Anti-Tethering Proposal
The purpose for this proposal is to allow for and provide a healthy environment to dogs, their owners and the community. This proposal will bring help to those dogs that don’t have a voice for themselves; dogs currently in distress from being tethered by their owners or neglected. Dog owners might simply be ignorant about the fact that tethering a dog is harmful to the animal. It also poses a risk to the owner’s family and to the community. In this document I will explain how implementing a new ordinance against tethering dogs will be beneficial to both the animal and to humans. As a dog owner and avid animal advocate supporter, I will explain how tethering a dog is not only heartless, but also how it is a health hazard and a danger to our communities.
At this time, Maricopa County does not have any anti-tethering laws. Therefore, any canine breed can be tied with any type of rope or chain attached to a fixed object such as a fence or tree for an unlimited period of time. Tethered dogs usually live in solitude and are not allowed to socialize with other dogs or humans. This type of harsh treatment does not currently fall under any animal abuse law in this county. Many of these dogs are tethered because the owners do not want to be bothered with them, which is actually considered neglect. Tethering a dog is cruel, and poses a threat to the animal. According to many animal advocates such as “Helping Animals.com” who are partners with PETA, “Many communities across America and beyond have learned the hard way that chaining dogs is dangerous to the public, especially to children.”
Several reports indicate that chained dogs are much more likely to become aggressive. Many dog bites or attacks come from dogs that were chained or tethered who then managed to escape and become free. “When a chained dog feels threatened, his “fight or flight” instinct kicks in. Since he can’t flee, he feels forced to fight” (Unchain Your Dog). There is great danger for children especially who enter the yard of a restrained dog. Many children have been fatally attacked or seriously injured by tethered dogs. For example, “A study published in the September 15, 2000, issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association reported that 17% of dogs involved in fatal attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998 were restrained on their owners’ property at the time of the attack. Tragically, the victims of such attacks are often children who are unaware of the chained dog’s presence until it is too late” (The Humane Society of the United States).
Another fact about a tethered dog is that the animal can easily injure or even kill itself from choking or accidental hanging. “Chained dogs can get hung over fences and off decks, causing death” (Unchain Your Dog). Another type of injury can result from the chain rubbing around the animal’s neck; it can become embedded and infect the skin. “In many cases, the necks of chained dogs become raw and covered with sores, the result of improperly fitted collars and the dogs’ constant yanking and straining to escape confinement” (Humane Society of The United States).
A large number of chained dogs are being neglected and also live in unhealthy environments that can result with the dogs acquiring diseases that can be transferred to humans. “Many chained dogs live in unhealthy, trashy surroundings that are infested with parasites” (Unchain Your Dog). This creates a public health problem as well as an animal rights issue.
Ironically, until about 20 years ago, many communities had public safety statutes requiring that dogs be kept fenced or tethered. Many humane societies promoted tethering as a second-best alternative to fencing, as part of the effort to discourage pet owners from letting animals roam freely. However, since that time the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have reported that tethered dogs are much more likely to bite than unchained dogs. Tethering tends to increase dogs' territoriality and likelihood of delivering a reactive bite, since a tied dog cannot run away from a perceived threat. Also, the tether can trip the attack victim, enabling the dog to maul a person who otherwise might escape unharmed (Dogs Deserve Better).
Arizona currently has exemplary animal cruelty laws that are enforced to deter people from animal cruelty. “Animal cruelty is a serous issue. It is illegal to beat, torment, hurt, or otherwise harm any animal in any manner” (Maricopa.gov). Currently there is no tethering ordinance in place. Adopting the existing ordinances from either Tucson, Arizona or Little Rock, Arkansas would provide a more compassionate, beneficial way for a dog owner to care for a pet. The Tucson law states that “Tucson’s ordinance does not apply solely to dogs. A person has thirty days once he or she is found chaining an animal to provide other means of confinement, as long as other conditions of confinement and care are being met” (Unchain Your Dog). The Little Rock law states “Included in this ordinance is a ban on fixed-point chaining. Little Rock residents can no longer chain a dog to a tree or other stationary object. The minimum requirement for chaining is to install a trolley system that meets certain specifications. The trolley must be built to allow access to the maximum available exercise area” (Unchain Your Dog).
My proposal marries these two existing ordinances, and allows a tethered dog to have a greater chance to lead a fuller, healthier, happier life. Instead of giving the option of 30 days as stated in the Tucson law, Maricopa County will allow the dog owner a maximum of 15 days to either take the dog inside the home or build a trolley system with the appropriate shelter as it is specified in Little Rock’s law. “Doghouses must be structurally sound, waterproof, and windproof, and must protect the dog from temperature extremes” (Unchain Your Dog). Many owners who have their dogs outside tethered on chains frequently use them as guard dogs. However, dogs that are tethered do not make the best guard dogs. “Chained dogs become aggressive, not protective. An aggressive dog will attack anyone: the child next door, the meter reader, the mailman. The way to raise a protective dog, who knows how to distinguish friend from foe, is to socialize the dog and bring him inside with the family” (Unchain Your Dog). If there is an intruder, a chained dog won’t be able to do anything but bark.
If owners have multiple chained dogs in their property, their best bet is to take the dogs inside their homes or have a fence built if one is not present. If the dog is able to jump the fence, installing a fence extension or adding a slick reed to the fence will make it difficult for the dog to climb. If the dog is a digger, adding cement blocks or chicken wire lined at the bottom of the fence is effective. In my experience, this has worked like a charm.
