Anti Tethering Law....input, please

[RealPitBull]

Can I have some opnions on this bill?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sponsored by:

Assemblyman ANTHONY CHIAPPONE

District 31 (Hudson)


SYNOPSIS

Prohibits cruel restraint of dogs.
CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT

As introduced

An Act concerning animal cruelty, supplementing Title 4 of the Revised Statutes and amending R.S.4:22-26.


Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:


1. (New section) a. No person shall cruelly restrain a dog. A person cruelly restrains a dog if the person:

(1) chains, ties, fastens or otherwise tethers a dog to a dog house, tree, stake, pole, fence, wall or any other stationary object for more than three hours in a 24-hour period;

(2) regardless of how long a period of time, chains, ties, fastens or otherwise tethers a dog with any collar or similar device other than a properly fitted harness or buckle-type collar for the dog; or

(3) regardless of how long a period of time, uses a choke or prong collar on the dog when chaining, tying, fastening or otherwise tethering the dog.

b. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for cruel restraint of a dog that the actor:

(1) had a reasonable basis for the restraining of the dog;

(2) restrained the dog with a properly fitted harness or buckle-type collar; and

(3) did not use a choke or prong collar to restrain the dog.

c. Nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit a person from chaining, tying, fastening or otherwise tethering a dog to a running line, pulley, or trolley system, provided the dog is not attached to the running line, pulley or trolley system with a choke or prong collar.

d. A person who violates subsection a. of this section shall be guilty of a disorderly persons offense, and notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:43-3 to the contrary, for every such offense shall be fined not less than $250 nor more than $1,000, or be imprisoned for a term of not more than six months, or both, in the discretion of the court. A violator of this subsection shall also be subject to the provisions of subsection c. of R.S.4:22-17 and, if appropriate, subsection d. of R.S.4:22-17.



2. R.S.4:22-26 is amended to read as follows:

4:22-26. A person who shall:

a. (1) Overdrive, overload, drive when overloaded, overwork, deprive of necessary sustenance, abuse, or needlessly kill a living animal or creature, or cause or procure, by any direct or indirect means, including but not limited to through the use of another living animal or creature, any such acts to be done;

(2) Torment, torture, maim, hang, poison, unnecessarily or cruelly beat, or needlessly mutilate a living animal or creature, or cause or procure, by any direct or indirect means, including but not limited to through the use of another living animal or creature, any such acts to be done;

(3) Cruelly kill, or cause or procure, by any direct or indirect means, including but not limited to through the use of another living animal or creature, the cruel killing of, a living animal or creature, or otherwise cause or procure, by any direct or indirect means, including but not limited to through the use of another living animal or creature, the death of a living animal or creature from commission of any act described in paragraph (2) of this subsection;

(4) Cruelly restrain a dog;

b. (Deleted by amendment, P.L.2003, c.232).

c. Inflict unnecessary cruelty upon a living animal or creature, by any direct or indirect means, including but not limited to through the use of another living animal or creature; or unnecessarily fail to provide a living animal or creature of which the person has charge either as an owner or otherwise with proper food, drink, shelter or protection from the weather; or leave it unattended in a vehicle under inhumane conditions adverse to the health or welfare of the living animal or creature;

d. Receive or offer for sale a horse that is suffering from abuse or neglect, or which by reason of disability, disease, abuse or lameness, or any other cause, could not be worked, ridden or otherwise used for show, exhibition or recreational purposes, or kept as a domestic pet without violating the provisions of this article;

e. Keep, use, be connected with or interested in the management of, or receive money or other consideration for the admission of a person to, a place kept or used for the purpose of fighting or baiting a living animal or creature;

f. Be present and witness, pay admission to, encourage, aid or assist in an activity enumerated in subsection e. of this section;

g. Permit or suffer a place owned or controlled by him to be used as provided in subsection e. of this section;

h. Carry, or cause to be carried, a living animal or creature in or upon a vehicle or otherwise, in a cruel or inhumane manner;

i. Use a dog or dogs for the purpose of drawing or helping to draw a vehicle for business purposes;

j. Impound or confine or cause to be impounded or confined in a pound or other place a living animal or creature, and shall fail to supply it during such confinement with a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water;

k. Abandon a maimed, sick, infirm or disabled animal or creature to die in a public place;

