This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Two Moons on 01 October 2011 - 03:10
Sunsilver,
Out back of the place they have crates and some Ole Roy for $12.99 per day.
No, but they do have much smaller, cheaper accommodations that are competitive.
Lord no, I would never send mine to a kennel, it would be cheaper to pay someone to care for them here if I could not.
I would not ban breeds, but I could see higher prices for specific individuals that may require more time and trouble to care for.
Moons.
Out back of the place they have crates and some Ole Roy for $12.99 per day.
No, but they do have much smaller, cheaper accommodations that are competitive.
Lord no, I would never send mine to a kennel, it would be cheaper to pay someone to care for them here if I could not.
I would not ban breeds, but I could see higher prices for specific individuals that may require more time and trouble to care for.
Moons.
by Felloffher on 01 October 2011 - 04:10
I think any business owner has the right to choose what type of services they offer and who they offer them too. Personaly, I wouldn't leave my dogs at a kennel unless the owner and staff were comfortable and able to handle the type of dogs I own.
I would recommend BC Canine to anyone who lives in the Lower Mainland. They have lot's of experience with working dogs and will accommodate any type of dog.
http://www.bccanine.com
by Fenrir on 03 October 2011 - 14:10
I have a very interesting view on all this and actually would like to hear someone with legal experience thought on it. First off as far as the boarding any business owner can run their business as they choose, however I will say this I would never put my dog in the hands of someone who obviously is biased against my breed because yes they can choose to discriminate but I can vote with my dollar that they go to hell.
Secondly and here is my question to the lawyers out there, especially my constitutional lawyers, Now I am a political science guy and it is my understanding though I may be wrong because I am not a lawyer. My understanding is that once a court sets the precedent that it tends to be the rule. Now multiple times courts have considered dogs as a weapon in their rulings that xyz dog was assault with a deadly weapon, if this is the case then the courts themselves have ruled a dog is a weapon. As such shouldn't a dog be protected under the second amendment and ergo not be able to be taken from our homes??? I have looked to see if that argument has been made and have not been able to find any cases of it. However the courts themselves have labeled them as such and convicted people accordingly, should it not stand to reason that by doing so our own government has labeled them weapons and so they should fall under those protections?? A crazy idea I know but I have thought about it and think at least the argument could and frankly should be made.
Secondly and here is my question to the lawyers out there, especially my constitutional lawyers, Now I am a political science guy and it is my understanding though I may be wrong because I am not a lawyer. My understanding is that once a court sets the precedent that it tends to be the rule. Now multiple times courts have considered dogs as a weapon in their rulings that xyz dog was assault with a deadly weapon, if this is the case then the courts themselves have ruled a dog is a weapon. As such shouldn't a dog be protected under the second amendment and ergo not be able to be taken from our homes??? I have looked to see if that argument has been made and have not been able to find any cases of it. However the courts themselves have labeled them as such and convicted people accordingly, should it not stand to reason that by doing so our own government has labeled them weapons and so they should fall under those protections?? A crazy idea I know but I have thought about it and think at least the argument could and frankly should be made.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
