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.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

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.

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

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

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.

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.