Stupid new anti-tethering law

[Ghoulish Delight]

The Governator just signed a law prohibiting tethering a dog for more than 3 hours.

:mad:

This really ticks me off because based on this law, we never would have been able to continue to own the dog we had for most of my young life. Or, rather, to continue to own her would have required that we pen her in a cage rather than tie her to a long tether that gave her freedom of movement around the majority of a large backyard. We couldn't leave her inside because she had a habit of destorying screens, and we couldn't leave her loose outside because she easily scaled just about any fence/wall/gate (no matter how tall), even with 3 legs. So, a tether it was. Far better than putting her in a cage or some tiny dog run.

Stuipd stupid stupid law.

[Not Afraid]

Your dog was the exception to the rule of the majority of dogs that are theathered.

99% of the time teathering is a cruel practice that leads to bored and agressive dogs. The law was introduced based on the following information.

--- Chained dogs can become aggressive due to intense confinement and lack of socialization. They also feel trapped, unable to escape from noises or people or animals that frighten them. Dogs kept on chains are 2.8 times more likely to be or become aggressive. In fact, SB 1578 was introduced to help reduce dog bites and attacks.
--- Between February 2000 and January 2006 at least 107 people were attacked or killed by chained dogs in the United States. About two thirds of those incidents (75) involved children.
--- Chained dogs typically lack adequate veterinary care, food, water, or shelter. They are rarely exercised or interact with their families. These dogs suffer from neglect. Even if they are not left without adequate care, they lead an unhappy, frustrating existence for such social animals. Dogs on chains suffer intense boredom, anxiety, even neuroses; their lives are very sad and lonely.
--- Dogs can choke to death when their chains became entangled with other objects, or develop infections and severe wounds when collars become embedded in their necks.
--- Animal control agencies in California receive hundreds of complaints each month about owners who keep dogs chained. Until now animal control has had little authority to end this cruelty to dogs and potential danger to the public.


I'm very happy there is now a enforcable law that can prevent cruelity to dogs. Maybe the owners will take the time to actually train their dogs.

[Matterhorn Fan]

That law might have saved the life of a dog I once knew (and no, it wasn't my dog that was tethered).

[sleepyjeff]

One does have to wonder though if this will increase the number of dog fatalities along busy highways?

Sadly though, this law will impact mostly responsible pet owners who do licence their pets, provide good vet care and most of all love.

Those who are tethering and neglecting their dogs probably will continue to do so as you can't legislate love.

[Ghoulish Delight]

"Dogs kept on chains are 2.8 times more likely to be or become aggressive. In fact, SB 1578 was introduced to help reduce dog bites and attacks."

That's not a causal relationship. I haven't seen the studies myself, but somehow I doubt they presented enough control cases to rule out the (rather likely) possibility that dogs that bite are more likely to be kept on tethers, which would lead to that higher statistic.*

Sorry, tethers do nothing but restrain a dog. Poor socialization, owner negletc, owner ignorance, and purposeful training cause aggression in dogs, not tethers. I find this law misguided and unenforceable.



* For example, if I showed you a study that said "Children who have been grounded are 10 times more likely to display aggressive behavior" would you assume it was the grounding that caused the aggressive behavior or that they were grounded becausde of their aggressive behavior? Or better yet, "People who wear boxing gloves are 10 times more likely to punch people in the face?" Did the boxing gloves cause the punching?

[€uroMeinke]

Cats are seldom tethered, why shouldn't dogs have the same rights as cats?

[Not Afraid]

I guess being in the pet business I see many examples of both proper and cruel dog ownership. In my own neighborhood, there is a puppy that is tethered by a rope and left all day long. I can't wait to call Animal Control with this one. Recently, there was a beautiful terrier mix that was roaming the streets on my hood with a long string that was tied around his neck that he had chewed through to get lose. The string was way too tight for his neck and he had no collar or tags.

I have gotten to know quite a few dogs over the past year I've been in this business and tethering DOES make a difference in the personality of the dog. In addition, there is a type of treatment that seems to go along with someone who would tether their dog and this treatment is not usually good.

There is a LOT of information about teathering as well as crating out there and teathering is generally thought of to be cruel treatment of a dog by people in the pet industry. I tend to go with what my colleagues in the industry know from experience.

