On tethering
You can't tether your dogs in Athens-Clarke County anymore thanks to a new ordinance, and I think that's a bad thing.
Hear me out. By no means is that because I think tethering is OK (quite the contrary actually), but rather because I think an ordinance of this type, as District One Commissioner Doug Lowry put it last night, applies a blunt object to something which needs surgical precision.
And this isn't the belittle or decry the work of District Ten Commissioner Elton Dodson and the Legislative Review Committee (again, quite the contrary). He and the committee are to be commended for the time, research and effort they put into crafting this ordinance. While I supported Lowry's opposition, I didn't necessarily agree with his line of argument to reach said opposition.
Truth be told, I supported this ordinance going into last night's discussion. But as I watched the debate unfold, more and more questions crept into my mind and it was actually comments from Dodson that sealed the deal for me.
Among my concerns ...
- Dodson openly said, just prior to voting for the ordinance, that in its current form it made him 'uncomfortable' and that it was 'sloppy.' In my mind, I couldn't in good faith support an ordinance that I felt was either of those things.
- District Seven Commissioner Kathy Hoard argued in favor of the ordinance by saying there was ample room to permit tethering if it was done temporarily and in the presence of an owner (though one could argue that rarely happens and might actually be more cruel than unattended tethering). This, however, creates a litany of questions regarding adequate enforcement. What if someone is a serial offender when it comes to tethering, but during each animal control visit is either outside with the dog or can offer up an adequate excuse that covers his or her transgressions?
- Furthermore, don't we have existing ordinances that can address this issue in a considerably more clear fashion? Wouldn't a starved dog that was chained to a tree for its existence be something where animal control could step in? And, if not, why can't the commission craft an ordinance which gives them the latitude to investigate these situations that doesn't include a blanket ban which sweeps up non-criminal activity?
- District Three Commissioner George Maxwell rightly noted that this ban will unfairly impact lower-income citizens who now must build a fence and, for some, this might be out of their economic reach. It just seems fairly backwards to me to craft an ordinance that will bring about economic hardships retroactively for some citizens, particularly one where one of the speakers at public input openly said something to the effect of 'forget about the people, keep the dogs in mind' (to be fair, I'm paraphrasing).
- As an aside, I have no idea where Hoard got her numbers regarding the costs of building a fence (unless I misheard her, she said one could be done for less than $100). My fence, which is just two sides as I was permitted to connect with two neighbors' fences, cost $1,300 in parts and labor. Talking to some folks last night, parts alone would cost more than $750.
- Dodson and Hoard both noted that it was foolish to wait any longer to implement the ordinance as Lowry suggested based on the considerable amount of time that was focused on this particular issue. And what I'm about to say isn't meant to belittle the work of the LRC, but ... why are we spending more than six months on a tethering ordinance? Aren't their bigger fish to fry? To be fair, I think Dodson shared this frustration as he explained their work.
- Finally, let's be completely honest about this ... because this is an ordinance that affects dogs, it becomes irrationally emotional for some in the community (one woman likened tethering to seeing children chained to trees). Dogs are cute and dogs are fun, so it's easy to rally support for them (and, again, unattended and long-term tethering is cruel and animal control should address those issues). However, we don't see the community getting all riled up to, say, protest the conditions of chickens that are stored in confined spaces so we can either harvest their eggs or eat them. Why? Well ... dogs are cute and dogs are fun.
Hear me out. By no means is that because I think tethering is OK (quite the contrary actually), but rather because I think an ordinance of this type, as District One Commissioner Doug Lowry put it last night, applies a blunt object to something which needs surgical precision.
And this isn't the belittle or decry the work of District Ten Commissioner Elton Dodson and the Legislative Review Committee (again, quite the contrary). He and the committee are to be commended for the time, research and effort they put into crafting this ordinance. While I supported Lowry's opposition, I didn't necessarily agree with his line of argument to reach said opposition.
