Dogs are not cargo.

[Kit]

FYI, I asked a trooper the following and here is his answer:

Question - Now that spring is here I have already seen dogs in the back of pickups loose, going down the highway at 60-70 mph. Last summer it was children. When I called law enforcement I was told this is not illegal and that there is nothing law enforcement could do about it. If there is a seat belt law in Minnesota why does this not apply to children in the back of a pick up? Also if a truck has a load that is not secure and things fly out causing a driving hazard I have heard the driver could be fined. Well I believe a dog jumping out of the back of a pick up at 60-70 mph would also be a driving hazard could a Trooper use this law to pull someone over and fine them. I don't want to be the one that accidentally hits the family dog, nor do I want my family injured in the process. Would like your feed back. Thank you for your time and risking your life to keep us safe. Kari

 

Kari from Albert Lea, MN

 

Hello Kari,

 

The seat belt law doesn?t apply to the rear of the truck, because the vehicle was manufactured with them in that location. I totally agree with you, this is not a safe place to have anyone or animal ride.

 

Leaking loads are against the law, but I can?t tag someone because I think their vehicle might have a leaking load, it has to happen; so I can?t tag someone if I think their dog might jump out of their vehicle. I have stopped vehicles where I saw the dog was flopping back and forth when the vehicle would make turns, and told them that they needed to do something so their animal wasn?t being thrown around in the back. I guess you could say that is being cruel to animals. It could easily break its leg by being thrown around like that.

 

I know I wouldn?t do that to my dog, I love them too much to see them hit and I would never think about putting someone I love back there either. That comes down to choices. I know they now have safety belts for the dogs, which I have seen many people using.

 

Wish I could help you out, for again it comes down to people making the right choice.

 

Thanks for writing and take care!

http://www.hometownsource.com/trooper/2006/March/29dogs.html

[muddy bob]

Thank you Mark for your clear posts. I was going to mention the ounce of prevention myself. We already have laws to protect people from unsecure loads. Recently we have had people die on the highway from a truck losing a tarp and causing a pile up. We also had a young woman disfigured and blinded by an unsecure load. The cops don't wait until you hurt someone. They write tickets and I am all for it. I believe last year they were specificly targeting people with loads they believed to be unsecure. I hope I am not mistaken about that. I think dogs should be considered under this law. I honestly do not see how people think they are being "punished" for the actions of a few bad apples. Inconvenienced, perhaps. As inconvenienced as everyone else who must secure a load is. Inconvenienced as all good drivers obeying rules of the road are.

I think we've exhausted this topic as well as gone off the topic. I've enjoyed hearing your opinions and rantings and ramblings.

If we don't like things the way they are then we must work to change them.

Kit, I will also be writing a letter to the editor.

[Pipedream Farm]

Originally posted by Dixie_Girl:

Mark, thanks for the history lesson, even if I, and others disagree with some of the stuff stated there. I will not get into a debate over it as this is not the place to do it.

Of course you do; I've heard the other side of the re-telling of this point in history during college by a dorm mate from AL and during my time at Clemson. One of the sources above discussed how contemporary thoughts on why the war was fought are not really correct in either geographical region.

 

This point in history exemplifies the current division between the majority willingly passing laws taking away personal liberty and the minority objecting to these intrusions (Federal rule vs. State rights or big brother government vs. personal liberty). If these laws were truly passed by a minority then the majority should and can strike them down via referendum; but this does not happen very often; therefore it must be supported by the majority or at least not objected by the majority.

 

To extend your objection to these intrusions into personal liberty why not object to laws requiring safety inspections of vehicles? Is this not an intrusion? Let truckers with weak brakes or faulty equipment run our roads; it's their life not ours? Why have speed limits? Why give pedestrians the right of way; shouldn't every man look out for themselves?

 

Most laws are intrusions into someone's personal liberty; society (the majority) must decide where the line is drawn between which intrusions it will accept which it will not.

 

Mark

[juliepoudrier]

Slightly off topic, maybe, but I don't keep a gun in the house simply because (a) if you have it you better be willing to use it (to kill if necessary), ( I worry that an intruder could overpower me and take it © I keep a nice baseball bat instead (and yes, someone could take that from me too, but at least if I'm wielding it I'm not likely to take out any number of my animals at the same time), oh, and (d) they (guns) ain't cheap! I'm not anti-gun by any means--my favorite pistol is a .357/.44 magnum (which surprised me, given the large size, but I've always felt most comfortable and shot most accurately with a pistol of that size). I also like the fact that revolvers are easier to care for (IMO).

