My Thoughts on Anti-Tethering Legislation

GSDbulldog · Nov 10, 2010

I wrote this and distributed it to the Tampa Animal Advisory Committee in response to a public hearing on anti-tethering legislation that I attended last month.

The way the law stands, I really have no issue with it. However, they are determined to change something and I made an attempt to work with both sides of the issue.

I understand more rules and regulations are going to be met with apprehension, but I don't know what else to do. We are fighting an uphill battle with those damn Dogs Deserve Better whackos.

I'm just curious as to what the folks here think.

rea·son·a·ble

–adjective
1.
agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical: a reasonable choice for chairman.
2.
not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason; not excessive: reasonable terms.
3.
moderate, esp. in price; not expensive: The coat was reasonable but not cheap.
4.
endowed with reason.
5.
capable of rational behavior, decision, etc.

I start with the definition of "reasonable" because it was stressed that if we were to come up with a response, the board would like the word to be defined.

I saw many uses of the word, but none that could accurately be described as undeniably reasonable. I saw the word twisted and adjusted to fit into various personal agendas and opinions. Well, I am here to speak of my agenda: The well-being of all dogs, tethered or not, and the safety of the public.

I took a moment at the sidelines to listen to the concerns of other members of the public who attended the last meeting, and I feel that what I have stated above is not necessarily my personal agenda, but the agenda of every concerned citizen who attended. From the folks who have exhausted all possible options for helping neglected dogs, to the mother whose child suffered a horrific attack from a tethered dog, to the dog owners who are fearful of loosing a viable option in containing their animals. I feel that animal welfare and public safety are two very reasonable goals to aim for.

With that said, I do not believe anti-tethering legislation to be conducive to these goals.

I could cite various statistics/studies as to why tethering is preferable to other forms of containment. But, I am not here as an advocate for tethering- as I understand that what may be appropriate for one dog in one situation may not be appropriate for another dog in a different situation.

Going by the pleas of many "JQPs", I heard a similar tale time after time: Concerned residents coming upon cruel cases of indisputable neglect of tethered dogs. Unfortunately, due to both a poor level of enforcement and a vague ordinance, these dogs could not legally be removed from their poor living conditions.

I propose that instead of focusing on the tether, that we choose to instead focus on the neglect and how to make life better for <span>all </span>dogs, regardless of how they are contained (Because the dog that is neglected on a tether will no doubt be neglected indoors, in a kennel, or even loose in the yard where it then poses a threat public safety. One CANNOT legislate empathy and caring into dog owners).

So, on that note: Let us focus on three crucial factors: Shelter, water/nourishment, and space.

Hillsborough County's existing animal law is vague when addressing proper shelter:

"Any ANIMAL that is CONFINED must be provided appropriate care, sufficient quantities of good and wholesome food and WATER on a daily basis, kept in sanitary conditions, provided with sufficient room to stand up, turn around, and sit comfortably, proper air ventilation and quality of air, and protection from the elements and from excessive exposure to fleas, ticks, other harmful insects or external parasites."

"The following acts or omissions shall constitute improper CONFINEMENT or abandonment:
Impounding or confining an ANIMAL without a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and WATER.

Keeping an ANIMAL in any enclosure without wholesome exercise and change of air.

ABANDONING to die any ANIMAL that is maimed, sick, infirm, or diseased.

ABANDONING an ANIMAL to suffer injury, malnutrition or illness without veterinary care."

While it is a great start, the vague wording allows for a wide margin of error in enforcement. "Change of air" could come from the wind, protection from excessive exposure could mean the shade of tree, etc. The existing laws leave far too much for interpretation, and that leads to sloppy enforcement which thus leads to dogs not being removed from inadequate living conditions.

We need to define what a proper shelter from a dog that lives the majority of it's life outdoors will entail. I believe that this should be, at a minimum: a solid, sound, 4-walled structure that provides both shade from the sun and protection from the wind (Which is key in keeping dogs warm in the winter months). This structure should, ideally, be elevated to avoid becoming flooded. The shelter should also be kept clean and sanitary.

Proper shelter should be mandatory regardless of whether the dog is tethered or not.

