What do you think of a city ordinance that requires dog owners to have a special ID photo of their dog, pay fees just to walk their dog at the park and even get stopped and searched by police? The NY Supreme Court thinks that's just wrong.

Sounds kinda Fascist, to me.

Way over the top.

Sounds unnecessarily oppressive

but I'd really need to see the details before I could be sure

That is ridiculous.

Next they will want do that for children.

whats the us coming to? its becoming more and more like a police state. even dogs are losing their civil liberties and treated like potential terrorists ~ how absurd! and the searching by police is totally invasive. thats completely outrageous!

itll be interesting to see what new gestapo/stasi tactics the government employs next.

I don't know but it sounds like just a small part of a 'vicious dog' ordinance. And if a person owns a dog that is prone (by breed) to attack I think they should have an I.D. so that any victims can identify a dog that the guilty owner is hiding.

At first glance, I agree with the Court. But I would like to know the rationale behind such an ordinance before giving a final opinion.

Yoy are living in a police state, get out now!

That seems odd.... I don't think you should have to pay to walk your dog at a public park, it's probably some way to recover the costs of picking up doggy doodoo? I thought all dogs required tags? Photo ID? That's just funny. And you can get searched for walking your dog without having one of those photo IDs?... Sounds like just another way for law enforcement to be able to enforce laws. Personally, I have nothing to hide, but if I'm late for an appointment it could be a hassle.

It's stupid, but what can you expect from the government.

I can see having to leash dogs & take responsibility for their actions etc, but don't treat them (dogs or owners) like criminals before they actually are.
My cat walks on a leash & many parks & cemeteries do say "all PETS must be leashed", but I heard that cat owners can't be held liable for their pet's aggressive actions the way dog owners are. . ?

If dogs need to be licensed to owners then I imagine there are plenty about who would find a reason to interchange the dogs.
I think photo ID is a fair way about it - cheaper for the individual than insisting the dogs are all microchipped.

If you can walk your dog anywhere but need to pay a small amount to access the public park, that's fair too. It means that only responsible owners will enter the park. I have to wonder how much of the $millions in public liability insurance the council pays to cover its open spaces are down to the issue of dog mess; slips, trips and cross infection. Health and Safety has gone crazy and its no longer the job of a park keeper to pick up dog mess with a scoop - they need a vacuum machine on a vehicle and have to be protected to the hilt - it costs a packet to get employees to remove a doggy doo-doo that 'might' be infectious just because Mrs Posh forgot the bags when she took Tiddles to the park, or because some idiot walked their dog knowing it had diarrhoea, or left it tied to the railings next to the children's swings.

So far it all sounds reasonable. As to the last bit - if by police you mean park security - of course its OK, unless you want to access the park through a turnstile and get your payment and id checked on the way in? That would be worse. If you mean 'real' police - well, hell, like they haven't got enough to do already. They'd be looking for specific 'owners' doing specific dodgy things, before they went to stop anybody.

sounds like just an excuse to charge hard working law abiding citizens extra ridiculous fees and then harassing them just for walking their dog. Anything to get money for the state. It amazes me at how many freedoms we lose everyday. Pretty soon they will start charging humans to use the public parks to exercise or for their children to play on the equipment (outside of what we already pay). It's ridiculous.

It sounds ridiculous!!