Dallas to vote on tethering ban, pet limits, mandatory spay/neuter

Dallas to vote on tethering ban, pet limits, mandatory spay/neuter





http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/0117
08dnmetanimalcontrol.218a773.html

11:42 PM CST on Thursday, January 17, 2008

DAVE LEVINTHAL / The Dallas Morning News
Pet number limits. Mandatory spaying and neutering of most dogs and
cats. A partial ban on chaining animals to trees or posts.

These are among the recommendations Dallas' Animal Shelter Commission
unanimously approved Thursday night, agreeing that the city's stray
animal population is out of control and too many pets are being
neglected by owners.

The Dallas City Council-appointed commission's suggestions, made in
conjunction with city staff members, will be sent to the council's
quality of life and government services committee for a formal
hearing and vote. The full council serves as final arbiter on whether
animal control ordinances should be created or amended.

The commission's recommendations include:

•Prohibiting city residents from chaining or otherwise tethering
their dogs to trees or posts without supervision, arguing that the
practice often causes animals to become aggressive or injured and
leads to neglect. City animal division manager Willie McDaniel warned
that some dog owners will respond by letting their dogs run free.

"We will get swamped with loose animals. That will happen," Mr.
McDaniel said. "But we can't continue to do what we've been doing.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting a different result."

•Requiring all dogs and cats to be spayed and neutered, except those
owned by people with breeder permits issued by the city government.
Animals under 4 months old and those exhibiting applicable medical
conditions would also be exempt. Breeder permits would cost $500
annually and would subject those in possession to random city
inspections.

•Allowing city residents to keep no more than six dogs, cats or a
combination in a single-family home. Animal foster or rescue
operations could keep more upon obtaining permission from the city's
animal services director. People with more than six animals would be
grandfathered, meaning they would not have to give up pets they own.

•Allowing the city to immediately seize animals deemed dangerous,
such as those that have attacked a person without provocation.

Commission Chairman Skip Trimble said the recommendations are the
body's best effort to address complex problems.

"In the long run, I think they should help animal control, and it
will therefore help the neighborhoods," he said, adding that he
doesn't expect the council to formally take up the recommendations
until next month at the earliest.





Chair, Pauline Medrano
1500 Marilla Street, Room 5FN
Dallas, TX 75201-6390
Phone: (214) 670-4048 / Fax (214) 670-5117

Vice Chair, Vonciel Jones Hill
1500 Marilla Street, Room 5FN
Dallas, TX 75201-6390
Phone: (214) 670-0777 / Fax (214) 670-5117

Carolyn R. Davis
1500 Marilla Street, Room 5FS
Dallas, TX 75201-6390
Phone: (214) 670-4689 / Fax (214) 670-5115

Angela Hunt
1500 Marilla Street, Room 5FN
Dallas, TX 75201-6390
Phone: (214) 670-5415 / Fax (214) 670-5117

Sheffie Kadane
1500 Marilla Street, Room 5FS
Dallas, TX 75201-6390
Phone: (214) 670-4069 / Fax (214) 670-5115

David A. Neumann
1500 Marilla Street, Room 5FS
Dallas, TX 75201-6390
Phone: (214) 670-0776 / Fax (214) 670-1833

Steve Salazar
1500 Marilla Street, Room 5FS
Dallas, TX 75201-6390
Phone: (214) 670-4199 / Fax (214) 670-5115

 

This is no joke! Grantted this will help get some these dogs out of these knuckle heads hands. However if you live in the city limmits where they are proposing a law such as this....it can and will affect you!


FW will be proposing this as well, if not tmo in the near future.

 

Bump..............

 

Bump..........

 

Bump Bump............

 

This is not just a APBT problem this is a all breed problem! Please help spread the awreness of what this ban realy is.

