# Leash law interpretation



## Obabikon (Jul 1, 2009)

Ok, so last night I was scolded by a woman I later learned was my city administrator for training my dog in a city park (keep in mind I live in a town of about 1,000) without a leash.

It was pretty clear she had something to prove and simply didn't like that we were in "her" park doing something she didn't care for.

"Dog's need to be leashed in the park, so now you know," she said, as if she was threatening us with a citation.

Well, afterward I went home and checked the city's official ordinance on domestic animals and it says this (I added the bold font for emphasis on the good part):

_ (A) Running at large prohibited. It shall be unlawful for the dog or cat of any person who owns, harbors, or keeps a dog or cat, to run at large. A person, who owns, harbors, or keeps a dog or cat which runs at large shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Dogs or cats on a leash and accompanied by a responsible person *or accompanied by and under the control and direction of a responsible person, so as to be effectively restrained by leash, shall be permitted in streets or on public land unless the city has posted an area with signs reading “Dogs or Cats Prohibited.”*_

I'm obviously partial, but it seems to me that bold part pretty clearly get me off the hook should anyone ever want to write me a ticket.

After all, our dogs were heeling at our sides when this lady approached us, we had leads in our possesion to physically restrain the dogs if need be, both dogs were wearing e-collars, etc.

What's your take? Anybody else have experience with this?

Thanks

Ryan


----------



## oaklandbay (Sep 1, 2005)

I have got out of two leash law tickets because of my electronic leash ( E-collar ). Just explained to the judge that my dog had been trained to the collar and I actually had more control with that than most do with a lead.
Jim


----------



## Obabikon (Jul 1, 2009)

That's what I was thinking....

But why did the cop (or whoever gave you the ticket) not buy it at the actual moment he was giving you the citation.

I've always figured that if someone with at least half a brain tried to ticket me, I could recite the law, then point to the e-collar, the highly controlled dog, the lead in my back pocket, etc. and stop the ticket from ever being written in the first place.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

Obabikon said:


> That's what I was thinking....
> 
> But why did the cop (or whoever gave you the ticket) not buy it at the actual moment he was giving you the citation.
> 
> I've always figured that if someone with at least half a brain tried to ticket me, I could recite the law, then point to the e-collar, the highly controlled dog, the lead in my back pocket, etc. and stop the ticket from ever being written in the first place.


 
In your example, your excuse or reasoning would work, once. The problem you have is the person who flipped out has the position to effect change to that ordinance and she would no doubt get it revised at the next council meeting.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

What you want to do is put a 6 inch tab (leash) on the E-collar. No where in the definition of a leash does it say the minimum length of the leash. It just says leash. In addition to the E-collar, having that little 6 inch tab will also qualify as a leash and there is no way they can give you a citation.

Also, no where does it say that you must be holding the leash. Only that they must be effectively restrained. With that combination, you can argue that you can effectively restrain your dog.

In my opinion, it is basically, a power trip by your city administrator. 

Good luck.


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2010)

I keep a copy of the leash law in my truck my dog always weras an e collar according to the law thats ok


----------



## muddin (Feb 14, 2010)

Zman1001 said:


> What you want to do is put a 6 inch tab (leash) on the E-collar. No where in the definition of a leash does it say the minimum length of the leash. It just says leash. In addition to the E-collar, having that little 6 inch tab will also qualify as a leash and there is no way they can give you a citation.
> 
> Also, no where does it say that you must be holding the leash. Only that they must be effectively restrained. With that combination, you can argue that you can effectively restrain your dog.
> 
> ...


this is what i do


----------



## Leddyman (Nov 27, 2007)

Is the city administrator elected? If not she answers to someone who is. A highly motivated person can do a lot in a town of 1,000 to affect an election.


----------



## 25-ott-06 (Mar 7, 2009)

Friend of mine put a two ft. cut lead on his just enought it won't touch the ground. He didn't read where you have to hold the lead in your hand...


