11 comments:
by Monica C. Schreiber
3/14/2008 3:09 PM |
Flag as abusive
People CAN still chain their pitts and rotties (ironically thereby increasing the chances that the dogs turn neurotic and aggressive), they just can't do it overnight, per the terms of the proposed law. The provision disallowing chaining from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. would obviously be difficult to enforce, but it nevertheless offers an important tool for AC officers to use to combat the problem of 24/7 lifetime chaining, which is a terrible form of abuse.
People who see no other alternative but to chain their dogs during the day could bring their dog inside at night, thereby also lessening the burden of neighbors who are often bothered by angry, frustrated dogs barking through the night.
by
3/14/2008 5:05 PM | Flag as abusive
Still gotta wonder how many maulings have ocurred after a Pit jumps a fence...They can easily jump a 4 foot fence from the sitting position, a six footer isn't much more of a problem for them.
by
3/14/2008 5:16 PM | Flag as abusive
i think it would be easy to enforce the no tether ban between 10 pm and 6 am since bored neglected dogs tend to bark-a lot.
it is unfortunate that we as a nation have not completely outlawed tethering. if people can not afford to humanely house and confine their dogs, they should not have one. people complain that it unfairly discriminates against the poor. i say too bad. are my rights violated because i can only afford to drive a toyota when i really want a lexus? if you want a harvard education but can only afford a 2 yr technical college, is that discrimination?
by
3/14/2008 6:49 PM | Flag as abusive
The overnight chaining is a start. I wish it were 24/7.
by
3/15/2008 12:16 PM | Flag as abusive
I think making people get used to the idea that new laws are coming, is a very important. This problem did not get this bad over night and it will take some time to solve. We need to let these pit bullers know it's not going to be a free run.
Our city council is not going to change our dog ordinance, but the people are now calling the Police to report problems with pit bulls. These people are being stood up to. We don't have to take it any more.
by
3/15/2008 1:48 PM | Flag as abusive
FYI...A google search of "Pit Bull jumps fence" produces 608,000 hits!
I don't know what the safe solution is....
by
10/12/2008 8:46 PM | Flag as abusive
Some people claims that poor people are being targeted with this anti-tethering law. How? According to them the government is lurking in every corner watching if you are poor and owns a dog to take it away. For god's sake give a break!! Why do they own a dog to begin with it and tied the animal outside for life? Why? In my book that is called cruelty, torturing a living being and condemning to lived a chained life.
by
3/19/2009 9:09 PM | Flag as abusive
This should have been something that was enforced a long long time ago. I have heard of many friends losing their dogs cause they jump where their chain can't reach therefore strangling them. This NEEDS to be passed and enforced. It's easy to pass a bill but not so much enforcing it. That's when we as humans come in to protect our animals!
by
3/21/2009 7:51 AM | Flag as abusive
Our council is working on stronger animal control laws for our officer. We have had more than a few bite cases & dogs breaking off chains in the last year. Nearly a year ago one resulted in a child's death on her own property by the family's own chained dog. The latest attack was not severe, but it was a pit bull terrier that pulled a stake out of the ground and attacked a school teacher protecting the children. Her wounds were superficial but it caused a public outcry in our community. So I am researching what is better and what works best, breed bans or tethering limits. I am a bit skeptical because responses to this question on other forums led to some nasty accusations and insults thrown at me, so I hope you will be kind and realize I have no background in this subject and am faced with many of our citizens who requested to be on the agenda and they want to see action of some sort. And this is an election year so I choose not put my last name at this time.
by
3/21/2009 12:09 PM | Flag as abusive
Anti-tethering is always a good place to start. To truly get at the pit bull problem, you should consider a law modeled after the Little Rock law. The only missing component in the Little Rock law is mandatory liability insurance.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12237282/Little-Rock-Arkansas-Pit-Bull-Law
Essentially you need 3 components:
1) Mandatory sterilization of pit bulls
2) Mandatory liability insurance for pit bull owners
3) Pit bull breeders must have special permits
See San Francisco pit bull breeder rules and regulations:
"Breeders must now apply for a license annually; provide a proper physical environment; register their dogs with the appropriate registry; show proof of participation in at least 1 sanctioned dog show; show proof of health screenings; limit each female to 1 litter per year and pay a $100 permit fee."
http://www.sfgov.org/site/acc_index.asp?id=68054#SEC._44._REQUIRING_A_PERMIT_FOR_THE_BREEDING_AND_TRANSFERRING_OF_PIT_BULL_PUPPIES.
by
3/24/2009 7:46 PM | Flag as abusive
People get so upset when others say that tethering is unfair to the poor. What they are actually saying is just because you are poor you are uneducated and don't care about your pets. That is not the case. You do not have to be rich to love your dog and have it sleep inside, being poor does not mean you are lazy and can't house train it and take it for a walk. I know so many poor people feeling discriminated by the statement because it implies they are not as good as rich people.
Post a Comment »
| 
