Wednesday, October 26, 2022

Pet ownership ethics - an overview

 Good Afternoon!  (Hey, its always afternoon SOMEWHERE, right?!)

The DogMageddon continually raises issues and questions regarding the keeping of animals in our communities.  

As I have noted in the past, just about any animal that can be a nuisance (aggressive towards humans, noise polluting) has been zoned out.  By "zoned out" I mean they are banned or severely restricted in neighborhoods, and possession of such creatures is typically only allowed on farms, zoos, or in remote / rural areas.   How many sheep are living in your downtown apartment tower.  I thought so.

So, what are the boundaries of pet ownership in cities and suburbs?  I believe that pet ownership is a *privilege* in such places, and the privilege may be maintained if the following 2 criteria are met:

1) The animal must be kept in a humane manner.  For example, you can argue that a gerbil can be kept humanely in a small apartment BUT a horse cannot.

2) The animal must be kept in a socially acceptable manner.  The keeping of said animal should not violate the rights of anyone else.  The ONLY person subject to the downsides of owning the pet should be the pet owner.  

I estimate that dog people fail both of the 2 criteria on a regular basis.

This raises the question, what sort of animals CAN be kept in human communities, given both of the criteria set above?   I believe that any animal kept in a human community should meet the following 3 general guidelines:

1) Non-aggressive towards humans.

2) Quiet.  If the animal vocalizes at all, it should be at human-level volume or LOWER *and* for short durations.

3)  Small and light enough to be easily handled by the average adult.

Again, dogs and dog owners flunk the above on a very consistent basis.  Small dogs typically flunk 1 and 2 above, and large dogs flunk all 3.  

Think about it.

Monday, October 10, 2022

Service dog fail - A summation.


So, what is wrong here?   Why is the ADA service animal [dog] provision such a fail?

It empowers dog people to take their dog everywhere COUNTER to:

- Local and state health and safety laws.   Feds came in and USURPED the rules set by all these states and municipalities that said NO ANIMALS in places that sell or serve food, among other things.

- Feds ALSO usurped the rights of proprietors and the public to a dog-free space.  I have a right to seek a dog free dining experience.  

All of this is VERY heavy handed, and I believe, of dubious constitutionality.   For example, the my state government does NOT allow pets on state park beach areas.  The feds came in and said, YES you must allow mutts everywhere, including the beach as long as the dog owner says "the magic words!".  This is a breach of home rule protections.

I believe it is also a breach of association rights and property rights.  Say you are a proprietor of a restaurant, and you want to offer people a dog free space.  Thanks to the ADA, you are now no longer allowed to do that:   You MUST accommodate the dogs, or else.  

The worst problem with this is:  The Feds bestowed all this *power* upon dog owners WITH NO OVERSIGHT.