Also necessary in NYC which I don’t really feel is low-trust in general.
Hardly anyone in NYC would comply with such a law. They would just ignore it. The city could perhaps require DNA testing by animal shelters and legitimate breeders within it's borders. But many dogs come from elsewhere, or from backyard breeders who don't care about laws.
Dogs in NYC are already required to wear tags with their rabies vaccination statuses and IDs. That also isn't really checked, but it absolutely could be by simply stopping people walking their dogs and requesting to see their ID tag.
I am OK with some cultures not eating some meats: pork for the muslims or jews, horse for some Western countries, sometimes rabbit. Where I'm from (Italy) we eat both horse and rabbits. But I too draw the line at eating dogs and cats, except during extreme survival situations where it's eat your pet (or fellow human) to avoid starvation. I feel eating canids and felids as taboo as eating a primate, or eating a human.
Just as there are places where eating canids and felids is not taboo - so too are there places where eating a primate is not taboo. A larger geography by far as far as I know. By this argument and amount of places (not people), eating a primate might be less taboo than eating a canid or felid? As an American, I feel the same cultural taboos and they’ve kept me from eating some things but I’ve been reconsidering. Hors…
And then you have a ton of people that eat beef all the time, vs a ton of people that revere cows; in certain places you can be imprisoned or lynched for slaughtering one, google "cow vigilantism".
It always interests me to consider just how relative taboos can be.
Lots of stray dogs around here in south of Spain. Also when I used to be a 12y old cycling in rural france that was pretty much the same, I was always prepared for a sprint whenever I would reach a farm. In a sense it probably made me stronger but I can't say I build a friendship and a mutual sense of confidence with dogs.
I wonder what makes them hunt cyclists and some cars that pass by.
Some breeds have a higher prey drive than others.
But many bad behaviours are pretty easy to train out of most dogs (eg barking at passer-bys). Dogs are easy to train. Too many lazy owners blame their "nature" or "that's just how they are" as if they can't do anything.
I've made this argument many times and it always raises eyebrows and induces shrugs. We as a species co-evolved with some animals and not others. Our partnership with extends deep into the mists of pre-history. We and they have co-evolved to an extent to be better companions. Eating a dog is a profound betrayal unlike that of eating a horse. Come at me
Compagnions and friends? Maybe when we were nomads and the dogs roamed around freely around the tribe. But most dogs today are locked in, most of the time and when they get outside, they are on a leash. Totally dependant on their human masters. I don't think I would describe that relationship as a partnership. Then there is the concept of breeding them, to establish certain "cute" traits, but cause great pain and mis…
Reminded me of the experiment to domesticate silver foxes[1]. Apparently they got quite tame foxes in just 30 generations. Interestingly, while they were selected purely for lack of aggression towards humans they started to develop dog-like physical traits. Hasn't been replicated yet, and doubtfully will, but interesting. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
It's interesting, though, because anyone who has ever owned a cat knows that they are only barely domesticated. It might be something in the canine brain that makes it easy to domesticate them.
I don't think a lot of effort was put into actually intentionally breeding cats for domestication.
People seem to love them as semi wild animals and unlike dogs they aren't dangerous enough to be put down when they start biting people. On top of that a large percentage of the population are actually wild animals aka feral. Spend a lot of time with a kitten and it may become extremely affectionate, but we also habitually neuter them unlike the wild population. Go back 1,000 years and I suspect people acted similarly though without the neutering.
So the external evolutionary pressure for domestication doesn't seem nearly as strong as with those foxes, and might currently be going in the other direction.
Likely twice as old as written language. https://www.livescience.com/stone-age-dog-burial.html Abuse of a dog or cat is a crime against civilization itself.
I've made this argument many times and it always raises eyebrows and induces shrugs. We as a species co-evolved with some animals and not others. Our partnership with extends deep into the mists of pre-history. We and they have co-evolved to an extent to be better companions. Eating a dog is a profound betrayal unlike that of eating a horse. Come at me
Compagnions and friends? Maybe when we were nomads and the dogs roamed around freely around the tribe. But most dogs today are locked in, most of the time and when they get outside, they are on a leash. Totally dependant on their human masters. I don't think I would describe that relationship as a partnership. Then there is the concept of breeding them, to establish certain "cute" traits, but cause great pain and mis…
This doesn't really seem relevant to what I am saying. Or at least does no harm to my argument.
Hardly anyone in NYC would comply with such a law. They would just ignore it. The city could perhaps require DNA testing by animal shelters and legitimate breeders within it's borders. But many dogs come from elsewhere, or from backyard breeders who don't care about laws.
Dogs in NYC are already required to wear tags with their rabies vaccination statuses and IDs. That also isn't really checked, but it absolutely could be by simply stopping people walking their dogs and requesting to see their ID tag.
Don't shoot the messenger, but this is one of a number of quality-of-life improvements which is a non-starter because of the doctrine of disparate racial impact. The argument would be that poverty, undocumented status, etc, means it's harder for some ethnicities to comply with that sort of regulation, so the burden of police interaction would disproportionately fall on them. Probably not wrong in this case, getting a dog registered with all his shots is fairly expensive. My take is that a law worth having is a law worth enforcing, but unless that idea comes back into fashion, things like your suggestion won't happen.
On this topic I saw this great documentary called "Man's first friend" from 2008.[1]. Also speaking of northern Italy, as a dog owner, I am fully behind this[2] proposal to DNA test dogs and punish anyone leaving dog poop on the streets. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=talBvZ5x8sY&t=4882s 2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/17/italian-provin...
Isn’t solving trust issues with further mistrust leads to an even lower trust in the end? (genuinely interested because “low-trust/high-trust communities” concept is a topic I know nothing about.)
Good point. I really don't think a country can switch side (high to low and viceversa) within a short timespan, maybe not even within a generation. So, if you want to solve the issue, you use the methods which work in the affected area. In high trust, as long as the thing is seeing benefitting most, it is often followed. In low trust, breaking a rule is often seen as a sign of independence and generally being cool, s…
The UK has gone from high to low in a generation.
People no longer (for instance) leave their children (or even their dogs) outside shops whilst they go inside.