This is introduced by Sen. Avella and co-sponsored by Senators Addabbo and Boyle in the Senate and by member Rosenthal in the Assembly. Avella, Addabbo, and Rosenthal are Democrats: Boyle is a Republican. Its general aim is to make it unlawful to “tether”, “pen” or “restrain” dogs and animals between 7:00PM to 6:00AM. Their justification is that existing law, including local ordinances, addressing the issue is vague and overly complicated.
Laws should be as clear and simple as possible and we should appreciate efforts to make them so. Unfortunately, however, I think this one falls a little short. To see what I mean, let us start with a look at the first paragraph, “§353-g.1. It shall be unlawful to tie, tether, restrain, cage or pen a working or non-working dog or animal, between the hours of 7 p.m. to 6 a.m”.
I assume they mean out-of-doors and for the better share of that prohibited eleven hour period, but I’m not sure. Unless carefully crafted, language can reasonably be interpreted in a number of ways. By way of illustration, suppose there were signs in front of your house that said “No Parking 7:00 PM to 6:00 AM.” You park there for just one hour sometime during that prohibited eleven hour period. Would you be surprised if you got a parking ticket? Now suppose you let your dog out into a penned area in your backyard at 11:00 pm before bedtime so he could “do his business.” Under this proposed new law, aren’t you a violator in the same way the no parking sign made you a violator of the parking ordinances?
I have a friend who drives truck on the highway. Regulations divide truck driver days into ten hour periods and fourteen hour periods. During the ten hour periods they are supposed to be off the road and resting up. During the fourteen hour periods, they may drive not more than eleven hours providing for three hours of break-time. Perhaps the way to clarify the caging/tethering issue would be to say you cannot cage/tether an animal for more than three of the eleven hours between the hours of 7 pm and 6 am. Perhaps they should have written “§353-g.1. It shall be unlawful to tie, tether, restrain, cage or pen a working or non-working dog or animal out-of-doors for more than three of the eleven hours between the hours of 7 p.m. to 6 a.m”.
That language would better describe the activity they wish to proscribe. Fifty years ago it would have worked out just fine with the largest majority of Americans who then worked days and had their evenings and nights off. Is it still fine in today’s 24/7 world? Or, are we unfairly penalizing people who work nights and have their days off? And, from the animal’s standpoint, we should ask ourselves just why is it better to be tethered, etc for the longer thirteen hour daytime period than for the shorter eleven hour prohibited period? Is it because the lawmaker works days and has nights free? Or is it because the lawmaker, a human, feels more vulnerable at night? Or is it that the lawmaker is thinking about noise?
I don’t bring up the work time/ free time issue up to question the lawmaker’s motives. I’m suggesting there might be some kind of daytime equals work time mentality going on here. With respect to noise, noise issues are local issues. But we should consider the vulnerability question. Now, a human’s primary sense is his eyesight, which becomes greatly diminished when the sun goes down. With eyesight impaired it’s natural for humans to feel more vulnerable at night than during the day. The dog’s primary sense, however is his sense of smell, followed by his hearing. These don’t shut down when the sun goes down. Moreover dogs have good night vision. Therefore dogs may not feel the same relative vulnerability in the darkness than humans do because their senses are not as impaired in darkness as human senses.
In view of all this, I think the wrong actions are prohibited by this bill. Maybe the outdoor tethering, etc. for more than fifteen hours out of any 24 hour period should be the action made unlawful instead of the ones proposed.
Moving along, the first four lines of §353-g.2 read “A working or non-working dog or animal may be tied, tethered, caged or penned between the hours of 6 am to 7 pm to a stationary object or a pen or cage in a sized pen or cage four times the height and length of said dog or animal; …”
How about instead “A working or non-working dog or animal may be tied or tethered to a stationary object or may be confined in a cage or pen large enough to provide at least sixteen times the area obtained by multiplying the height of the animal times the length of the animal, providing however that: the total length of such confinement or tethering out-of-doors shall not exceed fifteen hours during any twenty-four hour period; and further providing that it is done in a manner that is not inhumane or detrimental to the dog or animal’s welfare, doesn’t cause the animal to choke, permits the dog or animal to escape harm and permits the dog or animal to reach food water, shelter compliant with §353-b , shade, and dry ground” ? (I added “shelter” to the list of provisions.) Admittedly, it is a little longer than the bill language, but better describes the prohibited behaviors and removes the unfairness heaped on people who work unconventional hours. Moreover, the original language appears to restrict enclosure size to just something that was four times as long as the animal and four times the height of the animal in width.
Also, the original language might have made it unlawful to house animals within their primary enclosures inside the kennel building at night because there was no out-of-doors provision. It also might have made it unlawful to crate dogs while driving during the prohibited hours. In short, there were a bunch of unintended things arising out of the bill language.
Please forgive me, but there is more. The whole reason you feel badly for a dog that is tied up day and night is because he is denied companionship, and of course there are the cleanliness, mud, and weather issues. Taking just the first, like people, dogs are social creatures and either human or canine company will do. If the dog is tied up or confined along with another, he’s going to be okay with that, so just why are we making this unlawful? Companionship won’t address the cold, wet, and dirty issues, however. You are only going to have two cold, wet, dirty, and unhappy dogs.
Also, the terms “working or non-working” and “animal” are used in addition to “dog.” This brings up many questions. Do we intend that pigs not be penned and sheep and horses not be corralled? And who ties up a cat? And do we really intend there be no “junkyard” dogs. I can’t imagine creatures more satisfied by their work, happily explaining to customers who call at night that: (a) unfortunately their employer’s is not a 24/7 business, and ;(b) how much more convenient for them if they could stop by tomorrow when the proprietor would be there to assist them.
I show some modified language below which I think I could live with. I think it addresses all my concerns and wouldn’t harm a responsible breeder.
Ҥ353-g.1. It shall be unlawful to tie, tether, or restrain, a dog out-of-doors during periods of inclement weather or on muddy ground, except when supervised or for brief periods for the dog to relieve himself or under the conditions described below.
“§353-g.2. A dog or dogs may be tied or tethered to a an overhead running line or to a stationary object or may be confined in a cage or pen large enough to provide each dog so confined at least sixteen times the area obtained by multiplying the height of the animal times the length of the animal, providing however that: the total length of such confinement or tethering out-of-doors shall not exceed fifteen hours during any twenty-four hour period; and further providing that it is done in a manner that is not inhumane or detrimental to the dog’s health and welfare, doesn’t cause the dog to choke, permits the dog to avoid harm, permits the dog to reach food, water, shelter compliant with §353-b of this article if such confinement is to be during periods of inclement weather, and shade, and is on well drained dry ground or an improved surface regularly maintained to be free of excreta and other refuse. If they also have the companionship of another dog, dogs may be confined in cages or pens for longer periods consistent with the above, but not tethered or tied.
Again, I think the anti-tethering anti-confining law if redrafted along the lines I described above would not harm responsible breeders and would accomplish the goal of providing humane conditions for dogs. Also, I didn’t talk about the proposed penalties. I do think they are much too severe. In this day and age, people are hard pressed. Most try do the best they can for their animals, but life is hard for many. Far more difficult than not so long ago. Lawmakers, who for the most part are very privileged people should reflect on those difficulties when assessing penalties.
Without the changes the bill should be fought. With the changes, it is okay.