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
April 7th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
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!!!!!
April 8th, 2008 at 5:11 am
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
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 am
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."
May 7th, 2008 at 8:29 am
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.