West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » Open Discussion

(23 posts)

RANT: Dogs tethered to signs/bike racks outside stores

Started 1 year ago by HolyKow
Latest reply from HolyKow

HolyKow
Member Profile

OK, so summer is here and I wanna get this one stirred up. I cannot STAND it when people leave their mutts tethered to street signs, benches, bike racks or whatever stationary object might be around so they can grab a late, browse a store or whatever. This needs to be stopped for the dogs safety and for the people walking by. An unattended animal is a dangerous animal. They could attack a person walking by (these situations usually give the dog unfettered access to the sidewalks being used by pedestrians and bikes alike) or they could be abused or hit by a bike themselves and not have any way to get away from an attacker or evade a bike.

This is a safety issue and you dog owners need to cut this out. Stat.

hk

Posted 1 year ago #
JanS
Member Profile

hk, don't forget that also that kids wil see the "nice doggy" tied up, and want to pet..and no one around to ask permission first. As much as people love and trust that their animals are fine around people, sometimes they can surprise us. People will argue that their dogs are like their kids, and don't like to leave them at home alone if they go out. But would they tether their kids up to a post and leave them there while they go into a store? Most would say that is ludicrous.

OK...let's see what others have to say...

Posted 1 year ago #
DP
Member Profile

I did leave my kid tethered to a post when I went shopping once. Naturally, I regretted it.

When I came back out, he was still there.

Posted 1 year ago #
DOC
Member Profile

DP, that cracked me up. Although I agree with the concept of not leaving your dog tied up for a long time outside, I think it's fine if you grap a latte TO GO and your pup is outside for about five minutes. A few weeks ago I was at a local coffee shop and a dog was tied up outside the hour plus that I was there, which is totally unacceptable.

On a high note, I love petting random dogs and still have all my fingers!

Posted 1 year ago #
Garden_nymph
Member Profile

Oh DP, I love your sense of humor! Thanks for the laugh.

Posted 1 year ago #
squareeyes
Member Profile

My boyfriend invaded the personal space of a quiet seeming dog tied up to a tree in the Junction last year. Dog went berzerk; seriously aggressive reaction. Doesn't matter how sweet you think your lovebunny is, if it feels threatened it's gonna react.

Posted 1 year ago #
velo_nut
Member Profile

What a bunch of Fuddie Duddies. CANCEL CHRISTMAS TOO!

Posted 1 year ago #
thee
Member Profile

cue the nannies! it must be the warm weather stirring 'em up...

Posted 1 year ago #
GenHillOne
Member Profile

Call it what you want, but I was walking into a store once and ended up on the wrong end of a "super-friendly" tethered dog who decided to defend the last place he saw his owner. Hurt like hell.

Posted 1 year ago #
AlkiCabCompany
Member Profile

some of the doggies I have known that are usually really sweet ..seem to get more aggressive when they are on a leash. Like they have to prove to people that they can still handle themselves even though they are tied up. Maybe just get a latte and do your shopping when your dog is at home.

Posted 1 year ago #
HolyKow
Member Profile

OK, so here they come, those arrogant dog owners that think breaking the law is OK because they are special.

So, here is the next law that you dog owners all can actively avoid and get all huffy when we say you are breaking the law, same way you ignore and moan about the leash law:

Seattle Municipal Code: (AKA : THE LAW IN THESE HERE PARTS)

Title 9 - ANIMALS
Chapter 9.25 - Animal Control

SMC 9.25.084 Offenses relating to control.

**Specifically for this issue, paragraph 'F' is applicable.

F. Tether an animal in such a manner as to permit the animal to enter any sidewalk, street, alley or place open to the public, or to enter any
adjacent lot or premises unless authorized by the occupant of the adjacent premises.

So, all of you dog owners that come here and complain about us being whiners because we 'fuddy duddies' and 'nannies' do not want to deal with your 'precious little schmoopsy poopsy' need to realize that you really are (again) breaking the law.

So come on back and issue some of that well known dog owner 'wit' and 'sarcasm' in defending your untenable illegal position like you do with the leash LAWS. Just stop leaving 'fluffy wuffy' where I have to deal with them.

And people wonder why I won't engage dog owners when they break this or the leash law. Read their comments here and extrapolate. I get the same experience trying to discipline a 3 year old.

hk

Posted 1 year ago #
KBear
Member Profile

Holy Kow, read the second part of paragraph F. If the business permits dogs to be tethered outside, it's not illegal.

Posted 1 year ago #
HolyKow
Member Profile

Actually, no. The first part is hard and fast,

You cannot:

Tether an animal in such a manner as to permit the animal to enter any sidewalk, street, alley or place open to the public

The OR sets off a second part of that clause that specifically pertains to the entrance of that animal into 'adjacent lot or premises'. If you wanna have your neighbors dog into your yard, you can grant that permission.

The part that says do not tether your animals where they can get into public rights of way is not affected by owner/occupant permissions and is binding on its own.

Good one tho...nice clarify.

hk

Posted 1 year ago #
KBear
Member Profile

No, I believe the "unless" applies to the whole sentence. Otherwise it wouldn't need to say "adjacent premises", meaning adjacent to the sidewalk.

