The first vote was politically very easy and straightforward — after all, who could possibly disagree that there should be a specific cruelty law to address leaving an animal in a car on a hot day? The new City Code Section 5-7-58 will punish leaving an animal in a car that is not air-conditioned if the outside temperature is 70 degrees or hotter with a fine, and makes it a jailable offense to leave an animal in a car if the animal suffers heat stress. The vote took no time, passing 6-0. There was no debate against the law, and plenty of well-deserved kudos to the Animal Welfare League of Alexandria and its hard-working animal control officers for taking the initiative on this issue.
The political temperature on the next vote was unknown — whether City Council would pass a law that would say definitively that electronic collars don’t cut it under Alexandria’s leash laws. (Sound familiar? Who’s said that before…?) Plenty of speakers came out in support of proposed amendment to the leash law, and no one spoke against it.
After the testimony, Vice Mayor Kerry Donley started the discussion with the comment that this law — like the previous one — was a “no brainer.” Donley’s first question to the staff was about the penalty for violating the leash ordinance, which is currently a $100 civil fine. He then asked if that was the most the City could do under state law, and invited the staff to make a recommendation at a later date to stiffen the penalty. And a discussion of possible harsher penalties for recidivists followed. Nicely done, Mr. Vice Mayor!
Councilmember Del Pepper praised the ordinance for giving clear guidance to animal control officers and one more welcome tool for the officers. Councilmember Rob Kupricka commented that electronic collars pose safety issues for the public and not just the animals, and he hoped the new law would aid the officers in confronting off leash dogs.
A crucial question raised by Pepper was how to get the word out to the citizens of Alexandria that electronic collars would no longer suffice as a “leash.” Joy Wilson, the Director of Animal Control, responded that she plans to focus on educating the public about why the law changed. Councilmember Frank Fannon had an excellent suggestion about reaching out through Alexandria’s robust pet care industry to spread the news.
After discussion, the City Council voted — once again, unanimously — in support of the change. With that vote, the City of Alexandria has made it clear that electronic collars pose a sufficient safety threat to the dogs and the public that they will no longer count as “leashes” or “physical restraint” under the leash laws.
Here is the gist of proposed amendment to Alexandria’s ordinance from the definitions section in Section 5-7-31 (j), with new language in bold and italics:
(j) Run or running at large. Roaming or running off the premises of its owner not under the control of its owner or a responsible person capable of physical restraining the dog and not secured by a leash, lead or other means of physical restraint, which leash, lead or other means of physical restraint is not harmful or injurious to the dog and which is held by a responsible person capable of physically restraining the dog. An electronic collar or other similar electronic device does not qualify as a leash, lead or other means of physical restraint.
The second ordinance addresses locking animals in hot cars. The proposed law would make it a misdemeanor punishable by a fine for confining an animal in a car if the outside temperature is 70 degrees or hotter and the car is not properly air conditioned. The law would also make it a crime punishable by a fine and up to twelve months in jail for leaving an animal unattended if the animal suffers heat stress.
Here is the full language of proposed Section 5-7-58:
Sec. 5-7-58 Confinement of animals in vehicles prohibited.
(a) Any person who confines an animal in an unattended, enclosed vehicle where the outside temperature is 70 degrees Fahrenheit or greater, and the interior of the vehicle is not provided with conditioned air to maintain an internal temperature of 80 degrees Fahrenheit or less, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.
(b) Any person who confines an animal in an unattended, enclosed vehicle so as to cause the animal to suffer from heat stress as diagnosed by a licensed veterinarian, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The Animal Control Officer or other officer shall have the authority to remove any animal found in an enclosed vehicle that appears to be suffering from heat stress. The animal shall be provided immediate veterinary care. The animal owner or custodian shall be responsible for all expenses incurred during the removal of the animal or its subsequent treatment and impoundment.
(c) In the event that the person responsible for the violation cannot be ascertained, the registered owner of the vehicle, as required by Chapter 6 of Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that such registered owner was the person who committed the violation.
Section 2. That this ordinance shall become effective upon the date and at the time of its final passage.
When Welsh legislators were first considering the ban, animal welfare groups such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other organizations, including the Kennel Club, came out in support of the ban. These organizations called shock collars “cruel and unnecessary,” and pointed to shock collars’ potential to harm animals.
