Tax dollars are a very important topic for the next Presidential Election campaigners. Until then, it would appear things are a little slow in some places. Clifton, New Jersey has pre-released information that they will be issuing an ordinance to limit dog barking. Now there is an example of good old American tax dollars at work.
Defining this crucial law
I can see the problems an ordinance like this is going to breed. The limitations that this law places on dog barking are quite specific. A dog can bark for no longer than thirty minutes on two consecutive days. I would assume the complaining party would have to record this noise with some sort of time stamp or gather enough credible witnesses, if this were to go to trial. Which brings of the matter of issuing subpoenas for residents of the neighborhood where the offending dog lives. Some people have a habit of complaining all the time, but as we know, their bark is more vicious than their bite. Many will not follow through without a subpoena. Now that brings up a question of convening a grand jury to review the evidence on the case. With all of these complications, a person pursuing their complaint may wind up barking up the wrong tree.
The overview of a dysfunctional system
The American way is to litigate. A preliminary look into to this ordinance finds that it is a target for lawsuits on the grounds of discrimination against canines. The first point in mind being cats in heat at 3 am in the morning. Felines have been known to wail for durations exceeding the half hour limit for days while giving into the call of the wild. Then, there are the woodpeckers that have been known to throttle at a tree for hours and days on end. The complication here is not many people are willing to claim ownership of a woodpecker. In the course of things, unknown ownership makes it hard to issue a citation or summons for a pecking woodpecker. This brings us to that melodious bird that sings at the birdhouse for a minimum of an hour or more. Can we discriminate between a bird and a dog fairly? I do not think so.
A crucial oversight of significance
What is to determine if the dog was performing his job function as a watchdog? Will the burden of proof be on the plaintiff or the owner? This ordinance is not even active yet and already it has too many unthought out variables that show the statute is not viable. It also is another example of creating quality of life ordinances without applying a quality of thinking.
The process of passing and enforcing an idiot ordinance.
The process should have entailed considering the ramifications and conundrums surrounding the issue in question. Instead, it was law set in motions by the idiot chains. Some idiot left his idiot dog in the back yard out too long while another idiot listened and groused. That idiot instead of thinking of a neighborly way to approach the problem, resorect to going to a town board meeting. The meeting contained people in the audience looking at the people giving what they consider viable complaints, thinking, "What an idiot." The people on the board probably noted the same sentiment while listening, but misreading the audience reaction thinking, "They are nodding in agreement with this idiot." In furtherance of the idiot chain, this board of representatives voted the ordinance in with thoughts of "What a stupid waste of time. I feel like an idiot voting for this. Aren't there more important issues to consider?' Justice will be served as the sheriff or officer enforcing the ordinance will more than likely feel like an idiot doing so.
Stopping the chain
This type of legislation could become rampant. Do people really appreciate seeing that woman with wireless reception curlers, coke bottle glasses and ratty bathrobe walking the dog in the morning? Isn't the bloated neighbor who walks around the house on Sunday in a tank top and boxers passing in front of the picture window an eyesore? Let's not even talk about the guy down the street who has his friends over playing Barbra and Liza music on occasion. Maybe the town board time can be better spent considering how to aid the needy, looking for solutions for families that have childcare problems, getting medical supplies to elderly or other less mundane issues.
