Anti Dog Chaining Legislation

King County, WA -- KING COUNTY COUNCIL (WASHINGTON STATE) IS READY TO IMPLEMENT
ANTI DOG CHAINING LEGISLATION, AND NEED TO HEAR FROM FELLOW ANIMAL ADVOCATES BEFORE OCTOBER 20TH!

King County, WA is on the verge of passing a law that would make it illegal to chain or otherwise tether a dog outside to a stationery object. We are all familiar with the plight and suffering of "backyard" dogs. All animal advocates know this law is necessary and long overdue for the following reasons:

PUBLIC SAFETY: The overwhelming number of adults and children that are mauled or bitten by dogs are attacked because the dog is continuously chained in his small territory. See www.mothersagainstdogchaining.org for more information on statistics regarding injury and deaths caused by chained dogs.

CHAINING IS INHUMANE: Of course we know that dogs can literally go insane from the boredom, and the majority suffer neglect from insufficient water, food, shelter, vet care and companionship.

WILL REDUCE UNETHICAL BREEDING AND DOG FIGHTING: How many times have we seen pit bulls chained outside with just enough space between them so they can't touch each other, making them aggravated and violent. At the moment, in King County, WA, the police and animal control officers have no recourse to investigate when they see this type of confinement because it is not illegal. We need to help empower law enforcement to bust these scumbags. Dog fighting rings are a major problem in WA State.

PLEASE HELP US LET THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL KNOW HOW MUCH THIS LAW IS NEEDED.

You don't have to be from King County, just cut and paste the email addresses of the Council Members below BEFORE OCT. 20 into a polite message and tell them this law is needed for of the above reasons. Please cite "Motion 2008-0347, Dog Tethering bill" in your subject line. We are close - they are behind it but want to hear from the community!

bob.ferguson@kingcounty.gov;larry.gossett@kingcounty.gov; kathy.lambert@kingcounty.gov; larry.phillips@kingcounty.gov; Julia.patterson@kingcounty.gov; jane.hague@kingcounty.gov; pete.vonreichbauer@kingcounty.gov; dow.constantine@kingcounty.gov; reagan.dunn@kingcounty.gov;exec.sims@kingcounty.gov


THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP FELLOW ADVOCATES!

Any Questions, Please Email Sandy Clinton At Numptyland@Yahoo.Com

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thedailybiscuit/archives/150910.asp?from=blog_last3

 

That's some of the the biggest bunch of misinformed anti-chaining BS I have ever seen. Tempted to leave a comment

 

Ignorence at its finest...

 

Please do, thats why I posted it... you all know how I feel about this :rolleyes:

 

How about they accentuate how PARENTS should SUPERVISE their kids better and not allow them to wander off on to people's properties within reach of ANY strange dog?

>sigh<

 

Everyone should write respectful letters to the King County legislators, but especially if you live in or near King County. I have written my letter.

A good idea is to include a link to the RDOWS Responsible Dog Ownership regulations, a fair set of regulations that can be used to enhance public safety without interfering with dog owner rights.

RDOWS Model Regulations

 

I wrote her with many facts against anti-tether laws and she responded with this:


Thank you for your e-mail regarding a possible ban on continuous chaining or tethering of dogs.

I am a co-sponsor of proposed Motion #2008-0347. This motion directs the Executive to study the feasibility of banning continuous chaining and report his findings to the Council by the end of 2008.

It will address the costs and challenges of implementing the ban in both unincorporated areas of King County and in suburban cities that currently contract with the County for animal control services.

Dogs are social pack animals and forced isolation through continuous chaining can contribute to making them aggressive or worse. We already have laws in King County governing dogs whose behavior makes them a nuisance or a threat. A continuous chaining ban would address one cause of this behavior.

Motion #2008-0347 has been referred to the Council’s Committee of the Whole, which I chair. I have scheduled a public hearing on Monday, October 20 at 9:30 a.m. in Council Chambers on the 10th floor of the King County Courthouse. Public testimony will be taken. I invite you to attend.

Thanks again for writing.

Sincerely,

Dow Constantine
King County Councilmember
District Eight

 

I commented

 

http://www.nopitbullbans.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/cornell_study_on_te_1cf54f6.pdf

 

[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]My reply:
Mr. Constantine,

While I concede that dogs are certainly pack animals your committee should consider that a dog living in a pen is no less likely to suffer the same kind of neglect than a dog living on a tether.

