"If we can't have the dogs chained to the tree, what's the point of having them?"

I myself, have a dog that is tied out.  He is on a runner strung between two trees in my back yard.  He is not able to come in the house because we are living with my parents due to a divorce, financial restrants, etc., and they do not allow any animals in the house.  This does not mean, however, that he is not loved and cared for.  Let me tell you about him.....
Before he came to live with us, he was not tied out.  He was not allowed in his house for more than a little while at a time....and because of this, he was hit by a car, and had severe injuries, and he was attacked and beat up by another dog and had severe injuries.  Once all those injuries were healed, he was kept in a fence...seems safe enough right?  WRONG.  Dogs dont like being kept in an enclosed area....he tried to dig out.  This resulted in VERY VERY serious gashes on his back approximately and inch deep...all from NOT being tied out or chained up.  This is when he came to me....I tied him to a tree....thats right, I TIED HIM TO A TREE.  Which allowed me to take care of the awful cuts on his back, and ensure he was safe and well taken care of.  I then put a runner up for him to give him more room.  He now has a 50 foot runner tied between two trees, and I let him off everyday for a couple of hours to run around, and do those adorable doggie things.  HOWEVER, to him, that runner is safety.  He no more than runs around the yard, and goes straight back to his doghouse and sits there untill he is put back on his runner.  BECAUSE I have him tied out, he has a very safe, loving home.
So, IMO, each situation needs to be looked at individually....its not always because the dogs arent loved, but because that is sometimes what is best for their safety and health!

ORIGINAL: sooner

I think saying "lots" is a major overstatement. Those type of responsible owners, who are able to maintain a good quality of life for the dog, are the exception rather than the norm.

No, I think saying "lots" is a fair statement.. I'm not saying "lots" of people chain their dogs out... I'm saying "lots" of people who do chain their dogs, who care for their dogs and treat them the way the deserve to be treated, are going to be punished by this law.

I agree with you angl... I also had a dog that HAD to be tied... he did come in when we got home, but for his own safely could not be trusted to stay in the fence. If he was outside, he HAD to be chained or tied. It was for his own safely. Now, according to this new law, I'd be breaking the law and fined... but I guess that's more fair. Yep, don't chain him, let him run around and climb the fence and get hit by a car... but don't chain him to a tree for God's sake!!

I think saying "lots" is a major overstatement. Those type of responsible owners, who are able to maintain a good quality of life for the dog, are the exception rather than the norm.

ORIGINAL: sooner

I dont agree with this statement at all.....I dont know of anyone that has a dog chained outside that abuses it, neglects, or mistreats it.  And trust me...where I come from, this is "the norm" as you put it.

Perhaps you could consider that there are other methods to contain dogs that climb.  You could also ut a top on the kennel and a solid bottom under it... IMO, that's expensive, which is why people don't do it, but if you can't afford a secure kennel, what will vet bills do to your budget?! 
You think this is ok, because you never walked out of a barn to find a young man screaming and crying because his dog choked while tied to a tree - happened at a place where I used to board my Appy mare.  Saddest thing, and preventable.
 

That also is the normal situation where I am. Maybe it's *gasp* a southern thing, but that's the way it is... especially with older folks. Dogs just don't belong inside. And here, it's the law that dogs must be confined... and since very few people can afford fencing, they chain their dogs. They put the dog house next tot he tree trunk where the dog can have shelter (int he form of the dog house and the tree.) The tree provides shade and covering from weather, is how they see it.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

Perhaps you could consider that there are other methods to contain dogs that climb.  You could also ut a top on the kennel and a solid bottom under it... IMO, that's expensive, which is why people don't do it, but if you can't afford a secure kennel, what will vet bills do to your budget?! 
You think this is ok, because you never walked out of a barn to find a young man screaming and crying because his dog choked while tied to a tree - happened at a place where I used to board my Appy mare.  Saddest thing, and preventable.

It had nothing to do with finnances, he would have gotten nowhere near the amount of room or freedom in a chainlink kennel that he got by being tied out.
I guess it's just a matter of opinion.

