Bart: This well-received column isn’t really about dogs in chains, now is it? Let me guess…the ‘dog’ symbolizes the humble American citizen— and this chain is supposed to represent the yoke of ‘Big Government’; rules and regulations.

I’ve long gotten wise to your ways, my friend. (Question is, when will everyone else?) You’re a clever one alright.

I dont think we are very far apart on all of these issues.

We all want our pets taken care of.

We all are sickened by cruelty to animals.

We all want our freedoms to participate in any legal activity without crazed whackos sitting in front of oue homes with signs.

If the wackos have a problem with SUVs being legal to purchase ,let them protest in front of the capitol building or in front of the auto manufactor.
I would hate to see a world where everyone protest at their neighbors mailbox for everything they feel is wrong.
I hope we all can agree on that.

Where we differ is this. [I think] correct me if I am wrong.

I dont feel there is any thing a person can do to an animal that warrants taking away that persons freedom.
I feel that there are many types of punishment for animal cruelty that would be effective.
You probably disagree, and thats “ok”.

I now feel that [I changed from reading Mr pinkletons post] chaining, tieing, or tethering an animal isnt the issue here.
Its neglect, abuse, or torture that we all wish to eliminate.
I feel that passing laws against a chain, a rope, or a tether will do nothing to end the problems that we all hate.

Instead we should pass laws against human behavior that is causing the animal to suffer.

IE…make it illegal to tie a dog for more than 8 hrs.

Make it illegal to create a dangerous scenerio that may endanger the dog.Like having the chain to short, or to long to hang himself.

Make it illegal to leave the dog in the sun without access to shade and water at all times.

There are many many more examples, but I think you may get my drift.

You may disagree. Maybe you still think we should just outlaw chaining dogs period.
thats “ok”.

To me this is no different than the gun issue.

Its not the gun or in this case the chain thats causing the harm.

Its the bad human behavior!

Lets go after the people who use the gun or chain in a crime.

Lets not go after the actual gun or chain itself.

Dichelle:
Apology accepted.

Smile…

Slashing your tires is a criminal activity and should be prosecuted. I certainly was not advocating that kind of activism. Marching in front of your house to shame you into buying a vehicle that uses less gas would be more appropriate.

Passive civil disobedience, if you are willing to take the legal consequences, has acomplished things that mere written or verbal dissent could not have done.

I am not in favor of invading your personal property to unchain your dog. I am in favor of working through the legal process to enact laws that more forcibly protect animals. If banning chains should be one of them, let the police do the unchaining. But if squatting in front of your mailbox waving a sign would fix legislative attention on the problem, by all means, do it. Pay your fine and do it again.

On the other hand, if I am doing something legal that other people don’t like and they use violent or harmful means to try to force me into compliance, rather than trying to change the law, I’m with you. Prosecute them and punish them.

All, please allow me to take back my last post.  I thought it was funny at the time, but in rereading it, it seems mean-spirited and out of line.  It takes all kinds of us in the world and I truly do respect others’ opinions even if I don’t agree with them.  And it’s not appropriate to make light of what may be a real concern for someone else and their family.  Please accept my apology.—Dichelle

On the next episode of Jerry Springer…
Confronting the Crazed Activists Who Taunt You.

Is slashing the tires on the vehicle that my family travels in civil disobedience?

Is driving steel spikes into trees that lumber workers cut down an acceptable form of civil disobedience?

If an activist wants to do a sit in and protest our government, then thats fine with me.

But to go after citizens and be the judge jury and executioner, just because you have a difference of opinion for their lifestyle choices is terrorism.

Owning and driving an SUV is a legal pleasure that I enjoy doing.

There is no reason on earth that you can give me to justify what those activist did to me.

Everyday I get into my vehicle I am worried what dangerous thing someone may have done to it. Something that may not be as obvious as cut tire.

I have my brake lines checked often!

I can only imagine what evil ideas are going on in the minds of some young college kids if their Poli-Sci professor decides to make dog chaining the next new political issue in class.

“Activists are America’s real terrorists and we need laws to enforce against them-“

Should the status quo be set in stone, even those things that are blatantly wrong, in order to preserve eveyone’s right to do as they darn please?
Without courageous ativists, no wrongs would be righted, we would be denied the right to express disent, stifled by the laws you suggest into ‘going along to get along’. This would be the vilest type of conformity, suppression of ligitimate grievances, the ultimate PC. I fail to see how cruelty to animals is a left or right issue, rather a humane issue concerning us all.

You accuse ‘lefties’ of wishing to free dogs from chains against the will of the owner, yet you would pass laws forbiding activism? Pot calling the Kettle. Suppression of the right to object to a perceived wrong is a far more serious transgresson.

