# Training and the leash law



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

I live in the city of Surprise, Arizona. The Animal Control branch of the Police department has been harassing me for training my two Vizslas off leash despite being allowed by city ordinance 10-24 which pretty much says that herding and hunting dogs can be trained without a collar hence no leash. Over 3 plus years I been warned several times and finally a week ago I got a written summons to appear in court. The officer that did this even asked for proof that my Vizslas where hunting dogs.
I'm not rich and hiring an attorney is not within my means. Does anybody know of an organization that will help me fight this?


----------



## gingerling (Jun 20, 2015)

Well, living up to the name of the town, yes?

You don't need an attorney for this, just a copy of the actual regulation. Read it carefully and note the same discrepancy (or any others) you've shared here.

I'd send a tart letter to the police chief as well as the mayor outlining the inconsistency and let them know that under the circumstances you're respectfully requesting they remove/withdraw the infraction (and court appearance), so you do not need to take further legal steps to defend against a frivolous action and recoup any monies spent or lost from time off from work for a court appearance. And cc it to the local newspaper as well.


----------



## texasred (Jan 29, 2012)

Is the law that dogs being hunted, or being trained to be hunted can be without a collar? And do you hunt your dog?
Just wondering if its by breed, or actual activity.


----------



## PhilipL (Sep 28, 2018)

Here is the text of 10-24, it is badly worded and punctuated and in my opinion is subject to various interpretation with the wording in red being obvious however the wording in green might be interpreted as applying to everything or just races, if you see what I mean. I feel it is instead of brackets and referring to the racing events, but just my opinion.

Whether Vizslas are hunting dogs, just googled "are Vizslas hunting dogs?" and just about every entry clearly mentions them being hunting and sporting dogs! Printout of that results page should clarify that for the Police/Court. It appears in this legislation that the dog breed is irrelevent, the key part being "dogs used or trained for hunting", however being Vizslas should strengthen your argument that they are trained hunting dogs, depending on what hunting training means of course.

Here in the U.K. we have the Citizens Advice Bureau that give free basic legal advice or solicitors give their first 30 minutes free, not sure if there are any equivalents in the US/Arizona?


Sec. 10-24. - Dog licensing.
(a) Any person keeping, harboring or maintaining a dog over the age of three months within the city for a period in excess of 30 consecutive days shall license the dog with the county. (b) Dogs over the age of three months shall wear a collar or harness to which is attached a valid license tag. Dogs used for control of livestock, dogs used or trained for hunting, dogs exhibited or trained at a kennel club event, dogs used by law enforcement or the fire-medical service, or dogs engaged in races approved by the state racing commission, while being transported to and from such events, need not wear a collar or harness with a valid license attached; provided that they are properly vaccinated, licensed and controlled. (c) It is unlawful to: (1) Fail to obtain a license for a dog, required to be licensed, within 15 days after receiving written notification from an enforcement agent to do so; (2) Alter, counterfeit or attempt to counterfeit a license for a dog; (3) To remove from a dog a valid license tag; (4) To place upon a dog a license tag which is either not valid or was issued to another dog.
(Code 2007, § 6.04.050; Ord. No. 2015-05, § 1(Att. A), 11-3-15)

State Law reference— County dog license and display of license, A.R.S. § 11-1008.

https://library.municode.com/az/surprise/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIGEOR_CH10AN


----------



## Bob Engelhardt (Feb 14, 2012)

It would be helpful, to the court as well as us, to know more specifically what your training consists of and to what end. For example, if you are "training" your dogs to retrieve by throwing a tennis ball and having them retrieve it, it would not be as persuasive as if you were planting birds for them to find, point, hold, etc. Likewise, if you hunt, or compete in field/hunt trials, that would be more persuasive than your just doing the training for the fun of it.


----------



## gingerling (Jun 20, 2015)

I'm not seeing anything in that (typically) ambiguously worded txt that clearly indicates "Dogs must be leashed at all times".

Again, I personally would send a letter to the PD as well as the mayor informing them of their mistake and a request to withdraw the summons. If not, then go to court and explain this and request the charge be dismissed.

It's regrettable the community you live in has nothing better to do with it's law enforcement officials than harass the citizenry, but I wouldn't set my hair on fire over this, it seems they clearly overstepped the bounds of that piece of nonsensical legislation.


----------



## pollo832 (Aug 25, 2015)

Ok Here is my take.

I agree the wording of this ordinance is weak. I would look at your summons and make sure your being charged with a violation of sec 10.24. if you are i think you have a reasonable defense. You do not need to hire an attorney as this is a kin to a traffic ticket and most people dont hire an attorney they just tell their story and the judge makes a decision. The animal control officer presents his own prosecution not an assistant district Attorney.

