Animal Activist Found Guilty Of Dog Theft

JakeAnimal activist and founder of Dogs Deserve Better Tammy Grimes has been found guilty of stealing a tethered dog and refusing to return it.

A Pennsylvania jury made their verdict in 30 minutes after a three-day trial. Grimes admitted that, on Sept. 11, 2006, she went onto the property of Steve and Lori Arnold and took Jake, a 19-year-old mixed-breed German shepherd, after a neighbor complained about Jake being tethered for three days. The neighbor also said that Jake did not have food or water and was unable to move.

Grimes took Jake to a veterinarian, and the vet said that Jake’s condition was a two on a scale of one to ten. The German shepherd was treated and taken to a foster home where he died five months later.

She refused to take Jake to authorities or return him back to the Arnolds because she feared for the safety and well-being of Jake. Grimes said she did not want to return him until she was guaranteed that he would be well taken care of. She also wanted animal cruelty charges filed against the Arnolds.

Grimes stated, “It was either his skin or my skin. I had two choices: Either give the dog back to that situation or get arrested. That dog was the worst dog I’d ever seen on a chain, and my thoughts were to get him care. It had nothing to do with being on a chain.”

Blair County District Attorney Richard Consiglio stated, “If the defendant failed to return the dog to the Arnolds and gave it to a third party, she deprived the owners of the dog. Without law you have chaos. Who wants someone taking the law into their own hands against them.”

The prosecution also accused Grimes of taking Jake as a publicity stunt. A detective testified that Grimes sold shirts, sweatshirts and underwear with pictures of Jake on them.

Grimes’ attorney said that Grimes never meant to deprive the owners of Jake. She simply wanted to give him medical care.

Grimes will be sentenced February 22, but Consiglio said that Grimes will not face jail time. Sentencing guidelines recommend probation.

After the guilty verdict, Grimes said that she may cry for half-an-hour, but she can’t be kept down and will continue with her efforts in support of state legislation that will prohibit chaining of dogs outside from 10pm to 6am.

Source: Tribune Democrat, Altoona Mirror

36 Responses to “Animal Activist Found Guilty Of Dog Theft”

  1. Hazel says:

    This is horrible and a failure of the justice system. I can not fathom what the jury was thinking. Tammy is found guilty for being merciful…and in the meantime…what about the people who abused the dog.

    Why no trial or sentence for them/ THEY ARE THE GUILTY ONES!

    Shame on the jury for thir morally blind judgement.

  2. EmilyS says:

    Tammy “never wanted to deprive” the owners of Jake?
    She’s a liar.
    She stole their dog and refused to return him, because she decided, on her own, that his care wasn’t up to her standards.
    There are no records that she tried to contact police or animal control

    People who support Tammy need to think twice about whether they really want to give the power of confiscating private property to unauthorized individuals.

    This is not just about that old dog..

    And that’s why the jury found her GUILTY

  3. Lynne says:

    People who stole slaves were depriving people of their property also. What is legal sometimes has nothing to do with what is right.

    And it sounds like his care wasn’t up to anyone’s standards if he was given a “2″ by a vet and died 5 months later. I’m on Grimes’s side on this issue. I gave serious thought to stealing a dog myself for the same reason.

  4. JS says:

    I wasn’t aware that there were standards for leaving a 19 year old dog outside chained up for 3 days without food or water. I think most reasonable people call that cruelty.

  5. Tanya says:

    JS. this is not about cruelty, it’s about vigilantism. Let’s at least keep that in perspective.

    there are ways to handle situations like this that protect everyone’s rights, including the dog’s. this woman did not do any of it. By her own admission she did not call anyone.

    Legal measures are in place so *we* who are ill-informed of particulars do not go rushing into places we do not belong. No one, least of all this woman, knows the full story when she took the dog. She does not know if, say, an elderly care taker was in the hospital, or if the neighbors were lying, or if the owners had seen a vet, and the cause of “skin and bones” was being reviewed by the owners.

    Cops, judges, and those legally authorized to remove animals *investigate* first, then take the animal if it’s in the animal’s best interest.

    I cannot believe you all are supporting vigilante justice.

  6. Adrienne says:

    You all should really read through the whole story before jumping to any conclusions. There appears there was an attempt to report the neglect and it went unheeded. Extenuating circumstances and urgency took this case to the next level. AND she was in contact with animal control, who told her to get the dog the help it needed.

    Shouldn’t any of us be willing to step up and act just like Tammy Grimes when a LIFE is at stake?