Besides, there is no excuse for lack of training. Dogs are a responsability, if you can't handle the responsability, then you shouldn't have a dog.

[Not Afraid]

BTW, there is another law coming down the pike involving pet shops that I support as well.

The bill requires pet stores to provide sanitary conditions, adequate space, exercise, veterinary care and nutritious food and fresh water to their animals. There are also recordkeeping provisions. Existing laws are too vague to require pet stores to provide even this basic humane care for animals caught in the pet trade.


In addition, the City of Long Beach has a no breeding law that has gone into effect. Link to Ordinance. (http://www.longbeach.gov/apps/cityclerk/lbmc/recent-updates/ord-06-0012.htm)

Maybe once our shelters empty out, the ferrel cat population disappears and people take care of their pets, these laws won't be needed.

[katiesue]

I'm not a pet owner, although the munchkin would love one. Mostly because I have a small apartment and I don't think it would be fair to coop a pet up in here all day.

We had relatives that would teather the dog, but not all the time. And their yard wasn't fenced hence the teather. I can see in some cases, like GD's where it would be fine. But I agree with NA that this probably isn't the norm.

I like the no breeding. I never understood why people didn't get their pets fixed. It was always the first thing we did when we got a pet as kids. There are already so many unwanted pets out there.

[blueerica]

I am kind of in the middle on this one, as my primary examples of tethered dogs were along the positive range, given that I grew up in Michigan, where our land plots were so big, you really didn't want to fence it.

I tend toward GD in that I'm unconvinced that this will be enforceable and that you can't legislate love for an animal. Of course, I don't get to see every tethered or caged dog, but I can't see how cages are much better for the pet. My most recent experience with poorly treated animals that were aggressive is actually one where the owner kept the poor animals in cages, occasionally bringing the snarling dogs out to the front when his friends were over. Would scare the sh*t out of me. Sometimes in the day, or during the night you could hear dogfights erupt. I just knew these dogs weren't well. Given the new legislation, that guy would still be able to keep his dogs in this manner.

I'd rather see something that had a little more common sense, allowing the public to help in preventing animal cruelty of all kinds, not just dogs on tethers. It seems like the only people who will care enough to change the way they contain their dogs will be the good owners. Owners that don't care are owners that don't care.

[sleepyjeff]

BTW, there is another law coming down the pike involving pet shops that I support as well.



In addition, the City of Long Beach has a no breeding law that has gone into effect. Link to Ordinance. (http://www.longbeach.gov/apps/cityclerk/lbmc/recent-updates/ord-06-0012.htm)



Totally off topic but I just had my Beagle(Tana) spayed today. She's a bit under the weather poor thing but should be back to her normal self, running back in forth in her large(fenced in, not tethered) back yard in no time. Right now she is taking a rare nap with Sassy(Cat) and Fred(Dashund mix) on the couch. I normally don't let them sleep on the sofa but Tana had a hard day and the other two wanted to join her:rolleyes:

[CoasterMatt]

They still won't let me taser the kids playing soccer in the street, though :(

[Ghoulish Delight]

What I hate is the arbitrary number.

Spanking is not child abuse. Excessive spanking is child abuse. There's no arbitrary legal number that says, "More than X spankings per day is illegal." And yet child abuse laws are still enforceable. The problem with arbitrary numbers is that they are just that and they punish/restrict perfectly responsible people based on misguided attempts to, and forgive the hyperbole, trade freedoms for safety.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, but that's just the letter of the law.

As you pointed out, though, enforcement is going to be the key. And yes, you were right that this is difficult to enforce, is unable to be enforced, and ... well, won't be enforced.



So it won't.

Except ... in the hard-core cases where the 3-hour limit can be used as a legal bludgeon to come down on the people who chain their dogs by the next outside for their entire canine lives.

The priorities of society and police business will never allow for the prosecution of every pet owner who ties their dog up in a run-of-the-mill manner.


The law doesn't frighten me at all for its abuse potential, and - not knowing how effective it will turn out to be - I like it there as a tool against animal cruelty.

[Morrigoon]

BTW, there is another law coming down the pike involving pet shops that I support as well.



