Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
ALERT: Animal cruelty favored by Miami-Dade Commissioners - WRITE
Please don't let this cruelty stand. On Jan. 22, the Miami-Dade County Commission turned its back on the suffering of chained dogs. Commissioners refused to vote on a tethering ban ordinance.
Please crosspost widely
On Tuesday, January 22, the Miami-Dade County Commission refused to vote on the tethering ban ordinance that was proposed by the County's Dept. of Animal Services. By refusing to vote, commissioners are allowing dogs to spend their lives on the end of a chain. Please don't let this cruelty stand. Help the dogs by writing to Commissioners.
The Commissioner's statements against the tethering ban showed that they didn't care that chained dogs suffer terribly or that the AVMA, animal lovers and animal protection groups condemn tethering. They were only concerned about losing the votes of people who keep their dogs chained. Breeders and the AKC lobbied against the ban.
At the bottom of this alert is the ban introduced by Miami-Dade Animal Services.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Write and fax the Miami-Dade County Commissioners. Explain why chaining is cruel. Tell them to be humane and pass a ban that protects dogs. Other jurisdictions have enacted tethering ban ordinances. If you plan to boycott travel to Miami Beach and Miami until a good tethering ban is passed, please say so.
Commissioner emails:
district11 [at] miamidade.gov, District4 [at] miamidade.gov, District12 [at] miamidade.gov, District3 [at] miamidade.gov, District9 [at] miamidade.gov, District6 [at] miamidade.gov, district5 [at] miamidade.gov, BMORRIS2 [at] miamidade.gov, District1 [at] miamidade.gov, District7 [at] miamidade.gov, District7 [at] miamidade.gov, District8 [at] miamidade.gov
Commissioner Seijas has no email. Fax her at 305-375-2011
Board of County Commissioners website: http://www.miamidade.gov/commiss/
Facts about chaining:
Continuous tethering makes dogs aggressive:
A 1994 study by the Centers for Disease Control found that chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite.
The American Veterinary Medical Association said in 2003, "Never tether or chain your dog because this can contribute to aggressive behavior."
When confronted with a threat, dogs instinctively run or fight. A chained dog, unable to flee, often feels forced to fight, attacking any unfamiliar animal or person who comes into his or her territory. Children have been injured or killed after going into a chained dog's area, or encountering a dog who has broken free from a chain.
Continuous tethering is inhumane:
In 1996, The United States Department of Agriculture said, "Our experience in enforcing the Animal Welfare Act has led us to conclude that continuous confinement of dogs by a tether is inhumane."
Tethered dogs are easy targets for attacks by other animals. They are killed or injured by extremes in weather, poisoned by humans, and made sick from animal feces or bird droppings. In many cases, the necks of chained dogs become raw and covered with sores from the dogs' constant yanking and straining to escape confinement. Dogs have been found with collars embedded in their necks.
Dogs are social animals. Tethering inflicts cruelty on dogs by forcing them to live in solitary confinement, unable to interact normally. Lonely and isolated, chained dogs are know to bark excessively at all hours of the day and night.
The tethering ban proposed by Miami-Dade County Animal Services:
Sec. 5-21. Tethering of dogs.
(a) As used in this section, tether means to restrain a dog by tying the dog to any object or structure, including without limitation a house, tree, fence, post, garage, or shed, by any means, including without limitation a chain, rope, cord, leash, or running line. Tethering shall not include using a leash to walk a dog.
(b) It shall be unlawful for a responsible party to tether the dog while outdoors, except when all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The dog is in visual range of the responsible party, and the responsible party is located outside with the dog.
(2) The tether is connected to the dog by a buckle-type collar or a body harness made of nylon or leather, not less than one inch in width.
(3) The tether has the following properties: it is at least five times the length of the dog's body, as measured from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail; it terminates at both ends with a swivel; it does not weigh more than 1/8 of the dog's weight; and it is free of tangles.
(4) The dog is tethered in such a manner as to prevent injury, strangulation, or entanglement.
