Re: [PyrNet-L] Legislation/Ohio H.B. #108

[Kshoffman@aol.com]

In a message dated 03/20/2000 8:59:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
conmara@oaktree.net writes:

> If they're still refering to animals that are 'impounded or confined' -
>  it has no application to a Pyrenees guarding livestock.  I don't even
>  think you could consider that a Pyrenees who was in the fold with their
>  sheep could be considered confined.

Ken,

I think that is the whole point of opposition to this bill, the possible 
broad and potentially loose interpretation of these words.  Again, I'm not 
sure what in the wording of most recent revision may have changed regarding 
definitions of "impounded" or "confined" but on the TV program they sure 
seemed to be implying that any dog left outside 24/7 PERIOD, regardless of 
type of shelter, regardless of fencing, kennel size, and so on, could be 
interpreted to be "impounded" or "confined".  IOW, if the dog didn't see the 
inside of a house on a daily basis, it could be considered "confined" 
outside. I don't know though if this is true or merely a smoke screen used by 
those strongly and vocally in opposition.  Will have to get my hands on the 
new wording.

I can tell you in my local community, they can't even enforce the ordinances 
that are already in place.  What good are stricter laws if they can't be 
enforced or enforced properly in the context of original intent, which I 
assume is towards dogs that are *truly* neglected in this fashion, i.e. 
confined in a small area without adequate shelter, food, and water and 
receive no human interaction.  I don't happen to subscribe to the idea that a 
dog is neglected simply because it lives primarily outside, or that a dog is 
neglected simply because it is on a tie-out line, so long as the dog has 
food, water, and the option to seek shelter of some kind from the elements 
and the dog is interacted with on a regular basis by the owners/family.

There is a Pyr down the street from us in our very rural neighborhood who for 
as long as I've lived here (7 yrs) is primarily tied out in the unfenced 
front yard with a large doghouse under a shade tree always with food and 
fresh water.  I also have seen the owners walking him on lead for walks on 
their vast property in the early mornings and the evenings usually right 
before dusk. I know he is interacted with, and I know he has never been 
roaming loose being a neighborhood nuisance.  I also know his presence keeps 
the coyotes that are thick in this area away from that general vicinity.

The dog is not the least bit aggressive (I've stopped and petted and talked 
with him and his owners myself before as has my husband) and he seems 
perfectly happy and content with his life to me. I know he is interacted with 
on a regular basis. He just doesn't have fencing or an enclosure where he can 
run independently and he is not a house dog.  I'm sure these folks would be 
in violation of this new bill.  Yet, the local animal control officers are 
pretty remiss in doing much about all the dogs that roam freely around here 
that certainly belong to known owners/neighbors and get into people's trash 
and run other folks dogs and livestocks along fence lines, etc.  These 
roaming pets who often are house dogs at night when the owners are home and 
free-roamers during the day when the owners are at work are much more of a 
nuisance and concern to me than that dog down the street on the tie-out line 
with a dog house and a nice big old shade tree.

Kelley