Wow, It has been a long time.

Some of the time was spent in research, some in mulling it over and trying to come up with a co-ordinated whole, and some of it was spent Christmas shopping.

Other bloggers have said most of what I want to say about Christmas, so I'll dedicate a short paragraph to my dog-owner rant.

Dear dog owners:
May I ask why the rules don't apply to you?
Yesterday the SO and myself were out in a regional park. It was wet and misty, the paths were wide and flat and the river nearly steamed under a few stray rays of sunlight.

When what to my wondering eyes should appear but an ass, and his dog. The two of them were wandering about unconcernedly; the leash which should have been connected to the dog at one end and the owner at the other dangling from the owner's arm.

It wouldn't be so bad if he was the only one. But out of five dog-owning couples and two single owners that we met that day (with four out of the five accompanied by more than one dog) only one couple had their animals leashed. And only one of the two dogs was actually leashed until we came close to the couple.

I won't go into why this whole thing is stupid. I will only remark that there are very clear signs at the entrances to regional parks stating:

"All dogs must be leashed".

Likewise the very pleasant park where the SO and I perambultaed last weekend was infested with literally dozens of people whose pets capered freely off the leash, despite similar signs.

I do not especially care for dogs. Or any pet, truth be told. However I understand that it is your right to waste your money on a domesticated wolf relative should you choose to do so. It may even be your right to choose to let the creature off the leash in total defiance of city bylaws.

It is my right to carry bear spray, and to use it if I feel threatened, say by an unleashed dog.

I no longer believe the Kennel Club cant that "most dog owners are responsible". On the contrary. I now regard dog ownership as being symptomatic of a greater disregard for the wellbeing of society. Your animal wastes not only your own, but also my money (whose taxes pay for bylaw enforcement?). Your animal pollutes my neighborhood with its discarded faeces, and attacks local wildlife with impunity. Not to mention the number of people attacked by animals so special they just had to be let off the leash in defiance of local bylaws.

It cannot be co-incidence that the most obnoxious owners of the most obnoxious dogs also tend to drive the most obnoxious vehicles, such as SUVs.

My cure: First, the fee for dog licenses should be raised to the approximate cost of the owner's car insurance, unneutered-or-spayed animals quadruple. Unlicensed dogs or cats should be immediately impounded and destroyed after seven days.

Too cruel, you say? Unfairly penalizes the majority for the actions of a few? I could say that about car insurance. However, I have an alternate solution:

When a dog is found to be in breach of a city bylaw or commits an attack, the owner shall be held fully responsible. The owner shall be impounded with the dog, and if not bailed out by payment of a $100,000 fine shall be destroyed, possibly along with the animal, after seven days. And made into dog food to support the SPCA's efforts to house and feed the enormous pet overpopulation.

Although personally I'd be reasonably happy if we repealed the statute which prevents the killing and eating of dogs and cats for food. No more starving homeless AND no more wandering animals!

This was a much longer rant than planned. I'll have to return to the conventions of the blog genre at a later time. Here I illustrate one of the most powerful conventions: The right of the author to digress in any direction at will without apology.

Sorry about that.

Note on spellcheck: The Blogger spelling checker, which I now try to use to improve my presentation, picked up the words "ordinated" (as in co-ordinated), "leashed" and of all things: "bloggers".