- checking login information
Loading...Speak Up For Chained Dogs in New York
A bill that would limit tethering in New York was introduced earlier this month by New York City Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr.
“Chaining a dog and leaving it for hours is fair neither to the dog nor the people that must walk past it. This type of abuse can turn the nicest pet into an attack dog. We must send a message that this is no way to care for an animal,” said Vallone.
There are only a few communities that have regulations regarding chaining of dogs, and only a few states have banned it entirely. Dogs can be left outside with no food, water or access to shelter for their entire lives. They can suffer from inclement weather, attacks from other animals or die hanging themselves.
Chained dogs also pose a threat to their communities, and especially children. The National Canine Research Council reports that nearly 30% of all fatal dog attacks involve chained or penned dogs. Isolation at the end of a tether can lead to frustration and aggression for an incredibly social pack animal.
Intro. 425 in New York will limit the time for a dog to be tied to three hours in a 12 hour period. Warnings will be given for first time offenders, a $250 fine for a second offense and a $500 fine and/or three months in jail for a third offense.
Violations can be handed out by the NYPD, veterinarians at the Department of Health and employees of the ASPCA.
Sign Care2’s petition asking the New York City Council to limit dog chaining and pass Intro 425.
Check out Dog’s Deserve Better for a mountain of information on ways to help chained dogs in your community.
Related Stories:
California Man Seeks Help for Tethered Dog via YouTube
Woman Chains Herself to Doghouse in Protest
Read more: animal cruelty, animal neglect, animal welfare, chained dogs, dog bites, new york, peter vallone, tethering
creative commons
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may
not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
Recent Comments from Causes
Their pollution is not only their pollution. These countries do not have their own little pockets of…
This is an Abombination...In the name of "Science"... Shame on them..!!!
thank you for the interesting article
meet our writers
612 comments
+ add your ownIt's time to pass a new law to protect dogs and ban chains and tethers. Animals should not be abused, abandoned or mistreated. Give them care, love and respect.
this story is over a year old. Are there updates?
I agree with Elisa Z.
Nevertheless, it's a tiny step in the right direction... but tethering should be BANNED!
If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men. ---St. Francis of Assisi..."
I generally oppose tethering but there are times when it is absolutely necessary. Red Dogg was jumping a 6' fence in pursuit of squirrels. I obtained an anchor and a chain long enough that she had 35' to run. I tested that she could not reach the fence of wrap it around a tree. She obviously knew what a tether was because she refused to accept it. I finally had to spend over $1100 to place barb arms with straight wire at the top of the fence to contain her.
Shortly thereafter our city was writing a new animal control ordinance. The question of tethering came up. The new ordinance required access to food and water and required shelter as well as extreme temperature requirements. It was decided time limits would be unenforceable; therefore, it was idiotic to place time limits into effect. Here tethering requires supervision which means some one may look out the window periodically. I raised the question and video monitoring is considered supervision. Also for public safety, a dog may NOT be tethered in the FRONT yard unless an adult is physically present to supervise the dog.
Any ordinance should require food, water, and shelter as well as having temperature restrictions. Supervision should definitely be required for the safety of the dog.
People who chain their dogs for extended and unmonitored periods of time should have the dog
taken away. Some people want "watch dogs" and do not want the responsibility of treating the
animal humanely or as a family member. The dog is solely a possession and is to be put to work. They only intend to provide minimal care and if the dog gets ill and dies they acquire another one. Love and care have nothing to do with dog ownership. You have to prove more responsibility when buying a gun. If anyone lives or frequents a neighborhood that has
a dog chained for long periods of time report them! The dog can't help himself...
Here you go Deanna, an article about a dog who has spent his life on the end of a 4ft chain, until a neighbour paid to increase it to a 20ft cable.
The owner doesn't even care enough to get this dog out of the pound and now this unnamed pup waits to die or be saved.
Condoning tethering allows scum like this to continue abusing these dogs, it would not be allowed here, the owner would have been prosecuted by the RSPCA and probably received a prison sentence. I don't like much about the way England works, but I am glad that I am in a country which would not tolerate this suffering.
http://www.care2.com/news/member/457515986/2811143
There seems to be a lot of excuses to justify your actions, I don't know who you are trying to convince, me or yourself.
You were telling me what I was saying, so you were putting words into my mouth, although you got it all wrong as that was not what I meant at all.
Take you for example, you have had your dog 10 years, I assume that you have not been involuntary unemployed for 10 years, so any chance you could have got a fence or kennel then? Please don't tell me that in 10 years you have never bought anything for yourself that was not a necessity.
The point I was making is that people need to make provisions for their animals, if the dog is new and they can't afford a fence or kennel, they should not have got one in the first place, if the dog has been there for a while then they should have thought ahead (like they would with their children) and ensure that their dog needs will always be met.
There are no excuses, when we take on animals they do not get a choice, we do, they are totally dependant on us and it is our responsibility to protect them at all costs.
It is obvious that this is a serious problem in the US, I am appalled that you would stick up for the millions of callous people who blatantly neglect their dogs because you found the topic a bit too close to home and didn't like it.
My dog and I are together 100% of the time. But when summer comes, I can't take him with me to do errands because it gets too hot in the car. When I get a job, I have to leave him at home unless I get a night shift.
A dog should be able to pee and poo when they need to, which means that when I am gone, he SHOULD be outside. But I don't have proper containment, so he has to be tethered inside. If he isn't tethered, he goes nuts at our separation and destroys everything he can. So I keep my cardboard boxes, and when I come home, they are reduced to shreds.
And when I get a job, a fence will not contain him. He has jumped and/or climbed over/under, and/or torn up every fence ever used to contain him, and he has LITERALLY chewed through 2 doors.
I have finally found a tether that he can't get out of, but until I have been working for a few weeks, I can't afford to create a safe place for him outside. So he's stuck inside until then.
But he will STILL be on a tether for all the hours that I will be at work, which, by your own words, means that I shouldn't have him.
Alison,
I based my response based on what you said:
"If you can't afford a kennel, you shouldn't have a dog, if you can't afford a fence, you shouldn't have a dog! Simple. If you can't afford a kennel or a fence, then you can't afford unexpected vet bills... and guess what??? You shouldn't have a dog!"
And the accusation that it is "USUAL" for me to put words into people's mouths? Well that just tells me that you are grasping at straws to justify your heartless stance above.
I did not put words into your mouth. I DID challenged that you could believe what you said about dogs, but not about children. And if you want to say that I put words into your mouth by adding children to the mix, that is still a far cry from "usual."
YOU said I shouldn't have my dog. I can't afford a kennel, I can't afford a fence, and I can't afford unexpected vet bills. YOU are the one who said I shouldn't have my dog.
Cont........
login to add your comment
use your care2 login
add your comment