l. Willfully sell, or offer to sell, use, expose, or cause or permit to be sold or offered for sale, used or exposed, a horse or other animal having the disease known as glanders or farcy, or other contagious or infectious disease dangerous to the health or life of human beings or animals, or who shall, when any such disease is beyond recovery, refuse, upon demand, to deprive the animal of life;

m. Own, operate, manage or conduct a roadside stand or market for the sale of merchandise along a public street or highway; or a shopping mall, or a part of the premises thereof; and keep a living animal or creature confined, or allowed to roam in an area whether or not the area is enclosed, on these premises as an exhibit; except that this subsection shall not be applicable to: a pet shop licensed pursuant to P.L.1941, c.151 (C.4:19-15.1 et seq.); a person who keeps an animal, in a humane manner, for the purpose of the protection of the premises; or a recognized breeders' association, a 4-H club, an educational agricultural program, an equestrian team, a humane society or other similar charitable or nonprofit organization conducting an exhibition, show or performance;

n. Keep or exhibit a wild animal at a roadside stand or market located along a public street or highway of this State; a gasoline station; or a shopping mall, or a part of the premises thereof;

o. Sell, offer for sale, barter or give away or display live baby chicks, ducklings or other fowl or rabbits, turtles or chameleons which have been dyed or artificially colored or otherwise treated so as to impart to them an artificial color;

p. Use any animal, reptile, or fowl for the purpose of soliciting any alms, collections, contributions, subscriptions, donations, or payment of money except in connection with exhibitions, shows or performances conducted in a bona fide manner by recognized breeders' associations, 4-H clubs or other similar bona fide organizations;

q. Sell or offer for sale, barter, or give away living rabbits, turtles, baby chicks, ducklings or other fowl under two months of age, for use as household or domestic pets;

r. Sell, offer for sale, barter or give away living baby chicks, ducklings or other fowl, or rabbits, turtles or chameleons under two months of age for any purpose not prohibited by subsection q. of this section and who shall fail to provide proper facilities for the care of such animals;

s. Artificially mark sheep or cattle, or cause them to be marked, by cropping or cutting off both ears, cropping or cutting either ear more than one inch from the tip end thereof, or half cropping or cutting both ears or either ear more than one inch from the tip end thereof, or who shall have or keep in the person's possession sheep or cattle, which the person claims to own, marked contrary to this subsection unless they were bought in market or of a stranger;

t. Abandon a domesticated animal;

u. For amusement or gain, cause, allow, or permit the fighting or baiting of a living animal or creature;

v. Own, possess, keep, train, promote, purchase, or knowingly sell a living animal or creature for the purpose of fighting or baiting that animal or creature;

w. Gamble on the outcome of a fight involving a living animal or creature;

x. Knowingly sell or barter or offer for sale or barter, at wholesale or retail, the fur or hair of a domestic dog or cat or any product made in whole or in part from the fur or hair of a domestic dog or cat, unless such fur or hair for sale or barter is from a commercial grooming establishment or a veterinary office or clinic or is for use for scientific research;

y. Knowingly sell or barter or offer for sale or barter, at wholesale or retail, for human consumption, the flesh of a domestic dog or cat or any product made in whole or in part from the flesh of a domestic dog or cat;

z. Surgically debark or silence a dog in violation of section 1 or 2 of P.L.2002, c.102 (C.4:19-38 or C.4:19-39);

aa Use a live pigeon, fowl or other bird for the purpose of a target, or to be shot at either for amusement or as a test of skill in marksmanship, except that this subsection and subsections bb. and cc. shall not apply to the shooting of game;

bb. Shoot at a bird used as described in subsection aa. of this section, or is a party to such shooting; or

cc. Lease a building, room, field or premises, or knowingly permit the use thereof for the purposes of subsection aa. or bb. of this section --

Shall forfeit and pay a sum according to the following schedule, to be sued for and recovered, with costs, in a civil action by any person in the name of the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or a county society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, as appropriate, or, in the name of the municipality if brought by a certified animal control officer or animal cruelty investigator:

For a violation of subsection e., f., g., u., v., w., or z. of this section or of paragraph (3) of subsection a. of this section, or for a second or subsequent violation of paragraph (2) of subsection a. of this section, a sum of not less than $3,000 nor more than $5,000;

For a violation of subsection l. of this section or for a first violation of paragraph (2) of subsection a. of this section, a sum of not less than $1,000 nor more than $3,000;

For a violation of subsection x. or y. of this section, a sum of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 for each domestic dog or cat fur or fur or hair product or domestic dog or cat carcass or meat product;

For a violation of subsection t. of this section, a sum of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, but if the violation occurs on or near a highway, a mandatory sum of $1,000;

For a violation of subsection c., d., h., j., k., aa., bb., or cc. of this section or of paragraph (1) or (4) of subsection a. of this section, a sum of not less than $250 nor more than $1,000; and

For a violation of subsection i., m., n., o., p., q., r., or s. of this section, a sum of not less than $250 nor more than $500.

