i know it is horrible to see a dog chained to a big old oak tree in the backyard with no grass because it has been "weathered" away by the pacing dog. and i saw on tv the other day that durham county (or maybe just the city of durham) passed an ordinance making it illegal to have a dog chained.
i also realize that research shows that dogs that are chained are more likely to bite, etc. etc. etc. and i understand that.
but what i don't understand is how this:
is any better (i.e. less cruel) than this:
i see that those kennels at least have dog houses in them, although it is not covered nor do the dogs have the luxury of shade.
so i found a better shot of a kennel (no dog in it)... this one costs about $150, which i bet all the folks with tethered dogs are buying now. how is a 4 by 8 by 8 foot dog run better than a 20' chain around a tree? hum... lets do some calculations about "room" for the dog to move around: 4 by 8 = 32 square feet dog run < 3.14 x 10^2 = 314 square feet chain accessible area.
i know that ideally, the folks that have tethered dogs will fence their whole back yard. and if that would happen, i think it'd be great. but what i think will REALLY happen (cause it is expensive to fence in your back yard), is that people will buy dog runs too small for their dog because the small ones cost less than the big ones.
at the breeder/kennel where we got luna, all 10 of the dogs were in individual (correctly sized kennels) and let me assure you that was no method for keeping those dogs non-agressive. luna's father was a mean old dog, and he let me know it by jumping at and lunging on the cage sides... snarling in the mean time. fortunately her mother was much more docile. luna definately got her mother's personality.
anyway, i'm just saying... i wonder how much better a run is than a chain? owning a dog takes responsibility... the responsibility to exercise, feed, water, and care for the animal. and the people that keep their dogs on a chain with no water or food or dog house are still just as likely to keep their dog in a small kennel with no water or no food or shade. how does passing a non-tethering rule make people take responsibility for their dogs? what battle has REALLY been won?
is any better (i.e. less cruel) than this:
i see that those kennels at least have dog houses in them, although it is not covered nor do the dogs have the luxury of shade.
so i found a better shot of a kennel (no dog in it)... this one costs about $150, which i bet all the folks with tethered dogs are buying now. how is a 4 by 8 by 8 foot dog run better than a 20' chain around a tree? hum... lets do some calculations about "room" for the dog to move around: 4 by 8 = 32 square feet dog run < 3.14 x 10^2 = 314 square feet chain accessible area.
i know that ideally, the folks that have tethered dogs will fence their whole back yard. and if that would happen, i think it'd be great. but what i think will REALLY happen (cause it is expensive to fence in your back yard), is that people will buy dog runs too small for their dog because the small ones cost less than the big ones.
at the breeder/kennel where we got luna, all 10 of the dogs were in individual (correctly sized kennels) and let me assure you that was no method for keeping those dogs non-agressive. luna's father was a mean old dog, and he let me know it by jumping at and lunging on the cage sides... snarling in the mean time. fortunately her mother was much more docile. luna definately got her mother's personality.
anyway, i'm just saying... i wonder how much better a run is than a chain? owning a dog takes responsibility... the responsibility to exercise, feed, water, and care for the animal. and the people that keep their dogs on a chain with no water or food or dog house are still just as likely to keep their dog in a small kennel with no water or no food or shade. how does passing a non-tethering rule make people take responsibility for their dogs? what battle has REALLY been won?
You bring up a good point. Dogs previously on a chain might now be dogs potentially in a crate.
ReplyDeleteToo bad there is not some way to keep people from getting dogs that won't take care of them properly. I saw some pitiful woman on TV saying, "If this law passes I don't know what I'll do because I can't afford a fence".
Well, how about putting the dog in the house? Why do people get pets if they can't afford them and/or are prepared to let them live inside with them?
I've never understood the mentality of getting a dog and then shoving it outside for all its life. In this day and age, the argument of "It's for protection" is just silly. How is a chained up dog going to protect you from anything?
Dogs are social beings, they need to be around other beings. Not left alone outside, either tied up, in a crate, or even in a backyard all day by themselves.
I feel awful when we have to leave Lucy outside all day. Luckily, it doesn't happen often (once a week) and she has a large yard to roam in, lots of water and her Kong to keep her occupies, still, I'd never feel good about leaving her every single day like that.
I know people have to do it, if they work and all, and this doesn't mean they are bad people.
Mark says, "She's a DOG!" And he's right, but, I still feel guilty!
Ok, I've gotten off-track here!
I agree Durham has traded one ill for a potential other.
Let's just hope this doesn't mean more dogs let to run lose who end up in the pound only to be put down.
I know that the pound/shelters etc. get a lot of flak for putting people that want to potential adopt an animal through the wringer, but, in the long run, they are just trying to make sure the animal won't end up tied to a tree, left alone, hit by a car, or back in the pound traumatized and now unadoptable.
All you have to see is one dog who has a wound in its neck from living a life on a chain to know that this is a small change, while not perfect, for the better.
