Blog

This is being introduced by Assembly Member Zebrowski and Senator Boyle.  Zebrowski is a Democrat: Boyle a Republican.  The primary purpose behind the bill is to place some controls on shelters.  Whether deliberate or not it also eliminates the 10 to 25 dog exemption currently in the law that protects responsible local breeders from being lumped in with pet stores, etc.

This one should be opposed.

Some points against it:

• There’s no justification for the 10/25 dog change in the memo.  Breeders affected by it aren’t the ones spreading infectious diseases nor is there any evidence here or elsewhere that the responsible breeders that would be affected by the proposal are responsible for animal abuse or any other outrage. There is a lot of info however why the shelters should be better regulated than they currently are, but nothing either data based or anecdotal with respect to the breeders.
• It would greatly increase the number of persons regulated by the Agriculture Department and the expenses to that department without any mention of that in the supporting memo nor any benefit to society.
• It would work a hardship on many of our members without any justification.
• Underhanded way of doing something the animal “rightsers” have wanted to do for a long time.

This is introduced by Members of Assembly Rosenthal and Mosley, both Democrats.  There is no “same as” in the Senate.

Among its provisions are the following:

• Can’t use slip or prong collars
• Doesn’t deal with confinement by enclosures, just tethering.
• Can’t tether longer than three hours at a clip unless under 60 day permit issued by “Animal Control.”
• Can’t tether more than twelve hours cumulative during the day.
• Can’t tether puppies.
• Can’t tether between hours of 11:00PM and 6:00AM.
• Must be restricted to own property and for fifteen minutes or less on public lands if supervised.
• Walking a dog on a lead is not tethering.
• Penalties: Class A misdemeanor first offense; Class B for second offense.

This bill may make criminals of us all. The 11:00 to 6:00 provision will catch those who house and walk their dogs during the daylight hours but do let their dogs out on tether to potty at night.  Someone like a nurse who works from 3:00 to 11:00PM would be especially and unfairly affected.  Also, someone who starts work early in the morning might let their dogs out earlier than 6:00 AM to potty.  For example, a nurse who works the day shift starts at 7:00AM.  One wonders what MAs Rosenthal and Mosley have against nurses.

Now, walking a dog on a lead is not tethering and the law would even seem to approve of 15 minute or less tethering on public lands, if the dog is supervised.  Suppose you meet a friend while walking your dog.  You tie him (dog, not friend) to the arm of a park bench, sit on the bench for a half hour or more talking with your friend about the latest misdeeds of our political  leadership.  Guilty, guilty, guilty.  Sitting is not walking; you’re beyond the fifteen minutes period of grace, and it is not likely that you have swivels at both ends of the lead, and you may be using a slip lead. You are jail-bound, my friend.

There’s some good stuff in there, but overall the bill is bad.  Probably not a threat to breeders, however,  who would only occasionally tether.  Would affect fox hunters who would have to go to “animal control” for the necessary waiver.  I am told that the packs are staked out overnight between and before hunts.  These periods would violate the 11:00PM 6:00AM time period and exceed  the three hour stated maximum.  Only the latter could be addressed and approvals would be at the discretion of the “animal control.”

See also my other post on tethering for discussion of the issue.

 

 

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.

“§353-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.

 

This bill is introduced by Member A. Paulin of the Assembly, a Democrat and Senator Boyle, a Republican in the Senate.  Assemblywoman Paulin is joined by half a dozen or so co-sponsors.  Sen. Boyle is alone.

The bill would add six requirements to the law.

• Diurnal light cycle.  Adds a requirement that a diurnal light cycle be provided.  Since it doesn’t say how this is to be accomplished, I assume it could be something as simple as not leaving the lights on all night long.
• Space for nursing. Provides that in addition to providing a whelping box for a pregnant or nursing animal, the dog’s regular allotment of space is to be also provided. Fair enough, but it then goes on to say that “Each nursing dog shall be provided with a sufficient amount of floor space to nurse and care for her litter.” This adds an element of confusion in my mind because it implies that nursing and litter care would take place outside the whelping box.
• Cleaning. A cleaning of “primary enclosure units” requirement is added. Requires daily cleaning. Also requires disinfection every two weeks. One can use steam, 180 degree F water, or detergent and disinfecting agent. One is cautioned to not leave the animal inside the enclosure while steaming, etc. It doesn’t seem too hard to comply with all this.
• Annual physical. Breeders who sell 25 or more animals per year must provide all the intact animals in their kennel veterinary exam annually. Seems reasonable enough to me. Who doesn’t have their animals checked out that often.
• Exercise program. This also applies to those selling 25 or more per year and requires them to file their plans with the Commissioner of Agriculture in accordance with instructions which he/she is to promulgate. Seems more like a bother to the State than to the breeder. Current law already requires you have such a plan and provide same if the Commissioner asks for a copy. Must be Commissioners aren’t asking often enough to please the sponsors and co-sponsors of this bill. I don’t see this as a big problem. If you can handle the paperwork necessary to sell 25 dogs per year, you can handle this too.
• Grooming. Establishes some minimal grooming for health purposes: nails to be trimmed; grooming to keep animals mat free; and the animals to be kept free of flea and tick infestation. None of this seems unreasonable or burdensome to me.

All in all, not a threatening bill and one that stands a fair chance of passing.