Help Change Canada's Animal Cruelty Law

[Kyna]

Hi Folks,

 

This was sent to me by Tamara Chaney who was responsible for collecting 112 000 signatures to change Canada's animal cruelty laws. It would be much appreciated if anyone would like to sign the petition at www.queenwaldorf.com or write a letter as per Tamara's instructions.

 

Please feel free to cross post this.

 

Thanks for reading.

Sincerley,

Kyna

 

From Tamara:

"I'd like to ask you all a favour. There is a new petition starting up in support of Animal Welfare Bill C-373. The same bill as my Stop Animal Cruelty Petition. It would be wonderful if you would support this new petition, pass it on to everyone you know, requesting they do the same. I know, the 112,000 signatures we collected appears to have made no difference to our Government. Hopefully this new petition will add some extra pressure to our so called leaders. We won't know if we don't try. I feel we need to do everything we can at this point to stop Bill S-213 from being passed into legislation. Bill S-213 has made it through it's second reading with the House of Commons and is now sitting with the Justice Committee for review. Once the Committee makes their decision to pass S-213....all of Canada's animal's will be no better off than they are now. I am recommending supporting this new petition as well as writing countless letters to the Justice Committee Members (all 12 of them). You can find their names and mailing addresses here...StopAnimalCrueltyBillC373...(that's my Petition Teams web site). When mailing letters to the Government no postage is required. Please help in any way you are able to. Even if you write one letter, or sign you name to the petition, that would be wonderful. If we keep up our fight supporting effective animal welfare legislation, we will make a difference.

I THANK YOU & ALL THE ANIMALS

THANK YOU TOO!!!"

 

Tamara's attachment:

"St. Catharines rally and petition to toughen animal abuse laws

 

Queen Waldorf, the eight-year-old German shepherd found in Niagara Falls with weights tied around her neck, will be at a rally with her new owner to push for tougher laws for animal abuse at the St. Catharines courthouse on July 25.

 

Her former owner, Joseph Cote of Fort Erie, will be in court at 9 a.m. to face three criminal charges related to the abandonment and mistreatment of the dog that was found near a creek in April. Animal lovers are invited to gather outside the building beginning at 8:30 a.m. to gather signatures in support of Bill C- 373, a Criminal Code amendment to increase penalties for cruelty to animals.

 

The first ‘signature’ on the petition will be Queen Waldorf’s whose paw will be dipped in ink for her imprint. Organizers hope to surpass the 112,000 signatures gathered by an Alberta resident following a horrific abuse case that caused the death of a Lab-border-collie cross named Daisy Duke.

 

Niagara Falls Humane Society inspector Don Horvath, who has worked for the SPCA for the past 18 years, supports changes to the country’s 100-year-old laws dealing with animal cruelty that provide for a maximum penalty of a $2,000 fine and six months in jail.

 

“People don’t realize how hard it is for us to do our jobs properly when this is what we have to work with,” he said. “It’s very disheartening to deal with severe cases like this. There should be a lifetime ban on owning an animal.”

 

Horvath said The Niagara Falls Humane Society investigates about 500 cases a year of animal abuse and neglect. He said the courts are starting to take animal cruelty more seriously due to a public outcry, but the passage of Bill C-373 is crucial to the protection of animals and holding offenders accountable.

 

Anyone who wants to add their name to the petition can download it at www.queenwaldorf.com and send it to Ajax-Pickering MP Mark Holland. The Liberal backbencher will be re-introducing the bill with the petition to the House in the fall. The petition will also be available for signing at several pet-related businesses around the Niagara region this summer.

 

The two Hamilton women who organized the St. Catharines event, Sherri Nath and Carolyn Konrad, plan to travel to Windsor next for a case involving a shepherd-Rottweiler puppy that had its ears cut off. They plan to hold another rally there and collect more signatures on the petition.

 

For more information, contact: Carolyn Konrad, rally organizer at 905 523-7879 (Hamilton), Don Horvath, Niagara Falls Humane Society at 905 356-4404 or Suzanne Mason at 646-6930

 

(St. Catharines coordinator)"

[Bill Fosher]

I can't do anything because I'm a mare-can, but before I would sign this I would want to read the actual language of the actual bill and have a chance to discuss what its real-world implications would be with real-world people. A quick look around the website listed didn't provide the actual language of the bill, just a bullet-pointed list of things it would do.

 

Too many animal-rights and anti-animal ownership proposals are pressed in the guise of "anti-cruelty" or "healthy pets" initiatives.

