Just two months ago Miami-Dade County (where I reside) approved an ordinance that would ban the chronic use of tethering (chaining or otherwise confining a dog via tether) as a way of “housing” dogs. But it didn’t happen without a fight, one which the welfare-minded residents of neighboring Broward County are now up against.
In spite of some reasonable arguments in support of the occasional, judicious use of tethers for dogs (when supervised), I absolutely supported this proposal, which specifically banned tethering as a chronically-applied, absentee-owner measure.
The AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) agrees with me, as do a host of moderate animal welfare organizations. Considering the conventional wisdom (along with some research), which convincingly preaches that dogs housed on tethers are poorly socialized and are far more likely to become aggressive when kept tied to a fixed site, banning tethering seems like a no-brainer.
But Miami-Dade’s County Commission put up a last-minute roadblock to the ordinance both Miami-Dade County Animal Services and the South Florida Veterinary Medical Association fully supported:
What about the poor? Does this law punish those who cannot afford fencing? What about those who can’t afford alarm systems? Perhaps we should table the whole thing.
The final-hour, socioeconomic lament was as unexpected as it was unwelcome by those of us who had already canvassed the Commission and unearthed no major stumbling blocks.
The poverty argument was even more odious to me, as a long-time Miami-Dade resident who argued unsuccessfully, twenty-plus years ago, that our county’s pit bull ban was unfair and inhumane based partly on its socioeconomic bias (an argument that earned me blank stares back then, despite its now well-accepted validity).
But when it comes to tethering, it’s OK to concern ourselves with our residents’ pet pocketbook issues because, as the story goes, how could we expect some people to keep dogs if they can’t tie them up? By the way, it’s this lame contention that’s reportedly keeping Broward County from acting on a similar proposal.
No matter that the keeping of dogs in the manner this ordinance specifies (unsupervised) is unfair to the animals—let’s concern ourselves with what their owners need. If their owners are unable to feed them properly because kibble costs too much should we also grant them license to starve their pets?
As it is, our society does not require its citizens to provide regular medical care for their pets. Is it asking too much to require that they NOT chain them? After all, food water and shelter are still considered the three basic necessities from an animal welfare point of view, with socialization coming in a close fourth.
Of course it’s true that those with less to spend are those who most often tether their pets. But is it a matter of income…or ignorance? How much does it really cost to keep a dog enclosed in a shelter? Is an anti-tethering law truly punishing those who require a greater degree of protection for their properties in lieu of fencing?
It’s also true that those in low-income, inner city neighborhoods are those who would choose pit bulls for their brand of personal protection. These are the pit-keepers who have driven municipalities to ban the breed. Their socioeconomic status, however, is typically deemed irrelevant…because public safety is concerned. The poverty argument gets cast aside when what’s deemed “the greater good” is in play.
Too bad “the greater good” doesn’t always apply to those who would bear the brunt of garden-variety ignorance when municipalities advance “socioeconomic issues” as a thinly veiled defense for blatant animal abuse.
Add Comment30 Comments
This argument has no validity because of leashes.
I live in Buffalo, NY, a place well-known for inclement weather. I have lived in places without a fenced yard. What did I do? I walked the dog on a leash and cleaned up after him.
In fact, I will again be in this situation in January, since I am moving into a house without an enclosed backyard, and will be unable to put up a fence until the snow melts. Leashes are inexpensive or even free, and daily walks give the owner some exercise too. If the owner is away, the dog should not be outside unattended and should be housed in a puppy-proofed room or crate.
People will argue that people in poverty do not have time to take their dogs on daily walks. Baloney. If you don't have time to take your dog(s) for a walk, you shouldn't have one.
The neighborhood I live in now has many examples of dog owners gone bad. Pit bulls guard abandoned houses and apartments and bark incessantly. I'm not even sure if anyone comes in to feed them. A few months ago, we walked past a car junkyard and a German Shepherd, chained to the bumper of a car, pulled it away and nearly knocked down the rusty fence in an attempt to attack us and our dogs. I've seen many dogs at the SPCA that can't interact properly with people or toys because their only companion was a short, heavy chain (and their worn-down teeth is proof). A chained dog cannot run away from threats.
Seriously, how could anyone defend such practices by saying poor people need to do it? It's insulting to those of us with low incomes who genuinely care about our dogs.
