Yes this is very long. If you have no interest in it please click on to another topic! :BWhen the bus started rolling out a few years back when the aspca started the actions of banning certain breeds and on to banning even breeds that didn't warrant it, everyone thought it was the best idea ever.I'm sure by now all of you have finally seen how that affected your ability to use CG's while RV'ing with your well behaved dogs who sadly fall on that list.Well.......The tethering buss is out of the station and steamrolling. I've only been following Florida's but each month another county jumps on this and is banning tethering because of the pressure from the ASPCA. ASPCA reps and animal activists are organizing and are showing up at town hall meetings across the whole US.ASPCA and animal activists feel tethering is extreme cruelty to animals. They are putting an all out mission on this one.Start attending the town hall meetings in your state and county and stop them from banning tethering if you ever want to be able to tie your dog out at a CG or anywhere for that matter. They are not going to advertise these bills in your local newspaper, they just bring it up in a meeting, vote and pass it. County officials don't have a clue what it is all about, only that ASPCA is sending representatives to town hall meetings across the US and pressuring them to pass it, knowing full well these meetings don't always have the entire town there. If no one is there to question it's validity these officials are just passing these laws for banning tethering. They are purposely hitting at the county/town level because of the ease of having them voted on right then and there.The ASPCA is pushing that tethering a dog out 24 hours a day is cruel.The tethering laws DO NOT distinguish between 24 hours a day or 1 hour or 5 minutes. It will ban tethering a dog for 'any' reason, 'any' length of time.The in your face with pictures of dogs tied up full time in a deplorable looking back yard tactic is so that the pet owners who keep their dogs inside will get all riled up about tethering a dog 24 hours a day so that they all gather and rally 'for' this ban. Not knowing the full ramification of this law.Yes most of us do not like to see the dog that is tied in the back yard and that is his entire life. Yes that's sad, but this tethering ban will encompass so much more. This tethering ban is going to allow them to come on your property without a warrant if they see a dog tied up. THIS is the more important reason why we need to stop these bans.As RV'ing pet owners let's not let this one slip thru like the banned breeds law did. Or you can forget about being able to tie your dog up while you are eating lunch at the picnic table outside your rv at your campsite :(

Any links to support your statements?

From the other side: Short term tie outs are O.K. but how do you enforce it? You would have to develop a system that would hold up in court to "time" how long the dog has been outside. Animal control officers would become meter maids. In Florida, you can safely tether a dog outside IF the animal has fresh water, and shade available. The problem, from my experience, is that the animal has neither, most of the time. Yes, there is a movement to ban outside tethering, but in most cases it is UNATTENDED tethering that is being banned, and that is overall, a good thing.

Yes, I'd like to see links, too.All the passed and proposed tethering bans I've read clearly state that dogs aren't to be tethered when the owner isn't present. In other words, tying the dog out while you're right there is fine. And since that's exactly what almost all campground rules already state . . . . I really don't see tethering bans having any impact whatsoever on RV'ers.

Unattended tethering is wrong for any length of time. I would support the bill that bans it. I also urge you to support the bill.

Our city has an anti-tethering ordinance. I'm not really sure what it says, but I think the reasoning is to give some enforcement teeth to dogs that become a nuisance when tethered outside.I too would like to see the evidence where there is a orchestrated effort by any group pushing this agenda.Like Dog Folks said, I think they are mostly aimed at tethering unattended, a good thing in my opinion.Every year or two we see a dog that has severe life threatening injuries (or has died) from consequences of being tethered. The most serious was a dog that hanged itself when jumping over a fence while tethered. Owner mistake, obviously. But those with heat related issues because of lack of water and shade are pretty common. Granted, those heat related issues can be as bad with dogs confined in a run or fenced yard.While extreme bans on tethering are probably unreasonable, the idea of restriction isn't totally without merit. But, how do you set limits and enforce??Doug, DVM

Banning Tethering can affect how you RV w/your dog_VERY long

28 Replies

BCSnob
Explorer
Aug 09, 2013
Go Dogs wrote:
The fact that you falsely accused the ASPCA for enacting BSL, then refused to add links to support your 'facts' has sent your credibility about this issue into the black tank, with the rest of the 'waste'.
Another baseless, 'The Sky is Falling' paranoid rant.

