Stamford approves updated city ordinance to limit ‘unattended’ tethering of dogs
- Jonathan Jacobson
- Aug 3, 2021
- 5 min read
Updated Aug 3, 2021 6:19 p.m.
Stamford Board of Representatives member Jonathan Jacobson. Jacobson was behind a change to city law to allow people who left their dogs tied up outside unattended for more than 30 minutes to be ticketed.
Tyler Sizemore / Hearst Connecticut Media
STAMFORD — The Board of Representatives has approved a change to Stamford’s ordinances to ban people from leaving a dog tied up outside for more than 30 minutes unless a person is also outside and has the animal in view.
The city’s code of ordinances currently prohibits people from tethering dogs “for an unreasonable amount of time” and refers to a section of state law that uses similar language. But Stamford Animal Control Officer Tilford Cobb has told city representatives that the law is difficult to enforce because it doesn’t define “unreasonable.”
Rep. Jonathan Jacobson, D-12, has pushed to update the city’s rules on tethering. During a board meeting this week, he described his proposal as “common-sense animal welfare legislation.”
As with the original ordinance, a person in violation would pay a $100 fine for a first offense and $100 for each offense after that.
“This amendment does not ban the practice of tethering altogether,” Jacobson said. “Rather, it's designed to protect our dogs from being chronically tethered outside without anyone with them, subject to isolation and the elements for hours on end.”
The new legislation does not affect people who have their dog running free within a fenced — or electronic fence — enclosure.
The board’s Legislative and Rules Committee has discussed tethering a dog longterm at meetings going back to December. Among the groups that weighed in as the committee was crafting the legislative language was the Humane Society of the United States, which noted in a letter to the board that an “otherwise friendly dog, if rarely taken off a chain, can become anxious and aggressive.”
Mayor David Martin intends to sign the measure, his spokesperson, Rachel LaBella, said.
The board approved the new ordinance with 30 members voting “yes,” Reps. J.R. McMullen, R-18, and Jeff Curtis, D-14, voting “no” and Rep. Bradley Michelson, R-1, abstaining.
McMullen said he opposed the measure because it was “a one-size-fits-all law.”
“It's completely different if you're taking a Chihuahua and putting it out on a tether for hours outside where it's subject to certain risks (than if it’s) a full-size, 80-pound German Shepherd,” he said.
McMullen added that when he was growing up, “it was considered cruel and unusual to leave a dog locked up in a house for eight to 10 hours while the owner was away at work.” And in some cases, he said, tethering can be “good” — for one, it may prevent a dog from running out of a yard.
“We should continue to allow residents to take care of their own animals at their discretion,” McMullen said.
Rep. John Zelinsky, D-11, offered up several amendments that he said one of his constituents had suggested.
In an email to the board, the constituent said she has two Siberian Huskies that she often tethers in front of her house. While some people have complained about her dogs being outside in the winter, she contended that, as Huskies, they are OK in the cold weather.
The constituent argued that requiring her to be outside with her dogs in the cold would be unreasonable. She also noted that she isn’t allowed to fence in the front of her property, and that her dogs ran through an invisible fence she tried.
She proposed that the board create exceptions for dogs that are “suited” for certain weather and dogs that have been tethered without supervision in the past. Zelinsky’s motions to make those amendments failed.
‘We can enforce that’
A different version of the new ordinance came before the Board of Representatives last month. That version similarly required someone to be outside with the dog and to have the dog in view. It also included an exception intended to allow a person to step away and “complete a temporary task” while a dog was tied up.
But Jacobson asked his colleagues to kick the proposed ordinance back to committee, and the board did so. When the committee took it up, Jacobson said that members of the board and the public had raised concerns about the “enforceability of the language.” In particular, there was a question about the definition of “temporary,” he said.
Jacobson then proposed the language with the 30-minute window, saying he had done an analysis of other municipalities’ legislation and spoken with Cobb, the Animal Control officer.
“I think 30 minutes is reasonable,” Cobb told the committee. “We can enforce that. We will be able to send an officer out, document the time the call came in, document the time the officer sat out there and viewed this dog outside, and we will be able to issue an infraction.”
Cobb clarified that the 30-minute clock would start when an officer arrives at a home.
“We have to see what we're issuing the infraction for,” he said. “So we actually have to witness that dog being out for that period of time.”
Alternatively, if multiple neighbors are willing to provide written statements, Animal Control can issue an infraction based on those, Cobb said. He said his department receives one or two calls about tethered dogs a month.
The goal is “not to go after the responsible dog owner who is putting the dog out for a short period of time,” Cobb said. “This is to protect those dogs that are being left out unattended for extreme amounts of time.”
In terms of dogs like Huskies, Cobb noted that such dogs are “still susceptible” to frostbite and hypothermia — a point the Humane Society also made to the committee.
Before the final vote Monday, the board adopted an amendment by Rep. Benjamin Lee, D-15, the chairman of the Legislative and Rules Committee. The point of the amendment, Lee said, was to make clear that the city’s tethering rules don’t apply to someone who lets their dog outside to move around freely in a yard that the person owns and that has a physical or electronic fence.
Rep. Terry Adams, D-3, suggested that the rules also shouldn’t apply to a dog put on a “dog runner” system in a person’s yard. The board approved the amendment with that addition.
Aug 3, 2021|Updated Aug 3, 2021 6:19 p.m.
Brianna Gurciullo
REPORTER
Brianna Gurciullo covers local government and politics for the Stamford Advocate. A Meriden native, Brianna came to the Advocate after four years at POLITICO, where she wrote about federal transportation policy. She is always looking for a dog or cat to befriend when she is not working -- and sometimes when she is working, as evidenced by her photo.
Comments