Courtney December 1st, 2008 11:35:32 AM
Agreed. For me, this goes back to the ethical arguments I was discussing in the cropping/docking thread. Barring brief, supervised tethering, or in the case of a true emergency, I see no justification for unsupervised tethering, especially for long periods of time, much less as the primary means of confinement. I would concur that the tethering, itself, isn't automatically the villain, if the dog is otherwised well-socialized, trained, supervised, and exercised. But realistically, how many regularly tethered dogs are all those things? Aside from isolating the dog (completely unethical), and making it vulnerable to anyone or anything with access to the tether area (unethical and potentially dangerous), tethering can, in many dogs, cause the 'fight or flight' response to get stuck on 'fight'...for obvious reasons. That rarely ends well for that dog, or the perception of all dogs. Frankly, with something as unethical as leaving a dog unsupervised outside the home, isolated from its pack members for long periods of time, and making it vulnerable to anyone who happens by, I'm no more swayed by the poverty argument than giving a pass for people who beat their dogs because they claim they can't afford ethical training instruction. It's just not ethical, whether it's free or a million dollars. Dogs are pack members. It is unnatural for them to be alone, especially for long periods of time. It is potentially dangerous to leave dogs unsupervised outside the home or with children.
Marjorie December 1st, 2008 11:57:54 AM
Thank you so much for your article. Insightful and accurate. I hope Broward County can see the point. For those of you who just can't seem to grasp the concept of what cruelly tethering means, well first of all it has nothing to do with a leash. Tethering and tethering laws have been implemented and will continue to be implemented to protect dogs that are made to LIVE THEIR LIVES at the end of a chain. Tethering has nothing to do with leash walking your dog. Broward County, the time is now. Do the right thing. Broward County Elected Official's (and anyone else not quite clear on the anti-chaining proposal) please cut and paste the below email address into your browser bar. Miami-Dade's new law: http://www.miamidade.gov/govaction/matter.asp?matter=081388&file=true&yearFolder=Y2008
Tony December 1st, 2008 12:13:16 PM
What about those who can’t afford alarm systems? Since when is a dog chained in the backyard an "alarm system?" They have usually been barking so long that no one pays any attention to them - and if someone breaks in through the front door, what's the dog supposed to do about it? For that matter, even if someone went in through the back, all it takes is a hambone thrown to a dog to get them otherwise occupied - and since they can't get to the house anyway...they can't protect the house or the people inside. Any cop will tell you the best alarm system is a barking dog INSIDE the house. What is the correlation between being poor and not keeping the dog in the house, for cryin' out loud?
Kate December 1st, 2008 12:28:00 PM
Reading this post, what came to my mind are the stories about shelters/resouce groups that would not adopt out dogs to homes without yards.
What is this fixation about dogs and yards? I live in an apartment with no yard (4th stroy, no elavator either)- all that means that I get to get more exercise myself walking my dog.
It doesn't cost much to bring the dog indoors, and it's so much better for the dog than being neglected in the backyard, tethered or not.
Xslf December 1st, 2008 12:56:55 PM
I'm still uncomfortable with across-the-board bans, but I hope that the enforcement would be more sensible than to penalize owners of healthy, happy, occasionally tethered dogs. Our neighbors had a small terrier that they tethered to a clothesline in the backyard for an hour or two every afternoon. It just nosed around the yard sniffing, and got some exercise running around -- it didn't seem like a travesty to me. Certainly nothing like the people around the block who tied their big dog to a tree on a six foot chain 24/7 -- that's what needs to be legislated against. My cats would be much happier if I had a safe, enclosed outdoor space for them to explore. I'd really like to provide them with one. But I do think that they are happy in my little apartment, with toys to make up for some of the boredom. I don't pretend that it makes up for all of it. Xslf -- Yeah. I've known PERFECTLY happy apartment dogs. And one of the best, happiest dogs I've known lived outside on a farm. There isn't one right way. People who (a) care, (b) can tell if an animal is suffering or not need to have the authority to intervene (and to NOT intervene if nothing is wrong). But I don't know how to make that happen with our legal system.
