Letter to the Editor
Animal treatment
Published Sunday, April 6, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!March 31, 2008
To the editor:
Dogs deserve better than life on a chain. You may not want to see it, but it happens more than you realize and it has to be stopped. The dog’s need for freedom can sometimes lead to strangulation. A chained, unsocialized dog, is twice more likely to bite.
In two years 46 children were killed or injured by chained dogs. So isn’t it time to break the chain of animal cruelty? There’s not much life on the end of a chain. Collars end up embedded in the necks of chained dogs. Is this how you would treat your children?
As Gandhi said, “The moral progress of a nation can be judged by the way it treats its animals.”
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Nancy McGuire It is a "law" that your animals be under your control. What were the 46 children doing (bless there hearts) to provoke a dog-bite? Where was the adult supervision? Just think of how many deaths and or hurt children and or adults if the dogs were allowed to run loose, in packs? Dogs have been tied on chains long before you or I were born. Oh my, re think your story - ask dog owners who have dogs tied outside why they do so!
I can just tell, when folks wake up there gonna Post a comment.
it is more humaine to properly restrain pets. what you don't want to do is chain the dog out in the back yard and then forget about it.
Echo317, I just woke up, and I'm gonna post a comment <BG>
The notion that tethering leads to unwanted behavior in dogs came from a seriously flawed epidemiological study performed in Denver well over 20 years ago that has since been disproved.
In fact, the only unbiased, controlled, scientific study comparing tethering to pen confinement of sled dogs found no difference in behavior between dogs housed on tethers to those housed in pens. (Seong C. Yeon, Glen Golden, Wailani Sung, Hollis N. Erb, Arleigh J. Reynolds, and Katherine A. Houpt; "Comparison of Tethering and Pen Confinement of Dogs"; College of Veterinary Medicine
Cornell University)
Those seriously interested in the topic can purchase a copy of the report at http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content....
Educated canine behaviorists (people with real degrees vs 'dog whisperer wannabes') have been stating for decades that the unwanted behaviors attributed to tethering are not due to the confinement, but are instead a result of inadequate socialization and stimulation. Their science-based position is strongly supported by the Cornell study.
Dogs have a strong psychological need to interact with humans and with their environment, a need that has been reinforced by over 4,000 years of selective breeding. The creation of any environment in which the dog is deprived of those interactions leads to behavioral disorders in dogs that can lead to human-directed 'aggression' or defensiveness, steriotypical behaviors such as pacing, tail chasing, licking, and lots of other unwanted behavioral and physiological disorders.
Dogs can just as easily be socially isoloated when confined in pens, garages or the spare bedroom.
The problem isn't about tethering dogs on chain, the problem is about people neglecting the psychological needs of their dogs, and changing how they confine the dog won't change the root cause of the problem.
Good Morning!
I was going to comment to M .McGuire, but I really like "Swanny's" response.
The only time I've ever not had a dog was maybe three years of my life. I've also done my share of rescuing dogs from neglectful or abusive home situations. I often liken dog ownership to having a permanent three-year-old around the house. They require socialization, they may not talk back (well, mine tries to communicate), but they do understand your vocabulary.
Its too bad that some treat their pets like toys to be pulled out for a while, then put away when not in use.
-RK
Well said Swanny! I guess in the original writers mind it would be better to keep our animals locked in the dark garage all day.
I believe dogs need companionship and attention. They are social creatures. People need companionship and attention. We are social creatures. Do yourself and your dog a favor...leash your dog to yourself (or vice-versa) and go for a walk everyday. You'll both be happier. Don't forget to smile and say hi to those you pass on the bike paths.
My son has a lab mix with a very thick undercoat.We tried to give him the option of indoors however he becomes aggitated from overheating.He is much happier outside.We dont have thousand(s)of dollars for a fence.My son walks him daily just like many people do.We are not being cruel at all.He is quite content.I resent your column NANCY!I am also aware of entanglement that`s why we use a 100'dog run with swivels top and bottom.(no worries)why dont you worry about your own dogs.
My sister lets her dogs run free. But she lives in the middle of nowhere.
