Why is it "fascist" or Stalinistic" to enact laws that protect animals from abuse? Are laws forbidding people from starving or beating a dog so abhorrent? Is it so fascist to require people to vaccinate or license pets? Should dog fighting be allowed simply because dogs are "personal property"? Or were those who fought to ban dog fighting being "Hitleristic?"

We already impose limits on what people can do to domestic animals. Is it such a stretch to pass a law saying they should not be able to chain a dog for years on end? Texas and California have passed such laws and guess what -- pet ownership continues just fine, along with hunting, etc. I agree that spay-neuter laws are problematic and must be drafted very carefully, and allow for exemptions, but there are millions upon millions of unwanted, abused animals killed every year. Isn't it time to finally DO something?

I agree with Mike Jones on this one. Is this the new USSR?

Kudos to the city for taking these steps and for following the national trend with regard to enacting anti-chaining laws.

Current laws in most places allow dog owners to resort to the "easiest," most negligent method for confining their animals. Today, most reasonable people understand dogs to be social, highly intelligent pack animals that suffer greatly if kept in what amounts to solitary confinement. Unfortunately, however, a significant number of people think nothing of staking a dog in the yard, or tying it to a tree for year after agonizing year, perhaps keeping it hungry and frustrated so that it will hunt better or be a better "watch dog." (Both myths which have long ago been debunked).

Quite simply, laws that allow perpetual chaining allow people to treat "man's best friend" in an abusive fashion. The status quo lays the groundwork for abuse. Pass a law that requires minimal standards of care in confining a dog and you not only prevent abuse before it happens, you prevent tragic attacks as well. Aggressive, frustrated dogs are like ticking time bombs at the ends of chains.

Hunters and breeders are usually the only groups opposing such laws. However, hunters have been accommodated in other jurisdictions, either by exempting them, or by educating them that there are other ways to confine hunting dogs. True, old habits die hard. But some habits are simply bad habits. Many hunters keep their dogs behind fences or in the home.

Breeders resist most new laws relating to dog care because they see such laws as interfering with their personal property rights. But anti-tether laws do not unduly infringe on anyone's property rights. They simply impose reasonable and minimal standards of care for confining a dog -- standards of care that the vast majority of people find acceptable.

This is not an argument about letting dogs roam free. This is about encouraging responsible pet ownership and discouraging the creation of aggressive animals.

I totally agree that chaining an animal is cruel. However, I disagree with forcing you to spay or neuter your animal. Yes, I am totally for neuter your pet with the exception of when you intend to show your dog at sanctioned confirmation shows(dog shows). In order to participate in these type of shows, your dog must be intact (not spayed or neutered). People who do participate in these events are definitely not "backyard breeders" who breed indiscriminately, if at all. When they do breed, it is with much consideration for blood lines, etc. It is definitely not for monetary gain. A lot of times, they will choose not to breed a specific animal because, as a responsible owner, realize that animal is not the quality that should be breed. They will then spay or neuter that particular dog. So, by forcing owners to spay or neuter, they will be cutting down on people who actually breed for quality, not just money.
And, yes, I saw that part where you can pay for the option not to breed. But this whole thing is ridiculous. Breeding or not has nothing to do with how an animal is treated. Chaining does.

USA or USSR, I forget where I live? Can you tell me.

Hitler? Is that you??