A study, conducted by Cornell University, which you may want to read regarding the difference in behavior of dogs living on a tether compared to living in a pen had this to say:
"In this study, housing conditions affected some kinds of behavior, but it is difficult to assess the welfare implications of the changes. The comparisons were between the same dogs in the two different environments and between different dogs in the same season (summer) on the tether and in the pen where similar activity decreased in the pen. Most active behavior (walking, trotting, and circling) decreased in the pen but pacing increased. Standing on the hind legs in the pen was more frequent than on the tether. Biting of objects and chewing behavior decreased in the pen, probably because toys were provided for the dogs, but toy use was not as frequent as chewing had been. Toys were not provided to the tethered dogs because they would lose the toys beyond the radius of the tether."
[/FONT]
If your committee is working around the basis that dogs are "neglected" while living on tethers outdoors it should be looking at banning all outdoor confinement, which is the ultimate goal of most Animal Rights groups when they propose anti-tethering laws. Ultimately, though, a ban on outdoor confinement will result in huge overflow in King County shelters, which according to recent reports of the poor conditions in these shelters would be unfortunate. I know that you are familiar with the current reports from Nathan Winograd regarding your shelter system, so I do not need to tell you how much a massive influx of unwanted pets would hurt King County.

Ultimately, looking at laws which discourage pet owners from neglectful behavior by fining people on an increasing scale for signs of neglect like "incessant barking" would be much more effective in curbing abuse by irresponsible owners than banning means of housing multiple animals humanely like the tether or pen.

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States has a Model Dog Regulation which would positively impact King County if they would implement it instead of looking at banning responsible means of confinement. Below is an excerpt from the regulations.

"3. Standard of Care
(a) It is the responsibility of each dog owner to provide for their dog(s);
1.) Ownership for the entirety of the dog(s) life.
2.) Nutrition on a regular daily basis, and clean potable water readily available.
3.) Containment to the owners premesis
4.) Training
5.) Immunizations as required by state law, and veterinary medical treatment as necessary for maintenance of health
(b) If the owner cannot provide for the dog, it is the owner's responsibility to;
1.) Find the dog a new owner.
2.) Pay for euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian.
3.) Pay a local animal shelter to provide for the dog until a new owner can be found.
(c) Failure to meet any of the standards of care are violations. The owner(s) shall be charged with either/or negligence, criminal negligence, or cruelty to animals depending upon the severity of the situation."

Please before you go forward with this idea, do the research on what banning tethering would do to the responsible owners who house multiple dogs on proper setups. These people exercise their dogs and play with them daily, feed them and give them water daily. They just choose tethering as a way to confine the dogs separately so they will not fight or have to live inside in small crates.

Respectfully,

 

Maybe you should add some pics of the right way to confine a dog...

 

Those are awesome pictures.

I always send photos of my dogs being happy and stuff when writing anti-bsl emails. But, didnt have any of dogs on chains as my dogs are house dogs.

I would be happy to include any photos people don't mind being sent in my next email to him as I will continue to email him and try to convince him.

I would go to the meeting but have just started a new job and cannot take off to attend.

 

I have 11 dogs, so all of them can't be house dogs, I have two in the house and 9 on the yard... If this is made law I will have to do away with 9 dogs and I don't think thats fare... I take damn good care of my dogs as you'll can see

 

Told a good friend of mine. He's been sockin it to em'

 

Yeah, that is exactly what I tried to convey. Some day I hope to have enough property to house dogs outdoors so I can have more than the number I currently house inside.

Your dogs look very happy and properly confined on chains. . . not neglected or angry because of it as these people would like everyone to think.

 

If a couple feet of tempered steel is all it takes to make a dog emo, they must really hate them crates, boy

 

Yeah, I emailed and the only two I've heard back from are the bill's sponsors with form-letter responses.

 

I have made that argument to many people about anti chaining. . .the same can be said about kennels, crates and any way you can contain a dog safely. so, what you can infer is that the AR people don't like those ways either. But, without any of them, you are left with only owning 1 or mayyybe 2 dogs since you cannot have them together.

It's a slippery slope.

As far as my dogs go though, I have a 4 bedroom house with only two people and my dogs in it, so they have a lot of indoor space, but i live close to other people and do not trust leaving them outside here. This is the kind of place I'd come home and find them released or poisoned. . you know?