Kennel Inspections

[Lenajo]

There is some interesting reading on the Murder hollow case on Terrierman. He's know for his liberal attitude, but also for good research and truthful reporting. His information on Murder Hollow was eye opening. Did the lady actually throw rocks at Animal Control? Were the dogs really in feces and mold infested bedding?

 

This...is a hijack. Lets take the MH part back over to the that thread.

[painted_ponies]

There is some interesting reading on the Murder hollow case on Terrierman. He's know for his liberal attitude, but also for good research and truthful reporting. His information on Murder Hollow was eye opening. Did the lady actually throw rocks at Animal Control? Were the dogs really in feces and mold infested bedding?

 

This...is a hijack. Lets take the MH part back over to the that thread.

 

Not entirely, no. The issue here is not MH - really none of us know the facts of that case. The issue is kennel inspections, and whether or not someone should have to wake up every morning wondering if "today's the day" some inspector will show up and ask for access to one's property. Or demand it - IME, sometimes muncipal employees are unaware that they are not allowed to go onto someone's property unless they have either permission (from the owner or someone with "apparent authority" over the property) or a warrant. So the inspector may tell the property owner they must let them in - and the property owner may not know better.

[juliepoudrier]

Wendy V,

I was mainly responding to Wendy R's comments. I don't actually have kennel runs for my dogs, so I guess I'm in a situation more like Debbie Crowder's. The dogs are in the house (or yard if that's where they want to be) and if I need to contain them for some reason, they go in crates in the house. It seems silly to me that in order to have a kennel license, when the license is simply defined by the number of dogs being licensed, you must also have actual kennel runs that can then be inspected, although maybe in Debbie C's case the outside (of the house) kennels became a requirement when she refused a/c entry into her house. Maybe county governments need to make the presence of a kennel structure a requirement for getting a kennel license. I guess the answer is to pay more for individual licenses, and not bother with kennel inspections. But I wonder what would happen if someone noticed you were over the regular limit (if there is such a thing) and decided you needed to have a kennel license instead of individual licenses. (Rhetorical question)

 

As for acceptable levels of cleanliness, sure I can look at a kennel yard and say whether it's acceptable or not, but I don't think I could as easily do the same with someone's house. I know folks whose houses make me kind of cringe when I walk in them, but they still aren't rat-infested trash holes either. I wash my dogs' food bowls after every feeding (i.e., twice a day), but I know plenty of people who don't. I prefer to wash them, and I hate the thought of them eating out of previously used, unwashed bowls. But I wouldn't dream of imposing my personal dog-bowl washing standards on someone else. That's the point I was trying to make with the "degrees of cleanliness" comments.

 

J.

[Lenajo]

but I don't think I could as easily do the same with someone's house.

 

oh yes you could. Any nursing student could do it (tying their shoes optional LOL) so I know any reasonably intelligent adult women could. (and probably a few men...LOL)

 

I've been in houses so filthy I wouldn't let my dogs in there if someone paid me. You could age the house by the dog hair lines on the walls from seasonal shedding and weather (mud mostly, in worst cases feces). Sound funny? It's not. Because its never isolated to just one problem. I've given statements for social services, dhr, police, neglect and abuse cases. Trigger words - offensive odors, files, open spoiled food (pet or human), dog feces and urine on floors and walls, insects (fleas mostly).... if this is anybody's home OR kennel...you've got problems and I suggest you get help immediately *before* someone "helps" you out of dog ownership.

 

See, I can tell what "cleanliness" is and not even have a job with animal control. Bizarre and amazing.

[Journey]

It seems silly to me that in order to have a kennel license, when the license is simply defined by the number of dogs being licensed, you must also have actual kennel runs that can then be inspected, although maybe in Debbie C's case the outside (of the house) kennels became a requirement when she refused a/c entry into her house. Maybe county governments need to make the presence of a kennel structure a requirement for getting a kennel license.

