SC- no crates?
- Thread starter HoundedByHounds
- Start date
Oh geez 
What about the dogs that REFUSE to eat or drink in their crate? Anytime I have tried to give Orson a treat (bone) or food in his crate, he 'buries' it UNDER the pad, blankie, or towel to 'save' for when he is NOT in the crate.
Ack, this is just too broad...........if they want to try and regulate common sense then they MUST make the stipulations more blatantly clear because people who DO lack common sense still won't be able to discern what to do. *sigh*
What about the dogs that REFUSE to eat or drink in their crate? Anytime I have tried to give Orson a treat (bone) or food in his crate, he 'buries' it UNDER the pad, blankie, or towel to 'save' for when he is NOT in the crate.
Ack, this is just too broad...........if they want to try and regulate common sense then they MUST make the stipulations more blatantly clear because people who DO lack common sense still won't be able to discern what to do. *sigh*
Oh geez
What about the dogs that REFUSE to eat or drink in their crate? Anytime I have tried to give Orson a treat (bone) or food in his crate, he 'buries' it UNDER the pad, blankie, or towel to 'save' for when he is NOT in the crate.
Ack, this is just too broad...........if they want to try and regulate common sense then they MUST make the stipulations more blatantly clear because people who DO lack common sense still won't be able to discern what to do. *sigh*
What about the dogs that REFUSE to eat or drink in their crate? Anytime I have tried to give Orson a treat (bone) or food in his crate, he 'buries' it UNDER the pad, blankie, or towel to 'save' for when he is NOT in the crate.
Ack, this is just too broad...........if they want to try and regulate common sense then they MUST make the stipulations more blatantly clear because people who DO lack common sense still won't be able to discern what to do. *sigh*
This is still in draft form, though one person has looked over it so far. I'll fiddle with it a bit more and show it to a few others before I send it. I'm posting it for constructive comments and if anyone wants to steal chunks of it for their own letters to the Congressman.
Dear Congressman Knotts:
I am writing to you as a concerned pet owner and an attorney regarding SB 833. Although I support your effort to battle neglect, abuse and cruelty, I am concerned that the statute, as written, might be applied overzealously or arbitrarily. I respectfully propose that you consider adding to the text of the bill to prevent its misapplication to responsible pet owners.
Crates are a common tool among pet owners to confine the animal for its own safety, and the safety of its environment in the absence of its owner. Crates are also necessary for the safe transportation of animals from one location to another. The majority of professional dog trainers recommend the use of crates for housetraining. An unreasonable restriction on the use of crates would result in many pet owners being forced to surrender their animals, because they would be unable to control and confine them during their absence.
Not only could an unreasonable restriction interfere with the ability of pet owners to safely confine their pets in their absence, such as during the work day, but it could interfere with the ability of pet owners to attend sporting events with their pet, to take them on family vacations, or even take them to the park. Further, unreasonable restrictions could interfere with evacuation plans, when animals must be confined to crates to promote their transportation to safety and to make them welcome at emergency shelters and motels.
I respectfully suggest that the text of SB 833 be modified to clarify Section (B)(1)(a) to specify “unreasonable period of time that the animal's health or safety is endangered†as a period of no more than eighteen continuous hours. Although this is a lengthy period of time, it is long enough to encompass most foreseeable situations that might delay an owner from returning to their pet, or that would require the animal be confined for the purpose of travel.
I further suggest that the term “sustenance†be clarified as “more twelve continuous hours without water or more than eighteen continuous hours without food, barring veterinary advice to the contrary.†Animals are often kept on strict feeding schedules that preclude their constant access to food while confined. Though access to water may seen benign, some animals upset their water dishes, creating an unsanitary condition, or consume enough water to make the control of their bodily functions while confined difficult.
I believe that these modifications will prevent the bill from being misapplied, to the determent of both animals and their owners, while still serving its purpose of battling cruelty, neglect and abuse.
Thank you for your consideration,
Dear Congressman Knotts:
I am writing to you as a concerned pet owner and an attorney regarding SB 833. Although I support your effort to battle neglect, abuse and cruelty, I am concerned that the statute, as written, might be applied overzealously or arbitrarily. I respectfully propose that you consider adding to the text of the bill to prevent its misapplication to responsible pet owners.
Crates are a common tool among pet owners to confine the animal for its own safety, and the safety of its environment in the absence of its owner. Crates are also necessary for the safe transportation of animals from one location to another. The majority of professional dog trainers recommend the use of crates for housetraining. An unreasonable restriction on the use of crates would result in many pet owners being forced to surrender their animals, because they would be unable to control and confine them during their absence.
Not only could an unreasonable restriction interfere with the ability of pet owners to safely confine their pets in their absence, such as during the work day, but it could interfere with the ability of pet owners to attend sporting events with their pet, to take them on family vacations, or even take them to the park. Further, unreasonable restrictions could interfere with evacuation plans, when animals must be confined to crates to promote their transportation to safety and to make them welcome at emergency shelters and motels.
I respectfully suggest that the text of SB 833 be modified to clarify Section (B)(1)(a) to specify “unreasonable period of time that the animal's health or safety is endangered†as a period of no more than eighteen continuous hours. Although this is a lengthy period of time, it is long enough to encompass most foreseeable situations that might delay an owner from returning to their pet, or that would require the animal be confined for the purpose of travel.
I further suggest that the term “sustenance†be clarified as “more twelve continuous hours without water or more than eighteen continuous hours without food, barring veterinary advice to the contrary.†Animals are often kept on strict feeding schedules that preclude their constant access to food while confined. Though access to water may seen benign, some animals upset their water dishes, creating an unsanitary condition, or consume enough water to make the control of their bodily functions while confined difficult.
I believe that these modifications will prevent the bill from being misapplied, to the determent of both animals and their owners, while still serving its purpose of battling cruelty, neglect and abuse.
Thank you for your consideration,
Careful, Lilavati, or we might just draft you to draft legislation
