Nicole, I admire your love for animals but can't stand the thought of allowing more government control in every little aspect of our lives.

It has gotten so bad you can't blow your nose without applying for a permit and you still leave yourself open for a lawsuit if your neighbor catches your cold.

Please, think about the consequences of giving up just a little more to the government. Besides, we have animal cruelty laws now that already address this issue.

Thank you for your feedback HStedman! I'm a proud Libertarian & in the great spirit of the party in which I belong to - I recognize the responsibility we all share to preserve the heritage of the land. However, I clearly part with the Libertarian ideology which states that Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from "force and fraud." Basically - when it comes to animal rights or protecting innocent people from unnecessary harm - I draw the line. The current municipal code of Forsyth County lends an extremely vague reference to "Animal Cruelty" with the exception of Animal Cruelty as it relates to fighting under the 34th section of Chapter 14. If they put the same effort into defining all other forms of "Animal Cruelty" as they did with animal fighting - this might have never been an issue. But, it is. I don't support big government; I just ask that the code be better defined and unfortunately - there are people out there in our county that feel that tying a dog in the yard and leaving it there is fair and not cruel to the animal. That's simply untrue. I don't want to be equated to the likes of an "Ethics Policeman" here however, sometimes we need our local Governing Officials to pass legislation from time to time in an effort to protect the liberties of others (including animals). Not to get up on a soap box here but, if our government hadn't legally abolished slavery or recognized the right for women to vote - do you think that it would be okay to assume those rights without a written change in law? Sometimes we need better laws and ordinances to define what is acceptable and not acceptable in our community.

Thanks for listening!
:) Nicole

Nicole, while I admire your fight for the proper care for animals, I do have one thing to ask. As a small dog owner who keeps his pet inside, I would like to have the opportunity to take him outside and tether him to a leash that will allow him to play in the grass and get some much needed outdoor exercise. I envision him being on this for about 1-2 hours while I take care of chores around the house or just being lazy on a relaxing warm weekend. However, I do have some extreme busy bodies in my neighborhood who take heart to pet issues. Say if I leave my little friend out on this tether and then this busy body decides to call animal control what is going to happen to me if this new ordinance gets passed? That is my problem with the proposed changes because it is quite possible that I would be subject to that scenario and so would others in the same situation. That scenario happens alot more in the county that a dog being chained up without food or water or proper shelter. Let me add that my little friend would definitely have access to those or he would not be outside to begin with. Can you honestly tell me that I would not be dragged into a waste of my time because of some nosy neighbor?

One other thing that I have not seen or a reasonable explanation given. If there is such a problem with the current law and animals are being abused quite frequently and harshly in Forsyth County, then why haven't we the public heard about it before now? Why hasn't animal control come out and say we have a problem in this county and things need to change. All I have heard are the views of pet activists who are in favor of this law and say that we have a problem, but no proof has been given. I want to know why are some people trying to get the county to make a change on an issue that doesn't seem to be a problem in the county? That is why Brian Tam is making those statements because we have heard nothing to suggest a problem with the current law exists. I don't want to hear the example that neighboring counties have the same ordinance. Who cares what they do. I don't want to be uniform with counties who go out of their way to pass ordinances and be big brother like those around us. Forsyth is a great county and very unique. If I wanted to live in Cobb, Gwinnett, or Cherokee I would move there.

Coop - The proposed anti-Tethering Resolution would make it illegal to keep a dog chained up all day long. You would be able to keep your dog chained for short periods (up to 3 hours at a time) as long as someone's home @ the residence. So, if your nosy neighbor (or as I like to refer to my uber nosy neighbor as "Mrs. Kravitz") has an issue - you can proudly cite the resolution's guidelines.
As of right now, Animal Cruelty complaints are prompted mainly by concerned calls from local citizens - not as a result of patrolling animal control. I myself- have neighbors that got a young dog & then chained her up in the front lawn 24/7 with literally no shelter from the elements. They put dog food in a bucket (which was dumped over by the dog or covered by bugs regularly) & they left trash all over the yard - endangering the animal. Many neighbors complained however, the poorly written municipal code concerning "Animal Cruelty" was so vague & it was extremely hard to get any justice for the dog. Ultimately, they took the dog away from the owners. But, only after several months of valid complaints. Red tape can mean life & death for an animal.
In addition to The Humane Society & numerous animal experts - the USDA issued a statement in the July 2, 1996, Federal Register against tethering: "Our experience in enforcing the Animal Welfare Act has led us to conclude that continuous confinement of dogs by a tether is inhumane. A tether significantly restricts a dog's movement. A tether can also become tangled around or hooked on the dog's shelter structure or other objects, further restricting the dog's movement and potentially causing injury."

Dogs tethered for long periods can become highly aggressive. Dogs feel naturally protective of their territory; when confronted with a perceived threat, they respond according to their fight-or-flight instinct. A chained dog, unable to take flight, often feels forced to fight, attacking any unfamiliar animal or person who unwittingly wanders into or around his or her territory. Numerous attacks on people by tethered dogs have been documented. The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association reported that 17% of dogs involved in fatal attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998 were restrained on their owners' property at the time of the attack, and the book "Fatal Dog Attacks" states that 25% of fatal attacks were inflicted by chained dogs of many different breeds.
Tragically, the victims of such attacks are often children who are unaware of the chained dog's presence until it is too late. Furthermore, a tethered dog who finally does get loose from his chains may remain aggressive, and is likely to chase and attack unsuspecting passersby & pets.

I hope that our County can write an ordinance that honors good/respectable residents - such as yourself while providing leverage against other pet owners that choose to treat their dogs like a lawn ornament.

Thanks for the feedback! Nicole

Nicole, thank you for clearing this up. I was confused as debating this issue several weeks ago with another supporter of the new ordinance mentioned that no tethering would be legal and that he supported that approach. At that point I became strongly against it as I saw that would be telling me that if I want a dog and plan on keeping him inside that I would basically have to "waste" money to build a fence I would hardly use or get a kennel that would destroy my yard and again hardly get used. If the new ordinance still allows for responsible pet owners the flexibility to allow their pets to play or get much need exercise while being tethered to an object or link that is not attached to a person for a short period of time and can keep the neighborhood busy body out of my business then I can support it. But if it prohibits the use of tethering to a non-human support apparatus, just as the last person I debated this with supported, then I cannot support it.

I hope the county can write a good ordinance that supports the rights of responsible pet owners and clearly defines the most common sense scenarios that are not allowed such as chaining a pet 24/7 with no shelter or food/water and other forms of clearly defined abuse.

coop and Nicole I appreciate the dialog and debate. I would offer that a solution would be to identify the problem and find a way to punish the unaccountables and not restrict everyone. Simply ramming a mandate through is not the answer as it just masks the problem and does not really fix anything.

I suggest we take a good look at the entire ordinance and work on addressing cruelty and neglect in general.

Since this thing has bounced around a lot, I'm not sure if I have the most recent version, but I do have some concerns.

First, why 3 hours? Make it 4 1/2, and do not require the pet owner to be at home. That way, responsible ones could come home at lunch to feed and water. Better yet, go 9 hours, that gives them a whole day.

I have no problem with requiring shelter, but they need to define it. I'd say something like this, "dogs being kept outside, whether tethered, penned, or fenced, shall be provided with adequate shelter. The minimum required shelter for any dog left unattended outside for more than 2 hours shall be a covered enclosure, such as a dog house. It must have at least three solid walls and one wall with an opening, a water tight roof, and be large enough in length, width and height for the dog to stand and turn around inside.

If this shelter is placed so that it is exposed to direct sunlight at any time during the day, an alternate shaded area, such as a tree or canopy, shall be provided. The intent of this regulation is to assure that the animal always has a place to escape direct sunlight and the resulting heat build up.

Tethered dogs shall be provided sufficient food and water. No dog shall be left without water, whether tethered, fenced, or penned, for longer than four hours in the summer, or six hours in the winter."

Word it so that, if a complaint is received, animal control goes out three days in a row, and if the dog is lacking water on each visit, that will be sufficient to prove the violation.

I'm all for protecting dogs, but this is way too much government intrusion.

KennyWalker...
Interesting reading - "Better yet, go 9 hours, that gives them a whole day."

Gives who a whole day? You or the pet we are trying to protect?

Suppose 15 mins after leaving your tethered pet is attacked... and is left to lie there hurt... or even worse dies because you were at work.

And then your statement, "No dog shall be left without water, whether tethered, fenced, or penned, for longer than four hours in the summer, or six hours in the winter."

Personally I don't think ANY pet should be left without water for ANY amount of time. Unlike yourself they can't go get a drink for themselves like you could.

Oh yes... "if a complaint is received, animal control goes out three days in a row..."

