Wednesday, August 12, 2009

More on the Murder Hollow Bssetts

David Zincavage takes on Patrick Burns' seeming complacence over the outrage. Also read the post below for a gut- wrenching description of what might happen to any multiple animal owner.

Did you know that PETA's new slogan is "There are NO good breeders!"

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

According to the PETA website, it's actually "There's No Such Thing As a 'Responsible Breeder'".

smartdogs said...

Blue Dog State has a new post up on the seizure of Joe Woodall's pet/show APBTs. Woodall did not allow himself to be bullied into giving his dogs up, he took videotape evidence during the seizure, hired a lawyer and got his dogs back - but they were in sad shape.

I bet <i>he's</i> listening for helicopters now...

Jess said...

When we lived in Florida we never had a problem with AC, even after our grumpy neighbor called them with bogus complaints. After our abortive attempt to move to NM when AC actually lied repeatedly about the county dog limit (why?), I have a difficult time giving them the benefit of the doubt. My tinfoil hat is firmly in place.

Anonymous said...

There exists an Arabic proverb about looking for a house:

"Fattish ala aj-jar kabl ad-dar"
"Inspect the neighbor before the house"

PBurns said...

I love the arab proverb about inspecting the neighbors before the house. Nice.

But what does PETA have to do with any of this?

Not a thing.

? What ? It doesn't?

No.

What it DOES have to do with is a woman in Philadelphia who has STILL not taken the dogs needing veterinary attention to the vets, and this is almost two weeks later.

She has STILL not repaired and cleaned up the Kennel almost two weeks later.

Not only has she gotten more citations as a result, but the pictures have been turned over to the District Attorney for further prosecution.

You will notice that there are no pictures coming from her. There is a reason for that.

Anyone asking any questions about the dogs?

Not here, not so far.

Are some animal control operations over zealous? Of course! Is that the case in Philly? Time will tell, but NO ONE bothered to actually slow down and get the facts. Stephen Bodio did not, did you Steve? You just posted unverified stuff picked up unexamined from David Vincavage. Lazy!

Of course, we have all been lazy at times. But here's a question: Have you corrected that original post since then? Is there anywhere here where we could actually read the FACTS about this case. What was the law? When did it pass? What was the time line of enforecement action here? What is the status of things now?

Here are the facts: The dog limit was NOT "new." The woman had been in gross violation for decades. She was notified (twice) before a warrant was served and filth, disrepair and negligence was found. The woman VOLUNTARILY relenquished the dogs rather than face the fines. The police came out. The Dog Law folks came out. The District Attorney came out. Prosecution is moving ahead, as everyone seems to have seem the same thing.

-- more in a minute --

PBurns said...

After NINE posts in which David Zincavage has not added any new information about the actual Philly case in question, I stopped reading. At some point it's not writing -- it's just typing.

What I did instead was gather up a few folks to ACTUALLY RESEARCH animal limit laws acros the U.S.

How common are they? Is there a pattern? What are the limits? Are there other options?

That post is here and is purely FACTUAL and makes for interesting reading >> http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2009/08/group-research-whats-legal-limit-on.html

In another post I try to interpret the results from that research. See >> http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2009/08/dog-laws-case-of-pick-your-poison.html

I ask people which way do they would go go in terms of animal control? NYC? El Paso? Miami? Denver?

Do you want more taxes, more police power, more euthenasia, or some middle ground like most cities are trying to find?

Why don't you wade in Stephen and tell us what kind of animal control law YOU would want in a city of more than a million people? Or do you embrace a purely libertarian stance which says animals in pain, misery and filth, and neighbors in perpetual conflict is perfectly fine? Let us know what you would do for a city of one million if you were writing the law.

As for the black helicopters, if you want to believe them you can.
You can also think that "they" are coming for your guns, and that "they" are going to turn off your life support at the hospital, that Obama was born in Kenya, and that the moon walk was done in a Hollywood studio. You can stand silent around the paranoid, or you can even join in with them and clap your hands. There is not a thing I can do about it, one way or another, except to advise that I think Pfizer now makes a product for some medical conditions.

