The nanny state can't make up its mind
Published Tue, Oct 21 2008 9:30 AM
In the Seattle Times today…
The Metropolitan King County Council took a preliminary vote, 8-0, Monday to direct County Executive Ron Sims to report on the feasibility and advisability of banning "continuous confinement" of dogs on chains or tethers or in small spaces.
We hear about “vicious” dogs attacking people every now and then. There was the famous case of the pit bulls that escaped and badly mauled a woman in the hallway of her apartment complex. Owners of such dogs are “required to keep them under control at all times”.
Now the Nanny State wants to take away one of the only effective methods of doing that.
It's dogs like Gus -- and their potential victims -- the Metropolitan King County Council had in mind when it took the first step Monday toward a possible prohibition on chaining dogs or holding them in small enclosures for long periods.
Gus, a 4-year-old German shepherd mix who was chained to his doghouse every day, was euthanized in 2005 after two attacks on people.
I'm not in favor of chaining dogs up all day with no room for them to run and move about, nor am I in favor of keeping them in small cages either. Mistreatment of animals is mistreatment, no matter what the reasons behind it. Even so, the safety of people is a lot more important to me than the comfort of a dog — even my own dog.
Dog owners are responsible for the actions of their dog, whether they're there or not. If you can't be with your dog, you need to confine your dog so that it cannot do harm to other people or their property. That's responsibility. Taking that responsibility in a humane way is something that any dog lover would do.
Putting a dog on a chain, with a good dog run, isn't cruelty, regardless of what the Humane Society of the United States might say. Large dogs can easily jump fences and escape back yards. The only way to prevent that when you can't have constant supervision of the animal is with a chain, or to confine the dog in a kennel or indoors. Not everyone has the luxury of taking their dog to work with them, or having someone at home with the dog 24/7.
A chain or tether that is set up in such a way as to allow the animal the freedom to run, while forcing it to stay within certain boundaries is not cruel.
The report would consider a ban in unincorporated King County and possibly also in cities that contract with the county for animal-control services.
Now we're coming down to the real issues. The Metropolitan King County Council, a body made up almost entirely of people that live in the counties incorporated urban areas wants to lord it over people that live in the unincorporated, largely rural areas. There's nothing new there. People that live in cities and suburbs want to restrict the rights of people that don't.
This makes little sense. There are fewer people living in the unincorporated areas. Dog owners in unincorporated areas are likely to have larger amounts of property in the first place, with more room for their animals to run free. Trespassers on their property shouldn't be there in the first place to encounter their dogs. Keeping control of the dogs is still important though, and fences aren't enough, or even practical when you have to fence in several acres.
Council Chairwoman Patterson said she also is considering legislation that would define "dangerous dogs," perhaps restricting certain breeds.
So the Nannies in government want to tell you what kind of dog you can own too. It's a small step from that to telling you that pet ownership in itself is cruel and inhumane — perhaps the moral equivalent of slavery. This really is nothing more than the desire on the part of a few to restrict the freedoms and rights of others. But that's not all…
Leslie Kentor, one of several people who spoke in favor of a ban on chaining dogs, told council members the story of Gus. She adopted Gus from his Eastside owners after he broke loose from the doghouse he was chained to and bit a boy who had taunted him.
Isn't that the real issue? The boy taunted the dog and got bit for it. The natural consequence of cruelty is retaliation. A mischievous boy was cruel to an animal and the animal bit him. For that and a second unspecified “offense” Gus was eventually killed. Since Leslie Kentor is speaking in favor of not chaining dogs, it seems likely to me that that second “offense” wasn't chain related. [Update: Actually, the article does specify what happened. The dog was being taken to a trainer, and eventually attacked the trainer. This wasn't chain related, but was probably related to the earlier cruelty and taunting that the dog had experienced.]
Rather than banning the use of chains and tethers, the Metropolitan King County Council ought to consider some common sense. People who trespass on the property of others should accept the consequences of doing so. If that means that a guard dog bites them so be it, don't punish the dog for defending its territory. People that taunt animals should accept the consequences. If a boy torments a dog and the dog bites him so be it.
People that treat animals with cruelty should be punished. We already have laws to see to that. We don't need laws to protect the stupid. Stupid should hurt.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1259
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/10/21/1259.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
David responded with:
 | Chained or closely-confined dogs should be taken from their owners, and their owners chained or closely-confined in exactly the same way as they had abused their dogs.
(OTOH, dogs running loose are apt to become destructive and/or dangerous, and when they do, they are apt to become... target practice.)
Anyone unwilling or unable to invest in a well-fenced yard with adequate room for dogs ought to get a guppie. (But enough about my neighbors. *sigh*) |
Perri Nelson responded with: Chains vs Fences
 | Fences are easily leaped over by some larger dogs. My grandaughter's mother's husky (yes, it's a convoluted relationship, but the mother is not related by blood or marriage) easily jumped over a six foot fence to escape our yard. When that was too much effort, she dug under the fence, or tore the cedar planks apart.
A good dog run, with a cable from which a long tether can hang isn't a cruel way to give a dog the run of a decently large area of your yard. Properly set up, the dog can't hang itself up over fences, or wrap the tether around poles in such a way as to end up closely confined. This can prevent the dog from becoming target practice while still providing much of the freedom the dog might want. I happen to like guppies by the way :-) |
Comments to this entry are closed.