RECENT COMMENTS
Joel Cabot on Power Outage on the Hill
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Yvette Cannon on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
crd on Power Outage on the Hill
now illegal to chain your dog
10/23/2007 6:14 AM by John M
City Council passing an ordinance last night that makes it punishable by fines and jail time to leave a dog tethered for more than one hour in a 24-hour span. The ordinance passed 7-0, with Councilwomen Delores L. McQuinn and Ellen F. Robertson abstaining. [via]
From the RTD article:
Both said they were concerned about the potential consequences of moving too fast to crack down on people who chain or tether their dogs outside.
McQuinn worried about an 80-year-old East End resident who keeps a dog for security but can’t afford to fence her backyard. “What happens to her now?” asked the councilwoman, who represents the 7th District.
TAGGED: pets
What kind of security is a chained dog? It will just bark. Meanwhile, she gets robbed and murdered anyway.
I’ll be interested to see how this plays out. I see quite a lot of dogs chained up all around the CH area.
the answer to McQuinn’s question is simple: the 80-year old woman should not have a dog if she cannot be responsible and put up a fence or she should put the dog in the house.
Obviously McQuinn is more worried about an irresponsible dog-owner having to pay for a fence than about making the 80-year-old woman pay thousands of dollars extra to keep her house up to “old and historic” standards.
Did they specify what constitutes tethering a dog? Is there a specific length of tether, and does that include cable runs with a pulley that can actually allow more room than a fence for a dog to run? From how this post was written it seems to be a hastily drawn law. I see dogs tethered for more than an hour outside of restaurants along patios nest to diners, and their owners are not being abusive in the slightest.
Annen. could it be because McQuinn has some issues of her own in the ‘thousands of dollars extra to keep her house up to “old and historic” standards’ herself?
Why is this even a priority for city council..?
re: Why is this even a priority for city council..?
Didn’t you see their constituencies line up speaking in favor for the ordinance?
It’s a priority, Steven, because it’s cruel to the animal and it’s dangerous to the community. The number of chained dog attacks on children is on the uprise as more and more people think it is acceptable to chain a dog. Would you like to live your life 24/7 at the end of a chain?
This is a law going for those people who leave their dogs outside 24/7 without much thought and most of the time barely any food and/or water.
What I would like to ask McQuinn about that 80 year resident: how does a dog chained in the backyard keep someone from breaking into her house? Once a person realizes the dog is in the backyard without easy access to the house, it’s fair game.
The blue pit I have currently was chained outside, starved, and left to whomever wanted to mess with it. That’s what this law is trying to prevent.
When a dog is chained in the backyard, especially females who haven’t been spayed, they are unable to properly defend themselves thus becoming more aggressive and territorial which in turn causes a lot of problems for the rest of us not to mention it is cruel to the dog it is happening to.
It is the chained up dogs that become a problem dogs in neighborhoods. They become bored and anti-social from isolation and end up being the dogs that bark continuously and attack others if they are able to escape (or are let loose after the owner decides to let them “be free”).
Oh, and were there is animal cruelty there is almost always human cruelty, too, as well as the high change other illegal things taking place.
Certain words were supposed to be “where” and “chance”. Sorry!
C, everbody doesn’t keep dogs and cats in the house.
I thought Mcquinn abstained. She said that she supports it but there wasn’t enough education on the ordinance for all residents.I totally agree with Rev. McQuinn. The city should have had numerous public hearings on this matter and there is going to be alot of confusion.
Keeping pets outside is not the issue I have, it’s chaining them. I’m okay with an individual building a pen outside with proper shelter who feeds the dog 2 times a day and water is readily available with the proper precautions taken during extreme weather.
I’m not for people tying their dogs outside on very short chains, forgetting about them, letting the collars get imbedded and without a fenced in area around the dog s/he is succeptible to other dogs coming into the territory as well as humans poisoning/torturing/baiting it, amongst several other possibilities.
My question for the 80 yr old resident McQuinn referenced was that the woman said she had the dog outside for security. If the dog is on a chain it secures nothing but the area it can actually reach, therefore still leaving the woman to the mercy of whomever wants to come into her house.
I’m also of the opinion: Why have a dog if it’s just going to stay ouside? What purpose does having an animal you only see/pet/touch at feeding times serve exactly?
As for the cats roaming the city: that is a whole other issue and not one I agree with.
