Are you aware of the Urban Tree Conservation By-law in Ottawa?

  • Thread starter Michea
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Laws
Without proper context, these laws can seem ridiculous, but they serve a purpose in maintaining order and protecting the public.In summary, laws may seem ridiculous at first glance, but often have a logical reason behind them. Some laws may have been necessary at the time they were made, but may no longer be relevant in modern society. It is important to consider the context and purpose behind laws before labeling them as ridiculous.
  • #1
Michea
Do you have any idea about ridiculous laws? These are the laws which makes no proper sense. Usually the purpose of making laws is to improve the disciplined level in society. Some of the really ridiculous laws are.

1.You may not have an ice cream cone in your back pocket at any time.
2. It is illegal to manufacture imitation cocaine.
3. Dogs may not bark after 6 pm.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Michea said:
Do you have any idea about ridiculous laws? These are the laws which makes no proper sense. Usually the purpose of making laws is to improve the disciplined level in society. Some of the really ridiculous laws are.

1.You may not have an ice cream cone in your back pocket at any time.
2. It is illegal to manufacture imitation cocaine.
3. Dogs may not bark after 6 pm.

I can think of good reasons for the latter two.

#1 is problematic. It's hard to imagine enough people ever wanted to do it to have to make it illegal.
 
  • #4
Here's a good one:


It's illegal to take a lion to the movies.


Obviously, some person was stopped by the theater staff from bringing their pet lion in. They probably tried to sue claiming there was no law against it. The town council, therefore, had to pass a law forbidding it.

Still, there's no explanation for the Florida law against showering naked.
 
  • #5
Michea said:
Do you have any idea about ridiculous laws? These are the laws which makes no proper sense. Usually the purpose of making laws is to improve the disciplined level in society. Some of the really ridiculous laws are.

1.You may not have an ice cream cone in your back pocket at any time.

I think people have the right, under the Second Amendment (US Constitution), to have an ice cream cone in their back pocket provided it's not concealed.
 
  • #6
zoobyshoe said:
Here's a good one:


It's illegal to take a lion to the movies.


Obviously, some person was stopped by the theater staff from bringing their pet lion in. They probably tried to sue claiming there was no law against it. The town council, therefore, had to pass a law forbidding it.

Still, there's no explanation for the Florida law against showering naked.

There should be atleast some reasons present behiend the laws made by government..
 
  • #7
Michea said:
There should be atleast some reasons present behiend the laws made by government..

It's not in your list, but years ago I read that the state of Indiana once passed a law defining pi as exactly 3. Being able to elect idiots to govern us is a sacred right we Americans fought and died for.
 
  • #8
There was a gang of drug dealers in our area that were selling imitation cocaine. The dogs would bark at them at 6:05 and sometimes as late as 6:10. They're gone now. It seems they were walking around with ice cream in their back pockets and got busted.
 
  • #9
Michea said:
There should be atleast some reasons present behiend the laws made by government..

Along the lines of what zooby said and probably along the lines of how corporate rules come into effect, it's probably because someone DID do something stupid enough to require stupid rules. I mean, I think it comes with the territory when any group has rule making abilities. Even in something like an online forum like ours, they have rules. Look at our rules. No 9/11 conspiracy talk? Well, that rule came into effect because people kept flooding the forum claiming they had heard 9/11 was a conspiracy or whatever. Prophet Yahwey? Because someone kept making threads I'm sure. Almost all of those rules probably came up because people kept making threads babbling on and not listening to reason.

I think the real question would be who did what to cause people to ban ice cream in pockets :P
 
  • #10
Pengwuino said:
I think the real question would be who did what to cause people to ban ice cream in pockets :P
Ruined some nice furniture I'll bet.
 
