Legislative Fallout From Vick

Proposed animal abuse legislation



Animal advocates hope dogfighting and puppy mill scandals will breed tougher animal abuse laws. Here is a look at legislation already proposed:

Virginia: A bill was filed to add organized dogfighting as a qualifying offense under the state's racketeering law, which would mean tougher sentences.

_Georgia: A Senate-passed bill awaiting House action would increase penalties for dogfighting and make it illegal for a person to own, breed, purchase or transport a dog for fighting.

_Ohio: Legislation was introduced that would increase penalty for fighting animals and allow seizure of property to pay for caring for or euthanizing the animals.

_Indiana: Legislation has been filed to increase penalties for fighting dogs or owning fighting dogs and for attending dogfights.

_Oklahoma: A bill is being prepared to require regulation of breeders who have 25 or more dogs, cats, puppies or kittens.

_Pennsylvania: Gov. Ed Rendell has called for broad regulatory changes for kennels, including larger cages and mandatory exercise for dogs.

_Wisconsin: A bill was introduced to require dog breeders to get a state license, provide humane care and reimburse buyers for veterinary bills.

_Federal: The Senate passed a farm bill that included a ban on possessing, training or breeding fighting dogs and a ban on the import of puppies for commercial sale if they are under 6 months old.

Great! Can't wait to see more about these proposed laws and how they progress.

But I just don't understand, they say exercise is mandatory but anyone with a springpole or treadmill (or any other contraption to exercise/amuse a dog) and a Bully dog on the premesis surely must be fighting them. So these high-energy and potentially DA dogs are to be exercised how? By walking on a leash next to a human? lol that's not exercise to most dogs. My Border Collies need OFF LEAD running to sufficiently exercise them, and if they can't get that then they need repetitive, constant movement like jogging on a treadmill or alongside a bike. Nobody suspects me of fighting them because.. well, really, nobody fights Border Collies. But if I owned APBTs people would be suspicious of me. This kind of legislation can easily lead to an increase in BSL.

Do these laws apply to "USDA" breeders (mills, usually) or to all breeders, even responsible hobby breeders?

I think it's bogus... It'd be lovely if it only targeted the dog-fighting scum but it'll hurt responsible people too.

Exactly, Grace.

So far, from the surface, Virginia's addition of organized dogfighting as a qualifying offense under racketeering is the only one that looks realistically productive.

Pennsylvania: Gov. Ed Rendell has called for broad regulatory changes for kennels, including larger cages and mandatory exercise for dogs.

this is actually old news. they've been kicking this around for ages, but there's been a lot of backlash. the shelters are crying wah wah wah they don't have the resources. the millers are screaming about it. sigh.

Again, we don't need "more laws". This is just more crap to over run the rights of the dog owning citizen. This kind of junk law only does one thing, opens windows for legitmate owners and breeders to be prosecuted for no reason. What we need is law enforcement and funds to CONVICT those that are guilty of animal abuse period. In GA animal abuse is already a felony, I am "states whitness" in a current abuse trial. We may NEVER get to convict the abuser because the DA doesn't have the "funds" and will plead out and the other accused person is on the lamb. If the law enforcement/lega system had been properly funded to begin with we would not be going on the *third* year and no punishment regarding this issue...the abusers would be in jail.

If they are going to pass it then the "rescues and shelters" should have to meet the same requirements. Sorry...a kennel is a kennel is a kennel, whether you rescue, breed, or board, all the dogs deserve a certian level of care.

Oh, it does more than that, FK . . . . it makes the public think their legislators are doing something in response to a problem and gets those re-election campaigns funded.

You're absolutely right...nothing like "appearing" to have done something and getting to toot your own horn, rather than actually getting down in the trenches and working....

agreed 100%.

Perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way, but...

A rescue is temporary housing and the option for the dog is death.

A rescue is a non-profit organization. I don't see it as wah wah wahhing that there is no funding. Many volunnteers pay out of their own pockets for the animals care. I can't imagine trying to fit in money to pay people to come exercise the dogs when the dogs are only going to be there for a (hopefully) short time anyway.

Apples and oranges....

How can anyone even compare say a crappy breeder who is racking up money by cramming as many dogs as they can on their property and breeding all of them to someone who is saving a dog from death? Doesn't make much sense to me.......

People need to read these laws before they applaud them. One proposed law was going to make it a crime to use the USPS to ship "dog fighting paraphernalia." So if you buy a breaking stick off PBRC, or if you buy a new belt for your treadmill, or if you buy a tug toy or springpole, are you a criminal? (I don't know if this law passed, and I can't remember what it was called, unfortunately.)