(5) The dog is not outside during a period of extreme weather, including without limitation extreme heat or near-freezing temperatures, thunderstorms, tornadoes, tropical storms, or hurricanes.
(6) The dog has access to water, shelter, and dry ground.
(7) The dog is at least six (6) months of age. Puppies shall not be tethered.
(8) The dog is not sick or injured.
(9) Pulley, running line, or trolley systems are at least 15 feet in length and are less than 7 feet above the ground.
(10) If there are multiple dogs, each dog is tethered separately.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to excuse a violation of § 5-20 of this chapter.
(d) This section shall not apply to the transportation of dogs, and in the event of a conflict with § 5-15 of this chapter, § 5-15 shall govern
On Tuesday, January 22, the Miami-Dade County Commission refused to vote on the tethering ban ordinance that was proposed by the County's Dept. of Animal Services. By refusing to vote, commissioners are allowing dogs to spend their lives on the end of a chain. Please don't let this cruelty stand. Help the dogs by writing to Commissioners.
The Commissioner's statements against the tethering ban showed that they didn't care that chained dogs suffer terribly or that the AVMA, animal lovers and animal protection groups condemn tethering. They were only concerned about losing the votes of people who keep their dogs chained. Breeders and the AKC lobbied against the ban.
At the bottom of this alert is the ban introduced by Miami-Dade Animal Services.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Write and fax the Miami-Dade County Commissioners. Explain why chaining is cruel. Tell them to be humane and pass a ban that protects dogs. Other jurisdictions have enacted tethering ban ordinances. If you plan to boycott travel to Miami Beach and Miami until a good tethering ban is passed, please say so.
Commissioner emails:
district11 [at] miamidade.gov, District4 [at] miamidade.gov, District12 [at] miamidade.gov, District3 [at] miamidade.gov, District9 [at] miamidade.gov, District6 [at] miamidade.gov, district5 [at] miamidade.gov, BMORRIS2 [at] miamidade.gov, District1 [at] miamidade.gov, District7 [at] miamidade.gov, District7 [at] miamidade.gov, District8 [at] miamidade.gov
Commissioner Seijas has no email. Fax her at 305-375-2011
Board of County Commissioners website: http://www.miamidade.gov/commiss/
Facts about chaining:
Continuous tethering makes dogs aggressive:
A 1994 study by the Centers for Disease Control found that chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite.
The American Veterinary Medical Association said in 2003, "Never tether or chain your dog because this can contribute to aggressive behavior."
When confronted with a threat, dogs instinctively run or fight. A chained dog, unable to flee, often feels forced to fight, attacking any unfamiliar animal or person who comes into his or her territory. Children have been injured or killed after going into a chained dog's area, or encountering a dog who has broken free from a chain.
Continuous tethering is inhumane:
In 1996, The United States Department of Agriculture said, "Our experience in enforcing the Animal Welfare Act has led us to conclude that continuous confinement of dogs by a tether is inhumane."
Tethered dogs are easy targets for attacks by other animals. They are killed or injured by extremes in weather, poisoned by humans, and made sick from animal feces or bird droppings. In many cases, the necks of chained dogs become raw and covered with sores from the dogs' constant yanking and straining to escape confinement. Dogs have been found with collars embedded in their necks.
Dogs are social animals. Tethering inflicts cruelty on dogs by forcing them to live in solitary confinement, unable to interact normally. Lonely and isolated, chained dogs are know to bark excessively at all hours of the day and night.
The tethering ban proposed by Miami-Dade County Animal Services:
Sec. 5-21. Tethering of dogs.
(a) As used in this section, tether means to restrain a dog by tying the dog to any object or structure, including without limitation a house, tree, fence, post, garage, or shed, by any means, including without limitation a chain, rope, cord, leash, or running line. Tethering shall not include using a leash to walk a dog.
(b) It shall be unlawful for a responsible party to tether the dog while outdoors, except when all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The dog is in visual range of the responsible party, and the responsible party is located outside with the dog.
(2) The tether is connected to the dog by a buckle-type collar or a body harness made of nylon or leather, not less than one inch in width.
