This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Zahnburg on 11 February 2009 - 21:02
That is EXACTLY what the bill says!
D) (1) A PERSON WHO OWNS, POSSESSES, CONTROLS, OR
OTHERWISE HAS CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 10 BREEDING DOGS
OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS SHALL PROVIDE FOR EACH DOG:
(I) AN ENCLOSURE WITH:
1. AN INTERIOR HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 6 INCHES
HIGHER THAN THE HEAD OF THE TALLEST DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE WHEN THE
DOG IS IN A NORMAL STANDING POSITION; AND
2. SUFFICIENT SPACE TO ALLOW THE DOG TO TURN
ABOUT FREELY, STAND, SIT, AND LIE DOWN SUCH THAT, WHEN FULLY
EXTENDED, NO PART OF THE DOG’S BODY TOUCHES ANY SIDE OF THE
ENCLOSURE OR ANY OTHER DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE; AND
If I have 10 dogs that are intact and over the age of 4 months and I have 9 of them in kennels and 1 is in my house in a crate then I am violating this law.
Read it again! While it may be well meaning, it is worded in such a way as to make criminals out of perfectly responsible dog owners, breeders, trainers and exhibitors.
by Zahnburg on 11 February 2009 - 21:02
by TessJ10 on 11 February 2009 - 22:02
Zahnburg is right.
"What's wrong with this?"
An ulterior motive of animal rights groups (including HSUS) is the elimination of hunting. This bill is promoted as anti-puppy mill/anti-cruely, which we all support, but is within the AR community pushed as another attack on those who hunt.
Foxhunts have more than 10 hounds. While you're focusing on a kennel "large enough to stand up in," I see kenneling EACH hound alone in one kennel run will make for UNHAPPY hounds - they WANT to be together. Put 5 doghouses in a run with 5 hounds and they'll all cram into one because that's the way the like it. No I myself wouldn't put 2 GSD in the same run, but a hound? I'd do what's happiest for them, unlike HSUS and PETA. Foxhunt kennels I've seen are certainly large enough to "turn about freely" - actually, they're usually more like 1/4 acre and up! So concentrate on the puppy-millers with dogs crammed in cages and leave those who care for their animals properly out of it.
In addition: "A PERSON WHO OWNS, POSSESSES, CONTROLS, OR
OTHERWISE HAS CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 10 BREEDING DOGS
OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS SHALL PROVIDE FOR EACH DOG:...."
I'm in violation of this law for example, if I have 6 dogs, say Shelties or cocker spaniels or Chihuahuas, whatever, am growing out 3 5mo. old puppies, and have 2 dogs in for training. I have 3 large & roomy kennel runs in my back yard but usually we all just live in the house together. They aren't even crated ever. Well, according to this law, I am in violation because I do not possess adequate runs for "each" one of these dogs. Ridiculous!
You may say, well, they'll never enforce it like that, to which I say, don't be so sure. For mandatory spay/neuter laws, it's often discussed that a door-to-door campaign should be waged to make sure people are in compliance.
by mking on 11 February 2009 - 22:02
by Horse30189 on 12 February 2009 - 00:02
I am sorry, but is there something wrong with an enclosure for a dog that is at least 6 inches taller than its head and, when it lays down, no part of its body touches it? (if it's an outside permanent "housing" kennel?)
To Zahnburg...."Also, remember that "breeding dog" is any intact dog over 4 months of age. It does not matter if you have bred the dog before, plan on breeding it or never plan on breeding it. It is a "breeding dog"."
Then what is the point in keeping them all intact if you have no intentions on breeding it??
by TessJ10 on 12 February 2009 - 01:02
Oh, stop it - of course there's nothing wrong with that.
No one, NO ONE here has objected to the bill on those grounds. We said why we objected, and it had nothing to do with head clearance, but you're pretending not to hear that and to imply that we think "something is wrong" with minimum decency standards for dogs.
There's nothing wrong with that provision, but the bill as a whole is a mess. And we said why.
"Then what is the point in keeping them all intact if you have no intentions on breeding it??"
What's it to you?
First reason, because it's none of your damn business. Just as it's none of my damn business if you have an unneutered dog. ENFORCE current laws that prohibit our dogs from making trouble for our neighbors and we'll be fine.
