ykw 
Member since Apr 19, 2007


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Durham commissioners to weigh tethering ordinance

and one more p.p.s. I happen to spend about 500 a month on my dogs, but what business is that of yours? you seemed to try to also make it out in that last post like it's a class issue ('if you don't have money for a big fence and a pretty house then you don't deserve a dog'), when it isn't about that at all either.

There are responsible owners that use all means of confinement and their are irresponsible owners that use all means of confinement, it's not about the method.

you went after one strawman and theorhetorical (sp intended) attack after another since the plain facts and truth about tethering rains on the AR parade.

ABUSE (INCLUDING NOT HAVING ADEQUATE SHELTER/FOOD/WATER) IS ALREADY ILLEGAL WITHOUT INTRUSIVE ANTI-TETHERING LAWS!

Posted by ykw on 02/02/2010 at 8:07 AM

Re: “Durham commissioners to weigh tethering ordinance

john/jalt/etc I also wanted to point out since you seemed intent on simpleton reasoning - one big, beautiful, perfect fence does nothing for the fact that I have many dogs that cannot (or I prefer not) run together, some at all times, some at one point or another. I know this is hard to conceive for those that picture them as little furry people but they have to be contained, controlled and gulp, even isolated at times. A fence does nothing to that end for me as a pet owner. Why not just let me use what works best for me and you do you.

Posted by ykw on 02/02/2010 at 7:51 AM

Re: “Durham commissioners to weigh tethering ordinance

Tethering has lately become an Animal RIGHTS' hot button issue and yet man has tethered dogs since the very beginning of our time together with no ill effect. The vast majority of pet owners who use a tether do so in a responsible fashion. Take note that a 15 foot circular tether provides 706.5 square feet for a dog to move around in, whereas a 16x16 pen (which is generally considered a large pen) provides only 256 sq. ft. and of that the corners are rarely used. This issue is being used as a Trojan Horse for the ARs to continue their push for total animal liberation by citing cruelty matters that are separate and distinct from how one confines their animal(s). They will not stop with anti-tethering either, their next step (as cited on several AR/anti-tethering websites) is to ban kenneling and guard dogs. Then will come mandatory spay/neuter, banning all breeding of purebred dogs and any purpose driven use of animals. They know they'd be unable to push through their entire extremist agenda overtly so they're nipping at it one trumped up topic at a time. Any means on confinement may be used responsibly and appropriately and any means of confinement may be abused and used irresponsibly. Some people that get drunk and drive do so in Chevrolets. This, just like Breed Specific Legislation, is akin to banning Chevrolets. Peoples' property rights (and my dogs are my property) should not be violated at the extremist whim of a vocal minority without good and just cause with regard to the specific use of, or unreasonable restraint of, particular pet(s). Yes, some people abuse dogs and do so by tethering them and then not giving them proper food, shelter, water, veterinary care, etc. Failing to provide such basic life necessities is ALREADY against the law though, independent of whether they are being tethered or penned or fenced, etc. No new law is necessary to address those issues, simply enforce existing law! Irresponsible owners will crate their dogs continuously indoors so that they will not be subject to the scrutiny of these intrusive laws and as with many animal laws, those who act responsibly will be the ones most hurt by implementation. Barring any actual abuse pet owners should be left to choose which method(s) best suit their needs and not be limited in using their own judgment with regard to properly tending their animals. Kennels and fenced yards are not suitable for all pets as some might escape or injure themselves trying. Arguably, one of the most irresponsible acts a dog owner might engage in is letting their dog run loose (to damage property, harass or kill livestock, or to be hit by a car among other unpleasant results) and many times a good tether is the best, most efficient and secure method to keep certain pets. I am a reasonable and responsible pet lover and most of my dogs are on chains. They are long, appropriately sized chains, under shade trees. They have nice, weather-proof houses and shelters and each has at least one four gallon (stainless steel lined) concrete water bowl that isn't tippable. They're secured with 316 stainless swivels and properly fitted, comfortable (Stillwater) collars. They have toys, are regularly fed good kibble and receive occasional treats. They're ivomeced, wormed, kept free of parasites (both external and internal) and vetted. They are also more easily and frequently handled when I am out doing my chores and yard work and am able to pet them as I just walk by without being hindered by a closed pen door. I rotate the ones that behave inside, although lately it has been my elderly bitch who has received the most inside time. A dog yard also has its own social hierarchy. Despite arguments by the AR activists dogs can be perfectly well socialized on a chain and they develop a distinct social structure when part of a yard of chained and/or kenneled dogs. The term 'yard boss' is easily apparent when looking at that particular dog and how he carries himself and how the others look to him for determining the tone of a situation. Just as I know their different barks (and status), so do they. One size does not fit all! Ban illegal acts by individuals, not legitimate action by law abiding citizens because of the (already illegal!) irresponsible acts of a few.

