BLIND-HAMS Archives

For blind ham radio operators

BLIND-HAMS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Colin McDonald <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:39:14 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)
hey, if we ham operators could have action as quickly as neighbors who
complain about a barking dog get around here, we would be happy.
One complaint of a barking dog on a block, and every house will get a
warning from the city
within two days.  Second complaint on that block and a
bi-law guy will come out, scope out any house that has a dog registered and
give a second warning in person, or leave a note on the door.
Third complaint and all dog owners who are registered on that block will
receive a 200 dollar fine for disturbing the peace.
And it doesn't seem to matter to the city who's dog it really was who was
barking, or not in some cases.
If we could have half the attention that a barking dog gets, we would have
almost nothing to complain about!
Apparently our federally protected rights  as amateur radio operators not to
receive interpherence, is less important, and much more difficult to uphold,
then a municipal bi-law against barking neighborhood dogs.
I guess the right not to hear a sound as innocuous and everyday normal as a
dog barking is a far higher priority to law makers then preventing
potentially fatal interpherence to an amateur station, who may at some
point, be a life saver to those same neighbors who complained about the
barking dog.
73
Colin, V A6BKX

ATOM RSS1 RSS2