  • #11
SW VandeCarr said:
It's not in your list, but years ago I read that the state of Indiana once passed a law defining pi as exactly 3. Being able to elect idiots to govern us is a sacred right we Americans fought and died for.
I had to check, and the story has been altered in the retelling. Here's what Wiki says actually happened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
 
  • #12
I take these websites with a grain of salt unless they cite where they're getting it from. For example, it might be illegal to bring any animal into an establishment which serves food - in particular, it's illegal to bring a lion to the movies! Hyuck hyuck hyuck cue internet complaining about the inefficiencies of government
 
  • #13
Pengwuino said:
Look at our rules. No 9/11 conspiracy talk?
And yet we still get people trying to post about 9/11. After being shut down, the inevitable response is "The rules only prohibit 9/11 conspiracy theories. I just wanted to talk about the physical impossibility of the collapse of WT7." Note that we have not added yet another rule to prohibit discussion of the collapse of WT7. Now we just send them packing.

But that does point out one origin of such rules. Someone did something utterly stupid such as blocking a road for hours on end but couldn't convicted because there was no law against blocking a road.

Some of those stupid laws look stupid now but may have made a whole lot of sense when they were written. Twenty years from now our rule against 9/11 conspiracy theories, if it's still present, would look downright stupid. We can easily clean our rules.

Cleaning up is not so easy for legislatures to do so. Some those laws against various sexual proclivities have been found to be unconstitutional: They cannot be unenforced. They nonetheless remain on the books because no legislator in his/her right mind would propose removing them from the books.Some of those stupid laws appear stupid because the person who compiled the web page stripped the context that makes the law perfectly sensible. I haven't found the text of the Florida law against showering naked. My guess is that the law does not prohibit showering naked in general; it instead prohibits showering naked in an open public shower on Florida public property (e.g., the wall-less, curtain-less showers on public beaches used to rinse off salt and sand).
 
  • #14
I think there is a Canadian federal law regarding debt repayment and pennies. Along the lines of being able to legally refuse payment (loan repayment) that's more then a certain amount.

That one is pretty funny. I can imagine how that one came about; some upset debtor forced to repay and thinks "oh yea, it's gunna be all in pennies!"
 
  • #15
D H said:
My guess is that the law does not prohibit showering naked in general; it instead prohibits showering naked in an open public shower on Florida public property (e.g., the wall-less, curtain-less showers on public beaches used to rinse off salt and sand)
Something like this is almost certainly the explanation. And, it's probably not a Florida State law, just an ordinance in some small town or city.

On the other hand some crazy laws might have their origin in crazy lawmakers. If you read the wiki article on the crackpot who got into the Indiana legistature you'll see it's possible, especially if they got into some lawmaking body where they were not opposed by enough reasonable people.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
nitsuj said:
I think there is a Canadian federal law regarding debt repayment and pennies. Along the lines of being able to legally refuse payment (loan repayment) that's more then a certain amount.

That one is pretty funny.

I don't see anything funny about that. The UK has a similar law. http://www.royalmint.com/corporate/policies/legal_tender_guidelines.aspx is an accurate explanation.
 
  • #17
you're right.

I thought about it and that's not funny at all. rolleyes -> :rolleyes:

Sorry, I'm missing the seriousness of the law, please explain.
 
  • #18
nitsuj said:
Sorry, I'm missing the seriousness of the law, please explain.
If you need to pay money to a court of law in England, you are not allowed to fool around. The amount of coins you can use to pay is limited to what a normal "sensible" person would consider reasonable. There is no limit on using bank notes.

For any other payments, the two parties can agree to accept anything they like.

Some of this goes back a long way into history. Did you notice the fact that English bank notes are not "legal tender" in Scotland, for example? Of course English notes are used in Scotland every day, and Scottish bank notes are used on the English side of the border. But that is only by agreement between people. You don't have any legal right to insist that you can pay with English money in Scotland, even though the "exchange rate" is fixed at £1 = £1.
 
  • #19
Office_Shredder said:
I take these websites with a grain of salt unless they cite where they're getting it from. For example, it might be illegal to bring any animal into an establishment which serves food - in particular, it's illegal to bring a lion to the movies! Hyuck hyuck hyuck cue internet complaining about the inefficiencies of government
There should be a law against misrepresenting laws for humorous purposes.
 
  • #20
D H said:
Some of those stupid laws look stupid now but may have made a whole lot of sense when they were written. Twenty years from now our rule against 9/11 conspiracy theories, if it's still present, would look downright stupid. We can easily clean our rules.

