If you follow politics in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in our nation, it appears legislation that could potentially make life better for some of our animals seems to fall at the bottom of the totem pole. While I understand and support people’s concerns when they echo their sentiments that we must take care of people first, I can’t fathom why it must take decades to pass any meaningful legislation to protect our furry and feathered friends.
Here in PA, we are experiencing temperatures in the 80’s with added humidity. Not too bad for this time of year but it is safe to say the weather has been warm and downright hot as of late.
In Berks County last week, a roofer from New Jersey, suffered a heat stroke while installing a roof in Reading. The man nearly died after his organs began to shut down from his core body temperature rising to 107 degrees. While this man is lucky to be alive, I can’t stop wondering about the sheer number of dogs that are tethered at this very moment across the states. How are they protected from the elements? Who is there to save them? How many are dying as I write this?
Why isn’t tethering against the law?
In the state of PA, it is okay to chain your dog as long as it has shelter, food and water. If all are supplied, the “owners” have done nothing wrong. I’ve heard complaints from people because they report cases of dogs who are tethered 24/7 without proper care. If a humane animal officer visits the place and all is in order, all is okay. But, we know it’s not.
In PA, a piece of legislation to change this situation has been languishing for years. Senate Bill 972, written by Kathy Slagle of Unchain PA Dogs ,has been fighting through legislation for tethered dogs since 2004. Yes, once again, you read correctly. Here we are eight years later and still no law to change this dreadful and deadly situation seems to be on the horizon any time soon.
I admire Kathy’s dedication and perserverance to change lives for these helpless victims. She has changed the bill over the years at the request of legislators in hopes of moving the bill. As of now, the bill sits in the Agricultural committee which Kathy clearly states and I agree that tethered dogs have nothing to do agriculture. If it sounds and smells like a stall tactic, it usually is a stall tactic.
Her latest bill has received recognition from the HSUS. They must like the latest bill because they are involved after eight years of Kathy’s hard work.
From Unchain PA Dogs:
As of today, there are only 13 PA Senators, out of a total of 50, who are willing to lend their name as co-sponsors to back proposed legislation that would dramatically improve the well-being of countless dogs currently tethered 24/7/365 across the Commonwealth. Click here for a current list of senators who have signed on as co-sponsors. If your senator is on this list, please thank them for their support. If they are not, go to the Take Action page for information on how to request the support of your senator.NOTE: The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has a proposed draft bill that will allow for “humane tethering.” The draft bill basically prohibits tethering only during adverse weather conditions. (This provision was just one component of the original bill.) What the HSUS proposed draft does not include is the requirement to remove the dog from the tether during nighttime hours. In other words, unless adverse weather conditions exist, dogs will continue to be tethered 24/7 for extended periods of time. We do not believe that conditions such as this constitute “humane tethering.”Frankly, as companion animal advocates, we are growing tired of being thrown a few crumbs here and there with no substantial changes to the laws that will improve conditions for dogs living in less than humane situations.PA legislators are under the impression that HSUS (authors of the draft bill) represent and speak on behalf of the animal advocates across the state. With regard to the subject of tethering, we do not agree. We expect that many advocates will find the HSUS “humane tethering” draft bill compromises the integrity and spirit of legislation which is supposed to provide relief for Pennsylvania’s tethered canines on a regular basis. We welcome your comments on anti-tethering legislation by way of our upcoming survey.
The HSUS has this bill stated on their website and are asking people to email their legislators using their form letter, to urge them (Senators) to vote SB 972 into law.
While it would be fantastic for this bill to become law, I see a few problems with the HSUS’s involvement. As clearly stated from Unchain PA Dogs, unless there is adverse weather with temperatures too cold or too hot, dogs can remain tethered. Does this sound humane? Don’t think so.
I have a copy of the HSUS’s SB 972 draft and it deletes a large portion of the bill that Kathy painstakingly worked into the bill to appease a number of other animal groups including the AKC and a group who handles sled dogs in PA. She was asked to do this so the bill could move forward and now the HSUS comes in and removes it in their version.
I disagree with the HSUS on this latter move. To know the work involved to get a bill to this point after eight years and have this large corporation move in and change it and make it their own is a travesty.
A similar occurrence happened with our dog law in 2008. Grassroots organizations plus many animal advocates, once again, worked to get HB 2525 passed into law to help dogs who live and die in puppy mills, to have a “better” life. After nearly three decades, progress was finally being made. The HSUS came in and helped the bill pass into law, particularly after two puppy mill farmers shot and killed 80 dogs that received national recognition. The HSUS received the accolades for PA’s new dog law- Act 119- and not the grassroots organizations. So wrong!
However this bill gets passed, I’m all for it. But, if this bill has to be compromised to a level where the bulk of it would be thrown away by the HSUS, I prefer Unchain PA Dog’s version.
What are your thoughts? Should this bill be passed despite removing important facets of the bill that would severely compromise SB 972?