In addition, the City of Long Beach has a no breeding law that has gone into effect. Link to Ordinance. (http://www.longbeach.gov/apps/cityclerk/lbmc/recent-updates/ord-06-0012.htm)

Maybe once our shelters empty out, the ferrel cat population disappears and people take care of their pets, these laws won't be needed.

I understand how you feel on this topic, but I feel this type of law GOES TOO FAR. It's a serious intrusion on our rights and we really shouldn't allow this sort of busybody interference in our lives, because sure, this time the cause is good, but it opens the door for others which aren't. Slippery slope, and all that. Plus, I get really resentful of the idea that a natural act should require licensing and government interference.

And when a major area does that, it creates a shortage of a desired "good", which raises prices on available "good" and encourages profiteers to "create" more of that "good" and bring it in from elsewhere or sell it nearby.

In other words, laws meant to prevent puppy mills will actually create them and justify their business model.

No sir, don't like it. Not one bit.

[Prudence]

I think it's more likely to be used in neighbor disputes. One more tool (along with zoning and CPS) for the disgruntled to use against one another. No facts to back that up - it's a completely unsubstantiated hunch based on knowing that people suck.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I think it's more likely to be used in neighbor disputes. One more tool (along with zoning and CPS) for the disgruntled to use against one another. No facts to back that up - it's a completely unsubstantiated hunch based on knowing that people suck.
That's my big worry. And now, instead of an officer being able to say to some nosey, vindictive neighbor, "Umm, the dog looks healthy and well cared for, shut up," they will be forced to take action based on an arbitrary number, wasting their time, punishing people who don't need to be punished.

[Stan4dSteph]

Invisible fencing is big in the northeast. It's an alternative to physical fences. The dog wears a collar that will shock it if the dog tries to cross the fenceline.

[Not Afraid]

That's my big worry. And now, instead of an officer being able to say to some nosey, vindictive neighbor, "Umm, the dog looks healthy and well cared for, shut up," they will be forced to take action based on an arbitrary number, wasting their time, punishing people who don't need to be punished.

I think this will be the exception rather than the rule. Unfortunantely, there are more poorly cared for dogs in the world that need protection laws than there are vindictive neighbours. Animal Control will probably make mistakes just as CPS makes mistakes, but, as a whole, this is going to be better for the dogs of the world.

[Ghoulish Delight]

And a "no more than 3 spanking per day" rule would be "better" for the children of the world. Doesn't mean I'd support it. There are ways to do things without making arbitrary definitions.

[Alex]

What if you're raising the dogs as food product? Is there something inherent to dogs that makes them more worthy of cruelty protection than a cow or a chicken?

Personally, I would never mistreat or neglect an animal but as a general rule I don't think animal cruelty should be criminalized or regulated. At core, pets are possessions and it is up to the owner to do what they want with them. People who mistreat animals should be socially ostracized but I find it hard to justify criminalization.

I'm not particularly happy with that outcome but it is where my root values takes me. But frequently I find myself overturning principal on emotional grounds.

[Not Afraid]

I understand how you feel on this topic, but I feel this type of law GOES TOO FAR. It's a serious intrusion on our rights and we really shouldn't allow this sort of busybody interference in our lives, because sure, this time the cause is good, but it opens the door for others which aren't. Slippery slope, and all that. Plus, I get really resentful of the idea that a natural act should require licensing and government interference.

And when a major area does that, it creates a shortage of a desired "good", which raises prices on available "good" and encourages profiteers to "create" more of that "good" and bring it in from elsewhere or sell it nearby.

In other words, laws meant to prevent puppy mills will actually create them and justify their business model.

No sir, don't like it. Not one bit.

We also have laws about keeping livestock and farm animals on our own property. Is that too busybody as well?

You CAN breed in Long Beach, you just need a breeding permit and a decent facility. But, urban areas are dot the best places to breed dogs. You can get most any type of breed from a reputable breeder within 50 miles.

This city does not need more dogs when the shelters are full and animals are being killed regularly.

[Not Afraid]

And a "no more than 3 spanking per day" rule would be "better" for the children of the world. Doesn't mean I'd support it. There are ways to do things without making arbitrary definitions.

