Can you believe some people still tether their dogs? If you're like me you don't have to suspend disbelief. The evidence is incontrovertible--you can see it as you pass through neighbrhoods with small yards and incomplete fencing.
Dogs there are tied to trees or staked to a makeshift doghouse. They bark non-stop at anyone who walks past, lunging against their collars, rattling their chains.
In Miami-Dade County the practice is legal. Here's my attempt to inject some awareness into the local mentality, as submitted to The Miami Herald for last Sunday's "Dr. Dolittler" column.
Break the chain! Don’t tether your dog!
Tethering pets has long been a hot button issue for animal welfare advocates across the United States. Several states and a myriad of municipalities have outlawed this practice in which dogs are chained to stakes or otherwise “tethered” to a fixed location out of doors.
Given that constant tethering has been shown to be physically and psychologically damaging to dogs (far more so than crating, penning or allowing to run while connected to an overhead line), the issue has finally come before the Miami-Dade’s Board of County Commissioners’ Public Health and Safety Committee via the County’s Animal Services department.
Chained dogs have never been a pretty sight for any pet lover. Dogs housed like this are physically at risk for a variety of reasons: They strain at their collars, often resulting in devastating neck wounds. They’re exposed to extremes of tropical heat, which is especially debilitating when owners fail to provide adequate shade and water. They’re also subject to the risk of attack by other dogs and a prime target for neighbors’ ire should their barking become problematic.
I’d bark, too! These pets are literally starved for attention. Dogs are social animals for whom the isolation inherent to constant tethering is psychologically damaging. Indeed, dogs thus abused have been shown to be 2.8 times more likely to bite than the average dog. This demonstration of unsociability is only one of the many ways these dogs may express their serious deprivation of normal socialization.
In 1996, The United States Department of Agriculture said, “Our experience in enforcing the Animal Welfare Act has led us to conclude that continuous confinement of dogs by a tether is inhumane.”
In 2003, The American Veterinary Medical Association said, “Never tether or chain your dog because this can contribute to aggressive behavior.”
I could not agree more. South Florida doesn’t need more biting, barking, socially unstable, physically and psychologically abused animals.
Already adopted in Ft. Lauderdale, this anti-tethering ordinance will soon be submitted to Miami-Dade’s Board of County Commissioners’ Public Health and Safety Committee for their consideration. Dr. Sara Pizano, the director of Miami-Dade Animal Services, is hot on the trail of a victory on this issue.
A petition is currently being circulated by a variety of animal welfare groups in the area to help promote this item’s implementation. If you have an interest in signing one or otherwise contributing your voice to this cause, please contact Protect Children & Dogs in Miami-Dade online at pcmiamidade@bellsouth.net or by phone at 305-282-3527.
Like it? Here's one more for you, a position statement I'm hoping our South Florida Veterinary Medical Association will soon ratify:
Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners’ Public Health and Safety Committee:
Tethering, the act of confining an animal to a fixed location with a collar and line, is an inappropriate method of confinement for dogs.
As representatives of the South Florida Veterinary Medical Association, we disavow this practice on the grounds that it is inhumane.
Tethering is not only unsafe for dogs due to collar injuries and exposure-related illness but has also been shown to increase aggression in pets maintained under these conditions.
In 1996, The United States Department of Agriculture said, “Our experience in enforcing the Animal Welfare Act has led us to conclude that continuous confinement of dogs by a tether is inhumane.”
In 2003, The American Veterinary Medical Association said, “Never tether or chain your dog because this can contribute to aggressive behavior.”
Miami-Dade should enact legislation to reflect the prevailing wisdom on this issue and the values of its local veterinary community.
I'm fairly certain that some version of my language will be accepted by the SFVMA's board members so that we can contribute meaningfully to the local discourse. Stay tuned for my position statement on HB 101, the bill that mkes it easier to enact more breed bans throughout Florida.
Dolittler
Add Comment35 Comments
I totally agree with you on the dangers of chaining (for both the dogs and people who might come up on them), but I find the other side of this interesting also. I read a blog post the other day (can't think of where for the life of me) that suggested that anti-chaining ordinances have disproportionate effect in poor neighborhoods where people might not be able to afford fencing and/or keep dogs partially as a form of security system. I don't think it makes chaining right, but I think it is something to think about in writing ordinances on this issue.
