Bridgewater (us) Woman Faces Animal Cruelty Charges

[espinay2]

Take a look at the photo of her dogs in their 'too small cages' on the web article............

World gone mad?

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20120403/NJNEWS14/304030021/Bridgewater-woman-faces-animal-cruelty-charges?odyssey=nav%7Chead

BRIDGEWATER — A Bridgewater resident Friday was charged with two counts of animal cruelty by the Somerset County SPCA police. Lucia Mariani, 47, who resides in a home on Route 202/206, was issued the two violations for keeping dogs in cages too small for the animals.

It appears Mariani sells the dogs to the public from her home, police said.

State regulations require a caged animal to be able to stand in the cage and turn 360 degrees without hitting the roof or sides of the cage. Several of the cages were too small to allow the dogs to properly maneuver, police said.

“It is very important for pet owners to be fully aware of what they need to do if they want to have pets, especially if they intend to be in the business of adopting them out to the public,” said Joe Biermann, president of the Somerset County SPCA.

The two violations, one criminal and the other civil, are subject to a maximum of $2,000 in fines and/or jail time. Police said the case is scheduled for first appearance arraignment in Bridgewater Municipal Court at 10 a.m. on April 18.

[KOE]

Yes but are those poor dogs confined to those cages.

Are they used as kennels, looks like it by the picture.

And if she does use them as kennels and keepds the dogs in them well good job she got charged, bloody well would deserve it.

.

[Alkhe]

Yeah, she must have been keeping them in there, rather than just confining them for periods.

[espinay2]

We have no way of knowing that. The crates are clean. The dogs look healthy and not stressed. How do we know they were not simply confined between free running/play/training sessions, rotated in and out so incompatible dogs dont fight, while there were visitors in the house, at night for sleeping, while she was out and/or while they were eating? All things which are fairly standard crate use. To say they were confined full time is pure speculation at at no point is that even mentioned in the article.

All the article says is that the crates were considered 'too small' for the dogs by state law (dimensions for which are not even suggested by the HSUS: http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/dogs/tips/crate_training.html and may be a misinterpretation of the recommendation that a crate should be 'just large enough for him to stand up and turn around in'? - more info would be needed on the state law in question to answer this one)

The article also mentions she 'sells dogs to the public from her home' (something every breeder does, so nothing can be read from that statement).

That photo looks like a scene you would see in many a responsible dog owner or breeders house in many countries around the world, including here.

[cowanbree]

As long as they are not living in the crates fulltime I don't have an issue. I have a similar set up for overnight for my dogs and during the day they are outside in runs when I am not home to supervise them. They look like happy healthy dogs to me.

[LizT]

We have no way of knowing that. The crates are clean. The dogs look healthy and not stressed. How do we know they were not simply confined between free running/play/training sessions, rotated in and out so incompatible dogs dont fight, while there were visitors in the house, at night for sleeping, while she was out and/or while they were eating? All things which are fairly standard crate use. To say they were confined full time is pure speculation at at no point is that even mentioned in the article.

All the article says is that the crates were considered 'too small' for the dogs by state law (dimensions for which are not even suggested by the HSUS: http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/dogs/tips/crate_training.html and may be a misinterpretation of the recommendation that a crate should be 'just large enough for him to stand up and turn around in'? - more info would be needed on the state law in question to answer this one)

The article also mentions she 'sells dogs to the public from her home' (something every breeder does, so nothing can be read from that statement).

That photo looks like a scene you would see in many a responsible dog owner or breeders house in many countries around the world, including here.

Precisely how does one monitor the amount of time a dog spends in a crate and how much exercise it receives anyway without actually being there?

I do however get the impression dogs do spend a lot of time in crates in the U.S. based on what I have read on U.S. forums etc. Again, this is purely speculation on my behalf.

[Alkhe]

We have no way of knowing that. The crates are clean. The dogs look healthy and not stressed. How do we know they were not simply confined between free running/play/training sessions, rotated in and out so incompatible dogs dont fight, while there were visitors in the house, at night for sleeping, while she was out and/or while they were eating? All things which are fairly standard crate use. To say they were confined full time is pure speculation at at no point is that even mentioned in the article.

All the article says is that the crates were considered 'too small' for the dogs by state law (dimensions for which are not even suggested by the HSUS: http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/dogs/tips/crate_training.html and may be a misinterpretation of the recommendation that a crate should be 'just large enough for him to stand up and turn around in'? - more info would be needed on the state law in question to answer this one)

The article also mentions she 'sells dogs to the public from her home' (something every breeder does, so nothing can be read from that statement).

That photo looks like a scene you would see in many a responsible dog owner or breeders house in many countries around the world, including here.

You're right, we don't know. You get very little from an article like that.

My logic, however, is that cruelty charges tend to be laid less often than they ought to, in my opinion. When they are, I trust that they are warranted, given the things that people get away with, and charges people escape. If something gets to that point, it must be serious.

[Christina]

Not exactly comfortable, no bedding & too small IMO. One wouldn't know how long they are left in there. I have those crates, if they are the metre long size & I joined 2 up for my 3 kittens who had to be confined for a day after desex. I wouldn't put them in one cage

so cramming a big dog in there doesn't meet with my approval.

The fine is a bit steep. More sensible if she got a warning & they came out to check later, in a given time frame, that those crates were gone & decent size runs/crates provided.

[Jed]

I think those crates are too small too. They should be as wide as they are long. As Espinay says, they may have been in the crates for 10 minutes to eat. I have one which is too small, but is fine for dinner, to save someone stealing it from the slow eater.

BUT

I have been watching legislation in various states in USA. some of it is seriously wacky - obviously framed by over zealous legislators at the behest of animal rights, without any input from breeders or owners.

