Advisory group seeks clarity on dog tethering law

Committee presents tweaks to county commissioners

Amendments would more clearly define the ban, establish more conditions under which a dog may be tethered.

Santa Fe County wants to tighten up its prohibition on tethering dogs.

In an attempt to clarify what the county says has been confusion about the ban, which was greeted with cheers by animal rights advocates upon its 2017 approval, a newly assembled Animal Control Advisory Committee was assigned last year to fill in the blanks on that and other animal control regulations.

The committee’s proposed tweaks, presented to the county commissioners for the first time this week, could be opened to public feedback and considered for formal approval as soon as next month.

If enacted, the suggested amendments would more clearly define the tethering ban and establish more conditions under which a dog may be tethered.

The implementation of the prohibition, approved in January 2017, was pushed back a year. Still, animal control officers have not yet begun to issue citations. Instead, over the past six months, they have employed a “response-andeducation” method, Deputy County Manager Tony Flores said, advising possible offenders of the new rule rather than ticketing them.

“People are thinking we’re still operating under the old rules, or a limited new rule,” Flores said. “There’s still a lot of concern from the public — whether to allow tethering or not allow tethering.”

As written, the ban on tethering unattended dogs, a practice considered inhumane by animal groups, simply establishes that it is unlawful to “tether an unattended dog as a form of confinement on private property.”

The proposed changes define “unattended” as out of the “direct visual range” of the custodian and define “tether” as attached to “any fixed point by any means,” including a rope, chain, cable, strap or cord.

Tethering would be permitted, under the proposal, if the dog is attended, the tether is “non-abrasive,” “comfortably fitted” and fastened in a way that allows the dog to sit, walk and lie down

“comfortably,” among other conditions.

“You say, ‘Let’s ban the tethering of dogs,’ but it wasn’t really quite clear,” said Michael Marvier, an Animal Control Advisory Committee member. “We had to be more specific in writing the ordinance so there wouldn’t be any question. I think we made it quite clear.”

The five-member advisory panel was also asked to clarify the county’s restrictions on consistently noisy animals.

The proposed tweaks involve more verbiage — and would seem to require a stopwatch.

The proposal expands the definition of persistent or continuous barking or howling or other noise to “a 10-minute period during which animal noise is discerned in each of the ten oneminute intervals therein.”

A first-time violator of either rule would face a $25 fine.