Animal Waste Ordinance

[Brian4Liberty]

Very interesting arguments on both sides. A couple people brought up some things that need clarification, so I'll go ahead and do so:

-This does not appear to be a "problem". I take my dogs for walks in the nearby parks all the time and rarely, if ever, see any domesticated animal waste. It's not as though we are trudging through fields of it.
-This originally stemmed from an open forum where just over 20 city residents showed up with questions/suggestions. All in attendance said that they would favor such an ordinance. That being said, this is a city of roughly 25,000 people. 20 residents seems like a very insignificant basis to me.
-The mayor has previously displayed that this is a bit of an irritating issue for him at a city council meeting. He complained about the waste being left behind from wild geese in the area, and actually asked if we could do anything about it. I had a hard time not laughing at that meeting. Still, this doesn't appear to be where the ordinance is originating from.

If that's the case, then it's classic make-work, scope creep, government expansion. There doesn't appear to be a need. My opinion is a resounding "no" in this case. Such ideas should be disposed of like dog poop.

 

[Barrex]

A lot of people approach these problems like it is not connected to reality and go straight for "anarchist utopia". That approach will always fail. How to deal with it in reality? Dont you have laws against littering?

That pretty much solves that issue...No need for new regulations; no need for new spending; no need for more bureaucrats....

Dog crap and garbage doesnt belong on paved street or a park where children play. Since streets and parks are public goods and that means everyone owns them dog crap and garbage decrease value of that property and that is initiation of force....yada yada yada jada... long story short: you Nazis supporting initiation of force....... Knicks suck, Yankees suck, Bulls suck, Nascar sucks, 76-ers suck, Canada got better hockey players and teams....


P.s.
I voted for... just in case that you dont have littering ordinance.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

WONDERFUL woman, I'm sure.

People who grew up on farms during the Great Depression had some different sensibilities than today's urban Californians.

I once mentioned diet dog food to a guy fresh off the plane from India. He almost fell on the ground and rolled around laughing. Diet, low-cal food for dogs; he couldn't believe it. Dog food itself was funny, diet dog food was hilarious. Different cultures and times have different norms.

Dogs eat table scraps and scrounge. Cats eat mice and rats.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Instead of that^^^ they should clean up the shit for the people that don't.

I wouldn't be opposed to that. Give them something useful to do.

And the cops opposed to picking up dog shit can go pave roads.

FFS pull weeds, I don't really care their task. So long as I am not constantly harassed and my travel impeded by them I'm good. That is of course if firing the vast majority of them is off the table. (which it should not be)

 

[kcchiefs6465]

You let it go,,
Birds poop wherever they fly,, Rats, mice and other animals go wherever.

When horses were used as general transportation,, folks hired a street sweeper.

Do the same,, hire a few of the unemployed to clean parks and sidewalks.

Look to the folks pushing this,, to pony up the cost.

Very reasonable approach.

Your thoughts on this subject are a prime example of how problems can be solved without more laws and regulations.

 

[Christian Liberty]

There is no libertarian answer to the question of how government-owned resources should be managed.

This, to me, is the bottom line.

@OP- If it doesn't seem like an issue, I see no good reason to vote for it. So I'd retract my original vote. I assumed it was an issue.

Well, once they get their ordinance and cops get to administer the nightstick shampoo for people not picking it up fast enough, we'll get to see what happens.
If one single cop somewhere - even one - calls foul and publicly denounces the department doing it, then I'll admit, someone is wronged by using the moniker.

I guess that's a possibility but doesn't change the merits or demerits of the law itself.

I don't really like cops, I wouldn't encourage anyone to become a cop under today's America. I attended a law enforcement class back when I still thought I wanted a career in law (I don't anymore, for the record) and there was way too much about enforcing the law regardless of its merits for me to actually support anyone taking the job in today's world.

But they aren't all worthy of outright disdain. The institution, yes, but not every cop.

 

[tod evans]

No new law will ever get my approval.

Giving government another weapon to wield against citizens makes no sense no matter how shitty the offense.. [pun intended]

 

[Lindsey]

Very interesting arguments on both sides. A couple people brought up some things that need clarification, so I'll go ahead and do so:

-This does not appear to be a "problem". I take my dogs for walks in the nearby parks all the time and rarely, if ever, see any domesticated animal waste. It's not as though we are trudging through fields of it.
-This originally stemmed from an open forum where just over 20 city residents showed up with questions/suggestions. All in attendance said that they would favor such an ordinance. That being said, this is a city of roughly 25,000 people. 20 residents seems like a very insignificant basis to me.
-The mayor has previously displayed that this is a bit of an irritating issue for him at a city council meeting. He complained about the waste being left behind from wild geese in the area, and actually asked if we could do anything about it. I had a hard time not laughing at that meeting. Still, this doesn't appear to be where the ordinance is originating from.