 

But if I wanted just one weapon in the house for protection/deterrance, it would probably be a pump-action shotgun. No one (even an intruder) can mistake *that* sound, which alone could be enough of a deterrent, and your aim doesn't have to be great in a panic situation (though God help all the miscellaneous critters around). Not to mention that a shotgun could come in handy for varmint control on the farm....

 

Dixie_Girl,

I live in the country too. I don't have close neighbors--at least not close enough to hear an intruder. I also live at a crossroads with a pull-off nearby that people use routinely, so the possibility of a stranger paying a visit to my house is real. I *do* keep my doors locked, though a determined someone could come in through a window fairly easily. I *hope* that 7 dogs in the house would somehow manage to warn me of an intruder (and warn an intruder off). If you want to keep a gun because you feel better about having one on hand, by all means do so. But I think the reasoning that you will be able to save yourself from rape or worse by an intruder just by having it is a bit of a stretch. And if having a gun makes you feel safe enough to leave your doors unlocked, then I think you're overly complacent and counting on a gun for protection when common sense (locking the doors) would go a lot longer way toward keeping you safe. Just my opinion of course.

 

As for the topic at hand, I have a farmer friend who learned his lesson the hard way. His retriever fell out of the back of his pickup and broke her leg. And this was not with highway driving, but locally. He won't carry a dog that way again and I think he was quite horrified that his negligence had caused pain and suffering for his pet. Why am I telling this story? Mainly just to point out that dogs riding around the farm do fall out and get hurt too. At least if they fall out on the farm they aren't putting anyone else's life in danger (e.g., by hitting the car behind).

 

Oh, and you can be as easily killed falling out of a slower moving vehicle traveling over the farm. I had a high school friend who died just that way.

 

J.

[Kit]

This post has brought up many other topics and opinions. We may not completely agree with each other but it is nice to know that we can express our views freely. I believe it brings tolerance and understanding to both sides of an issue. Hopefully we can agree to disagree and learn to respect each others values. Nothing in life is black and white, there are many shades of gray

[Kit]

Julie,

THANK YOU so much for sharing your stories! I am so sorry about your high school friend. I don't think the general public realizes how often accident's like you described above happen. My original post, my letters to several newspapers, were intended to make people aware. The more people are educated the better decisions they can make.

[Rave]

There was just a fatal last weekend in NC on a "farm path".. 19 y.o. boy killed when he was ejected from the vehicle and the vehicle landed on him.

[Dixie_Girl]

Mark, as I said before, I am a trucker. I am also one of the FEW truckers who don't mind getting pulled in for an inspection. When your company loads ya like a freight train and dispatches ya like a jet plane, thorough morning inspections don't always happen. I LIKE them going through my truck. I know I will be as safe as possible out there. I got sometimes 40 tons cruising down the road at 64mph. Do you not think I am constantly aware of what is going on around me? Do you know how many wrecks I have seen? Tell me, have you ever stood over a 7yr. girl with a blanket to keep the 107degree sun from beating down on her broken body because her daddy fell asleep and she was NOT buckled in and was thrown out the window at 70mph? Have you ever seen an 8yr. olds guts literly torn from his adomen from the impact? Don't you dare talk to me about high way safety. I've backed up more miles than you have driven forward. Do you know how many pieces of furniture I have had to dodge WITHOUT killing myself or someone else? Maybe I feel the way I do because I have seen so much. And maybe if everytime I was on the road dogs were flying at me from all directions I would feel differen. But in the million miles I have driven, the only animals that were a hazzard were the ones already on the ground and running in front of me. I have seen adults with their seat belts on and the kids unbuckled in the back. And have watched those same people drive like they had velcro tires and bubble wrap paint.

 

People die and animals die. Sometimes it is from a fluke of all the uncommon things happening at once. Sometimes from stupidity. I said before I would NEVER let my dogs ride in the back of my truck without the shell because I am too scared of what might happen. But 99% of the dogs I have seen in the back of trucks were laying down in the bed. I just am tired of the constant "we gotta protect, lets inact!" mentality.

 

As I said before, if you cause harm, you should get punished. Not if you might. If you do.

 

Sorry about the rant. I thought of just deleting the whole thing and give up. I feel I have been judged on my moniker, my belifs, on my pride in heritage. Why? All of these things have been personaly attacked. But I stand by all that I am. I know what kind of person I am and I can live with that. Some of you obviously have a different opinion of me. That is ok. It is your right.

