SC- no crates?
- Thread starter HoundedByHounds
- Start date
I think that's what they intended in the first place. Their repeated use of "cruel" and "healthy and safety" indicate that. What I did, really, was clairify what they wanted to prohibit while carving out an exception so that fanatics couldn't misuse the law. As written, it would take some strange interpretation to use it against responsible pet owners . . . I made it harder to arrive at that interpretation.
This is probably the best way to fight laws like this . . . there is a real concern and a real problem here . . . the key is to make the law makers aware that their law may be misused and ask them to write it more carefully.
I suggest that South Carolinians and those who reprisent organizations send comments to the legislature. I wouldn't take what I did, its pretty crude and sort of off the top of my head. But point out your concerns . . . this is not part of ARs war on pet owners . . . its just a poorly written law by people who weren't thinking of how it might be misread.
This is probably the best way to fight laws like this . . . there is a real concern and a real problem here . . . the key is to make the law makers aware that their law may be misused and ask them to write it more carefully.
I suggest that South Carolinians and those who reprisent organizations send comments to the legislature. I wouldn't take what I did, its pretty crude and sort of off the top of my head. But point out your concerns . . . this is not part of ARs war on pet owners . . . its just a poorly written law by people who weren't thinking of how it might be misread.
Yes, but that wasn't what they were thinking of EITHER. I'm fairly sure, considering the state, that they were thinking of the monsterous, illegally puppy mills that are all over the SE. The ones that make the national news. And horders. And other big news making cases were animals are kept in tiny little filthy cages for long ammounts of time and the rescuers start pulling dead ones out.
If this were a different state, Hounded, I might see more AR in it. No doubt they were around. But SC is very conservative they used to (maybe they still do?) have the Confederate flag as part of their own. There's a lot of farming, and a lot rural people. AR isn't going to get far there .. . also, the way it was originally written, subjected to standard rules of statutory interpretation by a normal person, wasn't actually objectionable (except for the lack of sustenance part which was probably pure ignorance). The problem was only how it COULD be read, not how the vast majority of people would read it.
I'm pretty paranoid about AR too. Scratch that, VERY paranoid. But I don't want to attack or gut anti-cruelty laws for fear that they will be misapplied. I want to get them written in a clear, straightforward fashion so they get the bad guys. And the vague writing, in many cases, is just poor legal writing, not a conspiracy. Poorly written laws pop up all the time . . .
Also, I dont' see any way to prohbit cruelty except with relatively specfic laws . . . "being cruel to animals is illegal" is surreally vague. Even the food, water, shelter laws can be vague . . . does my dog need food, water and shelter at all times? What if its not dinner time? What if she's in the yard without shelter on a cool sunny day and I walk to the 7-11 . . .is that cruelty? (perhaps irresponsible, but cruel?). There's really no way to tackle this except with laws, but they have to carefully written . . . to include the behavior you don't want, and to specifically exclude other behavior. Unfortunately, good legistlative writing, like most good writing, is a rarity these days.
If this were a different state, Hounded, I might see more AR in it. No doubt they were around. But SC is very conservative they used to (maybe they still do?) have the Confederate flag as part of their own. There's a lot of farming, and a lot rural people. AR isn't going to get far there .. . also, the way it was originally written, subjected to standard rules of statutory interpretation by a normal person, wasn't actually objectionable (except for the lack of sustenance part which was probably pure ignorance). The problem was only how it COULD be read, not how the vast majority of people would read it.
I'm pretty paranoid about AR too. Scratch that, VERY paranoid. But I don't want to attack or gut anti-cruelty laws for fear that they will be misapplied. I want to get them written in a clear, straightforward fashion so they get the bad guys. And the vague writing, in many cases, is just poor legal writing, not a conspiracy. Poorly written laws pop up all the time . . .
Also, I dont' see any way to prohbit cruelty except with relatively specfic laws . . . "being cruel to animals is illegal" is surreally vague. Even the food, water, shelter laws can be vague . . . does my dog need food, water and shelter at all times? What if its not dinner time? What if she's in the yard without shelter on a cool sunny day and I walk to the 7-11 . . .is that cruelty? (perhaps irresponsible, but cruel?). There's really no way to tackle this except with laws, but they have to carefully written . . . to include the behavior you don't want, and to specifically exclude other behavior. Unfortunately, good legistlative writing, like most good writing, is a rarity these days.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 431
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
Actually USDA does enforce their standards and most homes or small hobby kennel could never pass them. The problem is that there are so many more breeders than there are inspectors. The only ones that seem to get inspected are those that are habitual offenders or those that are getting liscensed for the first time. USDA fines are no cake walk either. Some are upwards of $50,000 per violation and to build a kennel that will meet their standards is extremely expensive as well.
