Hacker News Reader

Comment by kenned3 | Hacker News Reader

As a dog owner, i have always wondered why my indoor dog needs an annual license, while my neighbourhood is saturated in unlicensed "wild" cats??

Seems like utter crap, and it is clear the cats are killing the local birds.

View on HN

Because dogs pose a substantially greater threat to human life than cats do.

Makes me wonder, how do you most effectively avert danger when you're being attacked by a dog?

If the dog is already biting you, eyes and dick/balls work.

If not, you can try to out-aggress the dog, usually dogs aren't stupid and won't attack people who seem to be intimidating. ...on the other hand some breeds have had this instinct bred out of them and will try to kill anything of any size with no regard to their own safety.

IMO what’s important isn’t merely whether something poses proximal danger to human life (which asks for immediate and more severe solutions), but whether something poses greater community burden on a level where it’s hard to trust an individual to self regulate.

Owning any equipment or process with bad waste or ecological burden should also require extra licensing under the same rationale.

I’m sorry, but that’s a severe over-generalization. My 6lb 3-legged rescue is far less of a threat to humans than even a small kitten...

Anecdotes != argument. Even the average sized dog can do 10x damage a cat can. And the largest dogs are easily capable of killing. Not an argument.

Of course it’s an argument because we can simply license based on predictors of burden. Small dogs which are projected to fall below a risk tolerance threshold should have less licensing burden.

Similarly, different classes of vehicles get different licensing requirements; saying all cars are the same is just lazy, and a regulation meant for big risky entities being applied to small ones is what we call regulation moats. We have enough pet owners that we should be able to quantify risks and burdens for the purpose of licensing. Here we have an article which provides empiricism on the community burden from cats.

I don’t think he’s arguing for HOW to regulate, only that dogs SHOULD be regulated. You’re both correct imo.

I'm talking about whether anecdotes of safe dogs is an argument that we might need different levels of licensing. Yes it's an argument, especially in the face of empiricism on the community burden of cats.

It's as much about personality as physical threat.

Cats are far more skittish around people as a rule. There are practically zero stray/outdoor cats that will attack a person unless they're backed into a corner and provoked. The same thing isn't true for dogs, some dogs are simply aggressive.

Sure but all those "rescue" pit-bulls are capable of killing adults. But even moderately sized dogs can disfigure a child pretty easily.

Pit-bulls aren't really moderate in anything, they've been specifically bred to be fearless, confident and strong.

All good abilities when trained properly, if not, it's a recipe for a disaster.

Unless that rescue has rabies.

It seems more likely that a free-roaming cat will get rabies than someones 6 lbs lap dog. Especially because cats (at least in my area) don't require licensing or rabies shots like dogs do.

Cats don’t typically attack humans, dogs do, frequently.

Cats do too, maybe not as frequently, but I think the important factor is, that the damage is not as severe in most cases.

It probably is related to the size of the animals. If there would be more tiger-sized cats and more Chihuahua sized-dogs it would most likely be different.

I think "not as frequently" is a understatement. Cats are orders of magnitudes less dangerous to humans than dogs are, it's not even something I have to think about when I walk outside. Meanwhile, often times, the only thing that stops a dog from attacking me is the gate of their owner's house. Even that won't stop them from running at me and barking at me though. And yes, I've walked by a house with no gate before and two dogs just came after me and attacked my legs, one even biting me. I'm no dog hater or anything, in fact I like dogs, but dogs are only appreciable if they're on your side. I shudder at the thought that anyone would be able to get a pitbull and do whatever they please with it without licensing or repercussions for letting it loose on the neighborhood children.

EDIT: Forgot to say, it don't matter even one bit what size the dog is or how small it is. If they aren't on your side, they're capable and very willing to bark at and attack you.

You clearly have never handled an aggravated Chihuahua

Cats rarely attack humans unless directly provoked. Whereas some dogs are aggressive and will attack people that go into their general area.

http://newanimalcontrol.org/newsystem.shtml proposes a sensible dog licensing system that "gauge[s] the competence of those who want to take their dogs out onto the public streets. Those who can prove that they have perfect voice control over their dogs can become licensed to walk them off lead, while others may be forbidden to take their dogs out among the public at all. It all depends on the animal's behavior and the owner's demonstrated ability to control him."

