Yay California & thanks Jerry :) Woof (San Francisco, Marina: hotels, transfer, live)

[blueskywalker]

I like dogs a lot more than i like humans and i certainly don't consider them of less value.
Any a hole who leaves his / her dog in a dangerously hot car is someone who i don't give a crap about. And i sure don't care about his/her car or $.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Can we at least make the law relative to whether or not windows are cracked or there is water available or the high temp at the time is above a certain degree.

The problem with a law that is not specific on the above, is that any wacko can declare they thought it was too hot according to them. What kind of basis is that?

I take my dog with me everywhere here. She waits in the truck while I go shopping, etc. The hottest it ever gets here is maybe 75 degrees. I leave the windows cracked and there is water for her, and on the hottest days, I find shade. Fortunately, the upside to living in a Republican town, is there aren't a bunch of wacko control freaks who would steal my dog to supposedly save her from my "abuse."

Now, if I was to move to Santa Rosa, which I've considered, I would probably come out of the store to find my dog has been stolen, and my window broken in my truck. How is this possibly more sane or humane?

Hillary is by far the better candidate, and I'm going to vote for her, and most democratic issues by default. But, some liberals are embarrassing. You come across as micromanaging control freaks.

Unfortunately, to give these people carte blanche to smash vehicle windows based on their idea of what's too hot, without any more parameters than that, is simply insane. Hello lawsuits. If it was me, I'd sue your butt, you can bet on it.

It's a bad law. And it will, no doubt be challenged successfully.

[blueskywalker]

It's not a friggin political issue. Or at least it's not to me.

[Finper]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Can we at least make the law relative to whether or not windows are cracked or there is water available or the high temp at the time is above a certain degree.

The problem with a law that is not specific on the above, is that any wacko can declare they thought it was too hot according to them. What kind of basis is that?

I take my dog with me everywhere here. She waits in the truck while I go shopping, etc. The hottest it ever gets here is maybe 75 degrees. I leave the windows cracked and there is water for her, and on the hottest days, I find shade. Fortunately, the upside to living in a Republican town, is there aren't a bunch of wacko control freaks who would steal my dog to supposedly save her from my "abuse."

Now, if I was to move to Santa Rosa, which I've considered, I would probably come out of the store to find my dog has been stolen, and my window broken in my truck. How is this possibly more sane or humane?

Hillary is by far the better candidate, and I'm going to vote for her, and most democratic issues by default. But, some liberals are embarrassing. You come across as micromanaging control freaks.

Unfortunately, to give these people carte blanche to smash vehicle windows based on their idea of what's too hot, without any more parameters than that, is simply insane. Hello lawsuits. If it was me, I'd sue your butt, you can bet on it.

It's a bad law. And it will, no doubt be challenged successfully.

Over analyze much???? The law is for hot areas and when you can clearly see a dog is in trouble. Since you live in a cool area no one has broken your window and no one will. Sheesh I leave my dog in the car when it's below 80 too everyone does

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by blueskywalker

It's not a friggin political issue. Or at least it's not to me.

Of course it's a political issue. Anything regarding changing laws is political.

[Snort]

It's a spiritual, moral, and ethical issue. Dogs, holding the moral high ground over humans, should be respected, valued, and saved whenever possible.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by Finper

Over analyze much???? The law is for hot areas and when you can clearly see a dog is in trouble. Since you live in a cool area no one has broken your window and no one will. Sheesh I leave my dog in the car when it's below 80 too everyone does

Um, no ... it's a state law.

So that means, if Ms. Pet Nazi in Half Moon Bay thinks that a pet is in trouble, she can go at it, with immunity.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Finper

Geez only the people on City Data can bash a law that saves dogs lives.

If the law doesn't address issues of liability and doesn't hold harmless the Good Samaritan from civic penalties then it's worse than worthless as there's no safety net and after some civil lawsuits people won't come to the rescue anymore.

I argued such issues in various bills before the Legislature for 20 years and they don't listen to or care about sensibility. When I wrote statutes and amendments I made them clear and unambiguous to prevent lawsuits. The bar hates that!

[blueskywalker]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Of course it's a political issue. Anything regarding changing laws is political.

When i said it's not political i meant that, for me, being able to help a creature out isn't a political issue. But i know what you're saying.

Also, despite what some may assume, i'm not a knee-jerk liberal. But i did have a knee-jerk positive response to that law without thinking it through.

I have a dog who spent the first year of her life in the desert of Nevada and was neglected as well (not by me - i rescued her). She's a tough critter and i know that when i leave her in the car she's fine even when it's hot. And a few times over the years i've left her for a very brief amount of time in an only semi-shady spot. I know with certainty that she's totally o.k. but when i'm parked in the lot of say, Staff of Life (a most politically correct and liberal market in S.C. and with not enough shade in their lot ) i worry that other people will incorrectly assume that she's being neglected and do something stupid or, at the very least, wait at my car and give me grief when i return to my car.

