The Animal Activism Crazy Thread

Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
44,780
93,620
Tuco_sl said:
BP, do you have a lot problems with people bringing their service dogs around? For me at least service dogs are very rare and when they are they are well behaved and used by people I don't mind getting whatever help they can.
Click to expand...
No. Though id wager that the amount of people with a legitimate need for a service dog is comparable to the amount of people with legitimate need for handicap license plates.

I've never seen that. Roughly how many of those dogs are there in the US?
Click to expand...
Like I said it goes back to the problem of;

1) Businesses are prohibited from asking about the nature of a service dog
2) There is no standard identification for a service dog

The second a business owner says hey is that dog really a service dog an army of lawyers is on the way to sue him into bankruptcy. The ADA is quite possibly one of the dumbest fucking laws this country has ever passed.
 
1

1987

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
3,234
6,991
Just walk your dog into wherever you want with your eyes closed.

And if anyone says "You have a chihuahua, or whatever, as a service dog?"

Just reply with "They gave me a chihuahua!!?!?

Problem solved.
 
Famm

Famm

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
11,041
794
QEEgZiK.png
 
Frenzied Wombat

Frenzied Wombat

Potato del Grande
14,730
31,802
Big Phoenix_sl said:
Well for one the VA clearly defines the difference between a dog for someone with ptsd(aka emotional support dog) and someone with a disability(aka service dog);

Dogs and PTSD - PTSD: National Center for PTSD

emotional support dog =/= service dog

But more to the point, the law that covers "service dogs" is a horrible and shitty law. No universal identification combined with business owners being barred from checking the validity of a dog means any two bit fucktard can claim they have a service dog.
Click to expand...
Haha, one of my sisters has an "emotional service dog"-- a French Bulldog to be exact. She's a psychologist and had her shrink write her a letter saying she feels anxiety without her dog around, all that was needed for her to get the license and a harness that says "emotional service dog". When I visit her in NY she brings the dog fucking everywhere with us. It's fucking annoying because you're sitting at a nice restaurant getting caustic stares from people who aren't sympathetic to the fact that they're paying $35 for an entr?e while a dog licks his balls five feet away. I just wrote it off to "being in NYC". I have yet to see an emotional service dog in Texas. But yeah, "emotional service dog" is a little too much "socially progressive / PC", even for me. If you're blind and/or physically handicapped, I'm all for it, but once you start allowing people "service dogs" on something subjective as your mental state, it can quickly become a slippery slope.
 
Melvin

Melvin

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,399
1,168
The only time I've seen a "service dog" is at the VA hospital. If a 90 year old wheelchair bound vet wants to bring Toto with him to his Dr. appointments, I'm okay with that. I can't imagine what the fuck that dog can possibly do that's considered a service though. I mean, other than the peanut butter thing.
 
Fifey

Fifey

Trakanon Raider
2,898
962
Tuco_sl said:
BP, do you have a lot problems with people bringing their service dogs around? For me at least service dogs are very rare and when they are they are well behaved and used by people I don't mind getting whatever help they can.
Click to expand...
A while ago I was flying home and had to sit next to some stupid old bitch with this unwashed/wet dog smelling shitzhu or whatever. I kept looking around wondering why she could have the dog uncaged and sitting in her lap but it was probably one of those stupid service dogs. Worst three hours of my life.
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,469
2,272
Fake service dogs aside, I have to say that being in agriculture I feel like there are quite a few animal organizations that would like to destroy my whole industry if they could. Organizations like the Human Society of the United States (HSUS) or PETA who are radical political organizations who get support from people who just like their pets so they feel good giving to a group that "helps animals" but have no idea what the organizers really believe. There are plenty of stories of people giving to HSUS because they think that they are supporting animal shelters when HSUS does little to nothing for animal shelters and uses all of their money for politics which the majority of their contributors would probably not support if they understood it.

Then there are the organizations that want to replace cattle ranchers with "wilderness". Not because there are sound ecological reasons for it, but just because they like the idea of wild bison or even wild horses running around out there rather than livestock.

People are easily taken in by this stuff because so few people are currently involved in agriculture. The vast majority of people don't even know anyone that is a farmer or rancher so when they see a video on the HSUS website totally out of context of some dude whacking a dairy cow with a stick, they have an understandable emotional reaction to it and buy the idea that so called "factory farmers" are nothing but cruel monsters who don't care about their livestock outside of what money it can make them, and since they don't know anyone in agriculture, they don't have any perspective on animals outside of their anthropomorphized dogs and cats.

While I don't fully agree with organizations like the ASPCA on all topics, I think that they are a legitimate organization that does a lot of good things, but groups like PETA and HSUS are just evil in my book and I don't think most of the people who send them money would support them if they understood the subject matter a little better.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,589
34,069
National Service Animal Registry

Rustle the fuck up these jimmies until I read this:

What Are Your Legal Protections and Rights?
The Air Carrier Access Act 49 U.S.C. 41705, Dept. of Transportation 14 C.F.R. Part 382, Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 are the laws that protect an emotionally disabled person and his/her ESA.

The legal protections an Emotional Support Animal (ESA) has are to:

Fly with its emotionally or psychologically disabled handler in the cabin of an aircraft without being charged a pet fee. Click here for detailed information on Flying with Your Emotional Support Animal.
Qualify for no-pet housing (that also includes limited sze, breed, or species housing) without being charged a pet fee. Click here for detailed information on Housing Rights For You And Your ESA.

No other public or private entity (motels, restaurants, stores, trains, taxis, busses, theatres, parks, beaches, libraries, zoos, etc.) is required to allow your ESA to accompany you and in all other instances, your ESA has no more rights than a pet. That means they aren't protected by law to accompany you into any public place that does not allow pets. That doesn't mean these places won't let you, it just means that they are not required to, by law.
Click to expand...
At least they can't legally use this 'ESA' (also known as a pet for most people) status outside of flying and housing.
 
