Anti Tethering Law....input, please

[angels8]

Ok, I have read what everyone take is on this and I stand on both sides of the fence, pin, kennel, chain and road.

I agree that dogs are very social creatures but what we as pitbull owners know is that our dogs can and have a tendency to be dog aggressive. So making a multiple pitbull home work without crates or outside containment and with a full time out of the home job seems like a ticking time bomb to me. Both of my girls are crate girls. They were, until i started my position working from home, in their crates for 9-10 hours a day but then they were out at night, on each side of my lap on the couch and getting snuggled in the middle of the bed all night. So yes I am a pro-crate/containment person. Dogs sleep most of the day and they don't really watch the clock so I don't think that is a huge deal for them to be crated that long. Heck, Now I am home all day and all they do is sleep on the couch behind me instead of in their crates.

If I had more than 2-3 dogs or a reputable bloodline as a respectable breeder, I would have to say that my dogs would be chained out when I was not home, or maybe even most of the time like Jeans 20-22 hrs a day- of course it would be with proper shade and no way to tangle themselves or get to each other. If anything it would be similar to the pictures I have seen of Marty's. He is a man who believes in a true bulldog, down to the inherent nature of our dogs I also know that the world would probably stop for his dogs if needed too. I would like to think he is an excellent example of a owner who uses tethering for management of his dogs. I also know of breeders and people who have their dogs tethered and spend load of time with them each day.

Instead of new unenforceable laws, I think existing laws need be cleaned up and more discretion given to the ACO, Have the ACO use some common sense. If you are out in the boondocks with 10 dogs, on tethers with excellent outdoor living conditions for each dog individually then great so be it! But if it is a single or 2 dogs wasting away on 10' log chains outside a home in the city then something needs to be done. snarling or yelping like unsocial lunatics - then it is time to remove the dogs and fine the owners. There is a visible difference and some common sense just needs to be applied to the situation.

I know that a lot of you will disagree but this is my .02

[bamapitbullmom]

Okie dokie....

[RealPitBull]

We can all have our own opinions on this, certainly. I wouldn't call Marty or Jean bad owners because from what I know about them (limited, admittedly), they seem to take great pride in and care of their dogs. And I too believe that Pit Bulls shouldn't be kept together unattended.

But for me, personally, I just don't agree with the concept of chains being an acceptable means of housing a dog. If my choice was to have 10 dogs but keep them chained, or only have 2 or 3 dogs and keep them indoors, I'd choose the latter.

[bamapitbullmom]

Without getting back into my personal feelings about why I am anti-chaining, it also furthers the stereotype that this breed is dangerous (requires chains) and I just simply don't see the point.

The only other breed/type of dog which to this day is "acceptably" housed in this manner is sled dogs. You generally see no other type of dog which is housed in a "yard" such as how many pit bulls are housed.

Lots of people have multiple to high numbers of pit bulls, all chained in a yard. Why is it that we don't see the same with other breeds? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I would challenge the numbers.

[RealPitBull]

I too have to wonder why it is viewed as ok in the APBT world to keep these dogs chained in the large numbers that they are. Without attacking anyone or judging, from a point of 'why', I'd like to discuss this.

I know the typical explanations are:

1) Because they are dog-aggressive (I'd have to argue that keeping dogs on chains isn't necessarily going to help that )

2) Because a person has too many dogs to keep them safely housed indoors.

3) Because there is more square footage available to a chained dog than a crated or kenneled dog (which I'd answer by saying I don't think dogs should be kept as a matter of course in kennels or in crates, either. Crates are a management tool, not a lifestyle!)

For sake of a (civil!) argument, I'm throwing this out there - the people getting raided have been people who keep large numbers of dogs chained in yards. Now, I am by NO means implying that keeping lots of Pit Bulls on chains is reason to be raided!!!!!!! BUT let's face it - chaining large numbers of Pit Bulls is the traditional way dog fighters kept their dogs. So, I'd wonder why anyone would risk keeping their dogs like this instead of considering other ways of housing/caring for Pit Bulls.

Let's also face facts, here - most dog fighters today ('pro' dog fighters) keep their dogs chained. If there were anti tethering laws, would that alone help to deter some of these people from keeping the massive numbers of dogs they do? It's relatively cheap to keep a bunch of dogs on logging chains tied to barrels - not so cheap to keep the same number in properly constructed kennel runs. What if erecting proper kennel runs or housing dogs indoors were their only options, because chained dogs immediately brought the law in?