 

Here in New Hampshire, our Commissioner of Agriculture noted in a recent newsletter that there's been a major increase in the number of animal cruelty, abuse, and neglect cases reported to his department. In New Hampshire the Division of Animal Industries, acting through the state veterinarian and his staff, investigates all such complaints. He said than more than 90 percent of the complaints his office investigates are unfounded, and that local SPCAs and Humane Societies only send him the ones where people are willing to stand behind the complaint and sign documents. About 85 percent of the cases are actually about something else: a neighbor dispute, a messy divorce or just some sort of ickiness, and the animal abuse investigation is being used as a means of harassment.

 

Just a couple of points to consider before you go off to sign any petitions -- virtual or otherwise.

[Kyna]

Hi Bill,

 

Really good points and I do agree.

 

My understanding is that the primary goal is to increase the penalties for true cruelty -the support being the research that, in my opinion, shows the correlation between animal abuse and subsequent human 'abuse' (not to mention the sake of the act of cruelty itself).

 

Tamara is going to become a memeber of the Boards and will post links to each of the Bills and folks can form their own opinions and decide themselves. (she had trouble logging in yesterday). I'll be reviewing the Bills again before I sign.

 

BTW - I see no problem with getting 'a mare-can' input directly to the government

 

Thanks!

 

Kyna

[Tamara Chaney]

Hi, this is Tamara Chaney,

Founder of the 'Stop Animal Cruelty Petition', which during it's short 3 month circulation across Canada, garnered over 112,000 signatures, in support of the Effective Animal Welfare Bill C-373. Thank you to ALL my fellow animal lovers who took part! I chose to start my petition because of a female border collie, black lab mix was tortured to death in my home town. Her name is Daisy Duke. She endured the worst recorded case of animal abuse in Canada's history. I will not go into detail here becuase I'm not sure how many people would be able to stomach it. If you choose to look

up what happened to her just google her name as well as Charles Haskett.

 

I also agree with you Bill, an individual should study a propossed Legaslative Bill before choosing to support/not support it. It is important to make an educated decission before putting your name to anything. I'd also like to point out; on-line petitions lack the requirements for the petition to be presented to the House of Commons. An individual must physically write their name on the petition for it to make it's way to the 'House'...just so you don't get sucked into signing the numerous on-line petitions.

 

I'm not too confident in the 85% of animal abuse complaint's are bogus in New Hampshire, but what the heck do I know, I don't live in the USA. If that is in fact the case, it's disgusting that citicens would waste the authorities time in such a manner. I can guarantee that this is NOT the case here in Canada. Our Humane Societies and SPCA's are full of abused & neglected animals. Most of which are euthanized because the animal is not able to recover emotionally from it's abusive past. Countless non profit animal rescue groups are rescuing homeless, starving & abused animals daily. New's acoss Canada is full of horrible animal abuse cases; dogs having their ears cut off to look meaner, home neuters, skinned alive, starving, hung from trees and beat, stabbed to death with a pencil, drug behind a vehicle by it's neck...I could go on forever. Animal Welfare Laws have not been updated in Canada since 1892. The maximum fine an animal abuser can face is a $2000 fine and/or $500 fine. 1/4 of 1% of ALL animal abuse cases will end in a conviction. We need changes and effective ones at that.

 

I'll admit...I am completely ignorant when it comes to posting links or manning websites or anything 'fancy' when it comes to computers, so I'm sorry, I will not be able to post a link to Animal Welfare Bills C-373 & S-213. Anyone wishing to reaserch the Bills can peruse them on my website: StopAnimalCrueltyBillC373, or you can contact the Canadian Government website, or your locally residing Member of Parliment and request the Bills in full.

 

Hope the info I've provided helps a little.

Your animal loving friend,

Tamara

 

P.S. Thanks Kyna for posting the info about the Queen Waldorf site, you're awesome!

[Bill Fosher]

Hi Tamara,

 

I wasn't terribly clear about what the situation in New Hampshire is.

 

Of the animal neglect, abuse, and cruelty cases that are reported to some authority, 90 percent are ultimately found to be unwarranted. I don't know what the exact figures are, but I would wager that the vast majority of these cases involve allegations of neglect as opposed to abuse or cruelty. IIRC, the commissioner of agriculture said that most of them are about horses or dogs without adequate shelter or without food and water. Upon investigation, there often is adequate food, water, and shelter for these animals that was simply not immediately visible to the reporting party (or the reporting party had an axe to grind). There are relatively few allegations of actual cruelty or abuse; I suspect that these are probably less likely to be made frivilously or maliciously, but I don't know.