The reason why many USDA kennels put their dogs on wire is because it's the only way to meet the requirement of nonpourous surface without having to install stainless steel flooring system like what they use in pig rearing houses (talking multi million there).
The USDA requirements are not logistical for the dog breeding community. The force large scale breeders to raise dogs in a fashion that is not visually attractive.
As for dogs being stock, that is what they are. It was not long ago that being called a stock man was a compliment not an insult. Stock is the group of animals that you breed. Dogs, while we love them as family companions are still stock. The fact that my pet chicken has her own house, bed, and fenced yard does not change the fact that she is still a chicken and still stock.
If people want to actually improve the conditions that dogs are raised in, in USDA kennels then they need to push for more inspectors, not for more rules which no one will inforce because there is no one to enforce them. The worst dog breeders are often not inspected or liscensed by any entity even when it is required by law. Simply put, people who don't care, don't care. No matter how the law is written or how many are written.
What bothers me most about these feel good laws is the forever removal of our civil rights. It frightens me we have become so lazy and willing to let the "government" take care of it. We as individuals should be responsible not expect the government to make new rules and regulations for every little item.
If some one locks a dog in a crate to leave it to starve or die of thirst or to live in filth so that it has huge sores on its body, why can't any and all current laws about neglect and abuse be applied. Why must there be a specific law about crates? The only reason for these laws is to make it easier to tighten a death grip on our rights to own the breed of dog that we choose or breed the breed of dogs that we choose.
I fear that in the next 25 years, owning dogs will be more difficult than owning a gun and more expensive than having a second home in the "Hamptons".
I very much see AR in this bill, and with AR being quite active in states near SC (NC, GA) I think they've been paving the way to begin more activity in SC. It's not uncommon for states to follow the examples of their neighbors.
A common AR tactic is to define a problem that doesn't really exist or to magnify a small problem and then they draft legislation to fix this non-existent "problem". I very much see that going on behind the scenes in this bill.
Crating, in and of itself is not cruel. Crating in space too small, crating without adequate food or water, crating in unsanitary conditions, crating with no chance for exercise and socialization ~ those are cruel.
All of those - regardless of the presence of a crate - can be addressed under current humane issues. All of those issues can and do occur both in a crate and out of a crate. A dog can be locked in a basement with no food, water, socialization, vet care. It's not any different. We can't exactlly ban basements though.
The vagueness of the bill is very convenient for the AR agenda. It allows them to define the terms as they see fit at any given time. Too long in a crate? What hapens when they decide that one hour is too long? What happens when they ammend the bill - since the groundwork is laid - to simply ban crates completely?
A common AR tactic is to define a problem that doesn't really exist or to magnify a small problem and then they draft legislation to fix this non-existent "problem". I very much see that going on behind the scenes in this bill.
Crating, in and of itself is not cruel. Crating in space too small, crating without adequate food or water, crating in unsanitary conditions, crating with no chance for exercise and socialization ~ those are cruel.
All of those - regardless of the presence of a crate - can be addressed under current humane issues. All of those issues can and do occur both in a crate and out of a crate. A dog can be locked in a basement with no food, water, socialization, vet care. It's not any different. We can't exactlly ban basements though.
The vagueness of the bill is very convenient for the AR agenda. It allows them to define the terms as they see fit at any given time. Too long in a crate? What hapens when they decide that one hour is too long? What happens when they ammend the bill - since the groundwork is laid - to simply ban crates completely?
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 431
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
*exactly* and what do you think will happen to all those dogs, especially those who tend to be destructive, when owners have no way to contain them and keep them from destroying their house, or their landlord's house? They will wind up abandoned in shelters because people do have to work and sometimes do have to leave their pets alone at home unsupervised.
It's always about getting more animals in those shelters to KILL not to save.
Pitty.
Guess we need to start breeding dogs with no teeth or legs so they can be put on pedestles and kept out of trouble.
There's one problem: prove the dog has no food, water or vet care in the basement. Yes, in many cases that is obvious. But its just as subject to abuse.
"Your dog is too skinny" (He's old, he's been ill, he's off his food)
"Your dog is dehydrated" (My dog was in the basement when the power went off in summer and dinner have water because he gets bloat, it wasn't intentional, I feel like shi!t)
"Your basement is filthy" (Well, yes, the dog went bonkers and peed everywhere)
My point is, although there are clear cut cases where lack of food, water, etc is abuse, the laws are JUST as subject to loony AC officers as any other law.
I'm not arguing for the law as written, though I don't think it was intended to ban crating. That is, bluntly, not what it says, UNLESS you read it in a certain way. That certain people can and will read it that way, I have no doubt. But the law is not written to ban crating your dog while you are at work.
