Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

The Licensing of Tyranny in Dog Ownership

CearaQC
July 18th, 2009, 08:59 AM
http://animalsclubfreedom.typepad.com/animals-club--freedom-national-org-inc-non-profit/2009/07/the-licensing-of-tyranny-in-dog-ownership.html

The Licensing of Tyranny in Dog Ownership

“The ideal animal control tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims.” ~ Dean A. Ayers

By Dean A. Ayers

Lead Investigative Reporter

NationalDogPress.com Headline News ©


14 July 09

The erosion of our freedom to own dogs, pets and animals, rings true of the current political climate in the USA today. We the People who own dogs, cats, pets and animals are especially struck by the public’s statements concerning agreement or apathy towards all the various government licensing to include that of our pets and animals.

Definition of Licensing and the Misconceptions:

Most people seem to believe that a dog or pet license is a freedom, when in true fact, it is a taking.

A license is a temporary, revocable permit issued by government that allows the holder to have something or to do something that is otherwise illegal. For example, in the USA the licensing of firearms has virtually removed our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Any time a license is issued, a freedom is jeopardized. By the very act of licensing dogs, the act of owning or even possessing a dog has been made illegal.

Animals are traditional property, now legally having “Intrinsic Value:”

Animals are human-kind's most ancient and traditional property. Before ever we settled down to a plot of land and threw seeds in the soil, we numbered animals as our most valuable possessions. Wealth has always been associated with the number of animals that a person owned, and kept.

Now animal ownership, use, and the ancient, honorable practice of animal husbandry are under global attack by dog laws, animal ID laws globally. It was initiated by the animal "rights" movement, and adapted by local, state, and federal governments throughout the world.

A Dog's life has 'intrinsic value,' New York judge finds:

Finding that a dog "is somewhere between a person and personal property," a New York trial court said a pet owner whose dog died following unauthorized surgery may seek damages beyond the purchase price of the animal. "[A dog] is not an inanimate thing that just receives affection; it also returns it," the court wrote, citing Corso v. Crawford, 97 Misc. 2d 530 (N.Y., Queens County Civ. Ct. 1979).

Doing Away with Dog Ownership:

All the dog legislation, animal control laws, dog ownership licensing, animal breeder licensing and animal ID programs will effectively do away with all but the largest commercial breeders and providers. When the small traditional owner and holder have been the basis for our animals and economy world-wide, it soon will end with all animals owned being controlled through licensing of many types and behaviors, as well as the food we all eat for life will be controlled by the seed products being copyrighted thru large commercial concerns like Monsanto, and those of us who have traditionally grown our own food or owned animals personally for various reasons will be locked out or the owners will be locked up literally, also known as “Jail” or animal shelters, etc.

To Legislate Animals and Control or Not to Legislate that is the Question:

Generally, people concerned about retaining their freedom and liberty in America are usually not in favor of "any" legislation of any kind that increases "stress" upon the freedom's of "We the People" no matter what the cause.

BUT..... after "reviewing" the "Who's Who" list of the “animal rights” organizations that are jumping up and down, screaming "unfair" I AM not going to continue to explain and complain about this.......For one thing, ASPCA, HSUS, and PETA, are the "first wasted" manipulators that will "AXE" our Freedoms to even merely "OWN" a pet, and after discovering the "INSANE" perverted information they are spewing regarding alleged cruelty by people, for "keeping their pets" safe, in a "proper" kennel inside or properly tethered outside their home, and the questionable manipulation on just being able to tie their dog or animal out to pee in the grass for a little while or exercise on a proper guide line", etc.

Not to mention the Lies that HSUS, the ASPCA, or PETA spews out, in just about every category of "reasonable care for animals and pets" to be lied about by HSUS and PETA and then manipulated to allegedly make We the People the criminals, for simply "loving" our dogs, pets and animals.

In actuality, We the People ARE the "REALISTS" with "common sense" and "family values" that include our Legal and God Given "rights, per the Bill of Rights to be free from intrusion on our own private property. My family happens to be "animals."

We the People are now headed immediately for a future that Dwight David Eisenhower warned the world about in his inaugural address, the "military, industrial complex".

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." ~ Marcus Aurelius


Dog Gone It, on a “Positive and Constructive” Note:

One reason a dog can be such a comfort such as when you're feeling blue or worried about tyranny legislation upon our animals, and ourselves, is that our dogs don't try to find out why. Some of these dog laws or animal control regulations appear to be "overwhelming" and appear "impossible to defeat."