 

Of the unwarranted complaints, 85 percent are found to be malicious -- divorce, neighbor disputes, etc.

 

The proportions are high, but the absolute numbers are small. A few dozen cases a year make it to the state at this point. Most are weeded out by local animal control officers, SPCAs and humane societies.

[Tamara Chaney]

Dear Bill

I guess I can see that...there are numerouse complaints here about neglect, no food, water, shelter. Which in my opinion is abuse. But being the crazy animal lover I am my idea of adequate food, water & shelter is quite different than what others think. I've personally called my local By-Law Officer reporting a case of neglect; my neighbours Rhodesian Ridgeback was out side in -20 to -30, with frozen water in his dish, no food and a plastic travel crate with a piece of carped for padding. By-Law came around took a look, told me there was nothing he could do because the dog had water and shelter. Dispicable if you ask me. Theres also a farmer just out of town who has numerous cows & horses. In the summer months the animals are all happy and healthy feeding in the pastures. In the winter they are all starving, bones sticking out, no hay, nothing. Every year calls are made to the SPCA...they come out and the man with put out 1 bale of hay for all those animals and the SPCA can't touch him. That's how pathetic out animal welfare laws are here in Canada. Sad hey? Sounds like that goes on everywhere.

 

Anyhow, my main reason for writing today is to post some info shared with me by the Program Director for the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, CFHS.

 

Shelagh wrote;

Canada's current animal cruelty law was originally enacted in 1892 and very badly needs to be updated. If all that is needed were tougher penalties, then Bill S-213 would do the trick. But, there is so much wrong with the current law that needs to be fixed and merely increasing penalties doesn't even come close to fixing the problems. The current law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases of neglect, even when numerous animals have been starved to death. The current law protects different animals differently, affording less protection for unowned animals than for owned animals. The current law doesn't even make it a crime to train animals to fight other animals and it doesn't specifically protect law enforcement animals. Bill C-373 would fix ALL these problems; Bill S-213 would fix NONE of them.

 

What is important to note is that, while Bill C-373 modernizes the language, it does not make radical changes and does not give animals rights. Bill C-373 uses the same key words to describe the offences that have been used for the past 115 years. Such words include" "causing unnecessary pain and suffering", and "killing an animals without lawful excuse". This means that, contrary to claims being made by the hunting and fishing industries, lawful activities like farming, hunting, fishing, trapping and scientific reaserch will remain lawful under Bill C-373.

 

Thanks,

Shelagh

 

Program Director

Canadian Federation of Humane Societies

102 - 30 Concourse Gate

Ottawa, ON

K2E 7V7

Tel: 613-224-8072, ext. 21

Toll free in Canada: 1-888-678-CFHS (2347)

Fax: 613-723-0252

www.cfhs.ca

 

 

Thank you for your email earlier today Shelagh, you made some very valid/important points. I felt it was important to share your email with the other Members of this site and thank you for your permission to do so. I believe CFHS has links to Bills C-373 & S-213, as well as countless other info on our animal friends. It's a GREAT site. Very informative. Keep up your wonderful work with the CHFS Shelagh, it's a fantastic organization & I truly apreciate all the help CFHS offered me throughout my journey with the "Stop Animal Cruelty Petition". I couldn't have done it without your backing.

 

Hope all you fabulous animal lovers have a great nights sleep. And thank you Bill, for your additional info. Much appreciated!

Chow-4-Now.

Tamara

 

P.S. Wishing you all a wonderful sleep without your pooch snoring in your ear!!!

[Bill Fosher]

I believe it should be difficult to prosecute neglect cases, just as it should be difficult to prosecute any other crime.

 

Here's my issue: is it neglect for me to leave my livestock guardian dogs outside with my sheep? How about in the winter? They don't have food and water at all times, but they are fed and watered every day. My experience with do gooders is that they are much more likely to report me for having frozen water than they are for having no water at all. And when there's snow cover, the dogs get a lot of water eating snow.

 

I've been reported for animal cruelty because my sheep were outside in a snowstorm. Fat, healthy, well-fed yearling ewes in full fleece that would not have wanted anything to do with a barn if there was one available to them.

 

I have no problem with increasing penalties for animal cruelty, as long as "crazy animal lovers" aren't the ones who get to define what animal cruelty is. No offense, Tamara, but I don't have a problem with dogs being outside in the cold, nor with livestock. Obviously, they need to be acclimated, properly fed, and strong and they need windbreaks, but given those conditions, they will probably be healthier outside than in.