Truth be told, I supported this ordinance going into last night's discussion. But as I watched the debate unfold, more and more questions crept into my mind and it was actually comments from Dodson that sealed the deal for me.
Among my concerns ...
- Dodson openly said, just prior to voting for the ordinance, that in its current form it made him 'uncomfortable' and that it was 'sloppy.' In my mind, I couldn't in good faith support an ordinance that I felt was either of those things.
- District Seven Commissioner Kathy Hoard argued in favor of the ordinance by saying there was ample room to permit tethering if it was done temporarily and in the presence of an owner (though one could argue that rarely happens and might actually be more cruel than unattended tethering). This, however, creates a litany of questions regarding adequate enforcement. What if someone is a serial offender when it comes to tethering, but during each animal control visit is either outside with the dog or can offer up an adequate excuse that covers his or her transgressions?
- Furthermore, don't we have existing ordinances that can address this issue in a considerably more clear fashion? Wouldn't a starved dog that was chained to a tree for its existence be something where animal control could step in? And, if not, why can't the commission craft an ordinance which gives them the latitude to investigate these situations that doesn't include a blanket ban which sweeps up non-criminal activity?
- District Three Commissioner George Maxwell rightly noted that this ban will unfairly impact lower-income citizens who now must build a fence and, for some, this might be out of their economic reach. It just seems fairly backwards to me to craft an ordinance that will bring about economic hardships retroactively for some citizens, particularly one where one of the speakers at public input openly said something to the effect of 'forget about the people, keep the dogs in mind' (to be fair, I'm paraphrasing).
- As an aside, I have no idea where Hoard got her numbers regarding the costs of building a fence (unless I misheard her, she said one could be done for less than $100). My fence, which is just two sides as I was permitted to connect with two neighbors' fences, cost $1,300 in parts and labor. Talking to some folks last night, parts alone would cost more than $750.
- Dodson and Hoard both noted that it was foolish to wait any longer to implement the ordinance as Lowry suggested based on the considerable amount of time that was focused on this particular issue. And what I'm about to say isn't meant to belittle the work of the LRC, but ... why are we spending more than six months on a tethering ordinance? Aren't their bigger fish to fry? To be fair, I think Dodson shared this frustration as he explained their work.
- Finally, let's be completely honest about this ... because this is an ordinance that affects dogs, it becomes irrationally emotional for some in the community (one woman likened tethering to seeing children chained to trees). Dogs are cute and dogs are fun, so it's easy to rally support for them (and, again, unattended and long-term tethering is cruel and animal control should address those issues). However, we don't see the community getting all riled up to, say, protest the conditions of chickens that are stored in confined spaces so we can either harvest their eggs or eat them. Why? Well ... dogs are cute and dogs are fun.
posted by Jmac at 7:49 AM
21 Comments:
As I wrote a day or two ago, I had doubts about the proposed tethering ordinance.
As it turns out, I should have had no doubts at all; the ordinance is plainly a bad one (for a variety or reasons) and should not have been adopted (especially given its "sloppy" nature).
Unfortunately, its adoption was also entirely predictable.
Allrighty, JMac...I'm gonna get angry here.
1. What the hell is "teethering"? It's "tethering."
2. I will agree that the ordinance is vaguer than it should be. Also that some tethered dogs are not in any danger, etc. It's not a perfect law. Granted.
3. Furthermore, don't we have existing ordinances that can address this issue in a considerably more clear fashion?
Not really. We have existing laws, and they are inadequate. Which is why Animal Control is FLOODED with poorly socialized, half-starved animals at the first heat wave or cold snap. Dogs that we citizens pay to have euthanized because their owners treated them poorly, their owners won't come get them or pay fines, and an unsocialized dog in poor physical condition has no chance of being adopted. The current laws don't allow AC to seize dogs until they are in imminent danger of death or off their owners' property. And the existing laws don't address the more nebulous issues with tethering (humane care, aggression, etc.) at all.
4. District Three Commissioner George Maxwell rightly noted that this ban will unfairly impact lower-income citizens who now must build a fence and, for some, this might be out of their economic reach.