As an AW person, I am deeply opposed to and very wary of AR. But I am also wary of going the other way in a panic to prevent AR from taking away our rights to own pets. I'm all for laws protecting animals, so long as they are well written, specifically targeted at abuse behavior, and well informed.
And I simply do not believe the SC legislature has been taken over by PETA. They may be influenced, they may be lobbying, but the idea that the SC legislature meant to ban crating of dogs while you are out strikes me as utterly bizarre. They just aren't a bunch of bleeding heart liberals down there.
I also note that I am NOT supporting the law as written. I agree, its too vague, and its subject to abuse. If it was a choice between no law, and this law, I'd take no law. However, the law is not THAT broken. It can be rewritten to be a positive law, and a useful tool for fighting abuse. My only other point is I don't believe the people who wrote this law meant to, or thought they were, banning crates. It may be, as written, convinent for AR people, and they may have lobbied for it. But that's not its purpose.
So, you can howl in paranoid fear about the increasing power of AR, and how SC has banned crates, and make us all look like psychos who want to lock up our dogs without water (which is what absolute opposition to this law will be taken for) or you can observe that SC has NOT banned crates, just passed a law that could be read that way, and lobby yourself to have it rewritten in a way that makes its purpose clear. Your choice.
"Your dog is too skinny" (He's old, he's been ill, he's off his food)
"Your dog is dehydrated" (My dog was in the basement when the power went off in summer and dinner have water because he gets bloat, it wasn't intentional, I feel like shi!t)
"Your basement is filthy" (Well, yes, the dog went bonkers and peed everywhere)
My point is, although there are clear cut cases where lack of food, water, etc is abuse, the laws are JUST as subject to loony AC officers as any other law.
I'm not arguing for the law as written, though I don't think it was intended to ban crating. That is, bluntly, not what it says, UNLESS you read it in a certain way. That certain people can and will read it that way, I have no doubt. But the law is not written to ban crating your dog while you are at work.
As an AW person, I am deeply opposed to and very wary of AR. But I am also wary of going the other way in a panic to prevent AR from taking away our rights to own pets. I'm all for laws protecting animals, so long as they are well written, specifically targeted at abuse behavior, and well informed.
And I simply do not believe the SC legislature has been taken over by PETA. They may be influenced, they may be lobbying, but the idea that the SC legislature meant to ban crating of dogs while you are out strikes me as utterly bizarre. They just aren't a bunch of bleeding heart liberals down there.
I also note that I am NOT supporting the law as written. I agree, its too vague, and its subject to abuse. If it was a choice between no law, and this law, I'd take no law. However, the law is not THAT broken. It can be rewritten to be a positive law, and a useful tool for fighting abuse. My only other point is I don't believe the people who wrote this law meant to, or thought they were, banning crates. It may be, as written, convinent for AR people, and they may have lobbied for it. But that's not its purpose.
So, you can howl in paranoid fear about the increasing power of AR, and how SC has banned crates, and make us all look like psychos who want to lock up our dogs without water (which is what absolute opposition to this law will be taken for) or you can observe that SC has NOT banned crates, just passed a law that could be read that way, and lobby yourself to have it rewritten in a way that makes its purpose clear. Your choice.
Those of us who use chaining/tethering as a means of containment have been warning that this was coming. And it's not going to stop with crating. Soon your tiny little fenced in backyard will become illegal as it will be viewed as cruel and unusual punishment as well. I mean, fences are the same as crates and chains/tethers. Next will come leashes.
These laws are stupid and redundant. There are already laws on the books about animal neglect and animal cruelty. And it's obvious that these laws aren't working. Why? Because people are too busy getting 15 minutes of fame for writing new laws thus they cannot find the time to enforce the laws already on the books.
The issue is law enforcement and it's not getting done. But to the AR groups, the name of the game is "Can't you all see how great we are?!"
These laws are stupid and redundant. There are already laws on the books about animal neglect and animal cruelty. And it's obvious that these laws aren't working. Why? Because people are too busy getting 15 minutes of fame for writing new laws thus they cannot find the time to enforce the laws already on the books.
The issue is law enforcement and it's not getting done. But to the AR groups, the name of the game is "Can't you all see how great we are?!"
Well, it's just as hard - if not harder to prove that the dogs are crated. If they are in crates, in my bedroom, on the second floor, with the shades down, how would anyone prove it? And if my dog looks and acts like a healthy, well treated dog, there would be no reason to even suspect he had been crated.
Hmmm....can't tether them, can't crate them, can't leave them in a fenced yard, can't let them run loose...the options seem very limited.
Hey, if things work out ~ you could end up on the FBI watch list as a potential serial killer simply because you had a dog in a fenced yard.
:hail:
Hey, if things work out ~ you could end up on the FBI watch list as a potential serial killer simply because you had a dog in a fenced yard.
