On the Eastern Shore too many dogs are living their lives tethered to the end of a chain, even as tethering has been shown to be cruel and unsafe for dogs and for the public. While dog tethering issues are somewhat rare in Cape Charles, the town took a stand against the practice, setting a precedent by passing a NO TETHERING ordinance on Thursday March 16th. The ordinance is a complete ban on leaving an animal tied up and unattended for any amount of time, and carries with it a Class 4 misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine of up to $250, but no jail time.
The language of the ordinance was crafted by town planner Larry DiRe, and was the culmination of almost 2 years of recent work, but 20 years since Cape Charles passed its first tethering ordinance, one that has been adopted by Northampton County.
The effort to protect animals within the town has been spear headed by Councilman Andy Buchholz and Planning Commissioner Dan Burke. The current ordinance found its genesis following public complaints of dogs that were being kept in a pen during winter months, and were forced to stand in 6 inches of freezing water.
The ordinance did not pass unanimously. The final tally was 4 -2, with Buchholz, Natali, Sullivan and Bennett voting yes, Bannon and Brown voting no.
Pushback on the motion came from Police Chief Pruitt, and former Chief, now Councilman Sambo Brown. Pruitt rattled off several issues with enforcing the ordinance, and noted that handing out a summons would, in the end be his call. Brown argued that if passed, there should be a zero tolerance policy. An example he used would be that if a tourist left their dog unattended for a few minutes to go into Brown Dog and get ice cream, they should be issued a summons.
The most strained moment came when Councilwoman Sullivan attempted to ask Chief Pruitt a question while he was voicing concerns about enforcing the ordinance. Pruitt’s frustration with the ordinance was clearly evident as he responded to Sullivan, “I haven’t finished.” Sullivan attempted to interject and Pruitt once again cut her off and stated, “I said I haven’t finished yet.”
Councilman Buchholz, unwilling to accept Pruitt’s concerns said, “I don’t care about any of that.”
Sullivan, once she was able to address Pruitt, asked whether common sense policing might be a way to realistically work with the ordinance, “I remember when I spoke about how I witnessed the police pull a driver over, and nicely explained the violation, and then just issued a warning. Couldn’t we do the same here? Give them a warning first?” Brown responded, “We have to enforce it equally…if we give one a summons, we have to give all of them one.”
“We have been working on this for 20 years. We had to step up and create an ordinance for this because the county did not have one then,” Sullivan said.
Whether Northampton and Accomack will seize on this initiative and craft a similar ordinance is to be seen. Animal rights activists have told the Mirror that they hope this move by Cape Charles will be a catalyst for real change on the Eastern Shore.
The full ordinance is listed below.
ORDINANCE NO: 20170316
TO ADOPT MODIFICATIONS TO TOWN CODE ARTICLE X, SECTION 50-190 – TETHERING OF ANIMALS
WHEREAS, Article X, Section 50-190 of the Town Code addressing the tethering of animals was last updated in September 2004; and
WHEREAS, in an effort to clarify the current language and to include provisions for enforcement; now
THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of Cape Charles, this 16th day of March, 2017 that Article X, Section 50-190 of the Cape Charles Town Code be modified as follows:
§ 50-190. Tethering of animals. It shall be unlawful to tether any unattended animal whether or not the animal has been provided adequate space. A violation of this section shall be punishable as a class 4 misdemeanor.
**********************
Adopted by the Town Council of Cape Charles on March 16, 2017.
Kearn Schemm says
SO those who leave their pets out in freezing weather is a pen are OK?
Even those who leave the pet tethered with adequate space are to be punished?
A well meaning ordinance, which will hit poor people and vacationers – who don’t know about the ordinance.
Rplease
maryann says
Why can’t poor people bring their dogs inside same as wealthy people?
Sharon R says
I certainly don’t think that it’s OK to leave any dog out in the foul weather! It’d be wonderful if they were to pass this law as well!! It’d also be nice if the law would require that they must have adequate room for their size!! It hurts me to see a 100lb dog in a 4’×4′ enclosure. I agree with Mary Ann, “poor” people who are well off enough to own a dog can bring their dogs into their home as well. I’d rather say “less fortunate” people.
Diane D'Amico says
I attend Council meetings on a regular basis and I have never seen an issue as passionately discussed by the Council as this. I also walk around town almost every day and cannot remember seeing a dog tethered to the extent that warrants this kind of Council action. This is unenforceable and unnecessary. I applaud Chief Pruitt for speaking out as well as for Councilmembers Bannon and Brown for their negative vote. Many questions were brought up which went unanswered in the zeal to protect the occasionally abused dog in the Town of Cape Charles. Among them: 1-if the dog owner refuses to
un-tether their dog do the police take the dog and if so, who cares for the dog? 2-What if the owner is a minor (whom the police cannot arrest)? 3-How do we adequately advise our summer visitors about this law prior to their being charged with a misdemeanor? 4-Will the dog owner who ties their dog to a bench at Brown Dog Ice Cream for 5 minutes while they run in to get an ice cream (and a treat for their dog) be treated exactly the same way as the owner who has their dog tethered on a short and too tight rope in the hot sun with no water is treated? 5- Why wouldn’t this situation be covered under a cruelty to animals act? What was the Council thinking to spend so much time on this question and to make such a poorly advised decision.
