Unchain the dogs of New York State!

[Renee750il]

We're currently up to 458 votes, no doubt thanks in part to the near 2,000 views this thread has received! Let's keep it going and try for 500 by New Years! All paws crossed here!

Unchain the Dogs of New York State!

You really don't get it, do you?

We don't support BSL - whether overt or backdoor. You aren't getting any encouragement from us. 498 signatures? Over the internet? That's nothing. A rank failure. And all you're doing by continuing to brag about that failure is proving to us that you're either being a fool or a troll.

 

[Bahamutt99]

It's not about curbing "cruelty." Not at all. It's a backdoor BSL law. It's all about being able to step in and confiscate dogs.

So you're saying the OP is supporting pseudo-BSL? :yikes:

 

[FrenchKissed]

So you're saying the OP is supporting pseudo-BSL? :yikes:

Worse that BSL. We are talking about conviction without due process. Just imagine if you could be arrested because you looked like you MIGHT rob a bank or mug some one. You are saying its okay to take some one's property/rights because of what MIGHT happen. People need to be convicted of their crimes when they are committed and they need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law (which means work for law enforcement)...but making laws that impose on those who have not done a crime because it MIGHT prevent one, is ridiculous.
It amazes me how readily people are willing to give up their freedoms and let government control and dictate what they do because they are too lazy to be responsible for themselves....

 

[DryCreek]

You know, for all this push you see to control a dogs breeding status and containment method, I have YET to see ONE independent reliable study that proves that this type of legislation is necessary. I have seen studies that reflect the exact opposite of their stance though.

When will people wake up enough to see what they are allowing with this type of "feel good" legislation.

Follow the trend, it's obvious to me.....

Ban a breed-done already

Ban large dogs-done already

Ban breeding-being done/done

Ban tethering-being done/done

Ban working dogs-soon I'm sure

Ban dogs in the city-coming soon to a town near you

and finally,

Ban dogs, which is the goal of these groups anyways.

Support this cause, and you have put another nail in the coffin of dog ownership.

Sound far fetched? Maybe, a little, but I don't doubt that they'll try. So, at what point will all of you say stop. Now, or when it's almost to late?

 

[corgipower]

drycreek, you missed a few in there ~

Limit the number of dogs you can own - done
Ban debarking - done in some places
Ban crating/penning - to be done soon
Ban training collars - done in some places

There will be no need to outright ban dogs. After all the restrictions are passed, there won't be any dogs to ban.

 

[corgipower]

"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the first step ... In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'"

-New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog! February 1991, p.20

"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."

-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.

One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding

-Wayne Pacelle, President, Humane Society of the United States.

 

[lakotasong]

I just wanted to say thanks for making this thread #6 on this forum section so far as views. I'm also glad to see my Iditarod Cruelty thread at #3 - especially since both topics (sled dog abuse and chained dog abuse) are issues that many forum members wish to keep hush-hush. Since there has been a lot of aggressive posting trying to take attention away from the issue at hand (abusive chaining of dogs in New York State), I'll be checking back often but leaving the thread alone for now!

Know that we made 505 signatures by New Years, and today we have 518. doG willing, we'll reach 10,000 in 2008!!!

 

[noludoru]

I find it amusing you want to "leave the thread alone" after many of the statements directed at you, especially Renee's. Perhaps they hit home? Or, more likely, you are incapable of an intelligent response.

 

[lakotasong]

Actually, I'm leaving it alone because of the numerous threats to have my account deleted for "trolling" because I support a view that is unpopular on this forum - treating dogs like sentient beings and individuals that have rights. If I were allowed to speak my mind, I'd be more than happy to, but that's not what the e-mails, PMs and thread responses have told me. I can't do any good educating the public without an account to post. And I've definitely made my point in this thread without responding to the bait which will cause me to lose my account.

 

[noludoru]

The owner of this forum has stated to me several times, and publicly many times, that things aren't censored here. So long as you're not breaking the rules that shouldn't be the case. You may certainly speak your piece. I for one would love to hear your response, as I've yet to hear anything but rhetoric from you.

 

[Lilavati]

The owner of this forum has stated to me several times, and publicly many times, that things aren't censored here. So long as you're not breaking the rules that shouldn't be the case. You may certainly speak your piece. I for one would love to hear your response, as I've yet to hear anything but rhetoric from you.

Summitview:

You do not respond with reasoned responses, only dogma and rhetoric. You have outright accused several people of abuse on the thinnest of evidence.
You do not answer our concerns, or treat our opinions and experiences with respect.
You insult all of us by accusing us of not considering dogs to be sentient beings.
You refuse to engage any of us . . . you simply spout your opinions and denegrate ours

You are entitled to your opinions. So are we. We attempt to show you respect, and explain why we disagree . . .you respond with accusations, insults, and by ignoring what we have to say. There are plenty of unpopular views here (read the Fire Hydrant) and generally, they are handled with respect and consideration. Perhaps it is time for you to consider if your behavior might the problem, rather than accusing us all of being dog-torturing psychos.

The sign of an extremist is the utter refusal to consider any point of view but their own. To insult and denigrate any opinion they do not hold. We have asked you . . . why is a chain abusive, when correctly used, as opposed to a fence?