:hail:
Well, yes. But as I stated before, the law, even as poorly written, DOES NOT BAN CRATES. A determined person could read it that way, which is why I proposed changes to make it clear what it is meant to do. But, even as written, the vast majority of lawyers and judges would tell you that it distinctly does not ban confining an animal in a crate . . . it bans doing so in a cruel fashion that puts its health and safety at risk . . . and crating your dog for 8 hours or so in a proper crate is not threating to its health or safety and isn't (by the testimony of pretty much very trainer on the planet) cruel.
As for standard neglect and abuse laws which are not adaquately enforced, I agree, my point is that they can also be misapplied, if someone wants to do so. The problem is a lack of specificity in all the laws . . . and a swarm of specific little laws is probably less open to abuse than a few sweaping ones. Sweaping laws can be hard to enforce . . . and they can be easily abused.
At this point, I'm just trying to encourage people not to panic, because the rising hysteria on this thread is honestly counter-productive
As for standard neglect and abuse laws which are not adaquately enforced, I agree, my point is that they can also be misapplied, if someone wants to do so. The problem is a lack of specificity in all the laws . . . and a swarm of specific little laws is probably less open to abuse than a few sweaping ones. Sweaping laws can be hard to enforce . . . and they can be easily abused.
At this point, I'm just trying to encourage people not to panic, because the rising hysteria on this thread is honestly counter-productive
Here is what the AKC has to say on the issue. Notably, they have the same objections to the law that I do . . . and propose much the same solution. Though they are legitimately concerned it may restrict the ability to crate dogs, note they don't say its a crate ban. Because it isn't . . its a poorly written, vague law, intended to prevent cruelty, which would be fine with some tweaking.
South Carolina Bill to Negatively Affect Animal Owners
[Wednesday, March 26, 2008]
South Carolina Senate Bill 833 is currently under consideration by the full
Senate. The bill-which originally attempted to only address the restraint of
dogs-has been amended and now unreasonably seeks to seriously limit the
confinement of dogs in pens or crates. It is vital that all South Carolina
enthusiasts, fanciers, and concerned dog owners contact the bill's sponsor
and their state senator and voice their respectful opposition to this bill
as written.
The American Kennel Club encourages and strongly supports the interaction
and mutual enjoyment of owners and dogs in sporting activities, in working
circumstances, and in competition events. We believe that dog owners bear a
special responsibility to their canine companions to provide proper care and
humane treatment at all times. This includes an adequate and nutritious
diet, clean water, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind
and responsive human companionship, and training in appropriate behavior.
Additionally, the American Kennel Club also believes that dogs should not be
kept in circumstances or numbers where these needs can not be adequately
fulfilled. Anyone convicted of animal cruelty involving a dog will have all
AKC privileges suspended.
As currently written, SB 833 seeks to unreasonably define "confine an animal
in a cruel manner" to include:
* Confining an animal for an unreasonable period of time. As used
here, "unreasonable" is not defined. As such, arbitrary enforcement of this
potential law can have a drastic affect on dogs in crates or pens at home;
dogs in crates or pens at exhibitions, including dog shows and events; or
dogs in transport to exhibitions. SB 833 includes a list of activities that
will be exempted from the provisions of the bill, but does not grant an
exemption to the exhibition of animals, to animals transported for
exhibition, or to related and incumbent activities.
* Confining that does not permit an animal access to sustenance. This
provision is vague as to what types of sustenance would be required.
Additionally, it does not take into consideration the accepted practice of
dogs that, at exhibitions, are housed in crates or pens and have steady but
intermittent access to water and food in consideration of the animal's
health, safety, or activity.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
South Carolina residents are encouraged to contact SB 833's sponsor, Senator
Knotts, and urge your opposition to the bill as currently written. Encourage
him to amend the bill to ensure that all onerous provisions of the bill are
addressed while still attempting to protect animals subjected to cruel
treatment. Also contact your state senator and express your concerns and
urge amendment.
Senator John M. "Jake" Knotts, Jr. (Sponsor)
E-mail: [email protected]
To find your South Carolina State Senator,
click here.
For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919)
816-3503, or e-mail [email protected].
South Carolina Bill to Negatively Affect Animal Owners
[Wednesday, March 26, 2008]
South Carolina Senate Bill 833 is currently under consideration by the full
Senate. The bill-which originally attempted to only address the restraint of
dogs-has been amended and now unreasonably seeks to seriously limit the
confinement of dogs in pens or crates. It is vital that all South Carolina
enthusiasts, fanciers, and concerned dog owners contact the bill's sponsor
and their state senator and voice their respectful opposition to this bill
as written.