Posted by ykw on 02/01/2010 at 9:04 AM

Re: “Durham Commissioners pass tethering ordinance

Despite one actual expert calling this law "excessive" and another saying he is "against such laws" and even one of their own main proponents for gaining more gestapo power for herself, the AC director, admitted that the six dogs she referred to in a recent cruelty case (where the dogs happened to be tethered) were all confiscated and the owners cited under existing law this kangaroo commission acted on behalf of their own extremist agenda.

As a lifelong Democrat I am appalled that some of my party's leaders on this Commission have sought to legislate against the legitimate and peaceful actions of their constituents against the advice of true experts. I want everyone who reads this to take note that every member of the commission is a Democrat. I wish I could ask that you OUST EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM (except Lewis Cheek, who showed some integrity in voting for what was right and not what was politically expedient) from their illicitly used seats this November, even if it means electing Republicans. However there are only five nominees for the five seats, including three who have already abused their positions.

Additionally, since they managed to pass this kangaroo law I wish I could hope that the next Commissioners would seek to rescind it immediately during the "grace period" and run with that as part of their platform. However, upon viewing a sample ballot I see only these two older, wealthy, out-of-touch women, Mr. Page and a couple newcomers, not even Mr. Cheek, the one sole holdout to their fascist agenda. So, it will have to be 2012 before they can be ousted. I would urge someone like Steve Hamlett to run for one of the seats and perhaps organize others from his club. Not only will I support him/them but I will rally as many as I can to do so as well.

Here is a link to the County Election Board's website. Nowhere do I see "criminalize reasonable, lawful action by Durham's Citizens" in the Commission's mission statements.

Please go, look, and let's take action against these leaders who have subordinated the rights of Durham's citizens to their own extremist agenda. I will now begin compiling information which I hope to present involving what is required to recall the offending commissioners. Look for more information on that in the future.

http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/elec/Durham_County_Officials/Durham_County_Officials.html http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/bocc/index.html http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/bocc/Rules_and_Procedures/Rules_of_Procedure_F.html

Posted by ykw on 09/09/2008 at 8:17 AM

Re: “Huge turnout for Durham's tethering ordinance hearing

Well I had hoped that since your paper seems unable to provide a fair and balanced view in the stories you might allow the posters to do so.

Also, my comments are new to this post and not everyone may have seen the last article.

Last time you permitted the anti-chaining fanatics to post their websites right near the top of the comments and thought that in the interest of fairness you might allow the reverse to be so this time.

I guess my comments will be ok once the animal rights extremists post a few comments at the top that everyone can see first.

Posted by ykw on 08/26/2008 at 11:17 AM

Re: “Durham commissioners to weigh tethering ordinance

tsk, tsk...I thought I already told you to give up this idea john/johnAlt/JP/D etc. how odd that no one would post for days, then suddenly there's yet another poster using the same arguments and complaints you are within 20 minutes of each other, lmao.

