Comments on: PA HB 1065 Would Take Dogs From Poor In Philly

By: Moi

Moi — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:29:38 +0000

Being poor is not a reason to tie a dog outside. Poor people can keep them inside, too. It doesn't cost anything to do that!!! Where does that whole idea come from?

My cousin lived in the city and had her dog inside all day while she worked. She paper trained him, and she walked him. She would never have tied him outside.

If you live in the city and want a dog, get a dog that is suitable for your space, or don't get one. To get a dog that is too large for your space is just cruel. To get a dog and then not treat it properly is cruel as well.

We live out in the country, and I would NEVER think of letting my dog loose, let alone tied up in the yard!!! Neither is a good solution. I see the Amish tying up their dogs all the time - or putting them in these huge fenced cages - and leaving them there all freaking day. They aren't poor. What's their excuse? What's the difference? The dog is tied/caged outside. All day.

And the farmers down the road leave their dogs loose, and when they get hit by cars, they wonder why…

You just don't take on an animal if you have no intentions of caring for it properly.

By: Pam

Pam — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:19:27 +0000

There are two dogs tethered 24-7 on 100 degree summer days and 0 degree winter nights about three miles from me along the Heritage Rail Trail in Glen Rock, PA. They do have dog houses, minimal shade, and usually are provided with food and water (except when it is cold and the water freezes). But they get no walks, have no contact with each other (even though they can see one another) are always filthy, and have human contact only when one of their owners yells at them from the door to stop barking. Believe it or not, this is NOT against the law in PA! I called the SPCA when their water was frozen and the younger of the dogs seemed sick. The officer came out and Dixie, the pup, was removed; she had parasites and worms and the owners indicated they could not afford the vet bill. I was thrilled until a week later when these "poor people who could not afford a vet bill" nonetheless found the money for a brand new puppy. THIS IS WRONG!!! 24-7 tethering cannot possibly be considered humane for dogs; they are social pack animals who thrive on contact with each other and with humans. These dogs are hot, cold, lonely, dirty, miserable and neglected. Bill 1065 should read differently in my opinion; it should state that dogs cannot be tethered for more than 8 hours in succession and not for more than 8 hours total in a 24 hour period, regardless of the time of day. Nonetheless, the bill is better than nothing– and certainly better than watching helplessly as these animals suffer needlessly at the hands of their human "caretakers."

By: Carlotta

Carlotta — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:11:44 +0000

Having a fenced yard is ideal for many people but it is only one method of containing a dog. I know dog breeders who will not sell puppies to people who live in apartments. I think that is short-sighted. Apartment-dwellers can make fine pet owners and spend time walking their dogs and seeing that they get plenty of exercise. I know rescue groups who will not adopt dogs to people who have an intact dog; or small dogs to people with a large dog; or large dogs to people with small dogs. These are all attitudes based on stereotypes.

The fact is that there are already laws against cruelty and neglect in every state of the union. If these laws are enforced there is no need for new laws aimed specifically at tethering. If you have a dog who will not stay inside an 8-foot fence — who jumps it, climbs it or digs his way out, then that dog is safer tethered in your yard than allowed to escape and run in traffic. Tethering, in and of itself, is not cruel. People can have good reasons to tether a dog.

I would never say that a lower income person should not have a dog. I don't make those kinds of distinctions about people and who should and shouldn't have the gift of a dog's love. I have known many, many people with lower incomes who nevertheless made sure that their dogs never did without good food and vet care. I know people on disability who do everything for their dogs. Dogs don't judge people by their bank accounts and I try not to either.

Carlotta

By: Nora Gregro

Nora Gregro — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:21:38 +0000

Dogs are pack animal by nature. They should never be isolated outside by themselves. And if your poor you should not even have a dog. How can you provide the proper food, licensing, and veterinary care if you are poor. This law is not trying to limit dog ownership. It is weeding out the people who really should have dogs and the ones who get one for christmas and then forget about it outback. Uncalled for!!!!!

By: Carlotta

Carlotta — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:01:00 +0000

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

By: Chad Hedgcock

Chad Hedgcock — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 04:10:40 +0000

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.