Fortunately, I never have had enough intelligence to know, that I could not stop the impossible. I know "not" the meaning of defeat. This is the belief We as People, who own dogs, pets, and animals, need to retain, believe in, and “ACT” upon.


I Do Know the Love of My Dogs:

I DO KNOW, the Love of my dogs, and because of their “Intrinsic Value” to my life and theirs, I shall not forsake them, even unto a bad law or "perverted" animal activist organization's efforts to defeat my love, admiration, and ownership of my family of dogs and animals. With ordinary talent and extraordinary perseverance, all things are attainable, even to defeat the impossible perversion of animal control dog laws nation wide.

Dog Owners Remember This:

Look at a stone cutter (loving dog owners) hammering away at his/her rock (tyranny & the animal control legislation oppressor), perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack was showing in the rock (laws). Yet at the hundred-and-first blow the rock will split in two, and I know it was not the last blow that did it, but all that had gone before.

Let's get "busy" through "action" and “ACT” with authority of freedom and liberty to crack this stone of tyranny upon our animals and all the controlling tyranny of us all. And that “includes” our family of dogs, pets, and animals. Period.

Article Source Link on “Intrinsic” Value of a Dog:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dog's+life+has+'intrinsic+value,'+New+York+judge+f inds.-a018875469

Bailey_
July 18th, 2009, 09:45 AM
Most people seem to believe that a dog or pet license is a freedom, when in true fact, it is a taking. :thumbs up


Lets post this on kijiji for all those owners posting for free animals to give away!! :D

NoahGrey
July 18th, 2009, 05:10 PM
Having your dog licenced is very beneifical. Alot of people look at it, as another a pain. However, licencing your dog is the fastest way to get you dog home, if he goes missing or becomes lost, that and microchipping. For instance, actually had a call today regarding someone had found a dog running at large and had him confined in his is house. Arrive to the address and notice that the dog had a current dog licence. Called dispatch, got the owners info and I returned dog to the owner within 10 mins.

Interesting article though. Thanks for sharing it.

ACO22

CearaQC
July 19th, 2009, 12:08 AM
Well it's more politically oriented than pet oriented really.

It's the whole idea of a "license." Like you have to have a license to get married, as in asking permission to get married. So if a license is required for a dog, then you're asking the government permission to have a dog. May not be many more years until people are required to ask permission to have a child.


Any time a license is issued, a freedom is jeopardized. By the very act of licensing dogs, the act of owning or even possessing a dog has been made illegal.

Jim Hall
July 19th, 2009, 12:44 AM
Well i dont agree with the hypothises in the first place and the exampleof guns
dosent work any one can buy a gun if they want one and we have guns on the streets around here big time

As in all laws, the wise ruling in the public interst and judicial application is paramount

I would gladley liscence my cat and have always willingly lisceneced my dogs

NoahGrey
July 19th, 2009, 06:42 PM
Well it's more politically oriented than pet oriented really.

It's the whole idea of a "license." Like you have to have a license to get married, as in asking permission to get married. So if a license is required for a dog, then you're asking the government permission to have a dog. May not be many more years until people are required to ask permission to have a child.

I think people are into the big bad government trying to scam us again. When it is not. Licensing your dog will not only get you reunioned with them faster, but it keeps an open file on dogs that have been a problem in the nieghboured. These dogs are closely watched and by doing this, you, the community is a little bit saver.

I wonder what everyone's thoughts are, if mircochipping became a bylaw. Remember 20 years ago, we didn't have microchipping, we only had a tag. Would you still think of this "Licence" as a "ugh, it's like asking permisson" attitude or would you think of it as this is a greater way that my pet can get reunited with me, if they get lost.

You shouldn't look at it as, that damn government, I refuse to buy a licence and I win. Think about it as, for the love of your pet. With them not having somesort of ID, they might never be found, if they go missing.

And, when you think maybe it should be thought of as "permission". Not everyone should be a pet owner, not everyone should get married and not everyone should have children.

ACO22

CearaQC
July 19th, 2009, 09:23 PM
I
And, when you think maybe it should be thought of as "permission". Not everyone should be a pet owner, not everyone should get married and not everyone should have children.

Yes but then it turns into a philosophical question of who should be in charge.