In the real world, where there are real problems, that real people are really trying to solve, it's a bit more difficult than simply sitting on your porch and taking pot shots at whatever bird flies by. That's fun, but it's not the kind of real work that brings real value to a community, is it? Real people are working on behalf of animals AND the poeple who own them. They are respecting the Second Amendment AND trying to keep everyone as safe as is reasonably possible. They are tring to keep taxes low AND deliver quality services

I don't LIKE animal control, but I understand they have a tough job and I am glad someone is there to stand up for the dogs. So far in this matter, Stephen, you have not. And neither has Mr. Zincavage. Up to this morning, in fact, I have not heard either one of you express the slighest concern about what kind of condition those dogs in Philadelphia might have been living in -- conditions that the police, the Pennsylvania Dog Law officials, the Philly SPCA, and the District Attorney all thought were bad enough to warrant continuing action.

Patrick

Matt Mullenix said...

Patrick I don't speak for Steve but my own feeling is that concern for the dogs in question, whether expressed or not, is a given. We are all dog lovers here; I don't think any one Q. reader or writer would neglect a dog in need if faced with one.

And though many of us are hunters, I can safely say that none of us would stand by while any animal suffered.

But my feeling is that other people's animals are primarily their responsibility. Right or wrong, that's how I feel about it. (I grant the exception that if another's animal poses some immediate threat to me or mine, I'll accept some responsibility for it.)

The ultimate extension of the notion that society should take care of everyone else's animals is an unbearable condition of arbitrary restriction and regulation. It is intrusive and, I think, abusive of civil rights (human rights, I should say).

Will animals suffer from the ignorance, bad manners, low class, callousness and poverty of some owners? Certainly.

(In fairness, "high class" and wealth are no surety of good behavior.)

Is this regrettable? Of course!

But if I have any claim to my own animals' welfare and ownership, and to my own ideas about good husbandry, I can't impose my views forcibly on others. I certainly don't want others' opinions forced on me.

So in the case of the basset hounds, if they are neglected, I regret it, just as I would regret my neighbor's neglected dog (although he is near enough to talk to). But I regret the presence and power of animal police more.

If you (or anyone) think your own treatment of animals is completely above reproach or the dim view of someone else, you are mistaken. Your dogs are not your own so long as someone can come take them from you---not to mention hide them from you, and then sterilize or kill them.

How can I be over-reacting when this actually happens all across the country every day?

There is a limit to the extent you can prevent suffering by force without limiting freedom by same. You and I just differ on where to draw that line.

Steve Bodio said...

I think Matt speaks eloquently for me.

I should point out That what happened to me in Bozemam was no case of neglect. The three dog rule was then unwritten-- just informal and we didn't Know. Since the it has been written to cover a total of three ANIMALS including birds and extended to Gallatin county which is absurd as much is rural
Albuquerque's HEART rule isn't about merely mandatory spay neuter-- it mandates things like the type of water pan you can use. There is a rule to report roadkill including lizards-- also mandatory. Enforcement is another story. But as long as these rules are by AR sources I will stay on the libertarian side.

Heather Houlahan said...

So, Matt, do you oppose humane laws?

Laws that make it a crime to kick a dog to death, set a cat on fire, starve a horse to death, run over a downer cow with a forklift -- whether or not you own the animal in question?

Or is that just some other owner's husbandry choice?

I'm trying to find out whether there are any limits to what a person can do with his sentient property and face a consequence more severe than "tsk tsk."

If no one here would neglect a dog in need "if faced with one" is it still perfectly okay for someone else to practice horrific neglect as long as none of our tender sensibilities are offended by being "faced with" the suffering?

retrieverman said...

I have since changed my mind on this issue. I think the evidence PSPCA and the authorities were working with the owner to make things better. But she blew it. And there are consequences.

I retract my earlier statement about the jackboot state.

I hate that this pack is now broken up and that there are fewer packs of working English basset in this world.

Anonymous said...

Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.

Charles de Montesquieu

Anonymous said...

Mandatory spay/neuter laws and water dish specifications smack of such minute interference in one's life by the government as to frighten all reasonable people. So do abhorrent animal husbandry practices. On a somewhat different topic, has anyone seen the PETA propaganda film "Meet Your Meat"? The castration of bulls without anesthetic horrifies me.

Matt Mullenix said...

Heather,

I made the distinction "if faced with" on purpose, and in anticipation of someone's complaint about the apparent convenience (for me) of that standard.

