Texas Senate Bill would make it unlawful to restrain dogs outside except in pens, fenced yards

by Vince Leibowitz of Capitol Annex

A bill by State Sen. Kel Seliger (R-Amarillo) would make it unlawful to restrain a dog outside unless the dog was in a pen or under certain other limited circumstances.

The bill, SB 634, would amend a section of the Texas Health and Safety Code enacted last year as a result of House Bill 1411 which limited the hours a dog could be restrained outside.

The bill enacted last year allowed dog owners to restrain dogs outside using a chain, tether, cable, or trolly system if the restraint didn’t unreasonably limit the dog’s movement, and it was not:

(1) between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.;

(2) within 500 feet of the premises of a school; or

(3) in the case of extreme weather conditions, including conditions in which:

(A) the actual or effective outdoor temperature is below 32 degrees Fahrenheit;

(B) a heat advisory has been issued by a local or state authority or jurisdiction; or

(C) a hurricane, tropical storm, or tornado warning has been issued for the jurisdiction by the National Weather Service.

If it's good enough for Tom and Jerry, it's good enough for me.

Under Seliger’s bill, a dog left outside would have to be in a fenced enclosure of not less than 150 square feet for each dog over six months old, and tethering or chaining a dog wouldn’t be allowed except in limited training or agricultural circumstances.

Needless to say, Seliger’s bill takes a good law that was passed last session and makes it ten times worse. Prohibiting a dog from being restrained at any time isn’t beneficial to dog owners and isn’t beneficial to dogs. It is, however, part of a nationwide “anti-tethering” move sweeping cities and states that is aimed at specific breeds but instead hurts all dogs and dog owners. For some reason, people have it in their heads that tethering a dog at all will make it mean or put the dog in harm’s way.

For one thing, tethering is often as much for a dog’s protection and safety as it is for anything else. For example, if someone is at work all day, keeping their dog safely chained in the shade with a dog house, food and water (so long as it isn’t too hot or cold) is much safer for the dog than running the risk that it will jump a fence and get lost or injured (believe it or not, most dogs can jump a standard chain link fence, and many dogs can even jump wooden privacy fences; most municipalities don’t allow fences to be built tall enough to adequately secure some dogs, and “electrical” fencing options are either illegal in many municipalities, won’t stop a dog with a large body weight, or are actually more cruel than tethering). Too, it protects the dog from people who may actually seek to do the animal harm by harassing it over or through a fence.

Bills like Seliger’s are legislators’ and the animal rights community’s attempt to rectify the bad behavior of a few dog owners by punishing all dog owners. Because a lot of breed-specific legislation geared to address pit bulls has been declared unconstitutional (a lot of cases are still in the appeals pipelines) on its way up the judicial ladder, instead of targeting dog owners who actually abuse or neglect their dogs, bills like Seliger’s deprive loving, caring dog owners of their right to protect their dogs.

As the proud “parent” of three dogs, I can tell you that when my dogs are outside, even when I am outside if I’m doing yard work or something like that, they are tethered for their own safety and protection. Unless it is very hot or very cold, the dogs are tethered when I’m at work unless someone is home to watch them. Even though I have a large fenced yard, I do this so they don’t get lost, stolen, or hit by a car. Why? Here is an example of why:

One of my dogs loves pretty much everyone and has never met a stranger. If a stranger came up to the fence, she’d jump up and that person could reach right over and pick her up without any problem because she’s not afraid of people. We live in an area that has a lot of puppy mills and is near the infamous First Monday Trade Days in Canton where dogs are sold in the deplorable conditions of “Dog Alley.” Every month, around the first of the month, you see an influx of posters at Wal-Mart and the grocery store of people posting rewards for their newly missing dogs in parts of five counties. Why? Because people steal the dogs to resell at what is billed at the world’s largest flea market. It happens, and every few years a ring of dog thieves that has been operating in several counties–stealing unrestrained dogs right out of their yards–and reselling at First Monday is discovered and caught.We also live on a dead end road with only a few homes where hardly anyone is home during the day, meaning it is a great place to target to steal dogs. And, a locked gate doesn’t help if your dog has never met a stranger and can jump even a wooden privacy fence in a single bound.

I personally don’t want my dog falling victim to that. So, when she is outside, she is restrained so she can’t jump the fence (all of my dogs are high jumpers, and the size fence that would be needed to keep them from jumping it isn’t allowed under any city’s code of ordinances I’ve ever seen).

Another reason that allowing dogs to be tethered at least some of the time is that it protects them from unnecessary injury or death. Even the most well-trained of dogs will be tempted to jump a fence by a stray cat, a squirrel, or another neighborhood dog. Once the dog jumps the fence, it could be hit by a car and killed or injured by another animal. Allowing dog owners to protect their dogs by tethering them prevents this, and keeps the dogs safe.

This bill is allegedly aimed at making the quality of life for dogs better. And, perhaps, for abused dogs, it might make life better (although a dog abuser isn’t likely to follow the law anyway). For my dogs, it won’t. It would mean they’d have to spend more time in the garage–like they do in extreme heat or cold when I’m at work–at a “doggie daycare,” something they do not like; or in individual all-sided pens that can be locked and situated where the dogs can’t be stolen (again, something they don’t like, and leaving dogs loose in the yard isn’t an option due to the possibility of theft or injury if they get out, even with a locked gate).

If this bill passes, I will be very unhappy. What’s worse is that my dogs will be unhappy.

Pegasus News content partner - Capitol Annex

Staff
Verified User
Anonymous

pitbullpaws says:

According to the Center for Disease Control, chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite than dogs who are not chained. Chaining can contribute to certain forms of aggression as well as other behavior problems. Do your research Vince! This is not something people have just "gotten in their heads"!!

