Crating/Ex Pens under fire in SC

This is interesting.  I wonder if those weight packs affixed to dogs that help tire them out during walks qualfies.

(a)    restricts an animal's movement for such an unreasonable period of time that the animal's health or safety is endangered;

(b)    is of a weight that excessively burdens an animal;

(c)    causes an animal to choke or causes bodily injury to an animal;

 

I don't think this is very scary stuff at all.  I have had to rehab many of dogs because they were placed in such situations.  I would be glad to see it written down in law as an acknowledgement that this is not proper care for the dog. 

Little by little...it becomes a doggy zoo world.

Perfect example of slipping in an unreasonable (crating) law in with a seemingly reasonable one (tethering). Incrementalism.

I don't think this is very scary stuff at all.  I have had to rehab many of dogs because they were placed in such situations.  I would be glad to see it written down in law as an acknowledgement that this is not proper care for the dog.

I too have rehabbed many kennel dogs, miller dogs, neglected pet dogs who were in situations that this bill is clearly addressing.

Here's the problem - you can't legislate common sense.  There's already laws against the really atrocious stuff - the dogs stacked in filthy cages, breeding stock barely kept alive, dogs that never see the light of day or anything under their feet but wire or crate plastic.  And we all have a picture of the "ideal" life of a dog - clean grass and acres to run freely, laps and the best food to come home to at night.

But,  what about everything in between?  The problem is that tighter legislation actually favors big business.  The big commercial breeders, the puppymills, have the money and facilities to take advantage of the loopholes in such legislation to fit the letter of the law.  Meanwhile, the hobby breeders and trainers are limited to whatever they can afford in terms of space and money. 

A concrete example - I had a very active rescue volunteer when I first established Carolina Border Collie Rescue.  She lived in an apartment that allowed (wonder of wonders) unlimited pets.  She had two dogs of her own and often kept as many as three dogs as fosters at one time.  She also had roommates with dogs, one of which was dog aggressive.

How did she do it?  She rotated dogs in and out of crates - taking one to three out for hard training sessions and walks and swims on the lake literally out her back door.  She worked from home many times but often did have to leave her dogs all day.  She got up before dawn, came home at lunch, and worked her dogs until well after nightfall in good weather.

If all anyone were looking at was, "How long does each dog stay in a crate on average?"  She'd have to say, "About fifteen hours a day." 

How about, "Are the crates always clean?  Do the dogs always have access to water?"  Her own dogs did.  New rescues got water when she knew she could give them potty time, otherwise the potential for accidents was too great.  Once a dog starts peeing in a crate, they always think that's an option.  A lot of talk is made of the instinct to be clean but it's really not that strong, unfortuntately.  The instinct to empty one's bladder will win every time.

I'm very lucky here.  I have inside kennels with rubber matting, on concrete.  I have a kind landlord, wood floors, lots of crate space inside, dogs that love canine guests, and a great farm to take dogs on walks.  All of my dogs are so exhausted most of the time that in spite of the great kennel facilities, I can leave almost everyone loose after the first adjustment week.

Most rescues would be very limited if you legislated housing facilities.  So would hobby breeders, trainers, show people - they'd all suffer while the commercial breeders put more money into their facilites earned at the expense of the pain and misery of their breeding animals.  Just bump up the price of the next semi-load of screaming puppies and the cost is covered!

I think a reasonable man could see the law would be ineffective if the dog is kept indoor.  Those that would be targeted would be the outdoor kennels visable to the public.  Remember, I think a lot of local laws just say as long as the dog has a shelter from the weather, has food and water, and does not appear to be sick, then AC can not touch. 

I have seen many cases where AC has failed animals due to the " Shelter from weather, food and water and not appear to be sick" law......

Call me crazy....but 15 hours in a crate is too much if it happens every day......

brookcove

Here's the problem - you can't legislate common sense. 

This is funny because there are a lot of laws that does this:

  - It is illegal for a cab in the City of London to carry rabid dogs or corpses. 

  - In France, it is forbidden to call a pig Napoleon.

  - In Alabama, it is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while driving a vehicle.

  - In Ohio, it is against state law to get a fish drunk.