 

 

Cleanliness aside;

 

I have to disagree with the above. Government needs to get out of our lives and our homes. What does a kennel license do? It doesn't show a good breeder, owner, trainer. It simply puts money into the local government so they can harass you since you paid for the license, and they know you are there. Those that fly under the radar (myself included) are breaking the law in some cases, ok, big deal, I also break the law while speeding down the highway. It's not "getting out of control" it is "out of control" wrt AC and the AR groups. I know the whole legislative push started to "help" but it's gotten to the point now where not only does it not help it hurts people, their lives and their pets. Truthfully, I'd rather see hoarders get away with it just so good owners don't live in fear that their dogs may be taken one day just because......what business is it of government to regulate my dogs and how they live (they haven't offered to pay the food bill lately!)? Seriously, there is more important stuff they could address that deals with life and death.

[Debbie Meier]

I would rather not pick on DebbieM either, but her statement provided some serious fodder for discussion. Sorry Debbie.

 

No problem, I have no problem with my comments providing serious fodder of discussion. It's interesting the pictures that people paint in their mind when they read others posts, I think it is greatly influenced by what they have seen or expirenced and also what the media as planted into their brain. One thing I don't do is to paint the picture rosie for the benefit of others or myself, I try to paint it accurate. We have flies, we have a farm. We have feces, our dogs shit. The water bowls may not be full, my dogs drink. The bowls may not be pristine, shit happens.

 

I've seen the inspectors in action just "Doing their Jobs", part of their job is to notate care and maintenance issues, if there is more then one pile of poop in your dogs run they may notate "Fecesses in runs" on your inspection. Now, what does someone reading the report assume "Fecesses in runs" means, two piles of poop, one from last night and the other from this morning, or dogs that are swimming in fecesses?....must have been bad if the inspector noted it, right? Heck, when it was notated on our report it was a AM inspection, I was just going out to clean kennels that morning, guess what, almost everyone had more then one pile, not because I failed to clean my kennels for days, it's just that the had not been cleaned since last evening. Much the same as "Empty and Dirty Water Containers", does it mean that the dog just dumped it after having a ball sloshing around in the dish creating a little mud in their grass run which is now all over the dish, or does it mean that the dish is crusted in filth and has not seen water for hours and hours, maybe days?

 

I've seen other peoples facilities, some are better then ours and are a basis for what I want to present and grow to, but most are way worse. Even though my runs and facility is cleaner and better kept them most (even the inspector has stated that) it does not mean that I am free to rest on my laurels. The inspector will still write me up just as fast as anyone else. They don't compare my facility to others, they compares it to the statute, which could be a bugger to upgrade to if you found yourself over limit and suddenly pressed to meet regulation.

 

I've also seen people that have no kennel runs keep their dogs in far worse conditions in their house then my dogs are in that are housed in kennels. I've been in houses that have dogs where I wanted to vomit from the stench, the urine smell made my eyes water. The best one was where they were having their electrical outlets short out from the male marking on them. They didn't notice it, they lived in it, much like a smoker that does not notice that their cloths reek, heck I can smell a smoker from over 5 feet away. It is something I try to be sure to be aware of, so that I don't grow accustomed, just like the person whose horse is thin, they see them every day and just don't see it, where as someone who has never seen the horse may be agast at it's condition.

 

In regards to crates, if we did not have kennel runs and kept our dogs crated in the house or in the barn when we were gone the crates would be considered the "Primary Enclosure", here is what is written about primary enclosures:

 

67.2(2) Primary enclosures

 

c. the shape and size of the enclosure shall afford ample space for the individual(s) to comfortably turn about, stand erect, sit or lie.

 

I bolded "stand erect", even my largest XL crate will not allow my largest Border Collie to stand erect, they will hit their head on the roof. Making a crate not satisfactory as a primary enclosure, in that case an alternate enclosure such as dog runs or totally loose in the house would be you option.

 

But then if your house is the primary enclosure then they have this little blurb about "In-Home Kennels" There is a limit to no more then six adult animals (including both breeding animals and surgically sterilized animals) in the individuals living quarters.

[Debbie Meier]

oh yes you could. Any nursing student could do it (tying their shoes optional LOL) so I know any reasonably intelligent adult women could. (and probably a few men...LOL)

 

I've been in houses so filthy I wouldn't let my dogs in there if someone paid me. You could age the house by the dog hair lines on the walls from seasonal shedding and weather (mud mostly, in worst cases feces). Sound funny? It's not. Because its never isolated to just one problem. I've given statements for social services, dhr, police, neglect and abuse cases. Trigger words - offensive odors, files, open spoiled food (pet or human), dog feces and urine on floors and walls, insects (fleas mostly).... if this is anybody's home OR kennel...you've got problems and I suggest you get help immediately *before* someone "helps" you out of dog ownership.

 

See, I can tell what "cleanliness" is and not even have a job with animal control. Bizarre and amazing.

 

 

Awe man, you just gave me the heebee jeebees, I hope to doG you didn't paint that type of picture when I posted above.

 

Just had a memory come up of a friends house way back, dishes stacked in the sink. I thought one day I would be nice and clean up a little, until I moved a plate and saw all the maggots devoring the buried left overs

 

I personally don't think that it is fair to think that anyone that mentions that their house is a mess would have the same level of filth that I saw there. I consider it more the normal to be in need of a good spring cleaning. Yeah, maybe it could be that bad, but if they are willing to invite someone in, not likely. Though, I suppose there are exceptions.

[Lenajo]

Karen - black helicopters aside, there is a reason for some *reasonable* laws and we are all pretty much in agreement that work needs to be done with this.

 

Force of ones personality is not enough to convince some neighbors to give their animals the basics. Sacrifice those animals for the greater good of our rights sounds easy until you watch somebody's animals starve to death out the window. Or that legendary debate on Sheep-L with the lady who liked to clean sheep skulls for "art" by putting them in full view of the neighbors to rot and be eaten out by the fireants.

 

DebbieM: So far nothing is changing my mind. Comments like: We have a farm. Dogs shit. Farms have flies.

 

And you think this sounds like a good rationale?

 

Personally sounds like a bunch of excuses. Lots of people have farms, big kennels, and manage to deal with basic hygiene well enough that they don't have these problems.

 

I can just hear a dairy guy telling the inspector. We have a farm. Cows shit. Cows have flies. Get over it and drink the milk. Bet that would go over well too.

 

At first I was inclined to believe you were targeted for unfair, possilby nefarious, reasons by AC but you are causing me doubt at this point. At the very least your attitude isn't helping.

[juliepoudrier]

oh yes you could. Any nursing student could do it (tying their shoes optional LOL) so I know any reasonably intelligent adult women could. (and probably a few men...LOL)

 

I've been in houses so filthy I wouldn't let my dogs in there if someone paid me. ... See, I can tell what "cleanliness" is and not even have a job with animal control. Bizarre and amazing.

Well, sure Wendy, but what you describe here is I think quite far afield from what Wendy V meant when she mentioned "clean and orderly." I'm not talking about the situations no one could possibly mistake for clean, as you've described, but those grey areas that would seem to fall under Wendy V's definition. My house is pretty clean, but probably would not be considered orderly in that I let mail pile up before going through it, I keep dog towels stacked by the door, and there's even some sheep meds on the dining room table, etc. Nothing that screams this is a disgusting, filthy, sh!thole of a house, but probably not what would meet some people's definition of orderly either. My house is clean enough that I'm not embarassed if someone drops by, but that's not to say that my neighbor, whose house is so spotless you could eat off the floor, would classify her house and mine as the same degree of clean. That's what I'm getting at: We could all pick out the really awful places and probably the marginal places, too, but if I'm the ACO and I think all dog bowls should be washed twice a day, am I allowed to impose *my* standard of cleanliness on you?

 

J.

[Lenajo]

So define it. We want AC to be able to, so lets be armed with what we want and why. I have never doubted that there are AC people who are totally, intentionally, maliciously, wrong at times. Others are decent people that need facts and standards set with education. We can point out the really bad and good stuff, the extremes - where is the middle ground? What can you say to another dog person to help them understand where the lines are *before* they are crossed by miles?

 

What is "reasonably clean" mean? How much dog hair? how much feces? flies? no flies? how much space? in a kennel? a crate?

 

I think somewhere in the middle of the opinions is the truth.

 

Well, sure Wendy, but what you describe here is I think quite far afield from what Wendy V meant when she mentioned "clean and orderly." I'm not talking about the situations no one could possibly mistake for clean, as you've described, but those grey areas that would seem to fall under Wendy V's definition. My house is pretty clean, but probably would not be considered orderly in that I let mail pile up before going through it, I keep dog towels stacked by the door, and there's even some sheep meds on the dining room table, etc. Nothing that screams this is a disgusting, filthy, sh!thole of a house, but probably not what would meet some people's definition of orderly either. My house is clean enough that I'm not embarassed if someone drops by, but that's not to say that my neighbor, whose house is so spotless you could eat off the floor, would classify her house and mine as the same degree of clean. That's what I'm getting at: We could all pick out the really awful places and probably the marginal places, too, but if I'm the ACO and I think all dog bowls should be washed twice a day, am I allowed to impose *my* standard of cleanliness on you?

[Wendy V]

Hey, JP, the only grey areas are the ones that you are choosing to paint. My experience with the others that I mention are closer to what Lenaho' is describing. "Clean and orderly" is subjective, yes, but a worthly goal, er, imperative, if you choose to manage a multi-dog household, or kennel. Us multi-dog owners need to set the standard of care, not flirt on the edge of filth and chaos, or, sadly, as some have, decend into it.

[Lenajo]

I have to object to being called LenaHo. You simply don't know me that well

 

 

 

Hey, JP, the only grey areas are the ones that you are choosing to paint. My experience with the others that I mention are closer to what Lenaho' is describing. "Clean and orderly" is subjective, yes, but a worthly goal, er, imperative, if you choose to manage a multi-dog household, or kennel. Us multi-dog owners need to set the standard of care, not flirt on the edge of filth and chaos, or, sadly, as some have, decend into it.

[Journey]

I have to object to being called LenaHo. You simply don't know me that well

 

I do...but since I am a sheep slut right now I will keep quiet

[painted_ponies]

Karen - black helicopters aside, there is a reason for some *reasonable* laws and we are all pretty much in agreement that work needs to be done with this.

 

I thought people who objected to "reasonable" laws were ready to be fitted for tinfoil hats, too - till I gained a little real world experience with how those laws are enforced.

[Ooky]

I thought people who objected to "reasonable" laws were ready to be fitted for tinfoil hats, too - till I gained a little real world experience with how those laws are enforced.

 

You know, I have no idea what to think on any of this because I've always been a strict pet person who stayed basically under the radar animal-wise. Yet recently the idea of having a pack of dogs does not sound weird when I think about my future. And believe me, I'm a bit of a live free or die-er myself, even if I'm a stinkin liberal. What I'd like to see some discussion on from people who know more is:

 

How SHOULD local laws be written and enforced to prevent hoarding/PM/BYB or whoever and still be reasonable?

 

What I mean is I see a lot of "this hurts good people" and not a lot of "a better solution that would deal with this clearly terrible issue would be..."

 

Can't say I agree that society is better off accepting that some will really mistreat and neglect large numbers of animals before requiring others being subject to some sort of regulation, but maybe I'm out in left field here? And at what point does public safety factor in, if ever? As a one-dog household, I do have an easy time imagining a household supporting 20-30 dogs gong terribly wrong. But I think a lot of good points have ben raised in these past two threads - thanks in advance for any thoughts.

[Wendy V]

I have to object to being called LenaHo. You simply don't know me that well

 

Just a little flattery, dear. I had to make sure you were reading carefully.

[juliepoudrier]

I have to disagree with the above. Government needs to get out of our lives and our homes. What does a kennel license do? It doesn't show a good breeder, owner, trainer. It simply puts money into the local government so they can harass you since you paid for the license, and they know you are there. Those that fly under the radar (myself included) are breaking the law in some cases, ok, big deal, I also break the law while speeding down the highway. It's not "getting out of control" it is "out of control" wrt AC and the AR groups. I know the whole legislative push started to "help" but it's gotten to the point now where not only does it not help it hurts people, their lives and their pets. Truthfully, I'd rather see hoarders get away with it just so good owners don't live in fear that their dogs may be taken one day just because......what business is it of government to regulate my dogs and how they live (they haven't offered to pay the food bill lately!)? Seriously, there is more important stuff they could address that deals with life and death.

