Editor:
Re: Surrey to ban tethering of dogs, April 26.
In regard to the tethering of dogs, a few points need to be considered.
I agree dogs should not be tethered when their owners are not home to supervise, as tethers can break or become entangled with obstacles, causing potential harm to the dog. But this ban should not be applied when the dog is supervised.
I have owned German shepherds for the past 30 years. My dog has a 30-foot chain with a pulley that runs on a 24-foot cable along the ground with shock-absorbing springs at either end. He can run 84 feet across the backyard by 60 feet to and from the back porch, which is sheltered from the weather.
He also has access to his kennel – chainlink, six feet by 20 feet with concrete floor and roof – and attached six-by-six walk-in doghouse where he stays when we are not at home. The kennel is locked to prevent theft by criminal activists.
The system works well. The dog refuses to relieve himself in the kennel, but when let out on the chain he can run free, do his business in the backyard, and get lots of exercise. Furthermore, the back portion of our property has abundant wildlife which we enjoy because the dog cannot get there to terrorize the rabbits, squirrels, raccoons and possums.
To achieve the same control over our dog without the chain, we would need a maze of fences and gates.
The problems that would be created by banning tethers would include more ugly fences, dogs running loose in traffic, dogs being confined in kennels or in the house or surrendered for relocation, and a lot more poop on the sidewalks.
Banning tethers is not fair to the dogs or the owners.
Paul Appenheimer, Surrey