And for the record, I think the law is bogus because we only have 4 Animal Control Officers to patrol all of Richmond (approx 100,000 residents each having an average of 2 pets per household) and until we can convince the city to hire at least 3 more, this law will be yet another on the books that goes unenforced.
Has this gotten to the point for an angry mob with sticks yet?? I don’t want to miss out. Thought it might be heading there since someone mentioned the stray cats which will ultimately lead to the goose lady.
And remember…Bob Barker says: Spay or Neuter your pets!
If McQuinn supports the ordinance, she WOULD NOT abstained. Tells me plenty about her.
California seems to address some of the concerns expressed above.
California
2006
Health and Safety Code, Division 105, Part 6
Chapter 8. Dog Tethering
(b) No person shall tether, fasten, chain, tie, or restrain a dog, or cause a dog to be tethered, fastened, chained, tied, or restrained, to a dog house, tree, fence, or any other stationary object.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a person may do any of the following in accordance with Section 597t of the Penal Code:
(1) Attach a dog to a running line, pulley, or trolley system. A dog shall not be tethered to the running line, pulley, or trolley system by means of a choke collar or pinch collar.
(2) Tether, fasten, chain, tie, or otherwise restrain a dog pursuant to the requirements of a camping or recreational area.
(3) Tether, fasten, chain, or tie a dog no longer than is necessary for the person to complete a temporary task that requires the dog to be restrained for a reasonable period.
(4) Tether, fasten, chain, or tie a dog while engaged in, or actively training for, an activity that is conducted pursuant to a valid license issued by the State of California if the activity for which the license is issued is associated with the use or presence of a dog. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit a person from restraining a dog while participating in activities or using accommodations that are reasonably associated with the licensed activity.
(5) Tether, fasten, chain, or tie a dog while actively engaged in any of the following:
(A) Conduct that is directly related to the business of shepherding or herding cattle or livestock.
(B) Conduct that is directly related to the business of cultivating agricultural products, if the restraint is reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog.
(d) A person who violates this chapter is guilty of an infraction or a misdemeanor.
(1) An infraction under this chapter is punishable upon conviction by a fine of up to two hundred fifty dollars ($250) as to each dog with respect to which a violation occurs.
(2) A misdemeanor under this chapter is punishable upon conviction by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) as to each dog with respect to which a violation occurs, or imprisonment in a county jail for not more than six months, or both.
(3) Notwithstanding subdivision (d), animal control may issue a correction warning to a person who violates this chapter, requiring the owner to correct the violation, in lieu of an infraction or misdemeanor, unless the violation endangers the health or safety of the animal, the animal has been wounded as a result of the violation, or a correction warning has previously been issued to the individual.
(e) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit a person from walking a dog with a hand-held leash.
As I read it, this ordinance is designed to prevent animal abuse by means of neglect. Prevent dogs perpetually being chained in their yard. But the argument being used to support it is sensationalized, but citing cases of collars being too tight and irritating the dogs neck, causing a health hazard. I think it is possible to chain a dog for a little time in the sun without ever causing that dog any harm. So, I hope that this ordinance will only be used to empower animal control officials to wisely investigate and punish the worst cases. However, since the city has been kind enough to task me with my own personal animal control officer to follow me every time I venture into the park, I am not sure if they have the wisdom to enforce this law correctly.
I know my dogs spend a lot of Saturdays on a tether on my porch while I am doing yard work. And by some interpretations of this law, I would be committing animal cruelty.
As for Geese, I think they should have to obey the same traffic laws I do.
I cannot find the text of the new law. I guess the city code has not been updated yet. Does anyone have the text?
I like how the California law clarifies between short-term/special use tethering from leaving your dog outside all day long.
Tiny, I found this on the city’s website. They probably haven’t had time to update the code – I’d call the clerk’s office for either a faxed copy or a link to where it might be online.
Ordinances
Ordinances are laws enacted by the City of Richmond. The City Clerk’s Office, Suite 200, City Hall, 900 East Broad Street, oversees the process and keeps the records. Citizens may also review City ordinances by visiting the Municode site, (which is a link on the city’s website but does not show as a link here, sorry) where all the municipal codes in the Commonwealth of Virginia are available. For more information, call the City Clerk at (804) 646-7955.
http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/services/services_o.aspx
The following is from workingpitbull.com. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with Jessup’s views on crating/tethering. Just food for thought.
