Unchaining dogs
Kudos to Amanda Arrington and the Coalition to Unchain Dogs for turning out so many articulate and well informed speakers at last night's public hearing. I'll have a post up later in the day reviewing some of the many interesting and moving statements made, but i wanted to take a couple of minutes to talk about something that happened as i was leaving.
The News 14 Carolina team was putting their story together (note - i'm not able to find it on their website. Maybe they decided it wasn't sexy enough to run?) and interviewing one of the handful of "Responsible tethering" supporters in attendance. I had a chance to chat with one of the News 14 crew about how they were going to frame the story. Given that they had less than 60 seconds, it was clear they were not going to be able to present an accurate sense of the meeting: that supporters of the ban on chaining dogs outnumbered opponents by 12 or 15 to one, that they countered every "argument" made by opponents of the ban, and pretty conclusively demonstrated that the community supports this move. Instead, they were going to have a couple of 15 second clips, one of a supporter and one of an opponent, and present a "fair and balanced" presentation of the issue.
That, of course, is bullshit. The time for a "fair and balanced" presentation of the issue is before the hearing. The story last night was the public hearing. And viewers of News 14 in Durham, assuming the story even aired, will not be getting a "fair and balanced" picture of the public hearing.
Over in the N&O, Samiha Khanna does a better job of presenting how the hearing went, but still falls victim to mainstream journalism's insistence on presenting "both sides," quoting only one supporter of the ban, and giving two paragraphs of her article to one of the few opponents, Natalie Rowntree, who was representing an organization that has been linked to illegal dog fighting, and who doesn't even live in Durham. She also writes: "She and other supporters of what they called "responsible tethering" were heckled, booed and hissed by the opposing members of the crowd."
Unless things changed drastically after i left, that simply didn't happen. The only speaker who drew a negative reaction from the crowd was a man named Kevin, who made the claim that tethers are more sanitary than pens, because the tether will sweep the area clear of feces, while in a pen, they'll just be allowed to pile up, the dog will dig holes to cover them, the holes will fill with water when it rains, and it will be a mess. He got a few howls of derision from the crowd. Justifiably so, in my opinion. I don't imagine that it ever occurred to him that picking up the dog shit might even be an option.
Matt Milliken's article in the HS also devotes an inordinate amount of time to the subject of "heckling." Hey, maybe things looked different from the media bench as opposed to being in the crowd, or maybe our local reporters have forgotten what things were like at school board meetings in Durham not all that long ago. Considering that the room was packed to overflowing, there were no issues of civility or decorum to discuss.
The News 14 Carolina team was putting their story together (note - i'm not able to find it on their website. Maybe they decided it wasn't sexy enough to run?) and interviewing one of the handful of "Responsible tethering" supporters in attendance. I had a chance to chat with one of the News 14 crew about how they were going to frame the story. Given that they had less than 60 seconds, it was clear they were not going to be able to present an accurate sense of the meeting: that supporters of the ban on chaining dogs outnumbered opponents by 12 or 15 to one, that they countered every "argument" made by opponents of the ban, and pretty conclusively demonstrated that the community supports this move. Instead, they were going to have a couple of 15 second clips, one of a supporter and one of an opponent, and present a "fair and balanced" presentation of the issue.
That, of course, is bullshit. The time for a "fair and balanced" presentation of the issue is before the hearing. The story last night was the public hearing. And viewers of News 14 in Durham, assuming the story even aired, will not be getting a "fair and balanced" picture of the public hearing.
Over in the N&O, Samiha Khanna does a better job of presenting how the hearing went, but still falls victim to mainstream journalism's insistence on presenting "both sides," quoting only one supporter of the ban, and giving two paragraphs of her article to one of the few opponents, Natalie Rowntree, who was representing an organization that has been linked to illegal dog fighting, and who doesn't even live in Durham. She also writes: "She and other supporters of what they called "responsible tethering" were heckled, booed and hissed by the opposing members of the crowd."
Unless things changed drastically after i left, that simply didn't happen. The only speaker who drew a negative reaction from the crowd was a man named Kevin, who made the claim that tethers are more sanitary than pens, because the tether will sweep the area clear of feces, while in a pen, they'll just be allowed to pile up, the dog will dig holes to cover them, the holes will fill with water when it rains, and it will be a mess. He got a few howls of derision from the crowd. Justifiably so, in my opinion. I don't imagine that it ever occurred to him that picking up the dog shit might even be an option.
Matt Milliken's article in the HS also devotes an inordinate amount of time to the subject of "heckling." Hey, maybe things looked different from the media bench as opposed to being in the crowd, or maybe our local reporters have forgotten what things were like at school board meetings in Durham not all that long ago. Considering that the room was packed to overflowing, there were no issues of civility or decorum to discuss.
Labels: Coalition to Unchain Dogs, local media
Since 1949, Durhamites have slept soundly, secure in the knowledge that, in our town, erection can be depended upon. Now, thanks to the power of the internets, we can spread that security all over the world.
32 Comments:
I think you're being a bit unfair in your assessment. This appears to be a class issue. Just because the motivated, informed, privileged mostly middle class animal welfare activists outnumbered their opponents at a meeting doesn't indicate that the larger community supports the measure.
I am not convinced the measure is needed. The law already prohibits cruel tethering practices, such as the embedded chain incident described in the N&O article. Animal control officers already have to power to deem individual cases as abusive and force individuals to comply with humane practices.
I fear the proposed measure would cause low-income pet owners who can't afford a secure enclosure to bring their animals inside. A small crate can be more cruel than a tether.
I'm not trying to troll here - trying to understand how this measure will help animal control decrease animal abuse.
