Dog-Tether Limits Await Final Vote

In these dog days of August, lawmakers, hunters, animal advocates and the occasional celebrity are battling over whether to ban the tethering of canines in California.

A measure that would generally bar tethering, on track to clear the Legislature as soon as next week, has set off a fierce debate about whether dogs chained for long periods of time are more likely to turn aggressive.

A number of animal-rights groups say consistently tethered dogs are more likely to bite, suffer from lack of exercise or hurt themselves. But rural pet owners, ranchers and hunters -- as well as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s policy advisors -- insist the measure too rigidly reins in dog owners.

“Life at the end of a chain is miserable,” said actor and animal-rights activist Joaquin Phoenix, whose movie credits include “Walking the Dog,” “Brother Bear,” “Buffalo Soldiers” and “Clay Pigeons.”

In a letter to lawmakers supporting the measure, Phoenix wrote: “Many dogs, desperate to escape, attempt to jump fences and end up hanging themselves.”

The bill, by Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), would make it either an infraction or a misdemeanor to chain or lash man’s purported best friend to a doghouse, tree, fence or other stationary object for more than three hours in a 24-hour period.

Running lines and pulleys that allow dogs to traipse across yards would be legal, and dogs at campgrounds or recreational areas could be kept tethered under the measure, SB 1578.

Violators could be fined $250, and the bill carries an extra bite: Authorities could also bring criminal charges carrying a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and a six-month prison sentence.

The measure, which was the brainchild of the California Animal Assn., a coalition of animal-rights groups, drew little public criticism when it passed the Senate in May. But organized opposition has intensified in the state Assembly, where the measure cleared its final committee Wednesday on a 12-4 vote and is now headed to the Assembly floor.

A vote could take place as early as Monday. Rural legislators, mostly Republicans, are lining up against the measure while urban lawmakers, mostly Democrats -- who control the Legislature -- are tending to favor the ban.

“My analysis is, people in the rural areas often take better care of animals than those in urban areas,” Assemblyman Johan Klehs (D-San Leandro), who supports the measure, said during Wednesday’s Appropriations Committee hearing.

Mark Hennelly, a lobbyist for California Waterfowl Assn., a 20,000-member conservation group, said the law would unfairly clamp down on poor people, who may not be able to afford adequate fences. People in rural areas often don’t have fences that can keep dogs from tunneling under, he said, and a ban on tethering would also make it hard to keep dogs in the same yard from fighting.

“By not tethering them, you could increase the number of dog bites,” Hennelly said in an interview.

Hunters and farmer groups are also opposed, although Lowenthal tried to address their concerns by allowing them to tether dogs as long as the animals are not left alone. But those groups say that is not always practical when operating farm machinery or training hunting dogs.

Schwarzenegger, the owner of two dogs, has not taken a position on the bill. He felt the wrath of animal lovers in 2004 when his administration planned to shorten the length of time animal shelters must hold strays before euthanizing them. The governor quickly abandoned that effort.

But his Office of Planning and Research said the anti-tethering bill is not needed because people who tether dogs for too long can already be punished for animal abuse or for not keeping aggressive animals away from the public.

“Dog owners could be cited or arrested based less on the spirit of this proposed law and more on the dog’s breed or the owner’s race, social class or location,” said the office’s written opinion.

Dogs bite people more than 4.7 million times a year, killing about 12 people annually, according to the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children ages 5 to 9 are the most common victims.

The relationship between chaining and aggressiveness remains a matter of contention.

A 1991 study in Denver found that chained dogs were 2.8 times more likely to bite than unshackled ones. It was not clear whether the dogs bit more frequently because they were chained, or because dogs more likely to attack were also more likely to be chained.

A 2000 report by the CDC that studied 227 fatal dog bites concluded that only 17% involved dogs restrained on their owners’ property. However, the study did not say how many of the unrestrained dogs that were responsible for most of the bites had routinely been tethered.

Opponents of tethering say conclusive studies are not necessary to justify banning the practice.

“In our day and age and especially here in Southern California, if your dog needs to be tethered, I’m assuming he is dangerous or you are being lazy and you don’t have time to go out and watch him go to the bathroom,” said Justin Rudd, the founder of Haute Dogs, a Long Beach animal welfare project.