Meryl March 20th, 2008 09:20:00 AM
I do believe that constant unsupervised tethering is inhumane. But I think any laws or ordinances need to be carefully written because tethering is fine when done properly. I don' t have a fenced yard, so I do use a tether for those times when I'm outside playing with my kids or gardening and a tie-out is always brought along when we take our dog camping. We only use the tether when we are outside with our dog - she is NEVER tethered when we are not with her. For us, a tether is a great way to keep our dog safe and spend MORE time with her. Not less.
Jennifer H March 20th, 2008 09:28:00 AM
What's the big difference between tethering and using an overhead line? It seems just like a matter of degree to me.
zandperl March 20th, 2008 09:42:00 AM
Zandperl: This is true. It is a matter of degrees. The overhead line CAN be just as cruel, though it's not typically *considered* as cruel. I shouldn't have included it in the piece.
And yes, it's also true that this law would affect lower income people disproportionately. They're the ones whose tethered dogs are most visible.
Dr. Patty Khuly March 20th, 2008 10:09:00 AM
The data I haved looked at doesn't show tethers or lines as being behaviorally/psychologically different. As with bad backyard fenced runs/kennels (separated from the house) the issue is social isolation, boredom, frustration and the potential for other neglect etc. I think housing by way of tethering is on the way out. People just no longer, on the whole, see dogs as something you keep out back for occassional use, like a lawn mower.
emily March 20th, 2008 10:35:00 AM
There are places (much though it astonishes me) where it's illegal to put a physical barrier fence around your yard. The only legal fence is an electronic fence--and those aren't a safe way to contain a dog, either. So people in those areas have a tough choice to make, if they want to give their dogs any outside time on their own property AT ALL.
There are several people in my neighborhood who use tethers to give their well-cared-for, well-socialized dogs who live in the house with the family, as they should, some outside time when they can't walk them. These are all bigger dogs; some of them are Big Scary Dogs(tm). They're cared for, they're loved, and they're on tethers some of the time.
I would never, ever leave my little dog outside unattended for even a moment, but I do use a tether to have her outside with me when I'm shoveling snow or mowing the lawn.
An outside dog is at increased risk, and a greater risk to become aggressive, regardless of the method of confinement. I'd much, much rather see a good, solid, secure fence than a tether; I'd much rather _have_ a back yard I could fence securely and play fetch with Addy there, rather than in the living room (at least in good weather!) But the mere fact of a tether, by itself, does not mean that the dog is neglected or abused.
Lis March 20th, 2008 10:40:00 AM
Much of the tethering legislation out there has acceptability limits. You can 'park' your dog on a tether for a while but not abondon it there for the majority of each day. Seems fair enough to me.
emily March 20th, 2008 11:22:00 AM
The family dog we had growing up, a collie mutt whose joy in life was "herding" the local deer population, spent a good part of her fourteen year life on an overhead line. She had the run of a very large backyard, access to shade, a full water bucket every day, places to dig and a doghouse that still is usable a decade after construction. My brothers put a lot of work into that dog house. She came in when we got home from work or school, had her meals with us, leaashed walks, was groomed most days, checked for ticks daily, and a comfortable kennel to sleep in. Fencing was not allowed by the neighborhood covenants. That overhead line kept her safe and healthy and allowed her to be an outdoor dog while we were out of the house during the day. A crated collie would have been unhappy, destructive, and anxious.
MeriGray March 20th, 2008 11:46:00 AM
There's a huge difference between a dog stuck on a chain 24/7 for life away from the family and without any sort of socialization and off-chain exercise and a companion animal tethered out front with you while you garden.
My dogs are sometimes tethered while we train -- one is tethered while the other is being worked. And yes, they're also tethered while I work in the front yard. I used to also tether them in the campsite while camping. These are all ways for your dog to be WITH you, and they're also NOT the point or the target of anti-chaining laws.