(cf: P.L.2005, c.372, s.16)



3. This act shall take effect immediately.





STATEMENT



This bill revises current animal cruelty law to specifically identify the cruel restraint of a dog as both a criminal and civil offense. Cruel restraint of a dog is defined to include: (1) the chaining or tethering of a dog to a stationary object for more than three hours in a 24-hour period; (2) the chaining or tethering of a dog for any amount of time using any device other than a properly fitted harness or buckle type collar; or (3) the chaining or tethering of a dog for any amount of time with a choke or prong collar. Under the bill, cruel restraint of a dog would be a disorderly persons offense, and the criminal penalty therefore would be a fine of between $250 and $1,000, or imprisonment for up to six months, or both. This bill also provides for a civil penalty of $250 to $1,000 for persons who cruelly restrain a dog.

[crystalbbr]

Dec 26, 2008 14:11:37 GMT -5 RealPitBull said:

1. (New section) a. No person shall cruelly restrain a dog. A person cruelly restrains a dog if the person:

(1) chains, ties, fastens or otherwise tethers a dog to a dog house, tree, stake, pole, fence, wall or any other stationary object for more than three hours in a 24-hour period;


b. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for cruel restraint of a dog that the actor:

(1) had a reasonable basis for the restraining of the dog;

How will it be proven that a dog has been tied up for more than 3 hours?? and are they actually going to enforce this

For a defense to prosecution...what constitutes as a reasonable basis? The fact someone doesn't have a fence, and they keep their dog outside?

Just 2 things that popped out to me

[coolhandjean]

I am anti- anti-tethering bills. lol.

[bubsy]

Wow, yeah I have no idea how this would be enforced. I do agree about not tying out a dog on a choke or prong collar...I hope that would be common sense!

[coolhandjean]

Dec 29, 2008 17:53:28 GMT -5 bubsy said:

Wow, yeah I have no idea how this would be enforced. I do agree about not tying out a dog on a choke or prong collar...I hope that would be common sense!

Yeah, seriously. My boyfriend's sister had her dogs tied outside, and I noticed the one didn't have a collar. I said to her, "Listen, that is a majorly bad idea. That chain can get embedded in her fur. You need to get a collar." She tells me that the dog keeps slipping out of the collar and that the chain is only for a short time outside anyway. I told her to tighten the collar, and that it didn't matter if it was a short time or long time, the chain should never be used as the collar. Grrr. It made me mad. She did get a good collar, thankfully!

[lpyrbby]

I thought you guys might find this blog post fascinating, bot the post and the comments that follow. Great points through and through in my opinion.

www.dolittler.com/2008/12/01/Anti-tethering-ordinances-and-dog-welfare-The-poverty-argument.html

[emilys]

the problems with laws like this: it tries to cover every specific circumstance. But of course it can't, so it just looks like nitpicky "big brother" stuff.

That's the dilemma really: no one wants to see dogs tied up and left alone outside for hours on end. But how to protect dogs against that kind of neglect/abuse without absurd laws?

[RealPitBull]

I really like the idea of banning chokes/prongs on dogs that are tied out. I think THAT would be enforceable. A neighbor notices a dog staked out on a choke - can call AC, and AC has the law on their side.

I also don't know if anti-tethering laws are unenforceable. I am thinking about a particular dog that is chained out 24-7, with very minimal water/shelter. This dog, as it stands now, is 'ok' by law. AC will do nothing. But half the time the dog has wrapped himself around the tree he is chained to and cannot even reach his minimal shelter. Plus, as I said, he is out there ALL the time. This is a dog that belongs to a friend's neighbor. She has tried repeatedly to get this dog some help, but the owner isn't doing anything illegal. I have also dealt with the frustration of an obvioulsy neglected 24-7 chained dog and had AC do nothing because again, according to the law, the owner was within his right. I think a law like the above would help dogs stuck in miserable situations like these. I THINK but I'm not sure. I'm still on the fence about these types of laws.

[emilys]

but Mary, if the dog can't reach his shelter, that MUST be inhumane. Every law I've seen requires shelter.
This is a classic case of ACO not enforcing the law. I'd sooner you harassed HIM (or his boss) than agree to more laws.

[RealPitBull]

Well, the problem is that if the dog wasn't tied outside all the time, he wouldn't be getting tangled up in the first place. It happens repeatedly; dog is untangled and then ends up tangled again. It's very frustrating. But I agree, half the problem (or more than half) is that the current laws aren't even enforced.

[valliesong]

I am totally against 24/7 tethering or penning of dogs. There is no reason to have a dog if you do this. Get an alarm system - it's more effective and more humane. Dogs are not lawn ornaments.

Having said that, I don't know that 3 hours is a reasonable limit. If you have to use a tether as confinement for you dog, and say, are outside doing yard work or having a cookout, your dog could very well be tethered for longer than 3 hours. I think something like 6 or 8 hours would be more reasonable.

Tethering laws are just as enforceable as laws regarding nuisance barking, improper shelter, beating, etc. All AC needs is for a couple neighbors to witness or a video or photographs. Animal cruelty cases are often difficult to prosecute, but education and knowledge of the law will help innumerable dogs.

I also disagree with those who say anti-tethering laws will lead to mass surrenders of dogs. If someone surrenders their dog based on such a law, they were just looking for an excuse to do so, and it is highly doubtful that the dog was receiving adequate care and attention to begin with.

The life of a chained/penned dog is no life at all. Such social isolation for dogs appears to be a fate worse than death for an animal that only understands the present and not the future. They don't understand what death is, but they certainly do feel their constant suffering in the present.

[coolhandjean]

I think if there is going to be a limit. It should be something more like "You should have your dog off the chain at least 2-4 hours per day," instead of you can only tether your dog for 2-4 hours per day.

[RealPitBull]

OUCH. On a chain for 20 to 22 hours a day???? Anyway, I think that would be be something impossible to enforce. How could anyone prove a person DIDN'T take the dog off the chain for a few hours, unless someone was watching them all the time.

[lpyrbby]

You know, at this point, yeah something like that is going to affect the people that do know how to chain their dogs in a manner that still gives them stimulation and attention. But, considering the majority of the population who chains their dogs don't know a flyin' flip about what they area really doing to their dogs, a few people's feelings are going to have to be hurt. After reading Karen Delise's Fatal Dog Attacks...the chaining of dogs was a very large contributing factor in many deaths by attacks, especially on children...

I try to remain sympathetic to both sides of this fence, but I'm truly at a point where I'm for anti-tethering laws and I'm sorry that you (in general) know how to keep your dogs stimulated but for the amount of abuse so many of us see and hear about and are helpless to do anything about, it's just not worth it anymore to try and save your feelings.

How are we ever going to up the ante so to speak in everyone's comprehension of responsible dog ownership?

[RealPitBull]

Imagine, too, if tethering were outlawed. How many of these Pit Bull breeders with 50 or 100 chained dogs on their yard would get rid of dogs and cut way back on their breeding/selling? It's too easy to throw a dog on a chain in a yard and forget about it.

[bamapitbullmom]

I've watched this thread from the beginning and I guess finally I'll post.

Any anti-tethering ordinance/law which has stipulations; dog can only be tethered xx amount of time a day, probably won't fly simply b/c as most of you have already said, it would be nearly impossible to enforce.

Sort of like my city's stupid noise ordinance which includes barking dogs. 1. the dog must be barking incessantly for at least ten minutes 2. The police officer who responds must witness/hear the dog barking incessantly in order to cite the owners.

Problem is, usually when there's something interesting going on in the neighborhood, the bored, barking dog suddenly has some entertainment and is no longer barking when the officer arrives. Officers began to refuse to answer the calls b/c they were becoming a real waste of time. I certainly don't want my law enforcement running around on dog barking calls all day.

In my personal opinion, tethering, chaining, "tying up" dogs is unnecessary, inhumane, archaic and sort of defeats the point of owning a dog. There is a plethora of reasons why dogs should not be tethered so I skip that but it just seems so cold to me. Dogs are so social why in the world would anyone force them to live like that?

Not to mention pit bull owners, furthering the stereotype, supporting the bad dog perception that just the appearance of a chained dog in a dirt circle with a barrel for a dog house creates.