(3) The tether has the following properties: it is at least five times the length of the dog's body, as measured from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail; it terminates at both ends with a swivel; it does not weigh more than 1/8 of the dog's weight; and it is free of tangles.
(4) The dog is tethered in such a manner as to prevent injury, strangulation, or entanglement.
(5) The dog is not outside during a period of extreme weather, including without limitation extreme heat or near-freezing temperatures, thunderstorms, tornadoes, tropical storms, or hurricanes.
(6) The dog has access to water, shelter, and dry ground.
(7) The dog is at least six (6) months of age. Puppies shall not be tethered.
(8) The dog is not sick or injured.
(9) Pulley, running line, or trolley systems are at least 15 feet in length and are less than 7 feet above the ground.
(10) If there are multiple dogs, each dog is tethered separately.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to excuse a violation of § 5-20 of this chapter.
(d) This section shall not apply to the transportation of dogs, and in the event of a conflict with § 5-15 of this chapter, § 5-15 shall govern
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I urge Miami -Dade to reconsider. Please follow the national trend and agree to vote on and PASS legislation that limits how long dogs may be chained to a tree or broken down old car and left to pace the same patch of dirt and feces for year after maddening year.
Cities, counties and states across the country are finally putting a dent in this method of canine confinement favored by backyard breeders, dog fighters, drug dealers, and, sadly, all too many people who simply take the "easy way out" (the negligent way out) when it comes to caring for their dogs.
Why can't Miami-Dade do the same? Why must Miami-Dade bow the pressure of breeders?
My state, California, enacted a similar non-tethering law in 2006. By all accounts, it has been a success. Responsible pet owners are not affected and animal control now has a useful tool to rescue dogs from truly abusive situations that were previously not reached by our animal welfare laws.
Chaining a social, intelligent animal like a dog for its entire life leads to neurotic, often-aggressive or half-insane animals, which pose a danger to people. How many tragic maulings involve chained dogs? See mothersagainstdogchaining.org for some sad statistics.
The only real arguments against anti-tethering laws are either 1) "don't tell me what to do with my property" (the only true argument that breeders have) 2) people have chained dogs for centuries or 3) the laws are difficult to enforce.
Responses to No. 1 and No. 2 are easy: We already tell people plenty about what they can and cannot do with regard to their animal "properties. " They must vaccinate their dogs. They must license their dogs. They may not beat to death or starve their dogs. Laws requiring people to confine their animals behind a fence -- or to make them think twice before even getting a dog -- simply plug a gaping hole in existing animal welfare laws. Why tell people it is wrong to torture a dog by fighting it or by starving it to death, but it is acceptable to torture a dog day in and day out by tying it to a tree for 10 years with only minimal "shelter" from the elements, etc.?
Just because something has "always been done" does not make it right. That's why we are constantly refining our laws.
Enforceability of anti-tethering laws should not be a concern. Of course animal control officers will not be walking around neighborhoods with stop watches in hand. But when confronted with a situation where a dog has been chained to a tree for10 years, panting in the sun, half-mad from a lifetime of confinement, and fed and watered only every other day (all perfectly legal now in Miami-Dade), animal control would finally have has a tool - a LAW - at its disposal. They could finally be able to tell people, "No, our society is now erring on the side of responsible pet ownership. We are no longer erring on the side of letting people do what they want with vulnerable animals. We are no longer erring on the side of what breeders and dog fighters prefer."
The vast majority of reasonable people understand that dogs need some amount of care, companionship, exercise and protection from the elements. Leaky, plywood doghouses do not constitute "shelter," no matter how much people might convince themselves otherwise.
Please vote on the side of reasonable people, on the side of compassion and in line with the national trend of enacting these laws. Please do NOT bow the pressure of breeders.
Please reconsider.
Thanks for your time.
Cities, counties and states across the country are finally putting a dent in this method of canine confinement favored by backyard breeders, dog fighters, drug dealers, and, sadly, all too many people who simply take the "easy way out" (the negligent way out) when it comes to caring for their dogs.
