D Jessup re Tethering;HSUS Animal Rights are Wrong

 

Anti-Tethering Laws: Cruel or Humane?

By: Diane Jessup
This article may be reprinted in its entirety with credit to http://www.WorkingPitBull.com

One thing most experienced and reputable dog people agree upon is this: a dog is not safe left at large unattended, even in a fenced yard. No matter how secure the fence, when an owner is not home it is possible that a dog can dig out or climb over. A sudden storm can blow down a section or even one board, facilitating an escape. In some parts of the country earthquakes can damage a fence, as can sudden strong winds. “Freak” accidents are not really so “freak”; the author had a visitor’s brakes go out and they arrived with a bang—right through the front gate! Luckily I was home.

Another very serious threat to dogs—particularly pit bulls—is being killed by frightened police officers who enter the yard in pursuit of “bad guys”. Even friendly dogs are killed with alarming regularity by trespassing police.

When an unattended dog is not secured within a yard, it is much more likely to be lost or stolen if meter readers, delivery people or children open a gate. Animal control officers can tell you—opened gates are a leading cause of lost dogs.

When an owner is not home and the dog is either too young (not housebroken), too old (incontinent), or simply too active to be left alone in the house, the animal is best secured within a yard by being tethered or by being kenneled.

In order to be secure, a kennel has to be under wired or have some kind of solid bottom as well as a solid, tip-in or hotwired top. The space needs to be large enough to allow the animal to get away from its feces and to provide shade in hot weather. Such a kennel represents a substantial outlay of money. If a dog is going to be spending several hours a day in the kennel, the size should be no smaller than six feet by twelve feet.

Another satisfactory way of confining a dog while owners are not at home is to tether the dog. Tethering is less expensive then kenneling, but requires a bit of though in order to set up a safe, humane situation. Contrary to popular misconception, tethering can be the safest method of controlling a hard to contain animal.

All dog breeds contain those canine “Houdinis” that can escape from anything. They can chew through 9 gauge chain link, they can push up heavy kennel lids—they can break out windows and even open doors. They destroy wire and plastic shipping crates in seconds. These dogs can only be contained securely (and humanely) with a well thought out tether system.

Tethering Cruel?
It is a sad fact that well intentioned but inexperienced and/or misled people are behind most “humane” laws these days. The current trend toward “anti-tethering” laws is a classic example.

The most obvious example of this is the reasoning that tethering is “cruel” due to “lack of space”. “Tied up on a short chain” is a common cry of those who would have you believe tethering is de facto cruel. In reality, tethering (even on a short tether) allows a dog more room than the standard kennel and far more room than the space inside even a large shipping crate.

California has introduced an anti-tethering bill which will effectively deny dog owners the right to securely confine their dogs in their own yards. This ordinance exposes not only the dog, but the dog’s owner to risks. Prohibiting dog owners from securely tethering their dog in their own yard will result in increased escapes by dogs, as well as an increase in the cruel practice of making shipping crates a dog’s “primary enclosure” for hours each day while owners are at work.

If an owner cannot afford expensive kennel setups, and the dog is not trustworthy in the house (or they have multiple dogs which should never be left together unattended) and they cannot tether, owners have little choice but to make a shipping crate the dog’s primary enclosure.

California’s Proposed Ordinance

Bill SB 1578 Dogs: Tethering Prohibition was introduced by Senator Lowenthal and Assembly Member Koretz in February of 2006.

[Pet Defense Note: The tethering Bill passed and is limited to 3hr of continuous time in 24hr period, on specified type of restraint in general; see actual code for updated law.]

Wording from the bill states: This bill, with specified exceptions, would prohibit a person from tethering, fastening, chaining, tying, or restraining a dog to a dog house, tree, fence, or other stationary object. By making a violation of its provisions a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The body of the law reads, in part:

SECTION 1. Chapter 13.2 (commencing with Section 25975) is added to Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:So, according to this bill, if you tethered your dog outside to let it enjoy the warm spring sunshine (with shade available, of course) for four hours (say, while you are flea bombing the house) you face conviction for animal cruelty as a misdemeanor, and up to a $1000 fine and six months in jail.

