ORD-2008-069 - Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dogs

Browse Search

Main Themes and Views. For and A ainst Education and Enforcement Areuments against Restriction of Areuments for the Restriction of Tethering Tethering Mistreatment is already against the law. Need enforceable laws to protect these We should enforce the existing laws. animals. Other jurisdictions have had positive results. Education is what is needed, not restricted This will give ACO's an additional tool tethering• with which to enforce and educate the public, as well as protect animals. Our children should get the right message and not be desensitized to animals' needs by seeing them hying entl on chains. Restricting tethering won't solve the Animals can be neglected in many animal mistreatment problem. Animals situations, but tethering presents additional can be neglected in fences just as easily as concerns because of the lack of a barrier - on tethers. This is a people problem, not a makes animals more susceptible to outside dog problem. attacks and presents a public danger by not preventing children and others from approaching the dog. This is a step in the right direction. Breed is the problem in Orange County. Many breeds have a tendency to become We need a ban on dangerous dog breeds. aggressive if chained. Dogs need more than food and water. Restricting tethering is expensive and Other jurisdictions have found it to be unenforceable enforceable and have a positive effect on the number of calls for bites, mistreatment, unwanted litters, etc. Other jurisdictions have also found that there is a short-tern increase in work load but that the long -term effects actually decrease work load This amendment doesn't reflect the This is only one tool to protect animals. realities of life. There are times when a Many people do not understand the dog needs to be tethered condition some of these animals are in or the dangers presented to them.