Unchain the dogs of New York State!

A proper fenced enclosure, a dog-proofed house or room, puppy daycare, or even a crate are all fine methods of keeping dogs confined while at work. Crating while at work is no different than crating overnight. With all of the options available, there is truly no need for chaining - which is physically and mentally destructive to the dog. I have rehabilitated numerous chained dogs, and the mental and physical damage that needs to be undone is overwhelming - sores and infections from collars and harnesses, embedded collars and chains in the skin, damaged nerves and muscles due to the limited and repetitive movement permitted on a chain and the weight of a chain, the inability to properly interact with other dogs while loose with them, the inability to walk loosely on a leash, food aggression, resource guarding, obsessive licking and gnawing, obsessive barking, and the list goes on and on!

People who own dog aggressive breeds (something I see constantly repeated in defense of chaining) should limit themselves to the number of dogs they can properly keep without chaining. Just because they are selfish and choose to own more dogs than they can control, does not justify chaining.

The mandatory spay/neuter law has all but passed in LA County, and more are on the books across the nation. I welcome a smaller population of dogs and far fewer owners (note: I do not favor extinction or the "no pets at all" concept). Many, many people who own dogs and cats today have no business doing so. Soon it will be legally impossible for improper homes to keep animals, and that's great. Animals are a luxury, and unless you (generic) can afford to properly care for and contain them, then you (generic) have no business owning them.

All this is not just my opinion (therefore I don't care whether or not you support it) - it's becoming a reality. HOORAH!

Big brother is watching all of us.. eek

Well WOW does that post make me glad I don't live in your county. WOW you are so misinformed it boogles the mind. I would find this funny, if it wasn't so tragic. Summitview I weep for you, for your lack of tolerance and openmindedness. For your obviously brainwashed state.

I can only hope one day you will wake up and see that people like you are going to cause the death and suffering of more dogs than you will ever save.

Summit..........YOU ARE NOT listening to reason here! ANY/ALL of those things CAN and DO happen to dogs that are NEVER chained, with the exception of perhaps the embedded chains, IT'S CALLED NEGLECT! And it's ALREADY against the laws on the books!!!!!

So the mills will just obtain the proper breeding license and continue right on what they are doing. The state makes a buck and all is well. I see no change in over population resulting from how this law is worded. It actually HELPS the mills.

I doubt you will find a single person here who will disagree with THAT statement.

Or they'll continue to breed without the license because they don't care if they're breaking the law. They'll just hide better.

Meanwhile quality breeders will stop breeding because of all the extra fees involved, and the availability of well bred puppies from breeders who are a support system for the owner will disappear. The puppy mill puppies will be full of health and temperament problems leading to even more dogs being PTS at the shelters.

So you advocate crating a dog 10+ hours a day...?

In response to your list below, my dog is put on a tether often and has never gotten sores or infections from his collars, nothing has been embedded in him, he has great muscle tone, interacts just fine with other dogs, has NO resource guarding or aggression whatsoever, walks well on a leash as long as he doesn't see a squirrell, doesn't "obsessivle gnaw or lick," and when he's with me the only times he barks is when he sees someone on our property. He also was on a chain his entire life until when I got him.

ALL of those things happen with NEGLECT. A dog in a room, a crate, a kennel, a house.. they can all become bored, nuisance-barkers, gnawers, pacers with bad muscle tone, food aggression, resource guarding, etc. I know dogs in nice homes with plenty of stimulation who are resource guarders. I know plenty of dogs who can't walk on a leash to save their lives. Embedded collars are due to a too-small collar, usually on a growing dog. They have nothing to do with the environment the dog is in, ONLY owner neglect. That's what it all boils down to.

That gives me chills.

AHHHH... I just figured out the problem

You can't read can you? I mean, if you could read you would already have discovered that those things happen to dogs that are NEGLECTED. not happy, healthy dogs in a loving home. neglected dogs are neglected dogs whether they are on a chain, loose in a yard, in a house, locked in a basement... whatever.

Also explains why you haven't answered my question about what is the difference between tethering a dog in the yard to play with them (tethering ONLY while you are outside with them playing... any other time they are not tethered) and putting your dog on a leash (tether if you will) and taking them for a walk?