The American Kennel Club encourages and strongly supports the interaction
and mutual enjoyment of owners and dogs in sporting activities, in working
circumstances, and in competition events. We believe that dog owners bear a
special responsibility to their canine companions to provide proper care and
humane treatment at all times. This includes an adequate and nutritious
diet, clean water, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind
and responsive human companionship, and training in appropriate behavior.
Additionally, the American Kennel Club also believes that dogs should not be
kept in circumstances or numbers where these needs can not be adequately
fulfilled. Anyone convicted of animal cruelty involving a dog will have all
AKC privileges suspended.
As currently written, SB 833 seeks to unreasonably define "confine an animal
in a cruel manner" to include:
* Confining an animal for an unreasonable period of time. As used
here, "unreasonable" is not defined. As such, arbitrary enforcement of this
potential law can have a drastic affect on dogs in crates or pens at home;
dogs in crates or pens at exhibitions, including dog shows and events; or
dogs in transport to exhibitions. SB 833 includes a list of activities that
will be exempted from the provisions of the bill, but does not grant an
exemption to the exhibition of animals, to animals transported for
exhibition, or to related and incumbent activities.
* Confining that does not permit an animal access to sustenance. This
provision is vague as to what types of sustenance would be required.
Additionally, it does not take into consideration the accepted practice of
dogs that, at exhibitions, are housed in crates or pens and have steady but
intermittent access to water and food in consideration of the animal's
health, safety, or activity.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
South Carolina residents are encouraged to contact SB 833's sponsor, Senator
Knotts, and urge your opposition to the bill as currently written. Encourage
him to amend the bill to ensure that all onerous provisions of the bill are
addressed while still attempting to protect animals subjected to cruel
treatment. Also contact your state senator and express your concerns and
urge amendment.
Senator John M. "Jake" Knotts, Jr. (Sponsor)
E-mail: [email protected]
To find your South Carolina State Senator,
click here.
For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919)
816-3503, or e-mail [email protected].
Well, they happen to agree with me independently . . . I didnt read their stuff and they didn't read mine before either my post or their note was written. So I thought them worth citing on the matter.
Yes, the AKC has caved on some issues, because they have been placed in the awkward position of having been called, multiple times, on issues of abuse, corruption and mismanagement inside their own organization. They have to give some ground. However, I don't think that's what's happening here. AKC would be doomed if an true crate ban went into place. It would be pretty much impossible to continue breeding, showing, and transporting dogs with one in place . . . the AKC is not suicidal.
What is getting under my skin here is the knee-jerk reaction to any law restricting how you may treat your animal. Immediately, the panicked calls of "AR! AR! AR!" start along with the predictions that the end of pet ownership is nigh. I'm on your side here. I oppose AR. I would oppose laws that ban crating, I DO oppose laws that ban tethering.
This law doesn't ban crating. That's not what it says, its not what its meant to do, and with several changes to its clauses, it could not even be interpreted that way by a remotely reasonable court of law. If it was, it would be turned over on appeal. Both I, and the AKC, have pointed out exactly what needs to be changed, why, and suggested contacting the South Carolina legislature. Meanwhile, the panicked cries of "AR!" and the fortellings of doom continue. I begining to feel like Justice Scalia in his recent statement to the press (and I'm not even a Scalia fan) "Would you mind actually reading the law before you comment?"
Two points:
One, there is a real concern about preventing cruelty to animals in our society these days. There are many people, like, I hope everyone on this board, who do not support so called "animal rights" but do support protecting animals from cruelty and neglect. To be blunt, there's a fine line between laws protecting animals and laws that restrict the right of of people to own them. Its a line that will always be a bit hazy. The problem with many current laws against abuse and neglect is that they are vague, and hard to enforce. Specfic, targeted laws addressing specific abusive behavior would be easier to enforce and would be less open to abuse. Animal-lovers, such as us, will always be fighting a rear-guard action against AR . . . but knee jerk reactions against anti-abuse legislation is both irrational and harmful to our own cause, that of animal welfare. Saying we will give no ground is not only stubborn, its probably counter productive. One, it makes us look like the bad guys, but two, it opposes what might be postive innovations in the prosecution of animal cruelty.
Two, I presume you don't like this law. I think I picked that up. Then DO something! Write the South Carolina legislature. But I suspect they think their doing a good thing. Not because their brains have been taken over by PETA, but because they see those rows and rows of filthy diseased dogs locked in crates. They see crated animals abandoned in forclosed homes. They don't see in their minds an ordinary pet owner, leave Fido in a clean crate with his toys while they go to work. So tell them about Fido and his owner. About your concerns with the law being misapplied. Tell them exactly why you have a problem. But don't just blast the law, because they will, legitimately ask . . . what's wrong with banning cruel confinement? Nothing, nothing at all. Just so long as "cruel confinement" is all you are banning senator. (Note that legislatures are under pressure, not just from AR, but from horrified ordinary citizens to do something. So they will. The question is what they will do . . and that we can effect.)