Another reason I am against it is because their are alternatives. People who live in apartments typically don't chunk their dogs out in the courtyard on tethers. Instead they clip on a leash, get off their butts and walk them. Lots of goodies happening there: exercise, socialization, bonding time, training opps, mental exercise, etc. Stuck on a chain? Frustration, exposure to elements, parasites, bugs, flies, other animals, seedy people, boredom, possible injuries, entanglement, etc.

I figure if someone chooses to own a dog (or dogs) then they should be physically, financially and realistically able to properly take care of them which does not include leaving them out in a yard on a chain. If you have too many dogs to walk...you have too many dogs, IMO.

There are two pit bulls that I drive by from time to time who are both chained in their red dirt front yard. Gorgeous brindle dogs, nice doghouses, shade, etc. But there they live every day, every minute, every second, every year on a chain in the same several feet of area. If it's raining they are there. Cold, hot, windy, humid, HURRICANE...they are there tied to their little doghouses.

It would make no difference to me if those dogs were allowed off those chains 3 hours a day or 20. It's the time they are on them, when they are simply property and in no need of supervision or protection in the eyes of the owner that gets me.

The only tethering I will ever approve of is closely supervised when there are no other options for structured play and outdoor time. I just cannot justify forcing a dog to live tied to something for any length of time.

[coolhandjean]

Jan 3, 2009 8:34:15 GMT -5 RealPitBull said:

OUCH. On a chain for 20 to 22 hours a day???? Anyway, I think that would be be something impossible to enforce. How could anyone prove a person DIDN'T take the dog off the chain for a few hours, unless someone was watching them all the time.

My dogs spend about that much time on a chain in a day. They are fine. They get exercise, play time, and get plenty of love and attention, which compared to many house pets I have come in contact, is more than many of them get.

To be completely honest with you, if they passed an anti-tethering ban in my area, where I could only keep my dogs tethered for four hours. I'd have to get rid of at least four of my dogs, and I wouldn't want to just give them to anyone, and I definitely wouldn't bring them to a shelter, so, as selfish as it might sound, I'd have to put them down. They are my responsibility, and if I can no longer contain them, and I already know I don't have the room in my house, I refuse to throw my responsibility on someone else, so, as much as it would hurt me, that would be my only option.

There is a proper way, and an improper way. If you are just throwing your dog on a chain to get exercise or never doing anything with it, then yes, I agree that it completely wrong.
If you have a proper set-up, exercise your dogs regularly (walking them, taking them swimming, etc), play with them (fetch, flirt pole, etc), spend time with them, then you aren't a bad owner for chaining your dogs.

I can tell you as someone who used to be very anti-chaining. I have changed my mind. My dog, Cuddles (lab/husky mix) used to be in a pen, a large amount of time. She ran out of grass within a month. When I moved her to NC, she was on a chain, she still has plenty of grass in her area, though she does enough to dig dens, and loves to lay in mud, so, there are many dirt spots around. Now I can't say, "Cuddles, do you prefer the pen or the chain?" But I can tell from her body language, and actions, that she is happier on the chain then she ever was in the pen. She, also, hates being inside. I have tried several times to let her come in, even when she was around six or seven months old. She'd enjoy it for maybe five minutes, and then it was whining at the door. I'd let her out thinking she'd have to pee. Bring her back in, and she'd sit at the door. She enjoys being outside. So, I am not going to just let her run around loose, because now her hearing is going, and she likes to go to the road. She likes to watch things.

So, if you (general you, not directed at anyone) feel I am a bad owner, because my form of containment is a chain, then I guess I will have to live with that. I believe I have come a long way as an owner. I believe I take great care of my dogs. Am I the best owner in the world? No, I still have a lot of improving to do. I know that. But am I neglectful or abusive? No. I am a good owner, who loves her dogs, and takes care of them, exercises them, makes sure they are happy and loved.

[RealPitBull]

Hey Jean, I don't doubt you are a good owner. And I do believe there is a 'wrong' way and a 'better' way to chain (although, as I've stated before, I am 100% anti chaining, and would never keep my dog on a chain - I'm not going to say there is a 'right' way to chain because I believe chaining your dog as a means for containment is not acceptable). I just think 20 hours a day chained up, kenneled up, or even left out in a yard alone is excessive and unfair to a dog. When I was growing up, we had outside dogs - they didn't come indoors, and although we spent a lot of time with them, they were still alone a lot of the time - outside or in the converted garage. And I look back and feel so sad that those dogs were kept that way. As an adult, I just don't see a reason to have a dog and not have it live indoors with you.

