Stupidity in Colorado

[Jarlaxle]

A "pet tax" is the latest stupid idea. I'm not sure if it is a back-door attempt at banning pets, or a poorly-done attempt at creating a new bureaucracy to justify itself.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/0 ... imals-its/

[Bicycle Bill]

First rule to remember when reading anything on the internet — consider the source.
● From Newsguard: "The Gateway Pundit regularly distorts information and occasionally spreads conspiracy theories."
● From Wikipedia:  "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right fake news website.  The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories."
You're welcome.

-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

Here’s a reputable source on this proposed legislation, which I agree is intensely stupid and draconian. Life is hard enough and now they want to restrict pet ownership, one of the few true pleasures that remain somewhat affordable to us poor folks? Fuck them!

https://usark.org/24co/

[ex-khobar Andy]

I don't think it stands a cat in hell's chance of passing.

[Jarlaxle]

First rule to remember when reading anything on the internet — consider the source.
● From Newsguard: "The Gateway Pundit regularly distorts information and occasionally spreads conspiracy theories."
● From Wikipedia:  "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right fake news website.  The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories."
You're welcome.

-"BB"-

Look, I get that you are a shitlord. You cannot refute the post, so you attack the source. (Which has a link to the actual legislation.)

[Bicycle Bill]

Yeah, I saw they had a link to the legislation.  I also saw the legislation itself, where the text reads

A pet animal owner must register the pet animal in the system annually for a fee set by the enterprise, which must be no more than (emphasis my own)

the dollar amounts listed.  But of course these right-wingers immediately calculate the maximum per animal, and then descend into absurdity by also listing examples of critters like reptiles, amphibians, fish, invertebrates, or even insects (the ant-farm example) — which are ALSO never mentioned either by name or species in the legislation.  In fact, the only animals called out specifically were cats and dogs.

I don't know about you, but I'd call that distortion.

-"BB"-

[Jarlaxle]

It's the government. "No more than" quickly becomes the maximum and the minimum.

Simple question, yes or no: does the exact wording of the bill prohibit requiring ten different annual fees for an aquarium containing ten goldfish?

[Bicycle Bill]

If you read it in the strictest spirit of the letter, no, it doesn't.  It also doesn't make any exception for working animals, like guide dogs, cats kept for rodent control, carriage horses, or mine-shaft canaries...  or for people who don't have pets of their own but put food out for wild birds, squirrels, and feral cats.  Them bastards oughta pay something too, right?

That's why this is the first draft.   I don't think there's ever been a piece of legislation proposed in any body, from city councils all the way up to the US Senate, that wasn't debated, amended, re-written, or otherwise clarified before it came up to the final vote on whether or not it would be sent to the mayor/governor/president's desk.

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

But of course these right-wingers immediately calculate the maximum per animal, and then descend into absurdity by also listing examples of critters like reptiles, amphibians, fish, invertebrates, or even insects (the ant-farm example) — which are ALSO never mentioned either by name or species in the legislation.  In fact, the only animals called out specifically were cats and dogs.

I don't know about you, but I'd call that distortion.

Maybe you should be castigating that right wing Democrat who introduced the bill which provides this definition:

"PET ANIMAL" MEANS A DOG, CAT, RABBIT, GUINEA PIG,
21 HAMSTER, MOUSE, RAT, GERBIL, FERRET, BIRD, FISH, REPTILE, AMPHIBIAN,
22 INVERTEBRATE, OR ANY OTHER SPECIES OF WILD OR DOMESTIC OR HYBRID
23 ANIMAL SIX MONTHS OF AGE OR OLDER, THAT IS SOLD, TRANSFERRED, OR
24 RETAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING KEPT AS A HOUSEHOLD PET. "PET
25 ANIMAL" DOES NOT INCLUDE LIVESTOCK, AS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION (9)
26 OF THIS SECTION.



"Don't jump, Hammy!" cried Roderick. "I'm sure the producers will pay to register us"

[Bicycle Bill]

I stand corrected, Meade. The link I followed in Jarl's original post took me to a site that gave me only a summary of the bill; I didn't realize there was a second link on that page that took me to the actual annotated text of the bill.

Having re-read it, though, I stand by my original assessment.  This is merely the first iteration of a bill, which (if the CO legislature works anything like the WI legislature) means it will be sent to a committee.   The committee can then decide to bring the bill to the floor, or just sit on it and do nothing so that this may be the first, last, and only time we ever hear or see of it.

Let's face it — there are scads of examples of legislation that gets introduced that have about the same chance of passage as a snowflake has of passing safely through a live blast furnace.

-"BB"-

[Big RR]

Or it may be debated and amended in committee to make a much better bill. I know I pay a fee (or tax) to license my dog (and cats are also licensed in my town/state) and IMHO it makes sense that pet owners pay a bit more to help fund animal shelters, and animal control such as spay/neuter efforts as well as vaccinations for rabies (and perhaps other diseases). Sure, inclusion fish and most rodents seems to make little sense, but reptiles do when you see the efforts some animal control officers go through to capture escaped or abandoned snakes or other reptiles kept as pets. IMHO, it sdeserves a hearing; as Bill said above, bills are rarely in final form when proposed.