Letters to the editor
RDCO Dog issue
Dog licenses. This is far longer than the 250 word limit, but I have a lot to say, too. I can’t help but notice that Mr. Smith’s letter was 59 words too long.
What a nice letter from Bruce Smith, Communications and Intergovernmental Affairs Officer. Now I’m sure Mr. Smith is a very nice person. Pillar of his community, salt of the earth, and all that, but what his job description describes is that he gets to be the apologist and trumpet for the RDCO.
It’s the LAW. It helps pay for the dog pound. It’s cheaper than paying the fine when we seize your dog. All good and fine reasons! Though it does sound quite a lot like a protection racket. “Pay us now and nothing happens to your dog”. Oh, and you still get to pay fines at the impound yard. According to the RDCO website the fees Mr. Smith refers to are in addition to other impound fees, “if the dog is not currently correctly licensed.” Please note the use of “currently correctly”. This allows the RDCO to change the requirements at will, even after you’ve complied with their extortionate fees. Here’s a link to the laws. It makes for a pretty interesting read, and leaves a lot to the imagination. Especially in how they describe aggressive dogs.
It is only a law because the RDCO has made it a law. It helps pay for the dog pound that the RDCO decided to need, because they made up a law that empowered them to impound said dogs. Why, it IS a protection racket. Next he’ll claim it saves lives as it keeps packs of feral dogs away from our children. As if we are only saved by such things through the actions of by-law officers upholding dog licensing laws. Goodness, when I think of some of the things done by governments under the cover of “the law”, I actually shudder!
I know a person who had his “currently correctly” licensed dog impounded from his own property, solely because it was in an unfenced front yard when some pinhead by-law officer strolled by. See, it’s also the law that your dog must be under total control, and to the RDCO that means on a leash or behind a fence. The dog didn’t bark, or act threateningly. It was just lying in the front yard while it’s master went inside for a drink of water. Golden Retrievers are such well known vicious and feral brutes that it took this “officer” an entire dog lead to take him off the property, while the dog owner was threatened with arrest for protesting the seizure. Yes, such a law to uphold, backed by the power of armed and uniformed police. I can clearly understand why the governments wants “us ordinary” citizens unarmed. Far more compliant, than armed citizens would ever be. And even still, they are often seen wearing vests for protection against firearms.
Now, I happen to line up like a good, little Canadian, and pay the protection fee, I mean dog license, and for a very good reason. I don’t put up with stupidity well, and I’m quite capable of physically defending myself against a hostile government. I just don’t think a dog is a good battle line. So you get my $20 under duress. You also get my disdain.
What it actually does, all this law making, is it allows bureaucrats to hire more bureaucrats to make up new laws so that they can extort more money from the people, and then tell us “it’s the law”. And then hire even more. And more. And more. And then arm themselves against us. Remember when Customs and Parks employees were unarmed? That’s changing even as I type. All for protection. Of whom, exactly? I don’t feel very protected by an armed parks employee. Do they feel protected from me? Why can’t I feel protected from them? For I do NOT feel protected by the RDCO, the RCMP or any other organization bearing arms to enforce “the Law”.
One lesson every tax-paying citizen should understand is that while we can rage against politicians, and vote out councillors; premiers; prime ministers; or mayors; and even get the HST repealed, we can’t touch the bureaucrats that actually control us and those politicians. How many times have we heard from City Council or the MPs that they refer to “staff” or accept “the department’s recommendations”. They’re rubber stamps, people. We’ve been voting for the wrong bunch, all along. And better keep up with the fees and taxes. It’s the law, and that’s backed by armed men. We best not forget.
Think about that next election. Who is really driving the bus? It isn’t who you think.
And think about how many dogs the RDCO destroys every year, simply because “irresponsible” owners can’t afford the impound fees, let alone the license.
(Editor's note - please keep letters to 250 words. The letter from the RDCO was over the limit so we are letting this response exceed the rule - fair is fair)
Read more Letters to the editor
- New Lotto 649 millionaire in KamloopsKamloops - 9:56 am
- 2 killed in avalanche near Lake LouiseCanada
- Castanet's Week in ReviewKelowna - 5:00 am
- Missing jet may have turned backWorld - 7:40 am
for these and other issues.
- Sexist note to pilot Mar 6
- End of Funding for Youth Drug Awareness Program Mar 6
- Cyclists need to pay Mar 6
- Did a leg-hold trap take cougar's leg? Mar 1
- Riding the bus a bust Mar 1