PA cropping, docking, c-section (?) bill

P

Punkygirl0101

New Member
#23
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
4,107
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
California
#23
C sections? Thats not anything like the other two (Which are unnecessary, cosmetic surgeries)..C sections are very important for dogs who will need them. What are they supposed to do if a dog is having a hard time delivering? Let the dog die?

That doesn't make any sense to me.
 
Bahamutt99

Bahamutt99

Dafuq?
#24
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
2,365
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
High Ridge, MO
#24
According to the Oprah article at the bottom of page one, the idea is to prevent non-vets from performing C-sections. But as has been pointed out, we still don't have the text of this bill.

Dizzy said:
And I never realised the UK was the rest of the world - you know.... there are MORE countries out there don't you??
Click to expand...
My point is that the "rest of the world" isn't always as progressive as you'd like to think, and that not all regulations are good ones. Maybe you're happy handing over your rights, but I'm not.
 
Dizzy

Dizzy

Sit! Good dog.
#25
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
17,761
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Wales
#25
Bahamutt99 said:
According to the Oprah article at the bottom of page one, the idea is to prevent non-vets from performing C-sections. But as has been pointed out, we still don't have the text of this bill.



My point is that the "rest of the world" isn't always as progressive as you'd like to think, and that not all regulations are good ones. Maybe you're happy handing over your rights, but I'm not.
Click to expand...

I haven't LOST any rights.

The right to chop things I don't like off my dog in the name of tradition isn't a right I am really all that interested in having.

As for my PERSONAL opinion - I wouldn't crop or dock my dog, anymore than I would pierce my babies ears... it's an uneccessary task done for aesthetics or tradition. Difference is - when the baby grows up, it can ask for it to be done.
 
CharlieDog

CharlieDog

Rude and Not Ginger
#26
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
9,419
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Georgia
#26
YOU may not be interested in having that particular right, but plenty of people ARE.

I'm reminded of a pin that says. "Thats okay, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway."
 
Dizzy

Dizzy

Sit! Good dog.
#27
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
17,761
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Wales
#27
CharlieDog said:
YOU may not be interested in having that particular right, but plenty of people ARE.

I'm reminded of a pin that says. "Thats okay, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway."
Click to expand...
I am sure MANY people are still interested in having LOTS of right that have been outlawed.

If we took that stance in this world, it'd be a free for all.

Trust me, I'm all for my rights.
 
Bahamutt99

Bahamutt99

Dafuq?
#29
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
2,365
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
High Ridge, MO
#29
Kinda shameful for those of us who don't do something, but will stand up for others' rights to make that choice for themselves, isn't it?
 
HoundedByHounds

HoundedByHounds

Oh, it's *you*
#33
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
8,415
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
N Texas, USA
#33
BTW I would absolutely do an elective c section and have. Esp if the gal ws carrying only one or two pups. That's asking for trouble. If they mess with my ability to make the call on what will keep my bitches SAFE...and assume breeders can pick how many pups a girl will have they can kiss my behind.
 
Lilavati

Lilavati

Arbitrary and Capricious
#34
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
7,644
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
47
Location
Alexandria, VA
#34
Dizzy said:
I haven't LOST any rights.

The right to chop things I don't like off my dog in the name of tradition isn't a right I am really all that interested in having.

As for my PERSONAL opinion - I wouldn't crop or dock my dog, anymore than I would pierce my babies ears... it's an uneccessary task done for aesthetics or tradition. Difference is - when the baby grows up, it can ask for it to be done.
Click to expand...
Ok, fine. You don't support cropping or docking. That's cool. I don't either, as a general rule. I'm not a fan of legislation to prevent it. That's beside the point.

The point here is that this law is SO badly written that it doesn't ban the pratice of cropping or docking, IT BANS THE ANIMALS THEMSELVES.

Going to a dog show or a sporting event in Pennsylvania? Don't have proof that the dog was cut when you got it? Better not go. Worse, you had it cut, because thats the standard and there's no law against it? Better not go. Got your dog already cut, but don't have the paperwork (who does?) better not go to, drive through, or move to Pennsylvania (notably, its all but impossible to get to the Northeast US without going to Pennsylvania). Live in Pennsylvania, and have a cut dog and no paperwork? Tough. Dog dumped at shelter, cut, no paperwork? Well, it will have to be PTS.

This is monsterous. Its not a ban on a practice of dubious worth and humaneness . . . its a ban on living creatures who are totally innocent, and a punishment for the vast majority of owners who are either totally innocent, or who did what is the standard practice for their breed.

Even if it is not enforced as written (which it probably won't be) it will be sitting there, waiting for arbitrary enforcement from the first AC with a burr in their butt.

THINK Dizzy. Please. I know youre not an AR nut.
 
Dizzy

Dizzy

Sit! Good dog.
#35
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
17,761
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Wales
#35
Lilavati said:
Ok, fine. You don't support cropping or docking. That's cool. I don't either, as a general rule. I'm not a fan of legislation to prevent it. That's beside the point.

The point here is that this law is SO badly written that it doesn't ban the pratice of cropping or docking, IT BANS THE ANIMALS THEMSELVES.

