1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/5097/forget-gun-control-we-now-have-dog-control/

Forget gun control: we now have dog control

May 26, 2006 by

Looks like the Chicago city council wants to require every dog to be implanted with a microchip ID, limit tetherig, pay fines for letting them roam free and choose between neutering or higher license charges. Also, “grooming, boarding and doggie day-care facilities would be licensed and subject to strict operating standards…”

Says a Chicago tyrant:

“We’re setting up an infrastructure in our city to take better care of our dogs. People who don’t, it sets a process in place, after repeat offenses, to take those dogs away from them and putting them in loving and caring environments,”

Oh I just can’t wait! Chicago will be a city without roaming dogs, without poop. All hail our new Pet Overlords.

Update: Albuquerque has similar ordinances.

{ 14 comments }

M E Hoffer May 26, 2006 at 11:22 am

I’ll say it. This is an acclimating tool. Or, a wedge device, like the Camel’s nose, for driving a particular policy idea.

Curt Howland May 26, 2006 at 1:40 pm

Chicago also has outlawed “paté de foie gras” due to its manufacture involving “overfeeding” the geese.

More here: http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=131656

Another good reason not to go to Chicago, beyond their epic ignorance concerning armed citizenry.

billwald May 26, 2006 at 7:41 pm

Apparently Mr Lora doesn’t mind shoveling other people’s dog poop from his lawn.

john May 26, 2006 at 8:14 pm

I am a dog owner that lives in Chicago, and an Austrian (I studied under both Rothbard and Hoppe). Can you give details regarding your comments? I am not aware of any nonsensical dog restrictions on the horizon.

Manuel Lora May 26, 2006 at 8:36 pm

Apparently Mr Lora doesn’t mind shoveling other people’s dog poop from his lawn.

Well you answered the problem there when you said “his lawn.” There’s a tragedy of the commons there. First, the council will use taxes to fund these activities. Then, of course, the parks are public. Private parks would set rules. Don’t like them? Don’t go in. But the government binds everyone. No choice there.

K. Chris Caldwell May 26, 2006 at 9:27 pm

I live near and work in Chicago and can tell you this; There is only one reason for this, and it isn’t about pets, owners or the commons, it is money–M.O.N.E.Y. Having pissed away $500 million alone on a new 24.5 acres park (Yes! Half a billion dollars!) that requires $17 million a year to maintain and now looking at a $62.5 million dollar a year fiscal hole they are taxing, fining or stealing anything that moves or breathes.

One could come to this city and experience everything wrong with government in just an hour’s visit. One could literally write a book about the malfeasance that happens here everyday.

Vanmind May 28, 2006 at 1:02 pm

Since when has there ever been public corruption in Chicago?

Lee De Francesco May 28, 2006 at 9:19 pm

Having a dog in the city is pretty stupid. Especially in an apartment. Now thats brain damage.

M E Hoffer May 29, 2006 at 1:40 pm

http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/metro/131162

Panopticon, opening in your theater…

the·a·ter or the·a·tre (th-tr)
n.
1. A building, room, or outdoor structure for the presentation of plays, films, or other dramatic performances.
2. A room with tiers of seats used for lectures or demonstrations: an operating theater at a medical school.
3.
a. Dramatic literature or its performance; drama: the theater of Shakespeare and Marlowe.
b. The milieu of actors and playwrights.
4.
a. The quality or effectiveness of a theatrical production: good theater; awful theater.
b. Dramatic material or the use of such material: “His summation was a great piece of courtroom theater” Ron Rosenbaum.
5. The audience assembled for a dramatic performance.
6. A place that is the setting for dramatic events.
7. A large geographic area in which military operations are coordinated: the European theater during World War II.

Yes, try lucky #7.

We would do well to remember the, too great, many that went to the field, too many not to return, for our supposed Freedom(s).

Lea Go April 3, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Greetings,

As what i read on this posted article, i found out the informativeness of this
kind of topic. For that reason i opened up an idea and some knowledge in this
field. well, you made just did a great job..more power!

sincerely,
Lea Go
No Bark Collar

lea Go May 11, 2007 at 12:12 pm

Greetings,

Nice Posted! Its so very informative and knowledgegable for your visitors or readers.
Thank You for sharing.. Keep up the good work..

More Power,
Lea Coles
Wireless Fences

lea Go May 15, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Greetings,

Nice Posted! Its so very informative and knowledgeable for your visitors or readers.
Thank You for sharing.. Keep up the good work..

More Power,
Lea Go
Wood Dog House

no bark collars December 10, 2007 at 2:47 am

True enough, the use of no bark collars that are effective, humane and safe for controlling unwanted barking can be beneficial to your pet dogs.

TokyoTom December 10, 2007 at 5:20 am

Manuel, I’m with you on much of your criticism, which is about policies that would make dog ownership incerasingly expensive (while apparently not so much about direct city expenditures).

However, your link goes nowhere, and this looks like a story that is a year and a half old: http://rfidlawblog.mckennalong.com/archives/animal-identification-keeping-track-of-chicagos-dogs-with-rfid.html. You might consider doing a little more legwork to tell us if this story actually has any bite, or is just old bark.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: