May 11
...serving up your daily dish.
Dogs will no longer suffer the degradation of being sold to the highest bidder (although some pups may have enjoyed the attention and bragging rights...)
Phil Read grabs the ball tossed to him by Baristanet commenters who cried foul at the auctioning of dogs (something that's been done more than once in Baristaville) during a Junior League event.
Here's the comments that started it all...
Good cause or not, auctioning off animals is against the law, sort of. From the Star Ledger...
But seemingly lost in the bidding frenzy was this: Auctioning off animals -- canines included -- is viewed as a no-no by at least some legal experts in New Jersey.
"It's considered cruel. ... These aren't toys and shouldn't be treated like toys," said Sherry Ramsey, a Freehold attorney and former prosecutor who chairs the animal-law section of the New Jersey Bar Association.
Yesterday, though, the league said it would no longer use pets in its auctions.
"The Junior League of Montclair-Newark Inc. appreciates the concern of individuals who love animals as we do," the agency said in a statement. "While our licensed auction benefited a charitable cause -- children at risk -- we recognize the concerns which have been brought to our attention and, therefore, will not involve pets in any of our future fundraisers."
Under the state's animal cruelty laws, only such groups as recognized breeder associations at an exhibition can use animals "for the purpose of soliciting alms, collections, contributions ... donations or payment of money." The civil penalty is a fine of not less than $250 nor more than $500.
It's something, too, that the Montclair Art Museum apparently overlooked.
"Yes, we did," spokeswoman Ann-Marie Nolin said when asked if the museum auctioned off a puppy last year. "We have a gala coming up on Saturday where we have a puppy."
The dog -- like the league's -- is a bichon-poo, a mix between a bichon frisé and a poodle, she said. After learning of the statute, though, Nolin announced a change in the gala's schedule.
"We weren't aware of the law, and we're pulling the puppy from the auction," she said yesterday.
Kudos to the Junior League gals and the Montclair Art Museum for giving dogs back their dignity. Now, are cattle auctions still PC?
(my eyes are getting soooo sore from all the rolling)
Posted by: Right of Center™ | May 11, 2006 10:49:32 AM
me too ROC...the feigned indignation by these desperate housewives is fodder for a tv show.
Posted by: Iceman | May 11, 2006 11:12:56 AM
I hope I am not insensitive, but I fail to see the harm of auctioning a pet. How does it differ from selling a pet for a fixed sum? Seems to me it was once common to auction off a kiss or a meal or a date with a lovely woman-donor for charitable purposes.
Posted by: Byron | May 11, 2006 11:25:36 AM
That's just it, Byron. If they were to auction off a date, kiss or dinner with the pooch, that would be acceptable.
Posted by: Miss Martta | May 11, 2006 12:29:51 PM
"we're pulling the puppy from the auction"
And sending it off to the sausage factory instead.
Posted by: Captain Vegetable | May 11, 2006 12:31:20 PM
How stupid.
Auction the leash, collar, bed and bowl.
Throw in the dog free.
Posted by: appletony | May 11, 2006 12:34:25 PM
Byron: to answer your question & you're not being insensitive.
A responsible breeder will interview you (once maybe twice) & your family to see if the puppy / or cat is going to a good home. Unlike a Pet shop that sells puppies & cats, where they're an "object" & the goal is to make money. The breeder will try to insure that the puppy selected is a good fit for the families lifestyle. The breeder has the discretion to determine the right home.
The fact that you're willing to pay a $$$ sum does not necessarily mean that you'll go home w/ said dog or cat.
Posted by: JT | May 11, 2006 12:37:31 PM
Too bad the UN doesn't have a "Doggie Right's Council" like the (just today reformulated) "Human Right's Council".
Since *now* Morocco, Senegal, Bangla Desh, China, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Azerbaijan are on the council, I know my Human Rights are in safe hands! Pity the pooch though...
Posted by: Right of Center™ | May 11, 2006 12:40:21 PM
RoC, I thought you were Mr. Law & Order. Isn't against the law, against the law?
Posted by: Kevin Lee Allen | May 11, 2006 12:42:34 PM
Yes, don't auction the puppy, but my question is about the law itself. What is the basis? It sounds like a special interest law to me. If "papered" breeds are auctioned, I'd imagine breeders will no longer get top dollar.
I'd like to know *why* we should have this law in the first place?
Posted by: Right of Center™ | May 11, 2006 12:47:19 PM
I bet it is not against the law. See the slippery reportage:
"viewed as a no-no by at least some legal experts in New Jersey"
in other words, when the attorney quoted in the article says, "It's considered cruel..." it means that the attorney feels it runs afoul of anti-cruelty laws. Cruel to send a puppy to an affluent home! Shame!
Posted by: appletony | May 11, 2006 12:50:20 PM
p.s.
Why is it that because I believe we should obey the laws on the books that people assume I therefore think any law is perfect? The one does not follow from the other.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | May 11, 2006 12:51:27 PM
Yes, I missed that appeltony. Hardly a definitive statement there....
Posted by: Right of Center™ | May 11, 2006 12:52:35 PM
If it's illegal, it's illegal. I personally would want to make sure the dog was going to good home. Just because people are wealthy does not guarantee that they are going to be good doggy parents. Sure, they may live in a McMansion but they be gone all day or have small kids that torment the pooch.
When you adopt a pet at North Shore, for example, they give you the third degree, as they should. What kind a dwelling do you live in? Are you gone for most or all of the day? Do you have small kids in the home? Etc.
Posted by: Miss Martta | May 11, 2006 12:59:38 PM
RoC, I thought you were Mr. Law & Order. Isn't against the law, against the law?
Posted by: Kevin Lee Allen | May 11, 2006 1:00:19 PM
Political correctness is straining this country. Just think, if we didn't have to worry about being PC the country, state, and local municipalities would be able to pay their pensions systems.
LOL, probably not.
Posted by: oakviewpaul | May 11, 2006 1:05:47 PM
It makes sense to screen people who are buying pets, ESPECIALLY high-status, expensive pets. I knew a man once who, at one time or another, had a parrot, a black Lab, 2 sharpeis, and a couple of pedigreed cats. I never knew him to adopt any kind of mutt. He kept them for awhile, then eventually got rid of almost all of them , complaining that they were too much work. It was all about the status for him, very exciting till reality sunk in.
Posted by: latebloomer | May 11, 2006 1:12:21 PM
Gee, over $10,000 for sick kids or soothe the offended animal-law attorney?
OK, let's try out the new baristanet temperate-posting generator... Is this thing on?:
If you find the above choice hard to make, I gently and respectfully declare my fairly strong objection to your opinion.
Posted by: appletony | May 11, 2006 1:34:08 PM
Appletony,
I would suggest that the Junior League would have raised the same amount of money without the auctioning the dog.
When I go to an event like this, I go with a number in mind--a dollar amount I plan to leave behind. Now, that is generally much less than $5K, but if that was my number, the charity would get that money.
I don't think anyone objects to the Junior League's work, but the world and shelters are filled with pets that have simply become unwanted. To me, that is as much a shame as a sick or unwanted child. It is apparently also a crime.
Posted by: Kevin Lee Allen | May 11, 2006 1:47:30 PM
They should have checked but I believe that auctioning off a live animal in NJ is against the law .
Posted by: JT | May 2, 2006 4:44:15 PM