Sarah December 1st, 2008 05:45:26 PM
Nikki meets campers (Rebecca Barnett, Sun-Sentinel / June 20, 2008) Tony Vincent, of Southwest Ranches, took Nikki to Memorial Summer Camp at the Davie Police Athletic League to talk to the kids about the "break the chain" campaign. Doberman Nikki is the poster dog for the Humane Society's "break the chain" campaign, because she was badly injured from being chained almost four years ago. The chain was embedded in her neck about an inch wide and an inch deep. Tony Vincent and Scott Christensen, of Southwest Ranches, adopted Nikki from the Humane Society and are trying to get cities to adopt an ordinance to not allow dogs to be chained. Break the Chain by Dee Schroeder Sunshine Ranches plays a big part in the "Break the Chain" campaign, a campaign designed to educate the public about the cruelties of chaining dogs. Why does Sunshine Ranches play such a big part in the "Break the Chain" campaign? Well, the poster dog Nikki has lived in Sunshine Ranches since her rescue back in 2004. Her owners / rescuers, Tony Vincent and Scott Christensen are longtime residents of Sunshine Ranches. In the same twist of fate that brought Nikki to Sunshine Ranches as an abused animal rescue, that horrendous past brought her into the limelight as the spokes dog for a worthwhile cause. The Animal Planet television network's "Miami Animal Police" series showed America the common form of animal abuse known as chaining or tethering; Nikki was the subject of one of those broadcasts. Even before Nikki's segment aired on Animal Planet she was chosen by the Humane Society of Broward County to become the first ever poster dog for the first ever "Break the Chain" campaign. The Broward Sheriff's Office which fully supports and sponsors the message of the "Break the Chain" campaign allowed its employee, Tony Vincent, to appear in uniform in the poster with Nikki. Unbeknownst to the Humane Society or the Broward Sheriff's Office it turns out that Tony Vincent's "college days" so to speak were that of broadcasting and public speaking. Tony graduated from the then owned CBS Brown Institute of Radio and Television Broadcasting back in 1977, so he turned out to be a natural for the part of spokesperson for the "Break the Chain" campaign. With the full support of the Broward Sheriff's Office, Nikki and Tony have appeared at countless educational gatherings, schools, summer camps for underprivileged youth, City Council meetings, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Cub Scouts, Brownies even city festivals spreading the word about Break the Chain. Nikki and Tony have been interviewed by Kelly Craig of NBC6 and have appeared in numerous TV, newspaper and magazine stories and articles. Three years later, Nikki and Tony are still going strong; appearances booked throughout this summer and beyond. So what's the message? It's simple. Dogs should not be made to live their lives at the end of a chain. The simple facts: The terms chaining or tethering refer to the practice of fastening a dog to a stationary object or stake, usually in the owner's backyard, as a means of keeping the animal under control. These terms do not refer to the periods when a dog is walked on a leash. Chaining and/or tethering is inhumane! * Dogs are naturally social beings who thrive on interaction with human beings and other animals. * A dog kept on a chain in one place for hours, days, weeks, months or even years suffers immense psychological damage. * An otherwise friendly or docile dog, when kept continuously chained, becomes neurotic, unhappy anxious and often aggressive. * Dogs' chains or tethers can become entangled with other objects which can, as in Nikki's case, severely injure, choke or strangle the dog to death. The following cities have already passed tough anti-chaining laws and are to be congratulated for their caring and compassion for our four legged friends: Ft. Lauderdale, Hollywood, Pembroke Park, Deerfield Beach, Coconut Creek, Parkland, Oakland Park, Pompano Beach, Dania Beach, Hallandale Beach and Wilton Manors FL with Coral Springs now considering legislation. The current Broward County law that addresses dog chaining is as follows: "Any person confining or leashing a dog must do so in a manner that is not injurious to the dogs health." That's the whole law! That's it, that's all! Break the Chain....it's no longer a question of why...it's a question of when, when will all cities and towns in Broward County adopt tough new anti-chaining laws? I think it will be sooner than you think. Nikki and Tony, your community is proud of you!
dee December 1st, 2008 07:10:03 PM
I have visited houses where dogs are tied up day and night. They bark when approached, and to me at least seem to feel insecure. There is no escape. There is little freedom. They get tangled up, the rope knocks the water bowl flying, and they run around the post, the rope shortens and they cannot reach their kennel, if they even have one.
The ground around them is dust when its dry, and mud when its not, with holes everywhere that fill with water when it rains and then the water goes green and stagnant. Not a nice existence. This is probably the worst case, or close, but probably not that unusual in some areas. At least the dogs I saw were being fed.