By
Anonymous, at 10:43 AM
OK, here's my thinking on this.
first, the class issue is a bit of a red herring. Keeping dogs on chains is not the exclusive province of people who can't afford to do anything else. There's always the option of bringing your dog in the house. Having, and properly caring for a dog costs a significant amount of money. It's also a choice. I don't have the time or extra cash right now to have a dog, so i don't.
Second, the current cruelty laws regarding tethering are extremely difficult to enforce. They require the AC officer to measure the length of the chain, weigh the dog and the chain to see if it exceeds X% of the dog's body weight, physically examine the dog to see if the collar has gotten embedded in the dog's neck, etc. A flat out ban on tethering is going to be much easier to enforce.
Banning the practice also requires that we, as a community, develop a standard of behavior towards our dogs. Developing that standard requires a certain amount of education and outreach. Yeah, there's some concern whether or not Durham County government is capable of doing that education and outreach. We'll never know until we try, though.
finally, there was no difference, as far as i could tell, in the socio-economic status of the handful of supporters of "responsible" tethering, and the overwhelming majority of the supporters of the ban. the few African-American speakers last night, including one man who described himself as a pit-bull breeder, spoke in favor of the ban. Public hearings and town hall meetings are what they are. People who are motivated get themselves out for them. It's a cheap and easy way out to say they're not representative of the larger community because all the people on the other side can't afford to go to them. There's nothing to indicate that may be the case.
By
Barry, at 11:03 AM
Barry, thanks for attending last night. Though we've never met, I think that I recognized your voice from "Shooting the Bull" sitting behind me.
I was impressed by the turnout and the 75 people who signed up to speak on this proposed ordinance. The last that I heard only 6 spoke in opposition, while the remainder spoke in favor, many times articulately and passionately.
I've come to the conclusion during the three years that I've lived here that tethering is cruel to dogs, who simply want to be with their people and in return give unconditional love. After hearing of the successes of anti-tethering initiatives in other NC cities, I support this ordinance more strongly than ever.
I see many dogs in my neighborhood tethered 24/7, barking, whining and howling all hours of the day and night. Many of these dogs will manage to break or chew through their tethers and run through the neighborhood, crossing the street narrowly missing getting hit by cars speeding by. As a matter of fact, I saw two such dogs yesterday afternoon in the space of only about two hours. Some of these dogs are repeat escapees because their owners won't take the appropriate measures to prevent their dog from escaping. One dog was killed by a passing car just down the street from me a few months ago. A dead dog lying in the gutter is a very sad scene.
I found it interesting that several of the few people who spoke in opposition of the ordinance didn't even live in Durham County - one from Wilmington, another from Fuqay-Varina. This ordinance is for and by the citizens of Durham County. What were they doing there?
Also, a couple of organizations based outside of Durham County didn't state if they represent any citizens in Durham County. Why is this? I suspect because they are representing very few, if any, citizens of Durham County. Again I ask, why were they there? This ordinance will not affect them.
I was also impressed by the many successes of the Coalition to Unchain Dogs who build free fences for those who are unable to afford them, and have built fences to un-chain 105 dogs to date. Impressive!
By
Steve Graff, at 11:20 AM
@ anonymous:
Unfortunately, Durham County animal control has limited resources, and it's not just "low income" residents who chain dogs.
My next-door neighbor, in a solidly-middle-class north Durham neighborhood, left two extremely sweet-natured pit bulls outside, chained to a tree for more than 14 months, from the time they were approximately 6 months old. Furthermore, the dogs were not fixed (a brother and sister) and they were not registered or regularly seen by a vet for 12 of those months. He bought a used temporary pen, but it sat (still sits) in pieces, on the ground, where the dogs were forced to stand on the stacked chain-link panels. Confined to a 20-foot circle, the dogs regularly stood or laid-down in their own excrement. They often lacked clean water (which frequently froze in the winter) and they could barely reach the undersized plastic-igloo dog houses that were supposed to provide shelter from the heat, rain, cold and snow. After months of pleading with him to call Amanda, he finally did and the dogs went to the vet, to get fixed.
The vet found numerous scars on the dogs, from fighting with each other, including a deep gash on the boy, that an inch lower, would have left him blind in one eye. The boy's front left leg had been broken and healed crookedly. Both dogs' necks had been cut deeply by wire-ropes, chains and a succession of leather and webbed collars. The boy has permanent vocal damage and both have partially crushed tracheas. All of this from tugging so hard at their chains that they broke multiple collars, wire ropes and heavy-duty chains. When they did get off their chains, they were so excited to have human attention, that they'd nearly knock me, a 6'0" 220lb man, over with affectionate jumps.
Neighbors' calls to animal control about the plaintive howls and frantic barking that echoed through the neighborhood every night from sunset to sunrise were met with suggestions to call Durham PD, who have no power aside from noise citations. Calls when the dogs were left without water of food for days (usually in sub-freezing weather) also were met with shrugs from animal control. PAC-2 officers repeatedly saw the conditions the dogs were in, but said there was nothing they could do.
Sadly, my neighbor essentially blackmailed Amanda and the coalition into building him a suburban fenced-in run by threatening to have the dogs destroyed if they didn't. (This neighbor also has a large chow-mix who spends his days in a crate in the garage, and is then put-out to run the neighborhood from dusk 'til dawn, no matter the weather.) Suffice it to say, watching him and his family load a U-Haul truck, without any warning, on Sunday filled me with schadenfreude, though I'm concerned that he might just abandon the dogs -- they're not done moving-out yet, but the dogs are still here.