Hooked on phonics?

Perfect examples of dogs neglected by irresponsible humans.

BUT, not every human does the same and not every dog that spends time on a chain is neglected. You have to admit at least that much. You've seen pictures of healthy happy tethered/chained dogs in this thread, they show none of the above mentioned problems.

What would you deem improper and who would be the one to judge the homes? Will it be based off of income level? Will every home need to be investigated to make sure they fit these standards?

You know what seems to be the main purpose behind all these laws? Remove the breeding abilities of all the dogs owned by the public, remove the ability for people to contain their dogs properly, remove all dogs from those deemed "improper" and all there will be left is "proper" owners and legal puppy mills (most of those places use crates. Humane containment eh? )

Where do these shelters get their dogs? From puppy mill seizures.

So these laws will set up the shelter as the only legal place to obtain a dog therefor every new dog acquired will be from a place that judges peoples abilities to be good owners.

I see no realism in these laws, and I'm beginning to see a very elitist attitude towards dog ownership.

I agree Dekka, I'm damned glad I don't live there. Straight forward BSL is bad enough but this back door BSL type of law and the force driving it is disturbing. This anti chaining law is BSL driven as the majority of owners most affected by it are those who own more than one or two of the Bully Breeds.

When shelters have a mass seizure and take in 50 or 100 dogs that they don't have space for, what do you think they do with the dogs? Many times they tether them. Are we going to have a double standard? Allow shelters to tether dogs? Or are we going to have the shelters do a lot more euthanizing?

So what you are saying is that it would be better for my dog to be left in a crate all day where they have just enough room to stand up and turn around..than outside on a nice day on a 15ft chain??? I do not understand your logic.

Here is my mentally and physically distressed CHAINED dog...can't you just see the pain in her eyes?


You are missing everyones point..it all comes down to RESPONSIBLE ownership. And a responsible owner would never let their dog suffer like that...whether it be on the end of a chain, in a crate WHEREVER. Why should I, and other responsible owners, be punished because of irresponsible dog owners like this? I think its time we start promoting responsible ownership! Because anti-thetering laws DO not work. Do you honeslty think that if tethering was banned that it would make those same idiot owners more responsible?

This morning me the kids and Scooby (after scooby had his breakfast) walked through the park with Scooby on a leash and me in charge of poop bags to the pet shop which took about 15 minutes, he spent 20 minutes meeting staff customers and other dogs and then we walked home.

When we got home he played with his new toys and ate a new treat then had a nap.

After his nap he had his lunch and played with a friend who had come to visit. When my friend left Scooby and I did some basic training exercises in the garden.

When Scooby got tired I decided to clean my Rabbits hutches and runs. Scooby decided he wasn't tired and if the bunnies were going to be playing out he wanted to play out too. Scooby can't play out with the bunnies he's a puppy and much too boisterous and mouthy. So I had a choice put him in his crate where he would be completely miserable because he knew what he was missing or tether him to the fence where he could see me and bunnies and even meet them on their terms (it didn't take long for Fiver to figure out how much tether Scooby had and get just close enough to sniff each other) The tether was long enough to reach indoors and to his water dish.

When the bunnies were safely back in their cages Scooby got a treat and a run round the garden.

Then before tea I had a very uncomfortable nap on the sofa Scooby on the other hand had a very comfortable nap on the sofa.

After tea Scooby played with the kids, did some more training exercises had his daily 5 minute brush and comb and spent the rest of the evening being cuddled.

He's now safely tucked up in his crate until the morning.

I would like to pose the question to summitview
How can you class what I did to Scooby today as abuse?
If you can show me evidence as to how I abused him today then I'll never tether him again.
If you can't then a blanket ban on tethering all dogs has to be wrong.
If you as I suspect ignore this post and don't answer at all then I guess that means you have no answer

With all the repetition on the responsable use of tethers and the use of chains, this thread could be a double fail.

If somebody who was on the fence on the use of chains read this entire thread, if they have the sense to think for themselves, I believe they would come to a completely different conclusion than the OP.

