The Daily Gazette
The Locally Owned Voice Of The Capital Region
Advertisement
Promotions

See Past Polls

March 30, 2012 Poll Results

Should the government limit the number of pets you can own?

No 69% 416 votes
Yes 30% 184 votes
Total: 600 Votes

Note: This is not a scientific poll. The results reflect only the opinions of those who chose to participate.

comments

cfield
March 31, 2012
6:30 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Anyone receiving assistance from social services should not be allowed to own any pet whatsoever!!!!

ed186
April 1, 2012
8:25 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Just who do you think in going to police that? Tell that to a elderly old person whos little kitten is all the company she has or the child whos best friend is the small dog she/he has. People on assistance are human too.

badsan
April 1, 2012
9:28 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

The only problem is that animal lovers think they are doing a good thing, but in reality, it can become too much and the animals will suffer.

cfield
April 1, 2012
4:12 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

ED186, your missing my point. If you can not pay for your own food ,shelter or clothing. Then how in the world can you justify owning a pet that the taxpayers have to pay for. Maybe be we should allow to have cigarettes and booze with their food stamps.

diane
April 2, 2012
5:43 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

While government should not control how many pets we own, it is in my opinion OK for landlords to deny renters occupancy.

ed186
April 2, 2012
8:38 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Not all people getting assistance get their entier budget paid by the taxpayer. And there are food pantries who help out too. Again, who is going to police the pet patrol for people on assistance? Just the salary of one county employee will pay for the pet all the food the pets need and thats not including the benefits. You have a good idea CFIELD just not workable.

SchenectadyScott
April 2, 2012
12:50 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

It is great to have the Communist Chinese as our model in Government control......

ajdjr73
April 3, 2012
7:25 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

cfield - I agree. I was involved with a Habitat for Humanity group building homes for people as a charity. When selecting a family for one of the homes, we had to screen potential homeowners to assure their success in paying the mortgage, helping them to succeed as first time homeowners. Then, after they moved in, we follow up with them regarding their budgeting and payment etc. Once, the family selection committee did not adequately screen a couple living in a trailer. As it turned out, they did not factor in TWO very large dogs they owned into their monthly food budget equation. Turns out, after living in the house for a few months, they are already struggling. Re-examination of their budget showed the difference was the food for the two dogs...its amazing just how this one item can put people in financial stress. Your post reminded me of this story.

cfield
April 3, 2012
4:56 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

ajdjr-- your right on point. The fact of the matter if we do allow assisted people to have small luxuries as I will call them...Pets, cell phones, steaks , plasma or lcd tv's. Then what incentive do they have to improve their lives. It's time to motivate these people!!

ARGH
April 3, 2012
5:48 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Pets... Only with proof of neglect.

Children... Certainly.

tonijean613
April 4, 2012
2:04 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

The poll question is tricky. Is the poll directed at the 135 cats found in Halfmoon trailer park home ? or directed at public assistance receivers? I dont know that much about welfare or how you could possibly stop money meant for food and shelter going to feeding pets, unless you engage the grocery stores that accept food stamps to have their check out systems programmed to reject the purchase of pet food, pet supplies, beer, candy, and cigaretes.

ed186
April 5, 2012
9:07 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Thats one way to police the pets problem. Nice job tonijean. But there are grocers who find way around this, but it's still a good idea.

cfield
April 8, 2012
12:38 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Ed-- they'll just feed them steaks,chicken and leftovers.

MN
April 8, 2012
8:57 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

The original question didn't mention people on public assistance, so the presumption is that everyone would be subject to the government's oversight. There are already laws that address animal neglect/cruelty . . . adding another law limiting the number of pets a person/household may own would be redundant.

columnists & blogs