Lawful - or Unlawful?

Lawful - or Unlawful?

Postby WalterWhite » Mar 13th, 2018, 11:53 am

Let’s try and keep the emotions out of this and keep it civil.
In one sentence the RCMP indicates this particular owner could face a fine if caught. In another it states having a pet secured with a short leash is acceptable. So, which is it? My understanding has always been the latter, that what this driver did was perfectly legal as the dog was restrained with a short leash as per the videographer (let’s not beleaguer the fact he’s clearly using a mobile device while driving)

https://www.castanet.net/news/West-Kelo ... truck-fine
Forget Cialis, Viagra, or Levitra. When you need to get it up fast - reach for new and improved Westcorp. Proud official suppliers of Basran's *bleep*
WalterWhite
Übergod
 
Posts: 1854
Likes: 1493 posts
Liked in: 2341 posts
Joined: Jan 31st, 2017, 4:56 pm

Re: Lawful - or Unlawful?

Postby alanjh595 » Mar 13th, 2018, 12:12 pm

If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

WalterWhite likes this post.
User avatar
alanjh595
Guru
 
Posts: 5998
Likes: 2204 posts
Liked in: 3322 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 5:18 pm

Re: Lawful - or Unlawful?

Postby JayByrd » Mar 13th, 2018, 12:29 pm

The way the article is written, it seems like we're talking about two different things.

It's a contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act to have an unsecured animal in the back of a vehicle. The RCMP member stated why that law is in place, and what the fine is. But he never said the driver of this vehicle (the RCMP member may not have even seen it) was breaking the law.

It seems the driver of this pickup, while not doing a great job of keeping his dog safe, was within the law.
My fervent hope is that you and your tax dollars will be reunited in the afterlife.

WalterWhite likes this post.
User avatar
JayByrd
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3287
Likes: 636 posts
Liked in: 1329 posts
Joined: Aug 14th, 2006, 2:50 pm

Re: Lawful - or Unlawful?

Postby WalterWhite » Mar 13th, 2018, 12:58 pm

alanjh595 wrote:http://spca.bc.ca/faqs/%E2%80%8Bi-saw-dog-back-pick-truck/


Further indicates the driver was within the law.
Forget Cialis, Viagra, or Levitra. When you need to get it up fast - reach for new and improved Westcorp. Proud official suppliers of Basran's *bleep*
WalterWhite
Übergod
 
Posts: 1854
Likes: 1493 posts
Liked in: 2341 posts
Joined: Jan 31st, 2017, 4:56 pm

Re: Lawful - or Unlawful?

Postby Mtn Biker » Mar 13th, 2018, 1:42 pm

WalterWhite wrote:
Further indicates the driver was within the law.


I guess that makes it ok?? Too bad the dog couldn't put the owner on a short leash and strap them to something moving.

3 people like this post.
Mtn Biker
Generalissimo Postalot
 
Posts: 896
Likes: 16 posts
Liked in: 330 posts
Joined: Apr 11th, 2008, 1:22 pm

Re: Lawful - or Unlawful?

Postby GordonH » Mar 13th, 2018, 1:51 pm

WalterWhite wrote:Further indicates the driver was within the law.

Mtn Biker wrote:I guess that makes it ok?? Too bad the dog couldn't put the owner on a short leash and strap them to something moving.


:up: :up:
When you have to start compromising yourself and your morals for the people around you, it’s probably time to change the people around you.
User avatar
GordonH
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 20720
Likes: 2309 posts
Liked in: 7319 posts
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 7:21 pm
Location: Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: Lawful - or Unlawful?

Postby alanjh595 » Mar 13th, 2018, 1:57 pm

I personally believe that dogs should be treated the same as young children in a car/truck. Not just a short leash around it's neck, but a body restraint secured with the lap and shoulder seat belts.
After all, if a dog is adopted and considered a member of the family, why should it not be protected and restrained in the event of an accident like any other member of the family?
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

3 people like this post.
User avatar
alanjh595
Guru
 
Posts: 5998
Likes: 2204 posts
Liked in: 3322 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 5:18 pm

Re: Lawful - or Unlawful?