The more we give our power away, the more they want to take.

lUvMyLaB<3
July 19th, 2009, 09:38 PM
It gets the dog home, and if everyone actually did it, it would stop the animal hoarding.. Give them a basis to rule on their 4 animal poopy rule, knowing who is over the limit.. My dogs are microchipped and I count on that to be a better way of getting them home than the city of brandon license, but the lisence is a must have to use the dog park, they do check up often.. So the small fee is worth it for that reason alone to me.

However a dog being somehwhere between a person and a possesion? Im thinkin closer to a person.. they are a pet.. far far from a possesion.. IMO.. Of coarse people should be able to sue for damages when the dog died! They suffer MORE than SOME people do when they lose a family member, that CANNOT be ignored!

My pets are people, I have always said that.. Glad we are getting closer to all the morons out there that haven't been lucky enough to know that already... Next up, lets finally start giving these furry people the RIGHTS they deserve!

hazelrunpack
July 19th, 2009, 11:51 PM
Licensing has never fixed a problem. It's a great tool used by governments to make money and keep tabs, but it solves no problems.

Think about it. The goal is to stop hoarding, but the law requires that owners license and the number is limited...4 animals to a house. Has that stopped hoarding? No. The hoarder is going to still hoard...and will until discovered. Meanwhile, responsible people, who are going to heed the rule, will pay the price.

There is a member on this board who recently wanted to adopt another cat from a shelter. The shelter denied the adoption on the basis that it would put the member out of compliance with their municipality's by-laws. If there is even a chance that someone might complain at a later date and the cat would have to be rehomed again, the shelter won't adopt the cat into that situation. Rightly so. It would be unfair to both cat and owner.

But this member really wanted another cat. She can give another cat a lovely, loving home and can afford to care for the cat. So she finds a stray and takes it in. She is now a criminal (however petty the crime) in her municipality.

Has any of this slowed down the hoarder? No. But it has prevented this member from legally adopted a needy cat. :shrug:

If your aim is to stop hoarding, take the time to legally define 'hoarding' and direct the law at stopping it. Unfortunately, that is not a money-maker for government, since they rarely would prosecute a hoarding case (there just aren't enough of them). So responsible, law-abiding citizens lose the freedom of adopting that extra cat :shrug:

Jim--take your argument about the guns. Guns are licensed in your town, but there are still guns on the street. Illegally gained, unregistered, unlicensed, and illegally kept. The licensing did nothing to help the problem. It did however, make the law-abiding citizens inform the government that they own guns. If/when that government decides in its inestimable wisdom to take guns away from citizens, the only guns it has tabs on are those that have been registered. The illegal guns are still bought and sold on the black market and are still in the hands of criminals.

And if a law-abiding citizen decides that self-defense is more important than a government mandate to turn in guns, then that citizen has just become a criminal :shrug: Again, licensing/registration has done nothing to solve a problem.

Finally, to continue in my devil's advocacy...look at licensing and how it relates to BSL, or BSL to it. When we license our dogs, we state the breed. I'm assuming this is a fairly common practice. Let's say that English Setters are suddenly declared canine non grata and I'm faced with having to ship the Pack out or run the risk of having them destroyed. The governing authority knows I have English Setters. Now what do I do?

How many pit bull owners have faced a similar agonizing quandary?

Licensing/registration has never solved a problem. What we need are laws that clearly state a problem and offer real solutions to control that problem. And then we need to enforce those laws. That's a lot of work. Licensing is just so much easier and lucrative :rolleyes:

lUvMyLaB<3
July 20th, 2009, 08:30 AM
I agree, and well said Hazel! like I said I think the 4 animal rule is poopy.. I can see the idea.. if licensing actually worked.. it could stop hoarding, and would also stop many animals from getting the homes they need. Here the law is 2 cats and 2 dogs.. I have 2 cats and 2 dogs.. I think it is propsterous for them to tell me I cannot care for another cat properly. If everyone did license including potential hoarders, and the limit was like 8, then when someone got one over they could do something i may begin to understand..I hate the whole licensing thing, and here most people don't license their pets, epecially their cats, but I do for use of the dog park and that is it... I will count on the micochip to get them home.

CearaQC
July 20th, 2009, 09:52 AM
Licensing has never fixed a problem. It's a great tool used by governments to make money and keep tabs, but it solves no problems.