Cleaning up is not so easy for legislatures to do so.

The UK parliament had a go at cleaning out the attic in 1969. But the thought that our elected representatives had enough free time to debate what to do about "An Act for the further reformation of sundry abuses committed on the Lord's Day commonly called Sunday" dating back to 1627, and suchlike, seems slightly worrying.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1969/52/schedule/enacted?view=plain
 
  • #21
D H said:
Twenty years from now our rule against 9/11 conspiracy theories, if it's still present, would look downright stupid.

Are you taking bets on that one? :biggrin:
 
  • #22
D H said:
Some of those stupid laws look stupid now but may have made a whole lot of sense when they were written. Twenty years from now our rule against 9/11 conspiracy theories, if it's still present, would look downright stupid. We can easily clean our rules.

That makes no sense. Whether 20 or hundred years from now, conspiracy theories definition will stay the same.
A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.
I can easily pull a 911 conspiracy theory in 20 years from now.

But on light side, I would love to see ban on all kinds of opinions in PWA :biggrin::devil:
 
Last edited:
  • #23
New Orleans has a law regarding tying alligators to fire hydrants.
 
  • #24
rootX said:
That makes no sense. Whether 20 or hundred years from now, conspiracy theories definition will stay the same.

Building 7 collapsed? Aliens!
 
  • #25
1MileCrash said:
New Orleans has a law regarding tying alligators to fire hydrants.
Here again, it's obvious why you shouldn't tie an alligator to a fire hydrant, but I'm baffled to think anyone could have done it often enough to have to make a law against it. There's got to be some interesting story there.
 
  • #26
zoobyshoe said:
Here again, it's obvious why you shouldn't tie an alligator to a fire hydrant, but I'm baffled to think anyone could have done it often enough to have to make a law against it.

So what should you tie an alligator to, if you want to go somewhere that has a sign saying "no dogs or alligators allowed"... :confused:
 
  • #27
AlephZero said:
So what should you tie an alligator to, if you want to go somewhere that has a sign saying "no dogs or alligators allowed"... :confused:

Well obviously not a fire hydrant, what if a building is burning down and the firepeople can't get to the hydrant because an aligator is tied to it. Not very funny imo.
 
  • #28
nitsuj said:
Well obviously not a fire hydrant, what if a building is burning down and the firepeople can't get to the hydrant because an aligator is tied to it. Not very funny imo.
Exactly. An alligator tied to a fire hydrant is, effectively, a fire hazard.
AlephZero said:
So what should you tie an alligator to, if you want to go somewhere that has a sign saying "no dogs or alligators allowed"... :confused:
I would suggest you tie it to the alligator hitching post like most responsible alligator owners would do.
 
  • #29
zoobyshoe said:
Still, there's no explanation for the Florida law against showering naked.

How backward can you be to vote for such a law.
 
  • #30
Seriously, needing to pass a law to prevent a successful suing case? You've got to be REALLY backward to go and sue for not being able to bring a lion into a movie theatre. And even more backward to pass a law stating so.
 
  • #31
StevieTNZ said:
Seriously, needing to pass a law to prevent a successful suing case? You've got to be REALLY backward to go and sue for not being able to bring a lion into a movie theatre. And even more backward to pass a law stating so.

Seriously? The MGM Lion has been growling at movie audiences for many years. Maybe someone thought it was time to have a real lion in the audience growl back.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
In my town they used to tie the alligators to crocodile hitching posts. That's just wrong. Like a frog sitting on a toadstool.
 
  • #33
Jimmy Snyder said:
In my town they used to tie the alligators to crocodile hitching posts. That's just wrong. Like a frog sitting on a toadstool.

So it must have been people from your town that have been coming to my town and doing that. We know better, and so do our frogs!
 
  • #34
Jimmy Snyder said:
In my town they used to tie the alligators to crocodile hitching posts. That's just wrong. Like a frog sitting on a toadstool.
Yes, sadly, scientific and legal rigor means nothing to some people.
 