This is a good point, and one which has a couple of answers.
a) if you can't afford a fence, then chances are that you can't afford to provide adequate care to a dog. Spaying/neutering, food, vaccinations (which tethered dogs are VERY unlikely to have), etc.
b) This is where the vagueness comes in. If the ordinance allowed runners, then we'd be talking $20. But...a pen costs about $100, and a crate costs less. Keeping your dog in your house with you and taking it outside for walks and necessary business is free.
c) However, I would hope that ACC has some sort of plans to ignore or treat leniently those who are not breaking other laws and/or are facing hardships. That will be necessary as people adjust to the new law. (That's the case, anyway, 'cause AC is complaint-driven.)
5. Finally, let's be completely honest about this ... because this is an ordinance that affects dogs, it becomes irrationally emotional for some in the community...However, we don't see the community getting all riled up to, say, protest...chickens...
And Nicki is now angry. The above is a cheap shot, and it's based on several logical fallacies. The most obvious being that people who are working against tethering aren't also working against chickens...or rape...or poverty in the community. Like myself, dammit. I didn't work on this ordinance. I do support it. and you know I support and work hard on a variety of issues, some of which we share.
Furthermore, "some in the community" is a straw man -- how many of the people supporting the anti-tethering ordinance are people who equate dogs with children? "Some" -- which you seem to be treating as the whole.
Anyway, IMO, your post is a tad inflammatory and ill-informed. If you'd like an alternative take on the ordinance, and on the reasons why it is important to address tethering as a humane issue, I'll be glad to post one.
Okay, I criticized the Commission on the dog tethering issue.
In the interest of fairness, though, I must give it kudos for instituting the waiver plan for serving alcohol near schools and churches. I would have preferred to see the distance restrictions dropped altogether, but this approach is not so bad (and had the advantage of actually being acceptable to enough people to get it passed).
I know somebody who tethers chickens.
Not kidding.
Not really. We have existing laws, and they are inadequate. Which is why Animal Control is FLOODED with poorly socialized, half-starved animals at the first heat wave or cold snap. Dogs that we citizens pay to have euthanized because their owners treated them poorly, their owners won't come get them or pay fines, and an unsocialized dog in poor physical condition has no chance of being adopted.
But what will happen now that this ordinance is in place? You actually think there will be less mistreated dogs burdening the system? Are the poorer dog owners (who are most likely to be tetherers) simply going to come up with the money that will be required to comply with this ordinance? If they can't come up with the money, then they will have no choice but to abandon their dogs. Surely some significant number of poor dog owners will end up in this boat, and thus as a direct result of this ordinance more mistreated dogs will be put into the 'system.'
Another case of regulations and laws hurting the very entities they are intended to help. We've been hurting people with such laws since the beginnning of time, so now it's time to go after dogs. All in the name of helping them, of course...
Easy Nicki ...
1. What the hell is "teethering"? It's "tethering."
I've got a typo. Sue me.
2. I will agree that the ordinance is vaguer than it should be. Also that some tethered dogs are not in any danger, etc. It's not a perfect law. Granted.
OK, but doesn't this merely reinforce my point? Again, I'm not saying we can craft perfect laws, but we should be striving to put the best ones forward possible that don't use a broad brush to address what are specific problems.
I just have a level of unease when there are considerable questions out there regarding this proposal and even its proponents are calling it 'sloppy.' Something just doesn't feel right about approving a vague ordinance which could unfairly penalize some folks and then let others off the hook and then examining it four to six months down the road.
Leading me to ...
Not really. We have existing laws, and they are inadequate. Which is why Animal Control is FLOODED with poorly socialized, half-starved animals at the first heat wave or cold snap. Dogs that we citizens pay to have euthanized because their owners treated them poorly, their owners won't come get them or pay fines, and an unsocialized dog in poor physical condition has no chance of being adopted. The current laws don't allow AC to seize dogs until they are in imminent danger of death or off their owners' property. And the existing laws don't address the more nebulous issues with tethering (humane care, aggression, etc.) at all.