If you live around other people, other dogs, traffic, traplines, etc., you are obligated to control your dog. No ifs, ands, or buts. As Gandhi might have put it, had he lived in Alaska, "It is a happier dog that breathes the air than feeds the earth". Or something like that.
I also disagree with the letter-writer; I don't think keeping a dog tethered is by itself a bad thing. Throughout my life I've kept dogs by either means and all have been perfectly happy and healthy so long as they've been cared for and given proper attention.
That having been said, my wife and I have always kept our dog Lucy behind a fence because we were fortunate enough to have bought our house from a dog owner who had a small run installed for their pet. However we never felt our dog had enough room in the enclosure we inherited.
We bought two ten-foot-by-ten-foot chain-link dog runs -- really just a bunch of panels of chain-link fence -- at our local Ace hardware store and used them to extend the enclosure and give our dog more room. In the future we may buy more panels and extend the ares even more. The dog loves the added room to move around in.
I remember there being an Ace store in Fairbanks, though I'd bet other chains probably also offer similar options.
I think the dog run cable with running pulley gives the dog much more freedom and still keeps them contained.(that way they aren`t tracking in their own feces.
Dogs that are allowed to run loose are at risk of being hit by a vehicle and killed. This is an unhappy occurrence for the dog, its owner, and the driver that hit it.
Loose dogs also are prone to chasing pedestrians. As a runner who takes his (leashed) dog with him, I have been chased by more loose dogs than I can count. Most were friendly, a few were aggressive, and I've been bitten once.
Sometimes loose dogs will follow me, forcing me to disrupt my run and take them back to their homes (assuming I can locate their homes). I do this for the dogs' safety (I often run on busy roads), not out of consideration for irresponsible owners. When I've asked people to restrain their dogs, a frequent response is "a dog needs to run." Well, that's why I take mine running every day.
Loose dogs also get snared in traps. Whatever your thoughts on trapping, it is legal in Alaska. Most trappers, I suspect, would rather find an animal they can use the pelt of in their traps than a family dog.
As a dog owner, I keep my dog on a run not only because it is the law, but also because it keeps my dog safe at those times when I can't be playing with her. She is allowed free run of the yard when attended, and I've let her run free in supervised, off-road situations. She is a very happy and healthy dog. She prefers to be outside during the day, and when we have her inside, she will go to the door and "ask" to be let out. She goes directly to her tie-off and waits to be hooked up. If she is an abused dog, she sure doesn't show it.
Nancy,do you have any reactions to these comments?
I would like to know if you still feel as strongly
as before.Maybe the problem is not in the chaining
of dogs but the neglect some of them suffer.
The issue the letter writer is getting at, I believe, is the fact that chaining a dog by the neck 24/7 is, for many dog owners, the "easy way out" when it comes to caring for a social, intelligent animal that requires exercise, warmth, companionship, exercise, a little change of scenery now and then. Too many people stake a dog in the yard, give it food and water, and force the dog to live in the same patch of dirt and feces for years on end. What a horrific life.
Yes, some people can chain more "humanely" than others, but a perpetually chained dog, even on a long tether, suffers horrifically even if food, water and an occasional pat on the head are provided. The point is that by legally allowing 24/7 chaining, we are essentially telling those who would abuse and neglect their dogs that what they are doing is ok. It isn't.
Yes, chaining a dog for short periods is not so egregious. Yes some of you chain your dogs in ways that you think isn't so bad. But there are countless people out there who think NOTHING of tying a dog to a tree or a broken down old car, providing a leaky plywood lean-to for "shelter" and feeding/watering the dog every few days. This kind of treatment is perfectly legal and is ENCOURAGED by laws that say 24/7 chaining is just peachy.
There are plenty options for confinement aside from 24/7 chaining -- including keeping a dog indoors, walking it and treating it humanely. It isn't a question of " chaining" versus "dogs running loose" or "chaining" versus "keeping a dog in a garage for its life." There's plenty of room in between those two extremes for responsible pet ownership. Electric fences work, as to do real fences. People who say they're too "poor" to afford to fence should think long and hard about getting a dog in the first place. What is the POINT of having a dog only to chain it in the yard for 10 or 15 years?
check out www.dogsdeservebetter.org and www.unchainyourdog.org to learn why the perpetual chaining of "man's best friend" is an antiquated and barbaric form of confinement. Just because it "has always been done" does NOT make it right. Human beings practiced slavery for milennia -- that didn't make it right.
By the way, it wouldn't surprise me that there's a study that says there's no psychological difference between dogs that are kept chained and dogs that are kept caged, as one poster noted. Both are extremely sad, limited methods of confinement that allow for little movement, protection from the elements, etc. Dogs kept chained OR caged for their life are going to often be equally neurotic, depressed, anxious, aggressive, etc.
yes, yes, you have a story of a dog kept in a cage for its life that was "perfectly happy." People do delude themselves into believing they are not causing suffering.
Monica, I confine some of my dogs in pens, some on tethers, and some in my own home. If you are concerned that I may be causing my dogs to suffer please feel free to turn me in to Animal Control. I take great pride in operating my kennel in a manner that is consistent with the best available science, in consultation with a certified canine behaviorist. My kennel is open for inspection by Animal Control Officers any time they can either produce a warrant or define their probable cause to do so. If I'm in a good mood, I might even permit an inspection based on articulable grounds for suspicion. If in a very good mood I'll offer them a really good cup of coffee once they've completed their duties.
Thank you for acknowledging my point. Dogs that are not provided adequate exercise, shelter or mental stimulation are indeed likely to display aberrant behaviors, regardless of the method of confinement.
What is the point of proposing a course of action that does not directly address the problem and in fact will drive the problem 'underground'. Hiding a problem doesn't solve it, it just makes it easier to ignore.
Swanny, I hear what you're saying -- I'm not attacking you personally. But here's my point of view -- from a somewhat inverse perspective, but hear me out: Let's say you have a person who uses recreational drugs in a responsible and moderate way -- someone who holds down a great job and family but smokes some pot on the weekends and does a little coke here and there. Just because this particular person is able to use drugs responsbily, does that mean he should legitimately be able to advocate that we legalize drugs because, well, "many people use drugs without causing harm to themselves or others?" Just because SOME people use drugs responsibly, does that mean we shouldn't have laws against drug use? Just because SOME people chain their dogs "responsibly" does that mean we shouldn't have laws that put REASONABLE limits on the practice?
That analogy is kind of convoluted, I know...but what I'm trying to say is that sometimes there are evils that our society needs to address, even if some responsible people (like you) also engage in the behavior that is being addressed.
You may not leave your dogs chained or caged for years on end, you personally may not allow collars to become embedded in their necks or days to go by without water because the dog's chain has knocked over its water pail -- but millions of people do - millions of people tie a dog to a tree and leave it there for years on end as nothing more than a half-mad furry lawn ornament. Why should our animal welfare laws err on the side of protecting that kind of animal ownership?
In the last few years, hundreds of cities and now even a few states have passed laws that put reasonable limits on chaining. These laws are not perfect and yes, sure, a few people probably take their dog out of the back yard and lock it in the basement or something. But at the same time, other dogs are protected from a lifetime of agony, a lifetime of pacing back and forth in mud and feces, being literally eaten alive by parasites, a life of lonliness and constant suffering.
I do some volunteer work for Dogs Deserve Better. My god, I cannot even begin to recount the horrors we see every day: the countless dogs that spend 5, 10, 15 years chained to a fence or a tree, who are never walked, fed nothing but cold spaghetti and bread, never given a warm bed or vet care, dogs that have grown mad from years of solitary confinement and the flies that feast on their ears. Treating a dog in this way is perfectly LEGAL in most places. That just can't be right.
You feel yourself to be a responsible dog owner, so I can understand your frustration at proposals to limit chaining, but at the end of the day there IS room for compromise and understanding on this issue. I have to believe that.
Let dogs run free is not a good idea. Dogs can wonder off for miles and they can find themselves in more dangerous situations than being on a chain, such as traps, traffic, etc.
If you are going to have a pet (dog, cat or etc) you need to take care of it and be responsible. Not everyone can afford a fence and a pet can escape a fence. Plus bears and moose can go over a fence leaving your pet defenseless also.
I agree an animal shouldn't be neglected. It should be a part of your family, but it shouldn't be left to run free.
Alaskastoryteller: No one is saying dogs should be running free!
DEAR READERS. THE POINT OF MY LETTER WAS TO POINT OUT THE INHUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS TIED TO DOG HOUSES THEIR WHOLE LIFE. NO HUMAN INTERACTION EXCEPT TO BE FEED AND WATERED, IF THEY ARE LUCKY. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING THE ANIMAL IF THATS THE LIFE YOU DEEM FOR THEM. THEY ARE OUR COMPANIONS AND THEY DESERVE BETTER. THEY END UP GOING CRAZY FROM BOREDOM AND THE LACK OF STIMULATION FROM PEOPLE.
McGehee: I'm curious: Do you really, really really believe that your chained and caged dogs were happy? Or are you perhaps just convincing yourself of that? What makes you think they were happy? Do you REALLY think a dog kept alone in a cage is happy?
Monica, I applaud your willingness to donate your time to the welfare of neglected and abused dogs. I also do considerable volunteer work for the welfare of dogs. About half of my own dogs came from either the FNSB shelter or from sled dog rescue organizations, and I also donate a significant amount of time training and doing behavioral modification and rehabilitation work with DWIs (dogs with issues) at a sled dog rescue kennel. Most of the issues in the DWIs I work with are directly attributable to the very problems that we are discussing here, the lack of social interaction with humans and other animals and inadequate mental stimulation.
I'm not necessarily opposed to reasonable regulation - but I daresay that what you consider reasonable may be very much unreasonable from my own perspective - a perspective that I am quite ready and willing to support with scientific evidence rather than anecdote and hyperbole.
Both of the web-sites you referenced in your earlier post advocate pens and fenced yards (nothing more than a pen) as an alternative to tethering, yet the evidence shows "...the behavior of the dogs in this study did not indicate an improvement in welfare in pens." (Cornell study cited earlier) In other words, the alternative that these groups offer is no better than the practice they wish to forbid.
You stress the word "reasonable", yet the root of the word is 'reason'. Like many other people in this region who confine dogs on tethers, I have sound, scientifically supported reasons for doing so. It is unreasonable for you to expect me to provide a lower standard of care for my dogs in order to comply with a regulation aimed at some idiot down the street who is going to respond to the restriction by neglecting his or her dog in a more hidden manner.
If you are willing and able to support your position with unbiased scientific evidence I will certainly examine it. If you offer alternatives that have been proved to be better for my dogs than my current practices I will almost certainly put the better practice into place and advocate the better practices.
Meanwhile, I am unwilling to support restrictions that will not offer a real improvement in animal welfare just so a small number of animal welfare activists can feel warm and fuzzy or delude themselves into thinking they've made a real change. I can accept compromise in many aspects of my own life, but I am absolutely and resolutely unwilling to compromise the welfare of my dogs.
Swanny
It is true that it is hard for me to stomach the notion that dogs, for many people, are not pets but rather commodities to be kept chained or caged for most of their lives, either to breed them, race them, buy and sell them or, in some places, eat them. Yes, hard to stomach, but I know I have to accept that we live in a world where most animals are not treated with the compassion I would hope for. So, to be pragmatic about this...
I do have some modest proposals re laws that might count as a pretty decent compromise -- ie laws that limit chaining to a certain number of hours per day yet allow exemptions for hunters, legit breeders, sled dog operations, etc. But before we get into that, I'm curious to know: How would YOU propose our society deal with the following scenario: Man buys dog. Man ties dog to leaky, half-rotten dog house on 3-foot rope. Man feeds and waters dog fairly regularly - often enough so that dog does not starve. Man leaves dog there -- in skull-cracking heat and cold -- for 10 or 12 years. Dog spends its life attached to dog house.
Should we accept that level of pet ownership as adequate in a supposedly enlightened society? Or do we try to discourage "mindless" animal ownership? Shouldn't our laws discourage animal ownership if the owner has no proper way to confine and care for the animal in a humane manner? Why DO people own dogs if they just cage them in the yard? What is the purpose of the dog, but to bark at strangers?
Curious as to your thoughts.
I'm not worried about restricting "man buys dog", my personal preference would be to euthanize the neglectful man (or woman) and find a good home for the dog. Obviously that has legal implications that are difficult to resolve.
53 years o