I know there is still a pervasive mentality in the Pit Bull world that says the only way to keep Pit Bulls is to keep them on heavy chains. I know that when I first got into this breed, I was made to believe that my six foot stockade fence would NOT hold my Pit Bull and he'd have to be chained in the yard. It's funny looking back on it now, thinking that my little pansy dog would have to be chained. He was SUCH a baby, and I think I put him on a chain all of one or two times before I thought, "This is SOOOOOOOO STUPID". None of my other dogs were ever chained, even my crazy Siberian Husky. Why did my sweet, innocent little pansy dog have to be chained???? JUST because he was a Pit Bull??? PSHAW! (FWIW, the most dogs I've had at one time was six, including two bulldawgs, and I managed them via crates, doors, a yard, and 3 large runs.)

[angels8]

Ok For Civil arguments sake, I see your point and I feel it is VERY valid. But We all saw what Vick did to the dogs, assuming these modern "dogmen" are force to no longer "chain" their dogs, I see them just getting stock piled a la Katrina in crates for their lves until thier fight to the death. Do you think they will be heated or A/C'd?? I really don't, I think more will die in the "housing" process except for their "game winners". It just seems that allowing ACO more discretion imakes far more sense nstead of placing new laws on the chaining.

Mar 2, 2009 11:37:11 GMT -5 RealPitBull said:

For sake of a (civil!) argument, I'm throwing this out there - the people getting raided have been people who keep large numbers of dogs chained in yards. Now, I am by NO means implying that keeping lots of Pit Bulls on chains is reason to be raided!!!!!!! BUT let's face it - chaining large numbers of Pit Bulls is the traditional way dog fighters kept their dogs. So, I'd wonder why anyone would risk keeping their dogs like this instead of considering other ways of housing/caring for Pit Bulls.

Let's also face facts, here - most dog fighters today ('pro' dog fighters) keep their dogs chained. If there were anti tethering laws, would that alone help to deter some of these people from keeping the massive numbers of dogs they do? It's relatively cheap to keep a bunch of dogs on logging chains tied to barrels - not so cheap to keep the same number in properly constructed kennel runs. What if erecting proper kennel runs or housing dogs indoors were their only options, because chained dogs immediately brought the law in?

I know there is still a pervasive mentality in the Pit Bull world that says the only way to keep Pit Bulls is to keep them on heavy chains. I know that when I first got into this breed, I was made to believe that my six foot stockade fence would NOT hold my Pit Bull and he'd have to be chained in the yard. It's funny looking back on it now, thinking that my little pansy dog would have to be chained. He was SUCH a baby, and I think I put him on a chain all of one or two times before I thought, "This is SOOOOOOOO STUPID". None of my other dogs were ever chained, even my crazy Siberian Husky. Why did my sweet, innocent little pansy dog have to be chained???? JUST because he was a Pit Bull??? PSHAW! (FWIW, the most dogs I've had at one time was six, including two bulldawgs, and I managed them via crates, doors, a yard, and 3 large runs.)

[bamapitbullmom]

Angels8~ With all due respect, have you ever met an ACO which covers a rural area?

[RealPitBull]

Some of Vick's dogs were chained. And I know Vick was made out to be this big time dog fighter, but he wasn't and wasn't breeding dogs and had no idea what he was doing. He wasn't what anyone would call a 'professional' fighter. As dog fight busts go, he really was the exception and not the norm.

The problem with the laws right now is that ACOs can largely use their own discretion. IF you can even get them out to check a dog in the first place. IMO, as time goes on and I think more and more about it, it would be much more clear cut if chaining, as a way of life, was just banned period.

[bamapitbullmom]

There were kennels on the Vick property. Chaining isn't viewed as just a means to contain a pit bull, these hug chains are considered muscle building (which ironically make a dog's neck weaker).

By eliminating chains, I agree that treatment and proper housing likely won't be employed but I do feel that it's a step in the right direction. People who don't give a crap about their dogs are still going to mistreat them. Banning chaining will make it more difficult for these guys to keep large numbers of dogs.