Thank you Hazel. That's sort of what I had in mind. But I'm never very good at debating issues because I can never get my thoughts into words easily. My brain works in images, analogies, and associations, not words. :laughing:

Most of the problems we face in the world today will never be solved by government rules, regulations, laws, presidential signing statements and other forms of control.

Need for guns for protection from other humans, or guns used in criminal situations would go away if there was no crime. Crime would disappear if there was no more greed and no more destitution or want.

Take hunting for example. The greedy and those that only care about social status or appearances where we live will go during moose hunting season, kill a moose, mount the head on the front of their vehicle, drive around with the carcass for so long on the truck just to show off that the meat goes bad and everything has to be chucked at the dump. And this is with 3 people on a moose license. There is also a lottery special license for a chance to take down a female. I'm not kidding. I call it the "moose parade." Usually about halfway during either the bow season or the gun season, the men start coming out of the woods hauling a giant carcass. One guy had the head on the front of his truck for about two weeks. :yuck:

The good hunters will use as much of the animal as possible. They clean the hides and either give or sell cheaply to a leather worker who can then make something out of it. Bones and extra meat fed to dogs. Choice parts or stewing meat are butchered cleanly and shared with others. These guys aren't greedy because they care about the animals not suffering in any way, never want to waste any of it and share with neighbors and friends instead of hoarding or fighting.

The answer isn't to just not allow the greedy types to have guns in the form of denying a license for they will just go get something illegally and poach. The answer is to TEACH people that being greedy isn't socially acceptable. Then that child grows up and teaches his/her own children that being greedy isn't socially acceptable.

No laws required, no government intervention and the people solved the problem on their own just by agreeing en masse that no one should be greedy.

It becomes choice, not subjugation.

Bailey_
July 20th, 2009, 10:25 AM
Hazel, I think you hit the problem right on the head. The fact that NOT licensing our pets in this society, is too easy.

How many of us have seen dogs at the dog park running around without tags? And even in those situations, whose to say that these dogs *aren't* licensed?

Sure, lawabiding citizens get the crappy end of the deal when they respect the rules and regulations and get shafted because of it. But I think the problem lies not with the hoarders or the other owners; but the people NOT enforcing these laws.

There are laws in place for a reason. Humane societies, by turning people away, are trying to do their part in keeping people from hoarding. It's a bandaid, and it doesn't fully work unless the OTHER part of the equation is doing their job too. (Which they obviously aren't.)

There are checkstops for drivers; why can't there be checkstops for pet owners? I believe that this is what licensing has 'attempted' to do, simply because the government doesn't see how else they can try to monitor this problem.

I suppose my question is, if we don't think licensing works, what procedures would?

hazelrunpack
July 20th, 2009, 11:25 AM
Hazel, I think you hit the problem right on the head. The fact that NOT licensing our pets in this society, is too easy.



I never said that. What I actually said was: Licensing/registration has never solved a problem. What we need are laws that clearly state a problem and offer real solutions to control that problem. And then we need to enforce those laws. That's a lot of work. Licensing is just so much easier and lucrative :rolleyes:

I'm not saying that the problem is nonenforcement of licensing laws. In fact, far from it.

The problem is not that licensing is not enforced. The problem is that licensing gives government a lot of control over law-abiding citizens without targeting the actual problems.

Let's look again at hoarding. A 'good' law would clearly define what hoarding is and set up a clear remedy. That is the law that needs enforcement.

But as I said before, there's no money in this type of law. Licensing is easy for governments who can count on their law-abiding citizens to cooperate and is desirable because it raises funds. I'm in government....believe me, there is a pervasive atmosphere of "where the next buck is coming from", not "where can we cut to save money" (...but that's a whole nuther topic :rolleyes: :p)... However, licensing will not solve the underlying problem of hoarding (a hoarder doesn't advertise, doesn't license, and is usually only discovered when a neighbor complains or by accident). So the underlying problem that spurred the licensing in the first place is still going strong. But now the responsible pet owners are footing funding for the government to continue to be ineffectual in the struggle against hoarders. :shrug:

And would you really want checkstops for pet owners, Bailey? :eek: How intrusive is that? What keeps them from knocking on your door to do spot checks of your pets? That would be open to more abuse than the licensing itself :shrug:

Bailey_
July 20th, 2009, 12:09 PM
I never said that.

