2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

It's important to clarify the leash law. There are signs in parks that say dogs must be on leash, but unless that rule is posted, the rule in most places is that the dog must not be "at large", and must be under control. If I have a well-trained dog who stays with me and doesn't run up to people, then he's as controlled as if he was on a leash.

So, when people decide whether to say something about a dog off leash, I think it's important to clarify whether there's any harm or potential harm. I once took my dog swimming at a local lake. I was standing on the bank and she was swimming after a stick. A cyclist rode by an yelled, "There's a leash law in Oregon, you know!" In this case, he wasn't objecting to any real or perceived danger; he just thought he could call somebody out.

In contrast, I once asked a man to control his dog at an off-leash park. His big dog was jumping on my nephew. My nephew was crying, and the man did nothing to call his dog or correct the behavior. So, the issue is not whether somebody has a leash attached to the dog or not. The issue is - or should be - whether there's an actual problem.

posted 4 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Seriously, Brenda? I hope that was a bit tongue-in-cheek, because it borders on ludicrous. If the market demanded fewer animal foods, then the industry wouldn't keep breeding masses of animals. It isn't as if these millions of poor, aimless animals would be looking for a purpose in their lives. They simply wouldn't be born.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context

The idea that people can "honor the dead animal" is the kind of crazy rationalization that just makes people feel better about themselves. We can honor animals by considering their interests and by treating them as living beings rather than snacks. Oogling over novelty meats and trendy dishes trivializes the life and death of the animal.

posted 5 years, 3 months ago
view in context