Law by the numbers

We have problems with puppy mills, chief among them that we don’t know what exactly a puppy mill is.

We’re not convinced Oregon’s Legislature knows, either.

But that lack of knowledge has not prevented legislators from considering a bill that would limit the number of unspayed or unneutered dogs people can own in Oregon.

An amended version, which lawmakers are mulling now, doubles the maximum to 50 sexually intact dogs.

Proponents of HB 2470 seem to think the best way to protect dogs is to limit how many of the animals people can own.

We disagree.

We don’t believe, at any rate, that a person who owns 50 or fewer dogs is incapable of neglecting or abusing the animals.

Nor do we think that a person who owns 51 dogs will inevitably fail to properly care for them.

What the Legislature ought to focus on is how people look after their dogs, not how many they have.

Oregon already has a law that addresses this.

Commonly known as the minimum care standard law, it requires, among other things, that owners of dogs and other animals give them adequate water and enough food not only to keep the animal alive, but to maintain its body weight.

The current law is sufficiently stringent to deal with the neglect and abuse cases that get all the publicity, particularly on television.

You know the sort of scene we mean — lots of dogs, often dozens of them, roaming a small area fouled with the animals’ feces and without enough sheltered space for all the dogs to get out of the weather.

HB 2470 would add other care standards that would apply to people who have more than 10 sexually intact dogs that are eight months or older.

We support some of those, including the requirement that each dog have an enclosed space large enough that the animal can stand and turn around.

We don’t agree, though, that the government should be mandating that each dog older than four months get at least one hour of “regular exercise” each day.

Lack of exercise poses a more serious threat to people than it does to dogs, yet so far, thankfully, the Legislature has not imposed a daily calorie-burning quota on its constituents.

Ultimately, we can’t fault the sentiment that motivated HB 2470.

We don’t want dogs or any other animals to suffer because their owners are neglectful.

Nor do we oppose strengthening Oregon minimum care standards for pets.

But lawmakers can achieve those goals without resorting to the legislating-by-the-numbers approach that HB 2470 epitomizes.