Why can't Miami-Dade do the same? Why must Miami-Dade bow the pressure of breeders?
My state, California, enacted a similar non-tethering law in 2006. By all accounts, it has been a success. Responsible pet owners are not affected and animal control now has a useful tool to rescue dogs from truly abusive situations that were previously not reached by our animal welfare laws.
Chaining a social, intelligent animal like a dog for its entire life leads to neurotic, often-aggressive or half-insane animals, which pose a danger to people. How many tragic maulings involve chained dogs? See mothersagainstdogchaining.org for some sad statistics.
The only real arguments against anti-tethering laws are either 1) "don't tell me what to do with my property" (the only true argument that breeders have) 2) people have chained dogs for centuries or 3) the laws are difficult to enforce.
Responses to No. 1 and No. 2 are easy: We already tell people plenty about what they can and cannot do with regard to their animal "properties. " They must vaccinate their dogs. They must license their dogs. They may not beat to death or starve their dogs. Laws requiring people to confine their animals behind a fence -- or to make them think twice before even getting a dog -- simply plug a gaping hole in existing animal welfare laws. Why tell people it is wrong to torture a dog by fighting it or by starving it to death, but it is acceptable to torture a dog day in and day out by tying it to a tree for 10 years with only minimal "shelter" from the elements, etc.?
Just because something has "always been done" does not make it right. That's why we are constantly refining our laws.
Enforceability of anti-tethering laws should not be a concern. Of course animal control officers will not be walking around neighborhoods with stop watches in hand. But when confronted with a situation where a dog has been chained to a tree for10 years, panting in the sun, half-mad from a lifetime of confinement, and fed and watered only every other day (all perfectly legal now in Miami-Dade), animal control would finally have has a tool - a LAW - at its disposal. They could finally be able to tell people, "No, our society is now erring on the side of responsible pet ownership. We are no longer erring on the side of letting people do what they want with vulnerable animals. We are no longer erring on the side of what breeders and dog fighters prefer."
The vast majority of reasonable people understand that dogs need some amount of care, companionship, exercise and protection from the elements. Leaky, plywood doghouses do not constitute "shelter," no matter how much people might convince themselves otherwise.
Please vote on the side of reasonable people, on the side of compassion and in line with the national trend of enacting these laws. Please do NOT bow the pressure of breeders.
Please reconsider.
Thanks for your time.
I received a nice response back from one of the commissioners. The gist of it was that the commission would have been much more likely to vote on a proposed ordinance that did not COMPLETELY ban tethering, but instead put a time limit on the practice.
It got me to thinking (again) that proposing COMPLETE bans on tethering, as was apparently the attempt here, is probably too much too soon and is just simply not going to fly in most communities. Some very progressive cities, like Austin, Texas, will accept complete bans. But places will not. Wouldn't our anti-tethering "movement" better advance the cause and the humane treatment of dogs by proposing laws that put reasonable time limits on tethering? California's statewide law, which limits tethering to 3 hours in any 24-hour period, is a lovely example of legislation that is both animal-friendly and palatable to the people who have to enforce the laws, etc.
And let's be realistic: There ARE dog caretakers out there who chain dogs for short periods of time, perhaps even all day when they're at work, but otherwise love for and care for their dogs.
Thoughts anyone?
It got me to thinking (again) that proposing COMPLETE bans on tethering, as was apparently the attempt here, is probably too much too soon and is just simply not going to fly in most communities. Some very progressive cities, like Austin, Texas, will accept complete bans. But places will not. Wouldn't our anti-tethering "movement" better advance the cause and the humane treatment of dogs by proposing laws that put reasonable time limits on tethering? California's statewide law, which limits tethering to 3 hours in any 24-hour period, is a lovely example of legislation that is both animal-friendly and palatable to the people who have to enforce the laws, etc.
And let's be realistic: There ARE dog caretakers out there who chain dogs for short periods of time, perhaps even all day when they're at work, but otherwise love for and care for their dogs.
Thoughts anyone?
For more information:
http://www.dogsdeservebetter.org
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network