There are numerous supporting allies such as the Humane Society of Arizona, Maricopa Animal Care and Control, Animal Welfare League, local veterinarians, dog trainers and other wildlife and environmental groups and advocates. We plan obtain the support of these groups, and also to introduce the ordinance to a well-known sponsor like our current Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is a big animal welfare supporter. As soon as the ordinance has a sponsor, we will start lobbying by providing information packets to other commissioners. We will send emails and letters, and make phone calls to commissioners to vote for this ordinance. We will also try to enlist the support of other elected officials. We will ask national organizations such as PETA and the ASPCA to write letters about the cause. We plan to provide information packets and brochures that can be handed out at pet stores and veterinary clinics to spread the word. In addition, we will join animal welfare advocates like Dogs Deserve Better and start branches in local communities to promote awareness. We will follow the advice on their Website: “Help with community awareness by hanging posters, showing the chained dog video, wearing one of our colorful T-shirts, or applying a sticker or magnet to your window/car to educate and provoke though in those around you” (Dogs Deserve Better). We will set up accounts for private donations at the local vets’ offices, local shelters and pet stores. These funds will be used to print more posters and flyers, as well as brochures with information about the tethering problem and our proposed solution. We will engage a volunteer work force to put up the posters and to pass the brochures throughout the community. We will also approach the local electricity and gas companies to enlist their support. We hope they will agree to back the cause and add a brochure or flyer with each customer’s bill.
Some individuals will fear the proposed solution to introduce an anti-tethering ordinance and will try to retaliate or keep it from happening. There has been a history of farmers believing too much power is given to animal rights activists. They have argued that this type of ordinance may make animal rights equal to human rights, and that the goal of animal activists is to go after livestock farmers. “If a dog being tethered all its life is against the law, then should keeping a chicken in a coop all its life be considered illegal also?” Extreme statements such as this could harm the cause (O’Neill).
Ontario, Canada did pass an anti-chaining law and farmers reacted negatively to the new regulation. Some ranching and farm lobbyists opposed the bill, noting that it could be interpreted to restrict tethering or penning of cattle. Farmers feared that their farms and livestock could be in jeopardy from the new law.
However, the head of the SPCA in Ontario pointed out that this law will not affect farmers as is it accepted by society. “There is no consensus in society to apply “psychological abuse” standards to cattle and chickens; farmers have nothing to worry about” (O’Neill). Therefore, it should be clear to farmers in this county that this law will not negatively affect their business.
Another group that promotes the tethering of dogs is the Dog Federation of New York. Mahlon Goer, a founding member of the foundation, states that “Tethering is as good a way of confining your dog as any other,” and that anti-tethering laws discriminate against responsible dog owners of limited financial means. She believes that if anti-tethering measures become law, people who can’t afford to buy or build a fence for their yard will have to get rid of their pets. “This law would cause people to relinquish their dogs when they can’t comply” (Dogster).
There have been great success stories for those communities that have implemented an ordinance against tethering dogs. One of these stories comes from the nearby city of Tucson that has successfully passed such an ordinance. Another example is that of Greater Nashville Animal Welfare (GNAW), a non-profit organization that was able to pass an anti tethering law and whose mission is to raise awareness about the dangers of chaining dogs. “With the success of this proposed ordinance, we will be able to educate the public and avoid attacks from psychologically disturbed dogs that have been tethered. The dogs will live in a more humane environment which will be beneficial to all of us including the proper treatment to our pet, the safety of our children and a happy owner” (GNAW). Their goal was to educate Nashville area dog owners about the dangers of tethering dogs to stationary objects for long periods of time to raise community awareness and educate the community about the humane treatment of animals. They have successfully accomplished this.
I once rescued a tethered dog from a neighbor’s yard. Her name was Daisy. Daisy lived the early part of her life tied to a tree without any shelter. Whether it rained or shined, if it was hot or cold, Daisy was always there. Her diet consisted of table food scraps set on the ground; water was given to her in an old bucket or she was sprayed down with the garden hose by her owner as a way to hydrate her. Daisy was not a friendly dog, and was aggressive to anyone who came near. I tried to interact with her from the other side of the fence. As time went by, she finally was able to trust me. Fed up with the situation, I walked over to my neighbor’s house and asked her if I could have her dog. Without hesitation, she agreed!
I changed Daisy’s name to Nina. Nina is now a happy indoor dog. She has taken great strides in becoming a more social dog and has learned to interact well with humans. She is still frightened by a hose, but is now healthy and happy. She is a great asset to my family. There are many dogs like Nina in our communities who need our help.
The Animal Law Coalition states that dogs, in particular, are social animals. Dogs are pack animals and the human family is their pack. “Chaining or tethering and crating or caging dogs away from the family isolates them and tends to make them frustrated, intensely bored, neurotic and aggressive.” The ASPCA advises setting a good example for others. “If you have pets, be sure to always show them the love and good care that they deserve.” Ensure a tether-free environment and allow your dog to live a vigorous, happy, healthy and safe life.
Works Cited
O’Neill, Terry. “I bark, Therefore I am” News Magazine Alberta Edition EBSCOhost 1 April 2002. Gateway Community Lib. 29 March 2007
“Animal Cruelty” Maricopa Animal Care and Control 25 March 2007
“Anti-Chaining Laws” Unchain your Dog 29 March 2007
Dogs Deserve Better 29 March 2007
Greater Nashville Animal Welfare 29 March 2007
“New Yorkers Protest To Continue Be Able To Tether Their Dog” Dogster.com 10 April 2007, 29 March 2007
“The Cruel, Dangerous Practice of Dog Chaining” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 29 March 2007
“The Facts about Chaining or Tethering Dogs” The Humane Society of The United States 29 March 2007
