SC- no crates?
- Thread starter HoundedByHounds
- Start date
The problem here is not the intent. I'm pretty sure the intent is actually clear . . .to prevent dogs being locked in filthy cages that are too small for them for long periods of time without food or water. The intent is laudable . . .
The problem is the vagueness . . . I see their problem. You can't define the size of the cage, because dogs come in many sizes. You can't define cause injury, because there are so many potental injuries. Its really hard to write a law like this that bans what you want it to and leaves everything else alone.
I'm not sure if I'd point the finger at AR anti-pet stuff here. To me these reads like a well intentioned law, designed to make busting abusers easier. Unfortunately, in the wrong hands, it could probably bust everyone on this forum. For example, Sarama does not have access to 'sustenance' other than water, when I crate her for work. Why? Because I, or my fiance, or my landlord will be by to feed her dinner. She has access . . . when its time for food.
The more I think about antiabuse laws, the more complicated the problem becomes. People are cruel to animals in many, many ways. But the definition of what is "cruel" is often up in the air. Cruelty, like obscenity, is something you know when you see it. (Although some people see it everywhere).
I don't want to say the sky is falling about this law . . . I don't think that's what its meant for. But unfortunately, in the hands of a AR-leaing animal control officer, it could be a disaster . . .
The problem is the vagueness . . . I see their problem. You can't define the size of the cage, because dogs come in many sizes. You can't define cause injury, because there are so many potental injuries. Its really hard to write a law like this that bans what you want it to and leaves everything else alone.
I'm not sure if I'd point the finger at AR anti-pet stuff here. To me these reads like a well intentioned law, designed to make busting abusers easier. Unfortunately, in the wrong hands, it could probably bust everyone on this forum. For example, Sarama does not have access to 'sustenance' other than water, when I crate her for work. Why? Because I, or my fiance, or my landlord will be by to feed her dinner. She has access . . . when its time for food.
The more I think about antiabuse laws, the more complicated the problem becomes. People are cruel to animals in many, many ways. But the definition of what is "cruel" is often up in the air. Cruelty, like obscenity, is something you know when you see it. (Although some people see it everywhere).
I don't want to say the sky is falling about this law . . . I don't think that's what its meant for. But unfortunately, in the hands of a AR-leaing animal control officer, it could be a disaster . . .
On a somewhat random note, we used these awesome little water buckets to keep the foster dog's crate's dry, while still leaving them with a drink. Hang them high enough and most dogs will leave them up.
http://www.doggytoyland.com/PhotoGallery.asp?ProductCode=3141
PLENTY of laws abound to address overt abuse, plenty of laws being ignored and not enforced. A violation of one person's personal guideline of what constitutes "proper" animal care....does not abuse make.
it was not enough to get tethering...we now have to address,...every possible means pet owners have to contain and restrain, their pets...because of some idiots we can't seem to catch being turds?
I wonder how many more animals will end up in shelters now, as this spreads across the USA, because people are afraid to use a crate...and what other way can they control that new puppy's chewing and eliminating all over the place?
oh well...it has to go, or I guess we could just throw it out into the yard...so long as it's not tied up.
it was not enough to get tethering...we now have to address,...every possible means pet owners have to contain and restrain, their pets...because of some idiots we can't seem to catch being turds?
I wonder how many more animals will end up in shelters now, as this spreads across the USA, because people are afraid to use a crate...and what other way can they control that new puppy's chewing and eliminating all over the place?
oh well...it has to go, or I guess we could just throw it out into the yard...so long as it's not tied up.
oh boy... my roommate Jon isn't pleased with the idea of me crating Bamm. When I first got Bamm he thought my crating him was cruel. It's funny how he thinks that but now whenever it's convieniant for him he wants Bamm in his crate like when we're eating and stuff.
If I left Bamm out of his crate while we're gone he would create havoc. I can see it now... chewed cords, chewed clothes, chewed everything... not to mention I absolutely CANNOT leave him unattended with Goober. They love each other and get along fine... but Bamm can play too rough sometimes and has hurt Goober a few times in rough play and I dont want to risk one of them getting hurt.
If I left Bamm out of his crate while we're gone he would create havoc. I can see it now... chewed cords, chewed clothes, chewed everything... not to mention I absolutely CANNOT leave him unattended with Goober. They love each other and get along fine... but Bamm can play too rough sometimes and has hurt Goober a few times in rough play and I dont want to risk one of them getting hurt.
Ilsa will gather up all her blankets and put them in her water bucket if I give her a bucket in her crate. If she had to have food at all times... she'd kill herself by overeating.
Ronin would NEVER eat if he was allowed food at all times, but he does have a water bucket in his crate... which he never uses.
Stupid stupid STUPID law!
Ronin would NEVER eat if he was allowed food at all times, but he does have a water bucket in his crate... which he never uses.
Stupid stupid STUPID law!
If my dogs had water in their crates at all times, they'd drench themselves and be wet and miserable for hours. If they had food in their crate at all times, they'd be too big to FIT in their crates after a while.
Despite this, my dogs (and everyone who enters our house without us right there to escort them in) are much safer when they are in their crates. hmmm.
Despite this, my dogs (and everyone who enters our house without us right there to escort them in) are much safer when they are in their crates. hmmm.
I actually disagree. This is not a stupid law. It is a poorly written law, which, when it was passed, no one was thinking about pet owners. They were thinking about puppy millers and severely neglectful owners. I'm almost certain of this because its from such a conservative state. Its not an AR law, its a welfare law. The problem is that they did not consider how it might be misused. The law can be fixed. Bold are my additions.
I'm too hungry write now to think of how to phrase the additional clauses. I could probably write this better, but I'm just trying to make a point . . . I really don't feel like looking up the equivalent statutes in every jurisdiction, which is what I'd do if I was writing a draft to send to my reprisentative.
In my opinion, the right way to fight laws like this one, with the intent of prohibiting cruelty, is not to oppose the law . . . its to support amending or modifying it so that it does not have an unintended effect. Ranting against it isn't particularly productive, considering that its main purpose is completely reasonable . . . the problem is that when it was written, no one was likely thinking of it being applied to pet owners who crate their dogs while they were at work. They weren't thinking it would be abused. The same is true of tethering laws. Often the intent is good, and even the heart of the law . . . the problem is that the law is far, far too broad, or that it was written without thinking of the unintended way it could be applied by overzelous AC officers and overliteral judges.
By the way, about the water. Sarama has a dog-sized water bottle. She kept dumping things in her dish and flipping it over, so I found a bottle meant for long flights. Works great. I recommend it if the dog being messy with the water is the only problem.
I'm too hungry write now to think of how to phrase the additional clauses. I could probably write this better, but I'm just trying to make a point . . . I really don't feel like looking up the equivalent statutes in every jurisdiction, which is what I'd do if I was writing a draft to send to my reprisentative.
In my opinion, the right way to fight laws like this one, with the intent of prohibiting cruelty, is not to oppose the law . . . its to support amending or modifying it so that it does not have an unintended effect. Ranting against it isn't particularly productive, considering that its main purpose is completely reasonable . . . the problem is that when it was written, no one was likely thinking of it being applied to pet owners who crate their dogs while they were at work. They weren't thinking it would be abused. The same is true of tethering laws. Often the intent is good, and even the heart of the law . . . the problem is that the law is far, far too broad, or that it was written without thinking of the unintended way it could be applied by overzelous AC officers and overliteral judges.
By the way, about the water. Sarama has a dog-sized water bottle. She kept dumping things in her dish and flipping it over, so I found a bottle meant for long flights. Works great. I recommend it if the dog being messy with the water is the only problem.