Across the country, more cities are passing ordinances they say are designed to protect dogs. However, not everyone agrees. Some dog lovers feel that the real motivations behind these laws are questionable. Others worry about losing their right to make responsible decisions for their pets at home. The question at hand is: to tether or not to tether.
One nearby city announced a law that was to take effect at the start of 2020. It included many changes.
Breaking Down the New Ordinance
This ordinance includes several rules that affect dog ownership. Some of them may seem helpful. Others raise concerns.
For example, dog registration will now be required every year. That replaces the current three-year cycle.
The ordinance adds a “nominal” annual fee for each registration. No details are given about the cost.
Another change affects stray dogs picked up by shelters. The new rule allows shelters to spay or neuter animals after 72 hours.
This is not the same as three business days. It could include weekends or holidays, limiting the time for owners to respond.
Shelter staff claim they will make “extensive efforts” to contact owners during that time. However, that process remains unclear.
Owners who don’t want their pets fixed can apply for an exemption certificate. But the details are vague.
It’s not clear how hard it will be to qualify or who approves the certificates. No appeal process is mentioned.
New Restrictions on Tethering Dogs
The ordinance also bans chaining dogs to fixed posts for long periods. This is one of its most controversial parts.
As of January 1, 2020, dogs may be tethered no more than 12 consecutive hours per day.
They must have access to food, water, shelter, and protection from threats. Owners are encouraged to use trolley-style tethers.
These systems allow more freedom of movement. Still, the city will require all dogs to be monitored while tethered by 2021.
That means by January 1, 2021, dogs left outside on a tether must be under constant observation.
This raises concerns for owners who safely tether dogs while working nearby or stepping inside briefly.
Penalties for Violating the Ordinance
Owners who break these rules face fines. After three violations, they must surrender the dog to a shelter.
One ordinance co-chair claims the law targets only 24/7 chaining, not short periods while owners work nearby.
She states that long-term tethering can increase aggression, according to animal behavior experts.
While many agree that constant chaining is harmful, others feel this law removes common-sense options for care.
Why Tethering May Sometimes Be Necessary
Not everyone has a fenced yard. Some neighborhoods or associations don’t allow fences or kennels.
In these cases, safe and limited tethering can give dogs outdoor time they might not otherwise enjoy.
One woman shared how her dog loves being outside while she makes dinner. Afterward, they enjoy quality playtime together.
That short outdoor break keeps her dog calmer and happier during their indoor time.
Our Personal Experience With Tethering
We once had a dog who couldn’t be contained by a fence, even with a concrete pad. She was a true escape artist.
If she couldn’t jump the fence, she would climb it. We often joked that she might be claustrophobic.
Though she mostly stayed close, she had a habit of collecting neighbors’ newspapers and tracking us on walks.
She was incredibly loyal and always wanted to be with us. A tether kept her safe when a fence didn’t work.
She was happiest when tethered near the family, with access to everything she needed.
Eventually, we rehomed her with a family in a rural area where she could run free. It broke our hearts.
We visited once, but she wanted to come home with us. She was happy there, though, and we had peace of mind.
Concerns About Enforcement and Fairness
This ordinance has sparked debate for many reasons. It introduces gray areas and lacks clarity.
We all want to protect dogs from harm. But vague laws can create more problems than they solve.
Some worry that linking shelter funding with ordinance enforcement could lead to abuse of power.
Supporters claim the new rules will reduce shelter intakes and help cover costs through fines. But that logic feels shaky.
Removing dogs from homes after three violations may increase shelter populations, not reduce them.
Animal control officials admit they can’t keep expanding shelter space without more money and support.
They hope these fines will offset the growing financial strain, but that’s a risky plan.
Funding Needs Should Not Drive Dog Welfare Laws
It’s true—shelters need our help. Many operate with limited resources and rising numbers of abandoned pets.
In our local shelter, about 41% of funding comes from government sources. Donations and fundraising provide another 48%.
There are thousands of dogs in shelters now. Many were surrendered due to hardship, not neglect or abuse.
Ordinances should focus on animal welfare—not filling shelter budgets through fines or forced surrenders.
The law’s supporters say fewer tethered dogs means fewer neglected ones. That may be true in extreme cases.
But punishing responsible owners for safe tethering will likely backfire, not reduce shelter admissions.
Let’s Find a More Balanced Solution
We absolutely need laws that protect dogs from abuse. But they must also allow for flexibility and fairness.
Clear definitions of abuse are essential. So is understanding each situation before issuing penalties or removing pets.
Sometimes, what looks unkind is actually the safest choice under difficult circumstances.
We must avoid judging too quickly. Instead, we should investigate before labeling owners as neglectful.
Our dogs need protection. Our shelters need support. But extreme laws may not be the answer.
What Do You Think?
How can we better protect our dogs without going too far? Should owners be punished for responsible tethering?
Would it be better to enforce harsher penalties for true abusers rather than focus on minor rule-breaking?
Does your town have a tethering ordinance? If so, do you support it or feel it goes too far?
We all want to keep our dogs safe. But we also need to protect responsible pet ownership.
Please share your thoughts in the comments. Your voice can help shape fair, effective solutions for everyone.
