In recent days, after clashes between the Wuhan women and the dog-free owners who jumped from the 32nd floor, and the Anyang elderly were bitten by dogs, the issue of how to regulate dogs to become the focus of intense discussion among the network members has been raised.
In recent days, the owners of Zhengzhou's commercial park have indicated that they belong to the settlement district, that a “dog ban” has recently been issued, that dogs are prohibited in the district, that they are “penalized” if they are found to have dogs, and that community workers come to the house and ask for their own handling. If the tenant had a dog, the landlord would request that the dog be either removed or moved. "This is a big neighborhood.
Why can't a dog be allowed?” Some owners think it's a one-size-fits-all! Some people are saying that the dog ban is not a good idea.
The community conducted statistics through a questionnaire, distributed 1286 questionnaires and collected 1262. Villagers and owners were consulted on dog raising, of which 1,136, or more than 90 per cent, agreed to ban dogs. Some 64 per cent of the 808 households agreed to keep dogs strictly in accordance with the Zhengzhou canine regulations, which resulted in a ban on dogs.
Our laws do not provide for citizens to be prevented from raising dogs, or 99 per cent from consenting or not without legislation, which is a violation of the rights of a few by the majority. Property or management does not have this right, and the sub-district property now responds: “We will not force the capture of others' dogs, because we have no law enforcement authority and we will all go to them to persuade them”. After all, there was no such article when the other party bought the house.
I personally believe that legislation should be enacted as soon as possible. It is not appropriate to do so once and for all. How many people have complied with the new animal disease laws? Freedom is relative and, while enjoying it, it is accompanied by an obligation. All those who are now able to do so are online. In reality, there is no real way to fulfil an obligation. The prohibition of dogs in cities is a legitimate duty to protect all nationals.
The dog watch, the chicken report, the dog's not the only one. You want a dog, I want a couple of pet chickens for the New Year! It's a lot to eat an egg when you can tell. If I can raise chicken, can I have a few sheep? I can drink lamb soup and I can eat lamb chops. Can I have some pigs? Will the city be called city by then? The point of freedom is not what you can do, but what you cannot do. I think it's a cut for progress.
The rules were in place long ago, but a few of the dog breeders complied with them, the bites continued to increase, the shit went all over the place, the dogs barked in the middle of the night, and only one cut worked best. In fact, I think the dog-loving people are in the wrong direction, always hoping that everyone will love the dog, instead of exhorting the uncivilized ones, that more and more people will stand against the dog-loving ones, and that there are not many who really hate the dog, but more who hate the uncivilized ones. The range of dog breeders is too wide, not every dog breeder, and I condemn uncivilized dogs, but don't beat a boat! Blind love is selfish love, but many things a dog does are just sparks, and it's the same thing that happens when you don't have dogs.
We've been talking about dogs not twice, or even a thousand times. According to the news, 90 percent of the dog owners don't clean up their own shit. If the owner of the dog could be like the 10% self-conscious owner of the dog, I wouldn't have so many against the dog. If this irregularity continues, I am in favour of a comprehensive ban on dog farming in the cities of the country, which will be regulated mainly by a number of people, in order to achieve immediate results. This way the pedestrian walks on the road and he won't be afraid anymore!