“There is a new fad sweeping the animal welfare world – the idea that tethering dogs should be condemed out of hand and made illegal where possible. Concerns about tethering are based, no doubt, on real concerns for neglected dogs which are tethered 24/7 and given no human interaction or exercise. The anti-tethering fad, however, makes no distinction between appropriate tethering practices and practices which are not appropriate.
Appropriate tethering may be defined as that which offers the dog at least: a 20′ circumference (resulting in over 1200 square feet of room) to move about without danger of entanglement; the tethering material is strong but as light as possible considering the size and strength of the dog; the animal is wearing a “flat” buckle collar, or flat collar with choke chain combo (no harness or choke chain alone); the tethering area offers the dog access to sun and shade (at all times); is paired with an appropriate dog house for the climate; offers a secure and clean source of water; the dog has access to dry ground; the area is fenced to keep stray dogs and people out. These steps require little monetary investment and are within reach of every owner.
Further, appropriate tethering must be paired with concern for the dog’s mental well being. Dogs are highly social, and to keep a dog away from the family activity at all times is cruelty and rather begs the question – “why did you get a dog?” Tethering provides an owner with an appropriate option about where to house the pet while they are away from the home. “Crating” (keeping the dog in a shipping crate) can be appropriate only for very short periods of time – running to the store for example). Obviously using a shipping crate as “primary housing” is not appropriate for the hours that family members are away at school or work.
“Primary housing” can be an outside kennel, a tether or, for well trained, mature and iron–bladdered dogs, inside the house. Young, active dogs, and those unable to hold their urine or bowls for 9 to 12 hours at a time (try it yourself some day) will be much more comfortable being kenneled or tethered then kept in a shipping crate.
Tethering dogs during the work day and then spending time with them the rest of the time is certainly appropriate. Anti-tethering laws would take away this option. See article below on anti-tethering laws.
Examples of inappropriate tethering would be: dogs tied with heavy chain; dogs tied out on harnesses, choke or prong collars; dogs tied out without their water source being secured; dogs on tethers shorter than 12 feet in length; dogs tethered without access to shade (or sun in cold climates); dogs tied out without appropriate dog houses; dogs tied in areas where they can be teased by children or other dogs; dogs tied out without a protective perimeter fence around their area; dogs tied in muddy, wet or otherwise unsuitable ground.”
Found the “electronic paper” on RichmondGov. Hopefully, this will get you there.
http://www.richmondgov.com/applications/clerksTracking/getPDF.asp?NO=2007-261-236
good link, thanks.
They do not define ANY extenuating circumstances like the CA law. I have to agree with Scott, this law does look like is was hastily put together with good intentions maybe, but no thought to the details. They should be ashamed of themselves! It doesn’t look like any research went into the ordinance at all. I am glad our representive did not support it.
I’ve called the city for over a week now about a chained up dog in a neighbors back yard for several weeks. The dog could have been out there for much longer before I noticed it. Anyway, I left several messages about the dog on Animal Control’s automated system and when I finally got ahold of a human being, she basically tried to get rid of me by talking over me and robotically reciting that pet owners have 30 days to rectify the problem before they can enforce the new law. She finally shut up when I repeated that the dog had no shelter like a dog house, which in my experience doesn’t matter much since not all dogs know how to use a dog house anyway.
In my opinion, dogs are not in as much danger of a neglectful owner as they are of a city bureaucracy where employees aren’t in the slightest bit afraid of loosing their jobs—and act like it, too.
You could also print materials yourself and put it on your neighbors front door so they are aware of the law they’re breaking. Sometimes this will work, sometimes not, but it’s worth a shot.
You could always paint their house orange. Or at least threaten to do so. Oh, wait, wrong discussion. But It would still work as a deterrant.
Ruth, I really wish I had something positive to add. Perhaps Mac the Cop can add something positive here as to who she could call?
Temperatures are supposed to really drop soon, seems real sad to keep a dog outside, and I have to wonder if the owner will take the dog in if the temp is in the twenties – it’s bad enough to keep an animal chained to begin with. Good luck with this, Ruth.
Ruth, get me the address (via John M) and I’ll send a couple of emails. There are no promises associated with this but I will do the best I can.
THANKS MAC!
people kill me with all this chaining a dog makes it mean.anybody that knows the dive of active dogs like pit bulls know that 6ft fences can easily be cleared by them .chains are needed to restrain these types of dogs when owner is not present.not everyone can keep dogs inside people have allergies and things that they dont want destroyed.not to mention animals smell no matter what you do.if a person is giving the dog food and water daily what is the problem.as long as that dog is being let free to roam and play daily no one should have anything to say.this law is going to back fire when dogs start jumping fences and biting people.not just pits but guard dogs like dobes,rottys,shepards, etc.