CHAPTER 13.2. DOG TETHERING 25975.
(a) For purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the following definitions “Reasonable period” means a period of time not to exceed three hours in a 24-hour period, or a time that is otherwise approved by animal control.

(b) No person shall tether, fasten, chain, tie, or restrain a dog, or cause a dog to be tethered, fastened, chained, tied, or restrained, to a dog house, tree, fence, or any other stationary object.

(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a person may do any of the following:

(1) Attach a dog to a running line, pulley, or trolley system approved by animal control. A dog shall not be tethered to the running line, pulley, or trolley system by means of a choke collar or pinch collar.

(d) A person who violates this chapter is guilty of an infraction or a misdemeanor, at the discretion of the prosecutor.

(1) An infraction under this chapter is punishable upon conviction by a fine of up to two hundred fifty dollars ($250) as to each dog with respect to which a violation occurs.

(2) A misdemeanor under this chapter is punishable upon conviction by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) as to each dog with respect to which a violation occurs, and imprisonment in a county jail for not more than six months.

 The California bill does not prohibit runners, which interesting, as runners are problematic at best. Runners can provide a satisfactory tethering situation, but because of their complexity, provide many more opportunities for breakage, snags and tangles.

The California bill is poorly written and far too inclusive. And it is not unique. Fifty four United States communities prohibit or restrict tethering dogs. However, there are a few jurisdictions which have addressed the cruelties of inappropriate tethering without negatively impacting responsible and humane owners. These laws are outstanding examples of cutting to the heart of the problem which is neglectful ownership practices, not tethering.Sec. 4-17. Cruelty to animals and fowl.
No persons shall tether, confine or restrain any animal in such a way as to permit said animal to become frequently entangled in such tether, or to render said animal incapable of consuming food or water provided for it or prevent said animal from moving to adequate shelter.


Those simple words provide all the power a humane officer needs to keep someone from tethering an animal inappropriately. The point is, after all, that no one wants to see a neglected dog tangled on a runner, with no access to shelter or water. Interestingly, Tucson, Arizona Code Sec. 4-3(2) describes appropriate tethering:

One example is Raytown, Missouri, which passed a 1997 law which offers wide protection to all kinds of animals and fowl:

 a tieout, consisting of a chain, leash, wire cable or similar restraint attached to a swivel or pulley. A tieout shall be so located as to keep the animal exclusively on the secured premises. Tieouts shall be so located that they cannot become entangled with other objects. Collars used to attach an animal to a tieout shall not be of a choke type. No tieout shall employ a restraint which is less than ten (10) feet in length.Yet the Tucson law goes on to prohibit all tethering! The above description describes tethering that can only be used for 30 days after a person is “busted” for tethering—even appropriately. After 30 days, the dog must be kenneled, crated or allowed to run loose.

 

In Dekalb County, Georgia, whom ever wrote up their anti-tethering ordinance obviously has very little experience with securing dogs safely. The ordinance requires that a tether be a trolley system required to be:

The running cable line or trolley system must be at least ten (10) feet in length and mounted at least four (4) feet and no more than seven (7) feet above ground level; (9) Be attached to a properly fitted harness or collar not used for the display of a current rabies tag and other identification; and with enough room between the collar and the dog’s throat through which two (2) fingers may fit. Choke collars and pinch collars are prohibited for the purpose of tethering an animal to a running cable line or trolley system; Those familiar with trolley systems know that a four foot high line invites all kinds of tangles and problems, the most common being the dog getting the line under its elbows and causing rub wounds. As well, tying out a dog on a harness will result in a loose dog very quickly. Dogs can simply reach down and chew the harness on the chest area to get out; others can easily back out. A harness is the least secure way to keep a dog on a tether.

 

As well, to specify that “two fingers” can be slipped under the collar is senseless. Two fingers on edge, or two fingers lying flat? A tiny Asian woman’s fingers or a large, overweight man’s? For a government agency to insist they know how tight a specific dog’s collar must be to confine it securely is dangerously negligent. Who is liable if an aggressive dog slips a too loose collar and escapes to do harm? The owner who was not allowed to use a proper fitting collar—or the government which insisted on an archaic method of measurement?

