Thursday, Dec. 8, 2016    Login | Register        

Leash law solves nonexistent problem

Eternal vigilance: This truly is the price we pay for democracy. Under the impression the City Council had put to rest any proposal for a new law concerning the control of dogs, my wife and I departed for England where unleashed dogs are practically invited to sit at the restaurant table for Sunday roast. Lo and behold, we were shocked to find that the new ordinance had not only not been placed in trash, but had been considered and passed unanimously by our “conservative Republican” City Council.

Governance is complicated and difficult. Humanity forms societies for individual’s and the group’s mutual benefit and in doing so looks for ways to manage these societies to ensure continuity and provide expectation. Thus are governments born and laws produced. In our English tradition we have always looked for reasons in these laws since any law by its nature either restricts or proscribes some action.

And that is why this ordinance has so surprised me. In previous discussions I understand the council asked why such an ordinance is needed.

Have there been attacks by dogs under voice control by their owners? The answer there was apparently: none recorded. Have there been other difficulties with dogs under voice control by their owners? The answer was apparently: none recorded.

The reason given for the new law seems to be the local police chief’s need for something more concrete since voice control seems so ill-defined.

And after the council unanimously passed the leash ordinance, the chief informed us that this is not just another revenue-raising venture for the city but an opportunity to “counsel” dog owners.

So I ask, about what? If there was no problem before, why would the owners of dogs need “counseling” now? I guess we’ll need counseling about the new leash law that we didn’t need to begin with.

I’d like to call this a paltry and rascally original (stealing from Thomas Paine as usual) but the circuitous nature of the reasoning, while paltry and rascally, is far from original.

Since we arrived here 18 years ago, my wife and I have walked and run dogs under voice control. We have also witnessed many other people doing the same. In that time I have never heard of a dog either attacking or threatening a person while in the vicinity and under the control of its master.

I have witnessed many people who are agonizingly afraid of any dog. Of course I have also witnessed many people who are agonizingly afraid of flying. There are lots of people afraid of heights, germs, being outside, being inside, elevators, cars, cats, terrorism and life. Personally I have an unnatural fear of lightning so I make sure to go out on my covered front porch during storms, but that’s another story.

Laws already exist for dogs running free of any control. Tort laws already threaten the owners of aggressive or dangerous dogs. If the police wish to counsel people, there are certainly many other areas in our dealings with each other where such counseling might actually benefit society.

So here we are with an unwarranted new prohibition on another of life’s pleasures brought to us by a police chief who is keen on counseling and some fellow citizens who see their shadow and run back to their den for fear of Canis Lupus Familiaris.

My fellow citizens who don’t spend your time in fear of life and living, I think we can do a great deal better.

Restrictions placed on the actions of individuals ought to be balanced by a societal requirement for those restrictions and such a requirement ought to be weighted according to the evidence for such a need.

I hope all citizens, not just those responsible dog owners affected, but all who believe that there ought to be a demonstrated need before imposing another stricture on our lives, will take the time to examine this unnecessary encumbrance and make their protests known.

These are the council members who voted in this restrictive redundancy: Eric Imker, Doug Sturbaum, Kim Learnard, Vanessa Fleisch, and Mayor Don Haddix. Email them at

Timothy J. Parker

Peachtree City, Ga.



As an owner of 2 dogs who walk them every Sunday by the Lake Peachtree at the boat ramp, I am approached every time by unleashed dogs. My dogs are leashed and small. Each time I have to lock my dogs down on their leashes waiting for the owner to tell me if their dog is friendly or not...surprisingly many say their dogs are not friendly to other dogs.

Over a 4 year period, atleast 3 or 4 times I have approached by a dog where this is no owner in sight which means they have no idea what their dog is doing....In 1 case, a lady arrived on a golf cart with a small child about 3 minutes later while their dog stood there stalking mine. When I politely said something about the situation she told me too bad! with attitude.

I'm sure that those who have properly trained woice command dogs used for hunting do not understand that there are alot of amateurs out there with dogs that are not truly voice command who don't care about other people, their dogs and overall safety.

I fail to see how you can say that their has been NO problem with loose dogs!
Dogs have to be close-by to be under voice control, very close-by, and that is assuming that all members of the family who may walk the dog know exactly what they are doing and are able to do it!

You don't know that!

The police will have NOTHING to do with dog nor cat complaints, so there isn't many recorded.

Also, many people always did walk their dogs on a leash (some crazies pulled them around with a cart or bicycle). When an unleashed dog suddenly comes upon a leashed dog there is usually some trouble, at least the dog owner of the leased creature will be concerned.

We didn't gather together here in PTC, close-up, to have such animals pooping and bothering others every day.

Either build a fence in your back yard for your dog, or walk him every day with a leash. Dogs can not be kept in the house all of the time, nor can cats properly. Keep him off of hot concrete or black-top too!

Ad space area 4 internal