Residents urge Clinton County Legislature to adopt countywide dog-tether law

Residents pressed the Clinton County Legislature on Feb. 12 to adopt a countywide law restricting around-the-clock dog tethering, saying towns have failed to act and a single county ordinance would improve enforcement.

At a public comment period that opened the meeting, Jennifer Dueck of Champlain told legislators she has attended county meetings on tethering for a year and said local towns and supervisors have “done nothing to fix the 24/7 dog tethering problem in Clinton County.” She urged the legislature to pass a uniform county law rather than leaving the issue to individual town boards.

Why it matters: Advocates argued a countywide law would avoid 17 different municipal ordinances that they say would confuse enforcement and leave gaps in protection. Speakers listed nearby New York municipalities and neighboring states as having tethering or anti-tethering rules, and said the county is behind regional practice.

Several speakers said the Beekmantown town board had voted on a town ordinance but that local officials did not follow through. “We aren't giving up. We want one countywide dog tether law just like so many around the country, not 17 laws within the county that will only confuse law enforcement and make it harder to enforce,” Dueck said.

Betty Lou LaJoy, who identified herself as a founding member of the local chapter of NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) and a former NAMI state director, linked prolonged tethering to broader public-health and safety concerns. LaJoy referenced international studies and agencies, saying animal cruelty can correlate with reduced empathy in children and later societal costs.

Jessie Murnane of Morrisonville told legislators she believed the majority of county residents support a tethering restriction and urged elected officials to act as community leaders and educators, rather than deferring enforcement to towns. Multiple commenters asked that the sheriff’s department be empowered to handle enforcement countywide if towns will not.

No formal action on tethering was taken during the meeting. The public-comment appeals were recorded for the legislative record and committee referral; speakers asked the legislature to move the matter forward instead of waiting for individual towns to adopt ordinances.

What was said and by whom: Quotes in this article are taken from public-comment speakers Jennifer Dueck, Betty Lou LaJoy and Jessie Murnane as identified at the meeting. The remarks occurred during the legislature’s public comment period and were not followed by a motion or vote on a tethering ordinance.

Next steps: The transcript shows the topic was raised in public comment but contains no motion, referral, or committee assignment recorded during this session. Any formal proposal, ordinance or referral to committee was not specified in the meeting record.