The thing is, too, that once in a while, when a dog would be brought into the house for this reason or that reason, they acted uncomfortable, unsure, unhappy, and restless - and were anxious to get back outdoors. Do I think those dogs didn't 'like' being inside and preferred to be outdoors all the time? No. I realized that being out of doors was what they were used to. They were not socialized to an indoor setting, and so acted uncomfortable in the home.

A chain is one of the most abused tools in canine husbandry. In many/most cases it is the lazy man's way out, an excuse, and an easy way to forget/neglect a dog. Now I'd never have more dogs than I could comfortably contain in my home. That's me.

It's funny, when I first got into Pit Bulls, soooooooo many people tried to lead me to believe that chaining was the ONLY way you could keep a Pit Bull. Especially if you had more than one! I realize now that chaining in the Pit Bull world is more about tradition - since pit dog people often had SO many dogs - and encouraged inter-dog aggression - chaining was the logical, economic thing for them to do. I wish so many of these breeders and people with multiple dogs today would break out of this mindset, cut back on the numbers of dogs they own/breed, and start treating dogs like living beings instead of collection pieces.

[coolhandjean]

I guess you can think I am lazy if you like. I know I am not.

I know a fence wouldn't keep them in, and even if I had a fence, I'd be an idiot to let them run free together, too much room for something bad to happen.

I personally feel leaving a dog in a crate inside the house all day is cruel, since the dog can't freely walk around or use the bathroom.

I don't know about the inside thing. I have been bring Hawken, Locus, and Morgan inside the house, for some quality time, and they like it. Cuddles never did. I don't believe she ever will. I know my dog's behavior. I can tell whether they like something or are just uncomfortable with it. Cuddles, believe it or not, doesn't like being inside. I even spoke to my boyfriend's brother about it, and he says many of the sled dogs in Alaska are like that.

So, even though, my dogs are in great shape, happy, and exercised, I shouldn't have them? Yeah, that makes sense. I know so many people that have inside dogs, and I rarely ever see that dog exercised, except for maybe a few minutes outside to run around a small yard.

My dogs may be chained, but they all get along with each other, and I allow them to play with each other, supervised of course. So, I am not encouraging them to be aggressive toward each other, and when they see another dog on a walk, I have been working on a "Ignore" command.

I will never understand why people always feel their way is right, so, they must impose their will on someone else. If my dogs are healthy, happy, and exercised, who is anyone to tell me how to contain them, how many dogs I should have, and/or how my dogs "feel"?

If you don't like to chain, that is fine. I would never force you to chain your dogs. Like I said above, I don't agree with keeping a dog kenneled all day either, but I am not going to try to pass laws to stop it, because for some people that is the only choice (i.e. apartment living, dangerous neighborhood, etc). I don't hold it against them, and lump them all in the same category.

Lumping all people who tether their dogs or have multiple dogs into the same category is no better than the people who lump all "pit bulls" together as vicious dogs, especially when one tries to impose laws on that person.

Also, going after an item like a chain doesn't address the problem. The problem isn't the chain. The problem is abusive and neglectful owners. Whether chaining is allowed or not, those people will continue to be abusive/neglectful. Heck, they will probably keep on chaining till they get a fine, and then once they get the fine, they will let the dog run free throughout the neighborhood, which creates a bigger problem than a chain. Why don't AC and the like start enforcing the laws they have now, instead of enacting more laws they either won't enforce or can't enforce?

[valliesong]

The bottom line is that dogs are social animals. If my dogs were outside 12 hours a day and I was outside WITH them, it would not be an issue. What IS a problem is social isolation. Even when I was working 12 hour days, the other 12 hours were spent with the dogs.

And quite honestly, I am (almost) as much against keeping a dog in the basement, garage, or any other space where the family does not spend the majority of their time as I am against chaining/penning. The only improvement there is that the dog is not exposed to the elements.

With dogs, it is not just quality time but quantity of time. They are with me when I am sleeping, when I am cooking, when I am reading, and when I am on the computer. That presence and contact means A LOT to a species that has always lived in a group, and has been bred over millenia to thrive on contact with humans.

The only exception I can think of is a flock guardian dog that is bonded to the flock instead of humans, and most of these dogs still spend time with the farmer when he/she is working.