Haven’t seen it so far, but a statewide limit law would also be an issue for many. I may have to break a limit law by one cat soon. Of course, anyone would be hard pressed to find the extra cat in my home. I have 2 that literally disappear with visitors. And they’re indoor cats, so it’s not like my “extra” cat would be a “burden” to my neighbors etc.

Any of the above laws that covered a city or county could pose a problem for many. And the many I’m thinking of are responsible pet owners who, in general, obey the pet laws. I happen to have an issue with mandatory rabies vacs, especially for cats. Hopefully, if testing shows that every three years is unnecessary, laws will be changed.

Moving is expensive, and also poses problems for many. Distance to job, owning the home, schools for the kids, caring for elder parents, etc. If my building became no pets, of course I would move. If the city banned my breed, yikes! Then I’d be a bit more in a jam. And I work from home, lol!~ It also depends on how long the grace period is. 3 months sounds like a lot, but with pets, not always. More and more places are becoming pet unfriendly. Or have size limits, # limits etc. Life would be easier if I just had one cat or a small breed dog. But I don’t. I happen to like the larger variety of dogs with spots and multiple cats ;)

hehehe… Yes. Almost run over many times in CA. But it was over 20 years ago when I lived in that area. My strongest memories are of daily, white-knuckle trips along shoulderless Sonoma Mountain Road and the like.

But don’t get me started on scary driving/drivers. I’ve seen some things…

“It’s not always possible to move, by the way, to where the laws are more to your liking.”

Okay…so I’m desperately curious. ;-) Since I’m clearly not talking about avoiding any and every law, can you give an example of a dog-related law one would be reasonable to flee (i.e. for obvious ethical reasons), that one could not escape by moving? I’m genuinely curious, because I’ve lived in many cities, regions, states, and countries, and I can’t think of a good example. And I can explain my position/experience better if I know what you mean. :-)

Oh, and if you mean not everyone can afford to move, then I “get” that, of course. I just think that, in some cases (not all, mind you, but some cases) people make a choice to throw the pet under the bus, rather than their careers/bank accounts/sense of familiarity and security/etc. Having moved so many times myself, I know that moving doesn’t have to be a stressful, frightening time in one’s life, nor is it automatically career-ending or financially crippling. I quite look forward to each new move, now.

I’ve worked in animal welfare since the 70’s so I’ve heard just about every excuse in the book for nearly every situation. Lots of people apparently “have to” abandon their pets because they’re moving. They have to “get rid of” the dog because they had a baby. They have to kill their dog because some pointy-headed politician banned the breed in their city. A dog is better off in the care of someone a tad more committed to its lifelong well-being. Moving is the least I’d do, if it meant saving my dog’s life.

Seriously … you don’t speed through Kern County on I-5? How do you keep from being run over?

I have never kicked about paying a parking ticket, and I wouldn’t kick about being ticketed for an off-leash dog along the river parkway. The rangers are just doing their job.

It’s not always possible to move, by the way, to where the laws are more to your liking.

I meant to also include the moving option. Now, granted, you’re talking to someone who also obeys all traffic laws, and has moved 33 times. (I, too, have driven long stretches of California highways, especially when I lived in Santa Rosa and my brother lived in Beverly Hills. But I like cruise control to make sure I don’t speed.)

I trained dogs for 30 years and worked with some of the most difficult dogs imaginable. Still, it hasn’t been especially difficult for me to stay legally-compliant with the dogs in my care. I would move, though, if a new law meant doing something I considered unethical to my dog.

I can’t help but liken the excuses people use for not obeying dog-related laws to my enjoyment of the A&E show, “Parking Wars.” If you don’t park illegally and/or if you are legally compliant with all your other documentation, then you don’t have a problem. Yet every episode is filled with people ranting about the fees and inconvenience; totally disregarding their own culpability. I think it’s a hoot. They just look stupid.

