People make anti-tethering ordinances harder than they need to be. Many times people involved in the dog community will push for tethering restrictions as a way to improve public safety -- which inevitably comes up after a dog attack that leads to a discussion of the dangerous dog ordinance.
Folks within the dog community will point to research from places like the National Canine Research Council or from HSUS that talk about chained dogs being responsible for a large percentage of fatal dog attacks (and many more non-fatal attacks).
This leads many council leaders down strange roads of not allow dogs tethered in front yards and other such policies. Raytown, MO just discussed their tethering ordinance Tuesday night.
Anti-tethering ordinances don't have to be this hard. Yes, tethering can lead to aggression. Yes, tethering often leads to completely unsocialized dogs left forever in their back yards. And yes, tethering often takes flight away from scared dogs, who can only reach from fear in either a fight or flight fashion.
But tetheirng in and of itself isn't horrible. Many people without fences leave their dog out on a tether temporarily to do its business and then bring the dog in. These aren't the types of dogs that develope aggression. As Jim Aziere said at the Raytown meeting "I don't think everyone tethers all day long".
Anti-tethering laws shouldn't be this hard. No one thinks we should make laws just to make laws. And no one should really be pushing for more laws that create more limitations on pet ownership. Tethering laws should be considered part of neglect and cruelty laws. Is the dog's chain bigger than the dog? That's cruel. Is the dog left on the chain 24/7/365? That's cruel. Is the dog living in a mud hole, or without shelter when it rains or snows? That's cruel. Is the dog left to wrap its chain around trees or debris? That's cruel.
Front yard has nothing to do with it. It's all about cruelty. If you eliminate cruel and neglectful tethering, the safety issue will take care of itself.
I don't know why this is such a mystery for a lot of cities to figure out.
The simplest way, IMO, to implement this is by having all tethering be "Supervised". If you're home and paying 1/2 attention, that's probably adequate to hear your dog whimpering or barking so you can save it from trouble. If you're leaving home and your dog is outside all day while you're at work, that's not so supervised.
If people look at the role of cruelty and neglect on dogs, and their direct correlations to public safety, and then make tethering a part of this equation, the solutions become pretty easy.
VERY well said, Brent, and I really appreciate it.
There were times in my earlier life that I did tether a dog for one reason or another, because I didn't know what else to do. I was wrong, but will state that I never tethered a dog and then left him unattended. (sorry, except once, I did try leaving a dog in the garage when I went to bed. I was being just danged stupid because I didn't know what to do w/ him at nite. He got me back and taught me plenty -- he dug a hole in the garage wall) Back then, I did not allow dogs in my bed, this one slept w/ his kids for the rest of his life.
Anyway, I'm adding this post because I am so opposed to tethering dogs. I care for 2 dogs in an apartment and there is NO doing ANYTHING w/ one without the other, besides an occasional pee.
Our training has been just slightly less than desirable. (ha ha) I was told that one cannot 'train' or 'work with' 2 dogs at once and although I've only had a few successes, I'm not sure that statement is totally correct in all instances.
Anyway, my point is to try to add a little humor here (to keep from crying....) I recently decided to teach my dogs to fly thru the air and catch a frisbee -- because it would require focus and drain some energy which seriously needed to be drained.
Because I live in an apt, we had to start inside. (still have an unopened cable and tie out for when we can go outside and try it, but have not yet progressed that far!)
Meantime, the Three Stooges (Roo, Mocha and me) are conducting 'Frisbee School' in my living room and dining room. One dog is leashed to the dining room table, left to suffer while watching the other try to learn to catch the frisbee.
Everything in me screamed not to do this (leash a dog to the dining table), that it was cruel and immoral -- Still... it works! I can actually TRY to work w/ one dog, while the other is tethered.
Posted by: Becky | July 20, 2007 at 09:49 PM
Brent, that is very well said, just wanted to point out a few things...when you go to get a law against chaining, suddenly you have 100 people telling you they have to chain their dog for x time, because of work, and this guy needs to chain his dog at y time, yadda, yadda, yadda...and it becomes a HUGE nightmare. Not to mention then the 'bad' breeders and 'incognito' dog fighters who have to oppose because they demand the RIGHT to chain their dog whenever they damn well please, whether they would actually do it or not doesn't matter to them in the least. They still want the RIGHT to do it.
Bottom line is you simply can't please everyone, and it always comes down to how long is too long, which is clearly a matter of opinion, but every minute out there is another chance for something bad to happen to the dog or another person...I personally LOVE the unaccompanied tethering aspect, to me that cuts to the chase.
I've heard too many horror stories of people who just put their dog out for 1/2 hour even and the dog chokes or breaks it's neck, and the people are just devastated then...
So, just a little insight from 'the front lines' as to why it gets so darn complex instead of simple and straightforward. Tammy
Posted by: Tammy Grimes | August 03, 2007 at 10:40 PM