 

I do have a problem with dogs being weighted down and thrown into water. I do have a problem with dog fighting. I do have a problem with people who let collars grow into their dogs' necks. But what's needed is a better understanding of what constitutes "adequate" food, water, and shelter, particularly in winter when we start to see most of the do-gooder complaints.

 

What we need to get away from is the presumption that an animal that is outside is neglected, which seems to be the ruling philosophy of many "crazy animal lovers." I am an animal lover, and more than one person has called me crazy. But I also realize that most, if not all, of the misguided efforts at reforming animal cruelty laws are founded on anthropomorphic principles by people who have little or no experience with the animals they purport to love -- or who only relate to them as fur-babies. I am not saying this is the case with you, Tamara. But what concerns me is that what is best management practice can be seen as abuse by someone who thinks that a sheep wants or needs the same things that a human being does. Put sheep into a closed-up and heated house in the winter and watch them die of pneumonia.

 

In some cases, it even goes beyond what humans want. We don't require access to food and water 24/7, yet there are those who say it should be a crime to have animals that don't have that access. Dogs in particularly are descended from animals that evolved to go for days on end without food. Granted, we have softened them considerably in the domestication process, but there is no reason why Fido needs to have a bowl of food in front of him all the time, or why sheep should always have hay in front of them in the winter.

 

To give you an idea of the extremes to which this can be carried, several handlers at a sheepdog trial in Massachusetts were threatened with prosecution because their dogs, waiting in their trucks for their turn to compete in the trial, didn't have food in front of them. Most people feed their dogs once or twice a day; a nearly sure-fire recipe for an unhealthy and fat Border collie is to leave food out all day. Yet the MSPCA police, which are deputized as Special Massachusetts State Police Troopers and carry Glocks on their belts, felt they knew better. And there is nothing in the Massachusetts law that requires dogs to have continuous access to food and water -- only that they be provided with adequate food and water. These police officers, who do not answer to any civil authority, took it upon themselves to define "adequate" as continuous.

 

By insisting on continuous food before these dogs, they may actually have been endangering them. Exercising on a full stomach -- particularly the extreme exercise involved in sheepdog trials -- is dangerous. Overheating is a concern, as is bloating or other forms of gastric distress.

 

That's why I'm leery of enhanced penalties for animal cruelty. Too many people who don't know biscuits from shinola are enforcing the laws, and there's essentially no presumption of innocence in many communities.

 

I left Massachusetts, among many other reasons, because the do-gooders and the MSPCA police were making it impossible for me to do what I knew was best for my animals, and I didn't want to stick around until they prosecuted me, got me thrown in jail, and had a reason to "rescue" my 750 ewes 1,200 lambs, seven guard dogs, and six Border collies and deprive me of my livelihood.

 

What's needed, in my estimation, are animal cruelty laws that take into considering the health and well-being of the animals, as opposed to ones that require owners to jump through particular hoops. The problem is that the people in charge of enforcing these laws often have little or no practical background with animals -- they are "crazy animal lovers" who decide to protect animals by becoming ACOs or SPCA police officers. They do not have the experience or expertise to make judgments about whether an animal is okay or not, except at the extremes of the spectrum. So they need to have markers in place: does the animal have food and water at all times? Does it have access to the house or barn? Rather than is the animal fed and watered and healthy? Does it have enough shelter from the elements either via its coat, natural terrain features, buildings, or trees?

 

These are judgment calls that farmers make every day, and whether we pay our mortgages or not depends on our getting it right. And 99.44 percent of the time, we do get it right. Laws are needed for the small fraction of situations where farmers don't get it right, either because they have given up hope, or were bad farmers in the first place, or are just downright cruel people. But the law should be based on a presumption of good husbandry that can be disproved by evidence from an expert such as a veterinarian or panel of fellow farmers who are experienced experts with the species in question.

 

Simply making animal cruelty a felony isn't going to change anything, except making the frivolous complaints that those of us whose farms have become surrounded by "assistant shepherds" much more serious.

[kelpiegirl]

Hi Bill

Just one niggling point... About the water- I do believe dogs should in general have access to this at all times- not every minute, but in general yes, because it just is not healthy to have dogs tank up on water (especially large chested dogs). Don't your sheep have water? Can't the lgd's drink that water? As for the sheep shelter- that's what I was warned about- that the sheep needed at least a semblance of shelter- because people could make trouble. As it was, mine did need shade provided, but if they had nice big trees, no. I also did not like working my dog near the road- too many on lookers looking for something to complain about.