The blunt truth is, while we squeal and flap our hands, the law is moving forward. PETA is moving forward. PETA is showing up at courthouses and legislatures, claiming to be "experts," telling their side of the story, misreprisenting themselves as concerned citizens. Meanwhile, the AW people either squabble with each other, fret with dismay, or oppose everything that PETA does, automatically, because it was PETA's idea. Not that opposing PETA is bad, but PETA has learned how to address public fears and concerns . . . and by and large, we haven't. Nothing needs to be changed, we say. Well, possibly true. But the legislature will respond to public cries for action, and the only ones offering a solution are PETA and HSUS.
We have to offer our own solutions, or we WILL lose.
Yes, the AKC has caved on some issues, because they have been placed in the awkward position of having been called, multiple times, on issues of abuse, corruption and mismanagement inside their own organization. They have to give some ground. However, I don't think that's what's happening here. AKC would be doomed if an true crate ban went into place. It would be pretty much impossible to continue breeding, showing, and transporting dogs with one in place . . . the AKC is not suicidal.
What is getting under my skin here is the knee-jerk reaction to any law restricting how you may treat your animal. Immediately, the panicked calls of "AR! AR! AR!" start along with the predictions that the end of pet ownership is nigh. I'm on your side here. I oppose AR. I would oppose laws that ban crating, I DO oppose laws that ban tethering.
This law doesn't ban crating. That's not what it says, its not what its meant to do, and with several changes to its clauses, it could not even be interpreted that way by a remotely reasonable court of law. If it was, it would be turned over on appeal. Both I, and the AKC, have pointed out exactly what needs to be changed, why, and suggested contacting the South Carolina legislature. Meanwhile, the panicked cries of "AR!" and the fortellings of doom continue. I begining to feel like Justice Scalia in his recent statement to the press (and I'm not even a Scalia fan) "Would you mind actually reading the law before you comment?"
Two points:
One, there is a real concern about preventing cruelty to animals in our society these days. There are many people, like, I hope everyone on this board, who do not support so called "animal rights" but do support protecting animals from cruelty and neglect. To be blunt, there's a fine line between laws protecting animals and laws that restrict the right of of people to own them. Its a line that will always be a bit hazy. The problem with many current laws against abuse and neglect is that they are vague, and hard to enforce. Specfic, targeted laws addressing specific abusive behavior would be easier to enforce and would be less open to abuse. Animal-lovers, such as us, will always be fighting a rear-guard action against AR . . . but knee jerk reactions against anti-abuse legislation is both irrational and harmful to our own cause, that of animal welfare. Saying we will give no ground is not only stubborn, its probably counter productive. One, it makes us look like the bad guys, but two, it opposes what might be postive innovations in the prosecution of animal cruelty.
Two, I presume you don't like this law. I think I picked that up. Then DO something! Write the South Carolina legislature. But I suspect they think their doing a good thing. Not because their brains have been taken over by PETA, but because they see those rows and rows of filthy diseased dogs locked in crates. They see crated animals abandoned in forclosed homes. They don't see in their minds an ordinary pet owner, leave Fido in a clean crate with his toys while they go to work. So tell them about Fido and his owner. About your concerns with the law being misapplied. Tell them exactly why you have a problem. But don't just blast the law, because they will, legitimately ask . . . what's wrong with banning cruel confinement? Nothing, nothing at all. Just so long as "cruel confinement" is all you are banning senator. (Note that legislatures are under pressure, not just from AR, but from horrified ordinary citizens to do something. So they will. The question is what they will do . . and that we can effect.)
The blunt truth is, while we squeal and flap our hands, the law is moving forward. PETA is moving forward. PETA is showing up at courthouses and legislatures, claiming to be "experts," telling their side of the story, misreprisenting themselves as concerned citizens. Meanwhile, the AW people either squabble with each other, fret with dismay, or oppose everything that PETA does, automatically, because it was PETA's idea. Not that opposing PETA is bad, but PETA has learned how to address public fears and concerns . . . and by and large, we haven't. Nothing needs to be changed, we say. Well, possibly true. But the legislature will respond to public cries for action, and the only ones offering a solution are PETA and HSUS.
We have to offer our own solutions, or we WILL lose.
Actually...you are assuming that I HAVEN'T done anything which is presumptuous on your part. I'll overlook that tho and assume you are not speaking to me on a personal level but to the problem on a National one. If you join the PetLaw list I think you will find many many of us actually DO SOMETHING.
