Dangerous legislation on RI gov's desk--
 

Please visit the AKC web site for information on a new law in RI that will severely interfere with your rights to use crates, cages, pens, even fence in your yard. If passed this law will make it impossible to hold conformation shows in that state. THIS IS NOT JUST OF INTEREST TO EXHIBITORS AND BREEDERS. Anyone who owns a pet will be victimized by this law. PAY ATTENTION PEOPLE. YOUR GOVERNMENT IS CHIPPING AWAY AT YOUR RIGHTS AT A TERRIFYING RATE. Contact the governor's office in RI and politely express your concern about this law. Monitor the AKC web site for extreme legislation being promoted nationwide, largely courtesy of PETA and HSUS who have no respect for human-animal bonding.http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4677

I read the bill in its entirety. It is aimed at stopping people from tethering their dog outdoors or keeping the dog staked to a tree for days on end. The preamble of the law states:

This act would provide guidelines and penalties for any person that keeps a dog outside tethered, penned, caged, fenced or otherwise confined without adequate shelter from the elements and would add definitions of “proper food,” “proper water” and “proper veterinary care” to the chapter on cruelty to animals."

The bill states it is unlawful to --

"Keep any dog tethered for more than ten (10) hours during a twenty-four (24) hour period or keep any dog confined in a pen, cage or other outdoor housing structure for more than fourteen (14) hours during any twenty-four (24) hour period."

If one isn't keeping their dog tethered outside for more than 10 hours during a 24 hour period (and the definition of tether does not include walks on a leash) or if one isn't keeping their dog outside in a pen, cage or other structure for more than 14 hours in a 24 hour period then they are not violating the law.

I looked it over just briefly & basically it looks like a good intentioned law, though how it would be administered is the key, I guess. I'm sure a person is not going to get a fine or whatever for a temporary situation where the dog stays crated 14 hrs or longer if they are taken to the hospital in a coma or something. It is probably going to be used for those people that buy dog, enjoy them a while & then stick them in a crate or outside tethered or in the fenced yard forever & the dog lives like a lab rat or basic farm animal. The way many people treat dogs this day & time, stronger laws of some kinds have to be made.

There have been other laws in other states that try to clamp down on animal abuse and puppy mills that many professional breeders and exhibitors have tried to stop because they fear it will also effect their business.
It is sad because I think the government, in most cases, is try to react to the abuse of animals but the way the bills are written seems to threaten the exhibitor as well. This has resulted in watered down bills that accomplish nothing in the way of stopping the abuse of animals by those that are out to exploit.
It would be good if the AKC could get involved at the political level and have input before the legislation goes for a vote so that the bills are written in a way that exhibitors can accept and that will also stop the abuse of animals. It will take some lobbying and deeper involvement by the AKC to accomplish this so that all animals are protected by legislation.

How would it affect breeders', exhibitioners' business unless they keep their dogs routinely caged 14 hours a day or whatever?

and if they did it OUTSIDE. The law addressed the confinement of dogs OUTSIDE.

More than 14 hours per day? Even Yorkies?

Exactly, it would take a lot to violate the law.

It appears that the AKC is concerned about the bill effectinig "responsible" owners who routinely crate their animals or even keep them in a fenced yard. They say the language of the bill is too vague. This is the same issue that comes up whenever there is a bill restricting such things and as I said the bill is either shot down or watered down, accomplishing nothing.

The AKC is self serving - the law does not address average responsible pet owners who keep their dogs inside. If you keep a dog outside for 14 of 24 hours, you should not own a dog!! Just my opinion....

I hardly think the state is going to be going after everyday people with this law!!! But anybody that keeps a dog routinely confined longer than 14 hours combined without human contact or interaction probably shouldn't have an animal. I think the oversight agency of this law will be looking for chronic offenders.

WEll okay, there are outside shows I attend in the summer months of course. Dogs are required to be crated whle on show grounds; that adds up to at least 8 -9 hours. And yes they are routinely walked, watered, and fed, but then they need to go back in their crate.

When we camp, the dogs by necessity do need to be crated when we sleep; so very easily over a show weekend an exhibitor will be in excess of the 14 hrs. And even if you stay in a motel, often times there is a necessity to crate more than one dog.

I think in the city you are correct, but what about the working dogs? The farm dogs, the sled dogs, et al. These dogs are built to survive very well outside, and of course their owners as far as I know provide shelter, water, human interaction etal. Police Dogs are usually crated when travelling in car on the shift with their handler.

Actually in the case of working sled dogs, you really do need to keep them outside in order for their coat to have the proper density to protect them as they do sledding. I knew some folks who bred and trained Alaskan Malamutes in particular for the Idiorod.(sp)

Then there is the Tibetan Mastiff who would be very unhappy inside. They were bred to guard the farms/property of their owners.

Most Toy Breeds should never be kept outside at all. And even some working breeds, due to their predominant need for constant human interaction. My breed is one of those. While built and bred to survive Siberian winters on patrol with security guards; they were and are meant to live inside with owners/handlers once their duty is done.

This is about confining dogs outside for long periods. It's about tethering or confining a dog to a pen crate or other outdoor housing.