Tethering laws such as the proposed California law showcase the government’s attempt to micromanage. It is, as well, to the observant follower of pet ownership trends, still another move away from the keeping of performance or working bred animals.

Currently we see the trend toward turning small dogs into purse accessories and large breeds into inane, bandana-wearing, dog-park visiting urban caricatures of “real” dogs. This modern “urban chic” trend desires Old Yeller to spend his days in a shipping crate (accessorized to fit the living room furnishings) in a high-rise or lying about on a couch in a Brownstone, waiting for his “guardians” to arrive home from work and the club. Country ramblings have been replaced by hurried morning and evening walks (in a coat, of course) sniffing exhaust and oil and the pee markings of other leashed canines.

Crating versus tethering
Humane societies generally state they are against “long term” crating, however they consistently give no practical advice on just where to keep a young, energetic and more-likely-than-not destructive dog. Those who live in apartments, condos and townhouses are encouraged to adopt a dog (especially by members of the “no-kill” movement who are desperate to move their wares) and are encouraged to “crate train” but given no further advice about what to do with a bored, under exercised, hyperactive companion animal. The results are predictable and backed by hard evidence; the average age of a dog being returned or dumped at a shelter is 7 to 11 months of age—and the majority of today’s “urban” dogs have shipping crates as “primary enclosures”.

What’s interesting about this almost unanimous support by “humane” personnel for shipping crates as “primary enclosures” is that using the average shipping crate (300, 400 or 500 size) as the average pit bull’s primary enclosure does not even meet the (very) minimal standards set forth for housing of dogs used in medical research facilities.

According to USDA Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Chapter 1, Subchapter A—Animal Welfare– Part 3, Standards, the amount of space needed for a “primary enclosure” for a canine is calculated thusly: measurement of animal nose to tail, plus 6 inches, X measurement of animal nose to tail, plus 6 inches = the required floor space in square inches. To determine the required floor space in square feet, divide the square inches by 144.

Using this equation, an average sized pit bull (considering they range from 35 pounds to 65 pounds according to the UKC standard) weighing 60 pounds will require 12 square feet of space in its primary living area. The typical “large” or “400” sized crate measures 32” long by 20” wide of usable, inside space. This equates to 4.4 square feet of space—one third the amount mandated for those poor souls in research laboratories. Even the larger “500” or “extra-large” crates fail to meet USDA requirements.

So it is difficult to understand why appropriate tethering deserves so much attention from “humane” organizations, but the practice of “crating” is ignored. In fact, if the California law passes, an owner can be jailed for giving their dog hundreds of square feet of space in an appropriate tethering situation, but can legally “crate” their dog for 23 hours a day.

[This is the substantial section of tethering by Jessup, see her site for more info at workingpitbull.com]

My main reason for showing this section, is to show how ridiculous laws are made by animal rights people (not animal welfare) and how HSUS USES  helps make these bad laws to promote THEIR own hidden agenda.  It would be crating (dog, cat, animals)  that HSUS tries to outlaw next, since they have now passed Proposition 2 which doesn’t allow battery cages for chickens, etc. 

Despite HSUS’ “claim” that they wanted chickens to NOT be caged so they could run around, etc, the fact is that non caged chickens are more subject to disease and injury. However, there are six typical methods used to confine chickens without caging, and most of them were used in the 1950’s and even in 1920’s.  Of course these methods require more time and likely expense, as the methods require intervention for eggs that end up being laid on the ground plus more.Battery cages [outlawed by HSUS law, with the public voting it in] automatically allowed eggs to roll onto an area to remove it from being smashed, eaten, or contaminated. Such eggs would never touch the ground.

So by those trying to “help” chickens, they have chosen systems that don’t even protect the consumer. Yet HSUS keeps claiming that “chickens” and “reptiles” are salmonella agents waiting to kill people.  Here you can see the obvious reason for getting rid of battery cages. 1–it makes egg producers go to more expense, 2–it makes the production more difficult  3–It is not as safe as battery caging for consumers   4–producers still have same duty to produce safe food product   5–the public is fleeced into thinking they like it anyway, but paying more is ok. Maybe?

