The below letter is blood-chilling. Jessop's breed of choice, the Pit bull, is so inherently dangerous that the Queen of the Pit bulls knows that her supporters, and the people who buy her books, have to keep their Pit bulls under restraint, either because they are dangerous, or because of laws to protect society from them. (This is not true of every Pit bull of course, many do not inherit fighting traits, or not enough to make them particularly dangerous, but many do - if they didn't, the breed would not be used in fighting rings.)
Jessop rightly is critical of keeping dogs in crates all day while one is at work, a despicable imprisonment, done so that the owner can have everything their way: a job;, a dog that they haven't the time for; and a tidy house when they get home.
But she sees nothing wrong with tethering all day. She even says it is preferable to being loose in the yard all day. That is because if a Pit bull gets out of the yard it might kill someone.
Does Jessop go on to say that an invincible chain is preferable to a light tether that the Pit bull can chew through? I can't read all of this sickening letter.
This woman is the hero of all the Pit bull defenders. This woman is constantly being held up to AAS as the "final authority". We have never heard from or met a Pit bull breed defender who showed the least ability to reason or think logically, and many are cruelly self-serving, and now even their leader is shown to be all those.
---- Original Message -----
From: fullybullymagazine@comcast.net
To: info@animaladvocates.com
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 10:50 PM
Subject: information requested for magazine article
Dear Sirs,
I am writing an article for Fully Bully Magazine on the issue of anti-tethering ordinances. FBM is a popular magazine with bull breed owners. These wonderful dogs are under unfair and unrelenting attack by misguided and ignorant people who would rather hate then help dogs in their time of need. I am exploring the idea that anti-tethering laws may be another attack not only on bulldogs, but on all dog ownership as well.
I am making an effort to get “both sides of the story”. I would like to understand why those who support anti-tethering laws feel that tethering, when done well, represents a cruel or inappropriate ownership practice. Interestingly, I find the practice of locking dogs in shipping crates all day (and often all night) to be extremely inappropriate, and yet many “humane” groups encourage pet owners to do just this! Amazing!
I would appreciate very much if your organization could respond to the following questionare concerning tethering and anti-tethering sentiments. The information will be used in an upcoming article in Fully Bully Magazine. For additional information on FBM, you may go to: www.fullybullymagazine.com. Please respond by February 15th, 2005.
I would like to add that I have been an animal control officer for 20+ years, and have written a novel which won the DWAA’s annual award in 2001 in the category of Best Human/Animal Bond (The Dog Who Spoke With Gods) which has been well received in Japan, Russia, the Czech Republic, The Netherlands and the US. I am not a breeder, just a dog lover, who is very concerned about the growing anti-dog ownership movement among “animal rights” groups. (I am myself a life member since 1973 of the American Anti-Vivisection Society.)
I thank you for your time and trouble, if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me,
For The Love Of Dogs,
Diane Jessup
Q) There is a movement among certain animal rights groups to legislate restrictions on how pet owners may maintain their dogs in their own homes. The practice of tethering has come under attack. An issue of the Kind News, distributed to school children by a humane group, went to so far as to encourage young children to have their parents report any dog, tethered in its own yard, to local authorities. Does your organization see tethering, in all its forms, as cruel or inappropriate?
Q) Does your organization consider efforts to ban all tethering of dogs as a positive step?
Q) Most dog owners work, and are gone a significant portion of the day. What forms of long term containment does your organization consider appropriate or humane? Do you think a dog should be left loose in a fenced back yard even though the animal may jump or dig out? Do you prefer a cement floor kennel, say, 6 x 12 feet, to a tether?
Q) If your organization feels a dog should never be tethered outside during the day, would you consider confinement in a shipping crate all day while the owner is gone as humane and appropriate?
Q) The wording in some tethering ordinances state that a dog should not be allowed to be tethered for longer than a very few hours, such as two. Does your organization believe this time limit should apply to extremely restrictive confinement, such as being kept in a shipping crate as well? If so, what action is your organization taking to enact ordinances against this cruel practice?
