Good place for a Corgi?

[Michael Romanos]

The USA-produced world cities rankings have just come out and of 144 cities world-wide, Wellington in New Zealand - where I live - ranks 105th most expensive of the cities to live in. Moscow, Seoul, Tokyo, Hong Kong and London are the most expensive.
And Wellington is ranked a high 12th in the world for quality of living.
So put these two together and Wellington is not a bad choice for living here and raising a Corgi.
But it is attitude and a caring society that is most important and the world sure needs a lot more of this.
Another USA survey that came out last week was the amount of lonely people in the USA. Twenty five percent of all the thousands surveyed said that they had no friends. Another 35% said that they had only one or two friends - and most of those would be a spouse/partner or another family member. So that's 60 percent of all Americans who are in the lonely bracket or without any kind of circle of friends. A lot more people could do with a Corgi for company. Those figures show there is a good reason for Governments promoting dog ownership.

[herdingdogs]

Well I think we've (DC area) got you beat as being the #83 most expensive place to live. I actually thought we'd be higher on the list than that.

I don't know what we rated as far as quality of living but I would bet you've got us beat there. While we're not the worst I think we've got a lot of room for improvement there.

Actually I think almost anywhere in NZ would be a cool place to live. Too bad it's so far away. LOL

Linda

[Michael Romanos]

Hey Linda of Herdingdogs - 83rd for cst of living for a city like Washington is not too bad at all.
But Wellington coming in at 105 is even better -especially with the fact that housing prices here have skyrocketed over the last 12 months. I can now add on a $100.000 to the value of my property.

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by Michael Romanos

So that's 60 percent of all Americans who are in the lonely bracket or without any kind of circle of friends. A lot more people could do with a Corgi for company. Those figures show there is a good reason for Governments promoting dog ownership.

It is "government gone mad" mandating dogs be microchipped, but yet you are suggesting governments get involved in promoting dog ownership. Of those reportedly 60% of lonely Americans, how many of them would a dog be the right pet for them? let alone a corgi actually be the right breed for them? The only involvement in pet ownership the government needs to have is in regards to welfare - cruelty, for example and public health issues. They don't need to be involved in which collar I use for training or how I identify my pets or how many times a day I feed or what my breed of choice is or etc, etc. and so on that they are getting their noses into.

For a good overview of government involvement with our pets check the number of legislative alerts on the AKC page:
<http://www.akc.org/news/sections/legislative_alerts.cfm>

Other spots around the country:
Texas: <http://www.responsiblepetowners.org>

Louisville, KY <http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2860>

North Carolina: (H. 2098/ S. 1554) <http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_19A.html>
H. 2098 / S. 1554 will permit ANYONE who even thinks you are mistreating your pet the right to take away your pet. It gives them the right to take your pet for all types of medical care, needed or not, wanted by you, or not. YOU will have to pay it. Those of us with show dogs and cats, it gives this person who is “accusing” you of mistreating your pet the right to have your show dogs and cats spayed or neutered, WITHOUT your consent, and all in the name of protecting the animal. It takes on 19A -45 & 19a 45 & gives a whole new meaning to “Animal Cruelty Investigator.” Now, one would not even have to be appointed by the commissioners. Anyone can accuse you of animal cruelty and you’ve lost all your rights. As it is, 19A-45 gives commissioners the powers to appoint anyone an Animal Cruelty Investigator, and that person doesn’t even have to be trained.

Now, we add H. 2098/S. 1554 and the language within it. The person who makes the complaint against you becomes the plaintiff AND Animal CUSTODIAN. We have animal rights language thrown in here. So, that person becomes the “custodian” of your animals and that “custodian” can essentially do whatever he/she sees fit in order to “protect” your animals, right down to spaying that $2,000.00 bitch or queen or neutering that $3,000.00 dog or cat.

You are being found guilty and lacking before any trial. Your animals become NOT your property. You do NOT own your animals. They could be taken away at anytime for the smallest of infractions, like simply leaving a dog in a kennel. WE have all seen how animals have been let loose at shows in the name of “freedom” and letting animals have their “rights.

And in Albuquerque, New Mexico the HEART ordinance:
More Information About HEART:

Many provisions in HEART are so absurd it is inconceivable that any city councilor who has ever owned a pet could vote in favor of such a law. But, it happened - it passed on a 6 to 3 vote and was signed by the mayor. The ordinance’s author, Sally Mayer, reports that it took 3 years to prepare the HEART ordinance. The ordinance has such obvious flaws that one has to question what went wrong. For example, under HEART everyone who owns a cat or dog in Albuquerque will at some time violate its animal cruelty provisions.

HEART trivializes animal cruelty, making the concept of cruelty meaningless through provisions such as these:

Withholding water for any reason is ANIMAL CRUELTY (including a tipped over water bowl, veterinarian instructions, or crating overnight).

-HEART says that walking a dog on a lead that exceeds 8 feet is ANIMAL CRUELTY.

-Animal crates for temporary use in homes will have to exceed commercial standards for kennels. A crate for a 66 pound dog to sleep in at night will require 24 square feet of floor space and must be at least 3 feet high; anything smaller is ANIMAL CRUELTY.

-ANIMAL CRUELTY includes PSYCHOLOGICAL pain (which is undefined).

-HEART specifies bird perch diameters. Not meeting the diameter requirement is ANIMAL CRUELTY.

