Molosser Talk The Original: Not Cath but maybe this will help

[ Post a Response | Molosser Talk The Original ]

Thank you for posting to the BEST Molosser site on the net. Have a picture to share?
Please post to the Molosser gallery linked above the board.
. Who knows it may be out next dog on top.

Not Cath but maybe this will help

Posted by Karen on April 16, 2008, 7:47 am, in reply to "Cath ~ question re: laws you are digging up ~ Ontario perspective"
76.21.226.117

Some of the anti tethering laws being proposed have such loose definitions and can be really open to wide interpretation in various settings.

I just got the most recent Sheltie Pacesetter and they did publish my article on animal rights and wrongs. This is from it.

"Anti-Tethering and Penning Laws: How many mushers tether their dogs without issue? How many hunters do this? How many of you have kennels with runs? What about crates and grooming nooses at dog shows? ARs want legislators to feel all people who tether or pen are the average person who is abusing, or at least misusing, a tether or pen. Legislators never learn the other side of the story."

Now some anti tethering laws can be extrapolated to hunters tethering dogs before hunts, mushers who tether dogs as opposed to having runs, hikers who hike with dogs and tie them as opposed to hauling an expen - though this tiny pen woud be against the law anyhow, grooming nooses, expens at shows, etc.

"Keep your eyes and ears open. Many laws that look good may have vague wording or have hidden agendas. For example, there is (at the time of researching this) a mandatory vehicle restraint law proposed for dogs in Massachusetts. Within the law, at the time of writing this may be a provision to restrict pit bulls statewide. (ABC News Internet Ventures, May 3, 2007, David Schoetz) If people only read the headline or name of the bill and not the intricacies, the restriction would be missed. At the same time, a bill prohibiting banning a dog based solely on breed is being proposed. What bill will pass? "

This is an example of a law being piggy backed on a law that looks decent (though who dictates what a proper vehicle restraint is).

And then this:

".... Each state has an AR contingency that often donates big bucks to those who stand a good chance of backing their causes. There are websites and articles devoted to teaching how to choose and influence a legislator. They have professional lobbyists that do nothing but push for these laws. They are very well organized and financially backed. They also propose laws with significant vagaries that could open up to an overzealous animal control officer coming in and shutting down, say, a dog show. In many areas, Animal control is being infiltrated by the AR extremists. Moreover, no, this is not a far-reaching worry. Back to Washington DC and the proposed law that would allow anyone who is with an animal welfare organization the ability to enter your home or property and confiscate your pets. I remember when the American Rare Breed Association held their Cherry blossom show on the National Mall. How many dogs could be confiscated under this law if it passes? Remember, the HSUS is out of DC and PeTA is based in Virginia."