Hazel, sorry, I should've been more clear in what I was typing. I didn't mean that you thought licensing laws needed more enforcement, that was my opinion.
I agreed with you that licensing has not solved problems, and this was my personal opinion of WHY.

The problem is not that licensing is not enforced. The problem is that licensing gives government a lot of control over law-abiding citizens without targeting the actual problems.


I actually disagree with you that the problem is not that licensing has not been enforced. I do think this is one of the reasons that we all agree it doesn't target actual problems. How can a law do anything when it's not backed up strongly by the people that put it in place?
I have seen so many people who choose to disregard this law, simply because they are never caught. How many people are able to own a cat, for instance, and do not have it licensed on the thought that they will 'keep it inside the house'?

It's not fair to others who choose to obey that particular law about owning pets.

a hoarder doesn't advertise, doesn't license, and is usually only discovered when a neighbor complains or by accident)

Exactly. Hoarding occurs in part BECAUSE people are not required ENOUGH to license their pets. They can get away with it because no one is knocking on our doors to ensure that we are all obeying the laws. Which is what brought me to the comment about checkstops.

And as far as people actually coming to my house to do a 'spot check' on my animals, I have nothing to hide. If it means that the person down the street won't own hundreds of animals because of not obeying the laws that they SHOULD be, then come on in! Call me crazy, but I would gladly invite the law into my house if it meant changing the consequences for those that don't obey the rules. And I never said this is the action the law needs to take in order to enforce the laws and prevent hoarding; I think the problem at this point in society is quite far - I was just trying to bring out the fact that pet ownership and those who are able to have a pet is not taken seriously enough by those on the other side of the law.

hazelrunpack
July 20th, 2009, 03:08 PM
You would actually be happy if government authorities did house-by-house compliance checks? Holay catz! First of all, what an invasion of privacy! Bailey, you're a braver person than I, willing to cede that much of your independence to a government bureaucracy! :D If you are using common sense and are law-abiding, what right does government have to intrude on your life? You vote your representatives into office--they work for you, not vice versa! When was the last time you went to your superiors on the corporate ladder at work and asked for an accounting of their private lives?

Maybe I'm jaded...I've seen too much political infighting--but consider if you tick off one of your town officials and they decide to make your life miserable by nit-picking--and can legally nit-pick inside your home.

And an even bigger concern to most people (face it, animal welfare is not on the high end of the priority list for most people trying to feed a family and retain their employment)...are you willing to foot the cost of these house-by-house inspections? (It would have to include every house...spot-checking is no better than the current system where someone finds a hoarder by accident or because a neighbor complains.) Even at minimum wage, how much would it cost your community to do compliance checks? At some point, the benefits to society are far outweighed by costs to the taxpayer.

What if the idea caught on and suddenly your community wants to do house-to-house checks for domestic abuse and child abuse, a much worthier cause in many citizens' eyes? And the day they came to your house was after the big soccer game--your son has a huge bruise where he was accidentally kicked? Whooopsy...evidence of child abuse. "I'm sorry, we have to remove your child from your home..."

Get my drift? When will it be "too much"? And when it gets to be "too much", how do you fix that problem?

You can never get 100% compliance on any law...it's a fact of life. 100% compliance is too expensive, both monetarily and socially. Draconian measures foster resistance.

One thing I've learned. If you give a government bureaucrat a toe in the door, he'll be sitting on your couch demanding dinner by the end of the week. :shrug: If you value your freedoms, you have to fight for them, not hand them out at the door!

Remember, a government that is big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything away... And hazel didn't say that. That's from Thomas Jefferson. :D

aslan
July 20th, 2009, 03:20 PM
Hazel they actually did just do a door to door licence check here in toronto in the last two months. They even had the spiffy little machine so you could use a debit or credit card to pay right there and then.

I personally don't think a government issued dog licence is going to be anymore affective than the personalized tags my dogs wear ( and yes they are legally licenced). If say Qman got loose and someone found him, tag or no tag, if they want him, poof off goes the tag or collar.

Even with door to door, i know people that got away without licencing. They had one of 4 dogs licenced so the name was on the list and the house was just bypassed. Anyone who is hoarding will come up with away to get by.

CearaQC
July 20th, 2009, 03:27 PM
You can never get 100% compliance on any law...it's a fact of life. 100% compliance is too expensive, both monetarily and socially. Draconian measures foster resistance.