  7. Stefani says:

    This is outrageous. That woman is a hero. The authorities were doing nothing about that dog — he was dying due to abuse and neglect.

    When you see a dying chid, starving due to his parents hand, would you wait for authorities to act if they were refusing to step in?

    Many of us feel it is a very similar moral dilemma, the law just hasn’t caught up with us.

    Yeah for Tammy. What can we do to help her?

    The Toonces Project
    “Is Your Pet Safe at the Vet?”

  8. Stefani says:

    PS —

    When authorities refuse to enforce laws against cruelty, there is a higher moral authority that we must answer to.

    For those of you who condemn our support of vigilantism, my hope for you is that you will PERSONALLY be faced with the kind of moral dilemma that Tammy was, and that you REALIZE in that moment that LAW is not supreme to basic morality. You cannot just stand around and watch someone — furry or not — die of abuse and neglect. If you do, you are IMMORAL, NOT those of us who would act.


  9. highnote says:

    I feel for Tammy and understand why she did this but I also feel we have to abide by the law. In this case I understand why Tammy did this and maybe I would have done the same but we have to follow the laws in this country because if we do not then anyone can come and take our pets and say that they are justified as well. This is why we have laws in the first place.
    Sometimes the law does not stand by what we believe but this does not mean that we can go against it. This is the main reason she was found guilty. Not because of the poor dog but because she took the law in her own hands and this is something we cannot do.
    I feel for her and I am sorry for her because she was doing what her heart felt was right but she should have known that she could not win by doing it this way.
    I would not want someone taking my dog out of my yard. I may feel I take care of my dog perfectly well and who are they to judge my care? yes the vet gave him a rating of two but this dog was 19 years old! he certainly could not have been in perfect health at 19.
    I salute her for her caring but the way she went about doing it was wrong!

  10. Lynne says:

    “Sometimes the law does not stand by what we believe but this does not mean that we can go against it.”

    Thank God the abolitionists didn’t feel that way.

  11. shibadiva says:

    Stefani, Lynne: For some of us, there would be no question at all about the right thing to do, regardless of the personal consequences. Especially in this case where the authorities failed to protect.

  12. Merlin Marshall says:

    I’m on Tammy’s side. If the dog was given a condition of 2 out of 10, it was clearly being neglected. Apparently age had little to do with that condition. Being left chained out for 3 days with no food or water is neglect. Why the hell didn’t authorities do anything about it? Sometimes you have to do what is right for the animal. That family should never be allowed to have pets, ever!

  13. Nancy G. says:

    The dog was 19 years old. They must not have been too negligent. And for a 19 year old dog to be taken from its home, going thru all that upheaval, a new home, sorry, that is an awful lot for a geriatric dog to go thru. It probably hastened his end. I wonder if his “2 on a scale of 10″ was partly, or largely, due to his advanced age, and neither Tammy nor the vet knew it? I think she went way overboard here, she should have pressed for the proper legal authorities to take action, and not decide to be a law unto herself. I feel sorry for poor Jake, he deserved to die at home with his own people that he had known all his life. Unless he was incontinent and they stuck him outside, but even in that case, citizens cannot bcome vigilantes, Tammy needed to make the authorities take action. And in all honesty, I tend to take with a grain of salt whatever any person with a cause to promote says.

  14. Nora and Rufus says:

    If anyone has a problem with this dog being rescued, they have no compassion for the dog itself. Hope they need to be rescued sometime and legalities make sure they cannot be rescued……LIVE WITH THAT!

  15. catmom5 says:

    Tammy needed to make the authorities take action? And if they continued to NOT take action . . .? I agree that what was legal, in this case, was not morally correct. I really don’t feel the least bit sorry for the owners because if they had really loved that dog they never would have left him out for days on end. Even if he was incontinent, there are crates, cages, confinement, etc . . . or humane euthanasia if he was that sick. No, they didn’t, in my opinion, seem to care much for the dog. Sad situation, all the way around.

  16. furmom says:

    It’s pretty hard to judge not knowing what actually happened. The owner must have been doing something right if the dog lived 19 years. A 19 year old dog could look pretty bad and likely has some underlying condition such as cancer or heart failure, or just poor appetite. Then I’m wondering, if the dog was rescued and given such excellent care, why did he die in their care? Could it have been they didn’t understand his needs or he just died of a broken heart being taken from his family. I think the owners deserved more of an investigation before someone determined they were the cause of his poor condition at his advanced age.

