New tethering laws in Texas - Page 2

I think it might be a bit different in the cities. Out here in po dunk county, when folks chain a dog that is basically the last time the animal has any kind of human interaction. The dogs get meaner so the owners stay away. I for 1 am sick of seeing dogs out on a chain in 30 degree weather with only a peice of plywood for shelter. I am glad for the new law altho I dont think it is really going to make a difference.

Therese

Angela be a bit careful what you support. If you go to the HSUS site and check their legislation page you will see that this a a nationwide project on their part. The CA version initially included crating as well as tethering - then where would you be. Tethering like most things in the world can be good or bad depending on how it is used. Years ago when living in New England where fenced yards are very uncommon, I tried using a cable system between trees. Technically under the law that is tethering even tho the dog  could move through an area roughly 20 x 100 ft. Did my dog become aggressive - no because that was not her whole life and she was trained and she was socialized. I was not really satisifed with this method for a number of reasons ( it leaves your dog at the mercy of a free running aggressor for one) and I personally choose not to use it anymore prefering kennels and fenced yards. But as pointed out there are those who think that is cruel also. You may want to read http://pet-law.com/future/ar_laws2.html.  The whole site is well worth reading esp his personal story of how he got involved.

The problem is we think we can legislate morality - you can't. As some noted a lot of these dogs now will run free to be hit by cars or end up in shelters. With any legislation it is almost more important to look at the unintended consequences than the intended ones.

I also have a problem with many of these laws because of who is behind them and what the real agenda is. As noted this is a project of HSUS. PETA learned that they could not defeat animal ownership head on so ergo the creation of the new legislative arm of HSUS ( run by former PETA officers and staffers). http://hsus.org/legislation_laws/state_legislation/ What they have learned is they can nickel and dime us to death by pulling out the emotional card of the poor abused animal - they never acknowledge the healthy safe examples. The issue on the collars is not an accident either - that is one of their next agenda items -"aggressive" training devices. (USA members read your failed executive committee motions and be outraged)  I'm sorry a piece of string in the WRONG hands can be an aggressive training device and an e-collar in the right hands can save a dogs life.  The Green party in Europe(wh/ was the birthplace of the AR movement) has already had great success in banning all but flat collars. Now a question for you - if you have a dog that simply can not be worked on a flat collar or you are like me w/ very little hand strength what do you do? The AR answer is just don't own a dog - wh/ reveals their true motive all along - the extinction of pet animals ( just read their own words and the publically acknowledge that that is there ultimate aim.)

A short addendum and a heads up to keep an eye out in your state

Another law HSUS is pushing nationally and got thru CA while we we fighting AB1634 is the spousal protection order scam. How it is presented is this - we have a spouse being abused and the abuser also threatens to hurt the animal so lets write a law that the pet can be included in the protection order. Well of course we're all on board with that right so what's the problem? The problem is the language they write the law with. Again they learned they can not succeed with guardianship vs ownership by being upfront so they are going in the back door. If you look at the language in these bills(and it's all the same state to state because it comes out of HSUS national HDQTRs), the language is that of guardianship. The abused spouse is given care, custody and control - the judge does NOT determine ownership - merely guardianship tho that word is not used in the bills. But language is an art in the law and care, custody and control is the language of guardianship. So when this bill comes to your state - do not oppose because it is a good idea BUT TAKE ACTION and get that language out of the bill and insert a sentence that states the judge will award temporary OWNERSHIP for safety's sake to the abused spouse until permanent OWNERSHIP can be determined at a later date. The bills as written and already passed are merely setting the stage for the future battle re ownership vs guardianship. It gives them the opportunity to say to a court - but look we have already acknowledged the need for and the existence of guardianship. The law in this country operates on the basis of stare decisis - what came before continues. This is a huge step up for them and it's just sliding in under the radar. For why you should be concerned about that see http://pet-law.com/future/future1.html  and http://pet-law.com/future/HSUS.html. I also have a much more detailed white paper that was created for the CVMA on this but it's a pdf doc and I only know how to link it to an email.

FYI,  AB1634 is NOT yet defeated. It is only on hold til January. THE DAY IT WAS PULLED - not the day after or the week after but THAT DAY the writer and sponsors started advertising directly to the CA Assembly and Senate about the bill coming back inJanuary.  There is a small daily print newpaper that also has an online version and a daily  "roundup" that goes out to all CA politicos. They ahve been running in your face up front advertisements there ( and using other people's trade names, trademarks and copyrighted material wh/ I called them and the newpaper on and got them to at least stop doing that).

Also w/in a wk of the bill being pulled they got Best Friends to change it's position from nuetral non-support to a promise to support - NO MATTER HOW IT IS WRITTEN. Wonder how much moola THAT cost them but since they are backed by a billionaire and similar moneyed types I guess it doesn't matter.

Sooooo  We are merely taking a breather and time to regroup, recharge  adn revitalize. Please let people know the battle is not over and ask them to join us in the fight at www.PetPac.net  and www.saveourdogs.net.

Ang, I have an email list that updates a number of GSD folks about the progress of AB1634. They then take the message and spread to their friends and cohorts. May I add your email to that list?

I have newly moved to Texas and this morning my husband was watching tv and had to wake me up to hear this. I don't have german shep. once did but I have coon hound and other small breeds. I was as a breeder was blown anyway that this bill has even got this far. I myself fell that us as dog owners feel that we must fight these deranged laws. Respondable dog owners shall not have to pay for PETA'S  crazy idea's. I am not sure how am going to go about this but I have a friend in michigan that is the president of michigan coonhunter Ass. and he fight crazy thing like this all time. I hope that I may get as much help from this board and any other dog board or anybody that any of you may know that can help. I do have dog kennel also but I also have some hounds that you couldn't keep them in a kennel if yopu tried.  Also my point is that this is so very negitive. I feel myself that this law will hurt more dog then it will do good. Please send any info or idea's my way. I need it.

Jenny

I have a friend who will tether her dog to the front porch, leave food and water within reach, and take off on vacation for a week. She does notify a neighbour, and ask them to keep an eye on the dog, in case it gets wrapped around the post, and can't move. When I lived with her during my single days, I was totally aghast to see her do this, and had to really pressure her to put up a fence. This wasn't hard to do, as the yard was already fenced on 3 sides, and the carport sealed off a good part of the unfenced part.. I remember wishing at the time that there was a law against what she was doing to this poor dog. If there had been, friendship be damned, I would have called Animal Control.

When I adopted Ranger, my step-father told me about his owner tethering him on an 8 foot tieout, with a choke chain around his neck, and not noticing the chain was damaging his neck until it was embedded in the flesh. I have heard of similar situations where the chain actually killed the animal by severing the trachea or esophagus. When you hear and read about stuff like this, the law seems like a good idea. However, you can't legislate against stupidity and ignorance, and no doubt, now there will be dogs running loose. Some dogs laugh at fences - my puppy's mom scaled an 8 ft. chainlink kennel run fence, and opened a gate to get herself preggers - and I can just see their owners shrugging and saying, "What can I do? It's too epensive to make the fence dog-proof, or put in a kennel!"

Good luck to the animal control folks...I can just see them tearing their hair out, trying to enforce this one! Maybe they'll be crying for it to be repealled in a year or so!