  - In Miami, Florida, it is illegal to skateboard in a police station.

  - In Kentucky, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon more than six-feet long.

  - In Vermont, women must obtain written permission from their husbands to wear false teeth.

You seem to focus on one small segment that would be affected by the legislation.  That small segment should not dictate the common good for the dog.  If these laws gets rid of facilities like the below picture, then I am for it.  That picture is that of a county facility and just maybe the laws would force the policitians to get their own house in order.

function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) { var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+'template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id='+articleId+'&&offset=0&§ionName=BusinessLaw','mywindow','menubar=0,resizable=0,width=615,height=655';); }

DPU

  That picture is that of a county facility and just maybe the laws would force the policitians to get their own house in order.

 

That is sad....but, hey....shelter, food, water and no apparent illness.........ack....

I can't tell you how many times I have seen dogs living like this in a backyard ......only the kennel was smaller......

DPU

I think a reasonable man could see the law would be ineffective if the dog is kept indoor. 

If the law is ineffective half the time, why is time and money being wasted making it up instead of enforcing, or rewording existant laws to suit specific community complaints? Even those communities with food/water/shelter laws also usually have barking, sanitation/odor/visible trash/public nuisance/eyesore codes that could also be enforced and aren't.

why specifically are crates and ex-pens, commonly found at dog shows, dog events, in dog rescue fostering situations, and in dog owners homes, included at all? hmm...I wonder, I wonder who actually suggested that crates be included?

You forgot to mention the most common use (I think) and that is in transport.  I did not see in any of the wording, the word ban.  The law spelled out the proper and humane use of the confinement.  Sometimes the groups that you mentioned do not use their common sense and think a dog can endure more than the dog can actually endure. 

Are you suggesting a conspiracy against dog professionals and hobbyists?  Is it possibly that the laws are intended for the well being of the dog and iniitated by those that care about how some owners care for their dog and this is their only means to do some good?

I'm with Gina.  I don't see the purpose of these laws or how they could be effective when already Animal Control is considered a joke in most locales.  Why not devote time, money, and resources to enforcing the laws we already have?  I feel this way about a LOT of laws, not limited to dogs.  A classmate of my sister's was kept in a dog crate by her mother because she "didn't have time" to take care of her.  No one knew until one day the little girl escape, climbed out of the basement window, and was found wandering the snowy street barefoot.  Just like a lot of dogs, she was a kid in trouble from the beginning but there's never enough money or enough case workers to really get ahead...

ACK!!! Why is it the business of big brother how much time my dogs spend in crates? At the moment, I'm living in a 37 foot motor home with six german shepherds and two cats. The DOGS got the bedroom, we are sharing a twin bed, most often with at least one of the dogs, sometimes more. Everyone is allowed to stay out at night if they choose to, but a couple always head for the bedroom and their crates. That's their choice. But, there are times, such as when we are doing the dog walk shuffle that everyone is sent to their crates, and yep, at those times TWO share a crate. The crates are plenty big for two dogs to lie down comfortably, but, if someone wants to stand up and turn around, well, his buddy has to do the same thing. I do not want to risk having six dogs running loose in an RV park simply because they are not used to the new living arrangements and aren't quite as perfectly obedient as normal. So, in an extreme situation, I could be breaking the law in an effort to keep my dogs safe while I get another outside to potty. Will the law make exceptions for that? Or would it decide that my RV is a not quite large enough crate for so many bodies? Then what happens? There has to be a point where we all stop trying to push our moral values on others. To some, any crate is cruel, for any amount of time. Some think gating a pup in a room is equally cruel. Who gets to make the decision that someone is right or wrong or just being really extreme? And, yeah, sounds to me like PETA had a hand in this......

So its ok for Cody and Bingo to live together in this outdoor tiny kennel, together.  Look closely at their situation.  The law offers relief now while opposer offer only opposition.  If the opposers can better the dog's situation, then go ahead and do it, thus making the laws moot.