-Failure to report running over an animal as small as a snake is ANIMAL CRUELTY.

Under HEART, an individual guilty of ANIMAL CRUELTY (for example walking a dog on a leash longer than 8 feet) can no longer own an intact dog or cat. But the repercussions of a charge of Animal Cruelty will go further than that.

-Any one with a charge of Animal Cruelty in their record cannot adopt from most public shelters.

-A charge of Animal Cruelty can prevent people from getting security clearances for their job.

- Any charge of Animal Cruelty will also stop anyone from being able to participate in AKC authorized dog shows.

HEART will require mandatory spay/neuter of all existing intact dogs and cats over six months old unless a $150 permit is obtained for EACH intact dog or cat (maximum of four permits). All puppies and kittens, unless permitted, must be spayed or neutered by 6 months of age. However, the mayor can declare a moratorium at any time for intact animal permits, in which case intact animals could be seized and spay or neutered by the city.

HEART repeals numerous sections of Albuquerque's current animal control ordinance and adds new sections. Inexplicably, HEART repeals provisions for Off Leash Dog Areas (Dog Parks) and the Animal Welfare Board -- no provisions for either have been incorporated in HEART. Under HEART, letting a dog run loose at a Dog Park will be ANIMAL CRUELTY.

HEART is based on invalid ideas about animal care. Here are some examples of the wrong ideas at the base of HEART:

-Albuquerque Residents are NOT HUMANE AND COMPASSIONATE toward animals, but COMMIT UNFETTERED, CALLOUS ACTS that cause pain and suffering to animals.

-STRICT LAWS WILL INCREASE COMPASSION toward animals, so the GOVERNMENT must exercise complete control over dog and cat populations

- Albuquerque’s current laws treat animals as LIFELESS chattel property

- Laws AGAINST CHAINING will help to ELIMINATE DOGS ROAMING at large because CHAINED ANIMALS are more likely to RUN AWAY

- Animal control has NO CHOICE BUT TO EUTHANIZE DOGS at the shelter

- Albuquerque has an OVERWHELMING SUPPLY of animals that exceeds demand

- Crowding at the animal shelter (referred to as overpopulation) ENDANGERS HUMANS

- GOVERNMENT must identify and track every dog and cat, as well as its owner

- Except as permitted by the GOVERNMENT, every dog and cat must have its reproductive capacity eliminated

- GOVERNMENT must establish arbitrary, generalized standards of animal care that IGNORE INDIVIDUAL NEEDS

- ANIMAL CRUELTY MUST BE REDEFINED TO INCLUDE TRIVIAL ACTS such as walking a dog on a leash longer than 8 feet

- ANIMAL CRUELTY when trivialized to leash length and bird perches, is ASSOCIATED WITH DOMESTIC ABUSE, CHILD ABUSE, AND ELDER ABUSE

- Dog and cat permit fees that could exceed $600 PER YEAR FOR A HOUSEHOLD are in the public interest and DO NOT OVERLY BURDEN responsible owners
--------------
So what governments are promoting in the laws that are being proposed and passed, is making things as difficult as possible to even own a pet. I prefer the government keep their paws off pets.

Debbie

[Michael Romanos]

Good heavens, Debbie, you've written a book!

To say that you have an adversity towards Governments is an understatement. You must be too right wing even for the Republicans.

By Government promoting dog ownership for the benefit of, say, lonely people. it would require their agencies to get involved, such as health and welfare authorities who could effect a check list to assertain if people are compatible with owning a dog and at the same a dog education programme installed that assists in the care and well being of dogs. I reiterate - Governments - central or local - should promote dog ownership and by doing so a lot of anti-dog regulations and measures and attitudes will go out the door.

[glencorgi]

Michael,

I'll leave this thread with one simple question ...

Who is John Galt?

Debbie

[Chip's Mom]

Debbie:

Does that apply to people traveling in NC with their pets and have they passed this.

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by Chip's Mom

Debbie:

Does that apply to people traveling in NC with their pets and have they passed this.

Good question. It should apply to only NC residents, although I wouldn't trust a number of the NC AR activists not to prey on visitors to the state. We're waiting on information about the exact wording, but I understand it did pass.

Debbie

[Chip's Mom]

Debbie:

Please keep me posted as we travel to NC alot and so do many other people with their pets. That sounds very extreme. Lord have mercy on the person who tried to take my Chip.

[corgimom]

Why would anyone want to risk owning a pet in any of these places for fear
of what may happen?

linda

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by corgimom

Why would anyone want to risk owning a pet in any of these places for fear
of what may happen?

linda

And that is exactly why a little bit of political activism needs to be a part of pet ownership (regardless of species) these days. Government involvement in pet ownership is ways to make it as difficult as possible to own them and this stuff is coming up everywhere. Albuquerque, NM at some point on any given day under their new ordinance, any one of us would be guilty of animal cruelty by their definitions. Withholding water, even under veterinary orders before a spay or neuter, is animal cruelty. Thousands of dogs have been euthanized in Denver, CO for no other reason than their breed or that they look like certain breeds. Turin, Italy has mandated how many times a day one must walk their dog. One can no longer own goldfish in bowl in Italy either.

And what happens to the pets IF the owners no longer want to face the risk of owning them? They end up dumped and/or abandoned.

Debbie

[corgimom]

So someone who may have a grudge against another person in these areas
could declare "cruelty" towards the animal owner and that would be it??

Linda