But enforcement is, and always will be, a problem. There are so many dog rules already, but who enforces them? How many strays get picked up by the pound? Who pays a fine if they don't pick up after their dog on a walk? Who is fined for having more than four dogs? Breeding without asking permission from the local authorities? Doesnt happen, at least not around here.
Robin December 1st, 2008 09:11:31 PM
Today I was reminded why education for the owners is so important-
At the local dog park I go to with Goodman we met a new dog. A 3 year old mixed breed female, who seemed very timid.
Talking to the owner, I leanred that she was a classic case of good hearted owners that where simply ignorant.
They adopted her from a shelter about two years ago, and since they have a yard they thought that is everything she needs- she wasn't tethered, but she wasn't walked either.
The somewhat timid dog to begin with became fearful, and barked at strangers. The owners (who didn't really know how to "read" her) moved her away every time she barked at someone, from the fear that she might bite.
Recently they started working with a trainer, and they are now exposing her to other dogs and people. That is why they came to the dog park in a quite time (there where 3 dogs at the park, which is about 0.75 acres).
And you can see that the dog park is doing her good. While she barked at me when we entered, and moved away in fear when I tried to approach her, she happily joined in a game of chase I initiated with the dogs, and after the game came to me to be petted.
So yeah, some owners will probably never change, but some, like these owners, are willing to work hard once they know better. Too bad groups adopting out dogs don't always educate new owners about proper care.
xslf December 2nd, 2008 04:46:57 AM
I do think it's a shame that responsible tetherers get painted with the same broad brush as irresponsible ones. And I also can see this as a slippery slope to move on to other confinement methods - such as crating. Again, responsible craters should not be grouped with cruelty craters. Lastly, if we outlaw the cruel confinement methods we can see driving past our neighbors' homes, are we not driving the cruelty indoors? And is that supposed to be a foot in the door for AC to conduct more "home inspections" and seizing of animals without cause? It's a complicated issue.
YesBiscuit! December 2nd, 2008 09:44:27 AM
While looking for a lsot dog once, we ended up in a neighborhood where it seemed as though every back yard had a dog tethered to a dog house (the lucky ones) or a tree. Obviously dogs who spent their entire lives in the same spot. It was heartbreaking to see. But doing rescue does show the ugly side of human nature too often.
On the other hand, years ago when I got my first dog (1989), we did not have a fence, but a tie out. She went outside for potty breaks and once finished, barked to come in the house. One day my husband put her outside, went in to the bathroom himself, she barked and had to wait about 10 minutes until he could let her back in. When he went out in the yard to get her, he found a plastic bowl of water and a nasty note from a neighbor about leaving the dog tied outside without water! It was a nice fall day, she was NOT left outside an unreasonable amount of time AND there was available shade, but there you go. She was very spoiled, loved, walked daily. So what's my point? There is a place for tethering, if used as a back up - I would rather see that than the invisible fences.
robinsdogs December 2nd, 2008 09:45:07 AM
My mom has a rescue dog, a big, well-socialized, properly trained, spoiled rotten rescue dog who has always had a fear of the kennel in the backyard. Always. My mom paid the neighbor's sons to come over and clean it out of the debris and wild plant life that had taken root in the years that had passed since the original inhabitants had used it, our family dogs growing up, had passed away. And when she tried to put her usually so laid back he is almost horizontal dog into it, he freaked out and she very quickly gave up. The limited amount of time that he spend's outdoors is spent on a tether to a tree. In the summer he gets water bowl, in the spring, winter and fall, he gets one of his two dog beds brough outdoors so he won't have to lay on the cold pavement of the driveway. He is visible through the sidewindow's of the house and proctected from the street by the house. He is walked twice daily, vetted annually, and sleeps at the foot of mom's bed. He is not neglected or mistreated. I've ended some of her bad habits and started some good new ones, such as regular dentistry with her vet. But on this issue, using a tether, is one that I support. I've never understood those who refuse to tie their dogs. So I have to agree with many, that painting tetherers with such broad brush strokes is detrimental. In some cases it is a negative thing for the dog. Maybe even in most cases its a negative thing. But not in ALL cases.
Shannon December 2nd, 2008 10:44:41 AM
Is it otay to neglect a dog and leave him out without exercise or companionship, as long as he's behind a fence and not chained to a stump?
I don't see the difference.
