Tethering of animals; makes certain acts associated therewith Class 3 misdemeanor. (HB217)

Introduced By

Sen. Kenneth Alexander (D-Norfolk)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Tethering of animals. Makes certain acts associated with the tethering of animals a Class 3 misdemeanor. The bill prohibits such actions as (i) tethering an animal that is less than six months old, except in an emergency, (ii) tethering an animal that has not been spayed or neutered, except in an emergency, and (iii) using a tether weighing more than the animal can reasonably bear. Local governments are authorized to adopt an animal tethering ordinance that can be more restrictive than the proposed statute. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
12/27/2007Committee
12/27/2007Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 081023408
12/27/2007Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources
01/16/2008Impact statement from DPB (HB217)
01/17/2008Assigned ACNRsub: #1 Agriculture
01/23/2008Stricken from docket by Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources

Comments

Gerbera writes:

I'm kind of surprised people voted against this. Many states of similar laws to protect outdoor dogs.

Ron writes:

Gerbera: No Federal or State Constitution grants the Government power to "protect" one's dog (or any other animal, fowl, or fish). Can you say BIG GOVERNMENT???

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Under this logic, I should have the right to buy a chimpanzee, strip all of the skin from its body, drive nails through its hands, crucify it and throw acid at it, videotaping the entire spectacle and then sell copies.

Should this be legal, Ron?

Ron writes:

Waldo: If you're stupid and depraved enough to treat an animal that way (which doesn't want to have its skin stripped from its body, nails driven through its hands, be crucified, and have acid thrown on it), you are one cruel SOB. However, the question is whether animals are PRIVATE property or not. I would think you the lowest scum of the earth, but I would defend your right to do to your PRIVATE property what you see fit. OK having said that, let the brickbats fly!!!!! Let's see...according to your count the 2008 VA General Assembly has about 2400 bills introduced so far... Can you say BIG GOVERNMENT???

Claire Ward writes:

Several Virginia localities have adopted laws very similar to this. There is a considerable body of literature and professional opinion that states that prolonged tethering of dogs causes the dogs to be come frustrated and agressive. When these dogs manage to break their tethers ( as some of them do), they vent that frustration on people and other animals. I know this for a fact-I was attacked (and sent to the ER) and one of my dogs was killed by a habitually tethered dog that had broken loose.

I have stated in previous posts that I am mildly sympathetic to the property rights argument, but that I believe that property rights are void when abuse is present. I believe that prolonged tethering of dogs does constitute abuse.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

I would think you the lowest scum of the earth, but I would defend your right to do to your PRIVATE property what you see fit.

Wow. That's really stunning.

Is there anything that I couldn't do to any animal that I own? Is there any torture, any treatment, that you think should be illegal? Or if it's your property, anything goes?

Ron writes:

Simply making the point that BIG GOVERNMENT has no place in our lives. We both know that your example was to the very edge of extremism - of course there should be laws against cruelty; the question is where do we draw the line and who decides what cruelty is. Letting animals do what they do naturally in controlled circumstances is very different from what you describe and something that I and many others do not view as cruelty. So we disagree. And yes, I do realize that I'm being somewhat contradictory as regards my previous post. Gamefowl are the best cared for poultry in the world - they live to maturity (24 months) before they are fought; they are kept in the best of health (if not they don't do well in the fight - just like professional athletes. The old saw from the rightists is that they are constantly tourtured, harrassed, and given drugs to make them aggressive is just BS). Contrast that with those fowl raised for food (we do eat more than SIX BILLION a year). It makes little difference to them if they are used for food or sport. Their lives (short ones at that, maybe 6 - 8 weeks) are spent in small cages...etc., etc., you know all that. If you were a chicken wouldn't you rather be a gamecock allowed to live a rich life into maturity and then fight for your survival than simply slaughtered for food at eight weeks of age? Come on think about it!

Todd writes:

Ron: "Simply making a point that BIG GOVERNMENT has no place in our lives..."
This is not a point. It is an bald assertion. If big government is bad, is small government OK? What exactly is the difference? etc...

Wsldo's argument was a good one because what he has done is reveal the extremism in your own position.

"I do realize that I'm being somewhat contradictory as regards my previous post."
In other words, I know I'm not making sense.

I am in line with Claire who is mildly sympathetic to the property rights argument. To echo Tom Paine, were people always gentle and fair there would be no need of government at all. This not being the case, a stop-gap is required. Absolutist appeals to property rights and anti-big-government sloganeering only leave the door open for every imaginable cruelty.