So what is the ASPCA's stand on BSLs?

Pit bulls and pit bull mixes are banned in certain American cities and in some foreign countries. The ASPCA, other non-profit organizations and pit bull advocates work hard to educate lawmakers about the futility of breed-specific legislation. Although the effectiveness of this type of legislation continues to be hotly debated, recent scientific studies comparing bites to humans before and after BSL have shown that the rates remained the same after legislation was enacted.

Source: ASPCA: The Truth About Pit Bulls
Deb_and_Ed_M
Explorer II
Aug 09, 2013
I can see one small advantage to the no-tethering law in a reasonably urban area: A kid can't wander into a fenced dog run. At least not without considerable effort ;-) (Flashbacks to being 5 yrs old and the boy down the street was chasing me - I ran through the perimeter of our German Shorthair's chain; he followed - and she bit him. My dad constructed a dog run shortly afterward....)
BCSnob
Explorer
Aug 09, 2013
Fighting dogs were developed, bred, and trained for dog aggression; people aggression was not tolerated in the ring. People aggressive dogs were "culled".
Are Pit Bulls Dangerous to People?

Despite the fact that pit bulls were bred to fight with each other, early breeders took pride in producing dogs that were trustworthy and friendly to people. Handlers bathed their opponent’s dog before a match, stood in the pits with the battling dogs and often pulled them apart to end a fight. Any dog who behaved aggressively toward a person was culled, or killed, to avoid passing on such an undesirable trait. Pit bulls typically lived in their owner’s homes, where they earned the nickname “nursemaid’s dog” because they were so reliable with young children. In fact, “Pete the Pup,” the children’s friend from the old TV series “Our Gang,” was a pit bull.

Source: ASPCA: The Truth About Pit Bulls

The problem is now the majority of these dogs are no longer being bred for what the breed was developed and those traits that were highly selected for (dog agressions and not people agression) are no longer under strict selection. When you stop selecting for working traits, these traits are lost, altered, or not well balance within just a few generations. This also happens with gun dogs, herding dogs, and livestock guardian dogs.

Herding and flock protection are not the same function and require different breeds/dog; for herding you want the livestock to move away from the herding dog which is opposite to what is desired with a guardian dog.
Dog_Folks
Explorer II
Aug 09, 2013
X2 on the sky is falling. Most government will often "borrow" ordinances and/or laws that are already "tested."

Yes, bad laws are still passed, but a majority of these laws are quickly overturned.

RE: Pit Bulls, It is NOT a matter of if the dog is "good" or "bad," or if the owner is "good" or "bad."

The facts are that the very design and construction of a Pitt Bulls bite, and it's nature to fight, perfected over hundreds of years of breeding, is to lead to much more damage when it does bite. That's what they were bred for. Just like a Labrador Retriever is breed to retrieve water fowl with a "soft" mouth and love water, or herding breeds are designed to herd and protect farm animals.
Go_Dogs
Explorer
Aug 09, 2013
The fact that you falsely accused the ASPCA for enacting BSL, then refused to add links to support your 'facts' has sent your credibility about this issue into the black tank, with the rest of the 'waste'.
Another baseless, 'The Sky is Falling' paranoid rant.
rockhillmanor
Explorer II
Aug 09, 2013
Code2High wrote:
Your dogs, Rock, live in your RV with you. They are protected from the elements, fenced and supervised when outside. Why would you not want that for other dogs? Why are you more concerned with protecting the "right" of others to abuse and neglect their dogs, rather than protecting dogs from being treated like garbage left in a yard somewhere? I really just do not get it.

The laws being passed are VERY vague and subject to interpretation by uneducated local officials and animal activists. It will affect MANY dog owners in other instances other than the back yard junk dog whose owner could care less if their dog died and/or was seized from them.

Has nothing to do with how I take care of my dogs. It's about legislation that will eventually be added to and spun out of control like the breed ban did.