And I stand by it, if without enthusiasm: I do not gleefully imagine the kicking of dogs to death.

Nor does it matter whether the animals are mine. For the record, I oppose purposefully starving horses and impaling sick cows as well.

Heather I'm neither thoughtless nor heartless---And I guess I'm surprised by your implication!

Do I oppose humane laws? Not in principle. However, such laws are not made in principle; they are made in the real world. They are made by pressure groups and by force of annecdote and by legislators' caving to implications they must be cruel people for opposing them.

Let me be clear: I would never kick a dog to death. I'm against your kicking a dog to death. If I saw you kicking one, I hope I would raise a hand to stop you.

To make a difficult point (and not well), if you were kicking a child to death, I am sure I would raise a hand to stop you. Yet on the other end of the spectrum, if you were kicking your car to death, I would probably do nothing. I might report the sight of a vandal at work.

So somewhere in between those impulses lie humane laws. Can we agree on that? If so:

Kicking a dog to death is on the unambiguously bad end of the gray area. But where does chicken slaughter sit? Where does factory farming sit? Where is chaining a dog in the yard? Where is working a dog on game or sheep?

Where do we put letting a dog die of old age or of cancer without paying for its medical management? How do we determine when shooting a dog is criminal and when it's a mercy or justifyable "canicide" and self-defense?

How many dogs should be allowed to live on Earth?

Our opinions may vary here, or somewhere, and maybe for good reasons on either side. Maybe we have to draw the line. It's unfortunate that the line you draw may outlaw my falconry, and the line I draw may outlaw your keeping pets... I say we're better off settling this between ourselves.

smartdogs said...

The problem with most humane laws is that they're left wide open for humans to interpret.

People often tell me my dogs are too thin. I think this is because most pet dogs are fat. Do I get to turn them in for being over-feeding abusers or do they get to bust me for starving my dogs?

Chaining can be huge problem. Chaining pets often leads to neglect and aggression - but I see sheepdoggers and dog sledders use it well and (at least in MY opinion) humanely. My mother-in-law used to chain her dog by her deck. They enjoyed a lot of afternoons there together in her unfenced yard. So - do we outlaw all chaining to prevent some morons from abusing the privelege?

One of my problems with these kinds of laws is that they punish us all regardless of training, intent, skill, type of dog, etc.

It's catering to the lowest common denominator - and that demeans and devalues us all.

Tom said...

...in regards to chaining, I never really thought about what people think when they see my birddogs on a chain gang with 18 inch leads...Delmar, Rick and Ronnie Smith should be investigated...come to think of it, what about force breaking?...training tables, toe hitches, wooden dowels? Sherry Ebert with Setters on barrels? E collars........? My head hurts. Time to run the dogs.

Jacob said...

When ever I hear the slippery slope arguement about laws I suspect that the person making them has no idea how to get a law passed or a regulation changed. It is perfectly possible to make a hard and fast law about how many dogs you can have on your property without anybody caring how thin said dogs are. You can say that the next step is to do away with dogs altogether and I am sure someone is trying hard to do just that. If you want your dogs you have to try to keep them. That is how the system works. If you want to house your dogs in filth keep your ear out for upcoming animal welfare laws and fight them. That's what 'big business' does and so can you. Despite what people claim, laws are never changed without notice, it is your responsibility to notice though. Some people think the world should be one way, other people think it should be another way, who ever plays the game better wins and gets their way. The big secret is there is no 'SHOULD' who ever plays the game best defines should. If you have a problem with laws work to change them, shut up or leave. Those are the only productive options.

Steve Bodio said...

I am more than a little tired of this thread but must answer a few things.

Jacob; first , laws cannot be changed without a lot of comment: executive rules can be.

I have been fighting with my blog, voice, letters, and presence, as any reader of this blog especially New Mexicans can attest. HSUS has more money and time than I do. They have more impact on local rules. That both the Albuquerque mayor AND sheriff are outspoken ARistas doesn't help, in Albuquerque or the state.

Re "work to change them, shut up or leave": I hardly know where to begin. My first impulse is to say that you must be rich, young, callous, or all three. I have done the first, which is not consonant with the second.

