Yuma proposes banning outdoor dog tethering above 100 degrees

If Yuma adopts the animal code rewrite it's about to consider, it would become illegal to tie a dog up outside when the temperature is above 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

In this town, that covers a lot of the calendar.

The tethering rule is one piece of a 21-page overhaul of the City's animal ordinance, O2026-032, which goes to City Council for introduction Wednesday. Nothing's been adopted. Introduced ordinances usually come back for a vote at the following regular meeting.

The rewrite pulls in two directions at once. For most everyday violations, the punishment gets lighter, shifting from a criminal charge to a civil ticket. For a short list of things that actually hurt animals or people, it gets more specific, and some of it stays criminal.

The dog in the backyard

Under the proposal, a dog couldn't be restrained outdoors unless someone is physically on the property supervising. It couldn't be tethered at all when it's over 100 degrees Fahrenheit or below 32. A tethered dog would need food, clean water, dry ground, and shade or shelter. The restraint would have to be long enough for the dog to stand, sit, lie down, turn around, and reach a separate spot to relieve itself. Choke and pinch collars would be off-limits on a dog tied up outside.

Most violations of those rules would be civil. But if a dog is physically injured because of how it was tethered, the person responsible or the owner could be charged with a class 2 misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $750 fine, five days in jail, or both.

Hoarding gets a definition

The rewrite also adds an animal hoarding section, which the current code doesn't have. It bars owners from keeping animals in numbers, or under conditions, that harm the animals' health or welfare, and lists what that can look like: unsanitary conditions, no reasonable medical care, not enough clean water or food, animals fighting or injuring each other, infestations of ticks, fleas or mites, and no space set aside for waste.

Hoarding would be a class 2 misdemeanor with the same maximum penalty. If animals are removed, the owner would be responsible for reimbursing specified costs of their care.

For most things, a ticket

Now the other direction.

Today, most violations of Yuma's animal code are class 2 misdemeanors, carrying up to $750 and five days in jail. A dog that gets out and roams the neighborhood falls under a separate class 3 misdemeanor schedule. Either way, it's a criminal matter.

The rewrite would flip the default. Any violation would be "a civil offense, unless otherwise specifically provided." The fine would be $50. If you'd been found responsible under the same section once in the previous 12 months, it would be $100. Twice or more, $200. Each day a violation continues can count separately.

Barking-dog complaints, for what it's worth, already go through a civil process. That's not really changing, although the rewrite drops the current mandatory warning step for noise. A separate provision would still let officers issue warnings or correction notices.

The City's staff report makes the practical argument. A criminal charge requires a sworn officer, a prosecutor, a defense attorney and several court hearings. A civil citation can be written by a civilian animal control officer, with court involvement reduced to collecting the fine or holding one hearing. Staff also says the change "prevents citizens from acquiring criminal histories for primarily administrative violations."

I find that persuasive on its face. A criminal record because your dog dug under the fence is out of proportion. But the report doesn't include any numbers: how many animal cases go to court now, what this would save, or whether $50 tickets will keep repeat problems in check as well as the threat of a misdemeanor did. Those would be good things to hear before the vote.

Still criminal

Besides injurious tethering and hoarding, two other categories stay on the criminal side.

If an at-large animal bites and injures a person or a domesticated animal, the owner faces a class 2 misdemeanor and would have to reimburse the economic losses from the bite. (That provision excludes feral cats and wild animals as victims.)

Licensing and vaccination are the odd ones. Failing to license a dog, cat or service animal three months or older, or failing to vaccinate it, would be a class 2 state misdemeanor, with the ordinance pointing directly to Arizona's sentencing and fine statutes, A.R.S. 13-707 and 13-802. For a class 2 misdemeanor under those statutes, the ordinary maximum is four months in jail and a $750 fine; repeat convictions can trigger enhanced sentencing.

Put that side by side with the rest of the rewrite and it's a little strange. An expired dog license would carry a higher maximum jail term than hoarding animals or injuring a dog by tethering it, which top out at five days. There may be a solid legal reason, maybe having to do with how state law treats rabies control. The staff report doesn't offer one. And maximum penalties are just that; they aren't what a typical case gets. Those are the penalties written into these proposed City sections; conduct can also fall under separate state laws.

The fine print

A few smaller changes could matter depending on your household:

• Kennels. The definition drops from seven dogs, cats or a combination to five. The redline doesn't by itself mean every five-pet home needs a kennel permit, but anyone near that number should keep an eye on how the City applies it.
• Owners. Anyone who feeds and shelters an animal for more than six consecutive days would count as an owner, with exceptions for people caring for an animal at the shelter's request and for documented feral-cat colony caretakers.
• Warnings. Officers could issue warnings or correction notices with a deadline before citing.
• What's gone. The current code's right-of-entry section and its vehicle-rescue section are struck. Staff says the rewrite removes rules now covered by state law. Whether state law covers those situations fully is a question for the City Attorney, and I wouldn't assume the answer either way.

Whether any of this actually helps animals will come down to things an ordinance can't guarantee: enough officers to check on a dog tied up in a backyard at 3 p.m. in August, shelter space when animals are removed, and whether reimbursement ever gets collected. But for anyone who has seen a dog on a short chain in full sun and wondered whether that's even against the rules, the current chapter has no dedicated tethering section, although general cruelty laws may still apply. This proposal would put a specific temperature rule on the books.

Sources

• City of Yuma, Proposed Ordinance O2026-032, 21-page redline: definitions p. 2; bite provision pp. 4-5; tethering pp. 6-7; hoarding pp. 7-8; licensing and vaccination pp. 9-10; warnings p. 19; right of entry struck and civil penalty p. 20
• City of Yuma, O2026-032 legislation record and staff report: rationale, court resources, criminal histories
• American Legal Publishing, Yuma City Code Chapter 130 penalty provision: current class 2 default
• Arizona Legislature, A.R.S. 13-707 and A.R.S. 13-802