Louisville, KY

[glencorgi]

Albuquerqe, NM was holding the prize for he worst piece of dog legislation passed this year, but Louisville, KY has just topped them. And this is a long read.

http://www.louisville-pets.com

Debbie

[corgimom]

Unbelievable. I did not yet read the ordinance itself, but I will get back to it, I just read the numbered items. Number 7, 12 and 16 are especially winners That is one city I would not want to reside in and what happens to the people that already have more than the allowed number of dogs? Do they have to choose which ones they want to give up, move to a larger property, or leave the city? That is the craziest thing I have ever heard of and the director is not even a US citizen

[milles2]

Has anyone read the ordinance carefully? I have not.

If the writer of the column has his/her facts straight then maybe everyone should be up in arms.

However..... the whole tone is very inflamatory and frankly, some of the column's points really are riduclous. I'm having a hard time taking it at face value.

From what I know of Louisville ( spent a number of years working with volunteers in the city, 3-4 trips to town each year) it seems like it would be an animal friendly city. An amazingsmall zoo, Derby, horse farms throught the state, etc.

One reason I am cautious of this kind of thing is I am in favor of mandatory spay/neuter programs. As for breeding - there are sensible ways to provide options allowing good breeding programs to continue while putting a bite on puppy mills, irresponsible breeding, and just overpopulatingn that comes with strays, etc.

Would it kill the AKC to allow spay/neuter dogs in Conformation? Really?

There were some points in Alburquerqu's legislation that I thought were good steps (it's been awhile).

Responsibly raising a pet unfortunately is a costly undertaking. Vet care, food, licensing, TRAINING, etc. I worry that it will keep pets from families living at the poverty level. I have very mixed feelings about this because wealth has nothing to do with how much love you can give a pet but it does play a role in the quality of life for the animal (Vet care, food, licensing, TRAINING, etc).

Again, I have mixed feelings about legislation.

[Checkers]

I have tried a couple of different replies, but the legislation is so ridiculous it really does speak for itself. This takes the cake for sure. Sad.

-Cheryl

[Checkers]

This city might take some of the cake from Louisville. This was on our local news last night and is one of the ski resort towns nearby. Granted, it's a very small town, but still..... here's the link: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=765452

-Cheryl

[corgimom]

That definitely ranks up there as one crazy law; how unfortunate for the people who live in that small town.

[glencorgi]

http://bluedogstate.blogspot.com/

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Eyes on the prize

Why the "dog vote" matters to Joe Trippi. And Bill Richardson, and Ed
Rendell, and Antonio Villaraigosa, and so many other high profile
Democrats.

More importantly: why, in their pursuit of that glittering prize,
progressive Dems are screwing themselves over.

But first, let's do the numbers

Based on industry figures, close to 45% of the electorate owns a dog.
In many rural and semi-suburban areas, the percentage goes to. . .
what? 80%? 90%?

The pet industry in the US is on target to hit $38.4 billion in sales
this year. Billion.

An informal poll conducted by My Dog Votes shows that the
overwhelming majority of dog owners are ready to switch political
parties in local and state elections in order to safeguard their
pets. Compared to concerns about their ability to own a dog, taxes
and the war in Iraq become background chatter.

That's some swing vote. Anyone still think Joe Trippi's got a screw
loose?

All politics are local

Typical pet owners care deeply about their animals.

Things get ugly, though, as the animal rights movement increasingly
intrudes on civil rights and liberties, including pet ownership. When
the law reaches out and threatens what--for many people--is a member
of the family, its a crisis. Its up front and its personal.

High profile Democrats are in it up to their eyeballs.

Trending away from property rights and civil rights in New Mexico

Take New Mexico Governor and Democratic Party presidential hopeful
Bill Richardson.

Cheered on by New Mexico's animal rights lobby, Governor Richardson
signed a bill that makes dogs that chase cats "potentially dangerous"
in New Mexico. Note that most dogs instinctively chase small animals
like cats if they are not trained or restrained by their owners. Prey
drive is normal dog behavior.

In New Mexico's new and sweeping description of "potentially
dangerous" the dogs don't have to actually catch a cat--they just
have to chase one. Once.

Dogs that bark "aggressively" and look like they can jump the fence
may be defined as "potentially dangerous", too. The dogs don't have
to actually go over the fence--just look like they could.

Under the law that Bill Richardson signed, potentially dangerous dogs
can be seized by the authorities. In other words, they can take your
dog out of your backyard if the dog barks and looks like it can jump
the fence. The dog doesn't have to do anything else--just bark and
carry on from behind a fence while on its owner's property.

Its kind of like The Minority Report -- that sci fi thriller about
profiling, arresting and ultimately imprisoning people who
are "precriminal". Except its not science fiction. Its a reality for
dog owners in New Mexico.

Kind of turns the "presumption of innocence" concept on its head,
doesn't it?

[Chip's Mom]

This is all really scary especially because we travel with our Chip. In our county, we don't even have to get a license for our dogs. Louisville and Kentucky is all about horses - it makes one wonder where the horsey people were while this was going on. I can't imagine someone stopping to clean up fertilizer. When it comes to elected officials not being US citizens - well I won't even go there and I will also forego my comments on democrats least it will start a very heated discussion. Sometimes, I think the good ole US of A is going to hell in a handbasket. We all need to pray real hard for our beloved country.

[corgimom]

Bonnie,

you would not be able to reside in our city with your family of dogs, as you are only allowed 3 dogs where I live.

[milles2]

In Louisville I guess it would depend on the size of Bonnie' property:

(A) No more than three (3) dogs, excluding puppies, may be quartered outdoors on an individual tract, lot or parcel, or dwelling unit, (as defined in the Land Development Code), which is .5 acres or less and has on such property any building or structure containing a residential use.

(B) No more than seven (7) dogs, excluding puppies, may be quartered outdoors on an individual tract, lot or parcel, or dwelling unit, (as defined in the Land Development Code), which is more than .5 acres but less than 2 acres and has on such property any building or structure containing a residential use.

[Chip's Mom]

We have almost 1 3/4 acres of land and about an acre is fenced for our dogs. We live outside of town so we are country folk. About these laws, the sad part is people aren't even aware that these laws are being voted on or passed. I wonder how the Carolinas made out on that law they were trying to pass. I made a phone call and complained. Maybelle will bark like crazy if a strange dog approaches the fence and Chip is right along beside her yapping away. If I lived in one of these areas, I would have to relocate.

[glencorgi]

The bill in NC passed.

Debbie

[tandemgal]

Unbelievable! There is NO common sense in this country anymore.....

I am practicing my Canadian accent Aaah everyday just in case... Jespah are there any warm areas up there?