The spirit of the law is about dog licensing and showing the public that the animal is properly licensed, so the fact that your dogs are properly licensed I think your going to be ok. Now, in your original post you mention about training off leash, if this is a park that is posted no off leash in my opinion 10-24 would not apply and the park could prohibit the training because it is designated no off leash animals. There would have to be an ordinance to cover this that is why I asked if your summons lists the ordinance your are being accused of being in violation. Maybe they could try and charge under sec 10-56 running a large, but even then you have a good defense because of the wording of recklessly or negligently. They only way i see is if they charged 10-56-c and they can show you did not have a 6 foot or shorter leash in your possession you could be considered in violation of the ordinance.

you might try reaching out to the Rio Salado Vizsla Club (http://www.rsvc.net/) and see if they have some advice for you. Good luck, I hope it all works out.


----------



## Wasatch Vizsla (Jan 19, 2019)

freealfin said:


> I live in the city of Surprise, Arizona. The Animal Control branch of the Police department has been harassing me for training my two Vizslas off leash despite being allowed by city ordinance 10-24 which pretty much says that herding and hunting dogs can be trained without a collar hence no leash. Over 3 plus years I been warned several times and finally a week ago I got a written summons to appear in court. The officer that did this even asked for proof that my Vizslas where hunting dogs.
> I'm not rich and hiring an attorney is not within my means. Does anybody know of an organization that will help me fight this?


My interpretation of the ordinance is a dog being actively being trained or hunted does not need to be wearing a collar with their license. Has nothing to do with leash laws. Simply being a hunting breed is not going to cut it. You'll need to demonstrate how you are actively training them in the area in question. I'm wondering where you're doing this training at? Is this a public area you're getting cited in? Are your dogs licensed? I'm confused why they're bothering you otherwise. Keep in mind dogs are never allowed to be a nuisance regardless of what they're being used for (including service dogs). If they are barking at, rushing at, or bothering people/other dogs while off leash that would definitely be an issue. I hope you'll provide some additional information and can get this sorted as timely and stress free as possible.


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

Hey guy thanks for your support. Presented request to dismiss. Nothing. I'm up to some really stupid people (or money hungry - 2 dogs double $). In support to his denial the prosecutor wrote (among other outrageous comments) that a cattle fence will contain a dog or a young child the same as you backyard fence). Oh well I guess I'll have to wait till the court of appeals...jury there.


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

Love your concern. Thanks.
Here we go. a) Leash definition=attaches to collar. Do I drill a hole in his snout and put a rope in it? b) County calls this situation "not at large". c) Private land, not posted, got verbal permission. C) FEMALE OFFICER AND I HAVE AN HISTORY. Three years ago she came to my house to pickup a dog I had just adopted out of state 40 day earlier. Dog registered out of state. The dog bit me (5 stitches). She threatened me with a citation because I was 10 days overdue in the registration. I told her to do it or get the F... out of my house. We have met two more times...same stuff. This was the fourth.
Submission to dismiss denied. Going into review end of month. Also, Officer messed up 1st citation. Called and demanded return and that I sign new one. She submitted a new one. Original is not in the court files.
Fun he????


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

Wasatch Vizsla said:


> My interpretation of the ordinance is a dog being actively being trained or hunted does not need to be wearing a collar with their license. Has nothing to do with leash laws. Simply being a hunting breed is not going to cut it. You'll need to demonstrate how you are actively training them in the area in question. I'm wondering where you're doing this training at? Is this a public area you're getting cited in? Are your dogs licensed? I'm confused why they're bothering you otherwise. Keep in mind dogs are never allowed to be a nuisance regardless of what they're being used for (including service dogs). If they are barking at, rushing at, or bothering people/other dogs while off leash that would definitely be an issue. I hope you'll provide some additional information and can get this sorted as timely and stress free as possible.


Also, it's not just hunting dogs. Herding, racing and K9 are included. What they have in common is that they can not be trained with a leash. A collar or tag as no direct bearing. Except the K9 some of his training and performance requires a leash. A collar has no bearing otherwise.
I apologize for the late answer but have been getting acquainted with law procedures. [email protected]


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

pollo832 said:


> Ok Here is my take.
> 
> I agree the wording of this ordinance is weak. I would look at your summons and make sure your being charged with a violation of sec 10.24. if you are i think you have a reasonable defense. You do not need to hire an attorney as this is a kin to a traffic ticket and most people dont hire an attorney they just tell their story and the judge makes a decision. The animal control officer presents his own prosecution not an assistant district Attorney.
> 
> ...


Thank you so much for your concern and post. Charged for violation of 10-56 but 10-19 opening statement clearly stipulates that anything different is OK provided it say so. Also the County labels this situation as "not at large" My take is that location, other than a dog park, is irrelevant. there is no mention of a location, other than a dog park, in the entire Section 10. At the end, I think they will back off because the Officer filed a COPY of the original. Never the original because it was flawed. That's forgery. Plus we have a history that goes back almost 4 years. Hey..thanks again Robert


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

It's complicated to say the least. You really have to read thru very careful. The basics are 1) Hunting, herding, Racing and k9 dogs need not wear a collar. 2) leash is defined as "to be attached to collar" and 3) if there's no collar you can't attach a leash. Now the purpose: With the exemption of the K9 none can be trained or perform attached to a 6 ft. leash. Reasson: Power and $ behind all 4 breeds. Finally, Maricopa County labels this situation as "Not at large".
Thanks for taking the time and your concern. When and if done I'll post the final results.....one month or two years down the road...I'm 84 so don't hold your breath....


