My small stand...am I silly?

[mvpel]

In various states in periods of the history of the United States, free blacks were prohibited from owning dogs - dogs don't care about skin color, and will defend their black owner as vigorously as any white owner.

The dog licensing statute was originally set up for rabies control, at a time when rabies was rampant, but like any government program, it wasn't abandoned when its aim was accomplished and essentially universal rabies vaccination of domestic dogs was achieved.

[Vote Tyler Stearns]

I didn't say my story was about government intrusiveness, but the overall intrusiveness of others (government being the biggest culprit) -- whoever they may be -- into our personal lives.  I was just making the point that sometimes "minor" encounters like my story and Rattydog's get you thinking and consequently get you off your ass to do something about it...And I will get in the habit of telling a business what to do if they're screwing with my rights and blaming it on fictitious laws.   

Not selling something to someone is not intrusive in any way. Annoying, yes, but there is nothing intrusive about it. Walmart isn't screwing with your rights - don't you think they have a right to have their own company policies? The clerk you spoke with might just not have had a clue about why they didn't sell to under 18......maybe they were from another state where it was illegal....who knows.

I agree that you had a very reasonable frustration with Walmart - but it's not intrusiveness or screwing with your rights.

Gosh, you're right.  Silly me.

[KBCraig]

The dog licensing statute was originally set up for rabies control, at a time when rabies was rampant, but like any government program, it wasn't abandoned when its aim was accomplished and essentially universal rabies vaccination of domestic dogs was achieved.

And like many government "control" programs, it actually works against its stated goal.

Many pet owners prefer to keep their dogs properly vaccinated, but not if doing so means getting snitched out to the licensing folks, for yet another bill, and more government threats.

I knew some towns in NH had dog licensing. I had no idea it was statewide until this thread came up. With 4-6 dogs typically in our pack, $35 apiece isn't something to sneeze at.

Kevin

[error]

Free market rabies vaccinations, anyone?

[hook]

The twerps in Hampton plan on sending warrant summonses door to door by police  to 471 dog owners who are violating the RSA by not having licensed their pooches on time.  The threat is that the fine will exceed $100 dollars .  Probably only 1 in 10 of that number are actually here.  Watch for the bru ha ha here....
If the fines are not paid within the two week period of notification the illegals will be confiscated and then what euthanized....  The warrants were authorized to go out over two weeks ago.

See www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070710/NEWS/707100362/-1/NEWS10&sfad=1

Confiscated and euthanized....? Are they out of their minds?? My dog is a part of my pack...anybody who tries to take her is going to feel sorry for it later. I don't know what I would do if someone tried to come and take her. I wish....WISH...someone would try to make me pay the city (state general fund) $100. That's ridiculous...how can they even keep a straight face while enforcing that, it's ridiculous. The fact that polic officers are being paid to hand deliver these notices is beyond ridiculous...it's crazy.

I wish I could get to talking with those 471 dog owners who are going to be served with papers...they are probably pretty mad and if even half of those people would be willing to sign a petition and sign a letter that could be sent to their reps...well that would be awesome.

Direct a 91A request to the Hampton Selectmen.

[hook]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-VI-91-A.htm

[lildog]

Yes, but I got swept up in the "send a message to Washington, vote Democrat" thing. Yes....I feel like a dummy head. My intentions were good, I just didn't have the knowledge. It's frustrating to want to change something so badly, to know that you are right in wanting to change it, but having no clue as to how to be effective. Voting is not effective....I didn't know what to do.

Some on this site will disagree with me but I think SMART voting is effective.  Problem is far too many people do it.

Don't just vote to "send a message", really look into who it is your voting for and what they represent.

The primaries are where the real power is and the fact so few partake means those who do have that much more ability to truly make changes.  If you don't like someone, find someone better and push for them in the primaries.

Right now with the upcoming presidential primaries we have a chance to pick a really good choice rather then just "send a message".  Look at all the choices and find someone who represents your views.  If enough people actually did that we'd actually have good choices instead of looking to see who is worse.

[Vote Tyler Stearns]

Rattydog, you're right that WalMart's employee told me and my son that it was a law (she even told me how much the fine would be).  When I asked for the manager, he, too, said it was a law and told me how much the fine would be.  The manager even suggested I was working an undercover sting to try and catch them breaking the law.  Effing ridiculous. 

...c'est la vie.  I guess we should focus our attention on government, not good ol' WalMart.

[mvpel]

We need to submit a bill to end the dog licensing law, and perhaps replace it with a requirement to be able to demonstrate and document rabies vaccination, with perhaps a fine or other penalties for failure to vaccinate.