By
Dan S., at 10:58 PM
Given your ties to the fencing business, I'm not surprised you're out in favor of this change. =)
For the record, I live in Durham, oppose the change, and wanted to be at the CC meeting, but was unable because my wife was in class (Durham Tech Paralegal program) at the time. [I'm looking forward to your point summary, but presumably you had actual work to do today.] I would point out that meetings are only good if you know about them, so I'd say "People who are motivated and have heard about the issue get themselves out for them." FWIW I did e-mail the county commissioners.
I mentioned the proposal to a colleague (who has lived in Durham even longer than me) and he hadn't heard about it. I didn't hear about it until the 13th, and I follow BCR and DE - plus, you know, other venues - pretty faithfully. In addition I thought it was inspired to do the Coalition 'benefit concert' just before the CC meeting. Anyway, that the pros vastly outweighed the cons, who probably have no central communication and who presumably are busy with starting school, does not at all surprise me in this case.
I support the fence-building operations of the Coalition to Unchain Dogs, and I even considered donating until I read about the lobbying. I think it's great they've built some number of fences (from the web site looks like between 40 and 80), but in a city of 200k I don't think that's a viable rate of progress to say this isn't about people having an unplanned animal-affordability problem over the next 12 months. That's a side issue, though.
My concern with the change is that it is -not- about people who, in my opinion, are bad dog owners. It's about any person who ever, for any reason and for any length of time, tethers an animal. (In fact it's specifically about this, as animal control -already- has the ability to declare -any- animal owner's actions unreasonable and abusive, and in particular as it applies to tethering, despite the dog-measuring argument you heard. Perhaps that was true somewhere else, but the animal control code was pretty clear before, at least by my reading.) It's not like these changes are giving animal control any more discretion, in fact they are removing it. It's right there in black and white in the ordinance ("Examples of animal abuse include, but are not limited to the following:", "It shall be within the discretion of animal control officers", "run the risk of causing injury to the public or themselves","to a stationary object for a
period of time or under conditions that an animal control officer or animal cruelty investigator
deems harmful or potentially harmful to the animal. Examples of improper chaining or tethering
include, but are not limited to the following:" - this last quote is part of what is proposed to be removed, BTW). Oh, ordinance and proposed changes are on the Durham County Animal Control site, Google isn't very helpful in that regard, in case anyone is having trouble.
Let me run through some situations I wouldn't consider animal abuse or even dangerous, but specifically would be abuse - with the accordant fine - under the proposed rules:
1) Tying the dog to a tree while you work the grill, and/or while the kids play with it.
2) Tying the dog to something in your car while you drive. (My reading also bans doggie seat belts, for what that's worth.)
3) Putting the dog's leash on the neighbor's fencepost while you chat.
4) Restraining an animal while fixing a fence problem.
5) Living in a house with less than 100sqft per animal unobstructed space (200sqft if >20 lbs), for an indoor animal. [100sqft is not a change, just an observation.]
6) Letting the animal wear a loose leash in the house, as many trainers recommend.
7) Letting your dog run off while you are on your walk, leash in tow. I don't suggest this one but most of us who actually walk our dogs have had this experience, and it's hard for me to class it the same as, say, not providing food, water, or medical care.
Other anti-tethering proposals, including Orange County's, have included time waivers - e.g., three hours out of 24 - to resolve these issues, but Durham's proposal does not.
@steveg, how many of the pro speakers were local? What's the difference? This isn't Cary - we can listen to people from Fuquay and even down east and judge their ideas on their merits. It's not like -we- didn't just make an unsolicited resolution that we don't want a biochemical facility in Butner.
Also @steveg, any numbers on animals escaping fences versus escaping tethers, proportionate to number of fences versus tethers? My Jack Russell is a digger and a jumper, she keeps the tether to remind her of her limits even though she knows how to get out of it.
@Dan S., if Animal Control needs more resources then we should give animal control more resources. I'd be all over that budget discussion, people abusing animals is a personal pet peeve of mine. On the other hand giving AC less discretion and more to enforce doesn't seem likely to ease their workload much.
Finally, I've looked and looked and not been able to find the number of animals licensed in Durham County. In case anyone reading wants a research project...
By
Anonymous, at 1:08 AM
Other than admiring the sign, i have no ties to the fence building industry.
Most of the objections you raised have already been dealt with in amendments to the proposed ordinance, which would exempt tying an animal up temporarily while the owner is present.
Just as an example, i have been listening, for the past 4 days, to the most ungodly howling and yelping coming from a dog tied up somewhere behind a house in the 1600 block of Avondale Drive. Although i can hear him quite clearly, i cannot tell exactly which house he is tied up behind. So calling the police in the middle of the night to try to deal with the noise ordinance violation is not really an option.
I've got an email in to Cindy Bailey asking what her department can do. But i can't imagine that she's got an officer to spare to spend an hour sitting in a car or walking up and down the block attempting to determine which house this dog is tied up behind.
I think many people make the mistake of assuming that everybody else shares their values; that nobody would really be that intentionally, or ignorantly, cruel to their pets. That's wrong. There's a lot of morons in this town. This is a necessary tool for educating some of them.
By
Barry, at 2:40 AM
"There's a lot of morons in this town."
I can't argue with that, I'm just concerned that we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater and possibly diluting the definition of 'abuse' at the same time. That said I'm glad to hear the amendments addressed especially my 'owner present' concerns. Have you seen a link to the amended proposal (i.e. post-Monday) somewhere? The county copy does not appear to have changed yet.
