Crating/Ex Pens under fire in SC

brookcove

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." 

I don't think I distorted anything....the above was written by you, based on this information the dogs stayed in a crate 15 hours a day....now, I know there are 24 hours in a day, and I realize that the rest of the time they were not crated.......my opinion stands.......15 hours a day in a crate is too much........

Just to add, there are some situations like emergencies, travel or temporary conditions......but on the average 15 hours is too long.....

aerial1313

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! 

So what if the laws are for the majority of the time ineffective and not enforced.  Go ahead nullify the law as it pertains to your house.  We in the accounting field sometimes say to the auditors "let him find it".  But just like the starfish story, if the legislation saves one or makes the living conditions better for one dog, then that made a difference to that one dog.

Under most circumstances I would agree that 15 hours is too long in a crate, but, given the amount of exercise these dogs were getting, this would certainly be an exception in my mind.  But, again, why do *I* get to make that determination?  Why does anyone get to regulate how long anyone elses dog is crated, unless it's a very clear cut case of abuse?  And even then, who gets to decide?  You, me, they?

Since no one has chimed in to say that I'm being cruel to keep six big dogs in our little Old Mother Hubbards shoe I'm guessing either no one wants to rile me, or no one thinks I'm being so cruel and folks are making allowances for circumstances.

I really fear that we start up one very slippery slope when we start trying to legislate morality, common sense, or human decency.

DPU

But just like the starfish story, if the legislation saves one or makes the living conditions better for one dog, then that made a difference to that one dog.

I thing that this quote would sum up why this may not be good law.

"You [should] not examine legislation in the light
of the benefits it will convey if properly administered,
but in the light of the wrongs it would do and
the harm it would cause if improperly administered."

Lyndon B. Johnson

"You (should) not examine legislation in the light
of the benefits it will convey if properly administered,
but in the light of the wrongs it would do and
the harm it would cause if improperly administered."

Lyndon B. Johnson

That quote assumes the legislation is properly or improperly wholely administered.  I can live with selectively being properly administered in certain inhumane situation.   

DPU

So what if the laws are for the majority of the time ineffective and not enforced.  Go ahead nullify the law as it pertains to your house.  We in the accounting field sometimes say to the auditors "let him find it".  But just like the starfish story, if the legislation saves one or makes the living conditions better for one dog, then that made a difference to that one dog.

Why would I need to nullify a law as it pertains to my house?  I am a law-abiding person.  I don't agree with every law we have in this country, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go around breaking them.  I don't like paying property taxes on my car, but Georgia law says I have to if I want to have a car, so I pay the darned thing every year. 

My point was what I think Glenda was talking about when she mentioned the slippery slope effect.  If we continue to cater to the lowest common denominator, it is those of us who are responsible and law-abiding who suffer the restriction of our individual rights.  People who have no regard for the law will continue to buck the system...their attitude is not the same as the rest of us.  To me it just seems it would be more effective to have stronger enforcement of and harsher penalties for the current laws.  I don't think there is a municipality in this country that doesn't have anti-animal cruelty laws.  But how many people get a slap on the wrist and then continue to break the law?

aerial1313

If we continue to cater to the lowest common denominator, it is those of us who are responsible and law-abiding who suffer the restriction of our individual rights. 

I think you should examine who the lowest common denominator is and who is being catered to.  These laws will not effect the majority of average dog owners. 

DPU

I think you should examine who the lowest common denominator is and who is being catered to.  These laws will not effect the majority of average dog owners. 

If the law is as stated in the original post, then yes, it certainly could affect average dog owners.  The parameters seem very vague to me.  WHAT is considered an unreasonable amount of time, and WHO determines that?  WHAT constitutes not allowing access to sustenance?  When my pup is crated during the day, do I have to leave a big bag of food in his crate so he can gorge himself sick?  I assume (yes, I know, that can be dangerous!) that the law's intention is to prevent extreme conditions like those you might find in a puppy mill, for example, but unless the law is re-written to be more specific as to what the definitions of these phrases are as pertain to this law, then it could very realistically get out of control.  What is reasonable to most people on this board could be something an AR extremist would find cruel.  If you leave a law open to too much subjectability (is that a word?) then this could become a very real situation for very real caring, loving dog owners.

Yes, Glenda....on the average 15 hours is too long.... and there are special circumstances......without going against the rescue efforts of this woman.....but, living in an apartment and operating a rescue organization out of it is silly in itself....or at least something I wouldn't attempt.....

aerial1313

If the law is as stated in the original post, then yes, it certainly could affect average dog owners. 

Nope they would have to come inside my house or get a ladder and peek through my windows.  Ain't gonna happen so what the worry.  I see nothing dire with the laws.  So you are advocating Cody and Bingo stay in their situation?

DPU

Nope they would have to come inside my house or get a ladder and peek through my windows.  Ain't gonna happen so what the worry.

Or have someone that is ticked off at you and report you.

DPU

Nope they would have to come inside my house or get a ladder and peek through my windows.  Ain't gonna happen so what the worry.  I see nothing dire with the laws.  So you are advocating Cody and Bingo stay in their situation?

Someone could peek in my windows without a ladder, and see my dog in his crate while I am at work during the day.  I know that am keeping him safe in that crate, but someone else might say it is cruel.  They could definitely document that he is in the crate at 7:45am until 12:00pm, then again from 1pm to 5:30pm, which is the normal weekday schedule, since I work full time.  Without a structure stating what constitutes an unreasonable amount of crate time, someone might say this would qualify.  What if a judge presiding over such a case also felt it was cruel?  Then my dog, who is loved and well cared for, would be taken away from me, and potentially euthanized at a county A/C shelter. 

I could say I don't know the circumstances of Cody and Bingo's situation, but I read your thread "Urgent Need in IL," so I know you are taking these dogs in, and I also know that their condition is due to fire and natural disaster conditions.  Although, I do have a question...since this is a county shelter, who would enforce these laws against them?  They are the ones who are supposed to enforce such laws, no?

http://community.dog.com/forums/t/76653.aspx

I am impressed with your craftiness, DPU (and I totally do mean that in a nice way!).  I have been enjoying this debate!

timsdat

Or have someone that is ticked off at you and report you.

Absolutely!  When I was a teenager, I had my horse at a boarding stable that was next to a "community" of what we called "crunchy granola people."  Not trying to be offensive...we were kids, that's what we called them.  Some of them were AR extremists and were constantly calling AC because they thought riding horses was cruel.  Luckily it was just a nuisance because the AC people had common sense and could tell that these horses were not being abused in any way at all, but AC officers are also bound by law.  As laws get more constricting, the officers will be left with no options, even if common sense says otherwise. 

Here is the South Carolina Bill
Note - This act becomes effective July 1, 2008
http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/833.htm
.

DPU

That quote assumes the legislation is properly or improperly wholely administered.  I can live with selectively being properly administered in certain inhumane situation.   

How about:

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression". Thomas Paine

And are you really saying selective enforcement of laws is ok? Seems people are increasingly willing to give up their rights, if it means making someone they disagree with suffer.