Romney dogged by animal cruelty charge
So does Mitt deserve the stick he is getting over a 25 year old story? Or does it reflect something about his values that is relevent today? Will it cost him votes outside the dog-loving community?
Well, I certainly wouldn’t applaud him for it. But it was a long time ago and not terribly relevant to his ability to serve as President. I can come up with lots of other reasons to never vote for him.
I’m finding it a bit difficult to believe that anyone would really care about this. No slight against you, Fear itself, but is this going to impact anyone’s opinion about Romney in any significant manner?
Marc
He didn’t strap his dog to a car roof, so your title is in error.
This seems pretty much like what people do when they take their dogs on planes. I say this dog won’t hunt.
I think is does reflect on his judgement, and is just another paper cut like his “lifelong love of hunting.” Not terrible, but another facet that fills in the mosaic of his character.
Is it really much different than the way they transport horses? Those are open air boxes towed behind vehicles instead of put on the top.
If there’s a windscreen what’s the difference?
What if the dog carrier was in the bed of a pick-up truck? That’s not any safer either but I don’t see anyone calling that animal cruelty.
Does anyone else think this sounds more like a Chevy Chase movie sub-plot?
OK, he strapped the dog carrier onto the roof with the dog inside it. Whatever.
Never seen a plane with pet carriers strapped to the outside of the plane. Can’t see that there’s a whole lot of similarity between a pet in a carrier inside a plane, and a pet in a carrier on the roof of the car as it’s driving along at 60mph. But maybe that’s just me.
My question is, where did the Globe get this story from? The only people who were there were members of the Romney family. If this was an incident that Romney volunteered, thinking it would show his leadership style in a favorable manner, then he deserves to be ripped for it: that brings his bad judgment into the present. If it’s a story that one of his kids mentioned to the Globe reporter in an offhand moment, then not so much. Hopefully he’s no longer the sort of person who’d strap his dog in a carrier on the roof of his car for a 12-hour trip.
Have you ever seen a horse trailer? Hardly open air, and very protective of the horses.
Bad judgment on his part - a big crate would kill wind resistance, and the noise of the wind would make many dogs crazy, I don’t see why he couldn’t put the suitcases on the roof, and the dog in the car. But I’ve got plenty of better reasons not to vote for him, so this makes no difference.
That’s the first thing that went through my mind.
A considerate man would have strapped his kid on the roof, and let the dog ride inside.
This story might give me paws about voting for him, no question.
Huh? The thread title says that Romney “strapped his dog on car roof for 12 hour journey”. Which he did, so it’s not an error at all. Maybe you mean that the title might be misleading because it doesn’t mention that the dog in question was in a carrier?
In any case, fond as I am of dogs, I’d have to have some definite evidence that the dog actually suffered from this experience before I got mad at Romney over it. IME, dogs quite enjoy feelin’ the breeze go by as they ride in cars, and will frequently stick their heads right out the window if they can. That doesn’t mean that Romney’s canine transportation system might not have been dangerous and unwise in terms of the dog’s safety. But so many loving pet owners do such dumb and unsafe things in terms of transporting their pets that it’s hard to chastise Romney in particular for it.
(Full disclosure: the author of this post has in the past occasionally transported a caged canary strapped on the rear carrier of a bicycle. Chirrrrrrrrp! :))
I do have to wonder, though: if you’ve got suitcases and a dog carrier, why wouldn’t you just strap the suitcases on the roof and put the carrier in the back of the station wagon, instead of the other way around?
Anyway. Did anybody read to the end of the OP’s article? :eek:
Which is significantly different, especially since the article states that he put a windscreen in front.
With a windscreen in the front it’s no different than driving a car with the windows rolled down. The only “cruel” part, AFAICS, is confining the dog in the carrier, which is how the plane analogy works.
OK, let’s examine the rest of the story:
So you think it is OK to hose down a dog, then force it to ride, soaking wet, on the roof of a car for hours? Does that happen on airplanes too?
Sorry, but that’s absurd. I know I commented myself on how a lot of dogs enjoy feeling the airstream, but it’s silly to say that putting a dog carrior on a roof rack is no different from having the dog inside the car with the windows rolled down.
It’s one thing to say that such an action isn’t actually cruel, as long as the dog is contented up there on the “top deck”, but quite another to say that it isn’t different from letting the dog ride inside. There’s not only the increased danger of accident with a strapped-on carrier, there’s also the lack of ability to keep an eye on the dog and make sure that it’s comfortable.
And if Romney wasn’t stopping periodically to let the dog walk around a bit and do its business—which Fear’s second story suggests he wasn’t, as a well-trained adult dog will not foul its own container unless it’s absolutely desperate for excretory relief—then he was being cruel to the animal, IMHO.
Actually, it’s much safer for pets to travel in carriers, even inside the car. The really cruel thing is to leave a pet loose in the car to become a flying projectile if you have to make an emergency stop.
:mad: I take back my lack of concern. When we take our dog to Guide Dogs, about 90 miles away, we always let her relieve before and after the trip. He was so concerned about time that he couldn’t stop in a rest area to let the dog go? I wonder if they even bothered at gas stations.
He’s a piece of scum.
And yes, the dog should be in a carrier. If you crate train dogs, they are very happy to go into their carrier, especially if you put a familiar blanket in.
Excuse me, but big whoop.
[quoter]
With a windscreen in the front it’s no different than driving a car with the windows rolled down. The only “cruel” part, AFAICS, is confining the dog in the carrier, which is how the plane analogy works.
[/QUOTE]
The analogy doesn’t work very well at all if a strap works its way loose. Plenty of opportunity for that on a 12 hour trip with minimal stops to check the straps.
The old ones weren’t. The new ones have the streamlined cowling only to make them less wind-resistant. Depending on the weather, the dog was probably perfectly comfortable. And the comparison with dogs in pickups is apt – I haul my hound to the vet 100 miles away in a pickup with a rack on the back. She won’t ride inside.
I’m more appalled that he named his kid Tagg…what’s the rest of 'em named? We got daddy Mitt, Tagg…who else, Basse, Batt, Ball, Moundd?
Seriously, I wouldn’t do what he did, but I’m uncertain if he was really being cruel or not. Like Elendil’s Heir said, there are plenty of reasons not to vote for him besides that. No worries, though…even conservatives don’t trust him as far as they could throw a shit-stained station wagon, anyway.
He didn’t “strap his dog” anywhere.
In the context of the post I was responding to it’s a valid statement.
I think the only thing absurd here is that we’re actually debating this. 
I guess if someone needs an excuse not to vote for a Mormon, they could use this. I’d really like to vote for Romney, but that whole dog on the roof thing… wouldn’t be prudent.
My Outrage Meter is at zero on this. But I probably wouldn’t vote for Romney unless he were running against Dennis Kucinich.