Going to a dog show or a sporting event in Pennsylvania? Don't have proof that the dog was cut when you got it? Better not go. Worse, you had it cut, because thats the standard and there's no law against it? Better not go. Got your dog already cut, but don't have the paperwork (who does?) better not go to, drive through, or move to Pennsylvania (notably, its all but impossible to get to the Northeast US without going to Pennsylvania). Live in Pennsylvania, and have a cut dog and no paperwork? Tough. Dog dumped at shelter, cut, no paperwork? Well, it will have to be PTS.

This is monsterous. Its not a ban on a practice of dubious worth and humaneness . . . its a ban on living creatures who are totally innocent, and a punishment for the vast majority of owners who are either totally innocent, or who did what is the standard practice for their breed.

Even if it is not enforced as written (which it probably won't be) it will be sitting there, waiting for arbitrary enforcement from the first AC with a burr in their butt.

THINK Dizzy. Please. I know youre not an AR nut.
Click to expand...

You don't think I agree with animals being destroyed for it do you?!
 
Lilavati

Lilavati

Arbitrary and Capricious
#37
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
7,644
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
47
Location
Alexandria, VA
#37
Dizzy said:
You don't think I agree with animals being destroyed for it do you?!
Click to expand...
No, I don't think that. That's what alarms me. The issue here really ISN'T cropping or docking . . . its a poorly written law that victimizes the owners and the animals and imposes strict liability for a physical trait of a long lived animal. More than anything else, THIS is why we oppose AR. Because of poorly written laws, or laws delibrately written to make dog ownership difficult or impossible. Because of secret agendas, because of ideology overwhelming common sense, because of "principle" being more important that the lives of real, physical, living dogs.

What alarms me is that you did not instantly see that . . . you saw banning cropping and docking and thought, well, I support that. That's fine. But that's not what the problem is here.

If PA banned vets from cropping or docking without medical reason, and banned people from doing it themselves, with the legal requirement that there must be proof that the act took place within the state of PA OTHER than the existance of a cropped animal, with need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person being charged engaged personally in the practice or solicited it, and a clause allowing people to swear out an affidavit that their dog came that way. And making non-residents immune. And excepting all animals from there even being a question about above a certain age . . . .I'd still oppose it because of the possibility of it being misused. And But I wouldn't call it monsterous. I'd call it a risky move, one that can be seriously misused, and probably a waste of public money. But I won't call it monsterous.

But this is monsterous. I'm not even sure its constitutional . . . but the poor souls they bust won't be heading to the Supreme Court . . .they won't be able to afford it.
 
Dizzy

Dizzy

Sit! Good dog.
#38
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
17,761
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Wales
#38
Lilavati said:
No, I don't think that. That's what alarms me. The issue here really ISN'T cropping or docking . . . its a poorly written law that victimizes the owners and the animals and imposes strict liability for a physical trait of a long lived animal. More than anything else, THIS is why we oppose AR. Because of poorly written laws, or laws delibrately written to make dog ownership difficult or impossible. Because of secret agendas, because of ideology overwhelming common sense, because of "principle" being more important that the lives of real, physical, living dogs.

What alarms me is that you did not instantly see that . . . you saw banning cropping and docking and thought, well, I support that. That's fine. But that's not what the problem is here.

If PA banned vets from cropping or docking without medical reason, and banned people from doing it themselves, with the legal requirement that there must be proof that the act took place within the state of PA OTHER than the existance of a cropped animal, with need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person being charged engaged personally in the practice or solicited it, and a clause allowing people to swear out an affidavit that their dog came that way. And making non-residents immune. And excepting all animals from there even being a question about above a certain age . . . .I'd still oppose it because of the possibility of it being misused. And But I wouldn't call it monsterous. I'd call it a risky move, one that can be seriously misused, and probably a waste of public money. But I won't call it monsterous.

But this is monsterous. I'm not even sure its constitutional . . . but the poor souls they bust won't be heading to the Supreme Court . . .they won't be able to afford it.
Click to expand...

I actually really didn't say much at all on the legislation (which is yet seemingly to be found written?), I said, bans on cropping and docking is catching up with the world (which it IS) and C-section legislation is peculiar. Pretty much my exact words.

People decided to jump on the comment, and the conversation turned into something very different.
 
Lilavati

Lilavati

Arbitrary and Capricious
#39
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
7,644
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
47
Location
Alexandria, VA
#39
Dizzy said:
I actually really didn't say much at all on the legislation (which is yet seemingly to be found written?), I said, bans on cropping and docking is catching up with the world (which it IS) and C-section legislation is peculiar. Pretty much my exact words.

People decided to jump on the comment, and the conversation turned into something very different.
Click to expand...
True, I haven't seen the text. I could probably get it, but that would require doing some things against firm rules, so I'll have live without it.

However, the strict liability aspect has been consistantly reported, as has the burden of proof problem. Assuming those are true (and they seem to be) then this bill is horrifically flawed.

As for your original comment, I'll admit I didn't scroll that far back :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 62 (members: 0, guests: 62)
Top