Others opposed the ban, claiming that the evidence and science did not demonstrate that shock collars harm animals, and arguing that shock collars are effective tools to protect and train animals.
In March 2010, the National Assembly for Wales unanimously passed legislation banning the use of any collar emitting an electronic shock for dogs and cats. A violation of the law is punishable by imprisonment and/or a fine.
After the law came into effect, Petsafe, Ltd, a pet product manufacturer, and the Electronic Collar Manufacturer Association challenged the law. But the High Court in Wales rejected their challenge and upheld the legislation in November 2010.
This week, a Welsh court convicted the first person of violating the shock collar ban. Phillip Pook owns a border collie who is a notorious fence climber and escape artist. Six months before the ban took effect, Pook bought a collar designed to emit an electronic shock if his dog approached a wall on his property. Pook claimed he did not know the law had changed, but the prosecution introduced evidence that Pook was warned about the new law. The court convicted Pook and sentenced him to a fine of £2000 (about $3200).
First, Saginaw will add a leash law and prohibit tethering in most circumstances. Owners would be required to keep dogs on leash. Dogs could not be chained or tethered outside of the dogs’ “kennel, pen or fenced yard,” unless someone has physical control of a leash. An inanimate object such as a tree, post or building will not cut it. The requirement of physical control indicates that shock collars will not count in Saginaw. This is a great step – with the caveat that the law should be clarified to state that a dog cannot be chained or tethered even if the dog is on the owner’s property.
Second, all dogs would need to be securely confined indoors or in adequately lighted and ventilated kennels. If a dog is confined indoors, the dog would not be able to exit on the dog’s own volition. Presumably, that means no more doggie doors in Saginaw. And, thankfully, no more dogs left outside unattended.
Third, Saginaw residents would be limited to three dogs per household. This three-dog limit would not apply to animal care and control organizations, rescues, registered foster homes, and certain service dog and hunting dog breeders. Commercial breeders and brokers would be required to register with the City Clerk and obtain a business license.
Officials in Saginaw did not stop at overhauling Section 94.04. They are proposing a second ordinance targeting “dangerous dogs.” Unfortunately, this ordinance completely misses the mark and has virtually nothing to do with owner responsibility.
This ordinance will require the owners of “dangerous dogs” to register the dogs, and adhere to leash and confinement standards. The owners will also have to pay a $20 registration fee and obtain and display signs indicating the presence of a dangerous dog on their property. Failure to comply with the ordinance would result in civil fines.
The heart of problem is the proposed definition of a “dangerous dog” as any dog:
with a propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack, to cause injury or to otherwise endanger the safety of” people or companion animals; or
that attacks, attempts to attack or that, by its actions, gives indication that it is liable to attack a human being or other domestic animal one or more times without provocation; or
of a breed that appears consistently in the top five (5) of the breeds on credible, analytical listings of “Most Dangerous Dogs” as verified and supplemented by local data and records for Saginaw County, including mixes.
The simple truth is that focusing on breed will not decrease the number of dog bites. According to a comprehensive 2009 study by the National Canine Research Council, the three predominant factors with dog bites are whether the dog:
is a resident dog (kept primarily outdoors, used for guarding, protection, fighting or breeding, rather than a pet/family dog);
is intact; and
has a reckless, irresponsible owner.
Notice that breed is not one of these factors. With its recent overhaul of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Department of Justice (DOJ) agrees that the focus should be on the individual dog and not breed. The ADA already condones the refusal to provide access to a service dog if an individual dog shows specific signs of aggression. But the DOJ unequivocally refuses to bow to jurisdictions with breed bans. This is leading to a nasty battle in Denver, where officials are refusing to exempt service dogs in Denver’s breed ban. At least Saginaw was not so stubborn, exempting service dogs from its dangerous dog ordinance.