  17. shibadiva says:

    The dog died 5 months after the rescue, if I recall correctly. And there is a marked difference in the “before” and “after” pictures. Could be he died of old age, after all, but was at least comfortable in his remaining days. Being tied out in all weather on a chain with obvious neglect isn’t something that should happen to any creature, never mind one of such a venerable age.

    Maybe these people were good to the dog for years and then just somehow distanced themselves at the end.

  18. Tina says:

    Good work, Tammy.

    When one is in pain or suffering, a few minutes or a few hours is a very long time. Tammy saw a need and was brave enough to respond to it. She did a wonderful thing for an innocent victim of either cruel or stupid people. The ‘law’ didn’t fix this situation; a caring person of honor did.

    The ‘law’ is often years behind Society’s enlightenment. If enough people behave as Tammy did, the ‘law’ will catch up. The time has past for living beings to be treated like rusty bicycles or old refrigerators.

    Best wishes,

  19. Sue says:

    Nancy G & Furmom I agree with both of you and am glad to see someone is not praising this woman. Bot labs and german shepards live for 10 to 12 years on average. This Jake was almost twice that age. They must have done something right for that dog

    Before both of my elder cats passed away ( 18.5 yrs and 17 yrs) the each had a couple of episodes where fell on their sides and could not get up. One had seizures during these episodes. after a short while they acted as if nothing had happened. Both were also underweight because they had a hyper thyroid. It does not mean the dog was mistreated.

    I googled to read news articles on this and some of the things that I found were:

    the neighbor did not get along with the Arnolds and had called with complaints about their dogs.

    The Arnolds found out their dog died by reading about it in the paper. The Vet wouldn’t release Jake’s body to them and it took 3 days several visits and a threat to call the police before they could retrieve Jake’s body for burial in their yard.

    The animal control officer said the dog looked like it had been fed but might and I repeat might have been slightly dehydrated.

    Grimes took this poor elder dog away from familiar suroundings to spend its last days. Called him a different name then one he had probably known most of his life. She traumatized Jake, the family and their other dogs. If you go to her site and look at the picture of Jake please note that he is on a collar and leash and looks to be tied to something. The look on his face is one of distrust.

    If someone had done something like this to one of my babies I don’t know what I would have done. There were times I worried that someone would think I wasn’t feeding them and would call on me because they were thin. This is one sick person that should never have a license to operate a rescue or shelter. I also think that the vet needs to be investigated.

  20. Don Earl says:

    RE: “People who support Tammy need to think twice about whether they really want to give the power of confiscating private property to unauthorized individuals.”


    The dog was 19 years old for crying out loud! Most dogs don’t live anywhere near that long, and certainly not those subjected to abuse. In people years, this dog was 133 years old. Big surprise that grandpa doesn’t play frizbee while sunning himself in the yard in his latter days.

    The last thing we need is some loose cannon, vigilante fruitcake stealing pets that have been in a family for two decades as a publicity stunt.

    She belongs in jail. Plain and simple. Sentencing guidelines aside, I hope the court takes into consideration the outrageousness of this Tammy person’s conduct and locks her up long enough to learn social responsibility and consideration of the rights of others.

    I hope those silly enough to condone this wacko’s conduct take a minute to think about how they would feel if Tammy stole your pet to advance her agenda, and instead of it being at home with its family in its last days, it died with strangers and you never got to say goodbye.

  21. lammer29 says:

    I can’t imagine what you could be thinking to not praise Tammy for her actions. Chaining a dog for hours on end, let alone 3 days,old or not, is abusive, and even the vet said that the dog’s condition was serious. I applaud her behavior and she probably gave him the best 5 months of his life, too bad it was his last.Let’s hope the neighbors don’t get a puppy.

  22. furmom says:

    I just think if someone thought there was a problem they should have talked to the owners, they might find out why the dog was ill, or motivate the owner to take him for a check up. I had a very elderly poodle, who was deaf, incontinent, and had been “well fed” by my parents. When I got my own place I put her on a very serious diet, I’m sure the neighbors (certainly my parents ) thought I was abusing her if they saw her condition. I eventually happened to take her to the vet (for another reason) and he said she had a heart murmur so bad she should have died long ago, and only her extreme underweight was keeping her alive, and she was happy and responsive to the end. He was astounded that she managed to walk several blocks to the vet clinic, he said I was doing a fantastic job with her by keeping her so painfully thin. She lived several more years after that and also developed a sort of seizure/falling over condition, I did eventually put her down.
    I also had a very elderly cat who eventually couldn’t eat or drink due to heart failure. Anyone who would have visited would not have seen food or water bowls, because I kept her alive for several months by giving her egg yolk and water through a dropper. She would meow unhappily when in the house, but settled down purring when I put her outside in the hot sun, because she couldn’t maintain her temperature in less than about body temperature surroundings. I’m sure the neighbors thought I was cruel and nuts. My point is you don’t know the situation till you investigate exactly what is going on.

