4 ms·

Nope, but you missed the question of what happened in the park. :D Did anything other than fetch happen?

giantg2 6y ago
Then why did you say it was not an answer? The reason I didnt answer the other question is that it is not relevant. Another dog barked at and chased our dog after their owner couldn't hold onto the leash. That's not really important since not being able to hold the leash is a violation of the law. The other party didn't even have a dog license. They decided to call the police because that makes them the "victim" and protects them from their infractions. Not to mention, it's irrelevant. The law is stated in an absolute liability/immunity fashion. If you are involved in field training, then you are not in violation of the law (civil issues could still be brought if your property caused damages).
- ddingus 6y ago
  Ahh! Here we go. Something other than fetch happened in the park! That still leaves the question of whether your activities outside the animal conflict were anything besides fetch and how those activities contribute to some articulable training regimen. The conflict changes the entire thing and it is relevant! Now someone has to answer the question about why your dog is not on a leash to the other dog owner. In my other comment, I spoke about fleshing this out some. That is what they need. Secondly, yeah path of least resistance is to not step up for you, report the call, and go through the motions. What incentive do they have to step up for you? How do they sell it to the other dog owner? After considerable, and entertaining by the way, discussion how your game is differentiated from any game of fetch remains unclear. In my view, this is likely the primary reason it went the way it did for you. That officer needed a clear, compelling reason to step up in your favor. Did not have it. I don't and have been looking for it, again as a general exercise. Nothing personal here man. Just found how this played out interesting.
- ddingus 6y ago
  I said it was not an answer because it implied matters of intent and did not speak to intent directly, nor did it speak to either how your game of fetch is part of some articulable training, and or can be differentiated from any other game of fetch. You have said, "the actions we take" meaning either you and the dog, or you and others and the dog do something that is permitted, yes? I did not get clarity on what those actions were.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    The actions were the voice and hand commands as well as retrieving sticks and balls. All of this is moot anyways. After being subjected to pretrial restrictions under a charge they knew to be incorrect and was amended contrary to code, the case should have been dismissed.
    - ddingus 6y ago
      It is moot. All I can say is your scenario does not include much that bolsters your case. Very surprised it went to trial. Was anyone, animal injured?

Then why did you say it was not an answer? The reason I didnt answer the other question is that it is not relevant. Another dog barked at and chased our dog after their owner couldn't hold onto the leash. That's not really important since not being able to hold the leash is a violation of the law. The other party didn't even have a dog license. They decided to call the police because that makes them the "victim" and protects them from their infractions. Not to mention, it's irrelevant. The law is stated in an absolute liability/immunity fashion. If you are involved in field training, then you are not in violation of the law (civil issues could still be brought if your property caused damages).

ddingus 6y ago
Ahh! Here we go. Something other than fetch happened in the park! That still leaves the question of whether your activities outside the animal conflict were anything besides fetch and how those activities contribute to some articulable training regimen. The conflict changes the entire thing and it is relevant! Now someone has to answer the question about why your dog is not on a leash to the other dog owner. In my other comment, I spoke about fleshing this out some. That is what they need. Secondly, yeah path of least resistance is to not step up for you, report the call, and go through the motions. What incentive do they have to step up for you? How do they sell it to the other dog owner? After considerable, and entertaining by the way, discussion how your game is differentiated from any game of fetch remains unclear. In my view, this is likely the primary reason it went the way it did for you. That officer needed a clear, compelling reason to step up in your favor. Did not have it. I don't and have been looking for it, again as a general exercise. Nothing personal here man. Just found how this played out interesting.
ddingus 6y ago
I said it was not an answer because it implied matters of intent and did not speak to intent directly, nor did it speak to either how your game of fetch is part of some articulable training, and or can be differentiated from any other game of fetch. You have said, "the actions we take" meaning either you and the dog, or you and others and the dog do something that is permitted, yes? I did not get clarity on what those actions were.
- giantg2 6y ago
  The actions were the voice and hand commands as well as retrieving sticks and balls. All of this is moot anyways. After being subjected to pretrial restrictions under a charge they knew to be incorrect and was amended contrary to code, the case should have been dismissed.
  - ddingus 6y ago
    It is moot. All I can say is your scenario does not include much that bolsters your case. Very surprised it went to trial. Was anyone, animal injured?