What I am wondering is if in fact they really are picking up the same animals over and over. That is why it would interesting to know if very many dogs get as far as the third strike under the old system. Yes, call me crazy, I would like to see actual facts that show that a new law is necessary before it is inacted. Not just generalizations about overpopulation and animals roaming the streets. Our local animal control did not keep any such statistics. The experience here locally is that they get picked up and reclaimed maybe once but on the second pick up they generally do not reclaim the dog (during the time that our city was discussing new animal control legislation I got to learn a lot about how our local animal control operates and its superintendent was very honest and forthright about their limited capacity to enforce leash laws). I am guessing that is not unusual, someone who is irresponsible enough to let their dog roam is probably not going to pay $100 to get it back. Nor are they going to pay to have it altered. They will leave it at the shelter and it will be destroyed. It is just so much easier to go buy a new one...
Unless I saw that the old leash law was actually being enforced and that dog owners really were reclaiming their pets past the third strike and still letting them roam, I would not support enhancing the law based on a theoretical application.
I just have so much suspicion due to the bill's original format that my impression will always be a bit colored by it. Knowing quite a bit about how at least our state legislature goes about things I can't help but see this application of msn as the first step towards returning to the original bill which was pure msn and breeder permits.
That's pretty much the sum of my thoughts, since I am not here to convince anyone that I am right and they are wrong, I will probably let it go at that since I see I am repeating myself
