Dear Editor:
I am reminded once again that negative things happen when good people do nothing. In fact, in so many instances over so many years, someone does something and it soon becomes practice and it becomes such a common practice that people begin to accept it as truth and fact. For so many years, many property owners told their tenants or prospective tenants that they were not allowed to have pets in their apartments. For so many years, most people simply went along with that because they either accepted it as factual or they were afraid of some sort of retaliation by the owner, usually eviction or non rental.
Finally, several years ago now, people in America began to realize that this is ridiculous practice. In America the first constitutional birthrights are to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Several years ago now, it was asserted that these rights, in fact, allow for persons in America to have pets. In another writing at another time, I will get into the long and well-established and documented positive impact and benefits of pet ownership. There are physical and psychological benefits, health and emotional benefits, as well as pet ownership providing such quality of life benefits as companionship, safety, protection and all of the positive implications of friendship and family. Each and all of these are exactly the bases upon which the founding fathers established this nation and which are the genesis of the concepts and words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Does this sound a little dramatic? If it does sound so, that is because common practice and baseless rhetoric has led us to believe that the issue of pets has nothing to do with these honorable documents. However, let me state that this is not an “animal” issue. Those who believe as I do are not some lunatic fringe activists. This is a very “human” issue, an issue of the human rights granted by this nation, and those rights are inalienable to anyone or anything who or which poses otherwise.
Let’s understand that property owners who “prohibit” pets do so either out of a personal fear of animals or a concern about the pet “damaging” property or person. Firstly, an individual’s “fear” may not impose on another individual’s rights. Secondly, property owners already are protected by statutes and laws which prohibit “damaging” that owner’s property. As well, there are various insurance coverages for any such damage. Moreover, there are health laws which allow address of any situation in which a pet, or a person for that matter, creates a situation of “nuisance” or “any clear and present danger.” So in addition to constitutional right, common sense indicates that there is no basis for prohibition of pet ownership. Also in this blessed America, individuals cannot “presume” negative. The overwhelming number of pets and pet owners are creatures who act within the bounds of legal and social responsibility. We cannot obliterate an American’s right to the liberty and happiness of having a pet as part of the family and household because the property owner believes that that pet might pose some sort of negative to the property.
This issue is usually portrayed as an “animal” issue. Well, everyone knows my feelings about animals. However the truth is that this is a “human” issue, as an issue of birthrights. Property owners have rights. So do their renters, and one person’s rights may not waive those of another. Every American has the right to throw a punch but that right to throw the punch stops where my nose begins. That property owner’s rights stop at the exact point where they offend the liberty and the pursuit of happiness so intrinsic in pet ownership. If negative things happen when good people do nothing, maybe it’s time for a lot of you good people to do something.
Tom Hart