: [PyrNet-L] Debate
> Date: Wednesday, March 04, 1998 9:16 AM
> 
> I know I'm leaving for vacation, but just wanted to share with the list
this
> information.
> On the news in Cleveland, Ohio, they are talking about having a "vicious
dog
> law"
> If you own a pitbull, rottweiller, chow chow, or akitas, you would be
required
> to have a $100,000 liability insurance policy on your dog.  Just wanted
to
> know people's views.  I thought this would be a great debate topic.
> 
> Pam & Sampson
> "Gee, Mom, how come I'm not on that list??  I bark louder than all of
them! "
> <EG>