Concerning water/nourishment, the current ordinance is still open to interpretation:

"Any ANIMAL that is CONFINED must be provided appropriate care, sufficient quantities of good and wholesome food and WATER on a daily basis, kept in sanitary conditions, provided with sufficient room to stand up, turn around, and sit comfortably, proper air ventilation and quality of air, and protection from the elements and from excessive exposure to fleas, ticks, other harmful insects or external parasites."

Any dog should have access to CLEAN, FRESH water at any given time. Change the ordinance to not allow for green, algae-filled water buckets as a sufficient source of "good and wholesome" water.

Concerning space,

I believe the current ordinance calls for a tether that is, at a minimum, 3-times the length of the dog. This averages (In my experience) 6 feet, which thus allows for 28.26 square feet of room for the average sized dog (Assuming that the dog is tethered to a stationary, centered object on a six-foot tether). This provides no more space than the average leash, and thus there is room for improvement.

A more ideal ordinance, in my opinion, would require a tether to be either 5-times the length of a dog, or a minimum of 50 square feet of accessible living space (This would entail an approximately 8 foot tether, again assuming that the tether is attached to a centered, stationary object). This is also the average (Again, in my experience) size of most commercially available dog kennels. (5 x 10 feet). Again, these are bare-minimums.

I believe that by focusing on animal neglect, as opposed to the method of confinement, we will have a more effective means of rescuing dogs from all cases of abuse and neglect.
Click to expand...

GSDbulldog · Nov 18, 2010

Bumping, 'cause I know Big Brother is watching :p

green machine · Nov 18, 2010

I really like it! I think it was well thought out and informative.

I didn't know you were in tampa, Same here. Ever attend the fun shows?

GSDbulldog · Nov 18, 2010

green machine said: ↑

I really like it! I think it was well thought out and informative.

I didn't know you were in tampa, Same here. Ever attend the fun shows?
Click to expand...

Thanks,
Yup, I'm a Mid-FL member. I own Jack. You own Angus right?

Was just bumping because the Animal Advocacy of Tampa forwarded this thread to their E-mail list. They aren't too happy right about now.

green machine · Nov 18, 2010

Ahh I love Jack!!! Whats your name?

Yes I own Angus.

ATEXAN · Nov 18, 2010

GSDbulldog said: ↑

I propose that instead of focusing on the tether, that we choose to instead focus on the neglect and how to make life better for <span>all </span>dogs, regardless of how they are contained (Because the dog that is neglected on a tether will no doubt be neglected indoors, in a kennel, or even loose in the yard where it then poses a threat public safety. One CANNOT legislate empathy and caring into dog owners).
Click to expand...

That right there is golden.^^^ Very good point!

Im not being a butthead I just want to help. This is wrong:

GSDbulldog said: ↑

I believe the current ordinance calls for a tether that is, at a minimum, 3-times the length of the dog. This averages (In my experience) 6 feet, which thus allows for 28.26 square feet of room for the average sized dog.
Click to expand...

It is 113 sqft. It is very important and one of our main points, radius squared multiplied by pi (3.14) gives us square feet. Therefore, a dog contained on a 8 ft tether to a stationary, centered object has 200 square feet of space, which is equivalent to a 10ft by 20ft kennel!

Great job KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!

PIt4life · Nov 18, 2010

Love this! Dogs Deserve Better can kiss my dog's left nut

GSDbulldog · Nov 18, 2010

d'oh! Thanks. I wrote it late, :o

ATEXAN · Nov 18, 2010

No worries at all. The fact that you took the time to write and distribute it speaks volumes. I have just begun to try to get involved and donate some time or whatever I can. Shame on me for not getting involved sooner. I commend you and your efforts, sir!

BeauK · Nov 18, 2010

It's really well written, I like it.

Log in or Sign up

My Thoughts on Anti-Tethering Legislation

GSDbulldog CH Dog

GSDbulldog CH Dog

green machine Top Dog

GSDbulldog CH Dog

green machine Top Dog

ATEXAN Big Dog

PIt4life Banned

GSDbulldog CH Dog

ATEXAN Big Dog

BeauK Pup

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

My Thoughts on Anti-Tethering Legislation

GSDbulldog CH Dog

GSDbulldog CH Dog

green machine Top Dog

GSDbulldog CH Dog

green machine Top Dog

ATEXAN Big Dog

PIt4life Banned

GSDbulldog CH Dog

ATEXAN Big Dog

BeauK Pup

Share This Page

Useful Searches