I actually don't believe in ever tieing a dog out. The point and purpose of my post was to "be aware" of these laws being passed at local county levels AND what all is contained in them at a 'local' level. Local municipalities can word them anyway they want and/or omit clear, concise descriptions of what is and what is not. Animal activist met legal opposition at the state level. They find it much easier to get these passed at a local level. Once they get their foot in the door we all know that it then becomes easier to go back and start changing or adding to it.

History: Ban the Pit Bull. We all watched ad nauseum the horrific pictures of dog fighting. When the answer to end all this carnage was to ban the Pit Bull everyone agreed whole heartedly.

And look what happened. It when from Pit Pulls, then any dog with the word Bull in the name, to even all dogs that looked like, color markings like, and ultimately to adding 10+ other breeds, to a ban that's original purpose was to stop pit bull fighting in the ghetto.

Then towns used this and decided to ban these breed, which in turn the insurance companies wouldn't ensure you if you had one in your very own home in a town that banned them. And as we all have encountered now they are banned from camping with you. A ban that originally was to address pit bull fighting spun completely out of control. And in some instances it affects your rights on who and when law enforcement can enter your property.

It's about how the gov/laws work. Think pork.
Perfect example of this is Vermont who slipped in the word 'livestock' into the 'dog' tethering law. I don't think I have to explain the ramifications that will cause in the livestock arena.

What ever your stance is on it. Just 'be aware' of what you local governments are doing regarding this. Get involved and make sure it's worded the way you think it should be, they have not ADDED irrelevant verbiage to the law and to protect your rights even though you don't own the typical tied junk yard dog they depict in pictures to represent why this law should be passed in your town.
BCSnob
Explorer
Aug 09, 2013
From what I can tell, the issue (in terms of the dog's mental state) is not being confined (by a chain or chain link) but being confined alone. It just so happens that people who are willing to leave their dog outback alone are more willing to pay the costs of a chain vs. the costs of chain link.

There is a hug distinction between how sled dog folks manage their dogs and what should be the intention of the anti-tethering laws; the sled dogs are not alone and are not tethered 24/7.

Anti-tethering laws are just another example of a law to address a symptom of the problem and not the actual problem. The problem is not how people leave their dog alone 24/7 (tethered in the yard) but that people leave their pet alone 24/7.
Code2High
Explorer
Aug 08, 2013
Here is a way to "prove" that chaining an animal 24/7 is just like having an actual fence or kennel....

Go get yourself a nice dog collar and a chain. Secure it to your bed at night and put the collar on yourself.

You can move it where you want during the day but you would of course always have it attached to a solid object.

I think video feeds of the experiment would be ideal.

It would need to last at least a month, really, although of course in the case of a chained dog it often lasts for years.
BCSnob
Explorer
Aug 08, 2013
I don't see how the tethering sled dogs folks do is my different than having a set of kennel runs; the dogs are confined and separated with shelter and water in a large group.

Not all people who are activists for animal welfare really know what is right.

A friend was telling us about a situation she is dealing with. Twice she has been called by people who said they had her dog. The first time she met the concerned animal lover at the end of her drive. When our friend met this person she asked how they caught her dog. They said they were passing by and saw her dog and they thought the dog was afraid so when the dog ran by the field gate they grabbed the collar and pulled the dog out of the field.

Another time a different concerned citizen stopped and thought her dog was lonely so they also pulled here dog out of the field.

Our friend tried to explain to them how a livestock guardian dog lives with the sheep in the field. Apparently both concerned citizens called animal control and complained about the cruel living conditions this dog was in. Animal control called our friend telling her that despite trying to educate the concerned citizens about livestock guardian dogs, they were still not happy about the dog's living conditions. Animal control recommended our friend move her sheep and dog away from the road so that the concerned citizens would not take the dog.

These concerned citizens probably would like to change the laws so that keeping livestock guardian dogs in the way necessary for them to work would be against the law.
Dog_Folks
Explorer II
Aug 08, 2013
dahkota wrote:
Tethering/Chaining Laws as of March 2013.

Great Post. Thanks.