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
44,780
93,620
Yeah PETA is filled with nothing but crazy fucks. People have no idea they are pretty much a militant extremist organization.
 
Eomer

Eomer

Trakanon Raider
5,472
272
Twilight Sparkle_sl said:
The cyclist wasn't tailgating her, her car was stopped long enough for her to get out of it and try to shoo the ducks off the road. So while what she did was indeed criminally stupid, I think throwing the book at her is ridiculous considering that the cyclist was clearly paying absolutely zero attention to the road.
Click to expand...
From what I read, they had several other motorists testify as witnesses that they had to swerve to narrowly avoid the car, as they didn't see it until the last second. What the exact circumstances were, I don't know.

Quebec driver who stopped for ducks guilty in fatal crash | Toronto Star

A provincial police officer testified at the trial that Roy, whose speed was estimated at 113 km/h and 129 km/h when he applied his brakes, collided with Czornobaj's car at between 105 km/h and 121 km/h.
Click to expand...
The speed limit on the road was 90 apparently, so he was definitely travelling faster than it. Judging from the minimal difference between the estimated travel speed and the collision speed, he barely had time to react and brake. Whether that was inattention or the circumstances of where she was parked, I don't really know. One story said that she had the hazard lights on, another said she didn't. Most have said the driver's side door was open.

Quebec motorist accused in two deaths said she was helping ducks - Montreal - CBC News

Prosecutor Annie-Claude Chasse said witness and police testimony will show the accused was on a narrow shoulder patch next to the passing lane, tending to a family of ducks on the roadway.

"Would a reasonable and prudent person, in the same circumstances as was the accused, have done the same?" Chasse asked the jury. "Would that reasonable and prudent person have stopped their car, on a busy highway, in order to save some ducks?"

It was a nice, relaxed Sunday and Volikakis said ice cream was to be on the menu when they arrived home. Roy was driving and his daughter was riding pillion on his Harley-Davidson motorcycle, while Volikakis rode her own motorcycle behind them.

Volikakis testified she saw a woman walking dangerously along the narrow shoulder on the side of the highway. She also saw a car at a standstill in the passing lane.

"I wondered what she was doing there, it was not the place to be," Volikakis said.

She testified that Roy gestured to the accused as if to warn her it was dangerous for her to be there. Seconds later, his bike slammed into the stationary car, sending both of the occupants in the motorcycle flying.
Click to expand...
Seems to me like the dad was distracted by the woman fucking around on the shoulder chasing the ducklings around, and then slammed in to her car, which was sticking out in to the lane he was in, and it didn't have hazards on. A witness that was immediately in front of the motorcyclist said this:

Earlier on Tuesday, eyewitness Martine Tessier testified she was driving along the same stretch of highway on June 27, 2010. The weather was nice, the sun was setting and the road conditions were excellent.

Tessier said she was driving at about 110 km/h when she saw a woman along the side of the road seemingly trying to shoo along a family of ducks.

"I shouted to my kids (in the car) 'What is she doing there? She's going to get killed,'" Tessier told the jury.

She testified that moments later, she was staring down a car - completely stopped with no hazard lights on - with the door open on the driver's side.

"It was close enough that I knew I didn't have time to brake," Tessier said. Instead, she swerved to get around the car. Then she looked back in her rear-view mirror and saw something else hit the vehicle.

"I saw a body go over the car, it was like a rag doll," Tessier said. "I shouted to my daughter to call 9-1-1 with my cellphone."
Click to expand...
So was the dad speeding? Yeah. Was he distracted or inattentive? Possibly. But the fact is, that dumb cunt's actions were primarily responsible for his death. Criminal negligence causing death sounds about right to me. As far as "throwing the book at her", the sentencing hasn't happened yet. She could get everything from a discharge with no permanent record, to over a decade in jail. It's likely her actual punishment will be negligible, given that there was no criminal intent and that she appeared to be a good citizen. Just dumb as all fuck.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,474
73,558
Ah that makes more sense. She pulled the double whammy of being a crazy lady shooing ducks around on the highway then had her car just hanging out in the highway after her. It's the tag team of idiotic distraction.
 
Noodleface

Noodleface

A Mod Real Quick
37,961
14,508
Anyone get those shitheads on facebook constantly posting last week about how feeding your dog ice water with ice cubes in it will cause them to die? Then later in the week a vet came out and said it was false and you didn't hear shit.

These animal activists on facebook piss me off more than any other group of human beings! AND I LOVE MY DOG
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,474
73,558
There are a few people on my facebook that routinely post patently false rumors. Whenever I post a quick link to snopes or some fact check website they always respond with, "Oh, I didn't research it." Like it's some nerdy burden to double google stuff that sounds like bullshit.

That's why I like this community. If you post some shit like "ice cubes will kill dogs" your rerolled street cred drops drastically and takes years of competent thought to overcome.
 
Noodleface

Noodleface

A Mod Real Quick
37,961
14,508
It's crazy man.. just blatantly spewing shit for the sake of being "first" to post some top story.

Reminds me of all those KONY2012 fags
 
Adebisi

Adebisi

Clump of Cells
<Silver Donator>
27,680
32,723
Tuco_sl said:
There are a few people on my facebook that routinely post patently false rumors. Whenever I post a quick link to snopes or some fact check website they always respond with, "Oh, I didn't research it." Like it's some nerdy burden to double google stuff that sounds like bullshit.
Click to expand...
I have to do this quite often as well. Usually one of those "watch out for this latest scam! SHARE WITH EVERYONE ON FACEBOOK!".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.