One time a few years ago i ran into the bookstore (for less than 5 minutes) in down-town S.C.. I parked in the shade, cracked the windows and it wasn't even a very hot day. When i came out of the store a woman was yelling hysterically at my car and saying to my dog that "your f****** parents s***". She thought my dog was in peril and didn't notice that the windows were all open sufficiently and apparently didn't notice that the car was in full shade.

So i know what you're talking about. I'm always concerned that someone will come to the wrong conclusion. I always make sure my doors are locked so that if someone stupid incorrectly assumes that my dog isn't o.k. they won't be able to open my car to "save" my dog. And similar to your experience in more red parts of the state, when i'm up in Idaho (where i spend quite a bit of time), i never worry about that. There is a different attitude. Not less care but just more grounded in reality and not lost in their stupid ideas. So i get it.

Anyway, after having a conversation about it with my very libertarian leaning friend and thinking about it some more, i totally realize what y'all are saying about the problematic issues around this law.

And i don't like the term "pet nazi" but i understand the sentiment. Usually such people aren't very connected with their own animal and just project a bunch of nonsense onto the dog or the dog person.

Along the same lines, i got into an argument with a woman a few months ago. She was irate that my dog wasn't on a leash and she thought that it was potentially dangerous to have an off leash dog. I told her that my dog would never hurt anyone. She said, "you think", i said, "i know", she said, "you think", i said, "i know". This exchange repeated about 8 more times and then i just walked away. My point is that a person who doesn't know that you can know a dog to that degree doesn't understand dogs and doesn't understand that a person can really know their animal. Which is not to say that everyone does however.

So yeah. I see. Hopefully though, people won't abuse this new law and maybe it'll even save a dogs life. If it does, it's worth it imo despite the potential problems.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by blueskywalker

When i said it's not political i meant that, for me, being able to help a creature out isn't a political issue. But i know what you're saying.

Also, despite what some may assume, i'm not a knee-jerk liberal. But i did have a knee-jerk positive response to that law without thinking it through.

I have a dog who spent the first year of her life in the desert of Nevada and was neglected as well (not by me - i rescued her). She's a tough critter and i know that when i leave her in the car she's fine even when it's hot. And a few times over the years i've left her for a very brief amount of time in an only semi-shady spot. I know with certainty that she's totally o.k. but when i'm parked in the lot of say, Staff of Life (a most politically correct and liberal market in S.C. and with not enough shade in their lot ) i worry that other people will incorrectly assume that she's being neglected and do something stupid or, at the very least, wait at my car and give me grief when i return to my car.

One time a few years ago i ran into the bookstore (for less than 5 minutes) in down-town S.C.. I parked in the shade, cracked the windows and it wasn't even a very hot day. When i came out of the store a woman was yelling hysterically at my car and saying to my dog that "your f****** parents s***". She thought my dog was in peril and didn't notice that the windows were all open sufficiently and apparently didn't notice that the car was in full shade.

So i know what you're talking about. I'm always concerned that someone will come to the wrong conclusion. I always make sure my doors are locked so that if someone stupid incorrectly assumes that my dog isn't o.k. they won't be able to open my car to "save" my dog. And similar to your experience in more red parts of the state, when i'm up in Idaho (where i spend quite a bit of time), i never worry about that. There is a different attitude. Not less care but just more grounded in reality and not lost in their stupid ideas. So i get it.

Anyway, after having a conversation about it with my very libertarian leaning friend and thinking about it some more, i totally realize what y'all are saying about the problematic issues around this law.

And i don't like the term "pet nazi" but i understand the sentiment. Usually such people aren't very connected with their own animal and just project a bunch of nonsense onto the dog or the dog person.

Along the same lines, i got into an argument with a woman a few months ago. She was irate that my dog wasn't on a leash and she thought that it was potentially dangerous to have an off leash dog. I told her that my dog would never hurt anyone. She said, "you think", i said, "i know", she said, "you think", i said, "i know". This exchange repeated about 8 more times and then i just walked away. My point is that a person who doesn't know that you can know a dog to that degree doesn't understand dogs and doesn't understand that a person can really know their animal. Which is not to say that everyone does however.

So yeah. I see. Hopefully though, people won't abuse this new law and maybe it'll even save a dogs life. If it does, it's worth it imo despite the potential problems.

Two things.

1. What happens if the dog is very defensive, but not a barker, and someone opens the door or breaks the window and the dog attacks them. Who gets sued?

2. Any dog can do the unexpected so do not assume your dog would never bite someone. Highly unlikely, probably, but not never, unless of course the dog is extremely old and has no teeth.

I am all for saving a dog's life IF it is in danger. The problem will be fanatics and just foolish do-gooders.