Animal cruelty laws, animal laws in general, on the books are sufficent in IMO 80-90% of cases IF THEY ARE ENFORCED. Add to that existant laws on nuisance, odor, trash, eyesore, etc and most ALL hoarders and people irresponsibly containing their animals are done for.
Those with PB breeds know what comes of "tweaking" and the sort of "protection" on offer from the AR set...it all sounds so very reasonable..so very needed...and then your dog is banned.
Animal cruelty laws, animal laws in general, on the books are sufficent in IMO 80-90% of cases IF THEY ARE ENFORCED. Add to that existant laws on nuisance, odor, trash, eyesore, etc and most ALL hoarders and people irresponsibly containing their animals are done for.
Those with PB breeds know what comes of "tweaking" and the sort of "protection" on offer from the AR set...it all sounds so very reasonable..so very needed...and then your dog is banned.
I did not mean to imply that you have not done anything, I was speaking largely on a national level.
Where we disagree is on the matter of "tweaking." I see that there is a public perception of a need (whether there is a real need is another arguement) and that legislators will be forced to respond to that perceived need. In some cases, that means actively encouraging enforcement. However, in others, the passage of a new law may be in order, both to satisfy the public and to make enforcement easier.
The trick is to make sure that the laws that are passed are narrowly tailored to address the actual problem, and not widely written to threaten the rights of pet owners. This law, I believe, can be modified to serve the narrow purpose of providing a prosecutorial tool against the cruel confinement of animals, while protecting the rights of pet owners.
BSL is another story, because the perceived problem is so utterly different from the real problem. The real problem is irresponsible ownership, the percieved problem is "dangerous breeds of dogs." Its hard to finesse that one, because it requires totally altering the way the problem is perceived.
In this case, I believe the precieved problem, and the actual problem are similar. The percieved problem is the confinement of animals for excessive ammounts of time in cages that are too small and unsafe, without access to food and water, in unsanitary conditions. I think we would all agree this is reprihensible and criminal behavior. The problem is how to write a law prohibiting that (which is easier to enforce than a more general cruelty law because it is specific) without infringing on the rights of responsible owners. I think this law CAN be rewritten to serve that narrow purpose. Indeed, by specifying what behavior is NOT criminal, it can even protect pet owners from the misapplication of other cruelty laws.
For example:
"Confining your animal in a crate is cruel! Its pyschological torture!"
"No its not. Statue 833 says right here that it has to be . . . . insert relevant passage here."
I have composed a letter to Congressman Knotts and will be vetting it with some of my collegues. Once I've done that I'll post a draft for comments/use by those who are interested.
Where we disagree is on the matter of "tweaking." I see that there is a public perception of a need (whether there is a real need is another arguement) and that legislators will be forced to respond to that perceived need. In some cases, that means actively encouraging enforcement. However, in others, the passage of a new law may be in order, both to satisfy the public and to make enforcement easier.
The trick is to make sure that the laws that are passed are narrowly tailored to address the actual problem, and not widely written to threaten the rights of pet owners. This law, I believe, can be modified to serve the narrow purpose of providing a prosecutorial tool against the cruel confinement of animals, while protecting the rights of pet owners.
BSL is another story, because the perceived problem is so utterly different from the real problem. The real problem is irresponsible ownership, the percieved problem is "dangerous breeds of dogs." Its hard to finesse that one, because it requires totally altering the way the problem is perceived.
In this case, I believe the precieved problem, and the actual problem are similar. The percieved problem is the confinement of animals for excessive ammounts of time in cages that are too small and unsafe, without access to food and water, in unsanitary conditions. I think we would all agree this is reprihensible and criminal behavior. The problem is how to write a law prohibiting that (which is easier to enforce than a more general cruelty law because it is specific) without infringing on the rights of responsible owners. I think this law CAN be rewritten to serve that narrow purpose. Indeed, by specifying what behavior is NOT criminal, it can even protect pet owners from the misapplication of other cruelty laws.
For example:
"Confining your animal in a crate is cruel! Its pyschological torture!"
"No its not. Statue 833 says right here that it has to be . . . . insert relevant passage here."
I have composed a letter to Congressman Knotts and will be vetting it with some of my collegues. Once I've done that I'll post a draft for comments/use by those who are interested.
Its a great chart. But I don't agree on the always part. In fact, by drawing the line in our favor, we may cripple the AR people. Imagine this situation.
"Confining animals to crates is cruel! It must be stopped!"
Legistlator: "Why? We have a law that says they can't be in there too long, it has to be a certain size, they have to have food and water and be clean . . . what's the problem?"
"Its pyschologically cruel!"
"Really? I have a whole bunch of letters here from professional trainers saying that its a great practice for housebreaking."
"Animals should be free!!!"
"Get out of my office you nutter."
