By MIKE SALINERO | The Tampa Tribune
Published: July 30, 2011
TAMPA - Hillsborough County residents who leave their dogs tied outside will be breaking the law if county commissioners approve a pending anti-tethering measure.
The county's Animal Advisory Committee voted this week to send an anti-tethering amendment to county commissioners. The measure, a proposed amendment to the county's animal ordinance, will probably be on the Aug. 17 commission agenda.
The advisory committee vote culminated a 13-month struggle by animal advocates to get anti-tethering legislation written so commissioners can approve it, said Barbara LaPresti, a county resident who started a petition drive in favor of a ban.
LaPresti said that during the time the committee wrestled with the amendment, eight other Florida counties approved tethering bans.
"I'm not a member of any animal rights group," LaPresti said "I was just a concerned individual that wanted to see a puppy off a chain."
Ask animal lovers like LaPresti why tying a dog up is wrong, and they tick off a litany of reasons: Dogs are often left outside with no shelter from the hot sun, freezing cold or thunderstorms; tethers restrict dogs' movements and make them frustrated and aggressive; dogs can choke themselves on a chain and are less able to protect themselves from injury or impregnation from a loose dog.
"I would say what I don't like (about tethering) is that you are restricting a dog from living a normal life," said Connie Johnson, a seven-year member of the advisory committee and the owner of nine dogs.
Johnson and LaPresti, while glad that the amendment was approved, say they are disappointed that the measure fell short of a total ban. For example, tethering would be allowed if a number of conditions are met, including use of a long tether with swivels at both ends and if the dog is supervised or tethered unsupervised for less than 30 minutes.
There are also exemptions for dogs tethered on agricultural land or at a campground. The county's Agriculture Industry Development Program asked for the agricultural exemption because "working dogs" might need to be secured outside to protect livestock or poultry.
Although the amendment passed 8-2, the arguments on the committee leading up to the vote were contentious. About 20 people attended the meeting, including members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals who had earlier demonstrated outside the Fred B. Karl County Center.
Tim Golden, who voted against the amendment along with Lisa Walker, said the amendment is not needed because the county already has an ordinance prohibiting abuse and/or neglect of animals.
Golden noted that county Animal Services, which would enforce the ordinance, has lost dozens of employees to budget cuts over the past four years.
"Do we really need our animal control officers out there chasing those calls?" Golden asked.
Critics of the amendment also say it will adversely affect poor and working class people who can't afford to put up a fence and fear leaving their dogs inside when they're at work.
Dennis McCullough, operations director for county Animal Services, did not deny that his understaffed department would have an additional burden. But McCullough said the ordinance is needed because abusive and neglectful chaining of dogs is a widespread problem in the county.
"This also gives us another tool to go after the dog fighters," McCullough said. "The fact that this is now an illegal activity gives us probable cause to go on the property and see what else is going on."
McCullough said there would be a six-month period after the amendment is enacted during which animal control officers would hand out warnings to offenders instead of citations. The department will also try to educate the public about the change during that period.
If the amendment does make it onto the Aug. 17 agenda, commissioners will likely ask the county attorney to draft a legal document and set a public hearing.