Dogs who are isolated on a short chain for life are miserable. They also often become dangerous, especially to any child who wanders into the chained dog's area.
Using a tether now and then to keep your pet safe in a potentially unsafe situation is just fine. Parking a dog on a chain for life is cruel and I would be happy to see this practice banned, for the good of the dogs and the safety of people.
Gina Spadafori March 20th, 2008 11:54:00 AM
And in regards to neighborhoods with no-fencing covenants ... personally, I would NEVER buy in such a place. No home could ever be so nice or affordable as to tempt me. Good fences make more than good neighbors -- they make good dogs, too.
Gina Spadafori March 20th, 2008 11:57:00 AM
"There are places (much though it astonishes me) where it's illegal to put a physical barrier fence around your yard."
I happen to live in one of those neighborhoods. I grew up with a dog who lived indoors and had ready access to a large back yard. And I realize, looking back, that he is one of the most poorly-socialized dogs I have ever known. Not that a backyard dog is necessarily poorly socalized, but people like my mother don't have a need to get their pet out among other dogs, and the result is a poorly socialized dog.
In my no-fences community, I have met most of my neighbors who have dogs, and have met their dogs, too. I think that, to generalize based on my observations, neighborhoods without fences encourage people to get out and about with their dogs, resulting in better socialized animals.
Feline March 20th, 2008 11:57:00 AM
I must note there are option between tethers and crates.
I have also had a tethered-during-the-day collie and under many of the statutes that would still be allowed, under others... well, sign o the times. I am actually okay with a few appropriate uses going out or needing exemption to give leverage to agencies who need to make changes for the dogs going insane form isolation. I am clearly not much of a libertarian on this issue.
My dog was next door to someone who tethered her two pitties out back 24/7 and I would give up my dogs option or find a way to work around it in order to have saved those poor animals. They were tethered nearer my house than hers and barked all the time and were absolutely hysterical and dangerous when approached, clearly not doing well. But they were feed and had basica shelter so no law broken.
emily March 20th, 2008 11:58:00 AM
"Using a tether now and then to keep your pet safe in a potentially unsafe situation is just fine. Parking a dog on a chain for life is cruel and I would be happy to see this practice banned."
Of course there is nothing stopping the people who inappropriately tether their dogs from putting them in a crate the garage 24/7 if tethering is banned. Not illegal, but probably even more inhumane.
I think the problem with most anti-tethering legislation is that it's impossible to legislate common (har har) sense. Instead of anti-tethering ordinances I would prefer to see laws against cruelty and neglect strengthened. That is the problem, and we're not going to make it go away by addressing the symptoms.
AdoptedAPBTs March 20th, 2008 12:24:00 PM
"constant tethering has been shown to be physically and psychologically damaging to dogs.."
uh, no, it hasn't.
There is a correlation between tethered dogs, and biting dogs... but there is no evidence that tethering "causes" aggression. Except of course when a kid is harassing a dog and the dog has no means to escape.
It's equally possible that aggressive dogs are put on tethers, as that tethering causes aggression.
As others have said: it's social isolation that can be damaging to dogs. It's perfectly possible to have a safe tethering set up that causes no damage (physical or social).
But the bigger issue here is: how much control over your stewardship of your pets to you want to cede to the state... or to individuals like Tammy Grimes who think it's ok to steal pets whose care they don't agree with?
EmilyS March 20th, 2008 01:37:00 PM
I think you can get some progress treatign the symptoms, especially where sensible people have discretion in enforcement. The thing is it is hard to quantify 'isolation'. But 72 consecutive hours on a chain, a nosey neighbor or enforcement officer can enforce that as easily as parkign zones.
emily March 20th, 2008 01:38:00 PM
EmilyS: I respect your opinion but I think its quibblingly irrelevant to discuss whether it's cause or effect when it comes to aggression in tethered dogs when social isolation has been determined to be psychologically damaging. You can argue that aggression isn't the mode of psychological damage because dogs thus housed may have been placed under these conditions for this very problem but cartainly that speaks to the inadvisability of the method, right? In my mind it's far more likely to enhance unwanted behaviors in an animal whose issues are not being dealt with constructively. I appreciate your inferred desire for more statistics here and your concern over how much control we want to cede to our government, but this is one of the most egregious examples of animal cruelty in our area. I'll admit that it may not be so elsewhere.
