Letter to the Editor

Has City Council thought of how tethering can affect a community?

Repealing the ban on tethering in Big Spring is regressive, not progressive. The chief of police has blamed the problem of roaming dogs on the tethering ban. In reality, there are multiple causes for loose dogs, not least of which is irresponsible owners. Inadequate fencing or kennels are the responsibility of the owners as well as adequate supervision. Male dogs who are not neutered will stray to find mates so owners of outdoor dogs should get them sterilized. Unsupervised tethering is a regressive policy because dogs are more likely to become aggressive and a bite risk as they cannot run away from a perceived threat. Children who wander within the tethers’ radius are the most vulnerable to severe dog bites. Additionally, tethered dogs bring down property values and are an eyesore. Some of these dogs will have embedded collars because the owner must make the collar tight so the collar does not slip off and sometimes owners forget to adjust the collar as a dog grows. Without fencing as a barrier, unfixed female dogs on tethers become impregnated and bring more unwanted dogs to the shelter and cost taxpayers. Dogs that are tethered tend to bark continuously and will become a nuisance to neighbors. Dogs on a tether can also be victims of bites from other dogs or wild animals that may have rabies. Dogs can hang themselves on tethers or be harmed by a delinquent person. Even where dogs are allowed to be tethered, there is a stray issue because they can break free. Officers will spend much of their time doing welfare checks on tethered dogs at a cost to taxpayers. Neighbors are going to complain. We have a stray problem because we are not holding owners accountable for proper care.

Continuous tethering does not equal a safer community, and dogs will not have a good quality of life

Thanks,

Evie Kettler