Over a year ago, I found out that allowing your dog to ride with you on your motorcycle was illegal. Today, I found out that lawmakers in the state of Illinois are discussing making a law that bans driving with a dog on your lap.

Dogs in the driver’s seat — on their owners’ laps — is a dangerous but common habit, said state Rep. Dan Burke (D-Chicago), co-sponsor of the bill.

“Because I travel, I can’t help but observe the number of people with dogs on their laps,” he said. “It is a public safety concern. If a driver is distracted, certainly it would be a risk to other motorists on the road.”

So, he travels and observes and that’s supposed to be good enough? Please notice that he did not mention ever witnessing this causing an accident in his extensive travels. If dogs on laps are causing accidents, I would hope that we would hear those statistics when trying to get a new law passed, rather than personal, anecdotal observations.

In order to sound more legitimate, the lawmakers start talking about how dogs in accidents can become dangerous projectiles, which is true. However, this has nothing to do with whether the dog is on your lap or not. The dog could be a dangerous projectile in the back seat. So, if the problem is unrestrained dogs, that’s what the proposed law should reflect. They should build public support for it by citing statistics in a scientific manner and build the case for a public safety/health concern. That shouldn’t be too hard to do in today’s safety-obsessed culture.

Instead, the plan in Illinois is to build up to the law they really want — that all animals in cars have to be restrained. (The quoted person is someone who has started a dog seatbelt company after her personal experience with a car accident where her dog was present).

Although she’d like to see a bill that requires dogs to be fully restrained like Burke’s, not just prohibited from riding in a driver’s lap, Ramirez knows changing the trend will take “baby steps.”

“It is the most dangerous when a dog is on your lap,” she said.

All of this discussion goes back to the idea that laws should be in place to punish actual crime, not the potential to cause damage somehow. It’s not as if there’ s a 1:1 ratio of lap dogs to accidents. Not even close. However, I am starting to think the ratio of lawmaker to control freak is coming pretty close…

New laws are being passed all the time. Most of the time, we are entreated to “think of the children” when considering our support for these laws.

Here are some examples:

safety seats in vehicles (until children are at least 45 years old, I think)

reducing calories of school lunches (presumably to stave off childhood obesity)

banning ice cream trucks

setting age limits for legal use of a gas pump

The list could go on and on.

Most people will support new laws that purport to keep children safe. However, there are always sacrifices of freedom to be made in exchange for this safety, which is never guaranteed by the passage of new laws.

At this time, instead of thinking of the children, I would encourage you to think of the birds.

You see, it has been discovered that birds are using discarded cigarette butts to help keep their nests free of pests.

Scientists at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City examined the nests of two bird species common in North America. They measured the amount of cellulose acetate, a component of the paper filters at the end of cigarettes, found in the nests and discovered the more there was, the fewer parasitic mites were present.

So before we take too many steps to reduce tobacco consumption (like banning outdoor smoking, levying huge taxes, etc.), we might want to form a committee on behalf of the birds.

All subscribers to this blog please remember that I have a podcast, which you can subscribe to separately. Click here to do so.

It’s by a narrow margin, but New Jersey voters actually do support a proposed law that would require dog owners to put their animal in a safety restraint or crate when in the car.

According to today’s Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind poll, 45 percent of registered voters in the state support the law, with 40 percent opposing it. The bill, introduced by Assemblywoman Grace Spencer last month, would require that pets not traveling in a crate be restrained by a harness or similar device, with violators subject to a $20 ticket and possible animal cruelty charges. (source)

And…this is why I generally disagree with most of the public. In my opinion, it is cruel NOT to let a dog feel the windy breeze on his/her face. What kind of life would it be for a dog to not be able to look out the window and soak up the sunny breeze?

What, exactly, is a pet harness? Someone please enlighten me!

Ted Nugent used to live in my home town of Concord, Michigan.  It’s a small town of about 1,000 people, and it’s where I attended school (K-12).  Besides being a rock guitarist, he is also known for hunting.  In fact, he’s in the bowhunter’s hall of fame and not the rock and roll hall of fame. Of course, the rock and roll hall of fame is a joke since they won’t admit Rush. Anyway, Mr. Nugent has been in some hot water lately for some remarks he made about president Obama.  It’s probably not a super good idea to say that you’re going to be dead or in jail if Obama gets re-elected (even if it is some kind of metaphor).  It will land you a meeting with the secret service.  He’s also been in some hot water for violating a hunting law in Alaska.

Even though he has hunted in Alaska for almost 40 years, he managed to violate a law and has to pay:

Nugent is forbidden from hunting in Alaska or any United States national forest for one year and must serve two years’ probation. He also must pay a $10,000 fine and $600 in restitution to the state of Alaska.

He violated this law unwittingly by shooting a bear after making a non-lethal hit on a previous bear. Evidently, if you shoot at a bear and hit it (even if it is not injured), the tag you bought is “filled,” and you cannot shoot another bear.  He did this while filming for a television show, and the violation actually occurred on published film.  I have no doubt that he did not realize he was breaking the law.

He has pled guilty to his charge and acknowledges that he should have been aware of the law.  But, he does mention in his statement how confusing it is becoming to navigate all of the rules and regulations.

Was I negligent in not knowing the Alaska bear hunting rule for the specific region I hunted that year? Absolutely. For my negligence, I have been charged with a violation and I plead guilty. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only person ever charged with violating this new, unheard of law. Lifetime AK hunters, guides, outfitters, even the resident judge at my hearing were unaware of such an unprecedented regulation.