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

leash laws are a lot like their counterparts the HOA run by a small handful of people who expect you to conform to their expectations and agendas


----------



## H2O_Control_guy (Jul 14, 2009)

Ryan,
one of the hazards of living in a small town is the number of "busy bodies". it would be interesting to hear this persons story since I'm sure she's telling all of the public service she did for the town.

Did she threaten to call the sheriff or was she planning on writing the citation herself? 

Your in a crappy situation it appears you've been put on the small town watch list. I assume there were no young kids in the park. Any chance you could talk to the sheriff or other enforcer before she does? 

Your town is not the Mayer MN of old!


----------



## Obabikon (Jul 1, 2009)

Thanks for the persepective on this, everyone. I think, like most have said here, that unless the law is formally changed, I should be invincible to tickets if I keep a copy of the law on hand and put a very short tab-style leash on my dog.

Now I just need to talk myself out of confronting this awful woman and rubbing it in her face that she doesn't even know the laws that she feels so compelled to enforce.:-x


----------



## LokiMeister (Jan 15, 2010)

Zman1001 said:


> Also, no where does it say that you must be holding the leash.


A leash is just a device. "On a leash" means that the dog is connected to someone or something, restrained. I think you are splitting hairs.

Did anybody think that the administrator was simply trying to educate Obabikon? Not to give a ticket but to eliminate the ramp up to get a ticket? Maybe she was doing her job? I am wary of government more then most people, but don't criticize someone for doing their job. At our dog parks we have to have the dogs on a leash until they get inside the gate. I inform people all the time the fine is over $200 to ignore the dog park leash law, because they enforce it. MOST dog people are good people and I would rather they not get in trouble with the law. It also reduces animosity that might eliminate the dog parks because a select few don't follow the rules.

If anything, their law is not written very well but Obabikon asking for it to be changed might open a can of worms also.


----------



## Obabikon (Jul 1, 2009)

LokiMeister said:


> A leash is just a device. "On a leash" means that the dog is connected to someone or something, restrained. I think you are splitting hairs.
> 
> Did anybody think that the administrator was simply trying to educate Obabikon? Not to give a ticket but to eliminate the ramp up to get a ticket? Maybe she was doing her job? I am wary of government more then most people, but don't criticize someone for doing their job. At our dog parks we have to have the dogs on a leash until they get inside the gate. I inform people all the time the fine is over $200 to ignore the dog park leash law, because they enforce it. MOST dog people are good people and I would rather they not get in trouble with the law. It also reduces animosity that might eliminate the dog parks because a select few don't follow the rules.
> 
> If anything, their law is not written very well but Obabikon asking for it to be changed might open a can of worms also.


I wouldn't call any of this splitting hairs. The law clearly says leashed *OR accompanied by and under the control and direction of a responsible person, so as to be effectively restrained by leash.* 

That's not a poorly worded law--it's a law that obviously has an exemption that allows dogs to be NOT leashed in certain situations. After all, somebody took time to write all those extra words for a reason. If the intent of the law was TRULY to force all pet owners to leash their dogs (and hold onto that leash) at all times, then the law description would have ended with "...all dogs must be leashed."

And it's not her job to educate me or anyone else about city law--any more than it's my job to tell my neighbor he's burning without a permit, shooting off firecrackers, etc. 

That's a police officer's job.

I do agree with you, however, that confronting anyone about this might just be inviting trouble....whether that takes the form of a ticket or the law being changed to delete the exemption I just pointed out.


----------



## Schmemdog (Mar 30, 2010)

It would be up to the judge. personally I read the regulation the same way you do, but if you get stuck with a judge (if you had to contest it) that had a personal grudge against irresponsible off leash owners (sucks to get grouped in there), he might not care about your interpretation, no matter how reasonable. 

Interesting though, and I'm going to check out my local ordinance now!


----------



## LokiMeister (Jan 15, 2010)

Obabikon said:


> *OR accompanied by and under the control and direction of a responsible person, so as to be effectively restrained by leash.*


 This leaves much to interpretation. A reasonable person who doesn't know dogs might not accept that a e-collar is "effectively restrained." This is one of the problems in our country IMO, the laws are TOO vague.