On the related note it sounds like we have a consistent problem of not having enough animal control officers, are qualified people not available or is that a popular place to cut financial corners? Is there a plan to alleviate that in the works, amendment or no? I suppose I feel about animal control and the county like you (Barry) feel about yard waste and the city. =/
[I'd recommend and be happy to pay a bigger pet license fee if it's a money issue; IMO almost anything would be a reasonable inflation ($10/year is less than I pay for a single heartworm pill from the vet!). After all we're the ones with the animals that bother animal control so it seems like we should be self-supporting.]
By
Anonymous, at 8:11 AM
I've said the same things about Animal Control in the past. And i'm still concerned about whether or not the department will be given the resources to enforce this regulation.
Pet registration fees are ridiculously low, and yet nearly 2/3 of all pets in Durham County remain unlicensed. I don't know the solution to that.
By
Barry, at 8:17 AM
Whomever owns this blog needs to print an immediate retraction-
Please provide contact information for my lawyer-
I am Natalie Rowntree, and my organization has NO ties to dog fighting-where in the hell did you come up with that???
If this a litmus test of your intelligence, I have serious doubts about anything else you may print-
the web site for North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance is www.ncraoa.com
We are a state registered animal welfare non profit, and represent many of the states Kennel Clubs and Animal Owners. Your comment is slanderous and libelous-
If you did not hear the boos and hisses your friends enitted, perhaps your head was in your nether regions-
I am posting these comments to our Board of Directors and our Attorney.
By
Anonymous, at 8:30 AM
I hope an unintended consequence of an anti-tethering law will not be packs of loose dogs roaming the streets of Durham.
I wonder if anyone considered that?
As for the MSM, what credibility do they have anymore after the past 8 years? They will look for "balanced coverage" for issues that don't need them. Like whether the earth is round, like a ball, or flat, like a pancake.
By
Tony, at 9:33 AM
Natalie, you do your organization a disservice by posting such a strident rant. Over the past few years I have developed an instinctive response to strident rants - I assume that that side of the opinion is becoming strident because they have nothing constructive to say and are hoping to shout down the opposition. If you so strongly oppose the anti-tethering ban why don't you come up with a counter suggestion to address the concerns that caused this issue to come up in the first place - dogs left alone in their yards with inadequate shelter, food, water and attention, dogs that bark, howl and cry all day and all night, dogs who are forced to stand and lay in their own feces because they can't get away from it.
I would prefer to see a debate over the ineffectiveness of our local animal control organization. I hear over and over about how non-responsive they are to residents concerns and how they are underfunded and understaffed. If we really want to improve the quality of life for Durham's dogs (and residents) we need to address this issue.
Yes, I should "put my money where my mouth is." I would if only I had the time and energy to devote to this. Unfortunately I do not. I would be happy to participate (financially or with a little time) in such a push but I cannot organize it myself.
By
Bad Kitty, at 10:01 AM
Diana-
The "strident rant" comes from
many hours of volunteer time
and money
devoted to animals and animal related organizations-I will not be associated with the horrific world of dog fighting, and I will not be misrepresented by people who believe that only their point of view is correct-
Because my opinion is different from yours gives you no right to denigrate my life and my beliefs-
That makes you narrow minded and shallow-
You want a solution-one that will not increase tax payer costs and that will work??
ENFORCE THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS!!!!
Dogs bred on the end of a tether is in violation of state law-enforce it!
Dogs without food and water is in violation of county law-enforce it!
Dogs kept on the end of
a tether and used for dog fighting is a violation of federal and state law-enforce it!!!!!!!!
Why make MORE LAWS when it
is obvious the ones already in effect cannot be enforced??
The poster who wondered about packs of free roaming dogs--what this ordinance
WILL do is increase the number of animals turned in to the shelter who will leave in body bags--If that is okay with you, and you are one of those that believe that anyone that tethers a dog is an animal abusing, gang banging, drug abusing, dog fighting thug, then please visit your village--they are missing their idiot....
As to why people who do not live in Durham came to "your" meeting-it's because the hoards will show up in our counties spouting their half truths and out of context facts, and they will say "we passed this law in Durham County and it had no unintended consequences--it will only benefit your county"...and some of us actually used to care about your rights and protecting your freedoms--
Published as anonymous because
password is being rejected....
By
Anonymous, at 11:09 AM
hehaeh
yes, Barry, retractions are in order! I'll order them! Retractions for everyone!
Wow. Natalie, you are quite upset, and for the record, one cannot be slanderous "and" libelous through a blogpost. That's neither here nor there.
Diana, I agree with you. The "shout at you and threaten until you back off" approach is a disservice and should be reconsidered. I see it a lot, and it makes me shrug. And chuckle.
Barry, I never knew you were tied to the fencing industry! eaheh That was also funny.
For the record, I agree... if news is covering a meeting, the fair and balanced approach is to show it as it happened. Yes, mention opposition to the ban were there, but that they were outnumbered so largely, etc.
...and indeed, hissing and boos sound MUCH louder when you're on the defense.
For the record, for anyone not fully in the know, the Coalition to Unchain Dogs is amazing, and any argument that they are just punishing tether-ers or that dogs just end up in crates in the house are just wrong.
The Coalition's entire purpose is to EDUCATE the public as well as to provide the fencing. And one of their biggest volunteers, advocates and educators currently is someone who used to be ALL about the tethering of his dogs... Until he learned otherwise, gave it a shot, and since saw the difference it made. Tethering animals isn't about all touchy-feely peta stuff... it's decency, largely, and is truly a matter of public safety as well, as imagine if you didn't have the capacity to understand why you were chained (even if done "responsibly") up constantly and how irritated, angry and upset you would become. And then children get mauled. Fences are the way to go, or don't choose to have a dog that you can't actually afford or take care of.