 

Julie, yeah, I do feel safer having guns in the house. But we also hunt with them. And target practice with them. We enjoy that. I have never used a gun on a human and hope with all my being I never do. But I will compromise, I will lock the front door.

[Rave]

Dixie, you have to consider the types of roads you probably drive most of your mileage on. I've seen plenty of dogs loose in the backs of trucks... most were not on interstates. So while you think you know alot about highway safety, your views are most likely skewed towards the interstates, which are the safer roads. The deadliest roads are the two-lane rural secondary roads... a road you'd be more likely to see a dog loose in the back of a truck on.

 

-Laura

[Kit]

Dixie Girl,

 

I am sorry you feel personally attacked, everyone here has the right to their opinion. The great thing about this country is we can voice our opinion. You have seen some very tragic things with your profession which is unfortunate. Many who have written have also seen tragic things, as we have read in many of their stories. We learn from these events and hopefully take a little insight and knowledge from them. Many have seen dogs and humans killed. That has a great impact on people for the rest of their lives. These stories were shared with us so that others can learn from their experience.

[Dixie_Girl]

Laura, you are right, MOST of my miles are on the interstate. But trust me, we drive a whole bunch on those two-lane rural roads too. When the company is only paying for x amount of miles, you look for the shorter route.

 

Kit, I have NO prob with others opinion. I think it is great when there can be debate on different ideas. And I AGREE with those not wanting dogs and especially kids in the back of open trucks.

 

But yeah, I did feel personally attacked. But what the heck. Nobody kicked me off the boards so I guess I didn't do that bad!

 

Write letters to the editor, vote how you want, and hopefully we can continue to debate, agree, ruffle feathers etc. and still remain okay.

[Gary M]

One thing I never understood about the "civil war was about slavery" arguement was why the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the areas that were in rebellion against the Federal Government and not all the slaves everywhere.

 

"Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

 

 

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

 

 

 

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons."

 

Full text at: http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html

[Rave]

Dixie,

I was at one crash where a truck driver waiting in the queue told me he was "routed" so couldn't take our detour (off the interstate onto a US route). Poor thing had to wait hours until we re-opened the road.

[Tassie]

Like others, I just hate driving behind a pick-up with a dog loose on it - I sure find it hard to keep my full attention on the rest of my driving.

 

It's the law here now that dogs must be securely tied or crated on the back of pick-ups at least on public roads, but obviously there are still some people who don't get it.

 

Injury and death of unsecured dogs falling off the back of pick-ups (we call them 'utes' - short for utilities here) is, or used to be, so common that rural vets have their own shorthand for it - FOU (Fell Off Ute).

[muddy bob]

Dixie Girl,

If my post offended you I apologise. I get passionate about these things too. If it was me that you felt judged you by your moniker or heritage I regret leaving you with that impression.

May all your journeys see that you return home safe and sound.

 

Mud

[Gary M]

Mark said:

"Most laws are intrusions into someone's personal liberty; society (the majority) must decide where the line is drawn between which intrusions it will accept which it will not."

 

Democracy (majority rule) is rightly called tyranny of the majority. If the majority of the people decided that only turkey can be eaten for Thanksgiving and if you are found eating ham it is a 5 year felony, does that make it right or legal?

 

Laws that intrude on a persons liberty are almost by definition unconstitutional and are anathema to the virtues by which this republic was founded.

 

The seat belt / helmet law vs. cost to society is similarly flawed. Obesity causes far more deaths and societal costs that unbelted or unhelmeted accidents, so should there be laws against being fat or eating more than the government mandated daily allowance of calories?

 

If wearing helmets on bikes is a good thing, would not wearing helmets in a car be good also? More people are (in numbers) hurt or killed in car accidents than bike accidents. How about lowering the national speed limit to 10 miles per hour, then rarely would anyone die in a vehicle accident, repair costs to vehicles wold be less and the insurance companies would save 10's of billions per year.

[Pearse]

Originally posted by Gary M:

One thing I never understood about the "civil war was about slavery" arguement was why the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the areas that were in rebellion against the Federal Government and not all the slaves everywhere.

My understanding is that slavery had been pretty much abolished in the midwestern states and much of the northeast prior to the civil war (I think it was banned in Rhode Island as far back as 1774). The Missouri compromise of 1820 banned slavery in any new territory acquired after that date (in the west and north of 30 degrees lat). The Missouri Compromise was abrogated by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and that plus thte Dred-Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857 were major factors in the Civil War/War of Northern Agression and the formation of the (abolitionist) Republican Party of which Lincoln was the first successful presidential candidate. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states within the Confederacy, since the remainder as the slave states within the union (like Maryland and Delaware) were governed by US law. In those states, slavery was not repealed until ratification of the 13th Amendment 8 months after the end of the war.