This is the United States of America. I have neutered dogs. I have unneutered dogs. As long as I treat them well and kindly, you have no right to decree that, because YOU don't want an unneutered dog, to force ME to have one.
The opposite is true. I have no business compelling you to stop doing the things you do just because I don't like them.
This country (although we're still not as bad as Europe) is filling up with nosy busybodies who want everyone around them to think and do exactly as they think and do. It's not enough for these long-nosed snoops to stop abuse and cruelty, they try to poke their noses into every individual aspect of dog ownership, with NO thought or understanding or care for different breeds, different needs, different lives than their own.
by TessJ10 on 12 February 2009 - 01:02
And thank goodness for alert people who monitor these things, because if not for them it would pass in this form without any "addendums." Whoever wrote this bill wanted all these restrictions.
by CrysBuck25 on 12 February 2009 - 01:02
TessJ10,
Above you said the goal of the AR people to be the elimation of hunting. Read the websites. Their goal is to liberate all domestic animal species. All hunting, fishing, breeding, service animals, pets, food animals, EVERYTHING. The president of the HSUS stated that they feel they are under no ethical obligation to preserve domestic animal species, as they are a product of human selection. They feel that if we need companionship, we should seek it with our own kind, and not with animals. Who are a few freaks to decide that thousands of years of interaction should be stopped?
PETA has even gotten at least one seeing eye dog taken from its blind handler.
If these laws pass, and many people are forced to give up their dogs because they can't afford to comply, know that most of those dogs will be killed. AR holds that it is better for the human to kill the dog to LIBERATE it than for it to live with human masters as a beloved friend and genetic contributor to its breed. If they are so determined to kill, why don't they all stage a mass suicide of themselves and save the rest of us from having to deal with them? It has also been stated by leaders in the AR movement that humans are the biggest blight to this planet, spreading like a cancer across the planet. Unfortunately, in their case, that's true. They are like an undiagnosed cancer, discounted as harmless, while in reality, they are the most dangerous form of the disease, spreading to the most vulnerable tissue they can find, our children and our easily bought legislators.
The radiation to deal with this cancerous movement is to let them know the real Americans won't stand for it. Take away from them their tax exemptions, their protections, and their funding. Don't donate to HSUS or PETA or any of the rest of them. HSUS is not a humane society at all; it is a well funded polical lobby group. It does not now, nor has it ever owned or operated or even funded a animal shelter. The radiation that will kill the AR cancer is to take away their money and influence, and vote down all their proposals.
These bills won't help the problems, because as I've stated before, the dirty, grungy puppy millers will always be able to get more dogs and new places to practice their craft, and the big ones have enough money to either comply or buy immunity. When it becomes criminal to do any one thing, then only criminals will continue to do that thing.
Crys
by TessJ10 on 12 February 2009 - 01:02
I specifically mentioned hunting because a lot of people do what Horse30189 does, think that this bill will only affect puppy mills and who doesn't want to stop those? And they can't imagine someone besides a puppy mill having more than 10 dogs. They need to realize that this bill will be a disaster for lots of good people who have nothing to do with puppy mills.
According to people monitoring the anti-dog bills in Virginia, AR activists specifically consider that a bonus of this type of legislation is stopping foxhunters from keeping their hounds, and is a specific step in their fight to ban hunting. They pretend that this bill is ONLY about puppy mills while privately admit that it's about much more If they can bamboozle people like Horse to approve it, so much the better.
by Zahnburg on 12 February 2009 - 02:02
I will go s-l-o-w for you.
First there is nothing wrong with dimensions set forth in the bill for a run or kennel. However, as the bill is currently written it would prevent an owner from crateing any dogs. Please feel free to take a second look at my previous post to see an example.
As to keeping a dog intact past the age of 4 months, there are a variety of reasons for this. Firstly, I would never alter a dog or a bitch before they are fully mature for myriad reasons. Secondly, perhaps the owner wants to show his dog. Or perhaps the owner has held back several pups from a recent litter to see which one he likes best before selling the others. Or numerous other reasons.
As for this being the first draft and open to changes; well that is well and good, but I, like everyone else, can only comment on how it IS written, not on how it may be wriiten in the future.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top