Ron writes:

Todd: Small government may not be OK, but I say its got to be better! The difference is the degree to which government allows special interest groups to run the lives of its citizens. And, no I don't know that I'm not making sense - you see I think you are the ones not making sense - see another disagreement!

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Ron, you're right, you're making perfect sense. But I think you'll find that to most people it's a foolish consistency, a desire to be so consistent in your application of your beliefs as to cause you to support things that you almost certainly do not. It's OK to have your own hypocrisies, areas in which you hold a pair of beliefs that don't match up, but there you go. If you believe it's OK to fight chickens and chain dogs, but not torture primates, that's cool. You don't have to be able to justify it if that's what you actually believe -- just state it as your belief, and leave it to others to puzzle out the whys.

On the other hand, if you genuinely believe that we all have a legal right to maim dolphins and torture monkeys, then that's your business, I suppose. But don't be surprised when you find that virtually nobody else supports that position.

Ron writes:

"On the other hand, if you genuinely believe that we all have a legal right to maim dolphins and torture monkeys, then that's your business, I suppose."

Waldo, you know I don't believe that! You're the one who brought up the monkey business - I would never have been so original! And now we've got maiming dolphins in the act!

"...a desire to be so consistent in your application of your beliefs as to cause you to support things that you almost certainly do not."

I don't understand this part!

"If you believe it's OK to fight chickens and chain dogs, but not torture primates, that's cool."

I'm glad I'm "cool". I do not support the torture of any animal.

Ron writes:

"There is a considerable body of literature and professional opinion that states that prolonged tethering of dogs causes the dogs to be come frustrated and agressive."

Yes, and for and against about any other subject as well.

Gerbera writes:

do not support the torture of any animal.

Tethering (let's be real...it's chaining) up a puppy, a dog in heat (the point of the second part, I believe), or any dog on a chain so short that it can't move around, is pretty cruel. I'm not sure what the definition of torture would be, but the scenarios being targeted in this bill are probably the early stages of it (watch a few episodes of Animal Cops and you'll probably understand why I say that).

Cross Creek writes:

Gerbera writes: (watch a few episodes of Animal Cops and you'll probably understand why I say that)

Why should anyone have to watch a Hollywood type show to know when a animal is well taken care of or not. It is simple for me, if a dog is tied out on a chain, depending on the size of the dog, they need appropriate space. By this I mean enough room to move and to have thier little doo doo site so to speak. If you walk on someones property and you look at what ever animals they have and you see the water cup, bowls, or in some cases buckets with water in them 9 time out of 10 they are getting taken care of. Appropriate shelter is a no brainer to me for any animal, someone chaining up a dog in the open sun without any shelter is an idiot anyway. I feel this bill is usless as it should fall under the animal cruelty law anyway. No need to have 100 bills to cover a couple subjects. Law Makers need to keep it simple and cover Companion animals in one catagory and non- compainion animals in another, listing the do's and dont's. To be honest we are making so many different laws covering the same things that it is getting rediculous. With so many bills it becomes confusing to the average citizen.

Ron writes:

"Tethering (let's be real...it's chaining) up a puppy, a dog in heat (the point of the second part, I believe), or any dog on a chain so short that it can't move around, is pretty cruel."

If that is the intent of this bill, then put these specific items in the bill, not a blanket catch all which may have unintended consequences. If I want to tie my goat out (that is attach a rope to his collar) and let him graze my fence row I have to have him neutered? I use him for stud services - I think not! If I want to keep a gamecock on a tether do I have to have him neutered? Can you say BIG GOVERNMENT???

Waldo Jaquith writes:

If that is the intent of this bill, then put these specific items in the bill

That's exactly what has been done. Do yourself a favor and read the bill. You've apparently read only the brief summary at the top of this page, and not the bill itself.

Cross Creek writes:

§ 3.1-796.68:1. Prohibitions on tethering; penalty.
A. It is unlawful for any person to tether any animal:
1. That is less than six months of age, except briefly in case of emergency;
2. That is not spayed or neutered, except briefly in case of emergency;
3. Using a tether weighing more than the animal's weight can reasonably bear in the opinion of an animal control officer or third-party expert;
4. Without adequate space, shelter and other care as defined in § 3.1-796.66;
5. When temperatures are greater than 85 degrees, or lower than 25 degrees Fahrenheit;
6. In wet weather unless a fully enclosed and ventilated dry shelter is available; or
7. If space is inadequate to establish separate areas for eating or sleeping and defecation or urination.
B. Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

I disagree with section A: Numders 1,2,5(As long as adiguate shelter is provided) I have a problem with number 3, it should specify what 3rd party is appropriate, I say yes to a veteranrian and No to any non-professional or certified person or groups.