Postby dodgerdodge » Mar 13th, 2018, 4:39 pm

Another badly written article that contradicts itself. Whatever our thoughts on animal safety and loving ones pet like a child the article the RCMP guy quotes says "must be leashed" and it was, so how Castanet could write that the driver could face a ticket if caught and use the headline "dog in truck = fine" is beyond me. It even goes on to say that the leash can be short and i quote:

An owner may secure their pet with a leash, short enough to prevent the animal from jumping out of a vehicle, strangulation, or potential for death.
So i would guess that as the dog was indeed leashed as per witness account there is no charge to answer, except maybe a stupidity charge. :200:

3 people like this post.
dodgerdodge
Übergod
 
Posts: 1556
Likes: 121 posts
Liked in: 430 posts
Joined: Jun 9th, 2010, 7:35 am

Re: Lawful - or Unlawful?

Postby Ken7 » Mar 13th, 2018, 5:29 pm

could kill it or you crush it with your chest.
Mtn Biker wrote:
I guess that makes it ok?? Too bad the dog couldn't put the owner on a short leash and strap them to something moving.


I do not agree with the practice myself although you have to be careful. I know of several cases where the leash was to long and the dog escaped over the side and hung itself.

I would rather see the dog in the backseat. For those who think it's cute to have little fluffy on their lap while driving, wrong. That will cause you to get a fine and it is not safe for your little dog if you are in a collision. Air bag could kill it or you may crush the dog with your chest.

dle likes this post.
User avatar
Ken7
Guru
 
Posts: 6664
Likes: 3804 posts
Liked in: 2741 posts
Joined: Sep 30th, 2007, 4:09 pm

Re: Lawful - or Unlawful?

Postby hupur » Mar 13th, 2018, 6:45 pm

removed.
Last edited by Triple 6 on Mar 13th, 2018, 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: off topic comment remove.
hupur
 
Posts: 36
Likes: 8 posts
Liked in: 24 posts
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 8:23 pm

Re: Lawful - or Unlawful?

Postby Catsumi » Mar 13th, 2018, 7:20 pm

alanjh595 wrote:I personally believe that dogs should be treated the same as young children in a car/truck. Not just a short leash around it's neck, but a body restraint secured with the lap and shoulder seat belts.
After all, if a dog is adopted and considered a member of the family, why should it not be protected and restrained in the event of an accident like any other member of the family?



So , ok, the dog and its well being has been pretty well covered and I agree with these sentiments, however I would like to tell those folk who leave their dogs tied up in the box of trucks my side of the story.

You park in a busy parking lot (Safeway, Superstore, Costco, whatever) with your dog(s) in the back somewhat restrained and then you disappear inside the store. I park beside you not realizing the situation, get out and also try to get inside of store to be greeted with snarling, barking, fang bared mutts that I cannot get by without possibly being bitten (not all dogs are q-tip size). You are nowhere in sight...just gone...to leave others on the verge of heart attack.

Is there a valid reason for your thoughtlesness?

I for one wish you'd leave the mutts at home.
There is nothing government can give you that it hasn't taken from you in the first place.
Winston Churchill

dirtybiker likes this post.
User avatar
Catsumi
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2609
Likes: 3205 posts
Liked in: 2249 posts
Joined: May 24th, 2017, 8:26 pm

Re: Lawful - or Unlawful?

Postby Ken7 » Mar 13th, 2018, 7:24 pm

Catsumi wrote:
So , ok, the dog and its well being has been pretty well covered and I agree with these sentiments, however I would like to tell those folk who leave their dogs tied up in the box of trucks my side of the story.

You park in a busy parking lot (Safeway, Superstore, Costco, whatever) with your dog(s) in the back somewhat restrained and then you disappear inside the store. I park beside you not realizing the situation, get out and also try to get inside of store to be greeted with snarling, barking, fang bared mutts that I cannot get by without possibly being bitten (not all dogs are q-tip size). You are nowhere in sight...just gone...to leave others on the verge of heart attack.

Is there a valid reason for your thoughtlesness?

I for one wish you'd leave the mutts at home.

I'd rather they keep then in the lot, I'm still unsure how Fido can help in Rona. If you want to exercise your pooch take it to the park. I have allergies to some MUTTS and don't think they are needed to go shopping for house repair products.
Last edited by Ken7 on Mar 13th, 2018, 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ken7
Guru
 
Posts: 6664
Likes: 3804 posts
Liked in: 2741 posts
Joined: Sep 30th, 2007, 4:09 pm

Re: Lawful - or Unlawful?

