Editorial — The way we treat animals isn’t just about numbers

EDITORIAL — The issue of dogs on tethers brought to the table a fundamental philosophical difference in the role of local government this week.

Kamloops resident Claudine Sleik asked Kamloops City council to amend its animal control bylaw to put limits on the length of time owners are allowed to keep their dogs chained. Several other B.C. cities have done it, though they vary as to how many hours are deemed acceptable.

Some councillors were sympathetic to the notion of at least discussing the matter, but they were in the minority. Most of them took the view that — as one councillor phrased it — “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”

The “if it ain’t broke” model of decision-making is certainly appropriate in some situations. If a change in policy involves, say, changing a street to one-way traffic when two-way traffic is working fine, then don’t fix it. It might seem like a good idea because it would reduce the time it takes to get from A to B, but if there’s no public demand, then why change it?

The same thing, by the way, might be said about parking meters.

However, when dealing with the treatment of sentient beings, a different test must be applied. Dogs — you know, the ones we like to call man’s best friend — deserve our consideration and protection. Whether putting a dog on the end of a chain or rope is mistreatment is open for debate, but the B.C. SPCA believes it is. According to the SPCA, prolonged and consistent tethering can be both physically and psychologically damaging.

The members of council who opposed getting into the tethering issue based their position at least to some degree on the fact the City hasn’t received many complaints about it. The public hasn’t been demanding change.

Not to over-simplify it, because there were also comments about the potential costs of enforcement, and about the nuances of tethering. For example, a very short chain is not the same as a tether attached to a clothes line that gives the dog more freedom, and an hour is not the same as 12 hours, and so on.

Dog trainers will tell you that tethering is OK for training purposes but that’s not what we’re talking about. Fact is, some dogs live their lives on a chain. It’s pretty hard to argue that such a life amounts to anything more than a life sentence of boredom.

If you don’t happen to believe that, well, fine, but it’s worth discussing, especially given that quite a few other jurisdictions have studied it and decided some controls are needed. The issue is whether or not tethering is acceptable treatment of an animal and under what circumstances. That’s what the council should have been willing to give serious consideration to via some staff research and a workshop discussion.

What the issue isn’t about is the number of phone calls City Hall receives. If tethering is a negative treatment of a pet, then local government has a role in fixing the situation whether it applies to hundreds of dogs or just one, whether elected representatives have received many phone calls and letters, or just one.