There are slippery slopes, and then there is taking into account legitimate concerns and legitimate prohibitions and drawing the line where YOU want it. Part of the problem with the AR people is that they have seized the debate and forced it to take place on their terms. That's why it always seems like comprimise is giving ground . . . because they've made the debate AR against everyone else.
I want to take the debate back, but I think the only way to do that is by engaging with public concerns, and even engaging with AR to a limited extent. Especially if that limited extent can draw boundaries that will then be hard for them to cross. If they get a prohbition that narrowly targets cruel confinement, then they can't ask for a broader one by showing heart rending pictures of puppy mill puppies, because the response will be easy . . . "Excuse me, that's already illegal . . .very specifically illegal. Can't be more clear that's illegal, so what do you want?"
If we engage, if we are willing to concede there is a problem, or the perception of one, then we can make the debate ours, and take the moral high ground. Right now the public perception is PETA against dog fighters, puppy millers and sickos. I want to make it responsible animal lovers against dog fighters, puppy millers, sickos, and PETA. Sometimes, that does require giving a little ground, especially when PETA happens to be right. Rarely, they are. Or they show themselves that way, because they don't reveal their real purpose. Take their opposition to dog fighting. They are right. Absolutely, unquestionably right that dog fighting is a evil practice. That they are using dog fighting as a way to anhilate certain breeds and to further their purpose of destroying pet ownership is actually irrelevant, if you take the right tack. Note at AW won with the Vick Pit Bulls, and with good reason. They deplored Vick's behavior . . . and let PETA show themselves for the monsters they are when they called to have the dogs destroyed. The state of Virginia, in an act of cleverness, did not cave to PETA's demands for BSL or animal limits .. . they did what AW wanted and made dog fighting racketeering. We can win . . .but we have to admit when there is a problem (or a perceived one) and we have to be the reasonable ones . . .let PETA hang themselves . . . they're so GOOD at it.
"Ok, yep, you're right, we need a law to tackle hoarding and puppy milling, here you go. We've written it so that we should be able to prosecute. I hope you don't mind, PETA, that we've made sure that ordinary pet owners aren't caught in the net. You don't have a problem with them, do you?" That's what I'm after.
"Confining animals to crates is cruel! It must be stopped!"
Legistlator: "Why? We have a law that says they can't be in there too long, it has to be a certain size, they have to have food and water and be clean . . . what's the problem?"
"Its pyschologically cruel!"
"Really? I have a whole bunch of letters here from professional trainers saying that its a great practice for housebreaking."
"Animals should be free!!!"
"Get out of my office you nutter."
There are slippery slopes, and then there is taking into account legitimate concerns and legitimate prohibitions and drawing the line where YOU want it. Part of the problem with the AR people is that they have seized the debate and forced it to take place on their terms. That's why it always seems like comprimise is giving ground . . . because they've made the debate AR against everyone else.
I want to take the debate back, but I think the only way to do that is by engaging with public concerns, and even engaging with AR to a limited extent. Especially if that limited extent can draw boundaries that will then be hard for them to cross. If they get a prohbition that narrowly targets cruel confinement, then they can't ask for a broader one by showing heart rending pictures of puppy mill puppies, because the response will be easy . . . "Excuse me, that's already illegal . . .very specifically illegal. Can't be more clear that's illegal, so what do you want?"
If we engage, if we are willing to concede there is a problem, or the perception of one, then we can make the debate ours, and take the moral high ground. Right now the public perception is PETA against dog fighters, puppy millers and sickos. I want to make it responsible animal lovers against dog fighters, puppy millers, sickos, and PETA. Sometimes, that does require giving a little ground, especially when PETA happens to be right. Rarely, they are. Or they show themselves that way, because they don't reveal their real purpose. Take their opposition to dog fighting. They are right. Absolutely, unquestionably right that dog fighting is a evil practice. That they are using dog fighting as a way to anhilate certain breeds and to further their purpose of destroying pet ownership is actually irrelevant, if you take the right tack. Note at AW won with the Vick Pit Bulls, and with good reason. They deplored Vick's behavior . . . and let PETA show themselves for the monsters they are when they called to have the dogs destroyed. The state of Virginia, in an act of cleverness, did not cave to PETA's demands for BSL or animal limits .. . they did what AW wanted and made dog fighting racketeering. We can win . . .but we have to admit when there is a problem (or a perceived one) and we have to be the reasonable ones . . .let PETA hang themselves . . . they're so GOOD at it.
"Ok, yep, you're right, we need a law to tackle hoarding and puppy milling, here you go. We've written it so that we should be able to prosecute. I hope you don't mind, PETA, that we've made sure that ordinary pet owners aren't caught in the net. You don't have a problem with them, do you?" That's what I'm after.