Document text
http://www.omniture.com --> Sections Home Page Local News AP News AP Entertainment Archives Business Classifieds Event Calendar Forums Life Opinion Obituaries Photo Gallery Readers Photo Gallery Sports Tempo Weather Special Coverage 2006 Britt Festivals --> Shop Our Valley AutoFinder HomeFinder JobFinder Search Our Valley Special Sections Distinctly Northwest Readers' Choice Homelife Magazine Joy Magazine Holiday Guide Oregon Golf Info Oregon Wine Info Other Publications Local Links Ashland News eSouthernOregon Newspapers In Education Personals Moving Here Movie Listings TV Listings Volunteer Customer Service Advertise With Us Media Kit Place Classified Ad Contact Us FAQ's Home Delivery Site Map --> Email Story to a Friend January 3, 2007 Ashland council dodges proposed dog law The members voted instead to adapt a California law that addresses tethering By JOHN DARLING for the Mail Tribune After vehement testimony on both sides, the Ashland City Council Tuesday night sidestepped a strict anti-cruelty to animals proposal and voted to consider localizing a California law that bans tethering of dogs, except while camping, or on a running line or while walking with owners. The proposal's champion, Barbara Rosen, showed slides of maimed animals and scored pet owners who use crates, short tethers and chains to tether animals for long periods, often on muddy ground. "We treat murderers on death row better than that," Rosen said. Half the witnesses — and most of the opponents — were from outside Ashland and their criticisms centered around its unenforceability, cost and the invasion into the privacy of mostly well-meaning pet owners. "It's intrusive, not based on reality and it comes from people who need to impose their personal values on good owners," said Patrick Marcus. "It will not stop the cruelty but will impose burdens on owners. It's one of the most restrictive proposals in the nation." Another witness, Tina Beck, said "it reeks of animal rights activists and should be closely scrutinized. You couldn't even kill mice under this law. Dogs are the owner's legal property and owners should have legal rights (and not be subject to) vigilantes coming to confiscate a dog." Advertisement City Administrator Martha Bennett said the city had no money or staff to enforce the law "and you just don't put a dog in the back of a police car." Rosen said earlier the law would be enforced by volunteers, already recruited, who would report offenses to police for citation. The proposal failed 3-to-3, with Mayor John Morrison breaking the tie in favor of trying to adapt the new California law. That law allows tethering only on a running wire for a maximum three hours a day. Staff was instructed to report back with what Councilman David Chapman called an "Ashlandization" of the law. "I don't want anything to do with any law that looks like this," he said of the original proposal. Police Chief Ron Goodpaster said he would consult with Jackson County Animal Control to see if and how it enforces excessive tethering. Rosen said owners were free under present law to tether animals all day, every day. After objecting to pictures of graphic animal maimings, council member Russ Silbiger read from state law and said it adequately covers all offenses, except tethering, and is enforced by county Animal Control officers under contract with the city. Several witnesses said county enforcement of state animal cruelty laws is lax, with attention mostly to extreme cases. New council member Eric Navickas supported the proposed law, saying state law is "subjective and doesn't have any teeth." In practice, the proposed ordinance would only be used in extreme cases, "not for a cat in a cage," he said. Councilwoman Cate Hartzell, who moved to switch to the California law, said the original proposal seemed "pretty labor intensive" requiring tethering and untethering dogs — no more than one hour tethered, then no less than three off the tether, with no more than three tetherings a day. David Calderwood of Eugene drove down to fight the proposal, saying such laws in many parts of the nation have similar language and "are the agenda of animal rights activists who are trying to make it more difficult and expensive to own animals." After rejection of her proposal, Rosen said, "I'm shocked and very disappointed. I thought my town would be more progressive. The California law is horrible." John Darling is a freelance writer living in Ashland. E-mail him at [email protected]. Would you like to respond to this story? If so Click Here to visit our forums. Advertisement Copyright © 1997-2007 Mail Tribune, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Website Feedback online casinos news Home Security Systems Online Casino Reviews Men's Clothing Fundraisers UK Homeowner Loans Discount Hotel Reservations Send Flowers Casinos Canada Texas Electric Choice Compare Electric rates in Texas Windermere Van Vleet Trunks, Footlocker Online poker at AbsolutePoker.com