Dog Community

New law in Ca takes effect on Monday

Posted : 12/31/2006 3:20:26 PM

California will become the first state to strictly ban long-term chaining of dogs when a new law goes into effect Monday. SB1578, authored by Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, prohibits tethering, fastening, chaining or tying a dog to a stationary object for longer than three hours.

The bill, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in September, was sponsored by the CA Animal
Association, a coalition of 15 national, state and local animal protection groups.

"This is a precedent-setting animal protection and public safety measure," said Pam Runquist, a CAA representative and director of companion animal issues for the Davis based Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights. "This law has the power to protect dogs throughout the state from enduring boredom, misery, injury and even death at the end of a chain. It also has the potential to significantly reduce the number of dog attacks in CA communities since chained dogs are three times more likely to bite than unchained dogs."

In a news release, Runquist noted that the bill received support from the CA Animal Control Directors Association. A survey of animal control agencies found that citizens make hundreds of calls every month about dogs that are chained long-term.

SB1578 allows persons to tether their dogs during temporary tasks, up to a three-hour time limit. The law allows for longer tethering of dogs at parks and recreation areas, during activities licensed by the state that involve the use of a dog, and during agricultural operations for safety reasons. The use of a pulley or trolley system also is allowed.

The new law provides for penalties of up to $1,000 and six months in jail. However, animal control officers can issue a correction warning if the health and safety of the dog is not at stake. Under current law, animal control officers cannot step in to save these animals unless there are other obvious signs of neglect, such as lack of food, water or shelter.

Joyce
Looks like Arnie has done at least one thing right.

houndlove

Posted : 12/31/2006 3:22:23 PM

Meanwhile, here in Pennsyltucky our legislature couldn't even pass a law saying dogs couldn't be chained up for more than 20 out of 24 hours. Pathetic.

jjsmom06

Posted : 12/31/2006 3:24:41 PM

Joyce-
yeah...at least Arnold got this one right...still pretty bitter about him not passing the booster seat law i helped try to pass...but this is a good one.

snownose

Posted : 12/31/2006 3:41:53 PM

Yes, we need that law all across the USA.

spiritdogs

Posted : 12/31/2006 3:55:37 PM

ORIGINAL: houndlove

Meanwhile, here in Pennsyltucky our legislature couldn't even pass a law saying dogs couldn't be chained up for more than 20 out of 24 hours. Pathetic.

Have it re-filed. Your state legislator needs to know that people are serious. Get up a petition or have some constituents write letters :-)

)

fuzzy_dogs_mom

Posted : 12/31/2006 4:18:04 PM

That's a good suggestion, Anne. Sometimes states drag their feet on an issue, but once one state acts others will jump in. I think they just like to watch for a bit and see how things work out.

Joyce

gayle

Posted : 12/31/2006 4:49:57 PM

[sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif] hooray!

now if we could get something like that for all these poor dogs out here that spend half the year in snow....

DPU

Posted : 12/31/2006 5:54:31 PM

Joyce, that is great it is being done at the state level. In Indiana, one county is taking the lead but unfortuately it is not my county. But it does show you that legislation can be done at a lower level. Don't like 3 time occurence per day.

In St. Joseph County, Indiana, council members are expected in January to approve an ordinance regulating pets and putting stipulations on dogs determined to be dangerous.

The proposal originally included language listing pit bull terriers as a dangerous breed, but a committee removed the verbiage before forwarding it on to the full St. Joseph County Council for a vote. County Councilman Michael Kruk, who sponsored the ordinance, said he wasn't comfortable naming pit bulls in the measure.

"When we had the breed-specific language in there, it wasn't targeting all pit bulls," County Councilman Michael Kruk said in a telephone interview. "We wanted to get a handle on the animals in the community that are being bred wrong."

"It's the wrong people having pit bulls for the wrong reason," Keuk added, referring to those in the community near South Bend who fight pit bulls. "They're status symbols for gang members."

The ordinance, which goes before the full council on January 6, bans all pets, regardless of the breed, from running loose and requires all pets to be vaccinated and licensed. It also says dogs can't be chained for more than three hours at a time, three times a day.

The proposed measure, which Kruk described as "20-some pages long," now includes dogs, cats and ferrets.