 

Pearse

[Lunar]

Oh, and you can be as easily killed falling out of a slower moving vehicle traveling over the farm. I had a high school friend who died just that way.[/QB]

Friends of my parents lost a child this way. On halloween, during a hay ride in the field. They were farmers, had been all their lives. One of the kids, who was a teenager I believe, fell off and was run over by one of the rear wheels. Two of the siblings were right there when it happened. Makes me feel sick every time I think about it.

[Atlanta Smitty]

Woah.

 

I don't know how this discussion went to guns. But gun control is something I'm very passionate about so I'll have to chime in.

 

It took us 8 years to write a version of the constitution that we could finally agree on. It took 8 years for us to write something that is not even close to the average book in length.

 

You had various groups wanting to do something with what was essentially a country in anarchy. Some wanted a loose confederacy. Others actually wanted to make George Washington the king. Some wanted a Democracy while others wanted an elected Republic.

 

The only thing that they all could agree on was gun ownership. The reason for it had nothing to do with self defense. It was far more important than that. The reason for it was keeping the government in check when the Checks and Balance system failed.

 

It is a last resort for protection from the government. The funny thing about it is (As Thomas Jefferson said) it is the only Right that will only be needed if the government tries to take it away.

 

I believe in uncontrolled gun ownership. You shouldn't have to have a permit to own or carry one. I believe in the uncontrolled legalization of Fully auto-matic weapons. Yes Machine Guns. The reaon being is the government should not have a monopoly on guns nor should they know how to track them down or even how many their citizens have. It gives them an unfair advantage.

 

I am a Libertarian which is basically "Do as you feel as long as it doesn't directly affect others". Or my Avator says it all.

 

I don't believe in seatbelt laws nor helmet laws. I wear both using my own head. I don't believe in Healthcare (Despite my $30,000+ hospital bill). Nor in welfare programs. Can't afford kids. Don't have them. Same goes for dogs. You are responsible for your own actions.

 

The Civil War/ War between the states (Since the south legally succeded) was not about slavery. It was about States Rights. Saying the war was about slavery is the same as saying that our founding fathers went to war over a 1% tax hike on tea to pay for a war we started (French and Indian). It was the fact that we had no say at all in the British Parliament on the issue of taxes. Slavery was wrong yes. But with our uncontrolled capitalist system of that time slaves where becoming too expensive due to the industrial revolution.

 

I have no problem with someone not owning a gun either. I do not want the government to require someone to own a gun. Which Kennesaw, GA has done. Which I hate with a passion. But it did give some interesting results in gun violence. If I thought I could have any affect and the government forced people to own guns I'd use guns to fight that.

 

Sorry. I'm very political. My rant is over.

 

Oh yeah. To set the record straight. WE ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO A DEMOCRACY. We are an Elected Republic. Get it right. Democracy is not mentioned once in our Constitution.

[Pipedream Farm]

Originally posted by Gary M:

Democracy (majority rule) is rightly called tyranny of the majority. If the majority of the people decided that only turkey can be eaten for Thanksgiving and if you are found eating ham it is a 5 year felony, does that make it right or legal?

 

Laws that intrude on a persons liberty are almost by definition unconstitutional and are anathema to the virtues by which this republic was founded.

 

The seat belt / helmet law vs. cost to society is similarly flawed. Obesity causes far more deaths and societal costs that unbelted or unhelmeted accidents, so should there be laws against being fat or eating more than the government mandated daily allowance of calories?

 

If wearing helmets on bikes is a good thing, would not wearing helmets in a car be good also? More people are (in numbers) hurt or killed in car accidents than bike accidents. How about lowering the national speed limit to 10 miles per hour, then rarely would anyone die in a vehicle accident, repair costs to vehicles wold be less and the insurance companies would save 10's of billions per year.

 

 

"If the majority of the people decided that only turkey can be eaten for Thanksgiving and if you are found eating ham it is a 5 year felony, does that make it right or legal?"

 

Legal? Yes until struck down by our court system. Right? Whose to say what is right? Unless there is a higher authority than the people who decides? The constitution is not a higher authority than the people; if it was then we could not make amendments.

 

"Laws that intrude on a persons liberty are almost by definition unconstitutional and are anathema to the virtues by which this republic was founded."

 

This is a nice idea theoretically; but not very practical. A thief could argue that laws against burglary infringe on his right to ply his trade and are therefore unconstitutional.

