We are seeing more communities enacting laws, policies, and ordinances that they claim are only designed to improve the life and safety of our dogs. However, there are some dog lovers who doubt their sincerity, especially those ordinances determining the right to tether or not to tether one’s dog in their own backyard.
As an example of these latest policies cropping up, I am using a city ordinance set to begin in a nearby community the first of the year, 2020.
Ordinance With Several Components
Under this new ordinance, all dogs must be registered on an annual basis rather than the current three-year registration period. This new ordinance will also add what they call a “nominal” registration fee.
The new ordinance will make it much easier for the shelter to spay or neuter stray animals. It will now allow facilities to neuter them after only a 72-hour waiting period. (Not three business days) They claim that the shelter staff will make “extensive efforts” to contact the owner during that waiting period.
Should a dog owner not wish to have their dog “fixed,” they may request an exemption certificate. The details of what is required or how difficult it might be to obtain this certificate are not clear. It is also not clear who will decide if a certificate will or will not be awarded upon request. Nothing is said about a way to challenge a refusal. Not everyone is happy with this portion of the ordinance for various reasons.
To Tether or Not to Tether May No Longer Be Left Up to You
This ordinance will also seek to eliminate the practice of chaining dogs to fixed posts. Although this is less likely to be opposed, some still question the wisdom of allowing such specific details without any exceptions permitted.
According to this ordinance, as of Jan. 1, 2020, dogs of any age can be tethered up to a maximum of 12 consecutive hours per day. The dogs must be provided with appropriate housing, access to food and water, and safety from attack by other animals. Furthermore, the city ordinance encourages owners to use a trolley or pulley system to tether their dogs. They encourage tethering, which provides a freer range of movement.
As of Jan. 1, 2021, the ordinance would require all dogs left tethered or chained outside to be under owner observation at all times. Yes, that is the plan. Dogs and puppies will only be allowed to be tethered to a fixed object only if they are under observation by their owner.
Failure to Comply With the Ordinance
Failure to comply with these ordinance regulations, after Jan. 1, 2021, will result in a fine. After three violations, the ordinance requires the owner to surrender the dog to the shelter.
One of the task force co-chairs that put together this ordinance claims that they do not have a problem with owners tethering their dogs in the backyard while they work in the yard.
What they report to have a problem with is 24/7 chaining in all weather, not bringing them in. She further claims that this is a practice that experts say can cause dogs to become more aggressive.
Members of the community agree that providing a safe and comfortable situation for our dogs is essential. However, there is much concern that an owner must be observing the dog during all times the dog is tethered. Requiring owner observation takes away much of the benefit of tethering altogether.
Many Variables Make the Decision to Tether or Not to Tether a Complicated one
Not every dog owner has a fenced-in backyard, nor are some allowed to have kennels. City ordinances and homeowner associations may not permit them. Sometimes, being able to tether a dog for short periods of time safely gives the dog much more outside time than they would otherwise be allowed.
One lady tells of how her dog loves the fresh air time while she prepares dinner after work. Then, after dinner, they have playtime before bringing him back in. He is calmer, and they both enjoy their interaction better than if he has not already had a little time outdoors.
My Own Challenging Situation With Tethering
We once had a wonderful dog to whom the entire family was attached. She could not be restrained by fencing, even with a concrete pad. If she could not jump the fence, she would climb it! I genuinely think she was claustrophobic.
This dog would usually remain in our yard, but she also loved to collect our neighbors’ newspapers as gifts for us. She would also track us down if we took a walk around the block to visit a neighbor down the road.
She was a great tracker and did not like to be left behind. If tethered, she remained quietly at home until we returned. If in the kennel, out she would come. She was much safer being tethered than left free or fenced. Now, under this ordinance, what would be an option for us?
She seemed happy enough with the necessary tethering. We had a houseful of kids who romped and played with her daily. She always had water, food, and shelter. Still, it hurt my heart to have to tether her.
We eventually gave her to a family who lived in a remote, rural area where she ran free. It was very hard to do, but I knew how much she loved to run free, and I could not safely give her that option. We quit visiting her because she always wanted to come home with us. There was a strong bond with us, but you could tell that she loved the new family as well. I hope we did the right thing.
Many problems with this ordinance have been noted.
There are too many ways this ordinance will make the lives of dogs and their owners untenable. There is too much of a gray area for the ordinance to fairly work as it is written. This lack of fairness and clarity does not mean that there should not be something in place to protect dogs from unsafe situations.
Supporters of the ordinance tie it with shelter finances. Their belief that the ordinance will bring in money for shelter funding concerns many in our community. First of all, it does not make fiscal sense to many, and, secondly, some fear that it may encourage abuse of the ordinance.
We need to separate the need to protect our dogs from abuse from the financial needs of our local shelters.
Nearly, if not all, local shelters operate on a tight budget. For example, about 41% of our community shelter’s $1.1 million in revenue comes from local government entities. Currently, about 26% of the shelter’s income comes from fundraising and general donations. About 22% comes from restricted contributions.
There are currently thousands of animals housed in the community shelter and at the local Humane Society. Most of these animals are there because of residents who bring in unwanted litters and owners who no longer can provide adequate care for their pets.
Proponents of this ordinance claim that it will help decrease those totals. How confiscating dogs that are found to be tethered will reduce those numbers is not clear to me. It seems that it would do quite the opposite.
Our city Animal Control Board says that they can’t sustain a model like this going into the future. They state that they cannot keep building more space and requiring more money from the government and very generous donors who give to the care of these animals. Apparently, they expect the fines collected for three times before the dogs are confiscated will help to pay for the needed growth.
There must be a better way to protect our dogs.
Surely, we can find another way to protect animals from all kinds of abuse, including inhumane types of tethering. However, there also needs to be a better way to determine what is inhumane and what is not and who will make that determination. There is also a need for a better way to deal with the abuse when it is found.
Sometimes, there are extenuating circumstances that a strict, cut and dried ordinance does not cover. There should be a way to deal with those situations that do not include fines and removal from the family for conditions not yet determined to be abusive.
Sometimes, when we see a photo of a horribly abusive situation, whether involving a dog or a human, we want to punish the perpetrator as severely as possible. I am as guilty as anyone else of this reaction. However, I hope that I never become so quick to jump to conclusions that I forget that some things may not always be as they first appear.
There is a vast difference between actual abuse and what may appear to be unkind but is, after careful investigation, the best option available. We should always be willing to look into a situation and not be so quick to fine the owner and remove a dog from a loving family.
Our shelters need our support, and our dogs need our protection. But, there are better ways to provide each of these than laws that are too cut and dried.
What is your opinion on this topic? Do you have a solution?
Do you have an opinion on this topic? Can you think of a better way to protect our dogs without going to the extremes in this ordinance? Would we be better off if we punished the real dog abusers more severely?
What suggestions do you have for a balanced approach to these two problems? As long as the issues of animal abuse and funding shelters are tied together, there will be concerns about the underlying motives for ordinances and community policies.
Do you have ordinances in your community that deal with tethering? If so, what are they, and do you approve of them?
I would sincerely love to hear what you have to say about this topic. Can you imagine any circumstances under which tethering (with shelter, food, and water provided) for more than a few hours would be acceptable?
We all want to protect our dogs. So, we all need to contribute to the conversation of how best to do so. Please share your thoughts in the comment section.