It is not apples an oranges. Even if a dog is only kept some where for a week, it deserves a certian level of care. Most rescues are against these laws (but for them in regards to breeders) because THEY can't MEET the requirements. They can't keep a dog healthy, clean, and well kept for even a week before it's death. Why not? They don't even have a long term commitment!
I am personally against any of these laws, not because I don't care, but because we already have humane care laws on the books.
And before you go saying "shelter food and water" guess what...those are the SAME requirements that HUMAN PARENTS have for their kids. Your parent did not, by law, have to provide you with toys, new clothes, a tv, or even a hug...by law a parent need only to provide food, shelter, clothing. If that shelter is a cot in the corner of the cupboard so be it. But the fact is most human beings know to care for a child in a better situation than that. Could you imagine if families had to be inspeacted on a monthly basis on how they cared for their kids? Or that people advocated the kidnapping of children that they percieved were being mistreated? And before you say that you think that that is a great idea, what makes you think you would be able to pass inspection? Or that your parents would? The majority of families wouldn't, families that while they may not have had much did a fine job of raising kids.
While the law states, adequate food, shelter, and water, most people know and do care for an animal beyond those basic needs. Dog breeders, even commercial breeders, go beyond those needs because if the dog isn't happy it doesn't produce. People who abuse animals will abuse them no matter what laws are on the books because guess what? They don't care, they break laws... The only thing that passing this junk legislation does is eat away the rights of the dog owner, dog breeder, dog lover or any pet lover in general. Passing these laws is not going to make people take care of their animals better it will make them hide and continue to do what they do.
If people want better results for animal care there are a few key ingredients. First, education, second money to back law enforcment. Think of the human man power the AC could have if people would donate their money to them rather than to places like PETA and the HSUS. The third and often most effective way to prevent cruelty and neglect is to prevent unwanted animals and this could be done through a free spay/neuter program. Wow, think of all the prevented accidents if those MILLIONS of dollars being donated to ARs was converted to free spay neuter vouchers for vets all over the nation. We could s/n every dog and cat on the planet that would other wise be left to roam intact and procreating the rest of the money could go to funding law enforcement to enforce those leash laws that also prevent the production of unwanted animals as well as dog bites, and lost pets.

ummm as for the rescue part i see no fault in keeping them the same. The greyhound organization I work with has people go out 5-6 times a day to let out, feed, medicate, along with people on premisis 24/7. We have anywhere from 10-20 dogs in teh kennel depends on the season plus the 20 or so more in foster homes.

Perhaps I didn't state what I wanted to clearly enough.

What I'm trying to say is that an animal shelter is not what any one could percieve as long term provisions. It's basic necessities whereas the option is homelessness or death. It's not meant to be the freakin' Ritz Carlton. Imagine a homeless shelter for humans - it's basic provisions and bare bones, but it keeps the person alive, fed and warm until they can find more suitable housing.

A rescue group is different and I agree that those dogs should be treated with a higher level of care. My fosters are always and will always be treated as if they were one of my own dogs - vetted, exercised, socialized, etc. Otherwise I shouldn't be a foster home if I can't provide that care for them.

I just still don't see how making an animal shelter comply with the same laws that would apply to a breeder makes any sense. These dogs in shelters are either going to get adopted within the time frame, or put to sleep. Whereas breeders make a choice to take in the number of dogs they take in and they OWN the dogs, therefore making them their responsibility to care for properly.

And I'm curious where you get your stats about "most rescues" from. The rescues I know do an EXCEPTIONAL job with their dogs. Sure, there are some crappy rescues out there, but I think you're off base with your statement.

That needed repeating!

Considering the source of the "most rescues" comment originally, I'd take it with a big ol' grain of salt.

Shelters that use kennels should have to meet the same requirements as any breeder. I don't understand why, just because a shelter is temporary, you would think otherwise. Humane care is humane care. If the laws are to force humane care and conditions then shelters should be right up there in requirements. I don't see why that's so difficult to understand. This lopsided view, of, oh a breeder can't do that but a shelter can because they are a "shelter" is silly. Care is care. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.





Yes they do. And so do MOST breeders. But the point is, if these laws are going to be forced onto the breeders then by golly the shelters should have to follow suit. As for my "most shelters"...well simple, who do you think is usually at the front of the line screaming the loudest when ever blanket over imposing laws threaten them? It's the shelters/rescues who don't think they should have to follow the laws to be imposed on breeders or even boarding kennels because they are "saving" animals. I am sorry...but if these laws ARE for the betterment of dog care then they most certianly should have no problem being covered by them...but then that just adds weight to my point that these laws have nothing to do with making animal care better, it has everything to do with removing the rights of dog owners, breeders, and yes even rescuers to further the AR cause and strip people of their constitutional rights.

I have to disagree. I have been to some no-kill animal "rescues" that were truly horrible. Dogs confined in rusty crates, stacked three-high in sheds. Or crammed three to a kennel, outdoors. They got three 1/2-hour exercise/bathroom sessions per day. That's it. And some of those dogs had been living there for YEARS. Poor things. I honestly think they would be better off being euthanized, instead of being sentenced to years in a prison like that.

I think that there are sadly many rescues (usually small individually-run rescues) that can't see the big picture. They're so busy trying to save as many animals as possible from death that they don't see how bad the animals' living conditions are.

I had a co-worker who got a cat from a lady who ran a feline rescue from her home. My coworker said it was shocking to see how many cats that lady had crammed together into small rabbit-hutches. While they were kept fed and relatively clean, the cats looked utterly miserable. And all the lady kept saying was that she had "saved their lives."

I'm all for legislation to prevent that.

The thing is, we've far more laws than can ever be effective. More laws are just lip service. We keep clamoring for more laws to protect us, but they're ill defined and dangerously ambiguous and all they are doing is undermining not only our civil rights, but any sense of personal responsibility we have left.

We need to weed out a lot of the laws on the books and better define and fine tune the ones that are left . . . like the example of bringing dog fighting - or any kind of animal fighting, for that matter, under racketeering. Make it simpler, not more complicated. The more complicated and convoluted our laws become, the more corrupt the legal system becomes.

This was SO Well said!!!!
Thank you!!!