 

very true. not a good thing for anyone that owns animals....BUMP

 

This is a urgent situation! Bump

 

http://www.dallascityhall.com/gover...ontact_mcc.html

Email Contacts for the Mayor and City Council

Click on any of the names below to send an e-mail:

Mayor: Tom Leppert
Mayor Pro Tem/District 1: Dr. Elba Garcia
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem/District 4: Dwaine R. Caraway
District 2: Pauline Medrano
District 3: Dave Neumann
District 5: Vonciel Jones Hill
District 6: Steve Salazar
District 7: Carolyn R. Davis
District 8: Tennell Atkins
District 9: Sheffie Kadane
District 10: Jerry R. Allen
District 11: Linda Koop
District 12: Ron Natinsky
District 13: Mitchell Rasansky
District 14: Angela Hunt

E-mail the Mayor and all the Councilmembers at one time.
__________________

 

I've mass emailed by thoughts on the issue. Hopefully it helps.

 

Thank you! there are alot of folks working hard on this! Main reason why thing's like this pass and why the FW tethering ban passed is there was not enough opposition! The opposition needs to be standing room in these council meetings. Stand up for rights!

 

Country’s Leading Animal Behavior Expert To Testify At Anti-Tethering Hearing In New Hanover County
​

Study By Researchers at Cornell School Of Veterinary Medicine Proves Tethering Is Safe and Humane
​

MEDIA CONTACTS: Andrea Press 910-297-3582
​

Barry Marlowe 910-231-2201
​

​

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wilmington, NC– March 10, 2007 — Dr. Katherine Houpt, VMD, PhD, Dipl. ACVB, of Cornell University’s College of Veterinary Medicine, will testify on behalf of the Responsible Dog Owners Of The Eastern States at a scheduled hearing in Wilmington, North Carolina on Monday, March 12, 2007, concerning plans by local animal control officials in New Hanover County to implement anti-tethering laws.

The Responsible Dog Owners of the Eastern States, a coalition of individual dog owners, clubs, rescues and humane organizations, is challenging the proposed anti-tethering law, asserting that tethering, and the strict enforcement of local leash laws, is a safe and humane means of controlling and confining dogs to properly safeguard the community.

Dr. Houpt, the James Law Professor of Animal Behavior in the Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University, is the world’s leading expert on tethering and aggression in dogs. She and fellow researchers published their study, “A Comparison Of Tethering and Pen Confinement Of Dogs”, in the Journal Of Applied Animal Welfare Science.

Despite recent claims floating on the Internet that tethering dogs leads to increased levels of animal aggression, Dr. Houpt’s team of researchers at Cornell found otherwise.

The Cornell study found that tethering of dogs is a safe and humane means of confinement. The study on the effects of tethering concludes that it is socialization, not the method of confinement, that influences canine behavior.

The Responsible Dog Owners of the Eastern States says the proposed anti-tethering law will have a negative impact on local dog safety efforts, as it reduces some of the protections found in the New Hanover County leash law, which was strengthened last year.

“Keeping our community and our children safe should be our number one priority”, said Andrea Press, spokesperson for RDOES. “Loose running dogs were a serious problem in New Hanover County, a problem that was finally addressed with the implementation of a county-wide leash law, which has had a significant and positive impact on our community”.

“Now the county wants to undo the protections our citizens deserve by banning leashes and tethering. This proposal clearly contradicts our new leash law and punishes responsible dog owners. It makes no sense”, said Ms. Press.

Neither the Centers For Disease Control or the American Veterinary Medical Association support anti-tethering laws. Dr. Gail Golab of the American Veterinary Medical Association’s Animal Welfare Committee states that the "AVMA has no official position on tethering”. Dr. Golab says, “Based on a review of the scientific literature (of which very little exists) and requested professional opinions of veterinary and animal behaviorists, it appears that the effects of tethering are situation-dependent". Dr. Julie Gilchrist of the Centers For Disease Control states that cause and effect have not been proven.

The RDOES asserts that New Hanover County has a duty to protect the public health and safety of all of its citizens, as well as protect the rights of responsible dog owners.

“It’s highly irresponsible to scare the public into thinking that dogs that are safely and humanely contained somehow pose a danger to the public”, said Ms. Press, who is the daughter of a prominent cardiologist in Washington, DC. “Anti-tethering laws based on junk science”.

