Woman Faces $1,000 Fine For Pink Poodle

Originally Posted by Liebling:)))
Yes I agree that it's not animal abuse to use organic product to color their pets.

I compared the pet owner with the parents who allows to dye their pets and children's hair. The pet owner have to pay fine $1,000 because it's animal abuse to law's eye but what about children? *scratch my head* For law - dye animal with organic product is an animal abuse and not child abuse if the parents dye their children's hair... ???
Click to expand...


CCfan said:
I am disagree with you, Liebling. I would say okay dye on the dog with organic product IS NOT animal abuse.
Click to expand...

Wash and clean your eyes and re-read my post :D :giggle: then you will see that you and I have SAME opinion that dye with organic product is not animal abuse. I said that I AGREE that it´s NOT animal abuse... I said that it´s not sense to consider dye dog with organic product as animal abuse.


I keep wondering to myself "What about declaw, devoicing, ear & tail docking ? They are legal in America and Canada but not dye with organic product on pets?" because they are the worst than dye pet´s hair with organic product.

 
Liebling:-))) said:
Wash and clean your eyes and re-read my post :D :giggle: then you will see that you and I have SAME opinion that dye with organic product is not animal abuse. I said that I AGREE that it´s NOT animal abuse... I said that it´s not sense to consider dye dog with organic product as animal abuse.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree what you said, It is not animals abuse, but but but weird do have several different rules in each states.
look like, In Arizona have to not required for Motorcycle with helmet, but in California have to required.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
Wash and clean your eyes and re-read my post :D :giggle: then you will see that you and I have SAME opinion that dye with organic product is not animal abuse. I said that I AGREE that it´s NOT animal abuse... I said that it´s not sense to consider dye dog with organic product as animal abuse.
Click to expand...

I can read clearly, but it make me confused. But, thanks for clarifying.
I agree with you about an organic product does not harm the animals.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
What about declaw, devoicing, ear & tail docking ? They are legal in America and Canada but not dye with organic product on pets? :roll:

It would be different story if she use chemical product to dye her dog but she only use organic product which is a harmless.
Click to expand...
There are actually cases where some owners have to sign an agreement that they cannot de-claw, detail, or anything like that to some pets that they adopt from animal shelters.

I know someone who got a cat from an animal shelter, but had to sign an agreement that she would never de-claw the cat.
 
VamPyroX said:
There are actually cases where some owners have to sign an agreement that they cannot de-claw, detail, or anything like that to some pets that they adopt from animal shelters.

I know someone who got a cat from an animal shelter, but had to sign an agreement that she would never de-claw the cat.
Click to expand...

That's good new!
 
authentic said:
When a dog owner, a punk lady/guy who likes to dye hair color into dark purple, and black. Is it ok if she/he dye her dog into a punk color like dark purple, black, pink, and white WITH ORGANIC PRODUCTS? Where is the beautiful natural dog color ? :roll: Pets should not be modified by humans. Leave beautiful, and natural pets alone.

If my cat is all white, and just have one black spot, is it OK if I dye it white, so my cat turns all WHITE? Why should I hide the beauty cat?


Did you expect the Animal Control, or Police investigate all colored pets to find out which materials pet owners use to dye their own pet?
Click to expand...

Well, I have few questions for you...

Did you know that dye with organic products on human and animals doesn't stay forever? My answer is Yes:

They will have their own natural color back within few months later after dye...

That's why I do not consider it as animal abuse or animal cruelty.

Is it okay with you?

Google-Ergebnis für http://www.pampered-pets.ca/Groomingsalon.JPG

It's okay with me because their hair will grew up again and also claw as well after trimmed...

Declaw, devoicing, ear & tail docking are not okay to me because they will never have their claw, devoicing, ear & tail docking back ever again... I consider it as animal abuse/cruelty, not dye with orgainc products, claw trimming or pet salon.
 
JeepGirl said:
I have learned sooo much about PETA. It amazed me how they do it. I was shocked and I definitely don't agree with PETA at all. I had a staff meeting about a month ago about PETA. anyway.. sorry its off topic.


I was thinking.. if coloring on a dog or cat or cow or pig, whatever you want to name is not allowed, why is the grooming allowed? Its the way the owner wants it to look. grooming, shaving, pulling hair out of ears, sedating, etc is okay but not ok to dye? I'm not against it or for it. I don't consider it animal cruelty though. I love animals and when I see animals that has a spike on its head, its like awww how cute! when I saw that pink poodle, i said awww how cute! that's just the owner's personality how they like their animals to be. and Agreed that as long as its fed and taken care of that's all that matters.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Dogs weren't intended to walk around with bows on their heads, or sweaters on their backs, either, but plenty of people do it.
 
Byrdie714 said:
The only law we are talking about is the dying of color on animals....

If one has an issue with the said law, take it up with your legislature/city council as they are the ones that pass these "outdated, discriminatory, and utter ridiculous laws that are on the books." :)

But remember that some of these laws were pass for a reason.
Click to expand...

Go back and read the intent of the law, Byrdie. It clealy states that then intent of the law was to prevent mass, vat dying of chicks and rabbits at Easter time. This dog has neither been subjected to vat dying using chemicals, nor is this woman is this woman dying animals en masse.
 
Byrdie714 said:
Even though she used organics to dye the dog's color, some organic chemistry may not be acceptable to the dog.

Like would you feed your dog chocolate knowing that it can kill the dog?

And...what about the dog's feelings since one of you members is a therapist? :giggle:
Click to expand...

Dogs are not cognizant. But since you went there, what about the dog's feelings. Maybe it likes being pink. No one has askedm now, have they?