  23. RoonieRoo says:

    To all those condoning Tracy’s actions and stating that breaking the law is acceptable when it is a moral issue of how you judge an animal’s life is or has been. I’ve decided that I’m the correct moral authority to judge the care of your pets.

    If you feed raw, you are evil and must never be allowed to own a pet again since you are subjecting them to risk of a bone perforating their intestines. I know a couple of vets that will back me up on this. Please send me your addresses so I can come steal your pets and put them in better homes.

    For those of you feeding commercial, you are evil and should never be allowed to own a pet because you obviously don’t care enough about your babies to make their own food. I know a couple of vets that will back me up on this. Please send me your addresses so I can come steal your pets and put them in better homes.

    For those of you that let your pets outside in their backyards by themselves you obviously don’t care about their safety and are just selfish and lazy. You are evil and should never be allowed to own a pet ever. I know a couple of vets that will back me up on this. Please send me your addresses so I can come steal your pets and put them in better homes.

    For those of you who crate your pets while you are out, you are cruel and horrible for keeping them in a cage for as long as you would need to to hold down a job. You are evil and should never be allowed to own a pet ever. I know a couple of vets that will back me up on this. Please send me your addresses so I can come steal your pets and put them in better homes.

  24. pheephee35 says:

    RonnieRoo — you crack me up.

    I think Tammy could have done more to get the owners or authorities to take care of Jake before she did what she did. Why didn’t she ask permission from the owners to come give him food and water and sit with him a couple of hours every day? Just an idea that might have inspired the owners to do more for him.

  25. Don Earl says:

    RE: “I can’t imagine what you could be thinking to not praise Tammy for her actions.”

    After deliberating for less than 30 minutes, the jury had NO sympathy for Tammy’s outrageous conduct. That was after spending three days listening to every fact in the case.

    It’s also worth noting that while being outside right now sounds bad, this apparently happened last Summer when being outside is pleasant. At the end of the day, Tammy is nothing more than a profiteering T-shirt salesman and couldn’t care less about the dog. Steal the dog, keep it long enough to take some photos, dump it off on someone else, then make up a sad story to go along with her little cottage industry.

    The insane part about some of these comments is when an animal control officer did virtually the same thing with an elderly cat a couple months ago, animal control was the obvious bad guy in the story.

  26. The Lioness says:

    JS says:

    December 18th, 2007 at 10:32 am
    I wasn’t aware that there were standards for leaving a 19 year old dog outside chained up for 3 days without food or water. I think most reasonable people call that cruelty.

    **I’m with JS. While part of me says, “Yay, Tammy! You did the right thing,” those of you who have said you would not condone putting the law into the hands of non-authority figures do have a good point.

    So I would ask this: Why did Tammy not first report the alleged cruelty/neglect to the proper authorities? That is, indeed, a very good question. I also did not know she was selling T-shirts and such with the dog’s picture on them. That, to me, smacks of misguided motivations.

    I’m glad she took him to a vet, though, where he could get some decent care, and I’m glad he spent his last 5 months (we hope) being fed and watered and loved on.

    I think the owners should be charged with animal neglect, personally.

    ~The Lioness

  27. The Lioness says:

    Now that I’ve read her site and the other articles that were paraphrased, I have to say I’m on the side of the law. In my heart, I support Tammy’s intent; however, no one bothered–including the damned animal control officers or police–to get the owners’ side of the story. Maybe they knew Jake was nearing the end and knew enough about animals to know that they couldn’t do much else for him. (I don’t agree with that personally–I would have taken the dog to the vet.)

    I also think this is more of “animal control” officers not doing their jobs. What is up with that? Why didn’t they listen to the neighbor and go at least talk to the owners?

    The whole story is crazy. A part of me supports what Tammy did in principle, but I agree that I would not want some stranger deciding I’m bad because I have 9 cats, some of whom are elderly, and take them.

    The key is improving the laws around animal stewardship and improving and monitoring the training and performance of animal control officers.

    I also know that some jurisdictions just don’t care about animals.