 

Oh, and the food every minute- that's just inane.

 

Julie

[Eileen Stein]

Shelagh (quoted by Tamara) wrote: "The current law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases of neglect, even when numerous animals have been starved to death."

 

Then Bill wrote: "I believe it should be difficult to prosecute neglect cases, just as it should be difficult to prosecute any other crime."

 

It IS difficult to prosecute any crime, in the sense that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, but if it is difficult to prosecute a case of neglect where numerous animals have been starved to death, and the difficulty is caused by inadequacies in the way the statute is written, then I (crazy animal lover that I am) would support efforts to change the law.

 

I haven't seen the actual bill, and I gather that Bill hasn't either. But even though I share to a great extent Bill's ignorant-animal-fanatics-are-out-to-get-the-hardworking-farmer perspective, I just can't share his presumption that the bill should not be supported. Why? Because there ARE genuine cases of animal cruelty and neglect, and I think laws should permit the effective prosecution of those who perpetrate them. And when those cases are egregious, I think they should be prosecutable as felonies.

 

I've dealt with my share of ignorant and arbitrary bureaucrats -- everybody who lives in our society has -- but that doesn't mean that some conduct, including animal cruelty and neglect, shouldn't be effectively criminalized. The fact that such a high percentage of reported instances of cruelty and neglect are determined to be unfounded in NH undercuts Bill's argument IMO -- they may or may not be valid cases, but either way, the authorities are not eagerly and blindly pursuing them to court. His anecdote about the MSPCA police threatening handlers with prosecution because they didn't have food in their dogs' crates says three things to me: (1) police can sometimes be incredibly stupid, (2) their threats had nothing to do with what the law says, and (3) nothing was done to the handlers. I don't see why this provides any ammunition against updating the Canadian law against animal cruelty and neglect.

 

Bill also wrote: "But the law should be based on a presumption of good husbandry that can be disproved by evidence from an expert such as a veterinarian or panel of fellow farmers who are experienced experts with the species in question."

 

I don't see any reason to presume that this measure doesn't meet Bill's standard. The burden is always on the prosecutor to prove his case, and I don't see how a conviction for "causing unnecessary pain and suffering" could be successfully prosecuted without presenting expert veterinary testimony (and even agricultural expert testimony, if it's a case involving farming practices). If the facts are as Tamara relates them about the farmer who does not feed his cows and horses in the winter, to the point that they are starving, and veterinary testimony confirms this, I think the law should be able to step in, even though he's a farmer. As Bill says, "Laws are needed for the small fraction of situations where farmers don't get it right, either because they have given up hope, or were bad farmers in the first place, or are just downright cruel people." So those needed laws should be in place, and perhaps this bill will bring that about.

 

I'd like to read the text, though. Tamara, do you know if the bill we're talking about is the same as the one set forth here?

[Bill Fosher]

Eileen,

 

I did not presume the bill shouldn't be supported. As you rightly point out, I have not seen the bill -- only Tamara's bulleted list of what she thinks it would accomplish.

 

I am trying to encourage people to be skeptical about signing petitions supporting bills they haven't read, and that haven't been analyzed independently. My own experience with "crazy animal lovers" notwithstanding, I think current laws are enforced badly in some places. And the amount of time and stress placed on a farmer just handling an unfounded complaint is a serious matter. These concerns need to be addressed at least as much as deficiencies in animal welfare laws.

 

The annual complaint about my healthy, well-fed, and well-tended animals wintering outside was a time sink. Even if you know that you're in the clear and have the law on your side, it's stressful to be under investigation by the police -- especially when the police who are investigating you answer only to the self-perpetuating Board of Directors of a private non profit and seem to think it's up to them to interpret the law. And the fact that people would call the police rather than ask me if they had concerns about the health of my animals made me mad enough to spit.

 

Julie,

 

We could argue over whether your sheep needed the shade that you provided or whether they used it because it was available to them. The big sheep-producing parts of the world do not provide shade for sheep as a general rule, and in some places like the Central Valley of California temperatures can be brutal. Like you, I provide shade because I think it is better for the animals provided that you can keep the area that they use from becoming a sh!thole, but do they need it? I'm not certain. This is where breed and selection come into play. I'm sure that my sheep, if moved to the Central Valley, would need more than just shade to stay alive.

