|
it comes to animal welfare and enforcement , not arbitrary times , temperatures and number of animals owned ; for some people can provide exceptional care for many dogs while others couldn ’ t care for a houseplant , much less a single dog .
Whether by sweeping , direct attacks on the use and production of sporting dogs or seemingly small , reasonable regulation , the results are the same : loss of hunting opportunity or increased economic investment and costs to future owners . Here are the most common aspects of sporting-dog legislation we ’ ve seen in recent years .
Defining the Undefinable
What ’ s taking place in almost all the sporting-dog legislation
|
we see is an attempt to define the undefinable . Animal-rights organizations and activists push local and state governments to codify what constitutes too – as in too many , too much and too cold or hot . Their desire to explicitly define subjective terms without context ( or exemptions ) handcuffs you , figuratively and perhaps literally , to the written word of the statute .
That means you could receive a citation and would have to spend time and money to defend yourself in court for the unintended application of the law . If your business is kenneling , breeding or training , a citation , even if dismissed , can ruin your reputation .
A prime example was an attempt last year to define
|
pain and suffering for animals in Washington state . Animal-rights proponents tried diligently to equate animal experiences of pain , and even mild discomfort , with how humans would experience something . No differentiation was made between species , much less breeds – slugs , guinea pigs , dogs and horses would have legally experienced discomfort exactly the same , that being how humans would experience it . Further , proponents were unwilling to give an exemption for sporting dogs , hunters and trainers . This presented a serious threat to training practices , e-collars or even hunting your dog . The Sportsmen ’ s Alliance and our coalition were eventually able to remove the egregious and absurd definition . |
Tethering Laws
Texas , Oklahoma , Virginia , Massachusetts and Maryland have recently seen tethering laws introduced . This legislation regulates how and when dogs can be tied out . For instance , tie-outs can only be used for 15 minutes during specific hours or during certain temperatures or must be 10-feet long . The aim is usually to address the negligent owners who leave a dog on a chain for its entire life . However , the catch-all created by the language of these laws apply to wellcared-for dogs , too .
Good dog owners without fenced yards or kennels , or dogs that climb chain-link fencing , which presents not just escape concerns but safety issues of hanging if collars get snagged , then
|
|||||
10 SPORTSMEN ’ S MONTHLY |