|
April
14, 2007
Dear
Councilors, Mayor, City Administrator, City Attorney, Police Chief,
and Interim Police Chief:
I'd like to personally welcome Terry Holderness as Ashland's Police
Chief. In honor of his first week with us, I'd like to explain why
our tethering law
will be easy for him to enforce:
o I interviewed law enforcement in twelve communities that ban tethering
at home or limit it to one, two or three hours in 24. I base this
summary on the
information they gave me.
o Except for a brief flurry once the law passes, tethering complaints
are not numerous. And they diminish over time. Based on the number
of complaints
in other communities, I anticipate that after the first year or
two, Ashland will only get a handful of complaints each month at
most, and probably even
fewer than that. Complaints about the space requirement are very
uncommon.
o Larry Herring, who enforces the tethering limit in Scotland County,
North Carolina, told me that each complaint takes no more than an
hour--even if it has
to go to court. (He's the only one of the 12 jurisdictions I asked
how long complaints take to enforce.)
o According to law enforcement, generally only the most severe cases
are reported. For example, almost all the complaints Topeka receives
are of
around-the-clock tethering.
o Law enforcement officers have reported to me that 8-hour maximums
are difficult, or impossible, to enforce. Laurinburg, North Carolina
switched from an
8-hour to a 1-hour maximum for that reason. Ron Goodpaster called
law enforcement and found that the most enforceable law is the 3-hour
maximum in 24, one hour at a time, and with at least 3 hours in
between where the animal is not tethered.
o Most violators comply with only a warning and/or education about
the reasons for the law. The vast majority--and in two communities,
100 percent--of
people comply just after getting a warning, a copy of the law, and
maybe a little education about it.
o In almost all the communities I spoke to, either none of the animals
or only a small fraction of the animals have to be impounded.
o Most people let authorities onto the property or into the house
to view the animals. In cases where they won't, Mike Franell told
me the police can get an
administrative warrant.
o
False complaints seem to be rare. "We don't have one documented
case where someone complained and the tie-out turned out to be legal,"
says Linda Halford of
Topeka law enforcement.
o Generally, it seems that the vast majority of complaints are not
disputed. In disputed cases where police can't simply drive by to
verify a complaint, they can use other methods. For example, they
can collect witness testimonials, take time/date photography to
show the chaining pattern, or observe wear patterns in the grass
and outdoor kennel.
Disputes about space violations can also be proven by collecting
clues. For example, does the fecal build-up show the animal has
been caged a long time?
Do the animal's legs look atrophied?
o No law is one hundred percent enforceable, and that includes chaining
laws. As one law enforcement officer told me, "We've let some
[tethering] cases slide away. That's always the case in police work."
But when done right, tethering ordinances are as enforceable as
any other law.
Police Chief Mike Bianca wanted a tethering limit and proposed his
own ordinance to Council. Chief Ron Goodpaster has remained respectfully
neutral on the
issue. I hope this summary I've sent--and the information that Ron
and I share with Terry--will reassure him that this is an enforceable
ordinance.
From Ambuja Rosen
|