Because we haven't installed our dog-proof fencing in the new place yet -- and yes, that's for financial considerations -- I have three means to contain a dog that needs outdoor containment (currently, our short-term foster dog and our hot-to-trot in full-flaming-estrus young bitch). I have a kennel run with a pop-door to a stall in the barn (with two straw-filled doghouses inside the stall), a cable runner that allows the tethered dog to shelter in a doghouse under the deck, and another cable hooked by the back door, which is strictly for Miss Rosie's potty runs (under guard of the court eunuch) while she is slutting it.
It's possible for a dog or dogs to spend the entire day in the kennel run; in decent weather, the foster dog and sometimes my GSD do just that if I am away for the day. Beats being crated in the house.
The cables are strictly short-term. Am I "present" -- the wording of the Dade law -- if I'm in the house? Somewhere else on the property? How close to my dog do I have to be to be "present?" If the owner is a shut-in, and the dog is never off the tether outside, is that "present?" Contrary to the claims of the cited website, the full text of the ordinance is not available on the Animal Services website.
I could easily neglect a dog for years on end, never letting him out of the kennel run and stall. His food, water, and shelter adequate, his social needs completely unaddressed. Is this better?
I agree that leaving dogs chained out for their lives is cruel treatment. I question the superiority of an (often too-small, because of cost factors) kennel run that serves the same isolating purpose. Or of confining the dog in the garage or shed or basement. For every neglected chain dog that we see in rescue, we see just as many neglected basement dogs or kennel-run dogs. But it's true that the neglected basement dogs are more likely to belong to middle-class-to-affluent people.
H. Houlahan December 2nd, 2008 01:06:05 PM
It's sad to me that people are so quick to dismiss an anti-cruelty measure, protecting those who cannot speak or act on their own behalfs, because a) it is possible in some cases for someone to do this responsibly and thoughtfully and b) there are other kinds of neglect that will still be possible under this law. Los Angeles passed an anti-tethering law a couple of years ago. I think they did a good job and perhaps it could address some peoples' concerns. The definition of tethering is more than 3 hours in a 24-hour period. Not for 10 minutes here or there. There are exceptions for dogs on a pulley line that allows them a large area to wander in, and for places like campgrounds or parks. It's not draconian, and I don't think its likely that caring, dog-loving people are being rounded up under the law. If anything they could do a better job of enforcing it where it's really needed. Protective laws will always cover activities that somebody wants to do and could do safely and/or responsibly, but they cover many, many more situations where real harm is done every day. For me the bottom line is, Animal Control officers should not have to walk away from a home where a dog is tethered 24/7 to a dog house, barking, growling and self-mutilating out of frustration, because hey, they're not doing anything illegal.
Anne December 2nd, 2008 04:44:51 PM
Want to get really sick?
Visit
www.puppiesarebiodegradable.com
This man who made the comment about dead puppy mill dogs being "biodegradable" requested approval to build kennels on his property, and opponents were told that as long as the structure met "code" he could build them.
Stefani December 2nd, 2008 06:06:02 PM
If you haven't seen it already - please visit: www.dogsdeservebetter.org .... read the many beautiful success stories!
JH December 2nd, 2008 10:11:17 PM
My issue is that under this law, my mother would be breaking it and she isn't doing anything wrong. My issue is that animal control activists would be better to spend their energies enforcin the current laws or that law makers could expend their engergies on making animals more important than toasters by law. To me both of these things are more important than creating an anti-tethering law that unfairly punishes people who are safely containing their dog the best way they can.
Shannon December 3rd, 2008 09:08:13 AM
Shannon, you raise an interesting point. You wrote, "...law makers could expend their engergies on making animals more important than toasters by law." I find that kind of ironic because many of those who oppose anti-tethering efforts also staunchly oppose any law that would elevate the status of animals, in legal terms. I've worked in canine legislation for many years, and have seen that many of these types would look me square in the eye and protest that, just like they own their toasters, they own their dogs, so they should be able to do whatever they want with them; even if a toaster will never suffer physically or emotionally, like a dog will, from the owner's choices. Indeed, any attempt to make "...animals more important than toasters" is touted as being exclusively an "AR" agenda. Those who agree are said to be pawns of the AR conspiracy, or naive, or fools. (nothing good, naturally) Of course, all "AR" ideas are bad... ;-(
Marjorie December 4th, 2008 11:24:29 AM
Marjorie, you said:
"I find that kind of ironic because many of those who oppose anti-tethering efforts also staunchly oppose any law that would elevate the status of animals, in legal terms. . . [they] protest that, just like they own their toasters, they own their dogs . .. "
As I've pointed out before, the AVMA and other veterinary organizations (state VMAs, etc) fly around the country opposing laws that would elevate the status of animals. I know Dr. Khuly has openly disagreed with them on this, but I just wanted to point out that those people that you speak of fightign those laws who are tethering their dogs are NOTHING compared to the organized veterinary lobby in terms of being responsible for keeping our pets classified as worth nothing more than a toaster in the eyes of the law. It's really the veterinary lobby that is the big guns on this. They are joined by the breeder associations and the "Pet Industry" i.e., Pet Food and product manufacturers. IMHO, they don't even believe their own arguments on this issue.
