Aug 12 2009
HUMANE SOCIETY OF UTAH TO INTRODUCE PROPOSED ORDINANCE
Monday August 10th The Humane Society of Utah scheduled a press conference to announce its intention to ask for an ordinance in Salt Lake County that would prohibit people from keeping their dogs tethered outside on a chain for more than eight cumulative hours in any given 24-hour period, or for any time under extreme weather conditions.
“This law would provide exemptions under appropriate circumstances,” explains HSU Executive Director Gene Baierschmidt, “for example, if the dog’s tether is attached to a running line, or during training activity, shepherding or herding of livestock, or conduct related to the business of carrying out agricultural projects.” More than 100 jurisdictions in 30 states have already passed anti-tethering ordinances, from places as small as Live Oak, TX, to Los Angeles. Says Mr. Baierschmidt.
“It’s up to the public to improve the lives of chained dogs,” Mr. Baierschmidt says and cites the following specific reasons why a tethering ordinance is needed:
Dogs who live chained up outside suffer from extreme isolation. The lack of socialization creates fearful dogs who act quickly and fiercely to defend their territory from all intruders, including other animals, people, and small children.
Dogs are pack animals, which means that they naturally crave companionship. Chained dogs live an existence which is contrary to their instincts. The lack of socialization is a large part of what makes chained dogs more dangerous.
Chained dogs are at risk of getting hurt. They are vulnerable to dangers like extreme weather, inability to escape attacks from people or other animals, and strangulation from getting the tether tangled or caught.
Chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite, and 5.4 times more likely to bite children, than are dogs who live indoors as part of the family.
Outdoor dogs who bark at all hours can result in late-night police calls and problems with neighbors. Ordinances which require dogs to be inside overnight significantly reduce (and possibly eliminate) such issues.
The Humane Society is quick to refute common objections they hear to anti-tethering ordinances. To the claim that the government can’t interfere with people’s “property” — i.e., their dogs — officials point out that the government already has laws in place to protect both animals and citizens from abuse and danger; a chaining ordinance would simply be an extension of regulations already in place.
If passed, punishment for violation of this ordinance would be anything from issuing a warning citation on the first offense up to charging the dog owner with a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of as much as $1,000 for repeated offenses.
Technorati Tags: attorney, government, law, laws, Litigation, utah
