I have been studying the idea that some groups and representatives in Anderson County seem to think we need more animal owner regulations in the form of tethering ordinances. I simply do not buy into this idea because as a Constitutional rights activist for farming, hunting, and animal owners, I have been dealing with extreme animal rights activity in SC for several years now. There are different levels of Animal rights (AR) ideology. To determine if a group is an Animal rights (AR) group or Animal welfare (AW) group I use one simple rule. Does this group use political posturing to help animals through criminalizing animal owners or do they enable the animal’s owner to better care for his animal? The difference between animal rights (AR) and animal welfare (AW) is simple. Animal welfare (AW) acknowledges that animals are property and the best way to assure their wellbeing is to enable the owner with education, resources, and to strengthen the traditional animal owner bond. Many animal rights (AR) groups feel animals should have human rights and some even to the point of concluding animal ownership all together. With these guide lines above, I have been lead to the conclusion that Freedom Fences is an example of animal rights (AR). Even though they use an outward appearance of animal welfare (AW), their pressure on Anderson County and City to enact tethering laws, which in fact, criminalizes animal owners, fulfills the AR intent. These tethering groups are a new AR creature. Their tethering ordinances are racial and elitist in nature. As I listen to their media quotes and the example that they use to prove for the need for a tethering law, I come to my conclusion. They seem to be hung up on poor southern white and black animal owners. Example, here is a quote from my Council representative Tom Allen. Council member Tom Allen, who is also on that committee, said he believes that in some neighborhoods, chained dogs are indicative of "a deeper social problem." He said he toured a neighborhood in Anderson County where he saw many tethered dogs. "I think in that neighborhood, there may be drug dealing or gang activity going on," he said. "And then the other people who have dogs there need them for protection." (Anderson County to limit how residents tether dogs, By Nikie Mayo, Anderson Independent Mail, Posted January 17, 2013) You can be your own judge, but I am willing to bet this was a poor minority neighborhood that Freedom Fences took Mr. Allen through. I personally would like for him to clarify exactly where he witnessed these examples and why we have not already enforced tethering laws throughout the country to end drug trafficking. LOL As for whether or not tethering constitutes animal cruelty, that is a topic that is more emotional than factually based. Most of the reasons that Freedom Fences gave for the enforcement of tethering, are in fact already against the law without a tethering ordinance in place. A properly tethered dog will not be more aggressive than a kenneled dog. In fact, insufficient kenneling techniques also have a textbook full of problems for your dog both physically and mentally. One example that I have seen Freedom Fences use when providing a kennel to a dog owner is the uses of hay as bedding. Most vets will tell you hay is the number one cause of mange when used for dog bedding. Below I have provided two good links for the information I have given. It is one of the best well written articles on the proper tethering of dogs I found on a pit bull site. Housing the Pit Bull workingpitbull/tethering.html Bedding for outside dogs peteducation/article.cfm?c=2+2098&aid=109 Thanks William Chad Funk Anderson SC.
Posted on: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 15:58:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015