And in that regard, I want to point out that as a former canine legislation consultant and dog bite researcher, there are scant few negative doggie incidents involving dogs owned by people who obey the law and have properly trained, socialized, and supervised their pets. Failure to be a responsible dog owner is a recipe for complaints and anti-dog sentiment.

Sorry…(grinning)…you’re talking to someone who never allows her dog off-leash in designated leashed areas; comes to a complete stop at all stop signs; doesn’t speed; has never tried any illegal drugs; and was outside in a store’s parking lot, recently, when I realized the cashier had only charged me for one of my two items (and went back inside the store to make sure I paid the correct price). Yeah…it’s hard being this “good”. ;-)

If I lived somewhere that passed a law I couldn’t live with while fighting to have it changed, I’d move. It’s not even a question.

Okay. Okay. Okay. My point wasn’t meant to prove what a goody two-shoes I am. (Although I am, admittedly, a colossal goody two-shoes.) I’m just saying it requires very little from me to simply be a responsible dog owner. It’s not especially expensive or overtly time-consuming (save the drive to & from the off-leash parks). It ain’t rocket science, that’s for sure.

I trained dogs for 30 years, and despite all the bad behaviour and difficult temperaments I had to deal with (and the dogs weren’t always a joy either)(snickering), I didn’t “have to” disobey any laws. Thus, I don’t buy most of the arguments that people can’t obey the laws, or their justifications for not doing so.

Comment by Marjorie — November 25, 2008

I know what you’re saying here, Marjorie, but believe me if forced spay-neuter had passed in California there is no way on God’s green earth that I would have been “responsible” enough to cooperate in the extinction of heritage breeds.

I will say that letting my dogs off-leash at the river to swim and exceeding the speed limit while driving to L.A. on I-5 are the only laws I ever break. So far.

A leash is merely a tool meant to keep dogs under control while they learn to control their own behaviour and obey verbal commands. I try never to have any contact with a dog’s neck. Once minimal training is accomplished, a regular ol’ walk in the neighbourhood would be no different for me with, or without, a leash.

I liked Emily S’s comment, in the sense that too many times the law-abiding are made to feel as though they’re the difficult ones. The only thing I’ve ever seen come from frequent flouting of dog-related by-laws is increased enforcement and/or stricter laws. (I think it’s a rare day that politicians see all the people breaking a particular dog-related law and say, “Let’s just legalize that.” It’s usually quite the opposite…sometimes disallowing dogs from an area entirely, because a small percentage of owners refuse to obey the rules.)

As someone who’s been around the block a few times, I know all too well that many people see dog ownership and dog training as a competition. These types believe they’re demonstrating what superior dog owners they are, by walking their dogs off-leash. (Even though their dogs are, in reality, about 1/10th as reliably obedient as are my dogs, by comparison.) A young dog owner recently asked me about this very subject (leashes & off-leash walking), and my final comment was this:

“A leash is neither the sign of a poorly-trained dog nor an incompetent owner. But a tight leash probably is.”

Proper training makes a leash pretty much irrelevant to a dog. And, by definition, responsible dog owners obey all dog-related by-laws, without excuse. (If you don’t like a law, you can’t just disregard it. You obey it while you work to have it changed.) It only makes life difficult for all dog owners when any one of us disobeys the law or behaves inconsiderately. It shouldn’t be that way. Individuals should be dealt with individually. But I’m afraid one dog owner’s actions often paint us all with the same brush.

Off leash dogs belong on their owners property or in designated offleash areas. Period.

My issue with people who have their dogs off leash in on leash areas, is that your dog may be friendly, but mine may not be. Who would get in trouble if my dog attacked your? You for having you dog off leash, or me for having an on leash dog. There are too many people who are afraid of dogs and dog who don’t like other dogs to justify having you dog off leash.
At least at an off-leash park, you can assume that the dogs are friendly and the people like dogs. There are some idiots who bring aggressive dogs to parks and blame everyone else.

A felxi leash doesn’t offer much more control than off leash. But thats for another day.