Stefani December 4th, 2008 12:15:37 PM
Stefani, I don't necessarily disagree. :-)
Marjorie December 4th, 2008 12:34:26 PM
Yes, the law is a blunt instrument and this one is going to get the resposible tetherers along with the abusers. That's the way the law always is.
My parents tether their dog during the day while they're at work and he spends the rest of the time with the family. They are one of the examples of responsible tetherers, IMHO.
If a law like that passed here, they would complain about it for a while, then they would ajust and find another way to confine him during the day. Maybe crate train him, or build a kennel outside and life would continue as it had. It's not a perfect law, but I'm having trouble seeing how this is trampling on anyone's rights when there are plenty of alternatives to tethering.
suzanne December 4th, 2008 05:13:28 PM
I visited the website recommended by JH, dogsdeservebetter.com. And it's rescue stories are indeed great. However, not only were those dogs tethered they were denied food and water or given these things only sporadically, they weren't provided proper shelter from the elements and they weren't properly vetted, leading towards infestations of heart worms and fleas. In my eyes, these are all cases of animal neglect because these dogs were being denied necessities of life. Also, several stories mentioned that dog's collars weren't changed as they grew out of old ones, leading towards massive wounds as the body grows around the collar, which to me is a clear cut case of animal abuse. And none of these have to do with teathering, they have to do with the fact that the animal was mistreated in general.
Shannon December 5th, 2008 09:59:35 AM
Majorie, I can assure you that I am a big fan of animal welfare. And I get how tethering can be abused and taken advantage with the dog being the clear loser. But I also don't think that an anti-teathering law is going to do anything for the majority of dog's who's owners teather them inappropiately.
Shannon December 5th, 2008 10:03:20 AM
Well, Shannon, I agree with you, for the most part. :-) I will say an anti-tethering "law" allows authorities to actually do something to stop the prolonged and/or unsupervised tethering, when they see it and choose to enforce the ordinance. If there is no law against it, they're powerless to rescue a dog from such abuse, no matter how blatant it may be. Naturally, such an ordinance might also unduly affect those who tether rather innocuously. I.E. supervised, for short periods only, in a safe environment for the dog, while providing a loving home environment (23+hrs/day), adequate exercise, socialization, and mental stimulation, etc.
I'm kind of on the fence when it comes to most legislation. I do like that it gives authorities the power to act. But, like nearly all dog-related ordinances, I'm aware most laws are not enforced and, even when they are, they tend to be enforced arbitrarily. Too many times the justifications for new laws are spurious and/or unscientific.
My personal experience certainly doesn't make the case for tethering. I trained dogs for many, many years. At least for the last decade, I specialized in working with aggressive dogs. Nearly the entire 30 years I trained dogs, my properties were all unfenced. Yet I have never felt a need to tether (and have never done so). I always supervise dogs outside the home or with children because it's just common sense. Aside from adequately supervising them and ensuring their safety, I'm also picking up after them, playing with them, and training them while I'm out there with them. While in training, dogs are leashed, of course. Once they're more reliable, I can begin to try them off-leash. My own dogs don't cross the property line, even to fetch an errant ball, stick, or squirrel. Dog training isn't exactly rocket science. But it does require effort on the owner's part, rather than just managing the dog through physical restraints.
I wasn't suggesting you weren't an animal welfare fan, or anything like that. When you mentioned the bit about resources being better used to make animals more important than toasters, rather than wasting time with anti-tethering laws, I was immediately reminded that, in my experience anyway, many of those who oppose anti-tethering are also often the same ones who oppose making dogs more important than toasters. That's all. :-)
Marjorie December 5th, 2008 12:17:04 PM
We have ways of punishing animal abusers--and those who don't tether their dogs responsibly can be punished under existing animal abuse laws. I live in Broward County and in this instance, I am proud of the cautionary view the politicians are taking, rather than passing this law on a knee-jerk reaction to what Dade-County has done. If Broward had followed Dade, it would have banned "pit" bulls--thank goodness we are more deliberate in Broward.