Dr. Patty Khuly March 20th, 2008 02:27:00 PM
That wasn't my point at all--in fact I really wonder how what I said related to any of those points, all of which are diametrically opposite to my opinion. Perhaps you could explain?
All I was saying was that a run line doesn't work any better than a rope tether, and both need to go. Both conditions and isolated kennells damage the behaviour and psyche of the dog.
emily March 20th, 2008 03:19:00 PM
Okay, wrong Emily, sorry. I also sometime use S, but can't here as it is "taken"
emily March 20th, 2008 03:20:00 PM
Yes yes. I'm totally in agreement, emily S without the S on Dolittler. ;-) Aren't we having fun?
Dr. Patty Khuly March 20th, 2008 04:13:00 PM
There are days when I wish people were required to take a test before being allowed to have a dog. (or kids too for that matter) No matter what laws we have there will always be idiots getting around them and mistreating their pets with whatever tool or containment system they have. Whatever laws we try to get passed we also need to pair with LOTS of education. A little peer pressure wouldn't hurt either in some cases.
Good luck Dr. K.
Marie March 20th, 2008 04:14:00 PM
well, I'm surprised Dr Patty.
You're a scientist, as are all doctors.
I thought scientists believed in, you know, science.
If there are no facts.. but only assumptions.. behind the notion that tethering causes aggression.. then how can you argue for laws against it?
Of course none of us wants dogs abused.
But why isn't the solution better enforcement of EXISTING laws?
Do you really want some agent of law enforcement arresting people (or seizing animals) for perfectly safe tethering set ups?
I sure don't.
The problem IS NOT THE TETHERS.
The problems are dogs left in situations where they can hurt themselves (getting tangled/hung on the tether); dogs without water/food/shelter; dogs permanently isolated from a family.
At least the first 2 are surely covered by existing laws.. so arrest people for leaving a dog without water or shelter, or having a BAD tethering set up.
Arrest them for leaving a dog alone in a yard 24/7 for days on end? Well.. if you can find some way to efficiently monitor/prove it.
The solution to people ignoring laws is NOT to pass more laws.
p.s. I've always posted here as "EmilyS", so I'm not the same as "emily"
EmilyS March 20th, 2008 05:57:00 PM
"And in regards to neighborhoods with no-fencing covenants ... personally, I would NEVER buy in such a place. No home could ever be so nice or affordable as to tempt me. Good fences make more than good neighbors -- they make good dogs, too."
Lol, I agree 100% with this!
As for chains, overhead lines or just sticking a dog outside 24/7 in a fenced yard I think it is inhumane whether or not they have food, water and shelter. I have a huge yard with a 6ft. privacy fence but I don't leave my dogs outside alone its just not safe, imo.
Jules March 20th, 2008 07:47:00 PM
To some degree, this is an issue of semantics. It doesn't matter much if the dog is tethered, penned, yarded, or overheaded. If a highly social animal like a dog is left alone, with no contact 24/7 or for most of the day, you end up with a miserable, unsocialized dog. It's not good for the dog and not good for people who may interact with the dog.
You can't always legislate stupidity or laziness. There are many people who have no business getting a dog. They don't do research, they don't consider their lifestyle, they don't know how to train, or don't want to learn how. So their solution to their "bad dog" problem, is to stick it outside.
Yes a chain would be worse then a pen, but the underlying problem, a failure of people, remains.
And of course this just scratches at the surface of why people tether, etc
cheshire March 20th, 2008 09:42:00 PM
Okay, time for me to really quibble...
EmilyS said, "You're a scientist, as are all doctors."
Well, while some doctors (or vets) are "scientists", not all doctors are scientists. The training is different, although doctors and vets (and engineers for the matter) have to take many basic science classes as part of their introductory training. That's why they get an MD or DVM without ever actually making a hypothesis and testing it.
