Totally off topic but I just had my Beagle(Tana) spayed today. She's a bit under the weather poor thing but should be back to her normal self, running back in forth in her large(fenced in, not tethered) back yard in no time. Right now she is taking a rare nap with Sassy(Cat) and Fred(Dashund mix) on the couch. I normally don't let them sleep on the sofa but Tana had a hard day and the other two wanted to join her:rolleyes:

They still won't let me taser the kids playing soccer in the street, though :(

What I hate is the arbitrary number.

Spanking is not child abuse. Excessive spanking is child abuse. There's no arbitrary legal number that says, "More than X spankings per day is illegal." And yet child abuse laws are still enforceable. The problem with arbitrary numbers is that they are just that and they punish/restrict perfectly responsible people based on misguided attempts to, and forgive the hyperbole, trade freedoms for safety.

Yeah, but that's just the letter of the law.

As you pointed out, though, enforcement is going to be the key. And yes, you were right that this is difficult to enforce, is unable to be enforced, and ... well, won't be enforced.



So it won't.

Except ... in the hard-core cases where the 3-hour limit can be used as a legal bludgeon to come down on the people who chain their dogs by the next outside for their entire canine lives.

The priorities of society and police business will never allow for the prosecution of every pet owner who ties their dog up in a run-of-the-mill manner.


The law doesn't frighten me at all for its abuse potential, and - not knowing how effective it will turn out to be - I like it there as a tool against animal cruelty.

I understand how you feel on this topic, but I feel this type of law GOES TOO FAR. It's a serious intrusion on our rights and we really shouldn't allow this sort of busybody interference in our lives, because sure, this time the cause is good, but it opens the door for others which aren't. Slippery slope, and all that. Plus, I get really resentful of the idea that a natural act should require licensing and government interference.

And when a major area does that, it creates a shortage of a desired "good", which raises prices on available "good" and encourages profiteers to "create" more of that "good" and bring it in from elsewhere or sell it nearby.

In other words, laws meant to prevent puppy mills will actually create them and justify their business model.

No sir, don't like it. Not one bit.

I think it's more likely to be used in neighbor disputes. One more tool (along with zoning and CPS) for the disgruntled to use against one another. No facts to back that up - it's a completely unsubstantiated hunch based on knowing that people suck.

That's my big worry. And now, instead of an officer being able to say to some nosey, vindictive neighbor, "Umm, the dog looks healthy and well cared for, shut up," they will be forced to take action based on an arbitrary number, wasting their time, punishing people who don't need to be punished.

Invisible fencing is big in the northeast. It's an alternative to physical fences. The dog wears a collar that will shock it if the dog tries to cross the fenceline.

I think this will be the exception rather than the rule. Unfortunantely, there are more poorly cared for dogs in the world that need protection laws than there are vindictive neighbours. Animal Control will probably make mistakes just as CPS makes mistakes, but, as a whole, this is going to be better for the dogs of the world.

And a "no more than 3 spanking per day" rule would be "better" for the children of the world. Doesn't mean I'd support it. There are ways to do things without making arbitrary definitions.