PA HB 1065 Would Take Dogs From Poor In Philly
In a related story from Pennsylvania, blogger BlueDogState discusses PA House Bill 1065, which is aimed at taking dogs away from lower income people in the city. According to BlueDogState, anti-tethering laws are excuses to seize dogs from poor people.
As he states:
PA HB 1065, as introduced in April, 2007 by Rep. Mario Scavello and as fervently supported by the ASPCA, is designed to facilitate the confiscation of dogs from people who cannot afford to comply with its bizarre requirements.
Under HB1065, they can seize your dog because you tied it outside–under optimum conditions, in perfect safety and health–for five minutes, if you happen to choose the “wrong” five minutes.
You can lose your dog for using the wrong collar, the wrong tether, for failing to measure the length of the tether. . .and the list goes on. HB 1065 is a litmus test of artificial standards of care, in a state which already defines cruelty to animals clearly and completely:
A person commits an offense if he wantonly or cruelly illtreats, overloads, beats, otherwise abuses any animal, or neglects any animal as to which he has a duty of care, whether belonging to himself or otherwise, or abandons any animal, or deprives any animal of necessary sustenance, drink, shelter or veterinary care, or access to clean and sanitary shelter which will protect the animal against inclement weather and preserve the animal’s body heat and keep it dry.
With cruelty already so well-defined, why is it necessary to add anti-tethering provisions which would primarily hurt poor people, who often rent and may not have fenced yards? They may often have to tether a dog for periods of time, but, as long as they comply with the other parts of the cruelty laws, that doesn’t mean the dog is being mistreated.
Sometimes the only friend you have is your dog, especially if you’re poor. I think it’s really objectionable to make laws which make it more difficult for lower income people to own dogs. Personally, I think everyone has the right to own a dog unless they do something so utterly heinous that they forfeit that right. Normal tethering does not meet that description.
I really like this part of what BlueDogState has to say:
People have tethered dogs from the beginning of the long, mutually beneficial relationship between dogs and humans. Done properly, tethering is a traditional and humane option of responsible restraint.
Tethering, crating, fenced yards, kennel runs, etc., are each responsible options for humane restraint and each may potentially be abused. Dog owners need a full range of choices in order to choose what works best for their situation.
Appropriately restraining a dog safeguards both dog and community. It is the hallmark of a good, caring owner.
With the Tammy Grimes trial beginning this week we will certainly see a lot of discussion and over-the-top rhetoric about the cruelty of tethering dogs. Please try to keep in mind that there are some valid reasons to tether dogs and that, done properly and responsibly, tethering is another valid choice for containing dogs — and much better than allowing a dog to roam free to injure himself or cause mischief.
March 25th, 2008 at 9:10 PM
This law is going to help protect dogs from being tied up permanently, when before it was okay to do so.
Anyone who does not have the space for a large dog should not have the dog to begin with. Being poor isn’t an excuse.
March 27th, 2008 at 5:01 AM
I hope you are never poor. Or without a dog.
There are already laws on the books everywhere against animal cruelty. There is nothing inherently cruel about responsibly tethering a dog. Tethering does not equate with neglect. You can tether a dog and provide it with excellent care. You can be a good owner and tether a dog. You can even be poor and be a great dog owner.
This law is unnecessary and it is aimed at people who may rent and who therefore may not have a fenced yard. It’s trying to limit dog ownership.
Carlotta
January 24th, 2009 at 2:18 PM
My neighbor is neither poor, nor renting. He sees no problem with the fact that his 2 dogs have been tied 24/7 365 days a year for as long as he’s owned them. One is near 15 years old, the other is over 5 years old. The coops they are tied to are as old as them. They receive no affection, no exercise other than the pacing they do at the end of their chains, no grooming and the only time they are freed from their imprisonment is once a year to go for a rabies shot. He throws food at them once a day and calls himself a pet owner. I consider him the lowest form of life, more of an animal than the dogs that did not choose to become his pets.