 

When I was in Mass, I did not attempt to leave water for the dogs because I would be reported for animal cruelty if their dishes got a skim of ice on them. I would not get reported if there was no water. Go figure. My experience was that they didn't tank up on water when there was snow cover because they got their water from the snow. They might have a few laps of water with their food, but if anything I found myself occasionally baiting their water so they would not rely so heavily on snow.

[Eileen Stein]

I am trying to encourage people to be skeptical about signing petitions supporting bills they haven't read, and that haven't been analyzed independently.

 

Fair enough. I've just been through the AB1634 experience, and certainly many supporters of that bill supported it without reading it, just because they were told that animal lovers should support it, and "Who do you want to be with -- us or the vivisectionists and puppy millers?" Most people will probably decide based on what they're told a bill says -- and therefore proponents and opponents alike have to tell people what it says -- but the best way to be sure of what it says is to read it. Of course, you have to be able to interpret legal verbiage to do that, and not everyone can or wants to.

 

My own experience with "crazy animal lovers" notwithstanding, I think current laws are enforced badly in some places. And the amount of time and stress placed on a farmer just handling an unfounded complaint is a serious matter. These concerns need to be addressed at least as much as deficiencies in animal welfare laws.

 

I think bad law enforcement and unfounded complaints are related extremely loosely, if at all, to the provisions of the law. How the laws are enforced is often very different from what the law says. I am currently going round the barn (and going round the bend) dealing with our local zoning and housing code enforcement people, as I do any time we have to make any major repairs or improvements. I cannot say enough bad about them -- they are @#$%& idiots. (I may have posted some time ago about their requirement that the barn we built had to meet housing code for a dwelling, including dry wall, fireproofing between what they were pleased to call the "garage" (downstairs) and the "living quarters" (loft), etc. That example is probably the craziest of all, but it's by no means all of the craziness.) But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a building code, or that a building code shouldn't have strict requirements and criminal penalties.

 

The annual complaint about my healthy, well-fed, and well-tended animals wintering outside was a time sink. Even if you know that you're in the clear and have the law on your side[emphasis added], it's stressful to be under investigation by the police -- especially when the police who are investigating you answer only to the self-perpetuating Board of Directors of a private non profit and seem to think it's up to them to interpret the law. And the fact that people would call the police rather than ask me if they had concerns about the health of my animals made me mad enough to spit.

 

Yes, but your totally justified complaint here is against your neighbors and possibly the police, not the law. If there's one thing the law can't change, it's that unfounded complaints will be made.

 

As for the water for your LGDs, I would echo Julie's question -- don't you have stock tanks for your sheep and couldn't your LGDs drink from them? You are right that dogs (and sheep too) often prefer to eat snow rather than drink water, but at least down here we can have prolonged periods with temperatures way below freezing without any snow cover.

[Bill Fosher]

As for the water for your LGDs, I would echo Julie's question -- don't you have stock tanks for your sheep and couldn't your LGDs drink from them? You are right that dogs (and sheep too) often prefer to eat snow rather than drink water, but at least down here we can have prolonged periods with temperatures way below freezing without any snow cover.

 

In the event that there are spells of subfreezing weather without snow and if the animals are in a location where there's no natural water, then yes, I have stock tanks. I think there was a period of about a week where this was the case last winter, and the sheep were eating silage with a moisture content of about 60 percent, so they were totally uninterested in water. The dogs got broth in their food and were similarly uninterested in additional water.

 

I generally don't have access to electricity, so I try to only put about what they'll drink in a single day out because I know it will freeze. This was what was getting me in trouble in Amherst: the do-gooders would come by in the morning before I got there and see a frozen water trough and report me. Usually solar gain in a black plastic trough was enough to keep water open during the daylight hours, but it would freeze overnight. Eventually I figured out that if I watered the animals in the morning and returned in the afternoon to take the empty (or nearly so) trough or dog bowls away before they froze, I would not have any problems from the do-gooders.

 

It made for a lot of extra work, but it was more enjoyable than the alternative. That's what happens when any crackpot's word is taken at face value. And you're right -- this is a problem with law enforcement, not with the law itself.

 

A contractor who was working for me recently espoused the theory that building codes have reduced the level of safety in as many cases as they have improved it by setting minimum standards that are lower than what many craftsmen would have used left to their own judgment. Now the only way to get work if you're competing based on price is to follow code and not do better. I guess that's what I don't want to see in regard to animal welfare: a minimum standard of nonsensical codes of practice. Does drywall on the barn ceiling make your barn safer? Probably, as a structure, but it does not make it better housing for your animals.