Fair enough, but you omitted my follow-up question which was 'And, if not, why can't the commission craft an ordinance which gives them the latitude to investigate these situations that doesn't include a blanket ban which sweeps up non-criminal activity?'
Re: Maxwell's point and your response (since it's too long to cut and paste) ...
I don't disagree with you on many of those points, but I do think it's terribly unfair to tell someone that because they can't afford a fence, they can't afford to take of a dog ... particularly when just yesterday it was perfectly legal for them to employ other means to let the dog run outside.
Plus, whose business is it for us to tell people whether they can or can't have a dog. Surely some folks are better pet owners than others, but if you can provide food, shelter and care what right do we have to tell someone 'you can't have a dog 'cause you can't afford a pen or a fence' ...
And I would argue it's not terribly humane to keep large dogs, like retrievers or huskies, inside all day and only let free on walks.
And Nicki is now angry. The above is a cheap shot, and it's based on several logical fallacies. The most obvious being that people who are working against tethering aren't also working against chickens...or rape...or poverty in the community. Like myself, dammit. I didn't work on this ordinance. I do support it. and you know I support and work hard on a variety of issues, some of which we share.
Again, note your tone. Note your anger. Note your rush to point out all of the worthy causes you support. I'm not here to say you (or others) aren't engaged in this fights, and I think you know me well enough to know that I've made that same argument in many instances. The folks who work with Athens Canine Rescue work with Athens Grow Green work with Athens Area Homeless Shelter, etc. and etc.
Nor am I here to suggest this isn't a worthy issue to examine and, if necessary, take legislative action on. Likewise, I'm not here to say that you (or others) shouldn't be passionate for animal rights.
My point is that because this is an issue which focuses on pets, particularly dogs, there is a very high and, yes, in my view, somewhat irrational level of emotion involved in this issue. However, it's imperative to be able to step back from those emotions and examine the proposed legislation at hand and see if it's the best way to address the problem.
Also, perhaps I could have been more clear in my criticism ... namely that we don't see the commission taking action on our example of caged chickens. I would suggest to you that, again, it's because of the perfectly understandable emotional attachment owners feel toward their pets.
Listen, I'm not animal hater. I love dogs. I'd love to own a dog when I have the appropriate backyard. I just think this particular piece of legislation is something that I wouldn't have been able to support in its presented form.
And Xon's point is something which I also meant to say ... if one of the goals is to ease the burden on animal control, then how exactly does this achieve that?
They'll face more and more instances of cruelty to respond to, won't they?
There are some trailers up the street from me, where I've seen, for the past year and a half, two dogs tied up, all day, every day.
Now, this is an awful neighborhood. People get their A/c units and lawnmowers stolen in broad daylight, crackheads and homeless folks harass residents by begging for one thing or another daily, they think if you're outside, doing yard work, they should be able to just snatch your weedeater right out of your hands and make off down the street w/it... (see recent report in Police report, that Branch Street incident took place literally around the corner from me!)
But I am more afraid of the scarey looking biker types that I have NEVER seen walk these dogs, than I am of my homeless or (burning the coating off of copper wire right in their front yard) criminal neighbors. (We're on the road they walk to and from the encampment under the overpass, to the soup kitchen, and back). I've gotten to know some of the folks that walk past my house at least twice a day, but am afraid to go up and knock on the door of those neighbors and complain about the way they're treating their dogs, though I see them every day.
I have felt awful for these poor dogs, all this time, and was afraid to call the pound, because I have never been close enough to see whether the dogs are in decent shape or not. They could be, I mean, for all I know, they are inside at night, I can't see.
I can't tell if there's food or water, or shelter other than under the trailers, where they can get out of the weather.
There could be a doggie condo around back, heated and air conditioned for all I know.
But I do see very clearly that the dogs protect their owners from being broken in on.
I'm hoping now this ordinance will at least give someone probable cause to check on the dogs, who are doing more than their part to protect their humans.