As a cat owner I do not understand why the "indoor" dog needs license either. I would mandate the leash at all times on all dogs > 15kg but the license... If that's not a "fighter" dog the license requirement is just stupid.

Because dogs get out, roam the street, get hit by cars, and bite people. You need a license to report to/sue the person who allows this.

Cats climb trees and can hide easily if they get scared.

Out of curiosity, is a "fighter dog" anything like an "assault rifle" to you per chance? I.e. poorly/subjectively defined and amorphous to the point of becoming a functional drop-in for "thing I don't think someone else needs"?

Not trying to derail or start a flamewar, but wanted to point out that there is a kind of rhetorical distinction-without-a-difference-making at work there, that I've noticed tends to be completely innocent and well-intentioned, but left unchecked for what it is leads to some absolutely farcical legislative outcomes.

Dog fighting is already illegal; and licensing on whether a dog meets some nebulous, ill-defined criteria by which it is judged to be a "fighter dog" or not seems ill-advised as a productive expenditure of governmental oversight.

That I think the same logic already extends to firearms is tangential to the topic at hand, but I figured I'd toss it out there anyway in the interests of dispelling any speculation as to there being secretive ulterior motives.

Anywho, back on topic; I let my boys out onto a woefully undersized porch, but we have a stray cat colony next door, and no fence. So I'm leery of letting them wander around too much. Especially since we had a scare with one of them over a rather strong reaction to a an immunization booster given too early because we couldn't find paperwork for one of them having gotten a rabies shot. I've been gunshy a bit because the vet that readministered the vaccination was totally prepared to amputate the limb before biopsy results came in in and if it weren't for getting a second opinion our boy may be a tripod now.

I find any law that leads to something like that to be a rather antagonistic application of force, and requirement to induce pain and suffering. Yes, I collect immunization records like a hawk now, but injection site sarcoma fears are not something I wish on anyone.

That does seem silly - dogs font need licenses where I live, and given that mine are never out without a leash and aren’t bolters, I’m darned glad I don’t have that kind of ridiculous nanny-statism to deal with.

Those licenses pay for the dog pound, and help the local govt control the number of dogs. You are only allowed 2 registered dogs, all dogs must be registered etc...

According to the local FB group, it seems to be 99% cats that are taken to the pound.

Dogs can kill livestock. The birds that cats kill don't have a commercial value.

Wait, where do you live that doesn't require licensing for cats? Licensing and registration is an important intervention for control of rabies and animal overpopulation, as well as facilitating the return of lost pets. Everywhere I've lived in the US, both cats and dogs have to be licensed. Owners have to provide proof of rabies vaccination, and registration costs more for animals that haven't been spayed or neutered.

That’s bullshit. I have a cat and there is no requirement to register etc. What I do or what animals I support in my home is nobody’s business

You should buy tigers, then. But seriously, it's somebody's business. Animals deserve to have it good.

Animals do deserve to have it good. First, their basic needs like food and water should be taken care of. Then self-fulfillment and medical care. After that, higher philosophical concerns such as freedom from government registration.

But that's in general. Specifically, registering indoor pets does nothing to prevent pets from being abused. What it does is satisfy the state's innate desire to assert control, and create a fakejob for a bureaucrat to administer the registration.

In Seattle, the real reason is to collect fees to run the Seattle animal shelter and animal control. I appreciate knowing that if somehow my cat gets out someone could return him to the animal shelter where they'll scan him chip and contact me.

Replace cats with _______ and vote for candidates that respect individual liberty over nanny state in November.

Dogs can kill humans and since they can they do, especially babies

If you can point me to any evidence showing that dogs are less likely to do this in areas that have licensing, I would consider supporting that.

My guess is it's more about liability - if a dog is involved in an incident, you can prove who the owner is and potentially hold them liable (depending on the circumstances, of course).

I would if it made sense, but it doesn't, unfortunately

Dogs are more dangerous than cats for humans, that's enough to justify why to own a cat you don't need a license while to own a 70 pounds dog you do.

I live in a country, Italy, where you don't need a license to own dogs, but I can clearly see why they aren't needed for cats where dog licensing is mandatory.

Sorry

Cats and birds attract crazy people as advocates and enablers and the negative behaviors they engage in are more invisible.

Feral dogs fight more and are scary to people. Feral cats just kill everything in sight and attract pity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com