June 30th, 2008, 02:05 PM
ive been thinking on this for a few weeks now.... i dont have much time so i hope this all makes sense.
the tether legislation will hit home for *anyone* who tethers. the ones who are fighting it are mostly hunters of which have working dogs and not enough kennels (you know, reasonable in my humble opinion of which is not very informed) although i believe what brought it on in the first place was a desire to see inhumanely tethered dogs running free.
i have a hard time siding with the tether legislation when there is no room for hunters of which give their dogs plenty of natural outlets for their nature and desires. yes they tether but not inhumanely. it seems to have turned into a war between the hunters and the folks who want to Tethering Legislation passed. i feel like i could bring a bit of compromise to the table but i doubt either party wants to listen to that.
June 30th, 2008, 03:39 PM
Do you have a link to the proposed legislation? How reasonable/unreasonable is it? :shrug:
July 1st, 2008, 09:08 AM
i DONT have a link to it... i only have it in PDF form...
but ths big sticking points are that they give no accommodation to hunters lifestyle. for example their hunting show org (cant remember who it is.... its through out north america though) has regulations as to the size of the kennels and tethering rules themselves but the tethering legislation is more than that. for example (and im just pulling random numbers out here) the hunting org says kennels have to be 10X10 per dog, tethers have to be 30 foot in length. the legislation says they need to be 30X30 and NO tethering, a 30X30 space (adjoined or otherwise) for each dog, so two dogs per 60X60 kennel.
given the circumstances... most situations locally would call for these dogs to be humanely kept in a 30X30 pen if thats where they spend their life time, puppy to death but hunting dogs are working dogs. they have a purpose, they are exercised, stimulated... they dont NEED to be untethered or kenneled in huge spaces, they are well taken care of.
i completely understand the unquestionable need for such legislation that limits or does away with life time tethering. down here you dont have to bring your dogs in for the winter... some dogs here are literally tied to a tether for their entire lives with no outside stimulation... no exercise... often times they are regarded as guard dogs and nothing more. no vet care, no proper nutrition, no proper stimulation... the tethering legislation would change many of those views of seeing dogs as a tool instead of a life. BUT hindering situations where tethering is NOT inhumane (thinking the hunting clubs, herding farm dogs and such) is taking it a little too far.
to also say tethering wont be totally banned, just hindered. temporary tethering is ok.... for example you dont have a fence but your dog is mostly an indoor dog.... i think a few hours broken up over the day is ok, just not all day, all night is not acceptable.
July 1st, 2008, 09:32 AM
Around here, a lot of the bad legislation is crafted with the influence of PETA and HSUS, organizations admittedly anti-hunting and/or anti-pet ownership. Sounds like some of that got into the bill you're talking about.
If you're torn about the bill, look at it from the standpoint of unintended consequences and see if that helps you decide if it's a good bill or not. For example, we had a proposed bill on the the table in WI last year that, because it called for any puppy or dog sale to be documented and guaranteed as to health for a certain number of months, would have resulted in:
More litters being destroyed
More litters being given away free
More pups ending up in the puppy mills the bill was supposed to regulate
If an owner was irresponsible enough to have an accidental litter in the first place, would he or she really do the paperwork and make the guarantees necessary to legally sell the pups? Not likely...they'd either destroy the pups or give them away free to avoid the hassle. And the pups would be snapped up by the very puppy millers the law was supposedly targeting.
Also, according to the WI bill, the only way a puppy mill could be investigated by law enforcement would be if a complaint was filed by a citizen. Unintended consequence--the puppy millers would have closed the farms to outsiders and continued to sell to the lucrative markets on the coasts. :shrug: The bill would not have impacted anyone but the responsible legitimate breeders.
Our bill, thankfully, died on the table when the session ended.
So reread the bill with that sort of thing in mind and see if it helps you decide if you're for or against it... If there is the chance of unintended consequences from the bill, but you still think the bill is a good idea, you can make suggestions to your legislators as to amendments that could make the bill better. (And you might be surprised at how much sway a letter from a constituent has...especially if you can find a couple of friends who are also willing to write letters.)
July 1st, 2008, 11:33 AM
Some links on the tethering issue, including descriptions of the laws already in existence:
And on hunting with hounds (something I find particularly despicable):
July 1st, 2008, 02:13 PM
Anything can be done inhumanely: tethering, kenneling, hunting, 'raising' children. A good law will target only the inhumane...but very few laws of this nature are free of unintended consequences, sometimes deliberately so.
The hound link is certainly inflammatory, sugarcatmom, but HSUS is anti-hunting and that should be taken into consideration when you read info like that. Most hunters are NOT inhumane. Most houndmen do NOT abuse their dogs. Some run their hounds till the animals are treed, then call the dogs off and go home. :shrug: Harrassing/killing cubs is illegal, and anyone using cubs to develop blood-lust in their dogs is on the same level as someone promoting dog fights. HSUS likes to use underworld examples to promote their agenda :shrug:
July 1st, 2008, 02:39 PM
The hound link is certainly inflammatory, sugarcatmom, but HSUS is anti-hunting and that should be taken into consideration when you read info like that.
True enough, but then I'm very anti-hunting myself.
July 1st, 2008, 02:41 PM
I used to be.