As to "leave": I chose to move to a remote rural NM town, from Massachusetts, thirty years ago not least because I could do what I want here. Now, urban majorities of newcomers to Albuquerque and Santa Fe are threatening my way of life, which includes the care of dogs and genetic lines I brought from Asia. I have spent 30 years learning about them and almost ten bringing them in at my own expense. I have never made any profit because I have decided to place them rather than sell them. (One reason I distrust direct democracy is that it enables majorities from cities or big states to override rural interests).

At about sixty I have no savings, equity in a house in the middle five figures (because I chose the "freedom" of rural isolation), health issues, and a wife tied to one of the few good jobs in the county. To where do you suggest we move? I moved here when I could do as I wanted; now urban busybodies want to take that away. I have spent half my life here so far, and have deep roots and no money. Want to give us a house in Wyoming and a pension?

Didn't think so. I'll fight here,as I have been doing.

On a lighter note: Patrick, I don't believe in either black helicopters or birthers. I don't think DZ does either, from his spoof on getting a Kenyan birth certificate, though you'll have to ask him. Isn't that guilt by association-- like the Democrats insisting that anyone who has doubts about Obamacare must be a birther and/ or fascist?

Anonymous said...

Getting in a bit late on this discussion(far and away from computers again...)--but in regards to the black helicopters--BELIEVE! I actually had some come down over my house and nearly land in my tiny yard when I lived in a remote area of the Appalachians--I had some sheep and goats at the time that FREAKED, and were hitting fences in their panic, as were my chickens, and my many dogs were going balistic! But the good news(?) is, they weren't after my animals! They were Narcotics agents looking for pot--a common phenomenon in the mountains there, where a lot of pot is grown. I came out on my porch, eyeballing these guys(yes, they were THAT close!), and hoping to convey with my distressed and angry looks to please find a more civil way to invade my property! They did take off, and never returned. I only found out later that the house and property I had bought had once belonged to a well known marijuana farmer--they may have thought I was still the same guy! Even so, it was crazy! In my wanderings in those mountains over the years, I made SURE to hide well when these guys came patrolling, as they did every summer--no way did I expect any sympathy or understanding from them if I was spotted--a long- haired guy out on foot in a remote area known for growing pot, just out with his dogs enjoying nature? Suuuure! Easier to just hide and let them buzz by, than to have to try and explain myself(or get out of those handcuffs!)--fairly easy to avoid the ground crews, too(usually on noisy ATVs). But them thar black heely-kopterz iz out thar, ah kin vouch fer it!.....L.B.

Anonymous said...

....And I love the Arab proverb, Patrick! If ONLY people WOULD take such into consideration before they move in, and then expect everyone around them to comply to THEIR restrictive wishes! I would personally just have to see for myself the conditions at this Basset Hound kennel, before I felt I could weigh in on this particular case. Some formerly responsible people DO get slack and drop the ball sometimes, and humane groups DO go overboard and exagerrate things as well--I could side with either, depending on the circumstances. As for "chaining" dogs--to keep a wretched dog on a chain and NEVER let it loose is cruel, I agree, but who decided those typical 10'X10' Chain Length "kennels(cages) are any better? Most people do, but if I were a dog, I'd highly prefer a nice tie-out situation(as long as I got off it regularly), than those tiny pens that can literally drive dogs just as crazy if they never or rarely get out of them! Many hunting dogs and sled dogs WILL NOT ACCEPT being closely penned like that--they will climb, gnaw, dig, or tear their way out at any cost to their teeth or other personal injury to themselves, whereas they will calmly accept being tied. So what is this perception of tying dogs being cruel, if not a HUMAN perception? Any form of confinement can be cruel, and can be abused. I've known many a hunting dog and sled dog that comes quite willingly to it's tie-out spot after an exhausting all day or all night run, in an accepting manner that many household pets NEVER exhibit toward a fenced pen! I luckily have many large(acres) of safely fenced property for my dogs, but I STILL train them to accept being tied--it is a skill that comes in quite handy in an emergency, or on camping trips or during other travels--yet I see attempts being made to OUTLAW ALL FORMS of tying dogs, as if all forms are somehow abusive. The "all-or-nothing" syndrome again, rather than taking each individual case(which is the only fair way to do it) and deciding if THAT CASE is abusive, instead of FORCING everyone to follow one, ignorant, teenie teenie narrow mindset! Geeze!.....L.B.