Dear Annoyed, If you are allergic to dogs, warry of them destroying your property, and, particularly, if you are concerned about their smell, you should consider not having a one, after all, there is no ordinance or law yet that requires one to own a dog.
Dear Annoyed:
I really – with all my heart – hope that you don’t own a dog. Yes, there are breeds that are more prone to jump – or dig out of – fences than others. There may be more responsibility on the owner of one of those breeds, than an easier breed – like maybe a basset hound or a cocker spaniel. The responsibility that will be required is one of the things to be take into consideration before one brings a dog into the family. When you become an owner or guardian of a dog, you are responsible for providing for that dog’s needs. If you choose to own a more challenging breed of dog, the responsibility of providing for the dog is your challenge. There are lots of ways to keep dogs from jumping fences, if one bothers to educate themselves. A simple Google search will bring up many suggestions. If you have allergies to dogs, you shouldn’t have one. If you are too lazy to take responsible care of a dog, again, you shouldn’t have one. Regardless of whether or not people feel that this ordinance was enacted in hasty manner, chaining dogs is not responsible behavior. It’s lazy and uneducated.
I’d like to see a pit jump a 6′ fence as I haven’t seen one w/the ability to do so yet. I have owned several and more often than not they don’t jump much unless onto a person to give hugs and kisses. They’re terriers and bull dogs so have a low center of gravity to begin with which makes jumping a 6′ fence kinda hard even for the most determined of dogs. I do, however, know of several huskies who could clear that fence without batting an eyelash. (Please keep in mind the typical pit is maybe 60lbs and close to the ground, much resembling the body style of the bull dog complete with broad chest and bully-like stance and jumping is not one of their stronger traits.)
And as Kat stated above, one should take allergies, ability to jump, age of the dog (which will determine how much of your house is destroyed), etc., into consideration when obtaining a dog of any breed as well as take time to research the breed you have an interest in to best determine if it would fit into your home and with your own personality.
annoyed- I really feel sorry for any animals that you have owned. Your type of ignorance is the reason why this law had to be put in place. If you have a problem with allergies, messes, etc. then simply don’t get a dog. They are not lawn ornaments. They are living, breathing beings who feel pain just like you. This law is a blessing.
Please, everyone who is reading this: if you see a dog chained up report it to animal control right away. And if it doesn’t seem like they are doing the proper follow up then contact Dogs Deserve Better. A local DDB representative will see to it that the problem is addressed. They had a lot to do with having this law passed. Their website is dogsdeservebetter.org. Their website also contains a ton of good info and research related to the anti-tethering initiative. You may also want to check out virginiavotersforanimalwelfare.com.
animal control has a hard time following up on calls concerning animal chaining, neglect, abuse, etc. – they only have a few officers to serve a city this size which should have around 12 – 15 animal control officers on staff. they will hire more animal control officers when the city residents notice the delayed or inadequate response from animal control is due to their inadequate budget and staff, which will change when those residents stop complaining and start advocating for the animal control staff. they don’t enjoy being so understaffed either, but i don’t think they can call city council members to ask for their help. maybe the dog park people should take a moment to think on this. they are vocal and have the numbers needed to influence city council to change this situation, which will ultimately improve conditions for pets, people and our neighborhood. as dog lovers they are well qualified for a job like this.
I am confused- I don’t see how leaving a dog in a 8’x 4′ chain-link kennel, with only 32 sq. ft. of roaming room – before doghouse is better than a pulley-lead or light-weight chain is better for the animal. The problem, in my opinion, is that people don’t think you can chain or tether a dog AND play with it off the tether. Chaining a dog for more than one hour in 24 hours is not the same as chaining them 24/7 and ignoring them. I have witnessed a retriever- a breed known for gentleness, become agressive after being left in a large (20X20) fenced kennel 24/7 for at least 2 years. It was taken out to go hunting a few times each year. Even feeding this dog was done without human contact. But this treatment passes the requirements being touted.
“People with common sense might not see the need to regulate this (24/7 tethering), but since there’s no law saying only people with common sense can have pets, we must do as we do for children and put enough guidelines in place so that harm is prevented.” – Jill Howard Church on prohibiting tethering