Linda December 13th, 2008 01:45:33 PM
The laws on the books in Broward County ensure that the animal HAS TO BE INJURED OR ABUSED or KILLED before anything is done. The Miami-Dade county law will become a reality soon enough in a Broward County format. The compassionate people will outweigh those who choose to allow suffering to happen before anything is done. I live in Broward too and I think Broward County is in the "dark ages" by opposing a law that would ban the cruel tethering of dogs. The Broward County Animal Advisory Board needs an enema.
Good Dog December 14th, 2008 06:50:06 AM
IMO the laws are just too vague in their wording. I really liked reading about the law that was passed in LA - it still left the door open for "responsible tetherers". Unfortunately, I think it's often hard to enforce laws like these. Although made with the best of intentions, due to grey areas/lack of personnel/etc, enforcement is probably sporadic at best. Animal Control officers have to rely on people to complain about the abuse they see, and then judge for themselves if the animal is truly being abused before any action is taken. I would have thought that tethered animals would have fallen under existing animal cruelty laws (inadequate food, shelter, care, etc), and we wouldn't have to pass laws specifically for this. I'm also wondering whether indoor crating/confinement falls under these tethering laws?
Amanda December 19th, 2008 10:28:23 AM
A leash and walk. How expensive is that? For years and years I have watched dogs living outside tethered and wondered, "Why would someone have a dog just for the overhead of feeding it and vetting it?" Well, much of the time that is one of the problems, they are barely doing that, whenat all . Being poor is no excuse for being negligent and cruel.
What kind of alarm system is a dog chained outside far away from the house? Isn't this more cause for nuisance complaints that would result in fines the impoverished chainers would be forced to pay and more cost to tax payers? How is a chained dog protecting anything?
Seems like we are not punishing the poor with these laws, but instead punishing the neighbors 'who have to witness these dogs being neglected each and every day, punishing any children who get too close or if the dog breaks off it's lead, punishing the taxpayers by keeping property values down because of the eyesoar of a dog chained to a doghouse, dirty and pacing a dirt circle in the yards, preventing better doctors, teachers, businesses from moving into the community.
Being poor is no excuse for chaining because many poor people do keep their dogs inside and walk them on leashes. How many Senior Citizens do you see with their dogs, people on fixed incomes that keep their dogs as companions? It's wonderful for both, the people and their pets.
Dawn December 19th, 2008 04:08:43 PM
I want to first state that I am in favor of laws that restrict tethering so that it can only happen when the dog is supervised. I'm ok if "supervised" is even pretty lax - but that at least means the person is home. This will at least provide the dog a "chance" of help if it is threatened by person or animal, or possibly protect a child that may wander up to a dog. For the life of me, I can't figure out why the actual LAW restricting tethering is necessary. It certainly seems like most cases that we're trying to reach with tethering ordinances would be well covered under most basic cruelty/neglect laws. And I think that's my overall point - -I think the tethering conversation needs to be a MUCH bigger conversation covering how we care for and treat our animals. It does us only a little good if we get the dogs off of chains in the back yard, but the dog ends up chained up in a basement or perpetually crated -- but inside where the public can't see it. It HAS to come with a bigger conversation and education on how we should treat and care for animals. Otherwise the greater cause is lost. Meanwhile, one thing a lot of rescue people don't realize is that this IS a strain on many low-income people. Keep in mind that there are a large number of low-income people rent homes -- so bringing the dog indoors may not be an option for them. It isn't as cut and dried as many people want to make it out to be. That said, I favor the laws over not having them -- but I hate that in so many in animal welfare have a) lost track of the bigger picture of animal cruelty/neglect and b) have so little empathy for those in poor financial conditions. As always, the way a law is enforced (education in mind first, punishment second) is always the differential between the law being good and potentially horrible. And it's a shame that it seems that the desire to punish has taken over so many of our animal enforcement laws.
Brent December 19th, 2008 05:07:52 PM
Thanks for your sharing.This is a good access to Abercrombie and Fitch.
AF September 16th, 2009 08:54:25 PM
Add Commment