 

"The seat belt / helmet law vs. cost to society is similarly flawed. Obesity causes far more deaths and societal costs that unbelted or unhelmeted accidents, so should there be laws against being fat or eating more than the government mandated daily allowance of calories?"

 

Interesting choice; this type of forced health is already here just not mandated by the government but by employers at the behest of insurance companies.

 

"If wearing helmets on bikes is a good thing, would not wearing helmets in a car be good also? More people are (in numbers) hurt or killed in car accidents than bike accidents. How about lowering the national speed limit to 10 miles per hour, then rarely would anyone die in a vehicle accident, repair costs to vehicles would be less and the insurance companies would save 10's of billions per year."

 

Or how about banning driving and force all to take a national transportation system to be built on Fed highway funds.

 

Gary, we can go round and round on this for years. You?re wrong in my eyes and I?m wrong in your eyes. As our society is dividing more and more; I?m left standing in the center while you are moving farther to the right and others are moving farther to the left. Of course you don?t see me in the center you see me as the evil left because I am left of you.

 

Mark

[Pipedream Farm]

Originally posted by Atlanta Smitty:

But with our uncontrolled capitalist system of that time slaves where becoming too expensive due to the industrial revolution.

This was probably true where industrialization had taken hold; but how can you say this is true where agrarian economics dominated society? I don't see how industrialization at that time planted and harvested rice, cotton, and other field crops which were the economic backbone of the south.

 

Slavery was not the cause of the war; money and power in congress was. The economy of the south depended upon cheap labor. Power in congress was dependent upon population which the south did not have because slaves counted as less than one free man yielding fewer seats in congress and therefore less power. So to say the war was not about slavery is like saying the war in Iraq is not about oil. Would we be there if we were not dependent upon oil? Would the south have lost power if slaves were freed and counted more towards the seats in congress? If the south had more seats in congress would laws & taxes unfavorable to the south been passed by congress?

 

Mark

[Jodi]

Dixie girl, if it was something I said that made you feel you were being attacked, please accept my apology. That certainly was not my intention.

 

I checked out a few things yesterday as far as what laws are currently in place here, and much to my chagrin, I found out that children riding loose in the back of pickup trucks is legal here, so I highly doubt I would get anywhere trying to get my representatives to propose something about dogs. A lot of people in this state feel much the same way you do, in that they don't want their right infringed upon by new laws constantly being enacted.

 

Jodi

[Dixie_Girl]

Jodi, Muddy Bob, I accept your appology sincerely, although it was not any one person I was accusing. I too, do not wish to offend any one.

 

Jodi, if that is the law, then no you probly won't get far. But there is still what I suggest. If the animal is harmed or causes harm, punish that. I just don't like "what if" laws.

 

The gun control laws have helped no one but the criminal. Again, more "what if" laws.

 

The war of the Northern Aggresion was not fought because of slaves. Grant had them, Gen. Lee did not. Lincoln wanted to deport them. Congress convinced him otherwise.

[painted_ponies]

Today we all think there were just two sides to that war, North and South, but that really wasn't the case. Even here in SC, where the whole mess started, there was no consensus.

 

For example, ever hear of Union, SC? Or, the next time y'all visit Myrtle Beach, you might see the words "The Independent Republic" on the Horry County seal - that's because one SC state senator, debating for secession, shouted that, if the senator from Horry County supported the Union so strongly, SC would just re-draw its border at the Little Pee Dee River and he could have his "*^&!@ independent republic".

 

The Dark Corner, in the northwestern mountains of SC, where my family's lived for centuries, was so named because it was hoped that "the bright light of secession might shine even into that dark corner of SC." It never really did, though, and the War in the NC/SC mountains was no glorious Cause but a bloody guerilla war resembling nothing so much as domestic terrorism.

 

It was sort of hard for some mountaineers to understand why SC was leaving the Union so the federal government couldn't tell us what to do, but the Confederate government could tell the mountaineers to leave their families to starve while they fought for a bunch of people in Charleston who wouldn't spit on them if they were on fire. At least that's the story that's come down to me.

 

The war was a truly miserable and horrible time to be alive and it managed to ruin lives for generations after the last shot was fired. I think there were lots of causes, but whoever said it was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight had it just about right - except for the fact that the women and children sure had their share of it, too.

[Dixie_Girl]

Painted_ponies, yeah, you got that part right. But then the mountaineers in SC, TN, VA, & KY were a straight forward group of people. Still are. They would have joined the fight gleefully if told it was so NO ONE would tell them what to do!