Maybe if animal control comes around and threatens to take the living alarm systems from these cheap, uncaring dog owners, they'll straighten up and show their poor dogs some love, or at least a place to get in out of the rain.
There are awful people out here folks, I don't care how poor you are, there is no, NO, NOT ONE excuse for treating an innocent animal w/such cruelty. I've seen the humans outside working on their trucks, and the dogs don't even go over and try to hang out w/them. They stay far, far away, at the other end of the yard. That tells you right there that this is not a real loving dog/owner relationship. I've never had a dog that didn't want to be doing whatever I was doing right there with me. These dogs avoid their owners.
If this law gets one dog out of a relationship like this, and into a forever home w/people who love them, instead of just using them as security systems, it will be worth it. I doubt seriously that these dogs have been to a vet in years, and they are so unkempt and raggedy, I'm sure they would lunge at anyone, children or adults, who came w/in their range or territory.
I say, Go Patrick, sic em, woof, woof, woof. The doggies need you, and people need to know how to treat animals well, clearly they don't teach that, and some people will have to be persuaded via the law in how to treat our fellow creatures.
Some people don't deserve animals. Being poor is no excuse for cruelty, I'm poor, and I care for not only my own pets, but have been trapping, vetting and nuetering, and finding forever homes for those I can tame, the little crew of stray cats that came w/my house.
They have very basic shelter now, won't have babies, and eat twice a day, w/fresh water available at all times. AND they are growing more tame, and healthy, it's amazing what a little love and regular affection will do for a critter.
The only things that terrorize them are the neighborhood kids, who throw rocks at them, (isn't that how serial killers start?)and the neighborhood dogs who race around like crazy when they are allowed to run for a few minutes (usually right before dark) and the neighborhood hawks, who gotta eat too, after all.
I like their chances better now that they have a territory where they're wanted, loved, and fed, and they don't have to wander into other folks yards looking for handouts or squirrels.
Now I'm working on shelter for them for the winter, we're going to build one out of the scraps we'll have left from some work I'm doing on the house now. For now they have boxes, blankets and warming pads on really cold nights, on my porch. They are way happier than they were when I got here, and literally come running when I call them now.
Shouldn't that be our goal? To care for our critters in a way that makes their lives better?
Not to get by with as little as possible, or to cost us as little as possible, but to enhance their lives like they do ours.
Pets are a privilege, not a right. I think about that, and my poor outsiders, every night when I snuggle up w/my two insiders, and every morning when they wake up w/me, warm and loving, and spoiled rotten.
If you're going to have one, you should take care of it. Period.
What's really sad about this situation is that it takes a law to bring some people in this town around to simple human decency.
Now that's pathetic, and poverty is no excuse for ignorance, or cruelty. I'm looking for EADC and HDC to get out there in their neighborhoods w/water efficiency kits (wouldn't it have been great if they had handed those out at the Loretta Cleveland Festival?) AND to help their constituencies take proper care of their pets.
If a pen can really be built for a couple of hundred dollars, then how about some of them thar housing counselors get up out of their chairs and help vet and house some of the pets of the poor, so that everyone learns and benefits.
What a great project that would be for Hands on Athens! They could go door to door in "their" targeted neighborhoods, and hand out water conservation kits, for free, hook up the pets w/shelter, for free, and educate the renter/homeowner about the drought and low cost spays and nueters, free rabies clinics, and the basic responsibilities we have to our pets.
I never see a newspaper in anyone's driveway in my neighborhood, so it's going to take some work to make everyone aware of the drought, and this new law. Who better to do that than the agencies that've been sucking from the public trough for so long, and doing so amazingly little for the people they're supposed to serve? ( EADC, HCDC, Action and HED).
Then they'd really be serving the poor, not just talking about it.
Perhaps HED could urge the Commission to use some of the dwindling Block Grant funds to help organizations that really would get out there in these neighborhoods and do some work.
I wish this law weren't necessary, but it was, it is, and it will be as long as people are cruel and stupid.