It's only within the last 10-15 years that the concept of "evidence based medicine" has made any inroads in medical education.(I don't know about vet schools, I've only worked in medical school research departments or at schools with research engineering departments as well as production engineering departments.) At a basic level, evidence based medicine asks the question "Does this procedure, drug, surgery, etc., etc., result in a positive outcome for an identifiable number of patients?"
My experience is that vets are better at this than MDs, perhaps because Vet Med is still more "personal" than human medicine has become, if only because there are fewer people and institutions involved. Most vets I've dealt with answer my questions without much hesitation (I've learned how to ask the questions without claiming some authority, I guess.) I also have more choice of vets than MDs.
Tethers, crates,indoor, outdoor. Dogs are "meant" to roam in groups, so all these are simply variations on the theme of modern human-dog interactions.Children can't run free in the streets any more. Are there any negative conseuences? Ask a teacher.
Heather
Heather March 20th, 2008 10:41:00 PM
Thank you Dr. Khuly, for using the wording of "Break the Chain" in your article. I recently wrote to you and told you how hard a friend and neighbor from the Town of Southwest Ranches, Tony Vincent, has worked to educate the public about the cruelties of chaining dogs. Tony and his educational K-9 Nikki are the "spokes team" for the Humane Society of Broward County's "Break the Chain" campaign and have given presentations to hundreds of schoolchildren, numerous city council meetings and many other educational venues throughout Broward County. As you may be aware, eleven cities in Broward County have passed tough anti chaining laws to protect our four legged friends.
Believe it or not, the Town of Southwest Ranches, where Nikki and Tony both reside, has a resident who freely admits that she is on the Animal Advisory Board of Broward County and OPPOSES the "Break the Chain" campaign. She even tries to dissuade cities that are considering the passing of the tough anti-chaining law and has openly campaigned against anti-tethering laws within Southwest Ranches. As residents of Southwest Ranches we are mortified...and worse yet...it appears as if the Town of Southwest Ranches town council is actually listening to her. With the exception of Southwest Ranches Town Councilman Steve Breitkreuz, the mayor and council just can't seem to grasp the concept of the "Break the Chain" message.
Articles such as yours will hopefully help a great deal to educate them.
On behalf of (I'll bet) 99% of the residents of Broward County...Thank you. Thank you for caring and speaking out for those who can't speak for themselves.
Wanch March 20th, 2008 11:43:00 PM
Oh yeah...and just for the information of your readers:
In Broward County alone the following cities have already passed tough anti-chaining ordinances: Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, Pembroke Park, Deerfield Beach, Coconut Creek, Parkland, Oakland Park, Pompano Beach, Dania Beach, Hallandale Beach and Wilton Manors.
I personally thank these compassionate and caring city officials who have gone above and beyond the call of duty and have taken the initiative to consider passing laws that will forever ban the cruel chaining of dogs. What's wrong with the county (Broward) as a whole? Don't they get it? Why must each city pass its own laws?
Stop listening to that dog breeder who's on the Broward County Animal Care Advisory Board who opposes the concept of "Break the Chain" and do the right things for our dogs!
Wanch March 21st, 2008 05:26:00 AM
Chaining a dog is a barbaric practice that needs to be seen for what it is. It takes a dedicated group of animal lovers to change public opinion. Remember when women wore fur coats? What woman would dare wear a real fur coat out in public now? By getting this information out to the public, we can change public opinion. Then the true cruelty of isloating and chaining a dog outside will be an obvious truth to all.
I beg everyone involved to keep this momentum up!! Keep speaking out especially to our lawmakers. We can make a difference.
Marianne
Marianne Allen March 21st, 2008 11:47:00 AM
"Never tether or chain your dog..."
The words "never" and "always" are pretty clear field marks that an imperative is going to be unsupported and possibly unsupportable.
I'm not in favor of 24/7/365 chaining, and I don't know anyone who is. I'm also opposed to constant crating, constant confinement in a garage, life in a kennel run. What I'm *not* is naive enough to think that new laws are an effective or just way to improve the lives of dogs.
Like state-forced sterilization, a blanket tethering ban will cause an increase in dogs dumped at the pounds and shelters, in pretty much direct proportion to the zealotry of the enforcement.