Cheers, and thank you for attending and sharing the only "balanced" representation I've yet seen about the event, Barry.
By
Anonymous, at 11:27 AM
Oh! And I wanted to point out if you want to donate to the Coalition to Unchain Dogs, you don't have to donate money. You can actually donate a bag of concrete mix... or a spool of fencing, etc. They are very friendly to any help, and bags of concrete mix are actually really cheap, so that's a way to help.
And seriously, Natalie, if you have been wronged and stereotyped, I have no doubt we all apologize. However, the defensiveness is truly harsh, and you are acting more belligerent and immature than the point Diana made dreamed of being. You truly can defend yourself and state the facts without resorting to the maudlin arguments and name calling you have deferred to. We all have a voice and Barry is gracious enough to allow us all to voice here, and likewise, just because some of us disagree is no need to resort to... well, whatever all this is.
Remember, a tone may be written with ease, but if you feel defensive, everything from anyone is far more likely to sound like an attack.
Lastly, tax money arguments are pointless. Tethering proves to be dangerous and abusive as a whole. If we, as a society are against abuse to animals, then we must ban this and EDUCATE the community to better ways. And if you advocate AC enforcing the very laws still on the books, that alone will force tax increases. That is far more manpower needed than to simply ban tethers (even if the ordinance needs some clarifications, as mentioned in an earlier comment). And as heartbreaking as it is to have dogs in bodybags from being picked up by AC, this is still a better option, I believe, than a life of tethering, which frankly makes me angry and is a BS life. True BS. There is NO heated argument you can make for tethering. Not if you consider yourself any sort of animal advocate.
We should all be so quick to defend EDUCATION initiatives in the communities and volunteerism, as you claim to do Natalie, in building fences and educating communities and spaying and neutering dogs. I haven't heard you mention a single word of fighting for that. That's when I gain trust in you. Until then, you only seem to be defending two things... yourself and your right to tether dogs.
C'est la vie.
Cheers.
By
Anonymous, at 11:42 AM
@ tim c.
In addition I thought it was inspired to do the Coalition 'benefit concert' just before the CC meeting.
Incorrect - the Coalition's benefit concert will be held on September 6th.
Anyway, that the pros vastly outweighed the cons, who probably have no central communication and who presumably are busy with starting school, does not at all surprise me in this case.
The "cons'" lack of central communication is no fault of the pros and, in fact, speaks to the passion of those in favor - that they are willing to organize in support. In addition, several of the "pros" are full-time students, myself included. I also work part-time and take care of my home and family. Still, I was able to make time to both prepare for and attend the hearing in its entirety because I was willing to make a small sacrifice of my time in the interest of a worthy cause.
I think it's great they've built some number of fences (from the web site looks like between 40 and 80), but in a city of 200k I don't think that's a viable rate of progress to say this isn't about people having an unplanned animal-affordability problem over the next 12 months.
That may seem like too small a number to be "viable" but if you ask the recipients of the fences, I think they'd have another point of view. Recall the parable about saving the single starfish on the beach - it made a difference to that one (or those 102 dogs and counting, in this case).
Let me run through some situations I wouldn't consider animal abuse or even dangerous, but specifically would be abuse - with the accordant fine - under the proposed rules:
And let me respectfully address some of them. (The others don't fall under my scope of understanding of the ordinance.)
1) Tying the dog to a tree while you work the grill, and/or while the kids play with it.
This is legal under the ordinance, as it is considered "attended" tethering.
3) Putting the dog's leash on the neighbor's fencepost while you chat.
Again, perfectly legal.
4) Restraining an animal while fixing a fence problem.
Yep, still legal. Please be sure you grasp the concept of "attended" - it was the one major change completed by the Animal Control Advisory Committee before the hearing.
7) Letting your dog run off while you are on your walk, leash in tow. I don't suggest this one but most of us who actually walk our dogs have had this experience, and it's hard for me to class it the same as, say, not providing food, water, or medical care.
Under Durham's leash law "It shall be unlawful for any person owning, keeping, possessing or maintaining a dog in this county to intentionally or negligently allow the dog to run at large. ("At large" means any animal found off the property of its owner and not under restraint, or any animal has been subject of a previous at large complaint when found unrestrained whether or not on or off property of its owner, or any animal previously determined to be dangerous or potentially dangerous that is not confined to a secure enclosure while on the property of it's owner).
Adequate restraint is defined as a secure enclosure located on the owners property, or a chain, leash or other physical or electronic device of sufficient strength which allows the owner to maintain control of an animal. Voice command is not adequate restraint.
So, you are actually in violation of Durham law when you let your dog run unrestrained, even with a leash attached to his/her collar.
@ natalie
I look forward to your comments after Barry posts
By
Anonymous, at 12:54 PM
Having read through all the comments on this blog, the only ones that have a ring of truth to them are the one that are opposing the ban.
The others are just self rightous VI who think htey are better than the rest of the world. When we go to GEnisis we see that God himself gave us dominion over all the animals. To care for them and to have his needs provided by them. After he was thrown out of Eden God allowed man to eat meat because he noted that without the tree of life his nutritional could not be met.
Since the very first CAVEMAN brought in the first wolf cub man has tethered his animals. Yes, we have evolved and so has our dogs, some are small and fluffy, others are hunters, some are watch dogs and some are rescuers. Why in this day an age, we are even using them to be the eyes, ears, and hands of the handicapped. So with the harness of a "working dog" be considered as a "tethering device"? I have already heard group talking about including it as such. And then too, a dog helping a human is exploitation of that animal, which is against the AR mantra is it not?
