Law Goes Into Effect Today

[cattitude]

JMO, but a dog isn't "restrained" if he's in a fenced yard, he is "contained" and, therefore, I think the law is, while not totally clear, focusing on the chain/collar restraints that we see all too often in and about the area. Restraint generally implies some sort of physical holding back of the actual animal and that isn't present in a containment situation. Again, JMO.

The intent of the law is to prevent a dog from being chained/tethered with no room to move around and without any attention for long periods of time. Many chained dogs do not have access to food/water and often cannot get out of their own feces or urine. The 1 inch "rule" is aimed at preventing a dog from choking and also to prevent collars from becoming embedded in the neck of a dog (in the case of a growing puppy). Many dogs that are left "tied" with little or no human interaction in many cases become agressive.

The law is fairly weak and isn't all that well written..but many laws are ambiguous. It's a start, however.

 

[MMDad]

Abuse and neglect were already illegal. Why did we need a new law?

 

[tommyjones]

Abuse and neglect were already illegal. Why did we need a new law?

:exactly:



I say we just let them all run free, that will solve things

 

[vraiblonde]

Abuse and neglect were already illegal. Why did we need a new law?

Because the MD legislature has nothing better to do. Now they want to "define" what constitutes abuse and neglect, even though this law fails spectacularly in doing so.

 

[Pandora]

thats ridiulous, and YOU are the problem.

I said what I thought was unreasonable and I am the problem?

This is the dilemma you get into when putting out a law like this. You leave it up to too much interpretation and when it comes to animals, everyone has a set notion on reasonable versus unreasonable. I just don't see how it can be defined.

Vrai, no, I wouldn’t support a law like that at all, like I don’t support this one.

 

[cattitude]

Because the MD legislature has nothing better to do. Now they want to "define" what constitutes abuse and neglect, even though this law fails spectacularly in doing so.

No. They are responding to the outcry of the Anti-tethering Groups. Like I said, the law is poorly written.

 

[tommyjones]

I said what I thought was unreasonable and I am the problem?

This is the dilemma you get into when putting out a law like this. You leave it up to too much interpretation and when it comes to animals, everyone has a set notion on reasonable versus unreasonable. I just don't see how it can be defined.

Vrai, no, I wouldn’t support a law like that at all, like I don’t support this one.

to my little karma fool, there is a difference between animals and people, so sorry you can't see this, its a real problem with you peta types.


as for panny here, you are the problem becasue you think you know better, you dont. Everyone is different, as is every dog. responsible pet owners of all types choose different ways to keep their dogs restrained.

 

[keekee]

That was just a brief synopsis of the law. Obviously...?

I just hate to see dogs chained outside for their entire lives... and that does happen around here. Maybe this will curb that a little...? I really doubt that animal control is going to be cracking down on granny who ties out her dog for an hour. Give them a little credit.

 

[tommyjones]

That was just a brief synopsis of the law. Obviously...?

I just hate to see dogs chained outside for their entire lives... and that does happen around here. Maybe this will curb that a little...? I really doubt that animal control is going to be cracking down on granny who ties out her dog for an hour. Give them a little credit.

Its not animal control thats going to be the problem, its all the Joan Buttinskis that will be doing the callin in.
this law will make them feel empowered

 

[vraiblonde]

Its not animal control thats going to be the problem, its all the Joan Buttinskis that will be doing the callin in.
this law will make them feel empowered

That's right. So while some may scoff at the notion of granny getting fined for having her dog out for an hour, that's a very feasible scenario.

 

[keekee]

Its not animal control thats going to be the problem, its all the Joan Buttinskis that will be doing the callin in.
this law will make them feel empowered

Joan Buttinskis will be Joan Buttinskis.... regardless.

 

[cattitude]

That's right. So while some may scoff at the notion of granny getting fined for having her dog out for an hour, that's a very feasible scenario.

Well, the bill was written with very specific language and set very clear paramaters as far as hours, unsanitary conditions, what constituted restraint, etc. Unfortunately, prior to signing into law, it was made very vanilla and pretty much worthless.

 

[tommyjones]

Joan Buttinskis will be Joan Buttinskis.... regardless.

yes you will......
i stand corrected

 

[awpitt]

Senate Bill 696: Crimes - Leaving Dogs Outside and Unattended by use of Restraints - Penalties

Criminal Law Section 10-623, Annotated Code of Maryland (2002 Volume and 2006 Supplement)
Prohibiting a person from leaving a dog outside and unattended by use of a restraint that unreasonably limits the movement of the dog; that uses a collar that: is made primarily of metal; or is not at least as large as the circumference of the dog's neck plus 1 (one) inch; etc.

Gotta read the law. It does define restraint as a chain, rope, tether, leash, cable, or other device that attaches a dog to a stationary oject or trolley system. It does not address unreasonable limits on movement. What do they consider to be reasonable movement?

 

[vegmom]

I agree, obviously the MD senate was trying to plcate the animal activist and peta types.

You rang?

 

[vraiblonde]

Well, the bill was written with very specific language and set very clear paramaters as far as hours, unsanitary conditions, what constituted restraint, etc. Unfortunately, prior to signing into law, it was made very vanilla and pretty much worthless.

Regardless, I'm still against the law. Animal abuse and neglect are already against the law, so there was no need for MORE laws.

It's like gun laws: shooting someone to death is already against the law. Everything after that is just fluff.

 

[PrchJrkr]

That was just a brief synopsis of the law. Obviously...?

I just hate to see dogs chained outside for their entire lives... and that does happen around here. Maybe this will curb that a little...?

WTF makes you think that just because YOU don't like it that it is wrong? My dogs do just fine outside.

 

[kom526]

Who is in charge of enforcing this law and where is the money going to come to enforce it? Slots? Higher sales tax?

Like KeeKee said Joan Buttinski is going to look over at her neighbors house and see their dog on lead/trolley system then she's gonna call animal control. When she doesn't get what SHE wants from them then she'll become the nuisance of the neighborhood, posting youtube videos and annoying the hell out of an over worked and under staffed government entity.

 

[Unbelievable]

Joan Buttinskis will be Joan Buttinskis.... regardless.

I agree, there are always people who know better, would do it better, etc. who think no one can take care of a child, animal, etc. better than they can. We don't chain dogs outside, but we do have housing, kennels, etc. for our foster dogs and I can't wait for my neighbor to complain or call animal control considering the fact her daughter adopted one of our fosters and sentenced it to death by leaving it at the shelter after it was picked up by animal control while in her custody. The dog is in one of our housing units and I'll be ever so happy to re-introduce them if she complains. Sorry, did I mention I'm on a hating people kick this week!

 

[oldman]

This is just another example of todays world. People and Gubmint getting their fingers into our lives. How I yearn to turn the clock back 40-50 years. We had a rabbit hound as I was growing up. She had about 10 foot of chain attached to her collar and a dog house, got fed once a day (table scraps) and always had water. Not once did she express dissatisfaction at her living conditions. She was our burglar alarm, our family pet, always enjoyed being petted by all the kids that would stroll through the yard, she wasn't particularily fond of getting baths in the summer but she put up with them. In the fall she eagerly awaited being thrown into the car for the trips to the woods where she would locate and chase the heck out of rabbits and be treated with the raw livers or hearts. She lived to a ripe old age and I cried the morning I found her sleeping the eternal sleep. Peggy was one heck of a family dog.