Obabikon said:


> And it's not her job to educate me or anyone else about city law


 I humbly disagree. She works for the city. I am not asking someone to go out of their way, but I would expect someone to speak up if they can help the constituency. They are called public servants are they not? If you don't want to serve the people then get out of the job. I fire people because they don't give the proper information to the customers so they can do their jobs. That is what keeps them coming back.


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

You could also get a judge that is anti ecollar.


----------



## Obabikon (Jul 1, 2009)

LokiMeister said:


> This leaves much to interpretation. A reasonable person who doesn't know dogs might not accept that a e-collar is "effectively restrained." This is one of the problems in our country IMO, the laws are TOO vague.
> 
> I humbly disagree. She works for the city. I am not asking someone to go out of their way, but I would expect someone to speak up if they can help the constituency. They are called public servants are they not? If you don't want to serve the people then get out of the job. I fire people because they don't give the proper information to the customers so they can do their jobs. That is what keeps them coming back.


I'll grant you the public service thing, although if you'd have seen and spoken to her, I'm sure you'd have gotten the same impression that she was not doing it for me--she wanted to tell us what to do and throw her weight around. She was clearly being deilberately unfriendly.

But I have to stick to my guns on the wording of the ordinance....if the law was truly intended to keep all pets on (held) leashes at all times, why would those who created the law tack on this wordy, vague "OR" phrase? 

That'd be like a law against speeding that said, "Drivers must obey the posted speed limit, except when they can show they can control their vehicles at excessive speeds."


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Is it a state park or a city park?

State park laws are different. 

Pets are welcome in state parks but must be kept on a leash of not more than six feet and must be personally attended at all times. No pets other than hearing or seeing-eye dogs or other service animals are allowed in state park buildings, lodging, cabins, camper park buildings, lodging, cabins, camper cabins, on tours or in beach areas Research Easy access and abundant natural feature


----------



## Keith Stroyan (Sep 22, 2005)

"..._*, so as to be effectively restrained by leash,..."

Would get you all locked up by Judge Judy. ;-)

=

Moved to the country long ago regards,
*_


----------



## LokiMeister (Jan 15, 2010)

Obabikon said:


> I'll grant you the public service thing, although if you'd have seen and spoken to her, I'm sure you'd have gotten the same impression that she was not doing it for me--she wanted to tell us what to do and throw her weight around. She was clearly being deilberately unfriendly.
> 
> But I have to stick to my guns on the wording of the ordinance....if the law was truly intended to keep all pets on (held) leashes at all times, why would those who created the law tack on this wordy, vague "OR" phrase?
> 
> That'd be like a law against speeding that said, "Drivers must obey the posted speed limit, except when they can show they can control their vehicles at excessive speeds."


Granted and not trying to be a smart alec but probably the only way to find out would be to push the issue and I don't think you are in a position to do that. 

All I am really saying is that when a law is open to interpretation, are you going to stake your life or reputation to how some other entity is going to interpret the wording? I have driven by cops on the side of the road 5 mph over and they never gave me a second thought. I know people that did 3 mph over and got a ticket. It is up to the interpretation of the cop, or probably more likely, how that donut went down this morning (sorry officers, couldn't resist).


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I don't think you are on the winning end here. Many city parks are off limits to dog training. I would find another place to train.


----------



## Obabikon (Jul 1, 2009)

More good points....especially the moving out to the country thing and finding a new place to train. They're the only definite, permanent solution to all this BS, and I'm working on it  Unfortunately, neither are in the cards right now, which is why I'm fighting this so hard.

Don't get me wrong, I really don't want to break any laws, nor am I under the delusion that I can sway a city to change it's laws (or interpret them differently) just because I think they should.

On the other hand, I also want to do everything the law entitles me to. I don't want to stay away from a great place to train when the law might actually be on my side.

