Quote:
Originally Posted by chachi  It was a ruling in one state not nation wide. Ill put 50 bucks that if the humane society knew someone pierced their dogs ears they wouldnt do jack about it. They have more serious issues than that they are dealing with. Piercing a dogs ears is not abuse but kicking a dog is so your not comparing apples to oranges. It is owner choice same as dressing a dog |
You can best bet that if they think that they can get a lot of media coverage, they will do just what I said. And for a humane society, cruelty is cruelty, it doesn't matter if it's something small, or something large. Why? Media coverage = more donations EVEN if the money isn't for the animal that was being featured. Look at the ASPCA and Oreo for example.
And ALL state laws have similar animal cruelty statutes. It would NOT be hard at all for a DA in any city in ANY state to use that states laws to prosecute someone for piercing their dogs ears for the reasons I stated.
ALL states have maiming laws, and if you weren't aware I DID say "But it IS animal abuse in the state of PA, and if you pierce your dog, and the humane society sees your dog with pierced ears, I have 50 bucks that says they will take your dog and put you in jail." and prior to THAT I said "Trust and believe, as this spreads, IF it spreads, you WILL see laws specifically naming this as being animal cruelty". I believe I made the distinction that if you pierced your dogs ears in PA, that is what would happen to you, since it IS animal cruelty in the state of PA, and further, because I states it's highly likely that this will be put into law in other places where is it NOT already law.
Not only that, but these laws will be lobbied FOR by the likes of PETA and HSUS, and will contain language such as "for cosmetic purposes", which also means docking and cropping, which they have been trying to get banned here for decades. See the slippery slope?
Don't think it won't happen, because it's happened before. First limits on the number of dogs you can have, then MSN, then limits on the number of intact females you can have, which has lead to the proposed changes to APHIS which basically makes everyone who has sold a puppy online without the buyer coming to their house a pet store and subject to USDA laws. Google it, don't take my word. This kind of thing the AR nuts LOVE, because they can use it to further their agenda.
I don't know if you read that story, or tried googling it for yourself, but let me point some things out.. The seller was turned in by someone who works for PETA. They're the people that have been actively fighting to end pet ownership for EVERYONE. Should one of those AR freaks see a peirced dog, I PROMISE you they WILL report it. And PETA with the hundreds of millions they get from donors every years HAVE the ability to SEE that the case is prosecuted, because that kind of thing fits into THEIR agenda.
I don't even know why this is a matter of LAW. Seriously? I am shocked that someone would think it's OK, that condones putting earrings in dogs ears. Some things are right and wrong without there needing to BE a law for it. Example, did you know you can keep a dog in a vari kennel it's whole life in some places? In some states they'll call it cruel confinement, and arrest you, and some states they don't care so long as the dog is clean healthy, fed and watered. But is it RIGHT?
"Law controls the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one" ~Mark Twain.
The law in Indianapolis Indiana states
Sec. 531-401. - General requirements for animal care and treatment.
(a)Every owner or keeper of an animal kept in the consolidated city and county shall see that such animal:
(4)Is protected against abuse, cruelty, neglect, torment, overload, overwork, or any other mistreatment;
Sec. 531-206. - Unlawful use of a dog.
(a)It shall be unlawful for a person to make use of a dog in the commission or furtherance of any criminal act in the city.
I can bet that it would not take too much effort for a DA to make a case that piercing a dogs ears falls under these sections, specifically, because they have vets that will make the case that the act of piercing, when relating to a dog is abusive, cruel, and constitutes mistreatment and torment.
Further they can probably play on the second section if the person who pierced the ears were not a licensed piercer, since it's illegal to do so unless you have that license, and so that would be using a dog in the commission of a criminal activity.
I believe that it IS possible for anyone in any state to be jailed and have their dogs confiscated if there is a DA that thinks they can make a case using the general cruelty laws that all states have. I have seen DAs make cases on lesser law than this. And I believe that something like this would be taken up by media, practically insuring the conviction of the owner of the dog.
Dogs can always have their clothes taken off, it's nowhere near the same thing as having a needle jabbed through a sensitive part of their body with thousands of nerve endings, muscles, and blood vessels to create a permanent hole.
No, it's not apples and oranges. Go on think it's cute all you want to, it's STILL cruel. It's a shame you just can't see it.