My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Weekly Roundup -- Week ending 4/27/08 | Main | Cloning and Genetics, what can we learn from things we shouldn't do »

April 28, 2008


s kennedy

While I understand the sentiment that a dog on a chain 24/7 is certainly not recommended, I wonder how one would feel if the dog was NOT on the chain but for 45minutes and the same thing happened? Giving arbitrary number of hours that a dog should not be chained or tethered is extremely difficult to prove unless there is a witness that can say he/she saw it. And if that person is telling the truth, that's up to the judge. In cases about pitbulls I daresay it may not be the truth. The motivation behind it I understand--but the zealous pursuit of "not" chaining should be better put to simply EDUCATING about proper care of a dog. If a child wanders out to a dog on a chain, rope, etc, I blame the parent of the wandering child. Saying a child "ran past" a chained/or tethered dog means someone let him run past the dog. And if one knew that such restraint might not be the best, then one should be there to not allow the child even close to the area.



I don't disagree with you. My personal preference would be to restrict tethering to include only "supervised" tethering. Leaving a dog on a chain to be a potential victim of a stray dog, or of harrassing individuals, or of kids "running past" is a recipe for it not being good for the dogs, or potentially young children.

I've always thought that "supervised" vs "unsupervised" was easier to enforce, and less arbitrary than a time period.

And yes, the parents also get equal (or great) responsibility put on them. I just don't understand why anyone would put their dog in a situation where failure was such an easy option.


Great, more mad mothas...just what the world needed.

I was going to raise the same point as Sabrina - my dog, who I attached to a cable when he was in the yard for up to 15 minutes at a time, would certainly have reacted territorially to anyone infringing on his/our space.

Fences are obviously better, because a kid has to be pretty determined to climb one, but the same thing can happen.

Cool that they got their info from media reports, too.

In my life, I have NEVER known of a dog that spent its life chained to anything. I've known dogs that lived outside the house (which I never really got, btw) because they were happier there - with a good house, or access to a barn, etc.

I would not subject a dog to such a life and I can honestly say I don't know anyone who would.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I just don't think it's as common as these groups indicate. Maybe it's a local thing where they live or something.

I agree with you, Brent, that it is the unsupervised part that is a problem and that approaching it from that angle would make far more sense.


I think it depends where you live. Near my house, there is a dog that literally lives his life chained in front of a house, with a crappy plywood dog house and that's it. I drive past him all the time, sometimes just to see if he's out. He's been out during ice storms and during 90-degree days. The poor thing looks so broken down that I'd think he'd be a poster dog for tethering laws.
I think DDB is a great group and if they want to have an offshoot to raise awareness about dog chaining and dangers to children, more power to them.

PAMM - People Against Mad Mothers

Caveat, constant tethering is a real problem in poor areas. Fence is expensive and a chain cost $5. Plus, you want your alarm system held in place...It is a big problem in some areas - be thankful you don't live in one. Shows you some of the story...dogs are routinely found with embedded collars after they've been aquired as puppies then immediately put out on a chain and forgotten once the cute wears off.

We already know that low income + high crime = DISASTER. The tethering/abuse thing is just a part of that equation.

The comments to this entry are closed.