The Los Angeles Tethering Law: A City That Got There Before the State

In August 2005, Los Angeles limited how long a dog could be chained up. California followed sixteen months later, and its statute is now the one most people quote.

Both are in force. The city ordinance is LAMC 53.70. The state law is Health and Safety Code 122335, effective January 1, 2007. And the state statute is readable in full, which means we can show you two places where the city department's summary of it is looser than the statute itself.

What the city did, and when

Verbatim from LA Animal Services' chained dog and tethering laws page:

"In August 2005, once again ahead of the animal welfare curve, Los Angeles was one of the first cities in California to pass a law limiting the chaining of animals by duration."

"Under the law (LAMC 53.70), dog owners who tie up their animals for long periods of time or deny them the proper level of water and shade face stiff financial penalties. The State of California soon followed suit introducing a similar law for approval by the State Legislature in late 2006."

Note what the city rule covers beyond duration: water and shade. The department's sentence names both, which makes LAMC 53.70 a welfare provision rather than only a clock.

Our Los Angeles dog rules guide sets out that limitation across the batch.

What the state statute actually says

This part we can quote directly. California Health and Safety Code 122335, added by Stats. 2006, Ch. 489 and effective January 1, 2007.

The prohibition, verbatim:

"(b) No person shall tether, fasten, chain, tie, or restrain a dog, or cause a dog to be tethered, fastened, chained, tied, or restrained, to a dog house, tree, fence, or any other stationary object."

The definition that everyone quotes, verbatim:

"(4) "Reasonable period" means a period of time not to exceed three hours in a 24-hour period, or a time that is otherwise approved by animal control."

Now compare that with how the department summarises it. Verbatim from the LA Animal Services page:

"On January 1, 2007, California became first state in the nation to pass a law to limit the chaining and tethering of dogs. SB 1578, otherwise known as the tethering law, makes it illegal to tether, fasten, chain, tie or restrain a dog to a doghouse, tree fence or any other stationary object for more than three hours in a 24-hour period."

The difference matters. Subdivision (b) is a flat prohibition on tethering a dog to a stationary object. It has no three hour allowance in it. The three hours lives in the definition of "reasonable period", which subdivision (c)(3) then uses for one specific exception: completing a temporary task.

So the department's phrasing implies a three hour allowance that the statute's own structure does not obviously grant. We are reporting both, quoting both, and not resolving it. If you are relying on three hours as a general permission, read subdivision (b) and take advice.

The exceptions, in full

Subdivision (c) lists them, and the statute frames them as things a person "may do any of the following in accordance with Section 597t of the Penal Code". Verbatim:

"(1) Attach a dog to a running line, pulley, or trolley system. A dog shall not be tethered to the running line, pulley, or trolley system by means of a choke collar or pinch collar."

"(2) Tether, fasten, chain, tie, or otherwise restrain a dog pursuant to the requirements of a camping or recreational area."

"(3) Tether, fasten, chain, or tie a dog no longer than is necessary for the person to complete a temporary task that requires the dog to be restrained for a reasonable period."

"(4) Tether, fasten, chain, or tie a dog while engaged in, or actively training for, an activity that is conducted pursuant to a valid license issued by the State of California if the activity for which the license is issued is associated with the use or presence of a dog. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit a person from restraining a dog while participating in activities or using accommodations that are reasonably associated with the licensed activity."

"(A) Conduct that is directly related to the business of shepherding or herding cattle or livestock."

"(B) Conduct that is directly related to the business of cultivating agricultural products, if the restraint is reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog."

The running line exception is the useful one for most households, and it comes with a hard condition: no choke collar and no pinch collar on the line. That is a specific equipment prohibition inside a permission, and it is easy to miss.

And the temporary task exception is where the three hours actually lives. Read subdivision (c)(3) with the definition: no longer than necessary to complete a temporary task, for a period not exceeding three hours in a 24-hour period.

Every listed exception carries its own limit, and this is the set as the statute writes it:

Exception	What the statute permits	Limit written into it
Running line, pulley or trolley	Attaching a dog to the system	No choke collar and no pinch collar on the system
Camping or recreational area	Restraint pursuant to the area's requirements	None stated
Temporary task	Restraint no longer than necessary to complete the task	A reasonable period, defined as not exceeding three hours in 24
Licensed activity	Restraint while engaged in, or actively training for, a state-licensed activity	Licence must relate to an activity associated with the use or presence of a dog
Shepherding or herding	Conduct directly related to that business	Must involve cattle or livestock
Cultivating agricultural products	Conduct directly related to that business	Restraint must be reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog

The penalties, and the second precision gap

The statute, verbatim:

"(d) A person who violates this chapter is guilty of an infraction or a misdemeanor."

"(1) An infraction under this chapter is punishable upon conviction by a fine of up to two hundred fifty dollars ($250) as to each dog with respect to which a violation occurs."

"(2) A misdemeanor under this chapter is punishable upon conviction by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) as to each dog with respect to which a violation occurs, or imprisonment in a county jail for not more than six months, or both."