Apart from Hawaii basically wanting all dogs to be desexed, some of the legislation in other states is seriously flawed. The woman mentioned may live in an area where selling from home is not allowed.

I notice whenever anyone is prosecuted, it is made to look as bad as possible ... as with this woman ... yes the crates are clean there are dishes, but most importantly, the dogs look healthy.

WE need to be aware of impending legislation and the long term implication

[tdierikx]

Considering that there is only 1 bowl in each crate, and they appear to have been emptied with the relish only a Lab can dish out to food, I'd be inclined to think that the picture in the article was taken around feeding time, and the dogs may have been crated so that each got their allotted share without annoyance from the others.

The fact that they aren't obviously barking like crazy at the stranger photographing them also seems to indicate that they may not spend a heck of a lot of time in those particular crates.

T.

[Jsk]

the only thing I have a problem with is that there isnt water with any of them

[espinay2]

But if they were only there for e.g. to be fed, water in the crates may not be necessary. I know I don't leave water in my crates as a rule so my dogs may be locked in the to eat/when there is a visitor etc and not have a water bowl in with them. Doesn't mean the dogs go without water though.

[BJean]

We have no way of knowing that. The crates are clean. The dogs look healthy and not stressed. How do we know they were not simply confined between free running/play/training sessions, rotated in and out so incompatible dogs dont fight, while there were visitors in the house, at night for sleeping, while she was out and/or while they were eating? All things which are fairly standard crate use. To say they were confined full time is pure speculation at at no point is that even mentioned in the article.

All the article says is that the crates were considered 'too small' for the dogs by state law (dimensions for which are not even suggested by the HSUS: http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/dogs/tips/crate_training.html and may be a misinterpretation of the recommendation that a crate should be 'just large enough for him to stand up and turn around in'? - more info would be needed on the state law in question to answer this one)

The article also mentions she 'sells dogs to the public from her home' (something every breeder does, so nothing can be read from that statement).

That photo looks like a scene you would see in many a responsible dog owner or breeders house in many countries around the world, including here.

You're right, we don't know. You get very little from an article like that.

My logic, however, is that cruelty charges tend to be laid less often than they ought to, in my opinion. When they are, I trust that they are warranted, given the things that people get away with, and charges people escape. If something gets to that point, it must be serious.

hmm

[OSoSwift]

They look like a normal short term Lab sized crate to me. They look like they have carpet or something in the bottom???

My Dobe had a 90cm crate and fitted just fine.

I would be more interested in the time the dogs spend in these crates as for short term they are just fine.

[Guest donatella]

To be fair the RSPCA aren't harsh enough at the best of times, so for them to have enough evidence to convict must mean there's more to this story we don't know about.

[WeimMe]

I would hope that they don't "live" in there...but the crates seem reasonably clean and the dogs look OK at a glance.

I am a fan of crating for short periods or overnight, but I don't think that dogs should be spending the majority of their waking day in one. There must be more to the story than we are being told - or at least I hope so!

[Souff]

I wonder how a court defines the word "cruelty".

If these dogs did not like being in those crates and were stressed I cannot imagine that all the stuff on top of the crates would still be sitting there! A Lab that did not want to be in that crate, would buck and carry on and all that stuff would be upended everywhere. The dogs are not flabby and appear to have reasonable muscle tone so my guess is that the crates are for eating in, and sleeping in.

IMHO ..... Stress is cruelty.

Lack of exercise is cruelty.

Lack of company for a young dog is cruelty.

Lack of food and water and shelter is cruelty.

Lack of water is cruelty.

I don't see any water bowls in the crates, but then I also know what some labs will do with water bowls too. Great hats!

Plenty of us have seen a young lab sitting there with an empty bowl on his head!

If the crating was for short term use, their drinking source is possibly nearby.

Somebody was concerned that the young labs did not have bedding .... er, have you ever seen what a young Lab can do to bedding?

It is early summer in the US .... a cool surface to lie on, on a warm day, is often preferred by dogs ... many dogs will be lying on concrete when there is a much comfier bed nearby. Not every dog appreciates soft comfy bedding.

Larger sized crates might be nice, but to be honest, these dogs don't look as if they have been treated cruelly.

Will be interesting to see what happens in court.

Souff

[Dame Aussie]

Hard to comment when we don't really know the whole story.

That picture may not show every crate that was in use. They have said the crates were too small for the dogs to turn around and stand up in, if that is the case then yes she should be in strife.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Aussie3

[bluedeer]

I wonder how a court defines the word "cruelty".

If these dogs did not like being in those crates and were stressed I cannot imagine that all the stuff on top of the crates would still be sitting there! A Lab that did not want to be in that crate, would buck and carry on and all that stuff would be upended everywhere. The dogs are not flabby and appear to have reasonable muscle tone so my guess is that the crates are for eating in, and sleeping in.

IMHO ..... Stress is cruelty.

Lack of exercise is cruelty.

Lack of company for a young dog is cruelty.

Lack of food and water and shelter is cruelty.

Lack of water is cruelty.

I don't see any water bowls in the crates, but then I also know what some labs will do with water bowls too. Great hats!

Plenty of us have seen a young lab sitting there with an empty bowl on his head!

If the crating was for short term use, their drinking source is possibly nearby.

Somebody was concerned that the young labs did not have bedding .... er, have you ever seen what a young Lab can do to bedding?

It is early summer in the US .... a cool surface to lie on, on a warm day, is often preferred by dogs ... many dogs will be lying on concrete when there is a much comfier bed nearby. Not every dog appreciates soft comfy bedding.

Larger sized crates might be nice, but to be honest, these dogs don't look as if they have been treated cruelly.

Will be interesting to see what happens in court.

Souff

I think you've got it right