This is a placeholder text
Group text
by VKGSDs on 03 July 2011 - 00:07
LOL I'm talking about in the summer. A few weeks ago we had the AC running ALL day and the temp inside the house was 85. It was so hot and humid, and our house is 75 years old so I finally gave up. In the winter I keep it at 50-55 all night and all day when we work, then about 68 for when we are home and inside. I do not like paying hundreds for energy, summer or winter (and in the summer I prefer to have the windows and doors open). I'm quite familiar with Florida temps, Florida is like my second home! It's actually hotter here now than where we usually go in Florida (southwest coast). West Michigan does get super humid too, it usually adds 10-15 degrees to our heat index. But, we only have to deal with it for 4 months of the year. We walked a parade this morning and it was nearly 100 already, no shade. I was pretty close to pulling the dogs out towards the end but some people on the side gave them water and I let them sit in the shade for a break. The humidity broke during the day and now it's only mildly humid and mid-80s.
People just need to use common sense. My dogs are fine in 80-90 degree temps inside our house during the summer, but it's obviously shaded in the house and they have access to water. It's naturally cooler in the basement but they choose to follow me around upstairs or outside. I would NEVER have dogs in the van without parking in the shade, having windows and the hatch open, and water in all the crates any time it's more than 60 degrees. To me that is common sense. We shouldn't need laws like cutoff temps. If that was the case here, most people I know would not legally be allowed to own dogs.
People just need to use common sense. My dogs are fine in 80-90 degree temps inside our house during the summer, but it's obviously shaded in the house and they have access to water. It's naturally cooler in the basement but they choose to follow me around upstairs or outside. I would NEVER have dogs in the van without parking in the shade, having windows and the hatch open, and water in all the crates any time it's more than 60 degrees. To me that is common sense. We shouldn't need laws like cutoff temps. If that was the case here, most people I know would not legally be allowed to own dogs.
by Mindhunt on 03 July 2011 - 00:07
VKGSD I am in southwest Florida as well. I agree with you and my dogs follow me everywhere even if it is uncomfortably hot for me, I have to force them to stay inside where it is cool.
Friend from another county confiscated 2 black mouth southern curs that the owner left in the bed of his black pickup truck (complete with shiny chrome crossover tool box at the front of the bed) in chrome wire crates with metal pans. The crates were secure per the ordinace but the dogs outside while the owner was drinking "a quick couple a beers" in the bar with his friends. The temp outside was 97 even though the sun was just setting. My friend said the bed of the truck and the crates were hot to the touch. These poor dogs were HOT, they are doing fine and have new homes but the butthead is facing fines. He will probably get new dogs and treat them the same. No common sense
Friend from another county confiscated 2 black mouth southern curs that the owner left in the bed of his black pickup truck (complete with shiny chrome crossover tool box at the front of the bed) in chrome wire crates with metal pans. The crates were secure per the ordinace but the dogs outside while the owner was drinking "a quick couple a beers" in the bar with his friends. The temp outside was 97 even though the sun was just setting. My friend said the bed of the truck and the crates were hot to the touch. These poor dogs were HOT, they are doing fine and have new homes but the butthead is facing fines. He will probably get new dogs and treat them the same. No common sense
by Sylvan on 03 July 2011 - 12:07
Reading these comments I consider myself lucky not to live in the U.S. Why is it, that every time a law is passed over there, people start whining about losing freedom? It's also illegal for you to harbor a fugitive, rob a bank or murder someone - isn't that bad? Doesn't that restrict/reduce your freedom? Maybe you WANT to kill someone? Maybe you NEED money fast?
Many laws, many kind of regulations out there in the world are there for a reason which has nothing to do with confining/controlling the people. They are there to protect things (including the people) because a lot of people out there do bad things for various reasons. So what's the reasoning? Abusing a dog is wrong = "great law", but not chaining them is "taking away our freedom"?
Here in Sweden we have a lot of laws, rules and recommendations to take into consideration regarding aninal welfare, and guess what? They're great. They could've been better in some ways, but their very existence and purpose is both ethical and necessary. If you'd seen animals suffer, truly suffer, then maybe you'd think more about improving animal welfare and less about your precious freedoms (which is very rarely a relevant factor, of course depending on the law, it's purpose and it's application).
If you are responsible, cunning and anticipative then there's probably no problems if you have your dog chained in your backyard. But bare in mind there are tons of people out there who are not those things and who's animals suffer greatly due to their lack of care and handling. "One size, fits all"-laws may be an inconvinience sometimes, but it gives law enforcement and prosecution the tools they need to act. Maybe this specific local law wasn't a perfect example, but you must have faith it's there for a good reason and that it will do good for animals who suffer in their chains etc.
