Stupid new anti-tethering law

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

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.

[Disneyphile]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

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

I wholeheartedly agree.

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". 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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.