That is unfortunate. It seems to me that for every one dog that is owned and taken care for responsibly, a litter of them are mistreated. Since people aren't showing that they are capable, in majority, of treating dogs (or any animals) with respect, there should be requirements to own them. In correlation, making hefty consequences for abuse would deter some animal abusers. Just like with owning a car (it still doesn't seem to do much) you should have to get a license before owning an animal. Not everyone is fit to own one. I guess the same could be said for a lot of things. Children. People should have to show proof that they will be able to take care of the child. There are a lot of instances of what /should/ be regulated as opposed to what is and what is infringing on our "rights". Honestly, sometimes I feel that people use the word more as a weapon and could care less about what it ultimately stands for. Alright, I'm getting off the main topic now. New York City is the city I was referring to, my apologies, I should have specified.
For the most part I agree re: licensing. Not sure how I feel about that in re: children, but it's probably needed for domestic pets, cats and dogs alike. The current scheme hints at it, what with screening and that sort of thing, but it's rather superficial; you're asked "do you have a home?", "do you have a job?", "can you care for this animal?" and if you answer in the affirmative to each you're free to go. No apology needed - apologize, myself, if it was implied :)