    Tammy could have done a better job, but I believe she had good intentions.

    ~The Lioness

  28. EmilyS says:

    here’s the thing people: this isn’t about that individual dog, or even about “chaining”. If Tammy wanted to really help dogs, she’d do public actions like picketing, calling the media etc. She STOLE the dog, knowing it would result in a particular kind of publicity for HER. She hoped to be arrested and convicted, resulting in martyrdom for her (”oh poor Tammy she only cares about poor dogs”).

    She and her cult want to create a climate in which society cedes to individual vigilantes the right to take other people’s pets if the care doesn’t measure up to those vigilante standards. Even the intelligent pet loving libertarians here are expressing admiration for Tammy and saying they would do the same as she.

    So she is succeeding. She is on the way to creating a society which accepts that individuals (rather than authorized agents such as ACO/police who are responsible to the public.. however bad a job they may be doing in many cases) may take the property of others.

    Trust me, “chaining” is the least of it. Will these vigilantes next go to taking your dog if you don’t feed it the “right” kind of food? Or if you don’t live in the “right” kind of house? Or don’t have the “right” size bankaccount?

  29. shibadiva says:

    LOL, I for one will be keeping my pets Inside, and pulling the bedcovers over my head, when those vigilante cultfollowers with wirecutters are in the neighbourhood.

  30. furmom says:

    After I read a little more about the situation from the website, I was thinking. Why did the neighbor, who was so torn up about the dog’s treatment not buzz on over and provide food and water, and perhaps a pad for the dog to sleep on. If the owners were away they might have just taken the dog in for a couple of days to “help” the owners on some excuse. I doubt anyone would have been charged with theft with that approach. And used that as a jumping point for discussion with the owners. My neighbors know that I am available, if they ever travel, to walk or feed their dogs.(There’s also a standing offer to look after their little ones in a pinch. If I saw a neighbors dog in distress I wouldn’t just agonize for three days, he could be helped without stealing him. For an elderly pet to go to a kennel situation and leave his home, could itself be very stressing. Sometimes it takes a village to raise a dog.

  31. mittens says:

    i think she started selling items to raise money for her defense. i am not saying i agree with it- just an observation. lawyers ain’t cheap. i’d also like to know why so many, who has all never examined the dog and are not themselves vets, are experts in geriatric dog health and the vet who actually saw the animal of course has to be wrong. i’d like to think the vet took the dog’s age into consideration in his opinion. not that a vet is an expert like self appointed know it alls but it’s a thought.

    i *may* have personally violated the law in a far more serious way then tammy did to save animals from a cruel neglectful situation. it’s not something to make a habit of and i didnt exactly broadcast what i may have done. perhaps 2 people on earth knew of it. the point was to save the animals as quickly and painlessly as possible from a very severe and potentially dangerous situation where the circumstances and the location prohibited involving police or animal control( domestic abuse was involved). at the time and place i highly doubt animal control would have been of any help- this was maybe quite awhile ago. this was no crusade but a choice one would rather not make but felt compelled to-turning my back on those animals was a graver sin then maybe violating a few man made laws about property- laws that back then were even more inadequate to protect animals and even battered women.

    and i didn’t need a vet or an” animal control -snort- expert” to tell me that someone’s property rights did not take precedence over saving lives. decorum prevents me elaborating on the circumstances of what this pile of filth was doing to a host of hoarded animals- let’s just say that using other species for your sexual gratification just may not be right. threatening your ex-girlfriend’s pets that you have kept her from collecting when she ‘ escaped’ you if she went to the police is also, maybe, wrong. i bet i could find a lawyer to back me up on this. and a psychiatrist specializing in deviant pathologies.

    i have highly mixed feelings about this tammy thing.i dont find i can completely support tammy but i know the “maybe’ mittens who maybe broke the law morally did the right thing. life is not so cut and dry that the laws fit every situation justly. this is due to human imperfection.

    i also think some may be living in a dreamy utopia where neighbors who chain their dogs out perpetually and leave a dying dog without water alone for 3 days would except any ‘ help’. my experience with those sorts of folks is more often then not that they believe youre messing with them and it’s none of your damn business what they do with their damn dog. going out onto some people’s land with a bowl of food for their staked our dog could get you shot.