Karen,

I should have been clearer in what I said, but I was in a hurry. I think I was speaking to the same thing Sally has said repeatedly here (and on the Murder Hollow thread), which is that when you go to license your dogs, you should make yourself well familiar with the "rules" (written and unwritten) that your local government applies to things like kennel licenses. I was speaking to the fact that Debbie C. keeps her dogs in the house and therefore doesn't actually have a kennel (structure) per se to which the license applies. She has a particular number of dogs, which "entitles" her to get a kennel license, but apparently in her case, along with the license comes the requirement (?) for an actual physical kennel structure, whether that be the runs taken from the animal hospital after renovation or the crates she's being required to put in her tack room. Why are either of these a requirement for a kennel (term being used to imply numbers, not structures) of dogs who live in the house? My point was that if localities are imposing rules on an individual basis, as they seem to be doing with Debbie C., then it would really make sense for them to encode those rules so that anyone who wishes to apply for a kennel license will know *exactly* what rules will apply to them once they get that license. As Debbie M. has pointed out, there can apparently be some very specific and stringent rules that go with dogs that are kept in the house.

 

And if you want to talk about government intrusion, in the county in which I used to live, vets were required to send rabies vaccine information to the local AC so that the AC could then send out a bill for a license for each animal that was vaccinated for rabies. To me, this is a prime example of intrusiveness that is punitive and actually serves to defeat a stated goal: control or eradication of rabies. Instead, people who didn't want to pay a license (tax) on their dogs were essentially forced to choose not to vaccinate their dogs (my neighbors did this). Who is that helping? How stupid a law was this? I got around it by using a vet in another state for rabies vaccines for some of my dogs, but most folks were not going to go to that trouble. If course I really threw AC for a loop because once I realized what the process was (get a rabies vaccine, get a license bill from the county), I went down and asked to pay for all the licenses at once (for the dogs vaccinated within the state). It took some doing to be able to pay all at once--they weren't even set up to do that. I know this little story is off topic in a sense, but it does illustrate your point about the intrusiveness of government and how some laws can be incredibly stupid and shortsighted (though at one time I did hear that states were going to start cooperating on the rabies vaccine notification thing).

 

So really all I'm saying is what Sally was saying: If you are going to license your dogs, especially with a kennel license, then you really need to make sure that you understand what buying that license requires of *you* according to the local laws.

 

 

Hey, JP, the only grey areas are the ones that you are choosing to paint. My experience with the others that I mention are closer to what Lenaho' is describing. "Clean and orderly" is subjective, yes, but a worthly goal, er, imperative, if you choose to manage a multi-dog household, or kennel. Us multi-dog owners need to set the standard of care, not flirt on the edge of filth and chaos, or, sadly, as some have, decend into it.

 

Wendy,

I think we'll just have to disagree. The grey areas are *exactly* where the average, normal (i.e., not a hoarder, PM, or bad BYB) person will run into trouble. Again, I am taking the point that is more in keeping with Sally's comments regarding *who* is doing the inspecting and deciding what's acceptable or not. Yes, the really bad cases are obvious and should have something done about them. I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I don't think most of *us* fall into the "housekeeping" category to which you and Wendy R are referring and are in fact generally clean and orderly. BUT, as Sally has pointed out repeatedly, and as Karen has alluded to, it takes just one idiot to create problems even for people with the Better Homes and Gardens houses, if that person chooses to do so. There's nothing grey about that. I'm asking how you protect the folks who are taking good care of their multiple dogs, but whose houses might not be spotless, at least by Better Homes and Gardens standards. I am *not* making excuses for people who are slobs or who live in pigstys or anything like that. I'm questioning how people like us (as Ooky asked) can be protected from the overzealous, the uninformed, and those who are on a vendetta or who have an agenda that is counter to owning pets at all but who have been given the power to enforce by the locality that has hired them. *This* is where grey areas will become exceedingly important.

 

J.

[Maralynn]

So reading through this discussion, a person could have 8 or 9 kids and as long as they were well cared for and educated with no intrusion from the state, but that person could have the same number of dogs that are well cared for and be subject to have state inspections? Eek!

