Stupid new anti-tethering law

[Alex]

What if you're raising the dogs as food product? Is there something inherent to dogs that makes them more worthy of cruelty protection than a cow or a chicken?

Personally, I would never mistreat or neglect an animal but as a general rule I don't think animal cruelty should be criminalized or regulated. At core, pets are possessions and it is up to the owner to do what they want with them. People who mistreat animals should be socially ostracized but I find it hard to justify criminalization.

I'm not particularly happy with that outcome but it is where my root values takes me. But frequently I find myself overturning principal on emotional grounds.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

I understand how you feel on this topic, but I feel this type of law GOES TOO FAR. It's a serious intrusion on our rights and we really shouldn't allow this sort of busybody interference in our lives, because sure, this time the cause is good, but it opens the door for others which aren't. Slippery slope, and all that. Plus, I get really resentful of the idea that a natural act should require licensing and government interference.

And when a major area does that, it creates a shortage of a desired "good", which raises prices on available "good" and encourages profiteers to "create" more of that "good" and bring it in from elsewhere or sell it nearby.

In other words, laws meant to prevent puppy mills will actually create them and justify their business model.

No sir, don't like it. Not one bit.

We also have laws about keeping livestock and farm animals on our own property. Is that too busybody as well?

You CAN breed in Long Beach, you just need a breeding permit and a decent facility. But, urban areas are dot the best places to breed dogs. You can get most any type of breed from a reputable breeder within 50 miles.

This city does not need more dogs when the shelters are full and animals are being killed regularly.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And a "no more than 3 spanking per day" rule would be "better" for the children of the world. Doesn't mean I'd support it. There are ways to do things without making arbitrary definitions.

The law was based on several factors, one is which involves a number (I suspect that was so you number people will have something to argue about ) There is a whole host of reasons why tethering is not humane.

[Disneyphile]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

This city does not need more dogs when the shelters are full and animals are being killed regularly.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I had a friend once who was upset over leashes even being required. Then again, her dog wasn't trained at all - not even housebroken, because she thought it to be "mean", and that "pets are not slaves" and should have "freewill". Quite often, it was running around in its own excrement too.

Needless to say, that dog got seriously injured because it ran out of the house one day and got hit by a car, thanks to it being allowed "freewill".

That said, I wish there would be a law requiring training for pets, for their own safety and wellbeing.

Or, better yet, abolish all pet laws, but require owner training in order to have a pet. After all, we must have a license and training to drive a car, because lives are at stake. Same thing should go for pets.

[Not Afraid]

A few more thoughts about tethering.

When you go to a zoo, you no longer see the animals tethered. They are in safe habitats where they can roam around asn live their lives as "naturally" as possible in SAFE environments. I see no reason why the same shouldn't be true for pets.

If you have a dog that is inclined to excape, then you, as a responsible pet owner, need to provide a safe and secure environment where you pet can not get out but yet be as happy as possible. If you cannot provide that type of environment, then you have no business owning that pet.

When we have children, we do not let them roam freely but provide a safe environment for them. We cover electrical outlets and put locks on cabinets so they can't be harmed. Why shouldn't the same be true for pets? They are as much of a responsbility as a child can be and if people don't understand that, they shouldn't be pet owners.

[Alex]

Because pets aren't people.

They are not as much responsibility as a child. Though I agree that if you aren't willing to assume what responsibility they are you shouldn't own them I'm just not willing to legislate that.

[Not Afraid]

Why not legislate proper care? We legislate all sorts of things about pets already from how many a household can have, what kind of pets are allowed, what constitutes abuse, what you can and cannot do with your pet (ie: dog fights, etc.), what sort of responsibility you have if your pet attacks someone......the list goes on and on.

No, pets are not people, but they are living, breathing things that you have taken into your care by choice. You should be required to treat these living things humanly and if legislation is the only way to make stupid people get it through their heads that they need to care for their pets, then I'm all for it.

It certainly would be nicer if people were a bit more responsible and we didn't need legislation. But, sadly, people don't always make good choices.

[Alex]

Yes, we do. And I disagree with most of those laws. Except for the ones regulating what happens to you if your pet does damage to another person.

I have no problem holding someone criminally liable if their dog bites someone for whatever reason or cause. Or civilly liable for damage their dog does to another's property by digging or chewing.

I would not want to be social with someone who does most of that other stuff you mention but just because I don't like it isn't justification for criminalizing it.

[innerSpaceman]

But what is criminalization if not for societally-established punishment for violation of that society's moral code?

There's nothing inherently wrong with stealing, but it's a criminal offense because people have decided it's wrong and they don't like it and they want it discouraged by punishment, and punished by punishment.

A society can apply its criminal laws to anything it similarly wants to discourage and/or punish.

It may just be me, but a dominant society that protects other species besides its own seems entirely more civilized that one which does not.

[Alex]

Criminalization is for the purpose of punishing violence by one person against another. Yes, a society can apply criminalization to whatever it doesn't like (such as sodomy, for example) but that doesn't mean I think it is appropriate use of that power.

And, in my opinion, your desire for the welfare of my animal does not trump my ownership interest in treating that animal as I wish. Again, I find animal abuse repugnant but that does not mean I necessarily feel it should be criminal.

No, the existing animal cruelty laws are not high on the priority list of laws I would campaign to overturn, but if expressing a view on whether they should be passed in the first place I am generally in the anti camp.