# California Dog Owners Alert



## vermonster13 (Sep 18, 2004)

The tethering law has passed in California. This will limit you to having your dog on a leash to just 3 hours a day. See the actual wording here http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1551-1600/sb_1578_bill_20060420_amended_sen.html 

If you don't wish to see this passed into law contact

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor of California
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-445-2841 
916-445-4633 (fax)


----------



## Dchiefransom (Jan 16, 2006)

A guy on my mail route told me that his Vet advises him not to tie up (tether) his pit bull, as that makes dogs aggressive. If there is something to that, then this bill looks like it is meant to address that. The bill doesn't say people can't have their dogs on a leash for physical control while walking them.


----------



## vermonster13 (Sep 18, 2004)

Walking them is fine. What do you do with them while you are at work or out? If you can't afford a fence, I guess you have to either leave them in the house all the time or not own a dog at all. Hmmmm, isn't that exactly what the groups who backed this legislation really wanted? The wealthy donors can keep their dogs and everyone else has some decisions to make.


----------



## Tax Lawyer (Feb 5, 2003)

*Great Idea*

Well, I have to say that I think this is a great idea.

I CANNOT STAND PEOPLE WHO LEAVE THEIR DOGS TIED UP FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.

It makes me so sick. Why have a dog if you are going to ignore him/her and isolate the dog for his/her whole life?

The bill allows for dogs to be attached to a line or trolley system. So, it is somewhat flexible. Personally, I think if you cannot provide care for your dog that does not entail constant tying up than you have no business owning a dog. I would not mind if you had to apply for a permit to have a dog. I know Josh Michaelis will disagree with me but I feel more for dogs than I do a lot of humans.

I would love to see this law in NY.


----------



## JohnAnderson (Sep 11, 2006)

vermonster13 said:


> Walking them is fine. What do you do with them while you are at work or out? If you can't afford a fence, I guess you have to either leave them in the house all the time or not own a dog at all. Hmmmm, isn't that exactly what the groups who backed this legislation really wanted? The wealthy donors can keep their dogs and everyone else has some decisions to make.


So are you saying if you are poor you are entitled to treat your dog in a cruel and inhumane manner?

How would you like to be tied up for 3 hours a day on a leash?


----------



## cath8r (Jan 17, 2003)

AMEN!!!! TaxLawyer!


----------



## cath8r (Jan 17, 2003)

John, I think alot of people use that excuse to treat dogs badly. I wish most of them didn't get dogs at all.


----------



## oldwun 01 (Sep 7, 2006)

Move back to America!! Our company transferred 24 people to calif and 21 of them have came back.


----------



## Riverghost (Oct 11, 2004)

Well said Tax Lawyer!!! 
A guy down the street has a 2 acre yard and keeps 3 dogs in a 6*8 pen and NEVER lets them out


----------



## vermonster13 (Sep 18, 2004)

Yeah that's what I'm saying John. Poor people should be allowed to treat their dogs poorly. Get a clue. Are you saying only the wealthy should have dogs? A dog doesn't need to be kept on a 3' chain. If you know someone abusing an animal then report it. This will effectively end hunting with dogs in California also if you hunt from a camp, unless of course you just let them run loose. 

If being on a chain is bad for the dogs, what do you think being in a travel box, spare-room or basemant for 8-10 hours a day will do to them. Think everyone is just going to let them run loose in their homes when they are gone? Of course now at least the abuse will be hidden from plain view.


----------



## JohnAnderson (Sep 11, 2006)

vermonster13 said:



> Yeah that's what I'm saying John. Poor people should be allowed to treat their dogs poorly.


If you treat your dog in a cruel and inhumane manner, whether you are rich or poor, you should be criminally prosecuted.


----------



## Dchiefransom (Jan 16, 2006)

vermonster13 said:


> Yeah that's what I'm saying John. Poor people should be allowed to treat their dogs poorly. Get a clue. Are you saying only the wealthy should have dogs? A dog doesn't need to be kept on a 3' chain. If you know someone abusing an animal then report it. This will effectively end hunting with dogs in California also if you hunt from a camp, unless of course you just let them run loose.
> 
> If being on a chain is bad for the dogs, what do you think being in a travel box, spare-room or basemant for 8-10 hours a day will do to them. Think everyone is just going to let them run loose in their homes when they are gone? Of course now at least the abuse will be hidden from plain view.


We used to leave our dog with the run of the house all the time. Sometimes it worked, and sometimes he pooped in the wrong place. It wasn't all day, though. 
I see no problem with having hunting dogs in a camp. Instead of just a tether, run a cable between two stakes and let the dog move around more.


----------



## 30-30 (Mar 23, 2006)

What does this have to do with archery?


----------