Although Virginia’s dangerous dog statute isn’t perfect, it does focus on individual dogs and specific aggressive behavior. To be classified as a dangerous dog, Virginia requires an actual bite. Last year, the General Assembly considered expanding the dangerous dog designation to dogs who “attempt to bite.” Fortunately this bill died quickly in committee. Additionally, Virginia refuses to bow to breed stereotypes, with the following language right in the dangerous dog statute:
No canine or canine crossbreed shall be found to be a dangerous dog or vicious dog solely because it is a particular breed, nor is the ownership of a particular breed of canine or canine crossbreed prohibited.
With Saginaw’s proposed leash, confinement and supervision requirements and a limit on the number of dogs a household can have, Saginaw will accomplish a great deal to increase owner responsibility and decrease the number of resident dogs. If Saginaw wants more effective laws, research shows that focus on the spay/neuter issue rather than breed will go further to reduce the number of dog bites.
Laws requiring leashes and spay/neuter programs are not the only way to get at owner responsibility. Education is also necessary. The more we learn about animal behavior, the better. At last Friday’s Mid-Atlantic Animal Law Symposium in Baltimore, Maryland, one participate raised the issue of humane education in schools. If we could emphasize just three areas, we could do a great deal to better the bond between dogs and owners, and thereby decrease the number of dog bites:
Never leave dogs unsupervised with children. So many dog bites are to children. Simple supervision, teaching a child not to approach a dog unless the child asks the owner for permission, and showing the child how to pet the dog appropriate would go far to decrease the number of dog bites. Dogs & Storks has wonderful information about how to prepare the family dog for a new baby, and lots of other helpful information regarding dogs and children.
The Saginaw City Council will introduce its proposed ordinances on April 18, and the ordinances are slated to be enacted May 9 and become effective May 19. If Saginaw’s real purpose is to increase owner responsibility and decrease the number of dog bites, I encourage the Council to adopt the ordinance expanding Section 94.04, but ditch its dangerous dog ordinance.
The legal answer: probably, and you had best check state and local laws very carefully. The realistic answer: even if you can let your dog off leash, ask yourself very candidly whether you should.
Here in Virginia, there is no statewide leash law or prohibition of dogs running at large. But Virginia Code Section 3.2-6503 requires all owners to provide their companion animals with adequate space. For a tethered dog, the definition of “adequate space” found in Section 3.2-6500 requires the tether to be at least three times the length of the animal, measured from the tip of the dog’s nose to the base of its tail, unless the dog is being walked on leash or is attached to a lead line.
Virginia Code Section 3.2-6538 allows localities to prohibit dogs from running at large, and Section 3.2-6539 allows localities to pass leash laws. Localities typically prohibit dogs from running at large. Local leash laws vary greatly – so much so that this will be the topic of another blog post.
For now, one good example of how a Virginia locality has chosen to handle leash laws is found in Alexandria. Alexandria’s City Code Section 5-7-32 prohibits dogs running at large. Section 5-7-33 prohibits dog owners from allowing their dogs to run at large, and allows the City Manager to charge the owner fees to cover the cost of capturing a dog at large.
Section 5-7-33.1 clarifies that dogs are not to run at large even in public parks, unless the park is designated as an off-leash dog exercise area. To learn more about Alexandria’s dog parks and the applicable rules and regulations, take a look at this Dog Owner’s Guide to Enjoying the Parks of Alexandria. Be warned — not all “off-leash” dog parks are fully enclosed.
Section 5-7-35 requires dogs to be under “physical restraint” when off of the owner’s property. “Physical restraint” requires “a leash, lead or other means of physical restraint which leash, lead or other means of physical restraint is not harmful or injurious to the dog and which is held by a responsible person capable of physically restraining the dog.” [Check out this post if you are curious about whether an electronic collar qualifies as “physical restraint.”] The only exceptions to this physical restraint requirement are on private property with the permission of the property owner, or in a designated dog exercise area.
Even if you could let your dog run off leash, you should realistically ask yourself whether you should. Leash laws exist for very good reasons, not the least of which is safety – yours, your dog’s and others’. Even if your dog is friendly, your dog may come across a fearful, reactive or aggressive dog. It is unfair to put the owner and the dog in such a position. Telling the owner not to worry because your dog is friendly won’t change anything. If your dog gets into a confrontation and the other dog initiates aggressive behavior, if your dog bites the other dog or an intervening person, you will be the one facing dangerous dog proceedings.