While I agree that there are too many "pet" dogs who are kept chained up for too much of their lives, I've also seen tremendous cultural progress in the past 30 years -- there are many fewer animals who live chained lives, and it is not considered "normal" by middle-class people anymore. It has been social pressure that has accomplished this, not legislation that just begs for petulantly selective enforcement and the escalation of neighbor-dispute witch hunts.
Last summer, I'd often give my elderly, disabled, dying German shepherd a break from the semi-bedlam of the puppies and young dogs by leaving her out in my unfenced front yard, where she could recline in the shade and be entertained by the neighborhood activity, and walk around a bit without being knocked over by some young critters' game or tumble down the slope in our fenced back yard. She positively *beamed* while watching kids, dogs, skateboarders, and the whole summer parade -- it was especially good for her because she didn't get out and about much anymore due to her mobility impairment and incontinence. I soon learned that I needed to tether her to an apple tree, to prevent her from either absently wandering to the neighbors' or falling into the ditch. She'd be out there for quite a while each day, and she looked thin and very wobbly. I'm sure there are many fanatics out there who would have identified her as abused. Fortunately, my neighbors are not quite so dim-witted. I certainly broke that "never" injunction. In the same circumstances, I'll do it again.
Oddly, the clothesline clipped to her collar failed to make my sweet old girl vicious.
H Houlahan March 22nd, 2008 02:01:00 AM
I'm with H. Houlahan. The word "never" bothers me. The tethering of the elderly GSD in the front yard as described seems entirely reasonable and humane to me. If there were a parade of idiots walking by and teasing the dog while it was tied out, then the tethering would not be reasonable. There is a time and a place for tethering, like many other things in how we treat our animals.
kabbage March 22nd, 2008 03:05:00 PM
You can't legislate compassion. You also can't legislate against stupidity.
Only responsible, law-abiding citizens obey laws and those people are not a problem in the first place.
I agree with commenters above. Since nuance is not a legislative option and when it is misguidedly codified it merely encourages selective, subjective and interpretative enforcement by the actual enforcers, which is unconstitutional, a better option is to enforce existing laws on a zero-tolerance basis to see how that goes.
If it is considered necessary to modernize existing cruelty/abuse/neglect laws, then that would be a far safer option and one less fraught with pitfalls, some of which have been pointed out here.
Caveat March 22nd, 2008 03:24:00 PM
In response to the author of the comment that the non-tethering law may be unfair to poor families that USE dogs as a SECURITY SYSTEM, I say this:
1. A smart burglar will find a way to enter the home or steal whatever he is after by using a path that avoids the dog. What kind of a security system is kept on a short rope, usually away from the house so that the owner is not in proximity of the urine and feces?
2. A tethered dog is a sitting duck for an intruder...the intruder can shoot, stab, stone or even poison the dog.
3. MOST IMPORTANTLY.....I THINK THAT THE PERSON THAT WROTE THIS COMMENT HAS NEVER HAD A DOG AS A MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY. HE/SHE OBVIOUSLY SEES A DOG AS A TOOL, A MEANS TO AN END.
I SAY THIS: IF YOU WANT A DOG FOR PROTECTION, KEEP HIM/HER IN YOUR HOME WITH YOUR FAMILY AS A MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY. DOGS ARE PACK ANIMALS AND VIEW US AS MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILY OR PACK.
EXPECTATIONS: WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU EXPECT YOUR TETHERED DOG TO DO WHEN CONFRONTED BY AN INTRUDER? HOW DO YOU EXPECT YOUR DOG TO DISTINGUISH A NEIGHBOR'S CHILD OR THE FPL METER READER OR MAIL CARRIER FROM A BURGLAR?
