Not sure if you heard about this, but can you imagine our return rates if some of our GH's couldn't be crated! FYI Below...

Feel free to cross post...

Dog owners in SC and surrounding states need to fight this!

The South Carolina legislature almost certainly influenced by animal rights
groups has quietly slipped a new section into the anti tethering bill that
they have been working on for two years. The bill is S833.

The new section is an ANTI CRATING amendment.

The bill will allow animal rights groups and law enforcement to go after any
dog that is caged in any way. Crate, kennel, cage, x pen, tether.

It has the standard stuff about adequate water and sustenance but it is very
broad with a sentence saying anyone who "should know better" can be
punished. This is of course DELIBARATLY non definable ad broad.

The original bill had an exclusion on tethering for hunters. That has been
removed.

This is the current version of the bill as of Thursday. Section 1B was
added Thursday:

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

(http://tinyurl. com/yv63fp)

Some of us have experienced ARs coming to dog events and releasing dogs out
of crates. With this bill they can come with measuring tape instead.

Anti crating??
I'll loan them silly Diesel for a day, and once their house is chewed up with de-stuffed toys scattered all over the place they'll whip that crate out in no time!

I like your idea, Christina! Why don't we take a pack of dogs who "prefer" crating and turn them loose with the legislators and people pushing the bill?????

My hounds aren't crated and never will be but that's about the stupidest law I've ever heard of !!!!! Must be Democrats down there.

Gary

let the boys come play as well and they will be begging for mercy when all there papers have been shredded and eatin and every thing eles in there path. if i just go out to the mail box and leave them loose in the house, alex hits the panic button and you would swear i have deserted him. sometimes the people who think they know best for the animals are putting them in more of harms way than helping them. dash sleeps in his crate at night with the door open cause he seems comfortable there. even though he has a large assortment of big blankets pillows and the bed he can choose from.

Has anybody read the bill? Here is the relevant part. It's a good idea to read the entire bill too. I think it's wonderful.
Karen

(B) For purposes of this section:
(1) 'Confine an animal in a cruel manner' or cruel confinement of an animal' means confining an animal by means of a cage, crate, pen, or similar confinement under circumstances in which the person intends to endanger the animal's health or safety, or the person reasonably should have known would endanger the animal's health or safety. 'Confine an animal in a cruel manner' or 'cruel confinement of an animal' includes, but is not limited to, a confinement that:
(a) confines an animal for such an unreasonable period of time that the animal's health or safety is endangered;
(b) does not permit an animal to stand, turn around, sit, and lie down in a normal position;
(c) cause bodily injury to an animal;
(d) does not permit an animal access to sustenance;
(e) does not permit proper ventilation for an animal; or
(f) is not kept in a sanitary condition.
(2) 'Restrain an animal in a cruel manner' or 'cruel restraining of an animal' means tethering, fastening, chaining, tying, attaching, or otherwise restraining an animal to a tree, fence, post, or other stationary object or a running line, pulley, cable trolley system, or similar system by means of a chain, rope, tether, leash, cable, or similar restraint under circumstances in which the person intends to endanger the animal's health or safety, or the person reasonably should have known would endanger the animal's health or safety. 'Restrain an animal in a cruel manner' or 'cruel restraining of an animal' includes, but is not limited to, a restraint that:
(a) restricts an animal's movement for such an unreasonable period of time that the animal's health or safety is endangered;
(b) is of a weight that excessively burdens an animal;
(c) causes an animal to choke or causes bodily injury to an animal;
(d) is too short for an animal to move around or for an animal to urinate or defecate in a separate area from the area where the animal must eat, drink, or lie down;
(e) is situated such that an animal will likely become entangled;
(f) does not permit an animal access to sustenance and shelter;
(g) does not permit an animal to escape reasonably foreseeable harm;
(h) is attached to an animal by means of a collar, harness, or similar device that is not properly fitted for the age and size of the animal such that the collar, harness, or similar device causes trauma or injury to the animal; or
(i) is attached to an unsupervised animal by means of a choke-type or pronged collar.

Unfortunately, the terminology of a few of the items is so broadly worded and subject to interpretation that some well-meaning busy bodies could cause problems in situations like we have with greyhounds and some people have with puppies.

Yes, if you read this correctly, it doesnt pretain to those of us who use crates to keep our greyhounds safe and secure when we leave the house.

This is such a wonderful bill and I hope it passes.

Mech and Cabarrus county should follow the same example.

This protects dogs from the idiots who crate them and leave them with no food or water in a crate 3 sized to small out in the sun in 100 % temp with no shade. It protects them from the idiots who leave them tied to a tree with no water or shelter. Or, just tied to a tree .

They have my vote !!!! (If I could vote for it )

Ah, that makes more sense.

The intent is wonderful, and there have been anti-tethering regulations inacted and trying to be inacted in NC. I'm all for them or anything which reduces cruelty to animals. I've spent my entire life fighting cruelty to animals. What I question is wording that is broad and subject to interpretation. There could be interpretation for each person reading and enforcing the law.

Here's an example:

"is too short for an animal to move around or for an animal to urinate or defecate in a separate area from the area where the animal must eat, drink, or lie down;"

You have a dog who is a having housebreaking issues or is ill. It's during a crating period and he/she has accidents in the crate. There's not a crate big enough for my dogs to meet this section to the letter of the law. A neighbor hears me talking about the situation or comes over and sees the crate which I haven't been able to clean yet. I'm reported and charges. It's the law. To the outside world, I'm guilty. In a court of law, the burden of proof falls to me. That could be a tough one... It can happen. The are people who are over zealous about enforcing laws to th "n"th degree. No excuses. This scenario is not as far fetched as one may think. An example of that is the officer who ticketed me for speeding when I went into labor 45 mi from the hospital with a history of very short labors. It's the law. And it does happen.

It could happen with the wording about the length of time crating is acceptable. Some people would say 8-10 hrs is cruel... SUbject to interpretation.