My thoughts for the day

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this post are those of the author alone, are subject to change, and may not represent the views of PCHS. They are being provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Any copying, reproduction, or redistribution of any of the documents, data, content, or materials contained in this post, without the express written consent of the author, is enthusiastically encouraged.

The American Kennel Club announced in a press release on April 3rd that they believe bans and restrictions on tethering are unnecessary because of the "substantive animal cruelty statutes already in place." The press release then goes on to quote North Carolina's cruelty statute as an example. Like to hear it? Here it go*:

§ 14-360. Cruelty to animals;
(a) If any person shall intentionally overdrive, overload, wound, injure, torment, kill, or deprive of necessary sustenance, or cause or procure to be overdriven, overloaded, wounded, injured, tormented, killed, or deprived of necessary sustenance, any animal, every such offender shall for every such offense be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

The AKC's anti-dog, pro-commerce press release goes on to state: "This law applies to any act, omission, or case of neglect causing or permitting unjustifiable pain, suffering or death to an animal. Enforcement of this law effectively negates any need for the proposed legislation."

Let me first point out that animal cruelty statutes are far from being substantive; they are, at best, vague and inadequate. And even if a law is enforced, the punishment is grossly insufficient. Many law enforcement, animal control, and humane officers work diligently to get cruelty cases prosecuted, only to be scoffed at by prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges for clogging up the court system when there are "real" crimes to be prosecuted. Several animal control/humane officers at the VFHS conference expressed that they generally had to rely on the "failure to provide veterinary care" part of Virginia's statute to get cases prosecuted. North Carolina's statute does not specifically have a vet care component; therefore, situations like the one pictured here may be difficult to prosecute:

Hard to believe, but it happens EVERY DAY.











The AKC would have you believe that a tethering ordinance is not necessary. Why? Because the AKC receives income registering breeder and puppy mill puppies, and many breeders and puppy millers notoriously keep their dogs chained and penned outside 24/7. Tethering ordinances would affect the breeders, which would negatively affect the AKC's money making abilities. But, you might ask, wouldn't this also mean that breeders are against tethering ordinances? Why yes, yes they are, including Roanoke's own Tom Garner.

You might be thinking, "This is insane! What can I do?" Well, you might want to contact AKC President Dennis Sprung at dbs@akc.org. And for more information on what you can do to help chained dogs, click this.

Thanks to Jack's blog for keeping me informed and for the witty disclaimer.

*I would love to hear from you if you understood this reference ; )