Forsyth County votes to limit tethering
It’s not the outright ban some were hoping for, but the Forsyth County Commissioners last night approved limiting the practice of chaining or tethering dogs.
The board, by a 4-3 vote, approved an amendment to the North Carolina county’s animal-control ordinance that will make it illegal to tether a dog in such a way as to harm the animal.
The limits won’t go into effect for two years, to allow for a period of public education, the Winston-Salem Journal reported.
The county’s animal-control advisory board had recommended a total ban on tethering.
Once the two-year grace period is over, it will be illegal to tether dogs in such a way that puts them at risk of choking or other injury, or if it causes the dog to behave neurotically or aggressively.
Posted by jwoestendiek August 30th, 2011 under Muttsblog.
Tags: amendment, animal control, animals, anti-tethering, ban, behavior, chaining, choking, commissioners, dogs, forsyth county, harmful, injury, limits, north carolina, ordinance, pets, risk, tethering, tying, winston-salem
Comments
Comment from junglejim
Time August 31, 2011 at 6:48 am
A tethering ban is SUCH a misguided policy! I suppose that those in favor would prefer to see the cold and lifeless form of a dog killed in traffic as opposed to one so “cruelly restrained.” I have had four dogs in my last 40 years that spent the bulk of their lives tethered to well engineered “runs” in my yard. I have seen many, many dogs killed by not being restrained, and have seen one killed while trying to escape from a pen (a humane enclosure?) Ban should be rescinded before it takes effect.
Comment from smoketoomuch
Time August 31, 2011 at 11:00 am
“I have had four dogs in my last 40 years that spent the bulk of their lives tethered to well engineered “runs” in my yard.”
And did you also somehow manage to engineer Love, and Belonging (pack membership) into your tethered runs? I feel for those poor dogs. Dogs belong in the house with their human providers / companions.
Comment from junglejim
Time September 1, 2011 at 6:55 am
Yea smoketoomuch, my dogs were members of my family “pack” and enjoyed as much love as any canine could. They didnt have to sit and whine at the door if they needed to go relieve themselves, they enjoyed something else few modern canines enjoy by performing a valuable service for the “pack” – They provided security for both entrances to our home as well as kept critters out of my garden. These dogs spent most nights in the house with me, but even when tethered, had safe and easy access to food, water and shelter. Some of us have to work for a living, is it humane to leave your dog cooped up in your house all day while you are away?
Comment from smoketoomuch
Time September 1, 2011 at 12:01 pm
junglejim – if you’ve done as you describe, then a tethering ban would likely not apply to you. They are meant to keep the idiots of this world from chaining their dogs to a tree or a post in the hot sun (or freezing cold) on a 3 foot choke hold without the minimum necessities of life.
That said, your initial argument is a specious one. Allowing one’s dog to roam at will is not the only alternative to tethering. Somewhere between “Chain ‘em up” and “Let ‘em run wild” you’ll find the vast majority of dogs belonging to responsible owners and leading happy, interesting, useful, and comfortable lives.
Comment from junglejim
Time September 3, 2011 at 3:58 pm
OK. I suppose that I am not up-to-snuff on what specifics the tethering ban entails. I would hope that the responsible use of safe and secure tethering would remain lawful for those who do it correctly. The bottom line is… neglect is neglect, which can occur in a house, car, or with any of the methods of restraining. I would think that such negligence and neglect as you describe could have been addressed without singling out dog tethering.
Comment from Scott
Time April 13, 2012 at 11:17 am
Why do ignorant people feel the need to get a dog, just to have it tied up outside. Brainless. Bring the dog inside. Share the love. What is wrong with these people ?
Comment from S Moore
Time January 14, 2013 at 2:52 pm
I agree…share your house or don’t get a dog. There is just no reason for these stupid people to get a dog just to chain it up in their backyard…doesn’t do the dog or the person/idiot any good at all.
Comment from smoketoomuch
Time August 30, 2011 at 4:09 pm
A one vote margin and a two year delay in implementation of an already weak bill (featuring broad and unspecific language)? Don’tcha just love politicians? Buncha cowards if you ask me. My only other thought – “Dogs deserve [so much] better”.