Let’s discuss leash laws, which made the news on Tuesday following the Forty Fort borough council meeting. There was debate on a proposed ordinance amendment that would make it mandatory for owners to leash their dogs in public places.
One person in the audience, who is against leashes, argued that this change would unfairly punish responsible dog owners who have trained their pets. The current law states that dogs must be with their owner or under their control, which essentially means they do not need to be leashed.
There are benefits to allowing a well-trained dog to be with you without a leash. It may mean the dog is more relaxed, it almost certainly means the dog will get tired more quickly and expend excess energy, and it provides an opportunity for serious training to teach a dog how to 'come' and 'heel' in almost any situation.
However, here's the issue: no matter how well trained your dog is, something unexpected can lead to unintended consequences. Even just letting an unleashed dog wander harmlessly — sniffing, digging, rubbing, and rolling — can end up causing harm if it gets into something dangerous.
And if the dog is not very well trained — or if the owner is not paying attention at the wrong moment — the animal may harm others before a command is given. The reality is that no amount of training can guarantee a dog will never suddenly run towards someone or something, risking its own well-being and that of the person, animal, or thing that caught the pet’s interest.
However, having a leash alone is not a guarantee of control, as highlighted by a woman at the council meeting who shared an experience of an unruly retriever running up to her and tearing a windbreaker tied around her waist. The dog was leashed, but the owner clearly did not or could not exert sufficient control. was A leash can serve not only as a restraint, but also as a means of training. The dog could learn that when the leash is brought out, it means the owner will be taking the dog for a walk, and that good behavior during the walk is rewarded with, at the very least, more walks. Additionally, a leashed dog can learn that it needs permission to explore new areas.
Requiring leashes in public, rather than leaving it as an option, creates a fair situation. An encounter between a leashed and an unleashed dog can be unpredictable. A person who is afraid of dogs can be at a serious disadvantage in a park or on a trail that allows unleashed dogs, making it less friendly to them.
Lastly, there is the fact that a leash law should, in theory, reduce legal responsibility for both the borough and the pet owners.
Pennsylvania does not have a statewide leash law, so the decision is up to the Forty Fort borough council. And even if they decide not to amend the leash rule now, they can always reconsider if circumstances change.
Overall, it seems like the arguments for making leashes mandatory in public spaces, with certain exceptions like designated dog parks, are stronger than the arguments for optional leashing. Considering the unpredictability of most dog behavior in an uncontrolled environment, leashes also seem like a reasonable choice.
Overall, it seems like the arguments for mandated leashes in public spaces — with allowable exemptions such as specifically-designated dog parks — outweigh the arguments for optional leashing. And considering the unpredictability of most dog behavior in an uncontrolled environment, leashes also seem like common sense.