  • #35
D H said:
And yet we still get people trying to post about 9/11. After being shut down, the inevitable response is "The rules only prohibit 9/11 conspiracy theories. I just wanted to talk about the physical impossibility of the collapse of WT7." Note that we have not added yet another rule to prohibit discussion of the collapse of WT7. Now we just send them packing.

But that does point out one origin of such rules. Someone did something utterly stupid such as blocking a road for hours on end but couldn't convicted because there was no law against blocking a road.

Some of those stupid laws look stupid now but may have made a whole lot of sense when they were written. Twenty years from now our rule against 9/11 conspiracy theories, if it's still present, would look downright stupid. We can easily clean our rules.

Cleaning up is not so easy for legislatures to do so. Some those laws against various sexual proclivities have been found to be unconstitutional: They cannot be unenforced. They nonetheless remain on the books because no legislator in his/her right mind would propose removing them from the books.


Some of those stupid laws appear stupid because the person who compiled the web page stripped the context that makes the law perfectly sensible. I haven't found the text of the Florida law against showering naked. My guess is that the law does not prohibit showering naked in general; it instead prohibits showering naked in an open public shower on Florida public property (e.g., the wall-less, curtain-less showers on public beaches used to rinse off salt and sand).


On the other hand, a lot of time lawmakers are out of touch and do make really stupid laws.
 
<h2>1. What is the purpose of the Urban Tree Conservation By-law in Ottawa?</h2><p>The Urban Tree Conservation By-law in Ottawa was created to protect and preserve the city's urban forest. It aims to regulate the removal and destruction of trees on private property in order to maintain the health and diversity of Ottawa's tree canopy.</p><h2>2. Who is responsible for enforcing the Urban Tree Conservation By-law in Ottawa?</h2><p>The by-law is enforced by the City of Ottawa's By-law and Regulatory Services Branch. They are responsible for investigating complaints and enforcing the by-law's regulations.</p><h2>3. Are there any exemptions to the Urban Tree Conservation By-law in Ottawa?</h2><p>Yes, there are exemptions to the by-law. These include trees that pose a safety hazard, trees that are dead or dying, and trees that are located within a designated development area. However, a permit is still required for their removal.</p><h2>4. How do I obtain a permit to remove a tree covered by the Urban Tree Conservation By-law in Ottawa?</h2><p>To obtain a permit, you must submit an application to the City of Ottawa's Forestry Services. The application will be reviewed and a decision will be made based on the by-law's regulations and the health of the tree.</p><h2>5. What are the consequences for violating the Urban Tree Conservation By-law in Ottawa?</h2><p>Violating the by-law can result in fines and/or legal action. The amount of the fine varies depending on the number and size of trees removed without a permit. It is important to follow the by-law's regulations to avoid penalties.</p>

1. What is the purpose of the Urban Tree Conservation By-law in Ottawa?

The Urban Tree Conservation By-law in Ottawa was created to protect and preserve the city's urban forest. It aims to regulate the removal and destruction of trees on private property in order to maintain the health and diversity of Ottawa's tree canopy.

2. Who is responsible for enforcing the Urban Tree Conservation By-law in Ottawa?

The by-law is enforced by the City of Ottawa's By-law and Regulatory Services Branch. They are responsible for investigating complaints and enforcing the by-law's regulations.

3. Are there any exemptions to the Urban Tree Conservation By-law in Ottawa?

Yes, there are exemptions to the by-law. These include trees that pose a safety hazard, trees that are dead or dying, and trees that are located within a designated development area. However, a permit is still required for their removal.

4. How do I obtain a permit to remove a tree covered by the Urban Tree Conservation By-law in Ottawa?

To obtain a permit, you must submit an application to the City of Ottawa's Forestry Services. The application will be reviewed and a decision will be made based on the by-law's regulations and the health of the tree.

5. What are the consequences for violating the Urban Tree Conservation By-law in Ottawa?

Violating the by-law can result in fines and/or legal action. The amount of the fine varies depending on the number and size of trees removed without a permit. It is important to follow the by-law's regulations to avoid penalties.

Similar threads

Replies
26
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
10K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
142
Views
11K
Back
Top