Common sense is great, you may have it - but you can't trust and assume everyone else does.
If you want to have debates regarding "American so-called liberalism"/conservatism, the duties/limitations of the legaslative branch etc, by all means have it. But having it over the hot subject of not chaining dogs? Feels like both the wrong issue and venue.
Sincerely, Sylvan.
Many laws, many kind of regulations out there in the world are there for a reason which has nothing to do with confining/controlling the people. They are there to protect things (including the people) because a lot of people out there do bad things for various reasons. So what's the reasoning? Abusing a dog is wrong = "great law", but not chaining them is "taking away our freedom"?
Here in Sweden we have a lot of laws, rules and recommendations to take into consideration regarding aninal welfare, and guess what? They're great. They could've been better in some ways, but their very existence and purpose is both ethical and necessary. If you'd seen animals suffer, truly suffer, then maybe you'd think more about improving animal welfare and less about your precious freedoms (which is very rarely a relevant factor, of course depending on the law, it's purpose and it's application).
If you are responsible, cunning and anticipative then there's probably no problems if you have your dog chained in your backyard. But bare in mind there are tons of people out there who are not those things and who's animals suffer greatly due to their lack of care and handling. "One size, fits all"-laws may be an inconvinience sometimes, but it gives law enforcement and prosecution the tools they need to act. Maybe this specific local law wasn't a perfect example, but you must have faith it's there for a good reason and that it will do good for animals who suffer in their chains etc.
Common sense is great, you may have it - but you can't trust and assume everyone else does.
If you want to have debates regarding "American so-called liberalism"/conservatism, the duties/limitations of the legaslative branch etc, by all means have it. But having it over the hot subject of not chaining dogs? Feels like both the wrong issue and venue.
Sincerely, Sylvan.
by jamesfountain98 on 03 July 2011 - 13:07
Sylvan, restricting the majority because of the stupidity of the few is something we Americans will always fight against no matter what the topic or law may be. We are not talking about having the right to neglect or cause any harm to an animal. Chaining a dog up is no more harmful than keeping a dog outside. Both need necessary precautions and those precautions are a case by case situation.
by Jacko on 03 July 2011 - 16:07
Sylvan, I am not surprised you don't get it, you never will. I have no problem with that.
You then go on to say that if one is being responsible and cunning and anticpative they can keep a dog in your back yard. I guess if you anticapate taking the dog off the chain before the cops show up you won't break the law. Very nice. your funny. Fail.
Bank robbery and murder is the same as chaining up a dog......REALLY ?? LMAO
Oh and to bring in the right and left politics into a matter of another unnecessary law. Nice reach but again you fail. You watch too much CNN.
We already have laws against animal abuse. If they animal is abused, we don't need to clairfy how or why and write another law, just enforce the current abuse law. Now that is a concept that is hard for some to understand.
by Mindhunt on 03 July 2011 - 17:07
Sylvan, I have issues with "one-size-fits-all" laws. To me they are too reactive and not proactive. Its like hitting a nail with a sledge hammer. Yup, you got the nail no doubt, but wow did you do damage to the rest of the board. These types of laws are too easy and make those that enact them feel better for dealing with "the issue" rather than taking the time to really think about, and possibly face, some unpleasantness when trying to address the root of the problem. The worth of the final product of your efforts is at least equal to the work you put into it. JMO
by DogisGood on 03 July 2011 - 20:07
You cannot legislate responsible animal ownership. You cannot.
Can't tie dogs up forever? Put 'em in a pen forever. They have to live in a house? Ever seen a raid on a hoarder's house? The issue isn't how the dogs are confined (as far as quality of life goes) but do they have good food and water? A weatherproof place to live? Interaction and training? Vet care?
Oddly, maybe it's just the crowd I'm around, I see liberals AND conservatives supporting these broad, one-size-fits-all, freedom-restricting bills. Depressing.
Can't tie dogs up forever? Put 'em in a pen forever. They have to live in a house? Ever seen a raid on a hoarder's house? The issue isn't how the dogs are confined (as far as quality of life goes) but do they have good food and water? A weatherproof place to live? Interaction and training? Vet care?
Oddly, maybe it's just the crowd I'm around, I see liberals AND conservatives supporting these broad, one-size-fits-all, freedom-restricting bills. Depressing.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