"I never felt comfortable with the breed-specific language in the ordinance," Kruk continued. "I don't believe any specific breed is bad by nature. I believe that if you raise an animal right, with the right environment and the right people, a dog can be raised to be a gentle animal."

The ordinance, which comes on the heels of an elderly man being attacked by a dog, says no animal can run loose.

"When the measure goes before the council in January, I expect it to pass," said Kruk, who has two rescued dogs and said he grew up with pets.

A similar discussion has been taking place in Houston, Texas, in Harris County, where in November two stray dogs fatally attacked a 4-year-old boy. When it was discovered that one of the dogs was misidentified as a pit bull mix. city officials, after debating whether the county should seek state authority to ban pit bulls, decided against it.

Members of a task force, formed after the attack, agreed that the county should not ask state lawmakers for authority to ban specific breeds because Texas is one of eleven states that prohibits any kind of policy that discriminates against a specific dog breed.

Instead, Harris County officials are expected to push for legislation that allows the regulation of dangerous dogs, whatever the breed.

cassie elias

Posted : 1/1/2007 1:29:26 PM

I'm not sure I completely understand this law, would the people who have a dog across my street qualify? They have a beagle mix that is on a chain 24/7, but every once in awhile like every few days I see a girl out there playing with him, he's not skinny has shelter so do you guys think any action can be taken against his owners? He barks at everything!

fuzzy_dogs_mom

Posted : 1/1/2007 2:10:16 PM

My understanding of the law is that if the dog is tethered for longer than 3 hours, the owners can be cited. There are a couple of exceptions - being in a park/recreation area/camp site, etc. Up until this law went into effect, AC couldn't do anything if the dog had food, water & shelter. If you're living in CA, Cassiewith2dogs, I'd think that yes, you definitely could report them and something would get done.

Joyce

paulaedwina

Posted : 1/1/2007 3:16:38 PM

ORIGINAL: houndlove

Meanwhile, here in Pennsyltucky our legislature couldn't even pass a law saying dogs couldn't be chained up for more than 20 out of 24 hours. Pathetic.

Well we have so many box dogs (dogs chained to a box in the yard) I don't know what people will do for those 4 hours out of the day. Really! I don't see them throwing up a fence to contain their dogs - I see them more likely letting their dogs roam.

Paula

sallya

Posted : 1/1/2007 3:33:14 PM

I wish every state would do that. Build a safe fence and get rid of that stupid chain for GOODNESS sake. Maybe have the dog actually join the familiy INSIDE! What a concept.

Hope more states do this. Great news.

paulaedwina

Posted : 1/1/2007 3:35:22 PM

ORIGINAL: sallya

I wish every state would do that. Build a safe fence and get rid of that stupid chain for GOODNESS sake. Maybe have the dog actually join the familiy INSIDE! What a concept.

Hope more states do this. Great news.

Fences aren't cheap so I could see the response to such a directive as - who's gonna pay for it?

Paula

Bobsk8

Posted : 1/1/2007 3:37:46 PM

ORIGINAL: paulaedwina

ORIGINAL: sallya

I wish every state would do that. Build a safe fence and get rid of that stupid chain for GOODNESS sake. Maybe have the dog actually join the familiy INSIDE! What a concept.

Hope more states do this. Great news.

Fences aren't cheap so I could see the response to such a directive as - who's gonna pay for it?

Paula

My response to that would be, " the dog owner should pay for it. That is part of the responsibilty that a mature person should assume when they get a dog."

[linkhttp://dogsdeservebetter.com/]http://dogsdeservebetter.com/[/link]

paulaedwina

Posted : 1/1/2007 3:52:39 PM

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: paulaedwina

ORIGINAL: sallya

I wish every state would do that. Build a safe fence and get rid of that stupid chain for GOODNESS sake. Maybe have the dog actually join the familiy INSIDE! What a concept.

Hope more states do this. Great news.

Fences aren't cheap so I could see the response to such a directive as - who's gonna pay for it?

Paula

My response to that would be, " the dog owner should pay for it. That is part of the responsibilty that a mature person should assume when they get a dog."

[linkhttp://dogsdeservebetter.com/]http://dogsdeservebetter.com/[/link]

I understand that dog owners SHOULD pay for a fence, but I'm saying that the reality is, at least here in rural PA they didn't and they won't. So now what? What good is a law if it won't be followed, or can't be followed?

Paula