You have shown us pictures of starving dogs on chains
You have shown us pictures of dogs with collars embedded in their necks
You have insisted that there is no latch on a chain that everyone else here agrees that they see a latch on
You have failed to respond to questions about what owners are supposed to do if they don't have a fence
You have given many examples of abused dogs on chains

But you have never, once, explained why chaining or tethering, for short periods of time, with proper food, water and shelter is abusive. You simply show examples of horrible cases of abuse that involve chains. Everyone here agrees that abuse and neglect is evil and should be punished. But you have failed to state why chaining a dog is, IN AND OF ITSELF, abuse and neglect.

 

[Renee750il]

Actually, I'm leaving it alone because of the numerous threats to have my account deleted for "trolling" because I support a view that is unpopular on this forum - treating dogs like sentient beings and individuals that have rights. If I were allowed to speak my mind, I'd be more than happy to, but that's not what the e-mails, PMs and thread responses have told me. I can't do any good educating the public without an account to post. And I've definitely made my point in this thread without responding to the bait which will cause me to lose my account.

Hmmm . . . we're looking into those threats. Perhaps you should forward those threats, emails and PMs?

 

[darkchild16]

she most likely wont because then she will not have something to back up her blanent disregard for good counter arguements.

 

[corgipower]

Since there has been a lot of aggressive posting trying to take attention away from the issue at hand (abusive chaining of dogs in New York State), I'll be checking back often but leaving the thread alone for now!

There has not been any attempt to take attention away from the issue at hand, the issue at hand is whether or not chaining is abusive. Most of us feel that chaining is not abuse. Most of us feel that what makes something abusive has nothing to do with the chain itself. Most of us feel that responsible owners shouldn't be punished because of misguided legislation.

We would be happy to hear you support valid reasons why a chain, regardless of the other circumstances, but the chain itself is abuse. A starved dog is a starved dog, whether on or off a chain, and there are already laws in place in NY to address the issue of a starved dog.

Your recent posts have not addressed the issue at all, and have been merely to inform us of how many signatures the petition has. That seems to be an attempt to take attention away from the issue.

 

[noludoru]

Hmmm . . . we're looking into those threats. Perhaps you should forward those threats, emails and PMs?

Hehe.

 

[pitbulliest]

I, for one, am not thrilled when it comes to the concept of tethering - not ONLY because too many people abuse that priveledge, but because there are sooooooo many horror stories of dogs being stolen while left in the backyard without supervision. And tethering is just another good excuse to leave the dog unattended for long periods of time outside, which I feel should simply NOT be done without supervision. With that being said, I'm also not a huge fan of crates, but they are necessary for some dogs in certain situations - understandable.

Either way, dogs should not be tethered or crated for more than 3 hours. If the municipalities finally grew some ba**s and stepped up in terms of legislation and enforcing that legislation, tethering wouldn't be a problem. Is banning it a good solution? Probably not....the same stupid people who tether their dogs for hours on end will probably just shove them in the basement somewhere or in a crate at home for the same number of hours and in the same conditions...it really won't solve anything..tougher laws and cracking down on idiots WILL!

WHERE ARE THE ANIMAL ABUSE AND NEGLECT LAWS PEOPLE...WHERE ARE THEY?! YOOO HOOOOO!!!!??!

 

[Renee750il]

We've got more than enough loose, unenforceable laws on the books already - plenty of them . . . all waiting for the time to be ripe to be used to further undermine the rights of the individual and do absolutely nothing for the welfare of animals.

 

[noludoru]

Q.

Question for you, Summitview.

This is something I've been thinking about a lot.. even back when I was avidly ANTI-chain, ANY chain. I haven't come to an answer yet. If you're, um, afraid of having your account suspended, you may PM me your answer.

Where do you draw the line? If chaining is cruel.. is tethering? Is it just the image of a chain that gets you? How about a long line, if you're moving about with the dog does it change the fact that tethering is cruel? If the dog can move about more freely, what about rigging the tethers to an overhead line so they can be moved? If all of that is cruel, what is to stop a dog tethered inside your house being cruel? Or on a leash? Is it only cruel when a human is not around or a human is not attached to the other end? If the act of attaching a dog to something is cruel, are you suggesting dogs should run loose or be contained in kennels or pens? What about when people are cruel to animals safely contained by those means, will the negative association with a kennel make it cruel?

Once again, is it just the image of a chain that repulses you? What about a line? Mountain rope? Leather? Nylon?

Let me tell you.. I couldn't figure out answers to this. Not concrete ones, anyway. That (and many of dear Bahamutt's informative posts) opened my eyes to how when I saw CHAIN I saw EVIL.. even though it is not the chain, only how the chain is being used that was truly evil. Middie came from being cruelly contained on a 15-20 foot chain most of his life, but sometimes I tether him outside. The way I do it, it is not cruel. He's certainly not happy if I run inside to grab something and leave him alone, but he's not being harmed by it or even significantly agitated.

 

[Renee750il]

And that, Nolu . . . the ability to step back from one's own prejudices and preconceived notions, and examine an issue from different perspectives, is one of the hallmarks of an intelligent, thinking individual.

 

[noludoru]

Me? I think? (In all honestly if Baha hadn't talked about it so much I think I would have been able to sit around and not examine those questions more closely. It's so easy to say chains are evil and that's the end of it. It's even easy to say if the tether isn't attached to you it's cruel. That was the first answer that popped into my head when I asked myself those questions, and I badly wanted to stick with it. It's so easy.)

I know we have, in one form or another, been asking the same thing, and so much more.. but I thought it would be nice to put it all in a format that could be quoted and answered with little difficulty.