# Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining Dogs



## DinoBlue (Apr 11, 2007)

FREDERICK, Md. -- A new Frederick County anti-chaining law for dogs is now in effect. 
The ordinance that went into effect Wednesday bars dog owners from keeping pets tied up outside for more than 10 hours in a 24-hour period. 
County Animal Control Division Director Harold Domer is asking anyone who sees a dog tethered for longer than allowed to document their observations and report it to animal control. 
Owners found in violation for chaining or tethering will be given a 30-day grace period to set up new accommodations for their pet. After that time, owners still in violation will receive a civil citation. 
Owners face a $50 fine for the first violation, $75 for a second and $100 for third and subsequent violations. Animal control officers can also seize dogs.


----------



## Hellismd (Aug 17, 2007)

way to go Frederick County... I think 10 hours is still too long but at least it's a step in the right direction.


----------



## acurajane (May 21, 2008)

I agree with HollyE


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

whether it is too long or not, how will they enforce it? Will they listen to heresay from the neighbors (who may not like you or your dog), or will they sit out there and watch your dog sit on its chain for ten hours and at ten hours and 1 minute, issue you a fine. 

Or, are they going to come by at eight in the morning and six at night and say, gee that dog is still out there, fine that person! 

Maybe we should issue collars like the prison bracelets that people can wear when they are under house arrest. The collar would log outdoor time vs. indoor time? Course then someone will say that the **** collar causes cancer. 

Do not pass a law that you cannot, will not, or do not intend to enforce.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

Just because laws like this are not enforced in your area, doesn't mean they aren't enforced in all areas.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

We have no law like this here, and I will fight against it tooth and nail if it comes this way. 

My question is HOW do they enforce it? 

Do they use the word of the neighbors, or do they sit out there with a stop watch? On the one hand you have to believe one individual over the other to do anything, and that individual might have been slighted by the owner in some way. On the other you have to have animal control running stake outs on public monies. It is a long time to sit there and watch a dog. They will not waste money doing that. 

So lets say they do fine you for leaving your dog on a chain for more than ten hours. How will they prove it. Either your neighbors -- and there better be more than one of them, or animal control will have to sit out there and monitor your dog. Anyone with a half-way decent lawyer could beat the rap. But then it is only a fine, and no one will hire a lawyer which costs $$$ for a fine that costs a few bucks (comparitively). 

So this is yet another way to make money. It will not do what everyone is trying to do. And frankly, I think that we still have bigger fish to fry no matter where you are. 

If people spent that much police-time soley on a tie out issue, you would have to wonder why there are still meth labs, child abuse, and any number of serious offences. 

Oh, I know that this is a site for dog lovers. But I do not like the idea of inviting the government to pass any more legislation than what is currently on the books. Most of this legislation is driven by HSUS, PETA, etc. And it is simply a chipping away at the rights of people to own dogs. I do not like that. 

While you are all on the band wagon against chaining, where will you be when crates and prong collars are on the block? You will probably say, how will they enforce it? Will they peek in your window? Come on people, do we really WANT a society where neighbors are encouraged to nark on neighbors???

When you see a serious bit of cruelty to an animal or a child, then you have to act. You have to call the police and hope they can respond quickly. When you see your neighbor treating an animal differently than you would treat it, that is a different story altogether.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

How will they do it? My guess is that they will go back, all different days and times and establish that there is a pattern and that the information can be confirmed that the dog is being tied out for that length of time. Of course, condition may also be a way to tell-density of coat, repititious behaviors, ear condition, etc. Perhaps someone should find out if they are really interested. 

Just because people are spending time on this issue doesn't mean that they are not looking at meth labs, child abuse etc. That is illogical. 

We DO have a society where we are encouraged to narc on each other-we have hotlines for drugs, domestic violence, child abuse, tax cheats-and while there may be a Hatfield-McCoy thing happening sometimes, the good obviously outweighs the bad.


----------



## Strongheart (May 2, 2007)

They take the word of the person reporting it. One of my rabbit fosterer's asked me a while back about what to do about her neighbor's beautfiul bull mastiff who was left out for 12 hours in a thunderstorm.

I told her to report it. FCAC seized him. My rabbit fosterer was protected by anonymity of reporting. This is really just making it easier for the ACO's to put some bite into their job, they are all very passionate about their jobs and there are probably not enough of them. I know most of them personally and this shelter is lucky to have a great staff. 

In this case, the owner relinquished the mastiff and he was returned to the rescue he came from, which I would like to know which rescue that was because he was still intact!

I am particularly pleased to hear this because the beautiful 15 mos. old GSD boy they put down a month or so ago (that's another story), whose picture I put on their website afterward, because he was a little fearful after spending his whole life tied out on a chain, will not have died in vain. 

Namaste Rocky beautiful boy! No one else will suffer your fate while I and many others have eyes and ears in that county!

AND THANK YOU FCAC!!!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

In my country, we are innocent until proven guilty. And a defender is allowed to see their accuser in an open court. Why should anyone be able to hide and be anonymous when they are talking about taking your pups away? 

Do you really think that there are not vindictive people that would lie. 

I guess dogs are better off gassed in shelters than being on a chain. 

This is the way you want to live, not me. 

The idea that an anonymous caller can spur a search and siezure from your property without due process. And you call this good.


----------



## Strongheart (May 2, 2007)

Not anonymous caller. Caller's anonymity protected from whom they are reporting against. The caller's info and testimony is kept on record for their safety. The dogs win. It depends on your priorities, your "freedom" to abuse your dogs or the law's right to protect an innocent life.

Big difference between Ohio and Maryland there, I guess. In this state animal cruelty is a felony too. You probably don't approve of that either. Whatever. You stay there, I'll stay here. Guess that's the beauty of having different states  Some states enable puppy mills and all sorts of other egregious treatment of animals, and some don't.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think animal cruelty should be a felony. But animal cruelty is not using a chain. 

I do not ever think anyone should be able to search and seize without a warrant.

I do not think ever that anyone should be able to lose a dog on heresay evidence, or on the testimony of one individual IF the dog is otherwise in good condition. 

I can see someone not liking that your dog barked at them and turning you in for a chaining violation when it is completely untrue. 

I do not think that a person should be found guilty on nothing but the word of anothe person.


----------



## Strongheart (May 2, 2007)

Well that's our justice system. Witnesses testify and people get convicted on their word.

I definitely do think using a chain is animal cruelty, but then I'm a *dog person*

You don't think someone should be able to break the windows of a car in the summer to save a dog inside?

We're pretty progressive here in Maryland. Kinda little California of the East.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Well, I think using a chain to beat a dog with is cruelty, but chaining a dog temporarily is not. What are you really doing with a leash? You are restricting your dog's movements to within limits prescribed by you, generally while you are present. chaining a dog outside for a period of time is not cruel. Many dogs actually like to be outside and have no trouble at all adjusting to a chain. 

There are dogs who will break their teeth on crates, but I guess that isn't cruel. Even when people restrict their dogs movements to a 42 or 48 inch by 30 inch crate for eight to ten hours at a time. During which time, if the dog is given water it is expected to maintain control of its bladder; or be thirsty. 

I think it is a lot less cruel to restrict a dog to the limits of a 10 or 15 foot chain. The dog can drink and relieve itself, go into its shelter, and watch the world go by. Much better that being stuck in a crate in a boring bedroom watching the wall. 

Now the people guilty of animal cruelty by crate will say that the dog sleeps the whole time. I expect they took a camera up and videotaped the dog's day and found that it sleeps the day away happily in its crate. But dogs on chains do not sleep, ever, I guess. 

And what about gruesome prong collars. I mean, maybe we should fit people at work with something that will pinch their neck hard if they do not perform as they are expected. That'll show them, and how. You betcha the dog will behave better with the pinch collar on. You would too. 

Worse than the prong collar are those modern torture devices called head collars. Dog's hate 'em, but you'll just love them. See the dog cannot pull you off your feet when his head is twisted around the moment he takes off. Pretty soon he will give up and let you lead. 

Let's make laws about all of them. They are all cruel. 

And you do not believe in kenneling your dog. So you are a stay at home dog mom that supervises her dog 24/7. Good for you! Not everyone has that luxury, but THEY shouldn't own dogs. Their dogs are better of gassed at the local shelter. Much better than subjecting the dog to a life where for several hours every day -- probably half of his life, he will spend kenneled, crated, or chained. 

And when he is not crated, kenneled, or chained, he is taken out and leashed to the cruel owner and forced to perform tricks and walk sedately next to the viscious human at his side. 

Now there is a time when a dog can be given the run of the house when the owner is away. When those properly trained dogs get into something a little too inviting and left a little too accessible and require emergency treatment or when they die, I suppose that it is just a chance that you take. 

I have left dogs loose in my home. Now I keep them kenneled when I am away. I feel that my dogs are safe in their kennels. They are clean, sheltered, can drink, can relieve themselves, and they cannot get into ANYTHING dangerous. They are kenneled twelve hours at a time, while I am at work. On occasion they are kenneled longer than that and even overnight. If they were crated, and I couldn't make it home because I was in the hospital (happens) they would have to lie in their own excrement. My dogs do not have to worry about that. 

For about six hours every night, my dogs are crated. 12 to 6 am, one comes in my room and sleeps with me, everyone gets a turn, and the rest sleep in their crates in the sun/whelping room. So I guess I am guilty of animal cruelty by crate too. I assure you that the dogs do sleep at this time, whether I am sleeping or not. If I am not, I pay for it the next morning when they wake me up at six.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

Sue,
Why did you build nice kennels for your dogs instead of just chaining them? You obviously went through the effort and expense for a reason. Was it because in their kennels they are safer than if they were on the end of a chain? You seem to think that a chain is fine, so why didn't you just go that route?


----------



## Strongheart (May 2, 2007)

I stay at home but I don't supervise my dogs 24/7 and I work 40+ hours a week like everyone else, except I'm unpaid. Right now, my dogs are running around in their fenced-in backyard having a blast. It's nice and nippy outside and they love it. When they come in, they'll hang around in their part of the house unsupervised. If I leave, I don't crate them. They do have crates though for eating.

Right now one is crated while she recovers surgery and is supposed to be kept calm and quiet. I use a prong on her only to keep her from dragging me, we got a nice German one and I put it on my own leg and it doesn't hurt. It's not cruel. And for her, it's necessary because she is so recalcitrant by nature. Her brother doesn't use one. 

When I did go to work every day, me and DH left the dogs the run of the house. 

We do have nice kennels too in case I want to have both GSDs out in the nice weather at the same time as they must be kept separate. I don't agree with crating all day. 

This is getting quite a bit off topic though. 

I see no reason to chain a dog. And it's not analagous to walking a dog on a leash because at least you're with the dog when you're doing that and interacting. A dog on a chain is just a lonely being who could also hurt himself pretty badly by accident.

Leaving a dog on a chain 24/7, which is what this thread is about, is cruel and it's not having a pet, it's about having a dog only for the purpose of looking scary to passersby.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

No, this thread is about leaving a dog for 10 hours or more on a chain, there is a big difference. If you work 1 hour away from home, or even less, if they force you to take a lunch break unpaid, then you could not chain your dog out while you are at work. 

I do not chain my dogs. I have in the past. There are risks with chaining as with everything else. For one thing, a chain can break and then you have a loose dog. I would not leave a dog unsupervised in a yard either. Dogs are notorious for finding weak spots in fencing, climbing, digging, and then you have a loose dog. Loose Dog = disaster. 

So yes, I built my kennels because I feel it is the safest way to keep my dogs while I am at work. 

I have many dogs, and leaving them all have the run of the house would not be safe at all. In fact, while living with me, my brother's dog went through my glass window three separate times. My dogs are more comfortable in their kennels, as my house is a trailer and is very hot in the summer time, stuffy, and is a fire trap. 

What I do not like about this law is the following:

1. You have to go by what a neighbor says as to how long the animal has been chained, or tax-payer dollars have to be spent monitoring the dog for ten plus hours. 

2. While I do not like the idea of chaining a dog for ten hours plus, I dislike the idea of crating a dog that long even more. I feel that the dog is more restricted and cannot relieve itself. I feel that is more cruel than chaining a dog. But I do not want to make a law against that either.

3. I do not think that animal cruelty should be based on what we as humans think would be cruel if we were in the place of the animal. I think animal cruelty should be based on physical evidence of suffering by the animal. My point about prong collars and head collars illustrates this. When applied to a human, these are terribly cruel. 

4. All circumstances are different. It is just as easy to say that if you have need to crate a dog, you should not own a dog, as it is to say that if you have need to chain a dog you should not own a dog. A chain is a tool like a crate or a kennel. Any of them can be abusive. Any of them can be used properly. 

And 5. Last but not least, living in the country, I am surrounded by the attitude that dogs should be allowed to roam at will. I would rather have dogs chained up than running loose. I would never lobby for something that would stop people from keeping their dogs on their property. I guess it is a progression, First contain the dogs to the owner's property by whatever means, Next improve the dog's lifestyle and get him inside more. Here we are still working on step 1. 

If you put your dog out on a chain to relieve it self at 8 am, and Animal Control spots it on the chain and makes a note of it. Then you put the dog out again at 8 pm to relieve itself and the next shift of Animal Control, comes by having read the first shift's note, are you likely to be fined or have your dog confiscated?

I do not like laws that will be a nightmare to enforce.


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/ubb...true#Post802668


The above is another link about this that went on for 4 pages! 

The OP says it all TIME LIMITS! 

I agree with this law!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think there should be a time limit to how many hours a dog can be crated during the day. 

Where do you stop?


----------



## RebelGSD (Mar 20, 2008)

I rescued and rehabilitated several chained dogs, two were really bad. I would not have believed what a profound impact chaining has on the mental state of the dog without seeing the effects in person after they were removed from the chain.

One was a young female (1.5yrs) from OH. The owners dumped her at the shelter because she was "turning mean" and the neighbors were complaining about the barking. People/children were teasing her. It took me months to teach her to walk straight. 
When I got her home she would run in circles and circles and circles on the leash, it was impossible to get her to stop. Or she would take off full speed until the leash brought her to a halt. Every time she nearly tore my shoulder out, unbelievable the strength with which she charged to be yanked to halt at the end of the leash. And she was doing it over and over and over. It was a nightmare and it took VERY long time, 5-6 months for her to start walking somewhat normally. Keep in mind that this was a young dog. She had a 5 inch diameter bald spot on her thigh from sleeping on concrete. She also had people aggression issues and fear from people, I bet she was abused, teased by people passing by while she was chained.

It is very easy to identify dogs that are chained excessively, they develop severe behavior problems, reporting by the neighbors is not necessary. I have not seen such behavior problems with crated dogs. Dogs are normally crated until they are housebroken and out of the destructive phase, after that they have free run of the house (in normal situations). 

This law is meant to provide means to AC to remove dogs from a home that are chained 24/7. One can see the path in the ground that the dog carves into the ground. The law is not meant to remove well cared dogs from homes that put them on a tieout to potty. It is not at all difficult to see the difference. In this area there are no free-roaming dogs. AC gets them immediately, the owners are fined and after three offense they can even lose the dog. So chaining is not the wonderful alternative to dogs running loose

Rescue contracts limit the hours the dog is crated as well, 10 is usually the max. daily limit. The rescue I volunteer for declined an applicant who crates their 6yo and 8yo dogs while the family is at work (8hours min) and at night (8 hours min). Everything else was good, but they kept saying that the dogs liked the crate. The people were very angry for being declined.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

This law does not say chronically and perpetually chained dogs. It says dogs chained more than ten hours a day. 

If you are a privately run shelter or rescue, you can put whatever you want in your contract and prevent whomever you want from taking one of your dogs. That is well and good. 

Is it not possible that your chained dog's mental problems were not due to chaining, but rather that the dog was so neurotic in the home that they resorted to chaining the dog in the back? At that point she went from bad to worse. You cannot really say that this is NOT the case. Some dogs develop weird, disturbing behaviors that have nothing to do with their environment. Suddenly add a chain, and that is the cause. 

I saw a documentary on dogs with weird neurosis, like spinning, and licking the patio door, and all kinds of things. These were house dogs. 

On the flip side, I have known dogs chained their entire lives that have had no ill-effects. Nor did they hang themselves. Granted they did not walk wonderfully on leash, but that was because they were never taught or given the opportunity. One of these dogs was our shepherd mix growing up. There was not a neurotic bone in her body. She started out as a stray, we brought her home, kept her inside the house, she became so ill that she nearly died. After two separate vets, we put her outside on a chain. She thrived. We put her down at age 14. 

And as for the path carved into the ground, my brother's dog Jazzy made one of those in an afternoon. 

Then, I have Tori. From weeks nine to week fifteen, I believe she was crated nearly the entire time in a very smoky room. She has never been chained. She is very fearful, terrafied of people for the most part. It has been a slow journey back with her. I know she was not abused physically or teased, just crated excessively. 

The fact is that there are dogs out there, dogs of members of this board, dogs that are living in great homes, with caring owners, that have problems, problems keeping weight on -- they look bony, emaciated, problems with aggression, problems with neurocies -- weak nerves, skin problems. These dogs were not chained and got these problems. Suddenly add a chain in the picture and that is the root of all the evils. I do not get it.


----------



## RebelGSD (Mar 20, 2008)

A dog running circles around a confinement point is a well known consequence of chaining that was documented over and over. You can invent whatever causes you want, it is your right. It does not change the facts. By the way, the dog I was referring to was never inside the home or a crate according to the owner. She lived outside, chained since they brought her home from the breeder. She was 8 weeks old when they got her.

You can sing all the praises to chaining you want, luckily most people nowadays know better. Not so long ago you used to attack rescues for requiring fencing (or having any standards for placing animals instead of just giving them away for free to whoever feels like having one) until one of the puppies you sold got killed by a car. You used, in all kindness, refer to it as turning them to pizza (before it was your pup that got killed, I am courteous enough not to use your own pizza term for it). Since then you are not that loud about it. Your strong opinions on breeding have changed over the years too, you were equally passionate about that in the past. 

Obviously chaining has its fans who will fight for it. Luckily there are also many people opposing it and luckily laws change.
Times change. Maybe your opinions on chaining will change one day (or maybe not).


----------



## K9Drover (Oct 2, 2008)

DogsDeserveBetter.Org


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I have lost two pups to lack of proper containment. If either of those dogs had been chained, they would most likely been alive today. One got smooshed, the other got out of the invisible fence and ingested poison that someone had in the woods. Both dogs, their border collie and their German Shepherd broke the fence and took off into the woods and died from being poisoned. I am not a fan of regular fencing, invisible fencing, chaining, or crating. I am a fan of a strong solid escape-proof kennel, surrounded by a visible fence for times when you cannot be there. 

Not everyone has the money to put into a proper kennel. 

I prefer dogs to be chained than becoming road pizza, or shot by hunters/trappers, or being shot by farmers/homeowners as nuisance animals threatening livestock or children. 

I believe that rescues turn people away who then go and buy dogs from pet stores (puppy mills) and bybs, due to their rigid regulations. I still believe that. 

And I believe that people who want to breed dogs should have the right to breed their dogs. 

I believe that if everyone "leaves it to the experts" in twenty years the breed will be garbage or gone. We need new blood and we need good breeders. We cannot afford to leave it to the experts because they retire and die and because the puppy mills and unscrupulous breeders will just stand in the gap, producing more dogs without respect to health, temperament, conformation. 

I believe we do not need more laws, we need to enforce the laws we have, that includes leash laws in my area, cruelty laws, etc. 

I do not believe that all chained dogs become aggressive or neurotic, and it is possible that some of these things may happen without chains. If you chain or crate the wrong dog excessively, you will create a problem, while another dog will manage it fine. 

A chain in and of itself is not cruel. Your dog may not be able to handle a chain at all, or your dog may be able to be chained while going potty for ten to 30 minutes, or your dog may be able to be chained while your are at work, or your dog may be able to be chained except while you are working with him. It depends on the dog. Yes, chaining can excellerate some conditions in some dogs, but I think that the traits are there in those dogs.


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: K9DroverDogsDeserveBetter.Org



Good post!


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: selzerI think there should be a time limit to how many hours a dog can be crated during the day.
> 
> Where do you stop?



At some point common sense should kick in.








People should know better than to crate their dogs for long periods of time. 

We have chain laws being inacted because at some point you can no longer rely on people using their common sense. 

We have done it your way. All the things you said in your last post on this thread. It is NOT working....we need more standards, ie LAWS to PROTECT these dogs. 

People keep saying over and over NOT the dog that is let out temp to go potty, the dog that is put on a chain and stays there, it's WHOLE LIFE. NO ONE CAN GET ON BOARD WITH THAT!!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

That is because this law, this post is for ten hours, not 24/7.


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

It is just to give the AC a leg to stand on. 








With this law they can investagate. If a dog is on a chain 10 hours it is to long and I am sure it is more.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

But how can they enforce it?

How will they know if a dog was put out in the morning for half an hour, and then again in the evening? 

That is what my parents do. 

No way could the dog be out there all day because two dogs use the same chain. 

But will AC care? Will they say we saw this dog here at 8 am and here it is 7pm? If they swing around at eleven pm they may see the dog again. But one is out for ten minutes at a time, the other for half an hour. 

My biggest beef is there is no way to enforce it, unless you listen to neighbors who may have an interest in eggagerating the truth. 

I am also afraid that there is an element of using the law to go after lower class people. Lots of lower class people keep their dogs in and do a great job with them. But fewer middle class and upper class people chain their dogs for long periods. Maybe this is because they have the resources to beg or barrow enough to put up a fence or a kennel. Maybe it is because they prefer to crate the dog and hire a dog walker. Maybe it is because they are more likely to have jobs where the dog can be present, or that they can go home for lunch or where they can work from home. 

The chances are the law will target the lower class citizens, and perhaps is really specifically for those people using heavy chains to build their dog up, or using the chains to make their dogs mean. 

Whatever the spirit of the law is, it is the letter of the law that holds up in court. I do not think that they should pass laws that they can or will not enforce -- as the law is written. 

It sounds like what you are saying is that if AC is called to a property where the dog is emaciated, filthy, and chained up without water, they can get the owners for cruelty from neglectin to provide food, water, grooming, and cruelty for chaining the dog. The individual signs the dog over to AC and gets a fat fine they cannot afford. 

It sounds like what your are saying is that they will not target dogs that are otherwise well cared for, healthy, etc. But in that case, there are already laws about neglect and cruelty. I do not understand the need for another law specific to chaining. 

I think people need to call the authorities when an animal is physically suffering, but I do not think they should call when the owners are doing something differently than what they would do.


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

I cannot believe I am doing this again. Really let's just agree to disagree, because we live in different states. 

Yes, there are neglect laws. BUT if you see a dog on a chain all day, more than 10 it is headed for a neglectful situation. 
Why wait until the dog is tangled, skinny, knocks their water over, whatever...they can move in and watch or take steps, whatever needs done SOONER. 

Please for ONE second think of the dogs. It is SO people can help them. Not to pick on poor people. 

I am done. I think you are just coming up with come backs. No one can keep turning something into an disagreement like you can, I give you that.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Well, I guess I just cannot give up on that last word -- how do you KNOW it is out for more than 10 hours unless you are sitting there watching it? Not one answer to this question yet -- how will they enforce it?


----------



## RebelGSD (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

Since you think chaining is so wonderful do you require from the buyers of your puppies whose pictures you posted to keep them chained? Just curious.


----------



## DnP (Jul 10, 2008)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

My 2 cents for what it's worth.

I grew up in the country in PA where many folks chained up or kenneled their dogs 24/7. This included my own dad, who kenneled his hunting dog (english setter). Mr. Wing got out for a run of the fields each night but that's the only time he was out of the kennel except during hunting season. I didn't think twice about it THEN.

Today, the farms around my folks have been sold and they now have close neighbors...That's what has happened in Frederick. Many of these laws have been enacted due to the fact that neighbors no longer live 2-3 miles apart. A dog chained up is more likely to bark, annoy close neighbors and draw attention. I'm sure if folks still lived 2-3 miles apart instead of 20-30 yards apart, this law would probably not have been passed or even suggested. 

I bet AC has a threshold that has to be met b/f they go investigate a complaint. Are there a-hole/overzealous ACOs out there. Heck yeah, just like any other enforecment/law enforcement agency. Will there be those who don't fully invesitgate b/f issueing a ticket/fine. You betcha. But I'm sure a responsible ACO will invesitgate b/f they take action. Please realize at the same time, a lot of laws/regulations/policies have been enacted due to the "lowest denominator". The one who is irresponsible... Is it that best thing to do, not always, but it happens and the rest of us have to either obey the law or make an effort to change it. Do I agree with every law, regulation or policy out there...no, but I do obey them and b/c of my job, uphold them. 

I adopted Phoenix last year, who, BTW, was purchased as a puppy and chained outside 24/7 for the first 10 months of his life...After getting rescued, he had several surgeries to remove the embedded chain in his neck and repair the damage it had done. HE is a reason to ban chaining 24/7. Like everything else, I'm sure there are responsible owners, who chose chain their dogs 24/7, but obviously Phoenix's previous owner,the lowest denominator, wasn't one of them.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

Sure do, and I demand that they not speuter them ever, and I require that they breed them at least once. I encourage them to feed Ole Roy dog food mixed with table scraps. And I warn them that if they let people pet the puppy it won't be any good as a guard dog.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

Having grown up with chained dogs, I too do not chain mine. But there was NEVER an embedded collar on any of our dogs. Abuse and neglect are not limited to chains, but chains are not immune to being an instrument for abuse. Chains, crates, prong collars, head collars, choke chains, leashes, harnesses, e-collars and dozens of other things used in conjunction with dogs COULD be used in an abusive manner. Most of these can be prosecuted (but won't be) under ordinary cruelty laws. Barking dogs can be prosecuted under noise ordinances or nuisance laws. 

What I do not understand is the attitude that whatever I feel is right about raising dogs, is right and there ought to be a law to make it mandatory. I may spay/neuter my dog, but the rest of the public won't unless we force them so lets make it a law. I do not chain my dog so nobody should, lets make a law. I do not use a prong, nobody should lets make a law.


----------



## RebelGSD (Mar 20, 2008)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

Based on your ideas this is what I would expect with the puppies. Thanks for confirming.


----------



## DnP (Jul 10, 2008)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

Sue, unfortunately, not everyone is a responsible owner and the few a-holes, make it tough for the rest of us. If everyone WAS a responsible owner, then mandatory spay/neuter laws, anti-breed, anti-chaining laws would not be enacted. 

I look at it this way. In most National Parks, dogs are NOT allowed on trails. Acadia is the exception. So, you'd think folks would appreciate it and follow the rules. Heck no. The BF, Phoenix and I were there last month and on one of trails we were hiking, I counted no less than three dog messes ON the trail and we saw another at the beginning of a trail where lots of people walk by. It totaly pisses me off when I see that and can understand why the other National Parks do not allow dogs on the trails...because of the few irresponsible/ignorant owners. Why should the NP spend the $$ to pick up after someone's dog? Sooooo, lets ban them to save the money.

Should the majority suffer b/c of a minority...NO. Does it happen? Everyday. 

Abuse happens and can happen in any situation. Many times laws are enacted to shortcut or save money. Noise ordiances or nuisance laws are in the rhelm of the local PD. Do they want to be called every day b/c a dog is barking or is it cost effective. NO. So, folks figure, if we ban dogs being chained out for more than 10 hours, we'll reduce the barking dog complaints AND an ACO can issue a ticket vs. a criminal prosecution (involving the PD's time and resources) which costs more money for the town. Remember, so many times, laws are passed b/c of the lowest denominator and/or b/c of COST. I'm sure the majority of pet owners are responsible...but there are the few who ruin it for them. 

If there are high profile/numerous abuse cases regarding crates, prong collars, head collars, choke chains, leashes, harnesses, and ecollars, there may be laws passed banning them. Until then, trainers and owners will use them. 

And Sue, why won't the way we govern ourselves be the same way we govern our pets? There are laws that affect our lives pushed by and approved by the few, but they still affect us, nonetheless. There will always be two camps, those who so willingly accept goverment involvement in their lives and those who feel they are better apt at governing their own lives and the gov't should butt out!


----------



## K9Drover (Oct 2, 2008)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

I am really sorry that your invisible fence failed and that your two poor dogs paid for that with their lives. I never did like them, sure it might contain your pet but it wont stop other animals wondering into your pets territory and that could always be a recipe for disaster.

I prefer dogs be inside pets rather than becoming road pizza etc, they are social animals and what's the point in having a pet if your just gonna leave it outside all day long. People who just want to leave a dog outside all day long weather chained or kennel contained or yard contained might as well not even have a dog - I mean really, what's the point? Besides which there are elements out there that could come by and just steal your pet and who even knows where it would end up, becoming road pizza might be preferable to some of the despicable alternatives.

I dont believe people who want to breed dogs should have the right to breed their dogs any more than I believe that people should just be allowed to breed. When will the people of the world wake up to the fact that we have a population explosion (humans, dogs and cats) and that the worlds resources are not infinitesimal. Obviously anyone who wants to, can breed their dog and anyone with half a heart is aware of the thousands upon thousands of animals must be killed each year and that is just in this country and why?, just because people want to breed their animal for what ever reason regardless of the fact that other animals languish and face the big sleep.

I do agree we need good breeders. I know what my definition is, what is yours?

Just because a dog will not become aggressive if chained hardly precludes that fact that that dog will live part of its life chained which is not a natural state of mind for any animal, human or dog.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

These are pups that I sold. The first was eleven months they let him out in the morning -- lived way back off the road in the country and did not think they needed a fence. They let the two pups out first thing in the morning, and they chased the neighbor dog out of their yard across the street, the homeowner's pup made it, her sister's did not. An invisible fence would not have helped in this situation, but a chain at the back door so that they could let the dog relieve itself before letting it back in and the dog would be alive today. 

The people decided to put up an electric fence after that. They had two dogs of their own, my pup and an older border collie. The dogs broke through the electric fence and went into the woods where they ate something poisoned. Both dogs became terribly ill. Both dogs died. 

I do not think that they should have chained their dog in this instance. But bad shtuff happens to dogs no matter what you use. 

I do not chain my dogs, but I do not want to make it a law that nobody do so. Growing up with chained dogs, never was any of them abandoned, neglected, injured by the chain. Nor did they become aggressive nor did they have weird quirks from being chained. 

On the other hand, people who feed their dogs gourmet meals, let them sleep on the couch or bed, only let them out when they are right there, some of these dogs have awful behavioral problems, and some of them have horrible physical problems too. I am not convinced that the act of chaining is the root of some dogs problems. I think that chaining a dog with a problem, or with a predisposition toward a problem might not help matters. However, the owners could have had problems either way. 

I grew up with chained dogs. Never once was a collar imbedded. I do not get that at all. 

While I prefer to kennel my dogs when I cannot be right with them, I do not like to force my views on others. Yes, I can talk and argue and persuade, etc. But I do not like making a law that says you MUST not do such and such.


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

_I grew up with chained dogs. Never once was a collar imbedded. I do not get that at all. _

This statement right here let's me know you do not get that at all, you do not get anything about this. Over 10 hrs leads to over 10 yrs. 

Collars become inbedded because people chain out their dogs and become disconnected with them. Like they are a tree or bush. 
They do not check close enough to realize the puppy has grown into a dog, and a new collar needs purchased. It becomes grown into their necks, their skin, etc. It has to be removed by a vet, cut out. 

Really.... you do not get that at all and you are against laws that require people to at least check on their dogs every 10 hours???


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

I do not check on my dogs every ten hours. Sorry, I would not be able to have the job I do if I had to do that. 

Do not worry about their collars though. They are not on them until we leave the property. 

We had dogs when I was a kid that were chained 24/7, but we never had a collar grow into a dog's neck. That, in anyone's book is cruelty and there are plenty of laws to manage that. 

Just because they do not bother to enforce the laws, does not mean we need new laws.


----------



## Strongheart (May 2, 2007)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

Ole Roy? What total crap!

Like this thread.

The ACO staff in this county is top notch. 

As with any law, citizens testify against other citizens. 

Lots of people are at home all day, work at home. The law does not target "lower class" people, just people with no class and there are quite a few of them in this county, who also have dog fighting rings but I suppose that is ok too and we shouldn't have any laws about that either, too much regulation.

Animals need laws to protect them from people who don't like laws.


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*








Well said Strongheart! I was running out of steam. 

Sue on some other threads you seem so senseable, except when it comes to laws.









What do you have to hide?? 

I just do not understand why you are not for laws protecting animals. 
I give up!!


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

I am all for the laws we have that are not enforced. Laws about containing one's animals to one's property, laws that say a dog must be licensed, laws that say that you cannot torture or neglect an animal to the point where there are physical signs of neglect or abuse. 

I am completely against laws that do the following:
1. require specific veterinary procedures or vaccinations;
2. require an owner to spend a specific amount of time in the presence of their animal;
3. limit the number of animals a person may have;
4. specify what equipment for training or containing the dog is acceptable;
5. limit the breed of dog that one may have or the size (weight) of dog that on may own.


So long as an animal is not physically distressed, what you do with a dog on your property is your business. 

If every dog that lived primarily on a chain had an enbedded collar, or festering sores, or developed serious behavioral problems, or was emaciated, then I would agree that the problem was chaining. But this does not hold true. And just because you and me do not want to chain our dogs, doesn't mean that we should dictate what others can and cannot do because the dogs MIGHT be neglected someday. 

I am not going to say that I have nothing to hide and follow the law completely because the law is the minimum standard. My dogs are treated way better than the minimum standard. However, it is a short jump from saying that a dog may not be tied out for more than ten hours, to saying that a dog may not be kenneled outside for more than ten hours. At that point, I will be in violation. At that point, anyone who works for a living is being targetted. 

Do you all think that people will stop when they get this legislation passed. I don't. I think they will go on to other things. More invasive things. And make more laws that they cannot or will not enforse, but the total idiots like myself will feel obligated to comply with because it is "the law." 

So yes, I am against us making more laws. Laws that rely on the testimony of neighbors rather than the condition of the animal in question. 

No, I do not want to see them take perfectly healthy animals away from people, under a law that was made because people animorphize their dogs and create standards of care that take into consideration dogs as opposed to human beings. I feel the same way some of you feel when you see a dog on a chain, when I see a dog in a crate. But I am not out there trying to ban crates.


----------



## BJDimock (Sep 14, 2008)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

My thought on all this.

Selzer, I completely understand your point of view. I agree that if the dog is well trained and very happy, then what right does someone have to step in?

I get that.

I also know that my child was confined in a carseat for the first 6 years of her life because it was safer for her. My child is well provided for. She has the $300 dollar glasses that she needs, she has food in her house, she is clean, she goes to school,and she respects people.She hated her carseat.

For 6 years I listened to her scream when she got belted in.(In the later years , she voiced her opinions to me.) I did this to her because I knew she would be safe when in my car. And when I made a mistake, and totaled my van, she was the one without injury.

I crate my girls, because I don't have money for an outdoor kennel. Because of my job, they can go up to 10 hours in their crate. The minute I walk through the door they are out. And they remain out until I go to work the next day. Do I think this is ideal???? Nope. I really want my girls to have a room in my house that leads to an outdoor run! That is what I hope for.

However, I would never leave them out on a chain for the same reason that I would not let my child out of her carseat.I love them. I don't want to put them in a situation that they could be in harm if I wasn't around to help them. For every dog that you say grew up on a chain with no problem, I've creamated 3 more at my job because they've hung themslves, and that is a risk that I'm not willing to try. At least I know that in their crates they are safe. And my girls(and new boy) regularly go to their crates for private time when they want it. It must not be too bad.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

I have a bitch that broke her teeth on her crate. She busted through five of them leaving her loose in the house to get into what could kill her. Every time she broke through a crate she injured herself. 

Now she is crated every night. Her problem is not the crate. Her problem is the crate when I am not home. 

Your dogs may be safer in a crate than on a chain. I live in a trailer and that means a match-stick. I do not leave my dogs crated in my home if I am not home because if my house catches on fire when I am not there, my dogs are stuck in crates and cremated. I cannot let that happen. If my house goes up, it is possible that the dogs that can go in and out will be too close to the house and will die too. I cannot protect against all ends and still support myself and my dogs. 

I do have outdoor kennels. Partly because the crate-thing is completely out in my opinion. Too many hours in a box for my dogs -- eleven minimum. Leaving my dogs inside with the run of the house is not safe either. They are better off chained in the back yard. My reasoning is this: my brother's dog went through MY window (glass) three separate times. Luckily that was the window to the back yard. There is also a window in the front they could go through and then there is no fence, and nothing keeping them from the road. So no way do they get the run of my house. 

Which leaves the kennels. I feel kennels, six feet high, covered over with fencing, and with a base of concrete are the safest and most sanitary method for keeping my dogs -- given they do not have collars on. 

If I did not have the kennels, then so long as the back yard was fenced around, and the chain was placed so that the dog was not able to come into contact with the fence, my dogs would be better off chained.


----------



## BJDimock (Sep 14, 2008)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

Not here to cause a fight. Just stating what I've learned.

Everyone's home is a matchstick. Dogs free or dogs crated will probably die in a house fire. Cripe, children die every year in house fires, with their parents who were despertly trying to save them! And guess what? Everyone was home at the time!

I think about my girls in their crate all the time when I'm at work. I wonder if they're ok, I hope the house hasn't caught fire, etc. I've had a house fire, and it's not fun. But I know that they're always pretty happy to see me when I get home. My fire alarm is hooked up to a company that will call the fire department for me, so if I haven't gotten a call at work, then I know I'm ok. (Call it fire paranoia)

Again, I don't like my dogs in crates all day. I had the same issues as a parent with a baby. All have turned out pretty well.

(On a personal note, I use head collars, as do all Fidelco Guide Dog fosters. They allow our dogs to find their correct spot walking in front of us, without us ever having to "correct them" They simply stop pulling when they reach the limit. Not so different from a halter on a horse. My fosters get excited when they see the head collar, it means they're going to work! Much like the harness they will eventually wear.)

Can"t say the same for my neighbors. They're not home to tell me if my dog has wrapped the chain around it's neck.


----------



## sheesh101 (Nov 24, 2005)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

I was born in MD, and have lived here most of my life. I have lived in Frederick for the past 5 yrs. There are some very rural areas here still, though much is getting bought up and built on. I absolutely agree with the above stated law. I just called AC to get the facts regarding how this law will be enforced, though I am almost certain it will NOT be a matter of person A just calling and reporting person B and POOF! The dog is taken away and/or the owners are fined. As with most complaint cases in this area, the officers will make several random visits over a period of several days to document observations. They also will knock on t he door to talk to the owner and inform them of allegations if they are home. This is completely fair IMO. 
I have a fenced yard, 6ft high stockage fencing. A few yrs ago I was leaving my dogs outside during the day while I was at work if the weather was nice. No worries about them escaping, they are not that way. A neighbor was complaining, even called the police. I spoke to the officer and I was not breaking any laws. I was not fined or given any sort of warning. I later thought about this.... I decided that it is safer FOR MY DOGS to be inside when I am not at home. I no longer leave my dogs outside when I am not home. It is the same reasoning that I don't put collars on them when they are in the yard. I don't want them to get caught on something and injured or worse. 
I have just called AC here to speak to them about HOW they will enforce this new law, but they aren't answering the phone until 10am today. I will find out the details and post. I think it is definitely a good step. 
Maybe, if someone was considering getting a pup or a dog and keeping it in the backyard on a chain, they will change their minds and not get one at all now. That would be a good thing.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

If I knew when concidering obtaining a dog that it would have to be chained outside, I would not get the dog. 

But if circumstances beyond my control, such as fire or flood caused me to be without my home with my dogs, I could see tethering them until things were more manageable.


----------



## BJDimock (Sep 14, 2008)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

If I had lost my house but had my fur girls (and Boys!) then I would resort to a chain as well.

I'm fairly certain that the law doesn't include that circumstance.


----------



## Strongheart (May 2, 2007)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

I am going to the Frederick Count Animal Control shelter all day later today and spend all day there doing adoptions as I do most weekends, as well as several evenings during the week. In my spare time, I screen adopters by phone, and basically am a full time volunteer there. I know all the ACOs and have known some of them for some time. They are good people and it annoys me that this thread has gone on for so long with so little merit.

Now there are some animal laws in this county that I strongly disagree with (like the dangerous dog law), but this one I agree with. 

If someone has lost their home, they need to bring their animals to the shelter, and we have plenty of animals there at any given time from people who have gotten evicted or been in this circumstance. It's a safe place for animals and the staff there are all very dedicated. No ACO is going to take anything lightly that is called in. 

Save yourself the trouble calling the Animal Control on a busy day like Saturday and go to this link: http://tinyurl.com/6nxm2x

and scroll down and you will read that Animal Control ordinances are enforced in the following manner:

§ 1-5-3. ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS.
(A) Animal control officers are hereby empowered to take into custody stray, injured, sick or dead animals in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> (B) For enforcement purposes, animal control officers are authorized to act after receipt of a complaint or witnessing a violation.</span>

Hey you know what? It's just like if Citizen A sees Stranger A tying his wife to a tree, Citizen A calls the police and the police arrest Stranger A and help the wife. Only difference is now we're talking about a dog not someone's wife.

What is the problem? Why is that not good? Ever heard of citizen's arrest? Hello?? You witness a crime and report it, and it goes to a hearing. You testify under oath, the bad guy gets in trouble.

All you naysayers are just saying 'oh my but what if the person reporting the cruelty is lying?' Well then that's a crime in itself. The witnesses' credibility is always subject to scrutiny no matter what the crime but it doesn't mean the law is a bad system. It means you should be a good neighbor. 

Yes this county has some real rural areas, you might even think you're in the Ozarks in parts of it. And those are the parts where you can drive by and see a poor dog tied to a tree who has absolutely no relationship with his owner at all. Just there for show. Like the beautiful GSD Rocky (who is now on the front page of their Petfinder site), who spent 15 mos. tied to a tree 24/7 and then he was finally brought into the shelter but by then he was a little 'iffy' as they said and snapped at some at first but after a week of regular meals, living inside, being walked every day, treated well, he walked right up to me and licked me and wanted to play. But it was too late, he was killed the next day due to overcrowding and a slip-up with communication and re-evaluation. 

Point is, beautiful boy Rocky should never have been put in that situation in the first place. He should have had the right to an owner who doesn't just think of him as a surveillance system. We will not adopt to someone who just wants a guard dog either. Do you not like that either? Tough noogies.

So if you don't like it, move to another county where they don't care. Frederick is growing, urbanizing (thank goodness), and progressing. This law is part of that. It is a step forward. It represents a very positive shift in the law toward better protection for animals.

And the way it's enforced is like any other law. Think of the dog as a human child and what kind of society would we be if that kind of cruelty against children wasn't actionably addressed? Actually, in the southern part of the state, it isn't and that's where they find little girls cut into pieces in the freezer (Lusby, MD). But not Frederick, DC's bedroom community.

We're getting all fancy in Frederick. And the dogs win.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

No way would my dogs go to a shelter if I lose my home. No way. I will have them euthanized first. My dad owns a piece of property and I can temporarily house my dogs there if I absolutely need to. And I also have a friend who has some kennel space I could rent temporarily. 

Too many times dogs go into shelters and then are euthanized within days because there wasn't room for them. Why allow them to feel scared and lost and abandonned? If you are going to kill them, then I would rather be there with my dogs and never put them through the ordeal. 

An animal shelter is not a nice place where you can drop your dog off until you have your feet under you again, and then they give you your dog back. It does not work that way. You sign the dog over. You lose all rights to the dog. You may never know if it was euthed or adopted. Owner turn-ins can be euthed the same day if there is no room in the inn. 

Thing is, it is not an inn or a kennel. It is a place where dogs are gathered up from the streets or owners who could care less about them, and then the decent people who do this job (and believe me I give them credit for a job I could never do) try to evaluate your dog, call a rescue, put an ad on the internet and get the dog adopted out. If the dog is young, healthy, has no faults, is a purebred, and has an awesome temperament it has many points in its favor for being adoptable so long as it is not big and black. The people who work there may give it extra time as it is so adoptable, they may make an extra effort for the dog. 

If the dog has a medical condition, is older, has a fault (like broken ears), has behavioral issues (like being shy), or is big and black, then its chances are much slimmer of even making it to a rescue. These dogs need a champion in their corner. There are only so many champions to go around. If it is lucky, it will have three to five days of sitting in a small four by eight concrete pen amongst hundreds of barking dogs. If it is really lucky it will be snagged by an adoptor or rescue, but like as not it will be euthanized. 

I would definitely chain my dogs to a tree in order to save them from such an end.


----------



## Strongheart (May 2, 2007)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

You're making lots of nasty assumptions about animal shelters. That's great if you have somewhere for your dogs to go in an emergency, but not everyone would have this. Nice GSDs at this shelter won't be killed! We have a pretty high adoption rate for dogs, esp. PBs, and for the rabbits, which I handle, (and for which we have high volume intake), we are 100% no kill! FCAC is a good place for the animals. 

Now cats...that's another story. Cat intake is ridiculous in just about every shelter I've heard of in the East, excepting maybe NE. 

So don't think the worst of everything all the time. Maybe there are good people working their butts off to protect and help the animals at these places. Maybe in your county NOT (see Ohio a lot in the Urgent section -- too much) but that's your state, not mine.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

I think you see Ohio a lot because there are great people looking in shelters for GSDs and listing them. 

If animal shelters are such wonderful places and they do not kill dogs, why is there an urgent section? Why is there such an aversion to breeding dogs because so many are killed in shelters each year? How come is it that we are discusted with people for dropping them off. 

The fact of the matter is YOUR shelter does not euth dogs. I would probably say MOST of them do. Owner turn-ins do not get the three to five days that strays get if there is no room for them. They are immediately euthed if the shelter is full. 

Get huffy about it. But if all the shelters were like your shelter, than no one would be breaking their backs to save dogs from being gassed or heart-sticked, etc. 

I have been in more than one shelter, and it is not pleasent. They stink of urine and fecies, dogs and cats. They are extremely loud. I know that from what I see on animal cops, that dogs in the possession of hoarders are worse off, but it is hard to see how. Many shelters even will not provide medical treatment to a dog that needs it. 

Not all areas have shelters run by the government. Our county has one shelter that is run completely by volunteers and not given money from the government unless they house strays that the dog warden picks up. Owning many dog, I can tell that the dogs at the shelter are cared for, that is the pens are cleaned daily and they are given food and water. But it is still a loud horrible place for a dog to be. 

Continue to fight about it if you like. I am not saying anything against shelter workers. In fact I gave them a complement. Saying that they may give more time and give extra to get an adoptable dog adopted is not a bad thing. In the situation you need to do what you have to do to help the most dogs. If that means focussing on the ones that have the best chances I would do that. If it means euthing an owner turn-in earlier that doesn't have much of a shot at being adopted, to give a more highly adoptable dog an extra day, I say do it. Otherwise you have two dead dogs instead of one. That's most places, maybe not your no-kill shelter.


----------



## Strongheart (May 2, 2007)

*Re: Frederick MD, New Law, Time Limit on Chaining*

We're not a no-kill shelter. I don't work there. I'm a volunteer. We kill plenty of cats and dogs, but we do pretty good for the dogs in getting them out. For the bunnies, which I handle, and there are lot, they all get out. All the adoptions are handled by volunteers. 

There usu. isn't any money to treat sick animals. Sometimes. Not often, it depends on the situation. Anyway, I'm not huffy and not fighting, just trying to point out that some kill shelters, even though they are kill shelters, are still good places overall for animals. 

My philosophy is to strive for no-kill, but I can only do that in my little niche, which I have done. Maybe it will spread throughout the facility. 

I know there are horrible shelters. I just notice most of them are concentrated in certain areas, has nothing to with posts on this forum's Urgent section and everything to do with demographics and different attitudes about animals in different areas of the country.


----------