If the organic dyes are not acceptable to the dog, then there will be dermatological evidence of that. There is none. So your point is moot. And doing something that you know full well is harmful to an animal, yet ignoring the fact that it can cause harm is a completely different situation. This woman did not feed her dog beet juice or Kool-Aid. She applied it to its fur. Get a grip, "barrister"!
 
She deserved it!

What part of the law didn't she understand?

It stated in the above article:


Quote:
Douglas is accused of violating the city's code that says "No person shall dye or color live fowl, rabbits, or any other animals." It’s a code meant to keep people from dyeing rabbits and chicks at Easter
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, a dog is an animal.
Click to expand...

Jillio writes:

And doing something that you know full well is harmful to an animal, yet ignoring the fact that it can cause harm is a completely different situation. This woman did not feed her dog beet juice or Kool-Aid. She applied it to its fur. Get a grip, "barrister"!
Click to expand...

She was told by the Humane society of Boulder, Colorado not to dye her pets thus she continued to do so. Therefore she needs to be punished with this $1000.00 fine.

Don't like it? Then you need to get a grip in understanding what the law stated about dying an animal, regardless en masse or not.

Bottom line-she was warned, she got caught and needs to cough up the money.

By the way...cute "barrister' comment. :roll:
 
jillio said:
Go back and read the intent of the law, Byrdie. It clealy states that then intent of the law was to prevent mass, vat dying of chicks and rabbits at Easter time. This dog has neither been subjected to vat dying using chemicals, nor is this woman is this woman dying animals en masse.
Click to expand...

No it did not.

It states this:

"No person shall dye or color live fowl, rabbits, or any other animals."
Click to expand...
 
Byrdie714 said:
Jillio writes:



She was told by the Humane society of Boulder, Colorado not to dye her pets thus she continued to do so. Therefore she needs to be punished with this $1000.00 fine.

Don't like it? Then you need to get a grip in understanding what the law stated about dying an animal, regardless en masse or not.

Bottom line-she was warned, she got caught and needs to cough up the money.

By the way...cute "barrister' comment. :roll:
Click to expand...

And, as an attorney, as you claim to be, should know that the intent of the law is what is used to determine applicability. And the intent of the law had absolutely nothing to do with this case.
 
Someone at the Humane Society needs a life. :roll:

I had a friend dye her Labrador pink to raise awareness for a Labrador Rescue. None of the animal rescues or humane societies said anything negative about it, but rather gave her props but also cautioned her to be careful which dyes not to use and recommended safe dyes.

I think its a good idea to use the idea of coloring an animal an unusual color to raise awareness for a good cause.

As for debarking - actually it doesnt work. All it does is makes the dog sound like its choking everytime it 'barks'. Plus I feel that debarking is VERY inhumane. This is a popular practice at illegal puppy mills and they debark the dogs themselves, often by ramming a steel pipe down the dogs throat often breaking the dogs jaw in the process. Vets can do it, but usually they refuse to unless there is a medical necessity to do so (and plus a vet can do it much much more humanely.)

Ear Cropping and tail docking isnt my thing either. It makes the dog prone to infection at the cut, its painful, and very unnecessary. The dog should look natural.

I think these large so-called animal rights organizations need to wake up and realize that 9 times out of 10 they go after the wrong people.
 
Byrdie714 said:
Even though she used organics to dye the dog's color, some organic chemistry may not be acceptable to the dog.

Like would you feed your dog chocolate knowing that it can kill the dog?

And...what about the dog's feelings since one of you members is a therapist? :giggle:
Click to expand...

If you're worried about chemicals affecting a dog, from an ORGANIC stain/dye, then you obviously would also be against any other chemicals being applied to a dog - so that leaves out flea and tick sprays or ointments, even shampooing a dog would be bad because there are chemicals in shampoos...what about the chemicals they put in dog foods?

My brother's dog EATS beets...so I sincerely doubt beet JUICE rubbed on the fur to dye it is going to hurt the dog.

The fact is...if its not something that is inherently dangerous, and it isn't harming the pet, then it shouldn't be against the law, especially something as silly as this.
 
neecy said:
If you're worried about chemicals affecting a dog, from an ORGANIC stain/dye, then you obviously would also be against any other chemicals being applied to a dog - so that leaves out flea and tick sprays or ointments, even shampooing a dog would be bad because there are chemicals in shampoos...what about the chemicals they put in dog foods?

My brother's dog EATS beets...so I sincerely doubt beet JUICE rubbed on the fur to dye it is going to hurt the dog.

The fact is...if its not something that is inherently dangerous, and it isn't harming the pet, then it shouldn't be against the law, especially something as silly as this.
Click to expand...

Good points.
 
neecy said:
If you're worried about chemicals affecting a dog, from an ORGANIC stain/dye, then you obviously would also be against any other chemicals being applied to a dog - so that leaves out flea and tick sprays or ointments, even shampooing a dog would be bad because there are chemicals in shampoos...what about the chemicals they put in dog foods?
Click to expand...
hmm.. didn't think about that... that's a good point as well.
 
neecy said:
If you're worried about chemicals affecting a dog, from an ORGANIC stain/dye, then you obviously would also be against any other chemicals being applied to a dog - so that leaves out flea and tick sprays or ointments, even shampooing a dog would be bad because there are chemicals in shampoos...what about the chemicals they put in dog foods?

My brother's dog EATS beets...so I sincerely doubt beet JUICE rubbed on the fur to dye it is going to hurt the dog.

The fact is...if its not something that is inherently dangerous, and it isn't harming the pet, then it shouldn't be against the law, especially something as silly as this.
Click to expand...

Yay, Neecy! *Giving Neecy a treat* :giggle:
 
Back
Top