Tying up dogs may become illegal in Guilford

http://www.news-record.com/content/2010/06/21/article/tying_up_dogs_may_become_illegal

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 (Updated 3:06 pm)
By Joe Killian, Staff Writer

GREENSBORO — When police in Elon were alerted to a dead dog chained to a telephone pole last weekend, they arrested the owner on charges of animal cruelty.

Priscilla Little said she wasn’t sure when her dog last had food or water, according to police. But the sight of a live dog chained to a pole was common enough that neighbors didn’t call police or animal control until the animal died.

That could soon become a thing of the past as Guilford County revises its animal control ordinances. The tethering of animals is prohibited in early drafts of the new laws.

The draft language defines tethering as “fastening, tying out or otherwise securing a dog outdoors on a rope, chain, leash, lead, line, cord, cable, wire, strap, or other similar physical device for the purpose of restraining the dog.”

The new ordinance would not apply to leashes or other restraints held by people who are physically present and would allow for tethering for a maximum of seven days under very specific circumstances:

When a dog is shepherding or herding livestock.
When a dog is engaged in hunting training, law enforcement training or veterinary treatment.
When required at a camping or recreational area.

The ordinance would also allow a dog to be kept on a running cable line or trolley system as long as it’s not kept there indefinitely and meets a number of other conditions, including having food and water within reach, keeping a minimum 25-foot length on the cable and not leaving the dog tethered between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

County Attorney Mark Payne said he’s been weighing in on the change of the ordinance. He said the language isn’t final, but animal rights advocates lobbied for the insertion of the tethering language. County staff is working with residents to come to a consensus on the new ordinances, which also target other forms of animal cruelty and puppy mills.

“Things get put on the table, and then we discuss them,” Payne said. “We’re trying to come up with some language that everyone can agree on.”

Some animal lovers say they’re concerned the new ordinances will be too intrusive and may harm legitimate breeders by requiring permits for even small litters where no animals are sold.

Payne said the county has also heard from people worried their house pet might qualify as an “exotic animal” under the new ordinance.

Payne said they needn’t worry: He has inserted a sentence to make sure that provision won’t apply to dogs, cats or other common house pets.

“Exotic or wild animals specifically do not include animals of a species customarily used in the state as ordinary household pets, animals of a species customarily used in the state as domestic farm animals, fish confined in an aquarium other than piranha, birds, or insects,” the provision reads.

“I made that language very specific,” Payne said. “And as far as I’m aware, no one has suggested taking that out.”