Anti-tethering laws are also seen as substitutes for breed-specific legislation, which is strongly opposed by every major animal welfare organization as a method in the prevention of dog bites or attacks.

In addition, anti-tethering laws also may unfairly target the poor, those in rural communities, and may disproportionately affect black or Hispanic dog owners.

The Responsible Dog Owners of the Eastern States cited numerous issues with proposed ordinance, which is a revisal to the New Hanover County Animal Ordinance Section 5-4, the Animal and Fowl clause, including the fact that the proposed law bans “ropes chains and the like are prohibited for any purpose under this chapter”. In effect, this would outlaw anyone even walking a leashed dog.

The proposed law also punished responsible owners for safely tethering a dog. Fines for tethering are ten times the cost of allowing dogs to run loose, $25 for a loose running dog and $250 to safely tether your dog, and provides a different array of sanctions in conflict with the county leash law.

The issue of tethering came to light when Ms. Press, a county resident and the Southeastern representative for the Responsible Dog Owners of the Eastern States was cited by Animal Control for tethering her dog in her own backyard while she was at home. Officials at the New Hanover County Board of Health dismissed the citations issued to Ms. Press, finding that the Animal Control had improperly issued the citations.

“It’s important that we protect our citizens with laws that are based in fact, not fear. Anti-tethering laws have no actual basis in fact and are just the latest craze. They may sound humane, but may actually do more harm to dogs and people than good”, said Ms. Press.

“Someone has to stand up for the truth to help protect our community. We are thrilled that Dr. Houpt of Cornell University is here to make sure our county officials have all of the facts”.

Above from ADOA website http://www.adoa.org/press/index.cfm?Fuseaction=pressreleases_full&ID=721

 

Thank you DTWO!

I will forward this....

I got a call today from a family that has to get rid of thier bird dog b/c they can not confine her any other way than tethering...she diggs out. Unfortunatly this is probably only the begining

 

Good Lord. IMO, the definition of stupidity is passing bad laws which infringe on good people just to experiment and see what works. Those laws are wrong on so many levels.

 

Bump,Bump,Bump

 

You are welcome - anything I can do to help!:cool:

The humanics are getting smarter - BSL isn't working so they are trying to get us with number limits, mandatory speutering, and anti tethering BS.

 

The date that Dallas A/C gave me that the council will vote on this is, 2/13/08.

 

Don't let up on them - the VB Twp council were reading emails right up until the meeting time AND materials presented at the meeting itself.

Here is the handout that was distributed at the meeting the other night. They had extra copies and gave them to people in the audience too.
Very good stuff against number limits.







Respectfully submitted by:

Mindy Storen, Director

Closer to Home Animal Advocates

www.cth.petfinder.com

Statement to Van Buren Township Public Safety Committee
​

January 29, 2008
​

Closer to Home Animal Advocates (CTHAA) does not have a shelter or central location. Our dogs are located in foster homes throughout the state, including a couple in Van Buren Township. We are a 501(c)3 charitable organization and we are all volunteers. We try to protect the privacy of surrendering owners, adopters, and all of our rescue volunteers. Please note that the Michigan Department of Agriculture states “organizations which operate solely via foster home rescues are exempt and do not need an Animal Shelter Registration.”

We believe the proposed dog limit will be ineffective in achieving the township’s goals.

From the Journal Newspapers Online: 1/17/08—Supervisor Cindy King is quoted as saying -- “The goal of the animal control ordinance would be to manage dogs more effectively than the ordinances that exist now, particularly as VBT has changed over the years since the ordinance was adopted.”

In an e-mail response to one of our adopters on 1/23/08, Supervisor King said – “As you might imagine, the reason for the Committee reviewing this ordinance is because unfortunately, we have received complaints about dogs at large, dog bites, odor issues and vicious dogs. Certainly, where possible we can and should hold the owners responsible for their pets’ behavior. However, in some cases, people fail to demonstrate regard for their neighbors and keep far more dogs than what most of us would consider reasonable. If they fail to clean up after their pets, ensure they do not leave one’s yard, etc. this creates a nuisance or perhaps something more serious for others.”