Regina Collins wanted a place where she could take Chance, her bouncy 12-week old “doodle” puppy for boarding and training. So she dropped Chance off with Garrett Ridley at Ridley K9 Academy in Placerville, California.
Ridley’s website claims that he has been mentored by two different trainers with different philosophies, and says that he “has had extensive experience training with positive/reward based dog training methods and old school compulsion dog training methods. He quickly recognized the benefit of both methods and the fact that one without the other usually ended with an unbalanced dog.”
According to reports, when Collins went to pick up Chance, Chance wouldn’t come to her. When Collins asked Ridley what he had done to her dog, Ridley reportedly told her not to touch Chance because he was “in trouble.”
Alarmed, Collins took Chance to the vet. Her vet found Chance covered in urine, dehydrated and with eyes that were hemorrhaging. A video of Chance can be found on Station KCRA’s website. In the video, Chance’s eyes look eerily like injuries from “shaken baby” cases I have seen in my public defender days. Chance’s vet said that the injuries are consistent with having been restrained by the neck with high pressure.
Collins filed an official complaint, and El Dorado County Animal Services is currently investigating Ridley for crimes against animals. The investigation has also lead to a finding that Ridley did not have a proper license for a commercial animal establishment.
The debate over positive reinforcement versus force-based training has been raging for quite a while. To me – a mere dog lover with no training background other than trying to keep up with Sophie, my skittish Shepherd mix – the answer is quite easy. Positive reinforcement builds the bond between you and your dog. Force and compulsion rips the bond apart – if a true bond had even formed in the first place.
But I am lucky. Before I ever knew about the debate, my local shelter steered me to a wonderful trainer who uses positive reinforcement methods. Had I not had that guidance, I can’t say I would have found the right trainer and training methods. Nor could I possibly say that Sophie is “unbalanced” because I failed to use force based methods to “counteract” her positive reinforcement training.
Within the animal behavior and dog training profession, there is a ton of information and science to support the use of positive reinforcement. But that information does not always trickle down to the average person, who has to wade through flashy TV programs, books and advertisements that may promise “tried and true methods” and quick results. The risk is particularly great in Collins’ and Chance’s situation, with a board and train program.
Outside of the profession, there is currently very little regulation over dog trainers. But this is going to change. In fact, it has already started. Just last year, Iowa began requiring kennel licenses for dog trainers and groomers. Don’t get me wrong – regulation isn’t always a bad thing. But this economic climate could cause states and localities to regulate for the wrong reasons – most notably, sheer need of revenue. And officials may not bring in the most knowledgeable professionals to provide guidance.
Here’s a case in point. When Wisconsin finally passed a puppy mill bill, it stated that breeders would need to adhere to standards that were “to be determined.” In her blog post Could Breeders and Rescues Work Together?, Dr. Patricia McConnell expressed concern that trainers and behaviorists were not brought into the committee to decide those standards. It is amazing to me that Dr. McConnell, one of the few certified applied animal behaviorists and a top-notch expert in animal behavior and dog training, is sitting right there in Wisconsin, and no one asked her opinion on such crucial legislation.
If you want to find the right kind of trainer, what are you to do? The doctrine of caveat emptor means it is your obligation to educate yourself and research the trainers you are considering.
Comb the trainers’ website and promotional materials to see how they explain their training methods and philosophy. Talk to them personally to get that explanation directly from the horse’s mouth. Read up on the types of accreditation and certifications trainers can have, and check the trainer’s certifications and education. Also look at which associations and organizations the trainer belongs to. Ask for recommendations from previous clients, and follow up with the clients to see what they have to say. Find out what kind of equipment the trainer recommends, and if the owner resorts to things like shock collars, choke or prong collars and invisible fences. And check up on their business credentials. Are they insured? Do they have a business license? This last simple question alone could have steered Collins away from Ridley. [If you have a pet related business or you are a client considering one, here’s a quick checklist for you to start with.]
There is a lingering question of whether the dog training industry needs standardization and regulation. If this is to happen, I would like to see humane standards built in, and have those standards come from within the animal behavior and dog training profession itself. And I hope to see those standards reaching the public in a way that helps to guide the average person to the right kind of trainer and methods.