Tethering is just todays battleground, yesterday it was dogs at large, tomorrow it will be dogs in kennels, crates, or fences. I know this to be true because I have already seen it on the DDB website. The laws that are already on the books do allow the animal control folks to stop the irresponsible and cruel practices that are going on. Getting rid of tethering will not stop dog fighters, they are outside the law now, do you truly think a $250.00 fine will influence them? Not likely. Why would they be afraid of a county law when they are in violation of FEDERAL laws? Take their dogs?! Hah they will go steal or buy more. Those hardest hit will be the children who's dogs will be taken away from them because their parents can not afford to build a fence. Amanda, is the H$U$ going to build fences for all those folks? Oh, that's right Mr. Pacelle does not feel any responsibility for animals, in fact his statement was "one generation and out" So what is the true agenda here folks? I think it is to get rid of the dogs totally. And b-t-w even though you will not allow this on your blog I will be sending it across the world on my sites. Dependable Erection, since it is a given fact that we use our inner net names to hide our deficiencies, I will tell you that they are making wonderful progress with erectile dysfunction drugs, you might want to look into them Dixiebitch.
By
Dixiebitch, at 1:18 PM
For the record, I wasn't serious about Barry's tie to the fencing industry. I thought that would be obvious but looking back I feel I should clarify. =)
a'sue, I like the concrete/materials idea, I'll keep that in mind.
I think we've reasonably expressed our points so I won't belabor them, save that I'm surprised that a'sue thinks it's better for a dog to be euthanized than occasionally left outside on a tether in a way that AC deems non-abusive. (?! I can see an argument for -life- on a tether but that's not what we're talking about in this conversation/legislation, and if AC deemed that abusive, well then they could already cite people.)
To hone in somewhat, is there any organized effort to boost Animal Control (Friends of the Library kind of thing), and/or petition the Commissioners on their behalf? Anyone ever heard of such a thing, here or elsewhere? Thanks in advance... =)
By
Anonymous, at 2:52 PM
If Natalie is angry it is because of the totally false and inflammatory allegation that North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Association is in any way linked to dog fighting.
The only "dogs" they fight are the rabid animal rightists who live to take away the rights of others to own and breed animals.
So Natalie does not live in Durham county..big deal. Since when have the ARs had any hesitation to use people from outside the county or state to fight their local battles?
The booing, heckling and hissing that took place by the proponents of this ordinance against those present who opposed it is a reflection of their immaturity and lack of tolerance for opposing views.
The simple fact is that this ordinance will hurt any people who cannot afford expensive fencing and those who have dogs that dig or otherwise escape from fencing. Many dogs will lose their homes and will end up turned in to AC or will be let loose to fend for themselves causing even more problems for animal control.
We need the anti-cruelty ordinances that already exist to be enforced in the cases of cruelty or neglect, not more ordinances that take away time from animal control to do the important work of investigating cruelty and maintaiing public safety.
The comissioners who vote on this ordinance need to consider the words of Lyndon Johnson who said " You [should] not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered." The potential for improperly administered anti-tethering laws is enormous.
By
Freedomfighter, at 5:09 PM
Barry-
I await proof of my organization's ties to illegal dog fighting-If you cannot prove your allegations I expect a retraction and an apology.
a*sue-
unless you have a law degree and can explain the grey area of broadcast media versus the internet, I believe you can be libeled and slandered at the same time...
Slander-
words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
aspersion: an abusive attack on a person's character or good name
defame: charge falsely or with malicious intent;
libel
An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media).
Now that we have clarified that--
As for Barry providing us a place to voice our opinion...I googled the Durham County tethering ban and his blog came up, and I would have peacefully gone on my way had he not tied my name and my organization to illegal dog fighting--you crossed a line, and I will not walk quietly away.
Steve-in answer to your question about who NCRAOA represents, we have 16 associate members and one of the county's kennel clubs as an associate club. I believe their membership is close to 300 people.
A retraction and an apology Barry-and diana and a*sue-I hope you never have to look at 3 years of your hard work being trashed because somebody thinks they know something-You all know nothing about me, yet you choose to jump on the wagon with barry--in dogs we call that pack mentality, and it can be dangerous--
Barry--
Email me your retraction so I can put it in our newsletter!!
Natalie
anonymous 'cause I'm still blocked.....
By
Anonymous, at 9:30 PM
Some dogs do better on a chain and some do better in a kennel. Some dogs do good running loose in the back yard. Though I believe most dogs will either dig out, chew through or jump over any fence that could be built around someones yard. And that would leave them free to roam, causing property damage, spreading diseases and mating with other free roaming animals producing a large percentage of the dogs that are currently filling up shelters. It should be up to the dogs owner to determine what is best for his or her dog. Simple as that. Letting dogs run free is the problem not properly tethering and confining them.
By
Anonymous, at 10:41 PM
I'd be interested to know how the writer knows the 'barking/howling' dog is tethered if it's behind a privacy fence? a tether isn't necessairily the cause of the the dogs vocalization, and I am reasonably sure Durham County has a noise ordinance or even a specific 'Barking Dog' ordinance.
Tethers are not abusive, people are abusive. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
A neglected dog is just that, neglected. Whether in a fenced yard, in a home, in a crate, on a tether.
Right on 'DixieBitch' - well said.
By
Anonymous, at 7:03 AM
DixieBitch, you've opened my eyes to the wonders of theocracy.