[Dreepa]

We need to submit a bill to end the dog licensing law, and perhaps replace it with a requirement to be able to demonstrate and document rabies vaccination, with perhaps a fine or other penalties for failure to vaccinate.

good idea.
and if 'they' oppose it it will only prove that they are after the 'easy' 'small tax' money (AKA death by 1000 cuts)

[hook]

We need to submit a bill to end the dog licensing law, and perhaps replace it with a requirement to be able to demonstrate and document rabies vaccination, with perhaps a fine or other penalties for failure to vaccinate.

good idea.
and if 'they' oppose it it will only prove that they are after the 'easy' 'small tax' money (AKA death by 1000 cuts)

No it isn't.

Why replace one form of tyranny with another?

[mvpel]

Why replace one form of tyranny with another?

Rabies is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY bad news.  If you are not treated within a very limited time after the exposure, you are the walking dead, facing a very excruciating, gruesome, horrible demise.

If your un-vaccinated pet is bitten by a rabid wild animal such as a bat or raccoon, and contracts rabies, that pet becomes a very serious threat to everyone with which it comes in contact, and can transmit the disease for potentially months before showing any symptoms.

The dog licensing system was established as a way for the state to track the mandatory vaccination of dogs.  This system has taken the human rabies death toll from about a hundred per year down to at most one or two per year, and another 40,000 people per year get the post-exposure rabies vaccination cycle, but even today around 90% of rabies exposure in humans comes from rabid dogs, and accounts for 99% of human deaths.

So while I agree that the time has passed for the licensing system here in the Internet era, I (and I'm sure many others) are not keen to jump on board the idea of no canine vaccination mandate whatsoever.  Protection of life, liberty, and property, right?

One key difference is prior restraint - the licensing system is prior restraint, where they can punish you and confiscate your dog for paperwork "offenses" even though you're completely up to date on vaccinations, while penalties for failure to vaccinate is not prior restraint.

[lildog]

I've touched on some of the issues brought up here on my newest column.

http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/has-anyone-seen-my-freedom.html

Enjoy!

[hook]

Why replace one form of tyranny with another?

Rabies is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY bad news.  If you are not treated within a very limited time after the exposure, you are the walking dead, facing a very excruciating, gruesome, horrible demise.

If your un-vaccinated pet is bitten by a rabid wild animal such as a bat or raccoon, and contracts rabies, that pet becomes a very serious threat to everyone with which it comes in contact, and can transmit the disease for potentially months before showing any symptoms.

The dog licensing system was established as a way for the state to track the mandatory vaccination of dogs.  This system has taken the human rabies death toll from about a hundred per year down to at most one or two per year, and another 40,000 people per year get the post-exposure rabies vaccination cycle, but even today around 90% of rabies exposure in humans comes from rabid dogs, and accounts for 99% of human deaths.

So while I agree that the time has passed for the licensing system here in the Internet era, I (and I'm sure many others) are not keen to jump on board the idea of no canine vaccination mandate whatsoever.  Protection of life, liberty, and property, right?

One key difference is prior restraint - the licensing system is prior restraint, where they can punish you and confiscate your dog for paperwork "offenses" even though you're completely up to date on vaccinations, while penalties for failure to vaccinate is not prior restraint.

I'll concede that Rabies is a nasty disease. There are many more... Should I be compelled by force of government to be vaccinated? Should I be compelled by force of government to get my property; dog, cat, horse, cow, etc. vaccinated?
Should I be compelled by force of government to get all the mammalian wildlife roaming on my property vaccinated? Any mammal can transmit Rabies. Is the Government responsible for my health and the health of my property or am I?

Education and persuasion, not coercion is the best way to accomplish something.

Enforcing licensing which has provisions for mandatory vaccinations or having mandatory vaccinations is exactly the same thing. Mandatory vaccinations would be enforced in the same manner as the licensing. Not being vaccinated is no guarantee that the disease will be contracted.

Why not make vaccinating easier. How about an oral vaccine, which does exist, be made available without a (state approved)prescription and without a (state licensed)vet.

[mvpel]

Should I be compelled by force of government to get my property; dog, cat, horse, cow, etc. vaccinated?
Should I be compelled by force of government to get all the mammalian wildlife roaming on my property vaccinated? Any mammal can transmit Rabies. Is the Government responsible for my health and the health of my property or am I?

99% of human rabies fatalities come from dogs, so "all mammalian wildlife" is a red herring.

Education and persuasion, not coercion is the best way to accomplish something.

I agree, but is the practical goal to eliminate the state-mandated prior-restraint dog licensing provisions, or to eliminate coercion altogether?  I submit that a bill for the former would be more likely to pass than a bill for the latter.

Enforcing licensing which has provisions for mandatory vaccinations or having mandatory vaccinations is exactly the same thing. Mandatory vaccinations would be enforced in the same manner as the licensing.

Not quite - under a system of mandatory vaccinations, or a requirement to be able to prove current vaccination on demand, you would not be subject to punishment for refusing to rent your own dog from the state.

Why not make vaccinating easier. How about an oral vaccine, which does exist, be made available without a (state approved)prescription and without a (state licensed)vet.

Great idea!  How about putting that in Section II of the bill?