If you don't see the numerous other reasons why it's reasonable and valid, that's because your mosquito length attention span didn't allow you to digest the many more examples mentioned in my article. hey, I'll post it again. Instead of stewing for 4 days try reading it. :D

================================================

Tethering has lately become an Animal RIGHTS' hot button issue and yet man has tethered dogs since the very beginning of our time together with no ill effect. The vast majority of pet owners who use a tether do so in a responsible fashion. Take note that a 15 foot circular tether provides 706.5 square feet for a dog to move around in, whereas a 16x16 pen (which is generally considered a large pen) provides only 256 sq. ft. and of that the corners are rarely used.

This issue is being used as a Trojan Horse for the ARs to continue their push for total animal liberation by citing cruelty matters that are separate and distinct from how one confines their animal(s). They will not stop with anti-tethering either, their next step (as cited on several AR/anti-tethering websites) is to ban kenneling and guard dogs. Then will come mandatory spay/neuter, banning all breeding of purebred dogs and any purpose driven use of animals. They know they'd be unable to push through their entire extremist agenda overtly so they're nipping at it one trumped up topic at a time.

Any means on confinement may be used responsibly and appropriately and any means of confinement may be abused and used irresponsibly. Some people that get drunk and drive do so in Chevrolets. This, just like Breed Specific Legislation, is akin to banning Chevrolets. Peoples' property rights (and my dogs are my property) should not be violated at the extremist whim of a vocal minority without good and just cause with regard to the specific use of, or unreasonable restraint of, particular pet(s).

Yes, some people abuse dogs and do so by tethering them and then not giving them proper food, shelter, water, veterinary care, etc. Failing to provide such basic life necessities is ALREADY against the law though, independent of whether they are being tethered or penned or fenced, etc. No new law is necessary to address those issues, simply enforce existing law! Irresponsible owners will crate their dogs continuously indoors so that they will not be subject to the scrutiny of these intrusive laws and as with many animal laws, those who act responsibly will be the ones most hurt by implementation.

Barring any actual abuse pet owners should be left to choose which method(s) best suit their needs and not be limited in using their own judgment with regard to properly tending their animals. Kennels and fenced yards are not suitable for all pets as some might escape or injure themselves trying. Arguably, one of the most irresponsible acts a dog owner might engage in is letting their dog run loose (to damage property, harass or kill livestock, or to be hit by a car among other unpleasant results) and many times a good tether is the best, most efficient and secure method to keep certain pets.

I am a reasonable and responsible pet lover and most of my dogs are on chains. They are long, appropriately sized chains, under shade trees. They have nice, weather-proof houses and shelters and each has at least one four gallon (stainless steel lined) concrete water bowl that isn't tippable. They're secured with 316 stainless swivels and properly fitted, comfortable (Stillwater) collars. They have toys, are regularly fed good kibble and receive occasional treats. They're ivomeced, wormed, kept free of parasites (both external and internal) and vetted. They are also more easily and frequently handled when I am out doing my chores and yard work and am able to pet them as I just walk by without being hindered by a closed pen door. I rotate the ones that behave inside, although lately it has been my elderly bitch who has received the most inside time.

A dog yard also has its own social hierarchy. Despite arguments by the AR activists dogs can be perfectly well socialized on a chain and they develop a distinct social structure when part of a yard of chained and/or kenneled dogs. The term 'yard boss' is easily apparent when looking at that particular dog and how he carries himself and how the others look to him for determining the tone of a situation. Just as I know their different barks (and status), so do they.

One size does not fit all! Ban illegal acts by individuals, not legitimate action by law abiding citizens because of the (already illegal!) irresponsible acts of a few.

Posted by ykw on 08/26/2008 at 1:41 AM

Re: “Durham commissioners to weigh tethering ordinance

hey "john" I notice you use the exact same style of bolding one word in the middle of a reply just like "jalt" does. lol

tethering is NOT abusing. you can keep trying to spin it that way because your little house of H$U$ propaganda cards has fallen under the weight of truth and fact.

if you actually had an attention span and REAL concern you would notice that many dogs can scale incredibly large fences and even chew or scratch through them. the most dangerous and "abused" dog is one that is let to run loose to face or cause injury. if you really cared about the dogs and not just wanting to be a meddlesome busy body you might consider those facts. in the meantime you should abandon the idea that you are going to get in one last, little, sideways snipe. :)

==========================================================

Tethering has lately become an Animal RIGHTS' hot button issue and yet man has tethered dogs since the very beginning of our time together with no ill effect. Tethering is a perfectly acceptable and humane way to keep an animal when done properly and responsibly. As with so many things in life, that which can be done, can be done improperly, but the vast majority of pet owners behave in a responsible fashion.

