Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-0617 Documents submitted at meeting 'A It\ bc~ ~5; Councllor Russ Sllblger e-malled me about two years ago, a~king me not to contact him again about tethering. He said he didn't want to take it up as a council issue. since then, he hasn't answered my personal e-mails to him. The only way I can talk so that he hears me, is to spea~ here. I'll use third person, to comply with his request not to approach him directly. ~)fX f'Il[\ iAP.AU(~FO'ru I~ (. Even before the January 2007 hearing, I wasn't allowed to dialogue with Russ about how he would vote. So I can only guess why he opposes a signiLicant tethering limit. At the hearing, though, I remember hearing him say that it's okay Lor dogs to be tied permanently on running lines. I disagree. Dogs can strangle to death and break limbs. I quoted veterinarian Joe Snyder oL Myrtle Point, Oregon in a bulletin to you about a dog he treated whose sliding tether wrapped around him like a cobra, painLully embedding into his Llesh. Dogs can get tangled on running lines and be unable to reach shelter or water, and die oL heatstroke, dehydration or hypothermia. I think that tying a dog permanently to a running line also hurts him emotionally. All he can do is (demonstrate) run in a straight line this way, then turn around and run in a straight line that way. Nature designed dogs and other animals to move in a three-dimensional world [demonstrate]. Dogs or other animals on a running line can only live in a two-dimensional world. This is very unnatural, and I think it would be very stressful to endure. Besides that, most animals who live permanently on running lines are in solitary confinement. Dogs are pack animals. Like us, they need companionship. For that reason alone, permanent tethering is cruel. I respect Russ' right to disagree with me, but I think that CLS a councilor, he has an obligation to put aside his own personal belieLs and represent the majority oL his constituents. I voted for Russ because I read his Sneak Preview column and thought, "What an open-minded, progressive person." I voted Lor him, expecting that he would represent the people who voted him in. I've collected almost seven thousand signatures. So I estimate that I've talked to about nine thousand people. My best guess is that 7 or 8 out oL 10 people sign the petition. Of the 2 or 3 out of 10 who don't, I'd guess that 2 oL them still think that tying a dog permanently to a running line is cruel. These people don't want to sign Lor other reasons, such as they don't sign petitions, or they think we have too many laws, or they think this problem should be solved another way. That leaves about lout oL 10 people, I estimate, who agree with Russ that it's humane to tie a dog to a running line for his whole life. I wouldn't be surprised if only lout oL 20, 30 or even 40 people feel this way. If Russ doesn't believe my estimates, then I'd encourage him to do his own research. It shouldn't take long, maybe a half hour. I suggest he stand on a busy corner in Ashland, and ask people, "Do you think it's humane to keep a dog permanently on a running line?" I think if he did this, he'd find his point of view is shared by only a small minority of residents. I think the vast majority of Russ' constituents want a significant tethering limit. I think Russ should put his own desires aside, put his own personal view aside, and vote according to the point oL view oL his constituents. Because we elected him to, first and foremost, be our representative. Thank you.