I am inclined to agree with Mr. Pinkleton.

Its almost the same as the gun issue.

Most gun owners are peacful responsible people.

The bad actions of a few make it difficult for the people who do the right thing.

The left always seem to target the object used in the crime rather than the crime itself.
The left always seem to pit neighbor against neighbor with their solutions.

People shouldnt be put into position to police their neighbors.
Thats why we have police departments.
Yes we need to cooperate with the police, but we shouldnt assume too much of that duty.
Good Neighbors trusting each other is the foundation for a civil society.

The reason crime rate is so high in certain areas is because there isnt any trust between neighbors or between citizens and the police.

I would much rather live next to a neighbor I can trust and talk to about things like an animal on a chain/tether.

Than to live next to an animal rights activist who calls the authoritys every chance they get.

A law that restricts tieing and animal will take away viable options from responsible pet owners.

And conversations like this pit neighbors against responsible people like Mr. Pinkleton.

I can only imagine how many people are now driving the streets searching now that they have read this.

Who knows what some people are thinking about Mr Pinkleton when they see his dogs tied?

Who knows what people are thinking about my family when we drive our SUV?

When my tires were slashed, I had an idea!

Activist are Americas real terrorist and we need laws to to enforce against them and against the people who incite/teach them.

Dichelle wrote, “Can we at least agree that the majority of owners who chain (not tether) their dogs are being cruel and that THAT is the focus of this discussion?“

I agree that the focus of the article is that owners who chain their dogs out are being cruel.  But no, I do not agree with that statement or the premise behind it.  In my experience (I have been a vet for over 25 years and was on the state board of veterinary medicine for 8 of those years), I have found the majority of people who tie their pets out to be good, caring pet owners and have found those pets in general to be well cared for.  HOWEVER, I will concede that unfortunately there is a dispicable minority of folks who abuse their animals and one means of this abuse can be to leave their pets unattended and uncared for at the end of chains.  BUT once again, in my experience this is definitely not the majority.  It is not the act of chaining or tethering that represents the cruelty.  The cruelty comes from neglect, downright abuse or improper housing conditions.  Improper housing conditions includes being chained, kenneled, or otherwise housed in a mannet that provides for improper feed, water, cover from the elements, improper area to exercise, and/or lack of attention.  These conditions are cruel no matter how an animal is restrained.  Do a higher percentage of chained animals get abused than animals that stay in the house?  I would guess yes, a hither percentage.  But do a majority of pets that are chained get neglected or abused?  In my experience that is not the case.

Why do I take personal offense?  Because the article painted EVERYONE who chained their dogs as lacking sensitivity to the ethics of virtue and then you say the majority are cruel.  I do not believe either of these statements to be accurate.  If the article focused on abuse, neglect, and improper chaining of dogs and tried to educate the public as to what is proper vs. improper then I believe it would have been very helpful.  But to make the blanket implication that the majority of chaining or tethering is cruel insults me personally and I suspect quite a few other people who are probably as good pet owners as you or I are.

It would be hard to follow up with an article about proper tethering or chaining after it has all been painted as irresponsible and cruel but nevertheless I would encourage it.  An article to this effect could point out the proper and improper ways to tether a pet.  For example, to make sure they have a clear area and cannot tangle or hang themselves.  To let people know that some of the newer cables are much, much lighter, more reliable and more comfortable than chains.  To talk about all the methods of securing the cable, not to a tree, how important swivels are and the different types of swivel’s, the availability of metal loops that are easily buried in the ground in a matter of minutes and practically tangle proof and can be obtained at most any major pet store for a matter of a few dollars.  To talk about making sure you have the proper size cable for your pet and that you check it regularly because they do wear out.  To talk about placing water bowls where they cannot become snarled in the cable or turned over.  To screen toys, etc. and only place those with the dog that cannot become tangled in the cable.  To check the dog frequently to make sure nothing becomes tangled.  To ensure that folks know that being on a cable is not exercise enough (although some cables are quite long) and no substitute for walks and pet/human interaction, etc., etc. 

Anyway, I think we all agee that we just want to make sure pets are cared for properly.  I just wanted to express my point of view and let folks know that not all folks who chain their pet do so out of neglect.  Some of us choose to chain them, or tether them because we believe we are doing what is best for them.  I think I’ve pretty well said it a dozen different ways now and probably started belaboring the point in the last post so I promise I won’t write more.  It feels better to get it off my chest, thanks.

As a concession to Rick and Patrick, I would settle for them having to wear a sign for a month, even to work, stating that they hurt animals, while spending week-ends scooping poop for the SPCA and being given lessons on the care of animals. Sorry for my intemperate reaction. I would not really advocate violence for the sake of retribution. Well, maybe being deprived of food for a couple of days.