Blue, this is why I love these threads. Just like the M Richling threads, the truth will out!

miss jack, absolutely horrifying. i'm coming to take your dog immediately

What would you deem an "unfit" dog owner?

I have 2 dogs, a Border Collie and what I guess could be a Doberman/Akita mix if we need to list breeds. I'm 18 years old. Let's say that I move out soon. I will probably live in an apartment or rent a house with someone else.

My BC is a service dog (EXPLOITATION OH NOES!!) She and I are rarely apart, so she would not spend much time at home when I am gone. My mixed breed would be home when I am at work/school. Let's say 8 hours a day. He'd be confined to the apartment or house (with access to the yard) during this time.

I am poor. I can't afford luxury beds, fancy toys, expensive dog walkers or doggie daycare. My dogs will never go without food and water, and I'll do all I can for their vet care, but there will be times when money is tight and I just can't spoil them rotten.

By your standards, would I be an unfit dog owner? And if so, what IS a fit dog owner? Only the wealthy? Only the retired? I love my dogs, I try to give them every bit as much devotion as they give me. I'm not perfect, but they don't care and they quite obviously enjoy their lives. Would it be humane to the dogs to take my dogs away from me because I'm young and my life isn't 100% stable??

Summitview... since you refuse to answer questions on this thread I am going to PM....

Now to avoid any confusiong this PM is NOT a threat or harrassment lol

But this didn't stop your dogs from breaking loose and attacking the neighbor's sheep resulting in one getting shot to death. This is what happened, isn't it?

Debbie

Now Summit, what is the answer to that one?

I am getting pretty sick and tired of blatant lies being spread in an attempt to discredit me. I have NEVER had a dog kill anyone's livestock or get shot or hit or anything of the sort. I have spent a couple thousand dollars over the years creating secure, dog-proof fencing perimeters - complete with buried fencing to prevent digging.

Debbie, the dog you are referring to was not mine.

In Minnesota, at the Iditarod kennel I worked at, my boss was running two Alaskan Husky brothers (Linus and Schroeder) loose behind the ATV and clocking their speeds. They were young adults and had been very happy to follow everyone around the yard, so they figured it would be safe to let them free-run because they originally followed the four-wheeler (STUPID IDEA). My boss ran them two laps around the smaller loop (half a mile) that came into and exited the dog yard area, and then on the third loop, the dogs took off. We all got on ATVs and in cars and searched until dark and could not find them. It was fall and there was no snow, hence no tracks. I (on my own, even though my boss thought it was pointless) printed out posters with photographs and personally drove to every store and gas station that I could find and put up the posters until I ran out. The next morning, one of the dogs was lying outside the dog yard, his belly engorged and covered in blood. The other was not there. Shortly after we found the one, we received a phone call from the man who shot the other for killing his sheep. He saw one of my posters and called to explain what happened. He did not ask that my boss replace the cost of the sheep, though they did offer.

Those were NOT my dogs, NOR did I put them in the position which resulted in one of their deaths. I own sheep myself, and have never lost one to a dog (mine or anyone else's). The only livestock anywhere near my property are the cows across the road and up the hill, and I have never had a problem with them or my dogs. Debbie, I have you on my ignore list on this forum (both of your screen names), but I was sent an e-mail quoting your dribble, because someone else felt that I should correct the misinformation as soon as possible. I do not talk about you on my website and I have never used your name in relation to any of the neglect education work I have done. I would appreciate it if you would stop LYING about me (as you have done numerous times since joining this forum) in order to attempt discredit me. If you don't like the direction I've gone with dogs, that is fine, but that is no reason to LIE.

definition of libel

I have a lawyer and I have always consulted with him regarding the content I publish on my website and the statements I make in my educational outreach. That is why I don't answer everyone's questions or disclose personal information about certain abuse situations I have seen. I keep records of the harassment on this forum and choose to use the ignore function on certain posters. I also requested this thread be closed because of the direction it was taking, at the advisement of my attorney. There are laws regarding harassment on the internet just as their are in real life and if you all choose to break them that is your own decision.

Summit, even if the event happened as you describe it, the person doing the best job discreditting you and your efforts is yourself.