Opinion
Snow Days Bring Worries for Adults

What Is Real Purpose of Animal Law?

Let's Get State Police Out on the Road Again

It's Time To Fork Over All that Unspent Pork

Kudos and Thanks for Quick Response

Edgewood Parade Turned Out Nicely

AYP Status Doesn't Tell Whole Story

Letters to the Editor

Editorial: Hibbs Has Done Job of 2 Mayors

Editorial: Law Revised for Problem Animals

More
Opinion

HOME	CLASSIFIEDS	OBITUARIES	SPORTS	OPINION

Thursday, December 18, 2008

What Is Real Purpose of Animal Law?

By Debra Yarbrough
East Mountain Animal Interest Alliance
          In Section 1-3 (purpose) of the proposed Torrance County animal control ordinance it states: "It is the intent of the County Commission that enactment of this ordinance will: 1. Provide for the safety, preserve the health. Promote the prosperity and improve the morals, order, comfort and convenience of the County and its inhabitants."
        Quote, "promote the prosperity and improve the morals?" Is this really the purpose for an animal control ordinance? Shouldn't the purpose of any animal control ordinance be to address running at large, animal abandonment, or issues where abuse and neglect may exist?
        Will limiting the citizens to two animals promote prosperity? Less dogs will definitely not improve the lack of infrastructure or services that would encourage businesses to locate here!
        Will limiting citizens to two animals improve morals? Is there any link at all that suggests animal ownership negatively impacts morals other than the few county officials who have ignorantly tried to link the two over the years to defame otherwise reputable and responsible citizens whose only crime was owning dogs! I can't imagine that "improving the morals" should be the job of county government. It seems to me that teaching morals or improving morals should rest on the shoulders of families and the church. Besides, is it immoral to own animals? It seems the county should be focused on improving economy, infrastructure and services for county residents. Limit virtually everyone to two animals, and crime and other social issues will just disappear? Of course not. In fact there are numerous studies and statistics that show animal ownership improves quality of life and promotes and teaches responsibility, such as FFA, 4-H, AkC Junior Showmanship and other programs. In fact all three organizations provide scholarship programs for higher education of our young people. Other programs like therapy dog programs enhance the lives of our elderly (some who live in single-wide mobile homes).
        Personally, I was going to church and showing dogs when I was 15 years old, instead of drinking or experimenting with drugs, and I know there are countless similar testimonies that animal ownership is a good and healthy alliance that should not be governed out of existence. There is no doubt that this could become our future reality (refer to Section 8-2 D that states: Planning and Zoning will set numbers for ANY other animals not listed). It seems likely that just like owning a dog or a cat corrupts morals, that one day livestock will also corrupt morals!
        Isn't it the purpose of the county to enforce the law already on the books? And yes, there is a law on the books in this county and two at state level that they don't enforce. The county says it can't enforce the laws because it doesn't collect fines. But county officials are not pushing the proposed ordinance to enable them to receive the fines, but rather to limit animal ownership and dictate morals.
        For information on the East Mountain Animal Interest Alliance, go online to www.emaia.info.