Further thoughts on the issue of limiting dogs and cats
After attending the committee meeting and hearing the bizarre one-woman show that goes by the name of Citizens for Companion Animal Limits, I have more than a few thoughts based on 2 pages of notes.
1) What will be the cost of limiting the number of licensed dogs?
First, there will be a decrease in income as people who would license all of their dogs will have to stop at 4, and those who never licensed theirs before probably won't start up in order to take up the slack. Secondly, there will be an increase in the cost of tracking those dogs that have been licensed to make sure that they haven't been replaced at death by another animal. Moreover, the brilliant suggestion of requiring owners to put a microchip in their licensed animals would entail paying personnel to check that dogs are really who their owners claim to be. Now, would that happen yearly and at the pound (less expensive for the city but a traffic nightmare for owners who would have to get off work to go in at a centrally appointed hour, not to mention the liability involved in gathering a lot of dogs together for a riot) or at homes (wow, that would be quite a gas bill for the city, plus they'd have to get everyone to make appointments)? Anyway, it's not even a question of cost here but of multiple costs that go on and on.
2) If the city is then paying so much attention to dogs who are licensed, will there be any time left to look for abused animals?
Good question. Considering the amount of time that would be needed for doggie roll call, I can't imagine anyone would have time to go after those who don't have licenses, much less those who are mistreating dogs. At any rate, the limit on dog numbers will create a new class of criminals--people who would license their dogs but can't because they've exceeded the limit. And by chasing after them, the real problem of suffering animals will be overlooked.
1) What will be the cost of limiting the number of licensed dogs?
First, there will be a decrease in income as people who would license all of their dogs will have to stop at 4, and those who never licensed theirs before probably won't start up in order to take up the slack. Secondly, there will be an increase in the cost of tracking those dogs that have been licensed to make sure that they haven't been replaced at death by another animal. Moreover, the brilliant suggestion of requiring owners to put a microchip in their licensed animals would entail paying personnel to check that dogs are really who their owners claim to be. Now, would that happen yearly and at the pound (less expensive for the city but a traffic nightmare for owners who would have to get off work to go in at a centrally appointed hour, not to mention the liability involved in gathering a lot of dogs together for a riot) or at homes (wow, that would be quite a gas bill for the city, plus they'd have to get everyone to make appointments)? Anyway, it's not even a question of cost here but of multiple costs that go on and on.
2) If the city is then paying so much attention to dogs who are licensed, will there be any time left to look for abused animals?
Good question. Considering the amount of time that would be needed for doggie roll call, I can't imagine anyone would have time to go after those who don't have licenses, much less those who are mistreating dogs. At any rate, the limit on dog numbers will create a new class of criminals--people who would license their dogs but can't because they've exceeded the limit. And by chasing after them, the real problem of suffering animals will be overlooked.
posted by Alma Jill Dizon, Riverside Realtor @ 8:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home