One thing I've learned. If you give a government bureaucrat a toe in the door, he'll be sitting on your couch demanding dinner by the end of the week.

Remember, a government that is big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything away. That's from Thomas Jefferson.

1. Amen!

2. That's like inviting a vampire! (But it could also apply to church ministers just wanting a free meal.:laughing:)

3. *nods in agreement*

they actually did just do a door to door licence check here in toronto in the last two months. They even had the spiffy little machine so you could use a debit or credit card to pay right there and then.

aslan, were there any news articles out in main stream media at the time? I'd very much like to see those.

aslan
July 20th, 2009, 03:28 PM
there may have been but i didn't notice it, SIL seemed to be aware it was going on. i can check if you'd like.

aslan
July 20th, 2009, 03:33 PM
here you go, i get the impression its not just toronto by the names of other cities that came up too.

www.thestar.com/article/455144

Bailey_
July 20th, 2009, 03:35 PM
You would actually be happy if government authorities did house-by-house compliance checks? Holay catz! First of all, what an invasion of privacy! Bailey, you're a braver person than I, willing to cede that much of your independence to a government bureaucracy! If you are using common sense and are law-abiding, what right does government have to intrude on your life? You vote your representatives into office--they work for you, not vice versa! When was the last time you went to your superiors on the corporate ladder at work and asked for an accounting of their private lives?

:laughing: Yeah, you're right Hazel, it WOULD be intruding... but maybe I just *hate* the fact that so many people can get away without licensing their pets and blatantly ignoring the rules so many of us strive to uphold, however small, regarding petcare and ownership.

Basically, if it meant that we could catch two or three hoarders or people who have not licensed their pets - out of a thousand people - I would do it. Gladly. Whether or not I liked it.

And when it gets to be "too much", how do you fix that problem?

Yep - great point. I suppose we all, myself included, would like to *think* we could make things work by forcing people to obey...and like you said, you can't. Those who want to do wrong, simply will, if it means they get off more easily than the rest of us.

I guess I just think we can progress by making small steps in certain areas...and animal regulation is such a hard one to figure out. :shrug:

CearaQC
July 20th, 2009, 03:37 PM
here you go, i get the impression its not just toronto by the names of other cities that came up too.

www.thestar.com/article/455144

Thank you very much!

Bailey_
July 20th, 2009, 03:39 PM
here you go, i get the impression its not just toronto by the names of other cities that came up too.

www.thestar.com/article/455144

Woah, I had no idea this actually was going on!!! I like the fact that it's not fining people, but making them aware that they are breaking the law.

BUT - this is something I'm not sure what to feel about. Homes with licensed pets are not on the list to be visited.


Thats so misleading! People who license one pet five years ago, may have aquired four more and never done the same thing....How are they to know?
And yet if they checked all the houses regardless, people who have licensed all their animals may be made to feel grouped in with those who don't obey the law, considering they took the time to take the appropriate steps.

It's so tricky, this whole process. What is right, what is wrong.

hazelrunpack
July 20th, 2009, 03:42 PM
Hazel they actually did just do a door to door licence check here in toronto in the last two months. They even had the spiffy little machine so you could use a debit or credit card to pay right there and then.


That's intrusive enough...but I think Bailey was agreeing to allowing them inside without a warrant to check on compliance? Correct me if I'm wrong, Bailey...

What you're describing, aslan, is intrusive without being effective. As you say, some people weren't checked as closely as others, and some weren't checked at all. At what cost to the taxpayer, I wonder? What benefit?

When we lived in EC, we'd get yearly notices in the mail when license fees were due. There was a notice on the bottom of the slip: "If pet is deceased, do not return slip. Pet will be removed from license list." We still got a renewal for Priscilla for 4 years running after she died. So much for governmental efficiency. We finally wrote them a letter pointing out that she hadn't had a tab issued for 4 years. Sigh :rolleyes:

Let's say that they had the authority to inspect a household for noncompliance--can you imagine hazel putting up with them coming inside her house to look for Priscilla until they were finally convinced that she'd died? :eek: (Only if they grabbed a vacuum and did some floors while they were there! :laughing:)

CearaQC
July 20th, 2009, 03:49 PM
I just found this.

Coming soon near us all I imagine.

RFID tattoo ink ID

http://somarkinnovations.com/products/

The SOMARK technology is an RFID-like tattoo unique to the industry. Unlike conventional RFID, our product is chipless and features electronic ink for identification. We have competitive advantage with a lower price point, increased retention, easy application and reliable reading.