If we were to tell automobile companies that they can’t use an assembly line because it causes the workers to get carpal tunnel, and they have to stop using the assembly line, would anyone go for it? Could they force the cars to be done in methods used 70 years ago?  Hardly. Animals are one of the very few subjects that will garner emotional sympathy in an extraordinary manner, and HSUS KNOWS it. 

One of the first things that HSUS loves to do, is to immediately characterize ALL of one thing as the same.  For example, HSUS CLAIMS that ALL commercial kennels look like the pictures HSUS has, that ALL pets sold might be from commercial kennels, that ALL dogs in petstores must be “milled” dogs, that ALL good breeders don’t sell to petstores, that ALL ethical people BUY from shelters (not petstores or breeders), that ALL pitbull dogs can have their DNA 99% accurate because the companies that offer DNA testing say so??????

Any group that uses heavily laden photos, videos, websites and ADS ON TV–usually has a motive behind it–and it’s usually to make more $$$$$$—not necessarily to save any pets in the USA.  Advertising, political lobbying, media marketing, campaigning, trying to become “powerhouses” of political influence=HSUS–and that does not come without the PRICETAG.

Therefore, if HSUS wants to go where no other animal rights group has gone, it had damn well better be prepared for us to call a spade a spade, when enough is enough.  Pet owners and pet realted  business, animal related  business–ALL STAND TO SUFFER WHEN HSUS PUTS ANTI-PET LAWS INTO EFFECT.

How the hell can Obama want LESS enterprise, LESS business, LESS commerce????   Obama said,  this is the United States. Meaning, this is not a lay down, go down the toilet nation.

When in a depresssion, recession, and the like, one does NOT make excessive, unnecessary, or over the top ridiculous LAWS that further SQUANDER the money we don’t even have, for increasing the bill of running the government!!

EB hsus dec OK

HSUS is NOT the government, but HSUS in every respect—is  attempting to control and BE the government by setting up Anti-Pet laws across the country, HSUS is creating court costs, loss of court time, loss of wages for parties that MUST sue the city, the county, and any other afflicted agency that HSUS has bamboozled; 

HSUS brings about MORE financial problems and related issues, because it consistently and continually puts more and more and more unnecssary, arbitrary and ridiculous LAWS in front of people–

all in the name of “saving” pets—when HSUS saves NO pets,

 but makes videos, kills puppies and dogs.

HSUS  harasses owners, does raids on kennels,

 drafts laws that employ lack of due process,

 focuses on surveillance and copies PETA to

 get media attention and donation $$$$.

HSUS does not spend $$+ donation $$$ toward the actual

saving of animals or pets, but instead spends the $$$ on

creating animal rights laws which serve to create

their own personal agenda for animals

    HSUS  implicates innocent people on video, 

and a host of other acts that give the clear

implication not only of impropriety, but of downright illegality! 

lying_game-713531

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “D Jessup re Tethering;HSUS Animal Rights are Wrong

  1. For Bruce who believes breed bans are the answer….Unfortunately if your town is full of people who don’t take care of their dogs whether tethered or not, then your easy answer was “breed” ban. Ms. Jessup clearly says that tethering if done correctly, actually gives dogs more room than crating. A truly escape oriented dog can escape just about any enclosure, BUT breed bans have their own set of problems. If the ban in Denver is overturned in the next 1.5 years, that might change some things. I can understand how those who know little about dogs would come to this conclusion–however Italy and several European countries recently reversed their decades-old breed ban laws. The reason? Because they don’t stop owners with dangerous dogs. “All” of a certain breed is not the same. But if you believe all Hispanics, all Blacks, all of anything=”the same” then I can see how you chose “breed ban.” You wouldn’t be the first.
    The other thing to consider is, given you are not an expert on canines, with having seen a limited number of incidents, would your decision be correct if it does not stop dangerous dogs? Are you ignoring animal control which hasn’t a clue about what is happening? Much has been written about tethering and breed bans. And most of it is incorrect. Ms. Jessep’s opinion is basically sound, and she has several decades of both experience with the breed type, and is a former animal control officer.

