View Full Version : Ny Dogs Must Be Insured And Leashed?

04-15-2004, 02:58 PM
This looks like a very expensive law for dog owners, and a incredible pain in the butt for no good reason for those of us not living in housing projects in Queens.


I for one am writing to my senator Betty Little to get it stopped.

As peaceful as it would be here with no tourists and there dogs, do oyu know what the impact would be to rural New Yorkers and to our town to have to pen thousands of arrested dogs that show up without their orange tag?

unenforeceable law, and what a cost to those who own multiple pets!

04-15-2004, 04:18 PM
JJ and others concerned about this bill,

I did some time (so to speak) as a staff member in the NYS Legislature for a number of years, so I speak from some experience in this matter...

I can assure you that this bill is DOA.

First, it has no co-sponsor in the NYS Senate. This is a death nell for any bill as it usually requires sponsorship in both houses to move (there are very rare exceptions-usually budget related).

Second, there is no upstate support for the bill and it is sponsored by only a few NYC legislators. (Only 10/150 Members of Assembly signed onto this bill.) Upstaters have at least enough power that this bill will never become law and the low # of co-sponsors clues one in to it's lack of real support.

Thirdly, it has not nor will it likely ever receive consideration in the Ag Committee and thus will not even proceed to the Assembly Floor for a vote before the full body.

I can assure you that it will NEVER pass either house of the NY Leg. It sounds like a bill drafted in response to an unfortunate tragedy. Legislators typically introduce a bill like this to say: "Look, I'm doing something about this problem" without having to explain to someone that such quixotic legislation is not worth drafting and introducing before the legislative body in the first place. They draft it, it dies in Committee and then the legislator goes home and tells his/her constituency that the rest of the politicians in Albany don't care about any given issue, but that "I tried to fight for you." Now I've started going negative so I'll leave it there!

BTW, Betty Little is a terrific legislator and your letter will likely receive a response from her. I can't imagine her supporting such a bill (but I can't speak for her in this matter) but you can demonstrate your attention to legislative matters by writing her anyway.

I wouldn't sweat this one.

[None of my comments should be construed to suggest that I'm insensitive to the problem of vicious dogs. It IS a problem, but not on a scale that requires LEGISLATIVE attention. Give the local animal control officers enough power to deal with such threats directly and we wouldn't have state legislators wasting their time on this kind of tripe. Then maybe they could focus on our REAL problems...acid rain, budget disasters, corporate fraud and the like. PS: this also appears to be a revenue generator...another tax!]

Lastly, for those really worried about liability re: their pets...check with your insurance agent. Many renters and homeowners policies today cover such liability. If not, you can add a cheap rider to protect you, your pet and any potential victim. This bill is another example of legislating away the rights of law-abiding citizens because law-breakers and immoral breeders don't follow the law anyway. Passing a bill won't change the behavior of such morons, it just restricts more of our rights and incurs greater taxes and fees on we who are already taxed to death.

I now step down off the soap box...

ALGonquin Bob
04-15-2004, 09:59 PM
Thanks, Fred, for the peace of mind. If a law like that was ever seriously condidered statewide, there would be a lot of howling... and the dogs would make some noise, too! -ALG

04-16-2004, 09:54 AM
Woof woof to that Bob!

And you know Dakota and I would be howling at the tops of our lungs.

BTW, I think I'm going back up to the Santanoni's this weekend. I'd ask you to go because I know how much you want to go back up Couchie!

Good luck over in the Dix Range when you go (is it this weekend?). We should try a hike before mud and bug season gets into full swing. I'll be heading to the Catskills mostly this spring to avoid my nemisis-the black fly, but we should try to meet up for a Dak's climb soon. Also, looks like I'll be finishing my first 46 in early May. Feel like going back up Allen with us?:D

ALGonquin Bob
04-16-2004, 11:29 PM
Fred... as much as I like the Santanonis, I think I'll wait a few months before I go up there a fifth time. I would go back up to Santanoni Mtn., but I'll pass on ol' Couchie.

My return to the Dix Range is next weekend (April 24-25) as I try to reach Hough. So far, it's a solo hike as there have been NO replies (ahem!) to my post for "Hough/Dix Range" in Trips and Events.

My schedule is full until I get 5 more to finish my first 46. I wouldn't mind hiking back to Allen again, but it'll be after June before I can think about that. Good luck on Allen... "Break a leg". OOPS! Probably not appropriate! -Bob

04-19-2004, 09:06 PM

04-20-2004, 03:42 PM
Thanks for the helpful and hopeful post, Fred. I (as an amateur/layman in these matters) agree with all of your points, but the one you may have left out is the potential influence of the insurance companies, which might see this proposal as a new revenue stream. Not sure if they have much influence, but I'm willing to bet they do. Maybe I'm too cynical?

I have two dogs and this bill would be a real PITA.

04-21-2004, 08:05 AM

That's a good point you make about insurance companies potentially having some interest in this bill. While I'm no expert in insurance companies' lobbying interests, I'm fairly certain that they have "bigger fish" to catch. And I don't believe that the insurance lobbyists will put this one high on their list of desired legislation. In fact, with so little Member support, I doubt they would throw any weight behind what looks to be a dead bill anyway.

Funny thing about insurance companies... I'd like to see a risk assessment on this type of insurance and this type of legislation. I have a hunch that the costs (for the companies) outweigh the benefits of the premiums they would reap. I can see significant lawsuits against insurance companies by vicious dog victims that cost more than any potential gains in premiums. (Just a hunch, but a strong one.) Not to mention that they'll be paying out on every little scratch that the neighbor kid gets from the local over-friendly lab or golden.

This one's goin' nowhere for now. We should keep our eyes out next session (Jan-May, 2005) for new similar legislation. I'm sure this bill will be introduced again, possibly with changes that may garner greater Member support. Regardless, the entire concept of this bill is likely to prevent such legislation from going anywhere with the majority of legislators.

04-21-2004, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by DeadFred
This one's goin' nowhere for now. We should keep our eyes out next session (Jan-May, 2005) for new similar legislation. I'm sure this bill will be introduced again, possibly with changes that may garner greater Member support. . . .
Good point. Bad legislative ideas often have more lives than a cat.