[Wendy V]

Not necessarily so, Maralynn. One phone call to Child Protective Services would have the state open a file on the parents.

[Maralynn]

Not necessarily so, Maralynn. One phone call to Child Protective Services would have the state open a file on the parents.

 

But with the dogs the state inspection is default just by owning the dogs.

 

My dad did have a school official tell him that if he home schooled my older brother (back in 1983 when homeschooling was much less common than it is today) instead of enrolling him in public school, the official would report him as truant - even though both my parents held teaching degrees. Crazy.

[painted_ponies]

Not necessarily so, Maralynn. One phone call to Child Protective Services would have the state open a file on the parents.

 

True. And there are some interesting parallels between the behavior of the two agencies, both of whom send agents with a somewhat shaky grasp of the legal issues involved into the homes of folks who often have no idea of their legal rights.

 

Often child services agents believe they can force parents into taking drug tests or allowing home inspections without court orders or warrants, and parents comply because they believe the agents and because they are scared to death that otherwise their kids will be taken away. Of course, the irony is that by playing along with the agent, the parent increases the likelihood of that very thing happening.

 

And child services agents can be incredibly subjective and nit-picky. I actually had one agent who refused to let my client's child come back home from foster care because my client's cat had a dirty litter box. Another complaint listed, among the parent's other multitudinous sins, the fact that there were "pets in the home." OMG - really? I asked the caseworker how she thought Timmy survived all those years with Lassie. She wasn't amused.

[powerfulgazelle]

But with the dogs the state inspection is default just by owning the dogs.

 

My dad did have a school official tell him that if he home schooled my older brother (back in 1983 when homeschooling was much less common than it is today) instead of enrolling him in public school, the official would report him as truant - even though both my parents held teaching degrees. Crazy.

 

Oy.

 

Yes, the idea of having the state (county, city whatever) in one's business "just because"/by default rubs me the wrong way too. Yes, I get that various enforcement agencies exist because, sadly, whether it's dogs or kids or building codes, there are folks who won't do the right thing by themselves.

 

I appreciate the sentiment expressed here about the idea of having an inspection or re-inspection being something that puts one's stomach in knots because one's own standards (of housekeeping, animal husbandry, whatever) are now being compared to some possibly poorly defined external standard.

 

And no, I do not subscribe to the "well, if you are doing what you should, you have nothing to fear" school of thought.

 

 

***

 

 

My DH did child welfare work/child protection for our county for almost two decades. He is now (thanks be to god) working in a hospital setting, no longer in the county structure. Here's why I mention this:

 

When I was pregnant with DD, I had the Neighbor From Hades (who is now gone, thankfully, replaced by a lovely neighbor). Old city neighborhood, our houses are VERY close together side-to-side (I can tell you what magazines are on the coffee table next door by looking out the window). But, we own a second parcel, about an acre of land that "wraps around" the neighbor's lot, and runs down to woods and a ravine that abuts a 1500 acre wood/park.

 

Neighbor From Hades, when she moved in, wanted to buy part of our 2nd parcel to make her backyard larger. We said no. Nicely.

 

She paid to have surveyors come out and recheck the property lines (and actually "lost" some land that had historically been treated as "hers" when the lines were resurveyed).

 

She bugged us about selling--we said no.

 

She dumped all the broken up old concrete from having her new driveway installed in our woods. She appropriated creekbed rock from our land for her landscaping---tons. She landscaped our land (!). We told her the flowerbeds looked nice, but to please stop clearing and planting on our land. She said, "well you're not using it!" (the land).

 

Finally she resorted to invoking the Plague of Enforcement Agencies.

 

She called the health district about a vernal pool in the woods on our land b/c it "might breed mosquitoes". She bugged that sanitarian every week until he came out and set gravid traps to measure the pregnant mama mosquitos...and for the sake of peace, we stood on the ravine hill and lobbed mosquito dunks into it every month the pool existed each spring and faxed the receipts for the dunks to the health district as, just to shut her up. (Please note I do not live in an area with a mosquito control program. I don't keep birdbaths/old tires around for them to breed in or anything, but ye gods...)