I've noticed that most laws that start to bring about social or government change & try to act to stop terrible problems do start out rather broad & the prosecution of those laws is left to the discretion of the agency with immediate oversight. Then, as problems are identified, they are amended & addressed, one by one though legislation, until the law is ponderous & almost unfathomable by all but the most determined. I don't think this law is going to go against good pet owners/breeders/showers unless real abuse or neglect is suspected as most agencies are usually too underfunded & too busy to fine or prosecute any law toward the responsible truly responsible dog-owning citizen.

It is sad but this is the very thing that has stopped so many anti puppy mill laws from being effective.
I am all for the betterment of any breed but the AKC needs to understand that there are other animals out there that need to be protected. When you get right down to it they are concerned about their kennel owners. This law is about tethering and crating but I assume they want language in there that exempts kennel owners from being effected. As I stated before they need to become more interested in the start of a bill instead of waiting until it is all written. There are representatives that they should be in contact within the various states ahead of time! They could be an effective means of stopping puppy mills!

Purebred dogs are wonderful. I love them and want the best for them but there are many other animals that have no one to speak for them. If the AKC wants to do something they should get in front and lead in protecting all dogs. We are not able to stop puppy mills or the self centered animal neglect people by just talking about it. They are not going to stop because we said mean things about them. Unfortunately, the sad fact is that it has come to the point that we need laws to stop abuse. I am against government regulation in most cases but when the welfare of humans or animals are in jeopardy then action needs to be taken.

I have heard more than one shelter or rescue organization tell me that the AKC & well-heeled, influential movers & shakers in the dog fancy always stop legislation that would make a dent on puppy mills for fear it will affect them some way, using the slippery-slope argument. But I really think that true legislative intent would be considered if ever respectable, truly reputable breeders, who are humane & kind to their dogs, were being harrassed by some beurocrat from an oversight agency for keeping their Malamutes outside too long during play, training & exercise for an event. That breeder's state or even U. S. senator could step in there. I've used both when I needed to do so. But we have got to start getting some laws in place that hit puppy-millers hard. We have to start somewhere. I tend to disagree with AKC on this one but my mind is still open.

They can't have it both ways. They are against puppy mills but they are more afraid to let the legislation through that would stop these pig pens. I can understand being concerned about some language in the bill that they may feel is not accurate enough to protect them but there are ways of dealing with that. It's just wrong to put the welfare of dogs trapped in puppy mills and other inhumane situations beneath their concern for their kennels. The bills are not aimed at clean well run kennels; they are aimed at suffering animals. If their kennels are legal and humane then why stop the state from helping other animals? Do they really think the police are going to bust an AKC conformation or agility show? Or are they concerned about having their kennel inspected? We can't afford the upkeep of the high kill shelters run by the state and local governments! That is why thousands of animals are killed daily! It's one thing to pass some paper legislation but it is a whole other thing to get it enforced.

Couldn't agree more. It has to start somewhere & no nascent bill is ever perfect. That's why all the subsequent additions, amendments, revisions, recensions, exceptions - why they get so long!

I do agree that the AKC, the CKC, and the FCI, needs to get ahead of the curve. Also they need and were/perhaps even are, in a prime position to represent the welfare of "all dogs", be they purebred or not.

How-ever they need to attract the non purebred pet owner, as members of their respective organizations. It appears that even with purebred pet owners, many do not register their pups with the AKC, I don't know about FCI, but I do know that every purebred dog that is bred by a CKC breeder is registered with CKC. It is here in Canada the breeder's responsibility to effect the change of ownership papers when they sell the puppy. And the breeders are Not allowed to charge more for this paperwork either.

So their dilemma is how to attract the non purebred pet owner? What would attract these owners to register, to be active in the organization. How to balance the needs of the purebred owners/exhibitors/breeders with the potential non purebred pet owner? Here I am speaking of the many health clinics run by AKC, their breeders program, and they are at least in performance events will need to run purebred obedience and non purebred obedience events, ditto rally, agility, etc. There are a finite number of resources both $ and people wise, who can volunteer their time to these functions.

Some legislation with teeth to get puppymillers or other irresponsible owners who keep their dogs in cages like lab rats all or a major portion of their lives or those who tether or leave their dog outside 24/7 for years is badly needed. States have got to start to get a handle on dog cruelty & neglect.

I don't know much about the other organizations that register dogs but I do know that there are many rescues and animal welfare organizations that have a great interest in taking down the puppy mills and others who abuse animals. I do agree that people working together on this is necessary. AKC is in a position to lead at this but so far I have seen nothing but interference. The question is: Are they capable of setting aside their internal politics to work for the good of a cause that effects only some of their members? Puppy mills are majoring on the small dogs that are so in demand right now. They do produce some larger breed dogs but the big money is in the little ones therefore they are not a threat to many of those in the AKC who breed the larger dogs.

I am beginning to think they won't do anything that makes their bigtime breeders/handlers very unhappy or inconvenienced. And I don't see them taking any steps toward change in breeding dogs that clearly have health issues from current preferences in appearance/conformation, such as the Bulldog.

This bill was signed into law.