Eileen Stein Posted November 19, 2014 Report Share Posted November 19, 2014 Given that the plaintiffs were nearly all local KC breed clubs, I'm betting that most of their argument was that they'd have to build fancy outdoor buildings as opposed to keeping their dogs in the house. In any case, since the judge's comment was so iffy, I don't think there's much ammunition there. It was a throwaway line -- what lawyers call dicta -- not something AR folks or local authorities could use to claim that anything short of USDA standards was inhumane. Some judges (including Supreme Court Justices) just can't resist showing how witty they are when a case is about dogs or something else they consider trivial. If you don't think dogs are trivial, it's less amusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam Wolf Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 When KS toughened it's pet breeding laws years back (after much bad puppy mill publicity) I was at some of the hearings in Topeka and listened/took part in some of the discussions. It was near impossible to explain to the legislators that having your dogs in your living room did not mean they didn't go elsewhere to do their "business". It was kinda fun to see these people's faces as they puzzled keeping 4-8 dogs in a house! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.