Stupid new anti-tethering law

[Ghoulish Delight]

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



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.

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.