I'm fuming about this pending bill. (Thanks to ML). Some nitwits have introduced legislation in the assembly that would require dog owners to carry liability insurance. That is the most infuriating part of the proposal, but new orange tags that all dogs must wear proving they are insured is another provision. They have labeled this waste of time "Elijah's Law," for some little kid who was mauled by a Rottweiler. Now, I have all the sympathy in the world for his family, and no patience with people who have mean dogs, but I really dislike the recent years' obsession with plastering some victim's name on all these absurd pieces of legislation (except, that is, the Buster Bill, because it protects animals from abuse). {Is that logical? No...but don't you dare mess with animals.} I also dislike so-called dangerous breed bans. There are no dangerous breeds, just screwed up, good for nothing people.

Anyway, I greatly resent the idea that because some loser owns a mean dog that hurt a child, I have to carry insurance on my dogs, who are never allowed out of my sight, spend their lives in fenced yards, and when we go for a walk - they are always leashed. They are both licensed. They are actually not really child proof - oh, Rudy is good natured enough, but Sophie has too many of her own needs to have patience for kids. But they are not exactly kid maulers either, and they are never around little kids, dog-fearing types and dog haters unless Bob or I are around (actually, they are never around dog haters at all, because I wouldn't spend one minute of my time with such people). I am not going for one more legal scam (insurance), and my dogs are not wearing stupid orange tags. The dog warden can just try to seize them. Make my day.

Well - the bill was referred to committee. Hopefully, there it will stay. I tried to call up the email address for my two representatives - Castleton and Samsonville - and guess what? I went into hourglass never-never land. Of course! Wouldn't want constituent input or anything.