No moratorium is going to change that, sadly.
Xon, to answer your question...
There will be more cases initially, but fewer from that point on. Which is the point. Anti-tethering laws in general (and I think we all can agree that this particular one is not perfect) are designed to raise the standards for animal care, to give animal control departments more ability to oversee animal welfare (I mentioned in my response above how limited they currently are -- if you'd like anecdotes I have plenty), and to lessen the burden on agencies like Animal Control.
Another dimension, and one I would think might be attractive to you, is that our government continually is expected to deal with the consequences of the lack of individual responsibility. You as an owner own an animal, and are more or less free to do whatever you want with it within very lenient restrictions -- but even the basic care requirements and public health measures we agree upon cannot be enforced. Meanwhile we as citizens pay annually $hundreds of thousands of dollars in Athens to rehome or euthanize animals who belong(ed) to private citizens. So, in an analagous situation to healthcare, if you have the "right" to do what you will with your animals even to the extent of abusing them, not socializing them, setting them up to contract infectious diseases, etc., you are in fact requiring a obligation of society to deal with the consequences.
There are two solutions -- one is placing more responsibility on individual owners (like Barrow County, which invoices you for the cost of euthanizing your animal, and as AC is doing with the tethering law) and the other is declaring animals private property to which humane considerations do not apply.
And JMac, I'll respond to you later on.
I know where there is a dog that died and is buried with the tether chain and collar still attached. These assholes let their dog die on the tether and then just dug a hole and buried it without even bothering to unhook the chain!
These are the kind of pondscumsuckers that made this law necessary.
It is an extreme case but we wouldn't have many laws at all if we didn't have bad people.
"Pets are a privilege, not a right."
This is the crux of the issue. If you can't afford to keep an animal properly, you shouldn't have one. Period.
Permanently chained animals are unpredictable and usually attention starved so this new ordinance is a good start. I do want to see it in action before I pass judgment on it. In the beginning, I was wary of the Community Protection Division (especially since my household is far from perfect) but the person who came out to address an issue about my junk car (my tagless 73 VW Fastback that needed engine work) was extremely pleasant and helpful. I do have to admit she seemed ready for a heated debate, but when I explained my case and how attached I was to my "baby" she was willing to work with me. If whoever is in charge of enforcing this code can maintain that same level of professionalism, able to make judgments on a case by case evaluation, and are willing to work with folks who show a genuine concern for their animal, I think ACC can pull this off without too many complaints. Give it a couple of months and I'm sure a new nonprofit will be started to solicit funds and build pens for needy pets. This is Athens after all. A chain-link pen is pricy, but chicken wire (and similar wire fencing) and posts are dirt cheap. I built a dog enclosure at an old rental using these materials for $75. It wasn't pretty but it was practical and people in this town will donate money for anything.
... people in this town will donate money for anything.
Help me identify them! I need to raise $106,000 for IHN of Athens next year!
Let me add here that the Humane Society already works with the Council on Aging to spay/neuter, vaccinate, etc., pets belonging to the poorer elderly, and they have provided people with runners, houses, etc. -- I'd be surprised if that kind of help doesn't expand to accommodate the new regulations.
Ok, JMac...sorry for taking so long to get to it.
Again, I'm not saying we can craft perfect laws, but we should be striving to put the best ones forward possible that don't use a broad brush to address what are specific problems.
In theory, yes. But there are some inherent problems in tethering, and for that reason a law targeting it specifically is logical and humane. Furthermore, the tethering law is a fairly effective means of allowing animal control officers additional means of assessing animal welfare and responding. (And they really don't have it now.)
...my follow-up question...was 'And, if not, why can't the commission craft an ordinance which gives them the latitude to investigate these situations that doesn't include a blanket ban which sweeps up non-criminal activity?'