Carla Jasper says
Ms D’Amico I don’t believe that the law is meant for people who tether their dog to go in an establishment for a short period of time. It is meant to stop the horrible suffering of animals who are tethered as a way of life and that seems obvious to me. Thankfully there are people who understand that if an animal is taken from an owner who treats it this way that the animal would be better off than having to live each day of it’s life like the animal in that photograph. There are too many animals that live that way and it must be stopped.
Sharon R says
Amen to that and thank you.
Carla Jasper says
I am grateful that something meaningful is finally taking place for animals here. Good on all of you who have worked for this and for Mr. Buchholz, Ms. Natali, Ms. Sullivan, and Mr. Bennett for having the courage to do the right thing for the animals who suffer inhumane treatment.
Robin Brownley says
I accuired a dog that had been chained for four years of his life. He was completely unsociable. Food, toy, space aggressive. Things like this need not go on. To use someone going into an establishment for five minutes is ridiculous.
Sharon R. says
I hope and pray that sooner rather than later, all the towns, cities and counties in the state of Virginia also pass this law. I have wished for this for a very long time and I thank each and every one of you who have made this happen. God bless you ALL.
Pam W says
I do not live in the Town but have witnessed first hand neigborhoring animals being tethered all day, everyday, in freezing weather, snow, sleet, rain, and the hot sun, not to mention the constant barking! At one point their water bowls had been knocked over and I have no idea how long they were without water. I reported this to the County but nothing could be done because animals can be tethered for hours on end legally. Unless I could prove they were tethered all day without any release there was nothing that could be done. I wasn’t going to open that can of worms. I have no idea why anyone would want an animal as a pet and then keep them chained all day with no interaction with anyone. This makes for an aggressive animal which is so unfortunate!
Eifer Mann says
Pruitt is FOS any police person has discretion on most matters that come up, maybe he tethers a dog. I just became aware of this topic being discussed in our county but I am feeling it, animals are living things meant to roam like every living thing, down to a bug. If you’re gonna have one you better treat it right. Tethering an animal for more than 20 min in my opinion is unacceptable and that 20 min needs to be an important situation. In other words its not really acceptable from the animals standpoint and if we are going to be honest we have to come to that conclusion. Animals for food is unavoidable and we must take all possible steps to make them feel as well as we possibly can until they are harvested but if you are going to go a step further and bring one home then you must provide adequate accomodations. That means food space and attention, other wise you best not take possession of it.
Carla Jasper says
Well stated and thank you for standing up for animals. They cannot defend themselves against inhumane treatment.
Julie Pruitt says
As “Pruitts” wife I can tell you that we do not tether our dog nore have we ever. Our dog is walked and is allowed to roam as she pleases, I can speak for my husband and myself when I say we both do not agree with any sort of cruelty to animals. Your assumption was entirely incorrect.
David N. Cowan says
We are part-time residents of Cape Charles since 2008.
This is a poorly considered ordinance, making even the temporary tethering of a dog in front of a store or restaurant an offense. Even keeping the dog in the yard with shelter and water is an offense.
Perhaps after a few people are cited for technical violations and express their opposition the ordinance will be re-considered.
It would seem that an ordinance based on the concepts of animal cruelty and mistreatment would make more sense.
Matthew Watson says
Im not exactly sure why it would have to be a ” zero tolerance” issue, one of the greatest tools law enforcement has in the Commonwealth is that all offenses not being a felony are enforceable at the Officers discretion ( with the exception of Domestic violence which state code lists a ” shall” make the arrest.) A Police Officer or Deputy could at his or her descision choose not to arrest or write a summons based on the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. The Chief can obviously decide that he/she wants %100 enforcemet on the law and force the officers to enforce it to the letter of the law but that raises so many more in depth questions, like why force the officers to not use any common sense? Im sure that the Officers here can be trusted to decide when to summons and when not to, is it that hard to descern the difference between the out of town tourist who ties their dog up to get some Ice cream for 3 minutes and the person who keeps a dog tied up outside in the yard day in and day out for days/weeks/months? I hope that maybe what the Chief was talking about was maybe in the ” spirt of the law” and how it may come across as unfair and not the “letter of the law” feeling I get when someone of Authority isnt being %100 honest in explaining that in fact the Chief and his department can legally and actually enforce the law with some actual common sense and rationality.