Yes, some people abuse dogs and do so by tethering them and then not giving them proper food, shelter, water, veterinary care, etc. Failing to provide such basic life necessities is ALREADY against the law though, independent of whether they are being tethered or penned or fenced, etc. No new law is necessary to address those issues, simply enforce existing law! Some irresponsible owners will crate their dogs continuously indoors so that they will not be subject to the scrutiny of these intrusive laws and as with many animal laws, those who act responsibly will be the ones most hurt by implementation.

This issue is being used as a Trojan Horse for the ARs to continue their push for total animal liberation by citing cruelty matters that are separate and distinct from how one confines their animal(s). Some make analogies to slavery and women's suffrage; this proves they're overly humanizing dogs and the issue. They will not stop with anti-tethering either, their next step (as cited on several AR/anti-tethering websites) is to ban kenneling and guard dogs. Then will come banning breeding purebred dogs and any purpose driven use of animals. They know they'd be unable to push through their entire extremist agenda overtly so they're nipping at it one trumped up topic at a time.

Tethering in and of itself is no more cruel than any method of containment. Any means on confinement may be used responsibly and appropriately and any means of confinement may be abused and used irresponsibly. Some people that get drunk and drive do so in Chevrolets. This, just like Breed Specific Legislation, is akin to banning Chevrolets. Peoples' property rights (and my dogs are my property) should not be violated at the extremist whim of a vocal minority without good and just cause with regard to the specific use of, or unreasonable restraint of, particular pet(s).

Barring any actual abuse pet owners should be left to choose which method(s) best suit their needs and not be limited in using their own judgment with regard to properly tending their animals. Kennels and fenced yards are not suitable for all pets as some might escape or injure themselves trying. Arguably, one of the most irresponsible acts a dog owner might engage in is letting their dog run loose (to damage property, harass or kill livestock, or to be hit by a car among other unpleasant results) and many times a good tether is the best, most efficient and secure method to keep certain pets.

I am a reasonable and responsible pet lover and most of my dogs are on chains. They are long, appropriately sized chains, under shade trees. They have nice, weather-proof houses and shelters and each has at least one four gallon (stainless steel lined) concrete water bowl that isn't tippable. They're secured with 316 stainless swivels and properly fitted, comfortable (Stillwater) collars. They have toys, are regularly fed good kibble and receive occasional treats. They're ivomeced, wormed, kept free of parasites (both external and internal) and vetted. They are also more easily and frequently handled when I am out doing my chores and yard work and am able to just pet them as I walk by without being hindered by a closed pen door. I rotate the ones that behave inside, although lately it has been my elderly bitch who has received the most inside time.

A dog yard also has its own social hierarchy. Despite arguments by the AR activists dogs can be perfectly well socialized on a chain and they develop a distinct social structure when part of a yard of chained and/or kenneled dogs. The term 'yard boss' is easily apparent when looking at that particular dog and how he carries himself and how the others look to him for determining the tone of a situation. Just as I know their different barks (and status), so do they.

Since my dogs are healthy and anything but abused none of this is really anyone else's business, but those are the facts. It's absurd that law abiding citizens have been forced to defend and explain themselves like this because some meddling busy bodies have chosen to intrusively and blanketly insert themselves into the lives of decent, responsible pet owners based on extremist fanaticism and overly broad assumptions rather than facts.

One size does not fit all! Ban illegal acts by individuals, not legitimate action by law abiding citizens because of the (already illegal!) irresponsible acts of a few.

Posted by ykw on 08/19/2008 at 9:12 AM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2014 Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation