This is ill-founded and plain Fear mongering rhetoric. You clearly do not understand the underlying intent for the recommendation to add "Anti-tethering" to the existing Animal Control ordinance. Furthermore... You are completely off base when you and the uninformed "Commissioner" you mentioned claim that this measure would cost the residents of Forsyth County by the means of higher taxes. I am guessing that you've never dealt with a bad pet owner/neighbor and I would go as far as to suggest that you don't know what the process involves when you file a complaint about alleged animal abuse. So, to keep this part short - I can assure you that now and if the measure passes - after the responsibility for reporting incidents concerning animal abuse will CONTINUE to be handled case by case. The animal control officers won't be tasked with patrolling for "bad pet owners" and the process will continue to be handled on a complaint basis only. That's how it's handled now and this won't cost tax payers more money. Come up with something legitimate if you want to argue the proposed changes to the ordinance Lady!

Look, I understand if you don't want your animals running in your home or cannot afford a viable means to fence in your property. Luckily, the Forsyth County Humane Society understands that too and through their diligent efforts - they have found the funding capabilities to subsidize fences for those that cannot afford them. If you are one of the few people that cried that their dogs are essentially "Houdini" and could only be contained by tethering within a yard well, I would love to provide you with the number for a compassionate dog trainer. You see, I have 2 dogs and one of which is very sneaky & the other is aggressive towards other estranged animals. However - I am a responsible, loving pet owner and I found the means to provide a good fence in order to protect not only my dogs but others from any confrontation.

I've seen no donations for fences. Mine is the cheapest I could find - welded wire on wood posts - and it runs just at a dollar a foot less the labor to install. In most areas, in fact in any place with a 'howmowner's associaation' this sort of fence isn't allowed. Which is kind of moot, people who want their pets fenced or inside already have them there.
As to cruel treatment, it requires only that the existing cruelty laws be enforced. If we are to give credence to your 'bad neighbor' comments, they are not enforced. Passing another unenforceable law won't change that fact.
What such a law >will< do is kill dogs and hurt people while increasing governmental costs. Tethered dogs will pretty much universally be untethered. So the answer to the gentleman's impassioned cry at the last hearing on this law, "How many CHEEELDRIN MUST BE MAULED?" is simply "Fewer if the dogs are left tethered than if they are loosed." To be totally crass, if the tethered dog bites someone, the someone has recourse, it's obvious whose dog it is. Let in run loose, it is considered to be owned by somebody until it causes a problem, then "No, not mine."
As a Dog Psychologist (remember, no accredited university of which I am aware offers such a course of stury, I can be one as well as anyone) I can tell you, many dogs won't stay home unless they are kept home. The idea that a tethered dog does less damage than a loose dog is ludicrous. The cost of such a law will be borne by you the taxpayer of Forsyth County. Several years ago, the cost of destroying a dog in an adjacent county was put at around $17 per dog. This where the infrastructure already existed to collect and house strays an an excellent Animal Control was operative. If the cost of infrastructure is added, it will be substantially higher.
The idea of no tethers, particularly if it is presented in an amotional manner, sounds warm and fuzzy. In practice, it costs money and kills dogs, while burdening local govenrment with yet another statute which isn't enforceable. All up, a totally bad idea.

The goal of any anti-tethering lobby is to spread enough misinformation about tethering until all people automatically believe that tethering in any form is animal cruelty. The act of tethering itself is not cruel. Neglect and abuse are the problem. Imposing time limits discriminates against people who work and prefer to leave the dog outside; and it denies their animal access to the outdoors for the work day. Rather than eliminate the practice of tethering, it is more rational to enforce existing animal welfare and anti-cruelty laws to handle cases of abusive tethering. Contrary to popular belief, tethering can be the safest method of controlling a hard to contain animal. There are dogs that can escape from anything. They can chew through fencing and even chain link, break out windows, open doors, climb or dig under fences, and destroy wire and plastic shipping crates in seconds. These dogs can only be contained securely (and humanely) with a well thought out tether system. Responsibility cannot be legislated. Responsible owners already care for their animals, and irresponsible owners are not going to follow the law, no matter how many new ones are enacted. Irresponsibly tethered animals can be addressed by the Animal Control Department under current animal cruelty statutes.
A change of Forsyth County’s Animal Ordinance regarding tethering has an unnecessary and detrimental impact on hunters; tethering has long been used as a primary means in the control and training of hunting dogs.
Any proposed changes of the Forsyth County Animal Ordinance are not enforceable, advisable or desirable. We already have a very well working animal control ordinance, which can be enforced. Changes as proposed will create a heavier burden not only on the manpower of the Animal Control Offices, but it will most certainly increase the financial burden on the County. In a time when the economic position of the county is already heavily 'taxed' do we need any laws, which will increase that burden? NO, we do not! Enforcing existing laws is the answer!

Great post PDBAG and my thoughts exactly and I have made this point before. However I will warn you that no view that is against the view of the anti-tethering crowd is acceptable and some of them will be on here later to rip into your suggestions.

I just hope that Commissioner Jim Boff is reading your well thought out opinion and decides to join the opinion of Commissioners Bell and Tam in opposing this ordinance change.