  2. Reply to another council member, name not given….Unfortunately, the issue of “dangerous” dog is not cured by either ‘breed ban’ nor tethering. Both breed bans and limited tethering are Animal Rights ideas, often promoted by the humane society usa (HSUS), which often says it doesn’t support bans (but instead supports the outright killing of same)
    There are 2 things you are confronted with–dangerous dogs, and dogs that kill. Biting dogs are an issue as well, but it is the killing that usually does in a city. If you know much about dogs that kill, you will find they have one thing in common with exception of only a few. THEY WERE MOSTLY ALL RE-HOMED DOGS that had/have problems beforehand.

    Dogs obtained at say 8 weeks and kept as family dog for 5 years almost never engage in a fatal attack. For example, many dogs are surrendered to shelters because of behavior. Re-homing dogs to novice owners, or placing formerly owned dogs with behavior issues is very risky, mostly because the new owner does not know everything the dog has been through. When temperament is tested, all shelters do not use the same type of testing. There is no standardized testing used nationwide. A novice owner with no knowledge of dog behavior is not the best choice for a re-homed dog.

    But let’s say you enact a breed ban. OK, nothing happens at first, then 9 months later, 2 dangerous dogs, mixed breeds of unknown origin, get away from the owner and kill 2 children. What difference does breed make when the dog is a German Shepherd mix? Some dogs might inflict more physical harm, but dead is dead, is it not? All of the information that is best known to be factual indicates that breed bans do not stop severe dog bites, and as to fatal attacks, it *might* limit those [seeing as how there are maybe 19-29/year in entire country] —you are then basing your breed ban on a highly improbable, statistically unlikely episode of having to make sure that you end up with no other dangerous dogs, despite your ban.

    Most cities never do anything further but implement the ban. It does not stop other dogs from severely injuring anyone, nor does it place liability where it belongs. Instead it promotes a false sense of security that you might only be harmed by a different breed or unknown breed. Bans cost a lot because of enforcement, and take away from actually eliminating the dogs that ARE dangerous which are ALREADY living there. Breed bans are usually an issue when animal control is not doing its job correctly. I am sure neither of you (who claim to be council members) will have the guts to disclose your actual names/positions. But then, everyone involved wants to feel their decision was correct. There are no easy, quick answers, despite bans on dogs. I pray that a pitbull never has the audacity to save your life, because you could not repay the favor, could you?

  3. My apologies, it was this old man’s impression that people posted articles such as this one for the soul purpose of helping others who are doing research. I admit that I did jump to conclusions by reading the title and first portion of your article and agreed with your assessment on the problems of tethering ordinances.

    If you are wanting to convince people not to enact such laws and ordinances, you might try dropping the arrogance and rudeness towards those who make the laws.

  4. For “Bruce”, if you knew who you were addressing, perhaps you would not have even bothered to write. But since you did, it would appear that your overt selection of one-upmanship as shrouded in your thingly veiled paragraph, belies your actual intent. So if you thought Matt or myself were going to take your advice, then perhaps you need to ask Gerry Spence, not us.

  5. Am not sure how YOU (would mean “me” pretending to be YOU)–came down to listing the 7 choices. When one says there are only so many choices that indicates you have probably only talked to one side of the fence, meaning the people that want “action.”

    Action is often taken quickly and thought of as the “answer” to everything all at once. In this particular problem, which could happen anywhere, you are looking at a social problem, not a penal problem. If there are always negligent or so-called bad owners, then they will likely not be perfect owners–right? What do we do with negligent drivers? If bad enough, they lose the license to drive.

    Your dangerous dog laws in your area are either good or not so good. And if not enforced, that equals not good. No law is worth anything if not enforced. Most places allow a non dangerous dog who has not displayed prior aggression, a chance–if he later did show some aggression. Some want all liability on the owner regardless of prior conduct.

