[ 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.

Statewide anti-tethering and anti-crating bill in South Carolina Posted by cath on April 15, 2008, 12:05 pm 209.59.46.16 See how purposely ambiguous the language is. These wastes of oxygen would be much easier to fight if they were stupid. The real tragedy is they've fooled many in the dog community. http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/prever/833_20080320.htm  Post a Response

Re: Statewide anti-tethering and anti-crating bill in South Carolina Posted by Kay on April 15, 2008, 1:34 pm, in reply to "Statewide anti-tethering and anti-crating bill in South Carolina" 70.63.194.218 What is the issue you have with this bill? It says you can leave your dog chained/tethered outside for 3 hours with a fixed anchor point or 6 hours if it's on a trolley. It doesn't say you can't tie them out at all. It doesn't say you can't crate your dog, it says they need to be able to stand up and/or turn around in the crate and it needs to be reasonably sanitary. What am I missing here? How is this so awful?  Post a Response

Nevermind that these laws are unnecessary and unenforceable Posted by cath on April 15, 2008, 2:06 pm, in reply to "Re: Statewide anti-tethering and anti-crating bill in South Carolina" 209.59.46.16 The purpose is to get a foot in the door for tighter restrictions and to make it harder and harder to own pets. There are many parallels between the gun grabbers and animal rightists. Its important to remember that those who erroneously believe these kinds of laws will do good forget that those who are irresponsible will continue to be. Its trying to lay the groundwork for outlawing tying out - this is backed by AR organizations like the HSUS, Best "Friends", PETA, et al. Why the 3 hour limit? Simply to make things more difficult for responsible owners. There is nothing wrong with tying out a dog for more than 3 hours. ARs simply lie about what that does to dogs. There is a right way to do it but they aren't in the habit of letting facts get in their way. With regards to crating, its another patently stupid proposal. There's no way you can keep someone from doing it wrong. Its also highly subjective. What is an 'unreasonable amount of time'? Why on earth do these nuts put in the animal needs 'access to sustenance'? What if the kennel is dirty? These people will never stop and people in the dog community have to stop helping them.  Post a Response

Re: Nevermind that these laws are unnecessary and unenforceable Posted by sylvia on April 15, 2008, 3:15 pm, in reply to "Nevermind that these laws are unnecessary and unenforceable" 198.110.167.50 So if they are unenforceable what are you b###hin' about??  Post a Response

Re: Nevermind that these laws are unnecessary and unenforceable Posted by Jill B on April 15, 2008, 3:31 pm, in reply to "Re: Nevermind that these laws are unnecessary and unenforceable" 71.255.181.91 "So if they are unenforceable what are you b###hin' about??" Gee Sylvia, don't you know that trying to curb animal abuse or unnecessary breeding puts us mere seconds away from otlawing family pets completely?  Post a Response

Re: Nevermind that these laws are unnecessary and unenforceable Posted by sylvia on April 15, 2008, 3:35 pm, in reply to "Re: Nevermind that these laws are unnecessary and unenforceable" 198.110.167.50 Yes, because that's going to happen....they've been knocking down MY door!  Post a Response

Except this isn't trying to curb animal abuse Posted by cath on April 15, 2008, 4:34 pm, in reply to "Re: Nevermind that these laws are unnecessary and unenforceable" 209.59.46.16 Good job on helping animal rightists with their idiocy and helping them make it harder for responsible people to have animals.  Post a Response

Cath ~ question re: laws you are digging up ~ Ontario perspective Posted by Jen Sider on April 15, 2008, 11:12 pm, in reply to "Statewide anti-tethering and anti-crating bill in South Carolina" 69.63.50.74 I don't know if you are aware; but the breeds APBT, SBT, Amstaff and all look-alikes are illegal in my home province. Piggy-backed to this wonderful feel good law; that got purported vicious breeds off the streets and muzzled/spayed/neutered was a clause that should shake every responsible citizen to the core; if the dog is deemed "dangerous" and this description is not based on breed; but on a loose description of the dog's behaviour; any "peace officer" may enter the premises at any time to determine the level of the danger to the public; essentially a warrantless search ~ completely legal. What's to stop these American laws from piggy-backing such a "back-door" access to one's house? Do you know if any of the recent laws do/did? I have heard from a number of police officers that the main purpose of Ontario's pitbull ban was to allow them warrantless access to drug houses; not bad if that's where it stopped; not good when your country is becoming a police state.  Post a Response

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."  Post a Response

Re: Nevermind that these laws are unnecessary and unenforceable Posted by Kay on April 16, 2008, 9:57 am, in reply to "Nevermind that these laws are unnecessary and unenforceable" 70.63.194.218 Pet care products are a multi-billion dollar business. Big money trumps "causes" every time. Relax, Purina's got your back.  Post a Response

There are areas that want to give some police powers to animal control Posted by cath on April 16, 2008, 11:54 am, in reply to "Cath ~ question re: laws you are digging up ~ Ontario perspective" 209.59.33.32 So they can enter your property and seize animals without a warrant. The spin is for "protecting the animals". Its been unsuccessful in many places as people realize its not appropriate but they've made some headway. Unfortunately what most people know about animal control is very little and they fail to realize shows like Animal Cops are edited to make those people look good. The channel Animal Planet (which shows Animal Cops) is partners with the animal rights organization HSUS. There have been some pushes for good samaritan laws for pets where any busybody could just go in and steal your animal if they thought it was being mistreated - such as tied out. I don't know of any that have passed but they keep trying. *** I have heard from a number of police officers that the main purpose of Ontario's pitbull ban was to allow them warrantless access to drug houses; Wow, I hadn't heard that. Animal rightists characterize pitbull owners as thugs and druggies here. The HSUS is very big on that. For those who defend the HSUS and their ilk they need to take a harder look at what they're defending. None of them lift a finger to combat BSL or do anything that would make animal ownership more fun and enjoyable.  Post a Response

You're right about big money Posted by cath on April 16, 2008, 11:57 am, in reply to "Re: Nevermind that these laws are unnecessary and unenforceable" 209.59.33.32 Thats a whole 'nuther topic. lol  Post a Response

     «Back to thread

Please see bottom of board for rules.