A) One of the intents is to preclude criminal activity through education. B) I don't think that's possible. The state laws are fairly lenient -- making AC vulnerable to legal challenge -- and AC is not funded to do in-depth cruelty investigations. C)I would suspect that the same objections would be raised to a liberalizing of AC's powers -- and any approach which has discretion as its foundation is highly vulnerable to legal challenge. D) As it is, Animal Control does not even have the authority to observe private property unless it can be observed from property which is public or belonging to a sympathetic party.
I don't disagree with you on many of those points, but I do think it's terribly unfair to tell someone that because they can't afford a fence, they can't afford to take of a dog.
I disagree with this merely because the inclination to properly contain and exercise one's dog is a minimal aspect of dog ownership. And monetarily speaking, the cost is not huge.
Plus, whose business is it for us to tell people whether they can or can't have a dog? ...if you can provide food, shelter and care what right do we have to tell someone 'you can't have a dog 'cause you can't afford a pen or a fence' ...
Who are we? We're the people who already outline minimum standards for lawful dog ownership, partially as a humane issue and partially as a public safety issue. Furthermore, that's a slippery slope argument. What is "care"? How do we establish it and do we enforce it?
And I would argue it's not terribly humane to keep large dogs, like retrievers or huskies, inside all day and only let free on walks.
We also disagree on this. I own four dogs, all of them large. I have a fenced yard, but it's no substitute for providing exercise. Furthermore, a fair number of people in apartments are able to humanely care for large dogs, and they do it precisely as described.
Again, note your tone. Note your anger. Note your rush to point out all of the worthy causes you support.
Note, again, that you initiated this by capping off a more or less fair examination of the issue with an attack on some of the people involved in it.
Nor am I here to suggest this isn't a worthy issue to examine and, if necessary, take legislative action on. Likewise, I'm not here to say that you (or others) shouldn't be passionate for animal rights.
Animal rights, yes. But I'm equally passionate about good government. And I don't consider it good government to enable people to continue doing the same things that are wrong and cost us money.
My point is that because this is an issue which focuses on pets, particularly dogs, there is a very high and, yes, in my view, somewhat irrational level of emotion involved in this issue.
Yes, but a limited number of people's irrational emotion does not render the argument invalid.
Also, perhaps I could have been more clear in my criticism ... namely that we don't see the commission taking action on our example of caged chickens.
Obviously all of these standards are established based on social norms. And those change. And currently they don't support local control of industrial chicken production.
As it is, Animal Control does not even have the authority to observe private property unless it can be observed from property which is public or belonging to a sympathetic party.
Thank the Lord! What would be the alternative?
More to say later perhaps. But let it be known that my wife and I were both HEAVILY involved with Athens Canine Rescue when we lived in Athns. My wife was the Adoption Coordinator, in fact, and I was something of the first husband. I also am well aware of the immoral way in which many people treat their dogs, and I have heard every excuse in the book. But, like JMac, I have to say that my horror does not automatically translate into support for whatever blanket ordinance the local lord protectors see fit to pass.
If people are being cruel to their animals, they should be punished.
But requiring everyone in Athens to build a fence or walk the dog who owns one is just ridiculous. I'm sorry.
And I do agree with JMac's assertion that issues with dogs get emotional. We treat all kinds of "domesticated" farm animals terribly (how about a bolt through the head, Mr. Cow), yet we treat dogs like humans. I love dogs, but growing up we couldn't afford a fenced yard. We kept them on runs during the day, brought them in (sometimes) at night, and they did just fine.
The ordinance states it will be illegal to tie to STATIONARY objects like animal houses, trees, cars, fences etc. I wish everyone would actually read what was passed (which is posted on the ACC website under the latest agenda) before commenting :-)
The ordinance states it will be illegal to tie to STATIONARY objects like animal houses, trees, cars, fences etc.
Why would you tether a dog to something other than a stationary object? Strapping your golden retriever to, say, a horse doesn't really accomplish much, does it?
I tether my dog to the pinky toe of Orion.
Stationary as opposed to running line.
Yes, then I made an error. If runners are allowed, then the cost of complying is about $20.
Post a Comment
<< Home