Out of curiosity, is a "fighter dog" anything like an "assault rifle" to you per chance? I.e. poorly/subjectively defined and amorphous to the point of becoming a functional drop-in for "thing I don't think someone else needs"?
Not trying to derail or start a flamewar, but wanted to point out that there is a kind of rhetorical distinction-without-a-difference-making at work there, that I've noticed tends to be completely innocent and well-intentioned, but left unchecked for what it is leads to some absolutely farcical legislative outcomes.
Dog fighting is already illegal; and licensing on whether a dog meets some nebulous, ill-defined criteria by which it is judged to be a "fighter dog" or not seems ill-advised as a productive expenditure of governmental oversight.
That I think the same logic already extends to firearms is tangential to the topic at hand, but I figured I'd toss it out there anyway in the interests of dispelling any speculation as to there being secretive ulterior motives.
Anywho, back on topic; I let my boys out onto a woefully undersized porch, but we have a stray cat colony next door, and no fence. So I'm leery of letting them wander around too much. Especially since we had a scare with one of them over a rather strong reaction to a an immunization booster given too early because we couldn't find paperwork for one of them having gotten a rabies shot. I've been gunshy a bit because the vet that readministered the vaccination was totally prepared to amputate the limb before biopsy results came in in and if it weren't for getting a second opinion our boy may be a tripod now.
I find any law that leads to something like that to be a rather antagonistic application of force, and requirement to induce pain and suffering. Yes, I collect immunization records like a hawk now, but injection site sarcoma fears are not something I wish on anyone.
Not trying to derail or start a flamewar, but wanted to point out that there is a kind of rhetorical distinction-without-a-difference-making at work there, that I've noticed tends to be completely innocent and well-intentioned, but left unchecked for what it is leads to some absolutely farcical legislative outcomes.
Dog fighting is already illegal; and licensing on whether a dog meets some nebulous, ill-defined criteria by which it is judged to be a "fighter dog" or not seems ill-advised as a productive expenditure of governmental oversight.
That I think the same logic already extends to firearms is tangential to the topic at hand, but I figured I'd toss it out there anyway in the interests of dispelling any speculation as to there being secretive ulterior motives.
Anywho, back on topic; I let my boys out onto a woefully undersized porch, but we have a stray cat colony next door, and no fence. So I'm leery of letting them wander around too much. Especially since we had a scare with one of them over a rather strong reaction to a an immunization booster given too early because we couldn't find paperwork for one of them having gotten a rabies shot. I've been gunshy a bit because the vet that readministered the vaccination was totally prepared to amputate the limb before biopsy results came in in and if it weren't for getting a second opinion our boy may be a tripod now.
I find any law that leads to something like that to be a rather antagonistic application of force, and requirement to induce pain and suffering. Yes, I collect immunization records like a hawk now, but injection site sarcoma fears are not something I wish on anyone.