Gerbera writes:

Why should anyone have to watch a Hollywood type show

Goodness gracious! It's not a Hollywood show...they follow the animal control officers in Houston, NYC, Detroit, and Phoenix around. Almost every episode has a call about a dog chained up and in distress of some sort.

Numders 1,2,5(As long as adiguate shelter is provided)

1. Tie up a puppy that isn't fully grown? Way to traumatize the poor thing and leave him open to health problems (esp if he's under 5 months and doesn't have all his shots yet).
2. Tie up a dog in heat? You'll have puppies when the local stray shows up for a visit.
3. Leaving a dog outside, even with a doghouse, when it's extremely hot or extremely cold is cruel. I don't care how nice your doghouse is. Wait...unless the dog house has heat and air conditioning, which I actually have seen.

Cross Creek writes:

Gerbera, why not just make it a law that you have to bring a dog in your house from birth and keep it there if you want to own one. I have tied out puppies many times, but with proper equipment like a small cable that was almost weightless. I don't know where you live, but where I do I have a big barn and my dogs when tied up have alot of shade beside the barn in the edge of the woods if needed. Some people forget that all of Virginia is not a city setting and Virginia does extend further down south than Roanoke. I have Great Pyranese dogs, they can lay out in the middle of a blizzard and not get cold, I don't keep poodles around here. And as far as Animal Planet, it is a Hollywood type show. My kids watch it all the time when they are not out on the farm with the dogs and chickens. As far as strays, well no I don't have a problem, most people around where I live respect thier neighbors enough if thier yard is not fenced in to tie thier dogs up or put them in kennels. We respect each others properties.

Gerbera writes:

Some people forget that all of Virginia is not a city setting and Virginia does extend further down south than Roanoke.

Perhaps being in rural Virginia, you are biased about what is happening in the suburbs and the cities. This bill is addressing a real problem.

And as far as Animal Planet, it is a Hollywood type show

Animal Planet is a TV station, not a show. It is owned by The Discovery Channel, headquartered in Silver Spring, MD.

Cross Creek writes:

Gerbera writes:Perhaps being in rural Virginia, you are biased about what is happening in the suburbs and the cities. This bill is addressing a real problem.

Nope Sorry, I have lived in Richmond, Culpepper, Charlotte NC an Savannah GA.

I believe if you do not have an appropriate place to keep an animal to start with you should have one. If you rent an apartment or Townhouse and have no yard, I do not see why someone would go buy an outside dog. If you do and you own an inside dog, it is simple, when they got to go, put them on a leash and take them for a walk.

Cross Creek writes:

start with you should have one.

This was meant to say should not have one.

JONH BROWN writes:

THE ONLY PURPOSE FOR TETHERING IS TO LET A DOG RUN BACK AND FORTH. WHAT A LIFE. I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE CRUEL IF THE ANIMAL HAD NO WATER OR A PLACE TO GET OUT OF THE HEAT OR SNOW. IF YOU ARE WAITING TO HAVE A FENCE PUT UP. IT DOES NOT PROTECT THE ANIMAL FROM ANY PERSON WALKING UP TO WHERE THE DOG IS TIED AND TEASING IT. IT DOES HAVE THE TENDENCY TO MAKE A DOG MORE AGRESSIVE. IT WILL PROTECT HIS/HER SPACE. I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT NO DOG SHOULD BE HOOKED UP TO A OVERHEAD LEASH. TAKE YOUR DOG FOR A WALK, IT MIGHT BE GOOD EXERCISE FOR YOU TOO.

robert legge writes:

Am I reading this right? This bill outlaws tethering a spayed/neutered dog but not one that is not....or is it the other way around? I'm sure the dog tethering lobby will have something to say about this. Or maybe it is the dog cage lobby that is pushing it.

Gerbera writes:

Robert, perhaps I'm off the mark with my interpretation, but I assumed that that part of the bill would prevent a female in heat from being a captive target for a male dog running loose.

Nonsense writes:

God, this bill and discussion are ridiculous. You can do whatever you want to your animal. Period. You guys should be talking about abortion and things like that. You allow abortion and not allow a dog to be tied? What kind of messed up politics do you have? No wonder your economy is so weak. Aren't you in recession? That's more important than a tied up dog or a fighting chicken.