  32. furmom says:

    I’m not sure what “those sorts of people” are exactly like. I have one neighbor who has their dog almost continuously tied up. I hate to see her every time I drive by. They are decent people, look after their kids well, but my guess they don’t have the time to go looking for a lost dog, and the fence on their yard may be too short for an escape artist. I personally could not tie a dog like that, but I can’t just go kidnap their dog. I have another neighbor who badly overfed their dog with a heart condition. I laid some heavy hints that they should put her on a diet or they’d kill her, but for a long time they didn’t. I don’t know if the vet got through to them or the change in the lady of the house allowed for more sense but the dog is now slimmer suffers less from arthritis and no longer has a blue tongue when she runs around. They are fine people and care about their dog, but she’s usually stuck in a pen all day, and sometimes into the late evening. I couldn’t do that, but I’m not going to kidnap the dog. I take her for walks, and bring her over to play sometimes with my dog, with their permission, and then I don’t feel so bad. Some other neighbors thought our dog wasn’t adequately cared for because she was almost always outside (on a fair sized acreage. They thought she got no attention and was neglected. My husband worked outside on the farm all day with the dog there (they probably never saw him because it was all trees), we have three kids who played each a little with her, and I played with her everyday here and there. She preferred living outside, had a very thick coat and warm dog house, and couldn’t stand the warmth of our house winter or summer, she just wanted to be let out. These kindly neighbors didn’t mind telling me how inadequate her care was, but I wouldn’t have been too happy if they had come over to feed her or give whatever care they thought was appropriate. Especially since they stood out on the road by our place and lured her out there with food (their idea of a happy dog is a fat dog perhaps?). Do you think they got it when I told them I didn’t want them training her to go out on a road? Fortunately I doubt they could have kidnapped her from her unhappy existence because she was a German Shepherd and knew better than to trust idiots.

  33. Stefani says:


    Harboring jews in Natzi Germany was illegal too.

    The LAW was “final solution.”

    The LAW is not always moral.

    Sometimes, it is the opposite of moral.

    The condition of “pets as property” in our legal system results in many immoral acts, on a large scale, daily. This is just one. I don’t know what the perfect solution is. A special class called “sentient property” has been proposed as a compromise. I think it is worth pursuing.


  34. shibadiva says:

    Stefani, I enjoy your posts very much.

    Sentient property would be a first baby step in recognizing that we share this blue planet with a host of different living beings.

    What’s wrong about our laws is that saving and comforting an old dog is considered to be less important than the “rights” of people who would leave a faithful friend in the rain and mud, unable to move for days, and the humane officers who didn’t consider it a priority to ensure that relief was provided.

    Good for Tammy for saying “I T-O-O-K T-H-E D-O-G.
    Throw me in jail.”

  35. furmom says:

    The whole point of having the laws we do have is that in the interests of fairness a society or community declares what it will and won’t allow, and what the penalty will be for non-compliance. People can’t just go around with their own personal idea of what should be allowed, and then impose their own penalty just because they don’t happen to agree with a law the way it is currently. I could then just go out and kidnap all the dogs I think are overfed(who is to say how fat is too fat?) and suffering un-necessarily from heart disease, arthritis, lack of exercise. And the dogs that are underfed, inadequately trained, not well-enough groomed, don’t have enough human contact, didn’t get their vaccinations. Some people think it’s cruel to let a cat outside, some think its cruel to keep them in all the time.Some people think all members of certain breeds should be confiscated, others can’t agree which breeds should be confiscated, others don’t think any breed should be outlawed. Suppose I just up and decide that your dog should be taken because you are a person who takes other people’s dogs? Let’s all kidnap the other guy’s pets and refuse to give them back if we have a different standard than the community seems to have agreed on, or because the community can’t yet decide what they agree upon. How often do you hear of people making an issue of beefing up dog control or raising the standard the law requires for pet care? A few people are actively working on that in most communities, but you can’t get acceptance for different rules if people are just randomly taking pets whenever they see fit.

  36. shibadiva says:

    I hardly think we’re looking at total anarchy with everyone slapping on ski-masks and kidnapping pets left, right and centre.

    I think Gina over at Pet Connection expressed it well - taking responsibility for your actions. “If you buy the ticket, you take the ride. You don’t get a pass because you do the right thing if it’s against the law.”

    “Taking the ride” is probably enough to deter anyone who’s out to steal cars, pets and toasters for a lark or for profit. It won’t stop the handful of idealists who are passionate about reversing a wrongdoing. But that’s the stuff of inspiration; the sky isn’t falling.

    I’d say the tree we ought to be barking up is the one where the Arnolds and the ACO appear to be getting off scot-free.

E-mail It