Q) Young dogs are often destructive. They make up the bulk of dogs dumped at shelters. If an owner is not allowed to tether a dog while they are not home, what methods would you suggest they employ to keep wallboard, couches and other items safe?
Q) In a shipping crate, a dog can barely move about, cannot relive itself without then having to stand or lie in its own waste, and often has no access to water. A tethered dog can have anywhere from a 30 foot circumference (15 foot tether) to a 60 foot circumference (30 foot tether) or larger, in which to move about, defecate or urinate, drink, move from sun to shade, and walk or run about. If tethering is inhumane, would your organization consider working toward banning confining dogs in shipping crates for more than a few hours at a time? If not, why not?
Q) Almost all jurisdictions already have cruelty laws in place which require a dog to have access to water and shelter. Animal control agencies are often hard pressed to prosecute cases of actual animal abuse. Does your organization feel that adding more restrictions on top of existing laws which already address the issue of inappropriate tethering, will best serve the interests of dogs?
Q) Tethering can be done humanely and offer a dog a wonderful living space. Enclosed by a safety fence, with shade trees and a snug dog house, a secured water bucket and a big meaty bone, I can’t think of a better place for a dog to spend a spring, summer or fall day while its owner is at work. Does your organization feel that this scenario is inhumane and inappropriate? If not, what provisions would they see put into anti-tethering legislation to keep owners who tether their dogs appropriately from being prosecuted?
Q) Some breeds become very uncomfortable inside the house. Understanding that fences can blow down, or that dogs can climb, jump or dog out, what provisions will anti-tethering laws make for these dogs?
Q) Anti-tethering advocates often state that tethering makes dogs aggressive. How do they explain the thousands of friendly, good natured dogs which are tethered?
Q) Dogs behind fences often display “barrier aggression”. How is this different from aggression attributed to tethering?
Q) Some dogs are very high energy and high drive. Confined in a shipping crate, house or kennel, they languish and resort to stress behaviors. On a tether, they are able to move about all day. A walk once or twice a day is not enough exercise for these dogs. How do anti-tethering laws work to benefit these dogs?
Q) Hunting hounds and sled racing dogs have traditionally been kept on tethers. Hunters and mushers, even those who just hunt or mush for the love of working with the dogs, generally keep more dogs than would be able to be kept in a house. The dogs are generally high drive and high energy. Would your organization rather see these dogs gotten rid of (destroyed) then tethered in an appropriate manner?
Q) There is a movement by some extreme animal rights groups to work toward banning the ownership of all dogs as pets. Steps being taken toward this goal include: supporting breed specific legislation, setting unrealistic requirements for pet adoption and ownership, and making it difficult for dog owners to keep and maintain multiple dogs. Tethering bans fall into this category. Is the banning or reduction of ownership of dogs a goal of your organization?
Q) Some dogs are quarrelsome, and need to be separated for their own protection. How would anti-tethering laws impact owners of these dogs?
Q) Not everyone wants to own an insipid, generic, low drive, low energy dog. Without doubt, these types of dogs are easy to keep and confine. For some dog owners, however, dogs with strong character are preferable. To not adequately confine these dogs would be irresponsible. How would your organization respond to concerns of owners of these types of dogs?
Q) Many animal activists are pushing for “no kill” shelters where dogs are warehoused until placed, sometimes for years. Does your organization feel that a dog stored in a “no-kill” shelter is better off than in a home tethered during the day?
Q) With the ever increasing number of dogs awaiting homes in animal shelters, how does your organization see anti-tethering laws impacting adoptions? By far, most adopters do not have well fenced yards. Sometimes tethering the dog is the only way to keep it safe when owners are not home. Since leaving a dog loose in a fenced yard is not responsible as the dog may easily climb our or jump over, would your organization rather see the dog euthanized then placed in a home where it would be tethered?
Q) If an owner in an area affected by an anti-tethering law knows his dog may jump the fence and possibly get hit by a car or worse, what advice would you give the owner to keep the dog safe? What if the dog is not happy being stuck in the house during the day?
Thank you very much for your time. It is appreciated.