Posted 1 year ago #
metrognome
Member Profile

HolyKow, you are absolutely correct in your interpretation of the meaning of the word 'OR'; an adjacent property owner can give permission for the animal to be on their property, not on the PUBLIC right-of-way. Basically, this means the owner has to tether the animal (dog, horse, Kow, etc.) so that it cannot enter either the ROW or the adjacent property (without the owner's permission). That means short leash, if at all.
You are also right regarding this issue. Just yesterday I was rolling thru the Junction in my wheelchair and came upon a dog tied up outside a restaurant on a 4' leash which allowed enough slack for it to block most of the sidewalk. The dog was so intent on finding it's master/mistress that he would not move out of my way; even tho I grew up with dogs and know how to approach them, I learned the hard way a long time ago not to touch an unattended strange dog. Fortunately, there was enough room for me to squeak by this time, but I have been trapped by dogs sprawled across sidewalks.

Posted 1 year ago #
HolyKow
Member Profile

Actually, still no.

Streets and sidewalks are not adjacent lots or premises, they are public rights of way. Per the DOT, (http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/publicrow.htm) each parcel of land has to have public rights of way established for streets, sidewalks, utilities and similar public uses. This establishes them as different from lots or premises. The owners are required to keep these up, but cannot restrict who can or cannot use them. That is for the law to decide.

The 'unless' calls on the original establishment of 'entrance to any adjacent lot or premises', therefore the first part about restriction before the 'OR' in public spaces remains a stand alone restriction.

Still not legal to tie up your pooch where they have unsupervised, unfettered access to public rights of way....

hk

Thanks metro, was posting this at the same time as you were posting your comment.

Posted 1 year ago #
Jer K.
Member Profile

HK,
Thank you for providing the text of the applicable law from the municipal code.

The most relevant section of the SMC, however, is the ADDENDUM 3825.968 which states:

"Any Seattlite may, at any time, grant themselves an exemption to any law in the municipal code that they consider unacceptable, frivolous, or simply beneath them, by loudly stating 'whatever!' or by snorting contemptuously and rolling their eyes when informed they are violating the law.

"This exemption is valid in perpetuity and is retroactive to the birth of the exemptee. Anyone subsequently calling attention to an infraction for which a self-exemption has been declared shall be required to get over themselves."

It's a lesser-known section of the code, but an extremely important one around here.

For my part, I realize it's a losing battle, so I attempt to remain civil with the offending dogs blocking the sidewalk or doorway, and always keep some laxatives in my pocket to feed them.

Posted 1 year ago #
LovinWS
Member Profile

DP, thanks for the much needed humor. Frankly, while I agree with HK in princple, I don't see the need for the biting tone and obvious anger. There are irresponsible dog owners. Always have been, always will be. I believe we can all get along (yes, I am a dog owner) and to please keep perspective that we ALL break the law sometimes (HK, don't tell me you never speed or roll through a 4-way stop)! I'd just prefer to see less self-righteousness in this area. And yes, I am expecting to take heat for this viewpoint. Just my 2 cents. Life's short....look for the good.

Posted 1 year ago #
HolyKow
Member Profile

At this point, I have gotten to the place where I am willing to engage them with the same attitude that they give me and many others I know. I have tried to be nice and have had almost ZERO recpirication of that sentiment, so, I am willing to play by their rules if that is how it needs to be.

The bad egg dog owners' arrogance and unwillingness to comply with a level of basic decency with regards to others within stated local laws has jaded me, I admit. So I will plant a flag in the high ground, legally, and let them shout up at me for a change....instead of them talking down at me with their juvenile name calling like they do when asked to comply with local laws that clearly state they are in the wrong (nannies, fuddy duddies, dog police, whiners etc...).

And, sure, I have gone 5 over and whiffed (not on purpose, but just missed) a stop sign. Only difference is that I do not tell the cop off with my nose in the air. I realize that I still have to stop, even if there was no one at any of the other 3 sides of the intersection for miles and miles. It is still the law and I was wrong.

hk

Posted 1 year ago #
luckymom30
Member Profile

Last summer while shopping at Westwood Village we stopped at Radio Shack and outside tethered was abeautiful dog, very friendly and not at all aggressive. Standing in he very hot sun (remember the 100+ temps last summer?), without any water and the leash was knotted very short. So my daughter and I got some water out of our car, went inside Radio Shack where the very nice clerks there gave us a plastic bowl for the dog s water. 10 minutes later a man came into the store yeling that someone had given his dog water and he could take care of his dog himself. No thank you, nothing. Warning: We will do it again.

Posted 1 year ago #
Garden_nymph
Member Profile

Next time take the dog and leash the owner!

Posted 1 year ago #
yeah-me
Member Profile

So, just curious...what do you think a dog owner should do if they have brought their dog on a walk while they do their errands?

Posted 1 year ago #
HolyKow
Member Profile

Do something that is not illegal, I don't care.

hk

Posted 1 year ago #