I voted yes, thinking it was an issue - maybe flies or just the idea of having feces laying on the ground in shared space, etc. Then I read the quoted post. If there is not an issue, why are you wasting your time? I change my vote to No.

There is a park in my town with the same issue - geese poop. There's nothing the town can do about the geese poop, so what do they do? They put up one of those doggy bag receptacles and a sign to pick up after your dogs. The dogs were never an issue, but I guess they needed to feel like they were doing something.

 

[aGameOfThrones]

The town should train a group of shih tzu dogs to specifically eat shit. They should set them loose in the park so they can do shit patrols.

 

[Anti Federalist]

-This originally stemmed from an open forum where just over 20 city residents showed up with questions/suggestions. All in attendance said that they would favor such an ordinance. That being said, this is a city of roughly 25,000 people. 20 residents seems like a very insignificant basis to me.

Sad is the fact that those are the type of people that normally show up to town hall meetings: the "there oughtta be a law" petty tyrants.

 

[Anti Federalist]

No new law will ever get my approval.

Giving government another weapon to wield against citizens makes no sense no matter how shitty the offense.. [pun intended]

/thread as far as I'm concerned.

 

[dannno]

Dogs eat table scraps and scrounge. Cats eat mice and rats.

Ya I found out recently that dogs have an enzyme in their stomach that can digest rotting meat. Almost threw away some great left-over bbq tri-tip and chicken after leaving it out overnight before I remembered to give it to my dog!!

 

[Icymudpuppy]

I would vote for the ordinance with just one small change...

...enforcement would be left up to Animal control and the police force...

to "enforcement would be left up to individual residents interested in public beautification".

This change will have the irresponsible dog owners in direct confrontations with the neat freaks, and everybody else can just stay out of it, and not waste their time.

 

[brandon]

There is no libertarian answer to the question of how government-owned resources should be managed.

Very good point. Personally I'm a pretty staunch libertarian at the federal level but get more moderate the more localized the government is. I do support public lands held locally and you're right there isn't a textbook libertarian position on how to manage them, but one can still support different relative levels of freedom on those lands.

 

[Aeroneous]

Thanks for sharing your opinions and discussions.

When I originally received the e-mail with this on the agenda I was ardently opposed to it. I couldn't see any form of benefit or real argument for it, but several of you have given some good points for it.

I still plan to vote no for a few reasons.
1. I don't like adding to the police state mentality.
2. The basis for the creation of this ordinance is flawed, with no true statistical support from the residents.
3. All that ignored, I highly doubt the law would even be effective.
4. If our police force has enough time to enforce such a law, it would be better to focus our time on reducing the size of our police force in order to save money.

I realize it's kind of a trivial issue, but it's the hot topic here locally and I wanted to make sure I considered all pro-liberty stances.

Thanks again!

 

[Dr.3D]

Sad is the fact that those are the type of people that normally show up to town hall meetings: the "there oughtta be a law" petty tyrants.

Yeah, there ought to be a law against people being like that.

 

[2young2vote]

You should suggest to your city council a public awareness campaign regarding keeping the public places clean. It can include dog droppings as well as trash. I would say no for the fine or fee or whatever it is and yes to a general condemnation of the practice. Make it a public ordinance to not leave dog droppings, but don't fine people for doing so. Knowing that you are doing something wrong will probably stop 90% of people from leaving the stuff behind.

 

[emazur]

I would want specific public areas named: all public parks or the main downtown park for example. Leaving shit on the downtown sidewalks should also be a no-no. Saying no animal waste in ANY public area is going too far. If you're walking your dog in the woods and he takes a dump, so be it.

 

[oyarde]

I am on a city council board where we discuss/vote on ordinance recommendations for the council, and we have an issue coming up for debate soon that I would like to hear some libertarian opinions on.

I'll leave out the specifics and my own personal stance for the sake of the debate, but the proposed ordinance would basically make it illegal for an owner not to pick up their animal's waste in public areas. The ordinance would impose a very small fine, and enforcement would be left up to animal control and the police force.

What say you, fellow RPFers? For or against? I would love to hear some discussion on the issue from a libertarian perspective before I cast a vote.

Well, lucky you Aeroneous for being on the poop Council I do not live in a city , so my opinion means nothing .I am generally opposed to city ordinances that do not involve free beer or a back rub .Feel free to use my rule of thumb God Bless.

 

[oyarde]

Sad is the fact that those are the type of people that normally show up to town hall meetings: the "there oughtta be a law" petty tyrants.

I have noticed this the past 17 years or so, but I figured it out immediately, it is because the rest of us are still working .