I propose that we immediately alter the legal statues of this great state, in the greatest, best country G-d has ever given man on the face of the Earth, so that:
* Stubborn and/or drunken male children shall be stoned to death by his parents and neighbors (Deut. 21:18-21)
* Rapists shall be forced to marry their victims, who cannot divorce their attackers, ever (Deut. 22:28-29)
* Married women shall be forbidden to speak in public (I Cor. 14:34-35, I Tim. 2:11), shall not teach in public (I Tim. 2:12), shall not appear in public with jewelry or fancy clothing (I Tim. 2:9)
* Women who cannot prove that they were virgins on their wedding nights (so, no tampons, horseback riding, riding a bicycle, gymnastics, washing your honeymoon sheets, or just unlucky genetics) shall be stoned to death (Deut. 22:20-21)
* Anyone who uses the name of G-d (as you did, in your post) shall be taken outside of the city and stoned to death for blasphemy (Lev. 24:10-23)
(Which is too bad, because you seemed like just the gal to take on my whirlwind tour of the world's greatest theocracies: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Waziristan/Baluchistan, Turkmenistan, Athos... but instead of a vacation, I'm now bound by law to organize your stoning, along with Sean Hannity's...)
By
Dan S., at 12:21 PM
Tethers are not abusive, people are abusive. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Not a terribly appropriate comparison here. While the latter statement is true, it is the law that one must obtain a permit to both own and carry a gun. A wide array of individuals may be denied permits due for various reasons.
It'd be great if we could issue permits for tethering on a case-by-case basis, and I would be all for that were it not for the impossible drain it would put on county resources. And the same problems would occur with tethering as with guns - those who can't get them legally will find ways to get them illegally.
I do believe that there are people whose tethering methods are at least as acceptable and humane as some alternatives. No person who tethers can claim that his/her situation is infallible - dogs often find ways to tangle themselves up, for example, which can cause injury and death.
I honestly feel that some people tether responsibly and that their dogs are better on tethers than in small pens. And these people are very unlikely to be cited as violators of the ordinance, should it pass. Unless responsible tetherers have dogs that are public nuisances (or vindictive neighbors), I find it unlikely that animal control would be called to investigate. However, it doesn't change the fact that they would be in violation.
I am really torn on this issue, if you couldn't tell. I concede that many people tether responsibly and many others do not. I am not sure that our county government would be right to issue a blanket law. In an ideal world, the legal acceptability of a tethering situation would vary from case to case, but we'll never have enough resources to make that happen.
By
Anonymous, at 1:19 PM
OK, Natalie -- why did AADR's website link you yours?
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:0cIS9qutzCkJ:www.online-aadr.com/Links.html+online-aadr+links&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
You know what Online-AADR is. Formerly run by TL Williams, who has been indicted on dog fighting charges.
http://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=7999499
Then AADR was run by Andrea Press of RDOES, who openly praised Mr. Williams on the website.
"The present leadership of the AADR would like to thank Mr. Williams for his vision and contribution towards the preservation of this amazing breed, and we wish him the best in his future endeavors."
Maybe this chat on game-dog will refresh your memory:
http://www.game-dog.com/forums/showthread.php?p=290584
So, Natalie -- what's your connection with AADR, RDOES, Andrea Press, and TL Williams?
By
Anonymous, at 10:13 AM
Anonymous--
surely you jest...I have no control over who links to any website-neither do you-
I regularly google our group and have never seen AADR mentioned--
the first I ever heard of AADR or TL Williams was at the Durham meeting when someone mentioned it-
I know and respect Andrea Press and have yet to see any proof of her involvement in dog fighting-you are so well informed, perhaps you're a dog fighter..??
I am on the RDOES list because they do good work--I also belong to some coon hunter lists, the H$U$ email list, and a couple of sportsmens lists, but I don't hunt either....oopps..forgot about the freecycle list--wouldn't want you to think I'm holding out on you....
I will not go to any forum on dog fighting as I do not need to add fuel to your fire...no thanks--
Once again, for the record--just in case you missed it--my organization DOES NOT have ties to any illegal activities. As noted in our follow up letter to the Commissioners, this is a typical ploy of animal rights activists...when they can't find anything truthful to say, they make up lies...the other phrase I keep hearing is that if you all are wasting your time on me, I must be doing something right....
Natalie
(who only fights AR activists)
By
Anonymous, at 8:46 PM
I just found your thread... I own several dogs (5) mostly large dogs and all house dogs... yes, they are fenced, almost two acres with dog doors giving them access to the outside whenever they need it... they are double fenced with fencing that cost well over $15k to put in place.
So my questions are... What do you do when the dogs end up standing ankle deep in their own feces in a kennel? When they are without shelter in a kennel? When they are without water in a kennel? When they howl, bark, cry and alarm all night long in a kennel?
I worked for years for the Houston SPCA as a Cruelty officer and I have been in Veterinary medicine for 23 years, I cut a number of collars off of dogs that were in kennels during that time, cut one halter off of a young horse that was in a pasture too... it had grown into and opened up his nasal passages. I have had to clean the maggots out of open wounds caused by moist dermatitis and matted hair on dogs that were both fenced and chained, raw honey does a great job of healing those wounds once you get the maggots cleaned out... just an FYI. I have had to be lifted into the window of the bathroom of an abandoned house to remove the remains of and the barely living bodies of 15 small dogs that had been left behind when their owner moved. I took one hound out of a 20x20 kennel where he was ankle deep in his own feces and had open sores, toes swollen and hair worn off on all four feet and his belly from being forced to lay in it, his poor feet were so swollen and raw he could barely walk... and confiscated plenty of dogs without food and water, with dry, grungy water bowls and food with fungus growing on it... in a kennel.
