Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 2:01 PM
Subject: RE: information and question from last night dog-tethering issue

From: Roger Stancil
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 1:09 PM
Subject: Fwd: information and question from last night dog-tethering issue

Roger L. Stancil
Town Manager
Town of Chapel Hill, NC

Begin forwarded message:

From: Laurin Easthom <>
Date: February 17, 2009 12:38:49 PM EST
To: Roger Stancil <>
Cc: Ralph Karpinos <>
Subject: information and question from last night dog-tethering issue

Hi Roger and Ralph,
     Ralph....please see the first question below.  That is a very good question that I think we all need to know the answer to.  If we were
to go down Durham's route or if we were to add the minimum pen size in our ordinance that is not in Orange County's ordinance, I'd like
to know how this would work in the contract with OC.
    Roger, the second information/question I would like to be included for the council to see and deliberate on when this comes back.  I think
this would be interesting information for the council.
    Thanks so much,

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Suzanne Roy <>
Date: Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Subject: Last Night
To: Laurin Easthom <>

Dear Laurin,


Thanks so much for asking staff to draft minimum kennel size requirements in addition to anti-tethering language.  It's so important so that people don't just take their dogs off chains and stuff them into tiny kennels.  I am still disappointed that the kennel size requirements were stripped out of the OC law.


Regarding how to proceed, I have a couple of questions.


1.  Since CH contracts with OC for animal control services, is it feasible for CH to have a stronger law (i.e. a Durham-type ordinance) than OC's?


2.  Do you think that I should correct some misinformation given out by Brian Fee, the dog chaining advocate who spoke out last night?  I think that what he says requires clarification (see below), but I don't want to draw more attention to his arguments if it's not necessary. 


Thanks for any insights you can provide.








Fee said that the CDC and the AVMA do not support tethering ordinances


Truth: The CDC has no role in supporting or opposing a tethering ordinance, since the agency has no jurisdiction over animal-related laws and ordinances.  The federal agency that is charged with animal welfare enforcement is the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and it does prohibit tethering, stating in a 1997 press release "We don't believe putting a dog on a tether provides adequate housing under any circumstances."


 The American Veterinary Medical Association does not have a formal position on dog tethering, although in press releases issued on dog bite awareness, the organization has warned "Never tether or chain your dog because this can contribute to aggressive behavior."


The New Mexico Department of Public Safety published an excellent report on tethering in 2007, concluding that the practice raised significant public safety and humane concerns.

A study of pens vs. tethers  showed penning was worse for dogs than tethers.


This was conducted on sled dogs.  A comparison between sled dogs, who get vigorous exercise when not tethered  and the dogs who are chained in backyards 24/7 without exercise and socialization is invalid.   


Also, while neglectful situations can occur in kennels as well as tethers, the barrier that kennels provide does protect dogs from attacks by other dogs or wild animals and unwanted breeding, and protects the public from the danger of dog bites.





Laurin Easthom