The Daily Tar Heel
URL: http://www.dailytarheel.com/index.php/article/2011/09/carrboro_bans_dog_tethering
Current Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 07:23:57 -0400
Carrboro bans dog tethering
| 
Tools
The pug above, which is not tethered, goes on a walk with its owner this week. Under a new Carrboro ordinance, dogs will no longer be able to be tethered, or tied outdoors to a stationary object.
Possibly Related
- Basketball ‘Championship Tree’ moves to new home at Chapel Hill Visitors Bureau 10 hours ago
- WakeMed withdraws offer to purchase Rex Healthcare MAY 22
- Governor’s School pushes for restoration of funding MAY 22
- Leimenstoll starts lobbying campaign in Raleigh MAY 21
- Sophomores promote religious tolerance with soccer MAY 21
Dog owners can no longer tie their dogs to a stationary object after the Carrboro Board of Aldermen unanimously passed an anti-tethering ordinance Tuesday.
The rule bans tethering, which the board defined as the restraint of a dog outdoors by a line that is connected to a stationary object or to a cable trolley system.The measure, effective immediately, also creates weight-based requirements for kennels and fences.
Carrboro Animal Control officers estimate that there are approximately 40 to 50 tethered dogs within Carrboro city limits, and that number has caused concern among some residents.
One resident expressed her concern that Carrboro did not have an anti-tethering ordinance in an email to the board that prompted the tethering discussion.
Both Orange County and Chapel Hill have already passed measures restricting the use of tethers.
According to the meeting agenda abstract, tethered dogs are more likely to be aggressive and are less able to defend themselves. They could become a public nuisance by barking and could strangle themselves with their tethers, the agenda states.
Alderwoman Jacquelyn Gist said she favors more humane restraints for dogs and strongly supports the ordinance.
“People see tethered dogs and are concerned with animal abuse,” she said. “It’s emotionally disturbing.”
Orange County’s Animal Ordinance, effective November 2009, restricts the time dogs can be tethered to 3 hours within a 24-hour period.
Chapel Hill followed in 2010, banning tethering and adopting minimum size requirements for fences and kennels.
Carrboro’s ordinance sets minimum enclosure sizes of 100 square feet for a dog that weighs fewer than 20 pounds and 200 square feet for a dog more than 20 pounds.
The ordinance allows dogs to be tethered in some situations, like if their owner is in sight.
The benefit to an anti-tethering measure will be happier and healthier dogs, Gist said.
“I have seen the dogs tied in junk yards, and it is absolutely heart breaking.”Robert Nekoranec, an animal control officer in Carrboro, said he was thrilled to see the law pass because it will make his job easier.
He said Orange County’s 3-hour tether limit was a step in the right direction, but it has been hard for him to enforce.
“I almost have to sit on the dogs for three hours to see who’s complying.”
The board spoke briefly about the measure at their Tuesday meeting before electing to skip a public hearing in favor of an immediate vote.
James Morgan, a Carrboro dog owner, said he was excited about the new law. He said he wouldn’t want to keep his dog on a tether.
“As his owner I know I wouldn’t want to be stuck outside all day in the same place. So why would I want that for him?”
Contact the City Editor at city@dailytarheel.com.
Online Poll:
Do you think fracking can be done safely?
10 comments
Try this for a legal theory to challenge this ordinance: The ordinance has an adverse disparate impact on young black male dog owners.
Fencing is very expensive. How will this affect those with lower incomes who can’t afford to put up a fence?
Yet another example of the lengthening reach of the nanny state. I like how the Board skipped the public hearing- I mean, why allow the peasants to be heard at all?
Why did we give legal force to a problem that could be solved by Animal Control just doing their job? If an animal is clearly injured or abused by their tether, then give Animal Control the authority to take action. However, I don’t see how a dog with a reasonably long tether is better off than a dog crammed into its kennel indoors. What’s more, what about electric fences? Is the town really going to come out and make sure that the underground sensors are spaced in such a way to provide the right square feet for a dog? How did the board distinguish between a dog tethered by a rope that keeps them in a 200 sq. ft. circle and a dog being enclosed by an electric fence that permits them only 100 sq. ft?
