Pet-Law: Defending the Freedom to Own Pets

HOW ANIMAL RIGHTS LAWS WORK
Part II: More AR Laws

2. Anti-tethering laws either set limits on how long a dog can be tied outdoors ("no more than one hour at a time," "not over three hours daily") or completely forbid it. This sounds okay -- most of us believe that most dogs should be kept as house pets, don't we? Some breeders simply wouldn't sell you a dog as a pet if you said "We will chain him in the back yard."

However, most chained dogs do fine – I grew up with a real sweetheart of a German Shepherd who was perfectly happy on a chain.

There is no evidence that chaining contributes to aggression; such problems come from a combination of poor breeding and poor early socialization. Dangerous temperaments show up among in-home pets just as they do among dogs kept on chains, in fenced yards, or allowed to roam.

Many people cannot afford a secure fence and many of those who can, live where covenants and/or laws make a fence impossible.

Many dogs kept outside are very unhappy if brought inside: depression and/or destructive behavior are common. Some pet dogs kept outside can be trained to live indoors but the project will require at least weeks of close supervision by an adult with good dog skills. If the family works and goes to school during the day, keeping a dog chained because they can't have a fence, the odds are against moving him inside.

The usual recourse when people are forced to stop chaining is a small homemade wire pen -- far more confining and less secure.

The overall result of these laws is more dogs getting loose, more abandonments, and more given up at the animal shelter. Anti-tethering laws lead not to happier dogs, but a reduction in the number of dogs. Again, the unintended consequences are the plan.

Breeder licensing schemes. These are mandatory spay/neuter from the flip side. Claimed to be needed to prevent irresponsible or abusive breeding ('fight puppy mills') the real goal is to make home breeding impractical.

Pet limit laws. These laws claim to reduce dog nuisances but since the overwhelming majority of dog owners are already within the limit, they don't replace any other law. The chief effect – and the goal from the AR point of view – is wiping out home based dog rescue and home breeding. Zoning laws are sometimes used in exactly the same way, for example dog breeding may be defined as 'manufacturing' and permitted only in areas so zoned where residential property is uncommon and often not very desirable.

Humane education laws. Who could oppose education? But 'humane' is matter of values and values are best taught by parents. Attempts to teach values in the schools collide with two issues: Whose values? (Is hunting okay? Use of animals for education and research purposes? Eating of meat or wearing of fur and leather?). And where will the teaching materials come from? All current comprehensive 'humane education' materials were developed by anti-animal use organizations, HSUS and others. They are strictly propaganda, aimed at training future generations to reject existing and majority values in favor of those of a tiny group of cultists.

A subtle but nasty effect is that these programs undermine the moral authority of parents. PeTA, for example, produced a comic book with a cover showing a woman with a knife, blood, etc. on the cover (slaughtering a rabbit) and the banner "Your Mommy KILLS Animals." It's hard to imagine anything worse for modern society.

Steady increases of the penalties for all forms of animal-related offenses. Laws work well when they reflect settled majority values: All of us agree that murder should be against the law and very strongly punished and all but the alcoholics support strong measures against drunk driving. When laws go beyond protecting us against behavior we all consider wrong and instead try to change the values of the majority, they no longer work well and tend to lessen respect for law. Increasing punishments within practical limits has little or no good effect. The 'war on drugs' shows us the borderland: Does any respected authority believe that doubling the minimum penalties would result in less drug use?

Many areas of animal law are similar. We have laws against abandonment, cruelty, dog (and other animal) fighting, neglect, and other actions that the great majority of us consider wrong. Year by year, we see efforts to double and redouble the penalties but with rare exceptions (such as a very few places where the law still gives deliberate cruelty a slap on the wrist), penalties are already high enough to have whatever deterrent effect is practical. Still more punishment simply means more plea bargains instead of trials, regardless of guilt.

'Bond' requirements when animals are seized. Seizure of owned animals was provided in laws as an emergency measure, to protect animals in immediate danger that cannot wait for a trial. Modern animal control practice in many areas, however, is that if there is (or can be claimed to be) a justification for seizure of any animal, they are all taken. Then, after a time, the owner can go to court and attempt to prove that there were no grounds for the seizure.

The only check on these abuses is that animal control must hold and care for the seized animals pending trial. The trend is toward laws requiring animal owners to post what is called a bond and is typically $10/day/animal within a few days following the seizure, often in 30-day chunks. Ten dogs = $3000; pay now or your animals are forfeited and may be disposed of. Then you go to trial: Generally you don't get your bond back even if you are found not guilty.

Where these laws are in force you will generally be offered the choice of pleading guilty to a lesser offense, forfeiting most animals, and capping your bond amount at elapsed days. So much for that annoying 'due process' thing in the U.S. Constitution.

The claimed justification is to protect animal control from the up front expense of large seizures and thus make them possible. The real effect is to complete the conversion of seizures from a limited tool needed for occasional urgent situations, to a profitable and perfectly legal form of abuse 'under color of law.' These laws almost completely eliminate the need for control organizations to make the case that a violation has occurred, thus freeing them to campaign without check against breeders, rescuers and anyone else they don't like.

Laws that give power over dog care to others who don't have to pay. Guardianship (increased government power), private right of action laws (anyone can go to court to get power over your dogs), and increasing values set by courts on the value of a dog's life (because pet ambulance chasing lawyers will make veterinary malpractice insurance necessary) will all drive up costs of ownership. These trends are just beginning but as they continue, dogs could easily become too expensive for most of us to own.