Anonymous

9 months, 3 weeks ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

monicas says:

I understand some of the issues the writer raises. I understand that there are SOME responsible pet owners who chain dogs for finite periods, but otherwise provide the dog with exercise, shelter and a good home. But the fact remains that the majority of people who keep dogs chained for extended periods are not responsible pet owners at all. They use chaining because it is "easy." It is the most passive, negligent form of canine confinement. Chained dogs can choke on their own thethers. They often become entangled and are unable to reach food and water. Every winter, thousands of chained dogs freeze in their dog houses because people think a plastic dog "igloo" will actually give the dog shelter. But usually these people don't think about it at all. They just keep dogs as lawn ornnaments.

Allowing people to chain a dog to a tree or broken down old car, and to leave it there for years on end, is a horrific form of abuse that these nti-tethe laws (which are sweeping the nation for a good reason) are designed to end.

All that said, I personally do prefer laws that set time well thought out time limits, rather than flatout bans. Flat-out bans can be problematic for the reasons the author voices. But don't be deceived: Hundreds of thousands of dogs are chained in the cruelest most negligent ways. Time limits are hard to enforce. There are ways to confine a dog while you're at work that don't involve chaining. The laws aren't perfect, but the suffering endured by perpetually chained dogs is so horrific. It is beyond imagining. It is wonderful that states like Texas are trying to ease the suffering. Learn more at www.dogsdeservebetter.org

Anonymous

9 months, 3 weeks ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

lindsaypeta says:

Kudos to State Sen. Kel Seliger for proposing this law. Dogs are social animals who crave companionship. Relegating a dog to a chain 24 hours a day is essentially sentencing him to life imprisonment in solitary confinement, even though he has committed no crime.

Chaining a dog for any amount of time is cruel, dangerous, and unnecessary. Dogs who are chained for even one hour a day are at risk of becoming entangled in their chains, hanging themselves, being attacked by other animals, or being abused by cruel people.

This law will also protect children. Dogs are fight-or-flight animals who may bite if they are unable to retreat from a perceived threat—even a child who wanders onto their “territory.” According to one study, more than a fourth of fatal dog attacks are by dogs on chains. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that chained dogs are nearly three times more likely to attack than dogs who are not kept chained. More than 80 jurisdictions have outlawed or restricted chaining because of the cruelty and dangers posed by dogs driven mad by confinement.

For the safety of children as well as dogs, dogs should live inside with their families, not doomed to a life of frustration and loneliness on a chain. People who currently keep their dogs chained have the option of bringing their dogs inside and walking them, as responsible dog guardians do. To learn more, visit www.HelpingAnimals.com.

Sincerely, Lindsay Pollard-Post Staff Writer People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Anonymous

9 months, 3 weeks ago
Link to this comment | Suggest removal

mysentiments says:

I would like to personally thank Senator Seliger for initiating this bill. I think it is ten times better than the previous one. Our experience has been that one neighbor has three large breed dogs whom he has no fencing for. He has one 8 x 10 kennel which has no floor other than the ground beneath it and he does not clean it out, the smell is sickening and neighbors with adjoining yards the kennel backs up to cannot spend any time in their own backyards without the putrid odor and the constant barking of the neglected dogs. Two of the dogs stay in this kennel 365/24/7 and bark all night long because they have had no attention. The third dog is tied to a non-movable stake in the ground on a leash shorter than the required length. The dogs are given a 5 gallon plastic bucket of water which they knock over within an hour or so of having access to and the owner does not check back. The owner is either too irresponsible or clueless to even put a galvanized tub of water out for them or to use pavers in the bottom of the kennel which he could wash down easily with a hose! We have watched these three dogs being neglected 365/24/7! We have reported it to our local animal authorities and they have been shouted at by this person and made to feel intimidated. I won't even go into the insults he has thrown at neighbors for turning in his abuse and neglect. He has been given citations but continues to break the laws. We have been awakened to the shrills of a dog that has wrapped itself in it's leash and could not even position itself properly to defecate without excruciating pain. When it finally did, it was so hungry that it ate what it deposited. The owner of the dogs works out of town and has a yard which is very small and unfenced. In the hottest of summer months and the coldest of winter months, I do not know how the dogs survive! No one seems to want to drive by between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m to see that the dog is restrained on a leash during those hours. No one has sat for over three hours to see that these animals are restrained longer than that either. Any person who loves animals knows that large dogs need room to run and not be confined for so many hours of the day and night. It eventually makes them aggressive and mean. To confine an animal in such limited space is cruel and I can't see any reason why this person should even be allowed the ownership of something he only wishes to enslave and abuse. As for Vince's post...if you are treating your dogs well, I doubt anyone would report you for abusing your dogs. I have two dogs myself, and I do not let my dogs outside when I am not home. They are in the house and at night they sleep inside in their own pet kennels in our bedroom. I have made my home pet friendly in that we have tiled and laminate floors and they always have access to food and water. They are never left alone over 8 hours at any given time. Just sayin' those who do not abuse their animals should not find this new law anything but protection for those animals who are being abused by neglectful owners. Please don't make it harder for those animals to be released from such horrible conditions, and please do not make it harder for those of us surrounded by them to have to keep putting up with such behavior. Would you really enjoy being this man's neighbor? We have used all the present laws to try and change this behavior, only the new ones would give us the means to get this taken care of without having valuable time spent setting up patrol cars to make sure the animal was on the leash longer than three hours or animal control people working after hours to catch the dogs being left on a leash from 10:00 p.m until 6:00 a.m. in the mornings. And....you can still have your dog on a leash as long as you are walking him or training him and with him at all times while he is on the leash.