Why three days? What if it happened three times in ONE day? If the laws states that you have to provide water and be at home... there shouldn't be even ONE time your pet goes without water.

I might be wrong but it seems to me you are more concerned about your well being than your pets...

<<Interesting reading - "Better yet, go 9 hours, that gives them a whole day.">>

<<Gives who a whole day? You or the pet we are trying to protect?>>
Gives the pet owner a whole day, this gives people an opportunity to own a pet and still have a job. If you pass this ordinance as it's written, a lot of pets will end up euthanized.

<<Suppose 15 mins after leaving your tethered pet is attacked... and is left to lie there hurt... or even worse dies because you were at work.>>
Specifically, how many times have you seen this happen in Forsyth County. I can't recall one complaint of a tethered dog being attacked here. Turning it around, suppose, while you're at work, your house catches fire, and your dog, who you've now stuffed in a crate in the living room because you can't tether him burns to death?

<<<And then your statement, "No dog shall be left without water, whether tethered, fenced, or penned, for longer than four hours in the summer, or six hours in the winter.">>>
That's right, If you own a dog, you should know that dog well enough to know if he's prone to dump his water. If he is, then you need to make arrangements to have his water checked, either by coming home, or having someone else do it. The four hour limit assures that an overzealous animal control officer can't write you just because your dog dumped his water. This may be somewhat difficult to enforce, but I think pet owners need some protection.

<<Personally I don't think ANY pet should be left without water for ANY amount of time. Unlike yourself they can't go get a drink for themselves like you could.>>
In a perfect world, I'd agree. However, the reality is that sometimes dogs do dump their water. Four hours without seems like a reasonable compromise. Of course, compromise doesn't seem to be you folks' strong suit, so I don't hold out much hope.

<<<Oh yes... "if a complaint is received, animal control goes out three days in a row...">>>
Again, this protects responsible pet owners from overzealous prosecution or busybody neighbors. The officer would have to put some effort into proving that a real problem exists.

<<<Why three days? What if it happened three times in ONE day?>>>
Depends on what "it" is. If there's a problem that's not outright abuse, perhaps the three day requirment would encourage the animal control officer to stop and educate the pet owner instead of simply citing them, an act that would quite possibly end in the euthanization of the dog.

<<<If the laws states that you have to provide water and be at home... there shouldn't be even ONE time your pet goes without water.>>>
There ya go...you want the law to state that people who have dogs have to be at home all the time? Again, in a perfect world, pets would never run out of water, but, here in the real world, it may happen, and I don't think, if it's a one time accident, it should be actionable.

<<<I might be wrong but it seems to me you are more concerned about your well being than your pets...>>
Don't EVEN go there. I grew up on a farm, and have just about always had a dog somewhere around. I have never, ever mistreated one of my pets. In fact, the on sleeping on my right foot right now would probably take a chunk our of your hide for saying that. I did have a dog once that I had to tether, and I made sure he was on a cable run that gave him plenty of room to move, and that he always had food and shelter. When I came home, he came inside, and he and I walked about two miles every night. I just could not leave him inside alone and still have a house left when I got home.

Sorry, but I'd much rather put a dog on a cable run than to stick him in a crate every day.

People have had Dogs for centuries before the P.E.T.A. movement. In the Book of Genesis, God put man in charge of all the animals of the land, birds of the air and fish of the sea. However God did not create governemnts, and as such let man control the animals and not the governemnt!

Nice try but no cigar. You express a dangerous belief in Dominionism made popular by AM Radio and Fox News, and in particular the religious fundamentalism of the right-wing of the Republican Party - a reading of Genesis and Matthew that has been vulgarized by Christian Reconstructionism. You have no more actual dominion over the Earth that an earthworm or ant - only the arrogance to presume it.

You have to agree with KennyWalker when he says "Sorry, but I'd much rather put a dog on a cable run than to stick him in a crate every day." Instead of focusing on an ill-thought out plan such as 3-4 hour limits on a chain, you should be focusing on making sure that cable runs are installed correctly and/or improved. Dogs houses should be required, and we might as well require a permit to own a pet. You will never keep people from putting their dogs on a chain/cable, and based on the demographics of the neighborhoods I see with leash runs, I wouldn't want to piss them off. At the same time, try sitting in a cage for 8 hours a day, that is the most horrible thing you can do to a pet. Finally, do you actually think the county will spend money to check for compliance? They can't even monitor building code compliance much less pet code compliance.

Ooops. Thought this was just posted.