The outdoor lifestyle cannot be preserved for future generations of sportsmen by constructing such a labyrinth of confusing, unscientific and oftentimes counterproductive regulations and rules. Reversing this trend is my focus.

Since Mr. Nugent hasn’t made many friends lately, I can see why a lot of people think he should have known better. He’s rich, right?  Can’t he have some lawyer check that stuff for him?  Well, according to him, not even the judge knew about this rule. But, please don’t use the excuse that he should have known better when they haul you off for buying too much cold medicine or saving a baby woodpecker.  There’s a whole list of things you might want to investigate here before you head out for the day.

I would venture to say that everyone violates the law on a weekly basis.  We usually violate the law without realizing it either because we’ve always done it and it’s never been enforced, or because everyone else does it, too. Until you read your city’s municipal code book and the enacted statutes in your state, you cannot assume that you are a law-abiding citizen.  It’s easy to break the law these days. We really shouldn’t blame Ted for breaking the law without knowing it. We should agree with him on at least one point — there are too many confusing laws.

I won’t make a lot of comments on this story because, frankly, I don’t have a lot of knowledge about the reasoning behind this law.  In my experience, however, the reasoning behind laws is often feeble.  I imagine it’s the same in this case.

A marine biologist in California has been indicted for violating federal laws as they relate to marine mammals.  In this case, she was accused of feeding whales.  Then, she is accused of editing a video that supposedly showed her feeding whales.  If she is found guilty of editing the video and, thereby lying to investigators, she faces a possible 20 year sentence (as well as $500,000 in fines).  In the case of the feeding charges, each one carries a maximum 1 year prison sentence and a $100,000 fine.

*Note — Some of the links in this article  have been updated/changed from their original sources. The current links should work, but may not be as relevant as the originals, which were removed by their owners.

I didn’t even know this was possible — recycling cat litter.  But, in Washington D.C. it is mandatory.  In fact, the public works inspector has admitted to rummaging through trash to find violators of this law.  One resident was even has fines totaling over $2,000 for this violation.

I’m all about recycling (I still don’t know how cat litter is recycled…maybe they mean that it should be reused or not thrown in the trash), but this regulation has gone overboard.  The accused woman, Patricia White, has stated that…

…she will continue to fight the citations and continue to dispose of her cat’s litter in the trash and not in the recycling bin.

She asserts that her way is superior to recycling because she actually uses a homemade type of litter (made out of newspapers) instead of what is purchased in stores and re-uses it. I can’t really do better than the former lawyer who left this comment:

Her crime is trying to recycle newspaper by herself.  What a fool.  Everyone knows that recycling must be done FOR YOU by the government.  So, don’t use your newspaper for your cats, buy commercial cat littler in twenty-pound bags (yes there is profit there, BUT EVERYONE GETS A SHARE) and throw that in the trash, not your twice-used newspaper.  Then you will set a positive example as a responsible consumer in a brave new world.  Meee-YOWWW!  Fzzzzttssss-WraaaaaaRRR!!   RRRRRRRRR….

*Note — The original story I linked to has been removed by its owner. The current links should work, but might not be as relevant to the original post.

I thought I’d make a lighthearted post for once.  I guess I’m tired of nagging everyone about the evils of government for today.  I’m not veering too far off, though.  Today I bring you the story of a caring woman in Ohio who feeds squirrels.  Some of us might call it excessive (she even does).  Others might call it quirky, but her habits are being called “illegal” by those in authority in Kettering, Ohio.

You see, she feeds squirrels.  But, she doesn’t just feed them like you might think.  She goes into other people’s yards to feed squirrels on their property.  People have complained that the squirrels are ruining their gardens and air conditioners, and they’d be fine with it if she just stayed on her own property.  But, she’s not willing to do that.  She said she would be willing to scale back and mostly feed them on her own property, but that there would always be exceptions.  Either way, I think that jail time is another one of the excessive measures (possibly) being taken in this story.

You’ve probably seen it before — a guy riding around with a dog on his motorcycle.  I know I’ve seen it a few times in my life.  I always thought that the dogs that got that treat were really special.  After all, the rest of them are trying to get that sensation by sticking their heads out the window.

But, recently in New Jersey, a man was charged with animal cruelty (original link broken, this is a follow-up link) for doing this.  In this case, the dog rode on the gas tank.  He did this for over six years before being pulled over for it.  The article isn’t entirely clear about how the ticket could have been prevented or what law he was actually breaking.  Maybe the issue was that the dog rode on the front.  However, I would think that would be preferred because at least you can keep your eye on the pet from that perspective.   It would prevent you having to turn around and check.  Or maybe it was because the animal was not secured in any way, but neither are the people on a motorcycle at any given time.  I’m not sure what their rationale was.  But, it’s probably safe to say that this dog was not abused in any manner.

At the end of the article, the man mentions a Harley-Davidson commercial that shows a dog riding on a motorcycle with its owner.  Obviously, Harley-Davidson doesn’t realize that they are promoting animal cruelty.  Of course, who can blame them?  Nobody ever, until now, thought that it was cruel to do this to a dog.

If they got onto my grandmother like this, she would have spent a lot of time in jail in her 91 years.  Instead, this man removed all of his bird feeders after being threatened with jail time for feeding birds.  Sad.

A child trying to save a baby woodpecker from getting eaten by a cat has earned her mom a $500 fine and possible jail time — and that’s after the government representatives knew that she released the bird.

Read all about it here.  They even have a nice video you can watch.