I appreciate what the Coalition is attempting to do... and I certainly HOPE that their educational efforts are rewarded... but you cannot legislate morality, and you cannot FORCE people to learn or change... They must be receptive to the message before they are willing to learn, and I fear the Coalition will walk away from each dog that has been "saved" and the dog's life will be better for that day, but what about the next and the next after that? Who will be there then? Maybe I am jaded, but are you saying that everyone, after having a fence built, magically embraces the human/pet bond? I have seen too much in the past 23 years to believe that...
If I truly believed that this legislation would save even the majority of those dogs, and not punish the people who DO tether responsibly for any number of reasons... fencing not allowed by their home owner's associations, rental agreements or lack of funds, etc... then I could be more supportive.
I too went to the Durham CC meeting, but I did not speak as I do not live in Durham, though I often work there... I listened to the passionate stories of those who spoke in favor of the ban... and all I could think of was that none of those things would necessarily be changed by taking those dogs off of tethers... only long term education and a strong human/pet bond would create change. Only constant follow up, showing and teaching them how to interact with their pets, housebreaking their pets, assisting in training and building that bond would create the long term change that would ultimately improve the life of that pet.
We like to take part in these initiatives, feeling good about what we have done... but ultimately, what have we really changed? What have we accomplished other than to make ourselves feel good about ourselves? To be able too pat ourselves on the back and go to bed at night "believing" even erroneously... that we have created change.
I just have a hard time supporting a new law that removes the rights of a targeted group of people, and possibly leads to more dogs roaming... and I am sorry, I don't think that euthanasia is necessarily better than being tethered, as long as the dog is alive, there is hope of change... but once he is dead, all hope has ended.
That hound I mentioned earlier... he lived out the last eight years of his life with a good friend of mine... he had his own bed, his own dishes and got to sleep on the couch, he had a life jacket and got to ride summers on the boat... He had not given up hope, and neither should we on his behalf.
By
Anonymous, at 10:28 PM
"I know and respect Andrea Press"
Really? You know Andrea Press and yet you had never heard of AADR? Either you don't know her very well or you're being less than candid.
You respect Andrea Press? You respect someone who would go out of her way to praise an indicted dog fighter?
Wow. That speaks volumes.
By
Anonymous, at 10:39 PM
but you cannot legislate morality, and you cannot FORCE people to learn or change...
Actually, we do that sort of thing all the time, don't we?
As i've mentioned several times, i heard one speaker against the ordinance last week, who claimed that tethering is more sanitary than kenneling because the tether swept the feces clean, while in the kennel, they just piled up and the dog would dig holes in the ground to bury them.
If you're the kind of dog owner who lets his or her dog to wallow in their own shit, then yeah, you shouldn't have a dog. You can teach people to be better dog owners than that. One way you do that is by demanding better behavior, describing that behavior, and then rewarding it when it occurs, and punishing bad behavior. We do that all the time.
Durham has an ordinance which requires that your trash can be brought back from the curb within 24 hours of pickup. Until recently, this wasn't enforced. But people have been getting notices attached to their trash cans about it when they leave them out at the curb, and this week, i saw a number of people in my neighborhood had received tickets. I have a suspicion that will lead to behavior change in the very near future.
By
Barry, at 10:58 PM
"I regularly google our group and have never seen AADR mentioned"
Really? Because I just googled AADR and "North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance" and it took me directly to the link on AADR's website I posted above. Google "North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance" by itself, and the AADR website link is the 58th search result. Maybe you should google more often.
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:0cIS9qutzCkJ:www.online-aadr.com/Links.html+aadr+%22north+carolina+responsible+animal+owners%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari
And you would have us believe that although you "know and respect Andrea Press," she never told you that she linked to your website -- or even that she operated the AADR website? Why do you think Andrea didn't tell you about AADR?
"I will not go to any forum on dog fighting"
No one said game-dog was a forum on dog fighting -- except you. But since you say that it is, why do you think Andrea Press, someone you "know and respect" is being discussed on a forum that YOU describe as a "forum on dog fighting"?
http://www.game-dog.com/forums/showthread.php?p=290584
And for the record, while you may "respect" Andrea Press, I don't respect anyone who would praise a man indicted for dog fighting.
By
Anonymous, at 8:04 AM
I fear the Coalition will walk away from each dog that has been "saved" and the dog's life will be better for that day, but what about the next and the next after that? Who will be there then?
Actually, the Coalition will still be there. We make a point of checking on the dogs we have freed. We often bring them flea and tick medicine and food. We don't just build fences - we establish relationships with the dogs and the people, and we genuinely care about what happens to them.
By
Anonymous, at 10:24 AM
Now this is RICH.
After that little self-righteous rant about how she would never even dream of visiting the game-dog forum, looks who's making an appearance on pitbull-chat.com! Nice touch including your name and email address.
http://www.pitbull-chat.com/showthread.php?t=13760
Know how I found it? Yep, used the google.
Really, Natalie [or do you prefer qehounds?] you've outdone yourself this time, circulating a petition accusing supporters of the anti-tethering ordinance
of. . . . .
wait for it. . . .
"terrorist ties"
Terrorists!
Hey, Natalie -- you forgot:
pinko
commie
'merica hatin'
latte sippin'
NPR listenin'
community organizin'
librul
atheists
[as an aside: Isn't terrorism a crime? You wouldn't be accusing supporters of having ties to criminal activity now, would you?]
Natalie, this may be hard to hear, but, honestly, I'm telling you for you own good:
You are a freakin' hypocrite
By
Anonymous, at 8:48 PM
I think someone's lawyer needs to be thinking about defending against a libel charge.
Terrorists.
Jesus H. Christ.
All i want is to be able to sleep through the night with my fucking windows open without having to hear someone's tied up dog whining for three hours at a time.
By
Barry, at 9:48 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home