twisteddog Anonymous

Shocking! The council actually did something right.

1 month, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Kay Anonymous

>>The bulk of the ordinance takes effect next Tuesday. Provisions addressing outdoor dog confinements go into effect Sept. 25, while the spay/neuter provisions and breeder permit regulations take effect Oct. 25.<<

Where are the details on outdoor confinements?

1 month, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

aussies4ever Anonymous

WELL the Communistic world marches forward -having the rights of many trampled on by the AR nutcases and PETA (Kills Animals) whackos! This is not about providing welfare for animals - it is about totally doing away with any pets of any kind and domestic animals! That is what their agenda is!

S/N laws do not work - what works is free or low cost S/N clinincs! Prosecuting animal abusers!

1 month, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Kay Anonymous

In other areas, such as in California, these clinics seem to be absolutely EVERYWHERE.

I am sure no matter what laws are on the books regarding animal abuse, they are not strong enough.

1 month, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

rhia Anonymous

Kay

What I've found (as of June 19th) from http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedconte... the DMN:

• Tethering unsupervised dogs to trees or poles be prohibited except "for a period no longer than necessary for the owner to complete a temporary task."

• Owners must provide at least 150 square feet of space and a "building or properly designed dog house" for a dog confined outdoors.

So far, the Dallas City Hall codes page http://www.dallascityhall.com/code_co... hasn't been updated to reflect the new ordinance. Hope that helps.

1 month, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

inarchetype Anonymous

I don't find Hunt's vote surprising at all; I think the bill has some real deficiencies. Animal abuse and irresponsible ownership are a problem, and something needs to be done, but before passing more laws why not try enforcing some of the ones on the books now? Well, maybe its because passing laws is free and visible, whereas actually enforcing them is expensive and largely thankless.

A couple of issues that trouble me are:

150 sq. ft. as a one size fits all requirement is excessive and unreasonable, and denies residents the flexibility to implement the solution most appropriate to their circumstances. That is perhaps what would be appropriate in a case where the dog is never removed from the enclosure, but that is a very broad brush to paint us all with (and in my personal opinion that kind of isolation is mistreatment in itself, regardless of square footage). I walk my dog 5-6 miles/day, bring her in whenever I am home, and give her play time in the yard. She doesn't need 150 sq feet to sit in for a few hours (when mostly she sleeps anyway). More importantly this is simply not doable for a lot of residents given lot sizes in the city. The result of this, if enforced, will be a lot of dogs that are now safely confined in 75-100 sq ft. dog runs during the day and otherwise well treated being confined to 50sq foot bathrooms and 6sq ft crates, and running loose yards with 4ft fences they can easily jump to become strays or present a danger to the neighborhood. It will also inevitably result in a lot of dogs being euthanized at the shelter because they had to be put inside and started chewing things up.

I agree that non-breeding pets (including mine) are better off spayed or neutered, but when this is best done is something about which reasonable people (and reasonable vets) disagree. My dog is in the house, on a leash, or in a six ft high chain link kennel with a roof at all times. I don't need big brother telling me when would be best to spay her because I'm presumably incapable of controlling her liaisons. Spaying is major, invasive surgery, and comes with all of the attendant risks and trauma thereof. I will certainly spay my dog, but I will do so when I decide that it is the right time for her and for me. When the government starts mandating that we subject our animals to major surgery on demand, things have gone too far. Today its our animals, tomorrow?

The bill does not nearly enough to address the most pressing animal welfare and public safety issues and is insufficiently thought out with respect to effect and consequences, but smacks of "big brother knows best" paternalism and political tokenism. Angela is dead right. Its political showmanship that does little to improve animal rights, whose publicity payoff for the pols comes entirely at the expense of the common resident.

Go Angela.

The funny thing is that most of the comments and journalism (for and against the laws) seem to make the assumption that this is a left/liberal move simply because it involves increasing government intrusion (hence the dismay about the Hunt vote and Medrano abstension). Note that while it levies its mostly arbitrary mandates and restrictions on those with the least political enfranchisement to oppose it, it leaves the most egregious abusers (puppy mills, pet shops, etc.) completely untouched and contains several peons to the veterenary and pet supply industry. This is more characteristic of right wing authoritarianism than left, wherein (at least per the idealist theory) the commercial sector is presumed to be "cooperatively" engaged with the government for the public good, and where the people must be controlled to bend them to the public good as defined by the interests of the governing, commercial, and syndicalist bodies.

Because of our political history, a lot of people seem to reflexively associate government interference with the left, and associate the right with libertarian idealism. Well, that's the sheeps clothing the right likes to wear around here, because that is what sells to Americans. But if you look closely, you see a very different agenda that is at least as disconcerting as that of the far left for those who value traditional American ideals.

There's nothing liberal about it. Its very Dallas and very Leppert. It is entirely consistent with policy direction on development, etc. Expect more.

1 month, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )