June 11, 2009
Dog Chaining Issue Dominates Council Good & Welfare Period
WV Already Prohibits 'Cruelly… Chaining'
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – Animal rights activists and several Huntington citizens squared off at the microphone voicing opinions concerning the “anti-tethering” dog ordinance during the council meeting Monday, June 8.
After hearing about the number of calls some council members have gotten on the issue, you’d think Huntington has definitely gone to the dogs (in a pleasant way).
Activists expressed disdain over the committee delays of the so-called “tethering” ordinance, which, as originally written, would ban tying animals in a yard. Committee members have looked at a Charleston ordinance, which places time limits on chaining, too.
However, the committee chaired by Jim Ritter, includes councilman Mark Bates, resident Ruth Williams and Insco, all of whom were appointed by the council chairman. Activists have attacked him for his firmly held belief that it’s ok to chain a dog, as long as it has easy access to food, water, and shelter.
Activists believe that a dog belongs inside the house where it can bond and bring love to the family.
Jacqueline Muth began by claiming that Insco had a “prejudice and bias” and should not be the person appointing members to the committee. She asked that due to his alleged “prejudice and bias” that he recuse himself. In addition, she advocated additional appointments of councilwoman Rebecca Thacker and Dogs Deserve Better representative, Capri Holderby, to the committee.
As debate continued, Ray Browning told the chairman, “It seems they want to pad [the committee] for the let’s not chain animals up side, rather than getting both sides of it. A conference on something like this would contain people who oppose it and people who are in favor of it. I see no reason for you to recuse yourself from anything.”
In fact, Mike Pennington supported chaining. “There’s a lot of people with dogs that cannot afford fences around their property. A five dollar chain is cheaper than a $4,000 fence.” And, Leon White, complained, “We have a city full of wild animals. I would like to see something done about dogs damaging property and dirtying up the city.”
On the other hand, Capri Holderby, who has volunteered for Little Victories, told council that she was “alarmed” that Insco chains his dog. “You gave me the impressing you do not support tethering; I request that you step aside.”
When visiting the Model Laws section at the Dogs Deserve Better website, several ordinances provided some exceptions. For instance, in Fairhope, Alabama, chaining is prohibited but attaching dogs to a running line or trolley is permitted provided that the line is at least ten feet long. Several ordinances provide for chain link kennels as alternatives to an enclosed yard and chaining to an inanimate object like a tree, fence or dog house. ( http://www.dogsdeservebetter.org/modellaws.html ) However, cities such as Little Rock, Arkansas, have adopted ordinances that flatly state “tethering dogs to any stationary object or point is prohibited.”
The site states that three states limit chaining and over 140 cities and counties have laws against chaining an animal for life. However, more communities that have addressed the issue have passed laws that permit chaining for a limited period of time than have outright banned chaining.
West Virginia, according to helpinganimals.com , already partly addresses chaining in its cruelty to animals statute: 61-8-19(a) “If any person…cruelly chains any animal… he or she is guilty of a misdemeanor…” http://www.helpinganimals.com/ga_tetherLegislation.asp
An picture from PETA of a cruel and solitary tethered dog can be seen at: http://www.petaliterature.com/WEL103.pdf
Council member Nate Randolph said such an ordinance may be beneficial, but stressed that enforcement and other issues must be considered before bring it back to the full council.
Sources have told HNN that the tethering issue has three prongs --- finding money for enforcement, ensuring that animals are not abused, and, finally, the actual chaining, or tethering, itself.
After the meeting, Insco declined to comment on the activist’s request, but appeared nonverbally resolute in not backing away from the work remaining on the issue.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
Dog Chaining Issue Dominates Council Good & Welfare Period
WV Already Prohibits 'Cruelly… Chaining'
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – Animal rights activists and several Huntington citizens squared off at the microphone voicing opinions concerning the “anti-tethering” dog ordinance during the council meeting Monday, June 8.
After hearing about the number of calls some council members have gotten on the issue, you’d think Huntington has definitely gone to the dogs (in a pleasant way).
Activists expressed disdain over the committee delays of the so-called “tethering” ordinance, which, as originally written, would ban tying animals in a yard. Committee members have looked at a Charleston ordinance, which places time limits on chaining, too.
However, the committee chaired by Jim Ritter, includes councilman Mark Bates, resident Ruth Williams and Insco, all of whom were appointed by the council chairman. Activists have attacked him for his firmly held belief that it’s ok to chain a dog, as long as it has easy access to food, water, and shelter.
Activists believe that a dog belongs inside the house where it can bond and bring love to the family.
Jacqueline Muth began by claiming that Insco had a “prejudice and bias” and should not be the person appointing members to the committee. She asked that due to his alleged “prejudice and bias” that he recuse himself. In addition, she advocated additional appointments of councilwoman Rebecca Thacker and Dogs Deserve Better representative, Capri Holderby, to the committee.
As debate continued, Ray Browning told the chairman, “It seems they want to pad [the committee] for the let’s not chain animals up side, rather than getting both sides of it. A conference on something like this would contain people who oppose it and people who are in favor of it. I see no reason for you to recuse yourself from anything.”
In fact, Mike Pennington supported chaining. “There’s a lot of people with dogs that cannot afford fences around their property. A five dollar chain is cheaper than a $4,000 fence.” And, Leon White, complained, “We have a city full of wild animals. I would like to see something done about dogs damaging property and dirtying up the city.”
On the other hand, Capri Holderby, who has volunteered for Little Victories, told council that she was “alarmed” that Insco chains his dog. “You gave me the impressing you do not support tethering; I request that you step aside.”
When visiting the Model Laws section at the Dogs Deserve Better website, several ordinances provided some exceptions. For instance, in Fairhope, Alabama, chaining is prohibited but attaching dogs to a running line or trolley is permitted provided that the line is at least ten feet long. Several ordinances provide for chain link kennels as alternatives to an enclosed yard and chaining to an inanimate object like a tree, fence or dog house. ( http://www.dogsdeservebetter.org/modellaws.html ) However, cities such as Little Rock, Arkansas, have adopted ordinances that flatly state “tethering dogs to any stationary object or point is prohibited.”
The site states that three states limit chaining and over 140 cities and counties have laws against chaining an animal for life. However, more communities that have addressed the issue have passed laws that permit chaining for a limited period of time than have outright banned chaining.
West Virginia, according to helpinganimals.com , already partly addresses chaining in its cruelty to animals statute: 61-8-19(a) “If any person…cruelly chains any animal… he or she is guilty of a misdemeanor…” http://www.helpinganimals.com/ga_tetherLegislation.asp
An picture from PETA of a cruel and solitary tethered dog can be seen at: http://www.petaliterature.com/WEL103.pdf
Council member Nate Randolph said such an ordinance may be beneficial, but stressed that enforcement and other issues must be considered before bring it back to the full council.
Sources have told HNN that the tethering issue has three prongs --- finding money for enforcement, ensuring that animals are not abused, and, finally, the actual chaining, or tethering, itself.
After the meeting, Insco declined to comment on the activist’s request, but appeared nonverbally resolute in not backing away from the work remaining on the issue.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