LASTLY, I LIVE ON A 5 ACRE RANCH ON THE EDGE OF THE EVERGLADES. I HAVE NO NEIGHBORS. I HAVE 15 DOGS THAT CAME TO ME AFTER THEIR OWNERS DUMPED THEM. I HAVE NEVER TETHERED A DOG. MY DOGS ARE A TREMENDOUS SECURITY SYSTEM AND THEY HAVE IMPLEMENTED THEIR OWN STRATEGY....SOME COVER THE FRONT, SIDE, BACK OF THE PROPERTY WHILE OTHERS PROTECT THE ACTUAL DOORS AND WINDOWS. WHEN MY DOGS BARK, AS A PACK, THEY ARE THE BEST SECURITY SYSTEM. THEY ARE ALERTING ME TO BEWARE....i MUST OBSERVE THEM AND NOTICE IN WHAT DIRECTION THEY ARE BARKING......IT IS THEN UP TO ME TO DEPLOY MY FAMILY PROTECTION STRATEGY WHICH INCLUDES VARIOUS STEPS, INCLUDING ALERTING LAW ENFORCEMENT.
SORRY FOR BEING LONG-WINDED HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THAT, FOR THE SAKE OF THE DOGS......IT IS OUR OBLIGATION NOT TO CRITICIZE, BUT TO EDUCATE AND SHOW THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY TO FOLKS THAT TOOK THE TIME TO WRITE, AS OPPOSED TO DEGRADING OR INSULTING FOLKS.
margaret June 7th, 2008 04:25:00 AM
wow, this is fanatasiscm at it's best. You can't expect all dogs to be able to handle a being part of your "family".. I have an atypical basset hound that runs away any chance he gets. If not for a tether, he would have been hit by a car or in a pound by this point.
randy July 31st, 2008 09:20:00 AM
Strangely, people who who have dogs in apartment buildings are able to keep them without a fence. Why should tethering be "needed" by someone who does have a yard, but no fence? It's perfectly possible to keep a dog who never goes outside unsupervised.
Galadriel January 10th, 2009 09:35:02 PM
لك
منتدى لك
منتديات لك
مطبخ لك
مكياج
ديكور
تحميل لك
مطبخ منال
مطبخ منال العالم
منال العالم
ازياء
العنايه بالبشره
مركز تحميل
مركز تحميل صور
توبيكات
ddd March 6th, 2009 06:22:21 AM
What type of fencing must you have for your dog? Would you say vinyl, chain-link, or maybe a nice wooden privacy fence? What's the answer? None of these. Granted a fence is a nice way to let your dog outside and free up some time while he does his thing and gets some exercise, but is it necessary? No. So what is the solution? A regularly scheduled leash walk, where you can reward good behavior and teach your dog to socialize. Maybe you feel you don't have time for a 10 to 15 minute walk a day, but if you are going to keep a dog as a pet, a well trained dog is the best system you can have. Housetrain your dog,this can be done at any age even if a dog has been tethered. Books on training can be borrowed free from your library. And the problem of being poor? It's solved, because a proper collar, leash and a walk will cost less than a chain and a doghouse.So you've actually saved money by not chaining your dog!
Think of it like this. People often need cars more than they need a dog, however if they can't afford insurance they either risk a fine or they can't drive. Are these laws targeting the poor who cannot afford car insurance? Or is it more important they are insured because a car can be a deadly weapon when something goes wrong and the other driver needs to be protected?
It's the same with dog chaining.
If you were to tell Sheriff McCoy of Kentucky that you were concerned about tethering restrictions affecting the poor, he may tell you a story of the time he was sent back to a scene to search for 4-year-old little Emily's scalp near the swingset she was on when the dog, aggressive from a life on a chain, broke off it's tether and attacked her. He had to find Emily's scalp so it could be sewed back on.
No matter what your argument is against these laws and restrictions, it's just not worth it. You acquire a dog for the right reasons and you go out of your way to be responsible with that dog. Some people will not do that unless the law forces them to.
Of course, sometimes things go wrong, they always do, but if your dog is trained, you know your dog because you spend time with it, then you will be more prepared to react and your dog will be more likely to respond to you. It could mean the difference of a child's life.
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p.MsoTitle, li.MsoTitle, div.MsoTitle {margin-right:0in; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p.MsoBodyTextIndent, li.MsoBodyTextIndent, div.MsoBodyTextIndent {margin-right:0in; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --Wha
Dawn March 8th, 2009 05:18:24 PM
Add Commment