    If your GOAL is to stop dangerous dogs, then I assume you believe at this point, that tethered dogs are dangerous if tethered for unreasonable periods of time. An aggressive dog might get more aggressive if tethered too much for too long, but dogs can be fear biters from never being unsocialized. Notice I said “can be” not will be. Every dog is not exactly the same. The key is not to immediately buy into the animal rights belief that all chaining/tethering is abuse. It is not. [Remember, animal rights claim that even owning the pet is slavery, that no one should own a puppy, and that home invasions/beating people, which has been done in CA, is ok to get their animal rights way across to others]

    When the public testified that they were bitten, were the bites verified by AC? Did the victims report it properly? Did anyone track the locations? Do you have areas of specific incidents or are they all over? Often they are in a specific area. Your AC is usually required to keep track of all this. Is your AC understaffed? Do you have a very high kill rate of dogs? Do you have rescues who work w/AC that actually know what they are doing? Or do you not have any rescues working w/AC? The more rescues that work with AC, the kill rate is lower, and more canines get more suitable homes.

    If many dogs are not chained but allowed to roam off leash, that’s an AC problem for non citing. Why not tell your people you believe off leash dogs are a problem and that you might raise the off leash citation. If enforced, that should bring in more $. If people keep violating, they should lose the ability to own a dog, period. Tell the people to report all off leash dogs and see where the locations are. Too many in same areas indicate problem areas. AC should clamp down because its their job.

    So for a quick answer, NO off leash dogs except wherever your ordinances allow it. Effective immediately AC’s priority is to stop non leashed dogs. This was already done in Calgary, strict leash laws–with remarkable results. No breed bans, no tethering issues. Strict leash law, enforcement, and dog license.

    My own personal view is that Ms. Jessep is correct in her assessment, as she knows the breed type. It’s already a known fact that the poorer economic areas (which usually exist with higher crime rate) tend to have the most problems. And the social problems are there. You are looking at trying to correct a social problem. If local volunteers such as animal rescue, community dog trainers, and dog clubs worked with the city, they could get people together on the issue of how can we better protect the community by using good and reasonable principles of teaching/learning and advocating for change–not a quick answer which will in the end, not work?

    What your city proposes with limiting tethering is only one very small element because you likely looked at your problem as “a dog got off a chain”…….your problem is not a dog got off a chain. The dog was secured but perhaps not as well as should have been.

    Things happen all the time. Let’s pretend the owner was walking the dog on a leach, no violation there. Let’s pretend the dog is friendly. Then let’s pretend someone else’s dog has a hissy fit and didn’t like the first dog, lunged at the dog, and the first dog lunged back, got away from the owner, and attacked the 2nd dog. How would you characterize that? Would you say the first dog was good/2nd dog bad? Both were bad?

    These dog related issues don’t exist in a vacuum. But you are trying to pigeon-hole the issue by narrowing it down to only one element: tethering. For many, many years, dogs have been tethered; such as sled pulling dogs, and often APBT dogs. Drivey dogs need owners that let them exercise/run a lot in most circumstances. When they don’t then you have an owner that’s not doing the job.

    We know there will always be people in society that don’t meet the mark. And there are already laws for that. Would it be better for the owner to keep the dog in the basement and not tied out? This has already happened and the dog killed their kid. You dont want that. At least if a dog is tethered he is visible. One in a basement is an accident waiting to happen. The pro active approach is to be open to change and not pretend you are dog experts, because that’s not your job. You want something that will work, hopefully make the community safer, and not just shoot certain dogs due to breed. If you called upon your dog owners who actually own the very breed that people think are the problem, you might be surprised at what they had to say. And I bet no one has even asked them. The attendance at these meetings is usually those who are mad and want a quick fix. Your job is not a quick fix outside of immediate leash law, citation, and revocation of dog ownership upon subsequent incidents.

    These issues in CA have been mulled over for years. The animal rights got their tethering limits passed, but did that change anything? Hardly. Fatal attacks vary from decade to decade. The only thing the fatal attacks have in common is that the dogs were either re-homed, rescued, or shelter dogs. The well known book on fatalities says tethering was evident in the 20% category but that means it WAS NOT evident in almost 80%. So why target a 20% when you ignore 80% of reality?