I, again, agree with you mehpenn....my dog has much more freedome being tied than he would in a kennel.  AND, this way, he is allowed to dig, and roll in the dirt [], and chase a few squirrels, and still be safe, without being COMPLETELY confined.

ORIGINAL: mehpenn

he did come in when we got home, but for his own safely could not be trusted to stay in the fence. If he was outside, he HAD to be chained or tied. It was for his own safely. Now, according to this new law, I'd be breaking the law and fined...

I think that's where the prolonged period of time clause comes into play. I don't think they would punish this situation where the dog got to go in when people were home.

ORIGINAL: angl012778

I dont know of anyone that has a dog chained outside that abuses it, neglects, or mistreats it. And trust me...where I come from, this is "the norm" as you put it.

There are those that say the chaining in and of itself, so that the dog does not get appropriate interaction with its pack (family), is mistreatment.

In Oklahoma, at least in the rural areas, this is also the norm. That doesn't necessarily make it right. And I stand by my statement that, of the people who do chain their dogs out, the majority are not the type of owners you are or are defending.

Edited to fix original quote.

Angl.. is your dog a labrador? I have a black lab myself and a german shepherd. Aren't they great dogs?
I think it's sad that we don't hear about the thousands of dogs that are chained to "trees" that are treated appropriately, all we hear about are those who are abused and neglected. Like not hearing about pitts that are great family pets and only hearing about those that attack people. (another subject for antoher day, I know) 
All I'm saying is it's unfair for innocent, caring people to be punished for what those who don't even deserve to own a dog has done. And it's unfair to "assume" that just because soemone chains or ties their dog that they are bad people who neglect and abuse their dogs.
 

I don't know about all breeds, but with pits a LARGE percentage of bites are caused by a chained dog.  I do not think that is an accident. 

I did say I dont know of anyone that has a dog chained out that NEGLECTS them right??  In my opinion, confining a dog completely....in a kennel would be just as bad if not worse than on a chain....is neglect.  Think about it this way......put a dog in a kennel with a floor and a roof (of any type, chain link fence, wood, shingles, whatever) instead of tieing him to a tree........a tree has shade, and fresh air....and he can run at least 45 feet or so.  A kennel?  Can you gaurantee shade?  Can he dig ( a very natural instinct for dogs) How much room does he have to run?  If hes in a kennel, does this mean he will not be neglected?   Does that mean he will have food and water everyday?  If he is in a kennel, not on a chain, does it mean he will taken out of that kennel and played with?  Or that he will even have the option of playing with roaming neighborhood dogs and cats, like my dog does??  
I guess what im saying is that if people are neglecting dogs on chains....putting them in a kennel could and possibly will make it worse.

Do you really WANT your dog to play with wander random animals!?!?! 

ORIGINAL: sooner

There are those that say the chaining in and of itself, so that the dog does not get appropriate interaction with its pack (family), is mistreatment.

Edited to fix original quote.

But locking a dog in a barn or in a kennel is okay? Still wouldn't that be considered mistreatment? I mean the dog still wouldn't be able to get the "appropriate interraction" with it's family? So what's the difference in that and chaining or tieing a dog?
Drive through any neighborhood in my area and you'll see one of three situations, primarily. 1. Dogs chained or tied out in the yard. 2. Dog in a "kennle" uaually 10x10 or something in the yard. 3. Dog peering out the door or window.
Now, who are we to say that any of these dogs aren't happy or are being mistreated or abused just by what we see as we're driving by? But with this new law.. the dog in the 10x10 kennekl is considered okay, the dog peering out the window is okay... but the dog on the chain who actually has more freedom than the dog in the kennel or the house.. is being abused. Whatever! Give me a break!

ROAMING NEIGHBORHOOD DOGS AND CATS....did i leave that out?  If they are neighborhood animals, that means I know them....I did not say "stray dogs and cats" or "wild animals".  And, yes, I like for him to play with these animals...why??????  Because these "responsible" owners that dont tie their dogs, also dont keep an eye on them, and they all stand a very high risk of being hit by a car, or causing other problems.  At least if they are in my yard, playing with my dog, I know they will be safe, and are happy.