My assumption wouldn't be that Cody and Bingo are uncomfortable based on that picture.  My concern lies in other directions.  Is someone ensuring that Cody and Bingo are neither subjecting each other to bullying, nor severe domination, nor aggression?  Who is watching to ensure they each have their fill at mealtime and have equal access to the water?  Are Cody and Bingo allowed one-on-one time separate from each other and other dogs?  Are they getting enough walking/training so that they are relaxed when they get back to the kennel?  Are they protected from the aggression of dogs housed on each side of them?  Is the kennel inspected and cleaned when needed to ensure plenty of clean floor space?  What is the reason for this arrangement and how long is it expected to last? 

When I travel and kennel Maggie and Ben, I ask that they share a kennel.  I don't know whether it's the small size of the kennel or the fact that two dogs share it that bothers you, but if the dogs are friendly, this can work to their advantage.  Shelters/kennels are scary places and a buddy can help.

I know that most shelters who double or triple occupancy in kennels do not pay attention to any of the above factors and it is that which is problematic for me when I get dogs from those situations.  But, laws cannot magically change how much money they get or stem the tide of unwanted pets that swamp these shelters.

By saying "You cannot legislate common sense," I'm not saying that they don't try - of course they do.  The Prohibition Laws were intended to stop abuse of alcohol.   Well guess what, during that time, only the rich, criminals, and those who abused alcohol were able to get it.   My point is that the laws that try, cannot ensure the exercise of common sense on the part of the people for whom such laws were intended.  Naming a pig "Napoleon" doesn't have anything to do with common sense by the way, unless you are living in Napoleonic France, and such an action could be construed as a treasonable, capital offense.

Rescuers and breeders and ordinary dog owers aren't a "small segment" of the dog owning world!  I think everyone on this forum pretty much belongs in one or the other of those groups, don't they?

Snownose, your comment is a good example of how this sort of thing is subject to interpretation.  I described a situation where clearly fifteen hours in a crate neither happened sequentially, nor did it happen every day.  You responded by saying you thought fifteen hours in a crate every day was unacceptable.  How quickly we jump to conclusions and distort things, based on the barest facts!  

If my example were a rescuer still working in the area, the next person you told about her, might add an hour, reduce the size of the crates, and most certainly the fact that these dogs were all intensely trained in agility, flyball, obedience, and herding, would be lost.  The next person who heard it would be imagining twice as many dogs, weltering 22 hours a day in their ***.  Don't say that it doesn't happen because I've seen it and in fact have been a victim of this kind of talebearing and distorted truths.

I agree that existing laws aren't enforced enough yet, to justify additional rules to soothe the feelings of the more radical among us. 

PETA is against pet and animal ownership and they have fingers everywhere hoping to make it as difficult as possible to do so.  It's not a conspiracy "theory" - it's a reality that friends of mine deal with all the time.  Sheep owners in New England who have had animal control try to enforce the "adequate food and shelter" laws against them - because there was no "food and water" available in a pasture full of knee-high green grass with a stream running through it.   People at dog shows who have had crates unlocked and dogs stolen (notes left identifying the theft as AR terrorism).  My best friend's dad was a biochemist and had his lab bombed though they did no animal testing - it was a mistake, the AT lab was in another building that looked similar and had a similar layout.  He was very seriously injured.  So, this is why I get all prickly when I see evidence of their creeping legislation at work.

There are real problems, but there are better ways than slapping a legislative bandaid on it, to deal with them. 

The main problem I see with laws such as this, BSL, S/N laws, etc, is that they are created and designed with the irresponsible person/pet owner in mind.  HOWEVER - it is the irresponsible that are the least likely to follow any laws!  Just look at how many drug dealers there are in this country.  The fact that the sale of drugs is illegal hasn't stopped them one bit.  They simply don't care.  And too many times very responsible people fall victim to unclear or unspecific laws unfairly.  Sadly, in the case of pet laws, it isn't just the people who suffer.  I just don't see how more government control is necessary when current laws are clearly ineffective.  Education, proper owner screening, better enforcement of current laws and harsher punishment for those convicted, etc...these I can see working.  It won't stop the guy or gal who picks up and hords every stray dog they find on the street, but it would certainly help.  Just my two cents....happy debating everyone!

ETA - above bolded phrase