ReplyDeleteSeveral years ago, a Rottweiler broke into our backyard while we were playing with Raven. I went door to door looking for an owner that evening until it got dark and then came back home intending to put up posters the next day. When I inspected the dog closer, I noticed that he had a wound around his neck, cut through the skin and muscle. There were maggots living in the flesh. I decided then and there that I would not pursue an owner anymore. I took him to the vet the next day. The vet could only cut off dead flesh and clean the wound out and give him antibiotics...no stitches because the wound was too wide. She doubted that his fur would ever grow back in the area. She suspected that someone put him on a chain with a rope around his neck as a puppy and never adjusted it for his growth. His neck then grew into the rope until it became so painful that he broke loose and ran away. I am happy to say that we fostered Puppy for two weeks until he was adopted through Rottweiler Rescue...he now lives out in the country with six kids and two Rottie brothers and sisters.
The whole argument that this new ordinance is unfair to poor people who might not be able to afford building a fence is a bunch of hooey. Call me insensitive, but here is a news flash...if you are so poor, don't get a dog!!! Pets, if you do right by them, take alot of time, attention, and money!!!
Now I have to totally agree that people who cannot be responsible dog owners shouldn't have dogs. Unfortunately, that won't ever happen. I've been working with Durham County Animal Control for years for a situation around the corner from us (and they have a fence), but the dogs remain and are allowed to remain intact too.
So, while not perfect, I think that this ordinance, in the absence of other ordinances that will give animal control more ability to limit who gets to keep animals and makes it easier to take dogs away (even if it means euthanization which for some dogs could be considered a blessing), will make some dogs' lives a little better. I am proud that Durham County is one of two counties in NC that has made this progressive step.
People who allow dogs to get sores on their necks from being tethered should not have pets. PERIOD. I would rather see a dog tied to a tree, that may offer some shade protection from the elements, than put in a cage in open sunshine with no shade.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that SOME people who chain their dogs will end up putting them in cages once laws against chaining are passed (these laws are a big trend across the country). Still, anti-chaining laws, while not perfect, and while not solving dog abuse by any means, are better than no laws at all because:
ReplyDelete1. Chaining is the most easily abused method of confinement. How hard is it to get a rope and tie it around Fluffy's neck? Many people resort to this method of confinement because it is just so darn... easy. If these same people have to buy a "run" (cage), they often prefer to just give up the dog. They are sometimes keeping the dogs for no particular reason. In those cases, they end up giving the dog to a shelter or whatever. I truly believe that death at a shelter is preferrable to spending 10 agonizing, lonely years at the end of a chain.
2. Anti-chaining laws force people to give some real thought to how they are going to confine their dogs BEFORE they even get a dog. These laws cut down on wanton, negligent pet ownership because they require people to put even a small amount of thought and expense into confining their dog.
3. Anti chaining laws send a message: keeping a dog as a prisoner is not something most reasonable people think is appropriate.
Yes, you have to deal with the issue of hunting dogs and breeders, but those people CAN and are being accommodated with anti-chaining laws, either by exempting them or by other means.
You say you got your dog from a breeder???? What you describe are horrible puppy mill-like circumstances. Please, people, do not buy dogs from breeders!
And don't chain your dog. Please.
learn more at www.dogsdeservebetter.org and www.unchainyourdog.org
wow! real feedback!
ReplyDeletewell let me just clear up any crazy notions that #1 i think it is ok to abuse animals by tying tight ropes around their necks. i don't think that chaining/tethering is an appropriate means of permanent restraint. on occasion, i could see it is ok... like when fluffy goes camping with you and rather than holding the leash for the whole day/evening, you put her on the tie out so she can be with you but not run off.
i also do not think that putting a dog in a cage (of any size, even if it were yard sized) is good as a permanent means of restraint. again, maybe on an as needed basis - like amy said... when she is at work during the day. ALL dogs need to be walked, on a leash, in the neighborhood... and not just in their 500 ft^2 back yard.
really i think that a perfect dog life does include a lot of outdoor time, since in reality they are animals and live outside in the wild. they do not get cozy houses with plush beds and bowled food. in the wild they get the ground, leaves, etc. and eat whatever they kill or scavenge! (and when i say wild, i mean WILD, not feral.)
hopefully this rule passing in durham (county?) will require folks to consider housing for animals before they get them! hopefully all those that were/will be unchained won't end up in the pound and/or landfill!
and luna did not come from a puppy mill. these people #1 did not over breed their bitches, and #2 may have had their dogs in cages when we were there, but they also took them outside the cages. that daddy dog was only aggressive towards strangers, i remember the breeders telling me that luna's mother frequently stayed the night inside their house as she was a great "lap" dog. no worries about me ever getting a dog from a breeder again... because i will NEVER NEVER NEVER own another dog! (i much prefer visiting other folk's dogs!)