 

If we did not mow on Saturday, she called the city on Monday morning. Weekly. (No, we did not have 3 foot grass or anything, but we did not/do not mow the field in front of where the woods start in the back every week. You have to descend 2 flights of stone steps set in a hillside to reach said field.)

 

When the city and the health district finally told her to take a powder (nicely), she escalated to....you guessed it, child protective services.

 

Because she knew DH worked for county children's svcs (at that point as a caseworker for families found to be neglecting/abusing kids), she knew ANY CALL SHE MADE would have a required investigation. (She knew this because her ex-husband also worked for the county...) Even if the call is baseless fantasy ("My neighbor is selling her kids to Martians!!! I saw them land in the backyard!!!), if the parent works for children's services, a special "internal affairs unit" must investigate---each and every call.

 

I was 9+ mos pregnant with DD (past my due date) when DH came home to tell me that internal affairs had called him to say an investigation had been opened, but policy prevented them from telling him/us until they had already pulled our then 8 yr old son OUT OF CLASS and INTERVIEWED HIM ALONE at school that day. (So we couldn't cover things up by telling him not to tell he had been sold to Martians, of course.) The material of her "allegation"? My DS "played alone a lot outside"...clearly a red flag for an only child (at that point, anyhow), who likes to shoot baskets on our patio....and that she had witnessed me "sitting on the floor with a sharp object in hand, crying". Remember how close together our houses are? Yes, she could see in my window of the room that was to be the baby's, sanding/scraping the last stretch of wide woodwork/baseboard in hopes of getting the room done before the baby arrived...but let me assure you 9+ mos pregnant women do not sit down crosslegged on the floor lightly (because getting up again is no easy thing) and yes, I do remember sitting there one evening and having a good old hormonally-influenced boo-hoo while sanding woodwork because, well, I was 9 mos pregnant and the baby's room wasn't quite done. So DH informs me that, while DS had told the investigator that everything was fine when he was interviewed at school, in order to complete the investigation, we had to be interviewed too. My reaction: I was furious that this woman had done this and my initial attitude was to want to call the investigator and invite her to snoop thru my bathroom cabinets if she wanted and my sock drawer too. DH, though, wisely cautioned me and said we'd be meeting the investigator at a public spot---a McDonald's---to be interviewed and not to "trust the system"...even tho there was nothing the interviewer would be finding at our home (other than a baseboard in the nursery that wasn't quite done)...it simply is not ever in one's best interest to invite the state into one's home.

 

An OT $.02, but no, I don't think it needs to be the burden of the individual citizen in his/her private home to have the state over to prove they live a righteous life.

[painted_ponies]

t simply is not ever in one's best interest to invite the state into one's home.

 

Truer words were never spoken.

 

ETA:

I don't think it needs to be the burden of the individual citizen in his/her private home to have the state over to prove they live a righteous life.

 

I think this is an important point to bear in mind. Since the state is the party with the burden of proof, and the individual is presumed to be blameless until the state can prove otherwise, it is only possible to hurt one's case by allowing the state to engage in an evidence-gathering mission (IOW, a fishing expedition) inside one's home. It never helps.

[juliepoudrier]

And no, I do not subscribe to the "well, if you are doing what you should, you have nothing to fear" school of thought.

***

An OT $.02, but no, I don't think it needs to be the burden of the individual citizen in his/her private home to have the state over to prove they live a righteous life.

Well said, Powerfulgazelle.

 

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

If you are going to license your dogs, especially with a kennel license, then you really need to make sure that you understand what buying that license requires of *you* according to the local laws.

This can be very difficult because even the county officials may not really understand the laws/ordinances; you can call the county offices two times, speak to two different people, and get two different answers. Also the laws/ordinances may not be self consistent. The animal control ordinance may require one thing based upon numbers, and they will sell you a license based upon numbers but the zoning ordinance may not allow you to have the license you just purchased from the county. When you do apply for the zoning part, you may be required to have a physical building, use permit, and possibly a formal hearing for an exception to the zoning restrictions. The lack of self consistency was implied by the county attorney when dog/kennel licenses were discussed in our previous county of residence.

 

Local ordinances/laws may be more than decade behind in dealing what is now being practiced in the county.

 

 

Mark