Postby Tootsie » Mar 13th, 2018, 8:06 pm

Why? it's what I want to know - WHY do people feel they need to take their dogs in their vehicles? A lot of people say "they love going for rides" . Really? How do you know what a dog thinks? I doubt it. YOU THINK they like going for rides is more like it and justifies amusement time that you don't want to spend dealing with - in other word, too lazy to take them for a walk. You know - like they did 40 years ago. Dogs survived just fine without riding in vehicles over the ages.

When I see people with dogs in vehicles especially in the summer I just shake my head. How about just leave them at home where they're comfortable? After seeing a leashed dog almost drown after leaping over the side of a boat at a dockside pub here years ago I really get *bleep* off at irresponsible owners.

Ken7 likes this post.
Tootsie
Board Meister
 
Posts: 497
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 185 posts
Joined: Dec 4th, 2008, 10:47 pm

Re: Lawful - or Unlawful?

Postby Dizzy1 » Mar 13th, 2018, 11:17 pm

Tootsie wrote:Why? it's what I want to know - WHY do people feel they need to take their dogs in their vehicles? A lot of people say "they love going for rides" . Really? How do you know what a dog thinks? I doubt it. YOU THINK they like going for rides is more like it and justifies amusement time that you don't want to spend dealing with - in other word, too lazy to take them for a walk. You know - like they did 40 years ago. Dogs survived just fine without riding in vehicles over the ages.

I would think a dog sitting beside your car, begging to get in and jumping right in as soon as you open the door is a pretty clear indication that they want to go for a ride.
Nobody wants to hear your opinion. They just want to hear their own opinion coming out of your mouth.

Catri likes this post.
Dizzy1
Walks on Forum Water
 
Posts: 10778
Likes: 4507 posts
Liked in: 5133 posts
Joined: Feb 12th, 2011, 2:56 pm

Re: Lawful - or Unlawful?

Postby Jack DeBear » Mar 14th, 2018, 6:46 am

WalterWhite wrote:Let’s try and keep the emotions out of this and keep it civil.
In one sentence the RCMP indicates this particular owner could face a fine if caught. In another it states having a pet secured with a short leash is acceptable. So, which is it? My understanding has always been the latter, that what this driver did was perfectly legal as the dog was restrained with a short leash as per the videographer (let’s not beleaguer the fact he’s clearly using a mobile device while driving)

https://www.castanet.net/news/West-Kelo ... truck-fine


I find no mention of using a leash to transport a dog in either the BC Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, or the BC Motor Vehicle Act (sections below).

Nevertheless, from the photo, with the size and position of the dog on top of the toolbox, unless it was tied somewhere above the toolbox, I don’t see how it could‘ve been secured with a ‘one foot leash.’

Therefore if the leash was longer than ‘one foot,’ and besides the dog being up on the toolbox, I don’t see how it could’ve been, “Confined or secured in a manner that will prevent the animal from falling from the vehicle, being injured during transport, or causing a hazard to the safe operation of other vehicles,” and / or, “. . . a suitable cage, carrier or guard rail is provided and is attached adequately to protect that animal from falling or being thrown from the vehicle.”

BC Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act

Transportation of animals

9.3 (1) A person responsible for an animal must not transport the animal by vehicle unless the animal is
(a) inside the passenger compartment, or
(b) confined or secured in a manner that will prevent the animal from
(i) falling from the vehicle,
(ii) being injured during transport, or
(iii) causing a hazard to the safe operation of other vehicles.

(2) A person responsible for an animal must not attach the animal to a vehicle that is in operation unless the animal is confined or secured as described in subsection (1) (b).

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person operating a vehicle that is designed for use as a mobility aid for persons with a disability and that is being used for that purpose.

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/ ... section9.3


BC Motor Vehicle Act

Transporting animals

72 A person commits an offence if the person transports a living animal on the runningboard, fender, hood or other exterior part of a motor vehicle unless a suitable cage, carrier or guard rail is provided and is attached adequately to protect that animal from falling or being thrown from the vehicle.

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/ ... #section72


So, doggie in the cab or in a cage secured in the back.
Jack DeBear
Board Meister
 
Posts: 489
Likes: 110 posts
Liked in: 195 posts
Joined: Feb 19th, 2018, 11:02 am

Next

Return to Central Okanagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], That_Guy and 6 guests