“Fencing is very expensive. How will this affect those with lower incomes who can’t afford to put up a fence?”
If you can’t afford to maintain a pet properly then maybe you should not have a pet.
“Why did we give legal force to a problem that could be solved by Animal Control just doing their job? If an animal is clearly injured or abused by their tether, then give Animal Control the authority to take action.”
Me agreeing with Mystic? Say it ain’t so…
This is a dumb ordinance. People should be free to keep their pets the way they want so long as they are not abusive.
This article is educational, brilliant, and well-written. This Sarah Clover girl seems to definitely have a future as a writer, I hope to read many other pieces by her as a DTH journalist!
Hugo, I don’t know whether you’ve looked into how much even a simple chain link fence can cost, even do-it-yourself. The cost is disproportionate to regular pet care expenses, inclduing vet bills (several local organizations offer discount rabies clinics and exams) and pet food. The cost of a fence may deny an elderly person or a lower-income family with children the chance to have a dog, just because they can’t afford a fence and may need to keep the dog outside for a few hours at a time. The shelters are full of dogs who may be euthanized if they don’t find a home, and the world is full of less-economically advantaged people who receive a lot of joy from having a dog in the family.
It costs nothing to keep a dog inside and take it for walks.
Hugo and Hale get it! Apparently Orange Co Citizen I know exactly how much it cost to fence a yard, and I agree that if purchasing a fence is to expensive for the poor less fortunate, then there is no way in hell they’re going to be able to afford proper veterinary care. I’ve spent 10 times the cost of the 1 acre enclosure I put up for my two beagles in veterinary care, so that excuse doesn’t have any validity. Dogs are pack animals, if you don’t want to include them in your pack (family) then don’t get one, they shouldn’t be used as yard ornaments in a civilized society! Like children…..if you can’t afford to take care of them….then don’t have them!!!!
Orange Co. Citizen: So what the elderly or lower-income families now can’t have dogs because they can’t afford the fencing? A dog is NOT a necessity. It is a want, a desire, not a need. If you cannot afford to properly care for a dog (including ensuring its safety), then you don’t get to have one. To bad, so sad.
Keeping a dog outside (tethered or no) for long amounts of time is cruel. Sure a dog may prefer to be outside, but that doesn’t mean that it’s safe for the animal. In addition to extreme heat/cold that can do some damage to a dog, there are all kinds of bugs that can get to the animal (bugs that Frontline doesn’t protect against). Brown recluses anyone? They’re super common in NC – the chances of being bitten are a lot higher if you’re outside for extended periods of time. There are parasites and viruses that live in the soil (giardia, coccidia, hookworm, ringworm, parvo, etc). There are snakes. Then, not to mention, there are dogs that are particularly powerful chewers. What do you do when that dog chews through his harness/leash/tether and runs into traffic and dies? No good can come from keeping a dog tethered outside. Like I said, he may enjoy being outside more than inside, but you wouldn’t allow a small child that doesn’t know any better to do whatever it wants because it wants to – you do what is in the best interest of the animal’s health and well-being.
Be a responsible pet owner and take your dog for walks. Tethering is for the lazy and unfit dog owners.
Join the discussion
You Should Know
The Daily Tar Heel reserves the right to remove any comment deemed racially derogatory, inflammatory, or spammatory. Repeat offenders may have their IP address banned from posting future comments. Please be nice.
If this is the first time you've commented, your comment won't appear until you've verified your email address.
Formatting Options:
- Links: "my link":http://my.url.com
- Bold: *something!*
- Italic: _OMG!_
Serving UNC students and the community since 1893
© 2012 DTH Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.
Flag this comment