And the discretion clause, verbatim:

"(3) Notwithstanding subdivision (d), animal control may issue a correction warning to a person who violates this chapter, requiring the owner to correct the violation, in lieu of an infraction or misdemeanor, unless the violation endangers the health or safety of the animal, the animal has been wounded as a result of the violation, or a correction warning has previously been issued to the individual."

Now compare the department's version, verbatim: "Violation of the new law could result in an infraction or misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 per dog and/or six months in county jail."

Accurate as far as it goes, and it names only the top tier. The statute has a $250 infraction level below the $1,000 misdemeanor, and a correction warning below that. Three graded outcomes, not one.

The correction warning is the practical part, and its three exclusions are the part to notice: it is off the table if the violation endangers the animal's health or safety, if the animal has been wounded, or if you have already had one. A first, harmless, corrected violation is the case the statute is built to forgive. A second one is not.

"As to each dog" appears in both tiers. Two dogs on two chains is two violations.

The saving clause, and what it protects

Verbatim:

"(e) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit a person from walking a dog with a hand-held leash."

That sentence exists because the prohibition in subdivision (b) is broad enough to worry people. It confirms that an ordinary walk on a lead is untouched, which is also the only place in California statute we found that speaks directly to a hand-held leash. Our hiking with dogs in the Santa Monica Mountains guide covers the leash length rules that apply on park land, which are a separate matter.

The related statute, and what the department says it does

The tethering exceptions are expressed as operating "in accordance with Section 597t of the Penal Code". The department describes that section, verbatim:

"This law works in conjunction with California Penal Code section 597t which states that confined animals must have access to food, water and shelter."

We are reporting that as the department's description, not as our reading of Penal Code 597t. What matters practically is that a lawfully tethered dog still has to have food, water and shelter, and that the city's own ordinance is described as covering water and shade too.

Why the city bothered, in its own words

The page argues the case rather than just stating the rule, and two of its claims are worth quoting because they are attributed. Verbatim:

"A Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study found that chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite."

"Our experience in enforcing the Animal Welfare Act has led us to conclude that the continuous confinement of dogs by tether is inhumane."

The second is attributed on the page to a 1996 statement by the US Department of Agriculture in the July Federal Register.

Both are the department's attributions, quoted as it prints them. Neither is in this project's own proof library, so they appear here as claims by LA Animal Services with the attribution intact rather than as PetCompass statistics.

The department's own reasoning, verbatim:

"Both laws target dogs that live their lives neglected at the end of a chain. Dogs are social animals that need human interaction and exercise to lead happy lives. Chained dogs suffer from intense boredom and anxiety and can become aggressive. They also feel trapped and unable to escape from noises and/or people or animals that frighten them."

"In addition, tethered dogs can become entangled with other objects leading to the choking or strangulation of the animal. In severe cases, they also may develop deep scars or dangerous infections if their collar becomes imbedded in their necks as a result of long-term tethering."

If you have a dog that spends time outside alone, the practical read is a running line without a choke or pinch collar, plus water and shade. Our dog separation anxiety guide covers the behaviour the department describes, and how to crate train a dog covers a containment approach that does not involve a chain at all.

Frequently asked questions

Is it illegal to chain a dog in Los Angeles? Both a city ordinance and a state statute restrict it. LA Animal Services cites LAMC 53.70, passed in August 2005, and California Health and Safety Code 122335 prohibits tethering a dog to a dog house, tree, fence or any other stationary object, with listed exceptions.

How long can I tether my dog in California? The statute defines a reasonable period as not exceeding three hours in a 24-hour period, or a time otherwise approved by animal control, and uses that definition for its temporary task exception. Its main prohibition contains no three hour allowance, so read subdivision (b) before relying on one.

Can I use a running line or trolley? Yes, that is the first listed exception, but a dog must not be tethered to the running line, pulley or trolley system by means of a choke collar or pinch collar.

What are the other exceptions? Restraint pursuant to the requirements of a camping or recreational area, restraint no longer than necessary to complete a temporary task, restraint during activity conducted under a valid California licence associated with dogs, and conduct directly related to shepherding or herding cattle or livestock or to cultivating agricultural products where the restraint is reasonably necessary for the dog's safety.

What is the fine? The statute sets an infraction at up to $250 as to each dog and a misdemeanor at up to $1,000 as to each dog, or up to six months in county jail, or both. LA Animal Services' page names only the $1,000 and six month tier.

Can I get a warning instead of a fine? Animal control may issue a correction warning instead, unless the violation endangers the animal's health or safety, the animal has been wounded as a result, or a correction warning has previously been issued to you.

Sources

• LA Animal Services, Chained Dog and Tethering Laws
• California Health and Safety Code 122335
• California Penal Code 597t
• LA Animal Services, Dangerous Animals
• LA Animal Services, Animal Licenses
• PetCompass, dog separation anxiety
• PetCompass, how to crate train a dog

The city ordinance text could not be read at source. Statute text is quoted from the state's own site and content matched. Nothing here is legal advice.