But what many have said here is right.....ultimately it doesn't matter what any of us think the law says in this case. The only person who gets to call this is the person who would be in the position to write me a ticket, and any judge who deals with the case.

And I don't want to have to deal with either person if I don't have to....


----------



## Troy B (May 25, 2005)

Obabikon said:


> But what many have said here is right.....ultimately it doesn't matter what any of us think the law says in this case. The only person who gets to call this is the person who would be in the position to write me a ticket, and any judge who deals with the case.
> 
> And I don't want to have to deal with either person if I don't have to....


Don't be so sure that she can't write you a ticket. In many jurisdictions there are city employees given the authority to enforce ordinance violations other than the police. Just because it's not the police or animal control doesn't mean that the city hasn't given them the authority to write the ticket.


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

Our town laws are also written to say dogs must be on a leash or under the direct control of the responsible party. That is how it is worded. So if your dog off leash but under your direct control, that is perfectly legal. 

You might want to check with the town sheriff to find out what his/her take is on the wording of the law. You might want to invite the sheriff out to watch you train at some point so that he/she can see exactly what it is you are doing. If they don't feel it is a problem, your fine. If they do, you will know you are in a no-win situation and not train there. 

Town councilers are not the law; most are giant PITA's and think they have more power than they do. I would try the direct approach first.

Regards
Dawn


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

mostlygold said:


> Our town laws are also written to say dogs must be on a leash or under the direct control of the responsible party. That is how it is worded. So if your dog off leash but under your direct control, that is perfectly legal.
> 
> You might want to check with the town sheriff to find out what his/her take is on the wording of the law. You might want to invite the sheriff out to watch you train at some point so that he/she can see exactly what it is you are doing. If they don't feel it is a problem, your fine. If they do, you will know you are in a no-win situation and not train there.
> 
> ...


Having worked on a task force w/ our locals a few years ago, I agree 100% w/ the above (our laws are written similarly but actually exempt those training).

However, one of our little municipalities whose lines blend right in w/ the bigger city just passed a sweeping "leash law". I will be contacting the office of the local greenway system to make sure I am clear where any boundaries are. What is funny is originally they said "NO EXCEPTIONS"-- on TV. When our kennel club went to city hall to ask how we were expected to run our agility trial which we pay ample park rental, etc, for, they said, "oh, that doesn't affect YOU!". LOL. 

Best to get it from the horses' mouths... Anne


----------



## JustinS (May 17, 2009)

I was down in the city park that is used for camping alone-mind you, working a friends golden for him while he was gone and the town cop ( we have only 1) came down and asked why the dog wasn't restrained, I replied that I didn't have a 100 yd leash and that I couldn't keep up with a golden that was retrieving a bird. He didnt like my answer very much so he said i would have to gain control of the dog or would be asked to leave, I then told "buzz" to heel and with pleasure he ran and sat at my side. He thought that was amazing to tell a dog a command and it would do as it was told. Long story shortened I was able to get out of a ticket and then was hired by him to train his dogs to be obedient- or should I say train him to work consistently with his dogs ha.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

I am on our town park board. After a meeting I brought this up to our nusance officer. He said his interpretation is PHYSICAL RESTRAINT, and that an E-collar would not be considered physical restraint.....

I will get a ticket sooner or later, we will test it then, and I will get booted from the park board, so at least something good will come from it ;-)

Granted wordings may be different from town to town, but you are goin gto be subjec to an interpretation, and do you really want to put up with the hassle of trying to fight it. Personally I would have as witnesses my neighbors that sit on their porches and watch me train in the park as to weather or not I have control of my dogs. BUt it would still be a hassle to deal with.

City administrators are hired, not elected, my experience with them is they tend to be rather full of them selves, in truth they probably do run the show ( at least in small towns) more then the mayor or the council. At least on "little stuff" like wording of an ordinance....


----------



## Ken Newcomb (Apr 18, 2003)

The person I went and talked to about certain training issues was my city attorney, after all he is the one that ultimately decides if he will prosecute or not.


----------