The law was based on several factors, one is which involves a number (I suspect that was so you number people will have something to argue about ;)) There is a whole host of reasons why tethering is not humane.

[Disneyphile]

This city does not need more dogs when the shelters are full and animals are being killed regularly.I wholeheartedly agree. :snap:

I had a friend once who was upset over leashes even being required. Then again, her dog wasn't trained at all - not even housebroken, because she thought it to be "mean", and that "pets are not slaves" and should have "freewill". :rolleyes: Quite often, it was running around in its own excrement too.

Needless to say, that dog got seriously injured because it ran out of the house one day and got hit by a car, thanks to it being allowed "freewill".

That said, I wish there would be a law requiring training for pets, for their own safety and wellbeing.

Or, better yet, abolish all pet laws, but require owner training in order to have a pet. After all, we must have a license and training to drive a car, because lives are at stake. Same thing should go for pets.

[Not Afraid]

A few more thoughts about tethering.

When you go to a zoo, you no longer see the animals tethered. They are in safe habitats where they can roam around asn live their lives as "naturally" as possible in SAFE environments. I see no reason why the same shouldn't be true for pets.

If you have a dog that is inclined to excape, then you, as a responsible pet owner, need to provide a safe and secure environment where you pet can not get out but yet be as happy as possible. If you cannot provide that type of environment, then you have no business owning that pet.

When we have children, we do not let them roam freely but provide a safe environment for them. We cover electrical outlets and put locks on cabinets so they can't be harmed. Why shouldn't the same be true for pets? They are as much of a responsbility as a child can be and if people don't understand that, they shouldn't be pet owners.

[Alex]

Because pets aren't people.

They are not as much responsibility as a child. Though I agree that if you aren't willing to assume what responsibility they are you shouldn't own them I'm just not willing to legislate that.

[Not Afraid]

Why not legislate proper care? We legislate all sorts of things about pets already from how many a household can have, what kind of pets are allowed, what constitutes abuse, what you can and cannot do with your pet (ie: dog fights, etc.), what sort of responsibility you have if your pet attacks someone......the list goes on and on.

No, pets are not people, but they are living, breathing things that you have taken into your care by choice. You should be required to treat these living things humanly and if legislation is the only way to make stupid people get it through their heads that they need to care for their pets, then I'm all for it.

It certainly would be nicer if people were a bit more responsible and we didn't need legislation. But, sadly, people don't always make good choices.

[Alex]

Yes, we do. And I disagree with most of those laws. Except for the ones regulating what happens to you if your pet does damage to another person.

I have no problem holding someone criminally liable if their dog bites someone for whatever reason or cause. Or civilly liable for damage their dog does to another's property by digging or chewing.

I would not want to be social with someone who does most of that other stuff you mention but just because I don't like it isn't justification for criminalizing it.

[innerSpaceman]

But what is criminalization if not for societally-established punishment for violation of that society's moral code?

There's nothing inherently wrong with stealing, but it's a criminal offense because people have decided it's wrong and they don't like it and they want it discouraged by punishment, and punished by punishment.

A society can apply its criminal laws to anything it similarly wants to discourage and/or punish.

It may just be me, but a dominant society that protects other species besides its own seems entirely more civilized that one which does not.

[Alex]

Criminalization is for the purpose of punishing violence by one person against another. Yes, a society can apply criminalization to whatever it doesn't like (such as sodomy, for example) but that doesn't mean I think it is appropriate use of that power.

And, in my opinion, your desire for the welfare of my animal does not trump my ownership interest in treating that animal as I wish. Again, I find animal abuse repugnant but that does not mean I necessarily feel it should be criminal.

No, the existing animal cruelty laws are not high on the priority list of laws I would campaign to overturn, but if expressing a view on whether they should be passed in the first place I am generally in the anti camp.

[Tramspotter]

You can't asign human emotions to Animals. Just ask the dog wisperer His method works on kids too I saw it on a documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTmKagTHZ6c) ;)

Standards of animal husbandry must not be based on warm and fuzzy overzelous pet owners or Paris Hilton's purse size.

Now excuse me I am going to race my dachshund "Hopfin" in the wienerdog races at octoberfest. :D