It has already been a great week, with very positive news regarding two pressing issues — crush videos and electronic collars.
In Cleaning Up The Mess After United States v. Stevens: Amended H.R. 5566, I recently talked about how previous federal legislation designed to combat “crush videos” ended up being struck down by the United States Supreme Court. The House immediately introduced a bill to fix the problem, which the Senate tweaked. The next step was reconciling the differences between the House bill and the Senate amendments.
Last Saturday was a gorgeous fall day, one of the last of the year here in the DC metro area nice enough to sit outside. So I decided to celebrate by spending part of the afternoon sitting outside a coffee shop in Old Town Alexandria with Boomer.
Along came a resident with a gorgeous German Shepherd. She placed her dog in a down stay, which he held remarkably well, while she ducked into the store for a cup of coffee. When she came out, I saw her showing the remote control for her Shepherd’s electronic collar to the women at the table next to me, explaining that the electronic collar “counted” as physical restraint under Alexandria’s leash laws. [Sidenote: Boomer was being a very good little pup (on leash of course), getting lots and lots of treats while he sat calmly between the Shepherd and two other large dogs.]
My curiosity was peaked. I’ve never used electronic collars or invisible fences, and I’ve heard too much regarding the downsides of both to care to try them. I made a mental note to check Alexandria’s leash law to see if an electronic collar would really “count.”
Fast forward to this weekend, when I had the pleasure of attending Dr. Sophia Yin’s Seminar, The Many Faces of Fear and Aggression, sponsored by Dream Dog Productions. [Sidenote: Very appropriate topics for me and Sophie, who of course did not come with me to the coffee shop!]
Dr. Yin has done a remarkable job putting together hundreds of photos and videos to make various training concepts like counter-conditioning, desensitization, negative punishment and positive punishment really come alive. One of the most fascinating parts to watch was Dr. Yin using an electronic collar and a prong collar. She explained the many pitfalls of punishment, which can occur even if you use punishment the way you are supposed to, by using (1) perfect timing, (2) a correct and continuous rate (catching the bad behavior each and every time it occurs), and (3) a high enough amount of force that the dog doesn’t just become habituated.
At one point, Dr. Yin showed videos of her with a leash attached to a chain link fence, demonstrating the force needed to use a prong collar effectively. When she lets owners considering a prong collar try to pull on the leash, it is remarkable how far off they are with their amount of force. When Dr. Yin tries an electronic collar, even with her perfect sense of timing, rate and amount of force, it has the unintended consequence of only serving to confuse the dog. No wonder she and many others have abandoned the use of forceful, punishment-based training long ago.
With all of Dr. Yin’s experience, even she was unable to communicate what she wanted the dog to learn using an electronic collar. Part of this is that punishment methods do nothing to tell the dog what kind of good behavior he could do instead of the bad behavior. Considering all of this, how is the average dog owner supposed to use an electronic collar effectively?
To start, Virginia Code Section 3.2-6539 allows each locality to adopt its own ordinance requiring dogs to “be kept on a leash or otherwise restrained.” Alexandria has chosen to institute its own leash law, Section 5-7-35 of the City of Alexandria Code. With very limited exceptions for being on private property or in dog parks, Alexandria requires a dog to be
“…secured by a leash, lead or other means of physical restraint which leash, lead or other means of physical restraint is not harmful or injurious to the dog and which is held by a responsible person capable of physically restraining the dog.”
I doubt that the remote control for the electronic collar would qualify as a “leash, lead or other means of physical restraint” being “held” by the owner. Even if you make it over that hurdle, after seeing Dr. Yin’s presentation, I have to ask whether an electronic collar is “harmful or injurious to the dog.” Also, the Alexandria ordinance says nothing about remote collar control systems, whereas Blacksburg felt the need to include that explicitly in its leash law.
Taking all of this into consideration, I would think an electronic collar does not “count” as a leash under Alexandria’s leash laws. Even if it did, owners should think long and hard about the well-being of their dogs and the relationship between them and the dogs before using electronic collars, and other equipment such as invisible fences and prong collars.
This morning, the City Council in Alexandria, Virginia faced a final vote on two crucial companion animal laws.
Companion Animal Law Blog 