Based on these quotes by township officials as reasons for the proposed changes in the animal ordinance, we would respectfully request that Van Buren Township provide statistics for complaints for dogs at large, dog bites, odor issues, and for vicious dogs. We would also like to ask if the township has statistics for how many dogs were living at the residence of the offending dog? The point is that reducing the number of dogs allowed in each home is not going to change the problems caused by irresponsible pet owners. There has to be another way of meeting the township’s goals besides punishing people that have done nothing wrong. The changes in the township ordinance will have a profound effect on our ability to continue to rescue dogs, not to mention that I own six dogs and have no intention of getting rid of any of them.

We have been told that this is to protect the public, to protect children, or because the township is growing and, therefore, we need to impose limits. We have not seen statistics to back up what you are saying. What we can tell you is that putting a limit on the number of dogs per household will do nothing to reduce the incidents of dogs at large, dog bites, odor issues, or vicious dogs.

The American Kennel Club’s position is that limit laws are not the most effective way to solve animal control problems because they fail to address the heart of the issue--irresponsible pet ownership. Whether someone owns 5 dogs or 2 dogs, irresponsible owners will still allow their animals to run loose, leave their mess in a neighbor’s yard, or bark long into the night.

Limit laws will be evaded by irresponsible pet owners. They will choose not to license their dogs as a way to avoid regulation. Animal control officers will have no way of knowing how many pets an owner has unless they make regular door-to-door inspections. To do so would be an expensive, time-consuming process that in many cases would require a search warrant. Fewer licenses mean less revenue for the township.

How does the township propose to enforce such a limit with a part-time animal control officer? This community already has nuisance laws that, if properly enforced, would reduce animal control problems, yet our current animal control officer isn’t given the time or tools to do his job effectively. Strongly enforced animal control laws, nuisance regulations requiring pet owners to be respectful of neighbors and society, and increased public education efforts are all better ways to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. Effective leash laws, clean-up ordinances, as well as noise, odor and nuisance regulations, would require all pet owners to take responsibility for their animals and recognize their obligations to society.

Your proposed changes to the animal control ordinance target ALL owners, regardless of their actions or the behavior of their animals. Responsible owners should be allowed to use their own discretion in determining the number of dogs they can keep on their property. We all have a shared interest in making sure that neighborhoods remain safe, enjoyable places for both people and dogs. By working together, we can find workable, enforceable solutions to animal control problems without resorting to limit laws.

Alternatives to number limits are:

- Passage and enforcement of strict nuisance laws.

and

- Use of an arbitrator to mediate neighborhood disputes about animals.

A change of language in the animal control ordinance will not produce a change in attitude in owners who already neglect their dogs, allow them to break animal control laws, or fail to control nuisance barking or harassment.

I would be happy to work with the township on an advisory committee to make Belleville a pet-friendly place to live. I agree that the ordinances need to be enforced but, to quote Dr. Al Stinson, a retired professor from the Michigan State School of Veterinary Medicine and Director of Legislative Affairs for the Michigan Association for Pure Bred Dogs:

“The change being proposed is really just a ‘feel-good’ bit of legislation. It gives the elected officials grounds to say that they tried to fix the problem. However, it only removes the rights of many of their citizens without really solving the problem. Legislation, without justification that it will solve the problem, and that cannot be enforced with the resources provided, is poor and discriminatory legislation.”

I would like to suggest that everyone here visit the website for the National Animal Interest Alliance and read the NAIA Guide to Pet Friendly Ordinances. This organization also offers the NAIA Model Animal Control Ordinance. The guide grew out of a 12-year history of conferences, collaborations, and projects geared to strengthening the human-animal bond and was stimulated by their November 2004 conference dedicated to helping communities solve dangerous dog problems. Their website is: www.naiaonline.org

 

Thank's DTWO, we apprieciate all your help!

 

I just got done sending my 2 cents. I hope does some good.