    Reality is that if dogs are re-homed, they should be correctly assessed for temperament. Rescues usually do this on their own. Some shelters do this on their own. Many animals are surrendered for behavioral issues. Some can be corrected and some can’t. Animal rights like to believe that ALL dogs can be re-homed. This is false, as evidenced by the people killed by re-homed dogs. Jon Katz (author) had to put down his own re-homed rescued dog after it bit 3 times. This all shows that when we don’t know the background of a dog, we don’t assess it properly, and we give it away or buy one from the shelter, we don’t know what we are getting.

    A highly disproportionate amount of fatalities are by re-homed, rescued, or shelter dogs. That ought to send the message bright and clear–beware. I say this because estimates indicate that the re-homed, rescued and shelter dogs only comprise about 15% of all owned dogs, yet they ended up inflicting more than 50% of fatal incidences. Those odds are astronomical yet are ignored because animal rights don’t want to stop the shelter populations from gaining homes.

    I am not just pulling this out of a hat. Much of the nonsense out there is pushed by animal rights that put the animal first and they don’t worry about people, since most of them despise humans. You need to know when animal rights go to a city council or supervisors, they have been coached to push their own agenda. More rights for animals and forget the humans. Having been mired up to the neck in these issues for years, and having rescued many many canines, I can tell you that it’s really easy to take the quick road to make yourself think you did something.

    It takes a leader who can convince others that the quick road is usually not successful. You will get controversy for standing up for the truth but you will have done the right thing for both people and dogs. The issue is not tethering or chaining. More laws poorly drafted and not used does not better the situation. You will end up with basement dogs that never see the light of day and will end up killing people anyway. And until the public realizes what is happening with the fatal attacks/re-homed, rescued/shelter dogs, nothing will change. More shelter animals might get homes but the real question is, were they of good temperament? Placing dogs with bad temperament is 1,000x worse than not finding a home. Many arguments are made re that specific issue, as animal rights feel all dog can be placed/that all dogs are great. They are wrong, some dogs should not ever be placed and some should never be with kids.

    If you want, I can have an expert (a court certified canine expert and an animal control officer director expert) review your problem. I am not the canine expert, I am just the attorney. But I am highly aware of the issues. Just so you know, the so called dog experts of HSUS have not been certified by courts in past cases. The ASPCA does have a PhD they use and many breed ban cities were following directives from a certain BSL proponent. Let me just say that the more intelligent communities never use BSL law because they did their research. Even the Denver legislature outlawed BSL law in the State. And who knows, the Fed App Ct may strike it down if the BSL case goes to trial and wins.

    You can’t be part of the solution by ignoring the reality of the problem. and your problem is not tethering. It’s the leash law not being properly enforced and adhered to in whatever areas. I have not answered the dogs receiving poor care issue, but I do know that radicals want to change every law in every state, many of which have overly excessive/unconstitutional provisions. Just look at the Louisville KY ordinance, now in Fed Ct litigation. Or the PA Fed Ct litigation. Illegal search/seizure issues are big in Louisville, creating yet another legal case. This wouldn’t happen if the people were not bamboozled by animal rights.

  6. First I would like to thank you for tolerating my inexperience as far as laws and dogs go and providing some information to me as our city discussed ordinances. It is a tightly knit community and one of our Aldermen was very outspoken about responses he received as he was put on the investigation into proposed laws. Though I don’t agree with the outcome, my vote was not needed and a ban on specific breeds of dogs was passed. I do appreciate your help and thank you.

  7. Whether true or not, here is an example of what people do who believe people who are not canine experts and do not know facts. What will be seen is that breed bans do not work. HSUS is moving to declare all dogs (that they select) are potentially dangerous, and will likely use one of 3 “experts” that they have used for years. Lockwood and Beck are among them. Beware—–much of this is HSUS in action, and their publicized raids. The dogs that are innocent suffer, the owners suffer. I would be willing to bet there are little and no jurisdictions that can prove that BSL can be proven to eliminate dangerous dogs. HSUS knows that this is true, that is why they have moved to potentially dangerous dogs, as they can eliminate, regulate+ end up killing more dogs by doing that. Remember, HSUS has stated THAT A DOG OR CAT WHICH SCRATCHES A PERSON UNPROVOKED IS POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s