Some recent current events have me thinking about how we are currently handling legislation and policy-making in this country right now, and maybe we're going about all of this all wrong.
On Christmas Day, 23 year old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to set off a bomb onboard a Northwest Airlines plane. Following the attempted terrorist act, the US has instituted a variety of new rules on flying that has wreaked havoc and confusion at US Airports.
And while I am all for security at airports, I can't help but wonder if the "new" regulations were necessary. It's been widely reported at this point that Abdulmutallab was on the terrorist watch list -- with known ties to Al Qaeda. It just seems to me that instead of increasing security so we pat down innocent people at the airports, this terrorist attempt would have been avoided if someone with known terrorist ties had been kept off of the plane or, at the very least, giving maximum security checks. But he wasn't. And it was almost very costly.
I mention this because I think it shows an overall attitude we have in this country when it comes to rules and regulations. It seems that we make laws or policies, but then, when we don't enforce them (or they are, by their nature, unenforceable), and an incident happens, instead of demanding better enforcement of the policies, we end up making more laws. And this shows itself in many other areas outside of international terrorism, but even on smaller issues, closer to home -- including laws regarding our pets.
Last week, Putnam County, WV, listened to residents discuss safety issues surround a group of dogs that were allowed to consistently roam free in their community and were a significant safety concern. Instead of insisting that the county enforce the existing leash law, the residents and council voted to pass MORE regulations and passed restrictions on 'pit bulls'. The new law would have been completely unnecessary if the existing law had been enforced.
And I can't help but think that the same thing is happening here in Missouri as well. There is another piece of legislation in Jefferson City that is being discussed that would put more legislation on commercial breeding operations in Missouri. Among the restrictions would be that dog-breeders could only have 50 breeding dogs, they must feed the animals daily, provide annual vet care and not breed animals more than twice every 18 months. There would also be rules on the size of the dogs' living space, the animals would have to be housed indoors and have unfettered access to an outside exercise yard.
I'm going to talk more specifically about this bill in a separate post that is upcoming, but I still can't help but wonder if this law is completely necessary. First off, with our current laws, the state and animal welfare groups have shut down dozens of 'puppy mills'. In fact, in just the first 2 months of 2009, 22 operations were shut down in Missouri due to inhumane treatment of animals. In April, the Humane Society of Missouri, with the help of law enforcement, rescued 68 dogs from an unlicensed puppy mill in Phelps County, and 102 animals from an operation in Daviess County. The biggest problem in Missouri when it comes to substandard (and unlicensed) commercial breeding operations isn't the laws we have, it is the willingness/ability of law enforcement officials to enforce the existing laws.
I'll talk more about the proposed law soon -- and this isn't a criticism, per se, of the law itself. But I can't help but look at this and say that the lack of good laws is not the current problem. The problem is enforcement of the existing laws. And until we demand enforcement of existing laws, we continue to just create more legislation across the board without addressing the biggest problem -- proper enforcement.
My thinking has been: Fully fund and staff the USDA to enforce the existing laws then, after a reasonable period, get feedback from the agency on what, if any, regulations need tweaking.
The terror thing always seems to me to be a game of closing the barn door after the cows are out. I think basically authorities don't want to be caught having the exact same scenario unfold again. And of course terrorists can easily bypass these "security measures" by not attempting the exact same scenario a second time.
Posted by: YesBiscuit! | December 30, 2009 at 06:15 AM
We all know the real purpose of all these puppy mill laws is to shut down commercial breeding all together - they'll keep chipping away at them. But just like with the horse slaughter we'll just send it out of the country where there is NO oversight. Plus we've convinced all the "responsible" to alter their dogs. People want their teacup Yorkies and by golly you're not going to stop them!
There are plenty of laws on the books now to shut down the bad apples and we acutally have leaders in MO listening. Time/money would be better spent elsewhere than campaigning for this.
Oh, this is a PERFECT example of where your H$U$ survivors fund money is going.
Posted by: MichelleD | December 30, 2009 at 09:45 AM