Tired of ads? Subscribers enjoy a distraction-free reading experience.
Click here to subscribe today or Login.

Let’s talk leash laws, which hit our headlines Tuesday after the Forty Fort borough council meeting included some public debate on a proposed ordinance amendment that would require owners to leash their dogs when in public places.

One anti-leash member of the audience argued such a move would punish responsible dog owners who train their animals. The current law requires that dogs be accompanied by or under the control of the owner — semantically, that means no leash is required.

There is something to be said in favor of letting a well-trained dog accompany you sans leash. It may mean the dog is more relaxed, it almost certainly means the dog will tire more quickly and thus burn off excess energy and become more docile, and it presents opportunity for those who take training seriously to teach a dog how to “come” and “heel” under almost any circumstance.

But here’s the problem: no matter how well trained your dog is, something unpredictable can cause an unintended result. Even the simple act of letting an unleashed dog roam harmlessly — sniffing, digging, rubbing and rolling — can end up hurting the animal if it gets into anything harmful.

And if the dog is not superbly trained — or if the owner is just distracted at the wrong moment — the animal may do harm to others before a required command is given. We suspect the reality is that no amount of training can guarantee a dog will never dart abruptly toward someone or something, risking both its own well-being and that of the person, animal or thing that piqued the pet’s interest.

Yet a leash alone does not mean a dog is under control, a point made vividly by a woman at the council meeting who recounted how an unruly retriever ran up to her and ripped a windbreaker tied around her waist. The dog was leashed, but the owner clearly did not or could not exert adequate control.

A leash can serve not only as a restraint, but as a form of training. The dog could learn that a leash being brought out is a signal of who will be walking whom, and of how good behavior during the walk is rewarded with, at the very least, more opportunities for more walks. And a leashed dog can learn that it needs your permission to explore new areas.

Mandating leashes in public, rather than making them optional, creates a level playing field. A leashed dog meeting an unleashed dog can be unpredictable. A person who has a fear of canines can be at a serious disadvantage in a park or on a trail that allows unleashed dogs, making that place less friendly to them.

And lastly, there is the reality that — at least in theory — a leash law should reduce legal liability for both the borough and the pet owners.

Pennsylvania does not have a statewide leash law, leaving the decision in the hands of Forty Fort borough council. And frankly, even if they decide against a leash amendment now, nothing stops them from revisiting the option if events change minds.

But 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.