What’s more, injection of our product is short and simple. No shaving is required and the process takes less than two seconds.

Currently, we have three U.S. issued patents.

hazelrunpack
July 20th, 2009, 03:49 PM
It's so tricky, this whole process. What is right, what is wrong.

It's so tricky to know how far is too far for any problem... And so I probably err on the side of caution and don't go far enough.

Right and wrong are not as tricky as unintended consequences from ill-thought-out bills. We had what was supposed to be an anti-puppy-mill bill going through the state legislature last year--I was excited...we live in a county notorious for puppy mills...but then I read the proposed bill.

:eek:

I won't hit the details, but it would have, as an unintended consequence, resulted in the destruction of hundreds or thousands of puppies. Not to mention that the ones that survived would often end up right in the very puppy mills that the bill was supposedly targeting! (PM me if you really want details...it's not riveting stuff. :rolleyes:)

Some days I wish I had never decided to start paying attention. :sad: It's so bloody frustrating!

Masha
July 20th, 2009, 03:52 PM
If a dog is microchipped i dont see how licensing that dog would help get him or her home especially if they alerady have a tag with the owners details. The way i see it, is that it is just another tax grab. They just put a differnt name to this tax.... The government should have no business coming into people's home to check on them unless there are some complaints that would suggest that there is some animal abuse, etc.

Having more than 4 pets does not make a person a hoarder. A person can have 20 cats or dogs but if they can properly provide and care for them then this person is an angel not a hoarder. Hoarders are people with a mental problem and no means to care for the animals and no 'licensing fee' will deter them. All it will do is prevent people from adopting in additional animals in need, even if they have the means to support them, as happend at another thread.

If the government needs more funds for the Animal Services, it should legislate a tax that applies to all city residents, not just animal owners. Just as my property taxes go towards services neither me or my husband use.

They are punishing people who care for animals by taxing them whereas what they need to spend their time and energy on is trying to improve animal rights.

ok, rant over :)

Bailey_
July 20th, 2009, 03:53 PM
Hazel, I actually hadn't thought through specifics of it all, it was just an example I thought to use to establish how I felt about the seriousness of it all.

I had no idea it had actually already happened! :laughing:

And to answer your question, I don't think I personally would find it would make much difference whether or not they had a warrant. :shrug: I would let them into my home, because like I said before - if it meant the consequences for other pet owners who did not obey the law became more serious, I am a willing compliant.

Every action has a reaction. Maybe it would make people more aware about how many pets they owned, maybe it would stop some BYB. Maybe it wouldn't. Am I willing to take a chance, refuse the government into my home because I feel intruded, and possibly choke a situation that could very well end homelessness in animals ten, twenty, fifty years down the road? Nope.

Bailey_
July 20th, 2009, 03:56 PM
...but then I read the proposed bill.


:eek::yuck: Okay, seriously. That is unbelievable!!!!


:sad: Maybe I am just naive and I like to think that the government will help us all fix these things? But I suppose if that was the case, then a lot of our problems today wouldn't exist....

*sigh*:confused:

aslan
July 20th, 2009, 03:56 PM
well the whole they aren't fining people is bullcrap. two of our neighbours weren't home, buddy knocks, dogs bark, fine left in the mailbox. our one neighbour was two houses over fixing a fence and i told the guy that. And the neighbour thought with the dogs microchipped that they didn't need a licence.

Bailey_
July 20th, 2009, 04:00 PM
Aslan, that SUCKS. Sounds like their vet dropped the ball though in explaining what a microchip does and what it's actually for...

hazelrunpack
July 20th, 2009, 07:29 PM
Am I willing to take a chance, refuse the government into my home because I feel intruded, and possibly choke a situation that could very well end homelessness in animals ten, twenty, fifty years down the road? Nope.

I lack your faith in government. There will always be homeless animals until the general public is willing to be educated on the problem. Government will always be stumbling along in the dark while the little guy on the street does the legwork and makes the largest impact...at least, until Government shuts down the little guy. :shrug:

excerpt taken from "madame hazel's Really Bad Book of Really Big Government" :D ...or is that "madame hazels' Really Big Book of Really Bad Government"? :laughing: Take your pick. :p

Sorry...all this government talk is depressin' ol hazel... :o Gotta throw in some silliness. :D