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

PhilipL: In the good old US of A if you're not rich you're on your own. You're a wonderful person..the world needs more......I got the Animal Control ordinances from City, County and State. They all say basically the same but the county does one better. It call this shamble "not at large".
Hope this work in my dogs favor. Thanks so much for your concern and help.


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

Gingerling; Thanks for your help. I'm sure you can read all of my replays but I like to take your comment and add another conclusion. Need not wear a collar with a license attached. Some people may interpret this as only the tag. The way I see it it is not. If the law meant the tag only it would say "need not wear tag"


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

Bob Engelhardt said:


> It would be helpful, to the court as well as us, to know more specifically what your training consists of and to what end. For example, if you are "training" your dogs to retrieve by throwing a tennis ball and having them retrieve it, it would not be as persuasive as if you were planting birds for them to find, point, hold, etc. Likewise, if you hunt, or compete in field/hunt trials, that would be more persuasive than your just doing the training for the fun of it.


I train my Vizslas with live birds, dead ducks, wings, scent and dummies at different times and places. They're also trained to respond to hand signals. I hunt, have a live bird planting permit. This is not what it seems to be. This is a vendetta. Me and the officer has had 3 previous encounters. All not pleasant. I got an ace up my sleeve but really don't wan't to used. I think I could hurt this officer career badly. The citation she filed with the court is actually forged and I have proof of it. She made a hand copy that's different from the original (which was badly written) and that's what she filed. Not the original.


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

gingerling said:


> I'm not seeing anything in that (typically) ambiguously worded txt that clearly indicates "Dogs must be leashed at all times".
> 
> Again, I personally would send a letter to the PD as well as the mayor informing them of their mistake and a request to withdraw the summons. If not, then go to court and explain this and request the charge be dismissed.
> 
> It's regrettable the community you live in has nothing better to do with it's law enforcement officials than harass the citizenry, but I wouldn't set my hair on fire over this, it seems they clearly overstepped the bounds of that piece of nonsensical legislation.


In several parts of the City of Surprise Regulations is stated that Dogs at large are not permitted. At large means roaming without a leash. Then there's the parts of control which demands a leash if not enclosed. Controlled is different (?) it does not mention a leash. It means cause no harm. Sec. 10 says "controlled" Confusing? You bet. Check the next one : Hunting dogs are allowed to be without a collar carrying a licence tag. The city say's this is about the tag only. My position is that is about the collar that is carrying the tag and the tag. If the city did not intent to include the collar why not say without a tag...why involve the collar? But that needs for the Prosecutor to have brains. Rest my case


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

*Opinions about specicic section*

Thanks to everyone for the response and concern. I would like for the forum to interpret and comment in the specific section that is involved here.
"Dogs over the age of 3 months shall wear a collar or harness to which is attached a valid license tag. Dogs used for the control of livestock, dogs used or trained for hunting, dogs used for law enforcement or the medical-fire service or dogs engaged in races need not wear a collar or harness with a valid license attached."
The way I see it is not the license tag by itself. If it was, the City would have mentioned the tag all by itself. In other words "need not wear a license tag". Another way to interpret this is that you are not allowed not to wear a collar with a banana attached to it or a collar without a license. Please think about it and be honest. You won't hurt my feelings.
Thank you in advance.


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

Bob Engelhardt said:


> It would be helpful, to the court as well as us, to know more specifically what your training consists of and to what end. For example, if you are "training" your dogs to retrieve by throwing a tennis ball and having them retrieve it, it would not be as persuasive as if you were planting birds for them to find, point, hold, etc. Likewise, if you hunt, or compete in field/hunt trials, that would be more persuasive than your just doing the training for the fun of it.


I have posted lots of info over a few reply's. Can I ask you who are US? are you part of the site?
Thanks, Robert


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

Wasatch Vizsla said:


> My interpretation of the ordinance is a dog being actively being trained or hunted does not need to be wearing a collar with their license. Has nothing to do with leash laws. Simply being a hunting breed is not going to cut it. You'll need to demonstrate how you are actively training them in the area in question. I'm wondering where you're doing this training at? Is this a public area you're getting cited in? Are your dogs licensed? I'm confused why they're bothering you otherwise. Keep in mind dogs are never allowed to be a nuisance regardless of what they're being used for (including service dogs). If they are barking at, rushing at, or bothering people/other dogs while off leash that would definitely be an issue. I hope you'll provide some additional information and can get this sorted as timely and stress free as possible.


Good argument but wouldn't the city simply say not need to wear a tag? or need not wear a tag attached to a collar? and why does the County calls this situation *NOT* AT LARGE (legally roaming without a leash). At large definition has to do with a leash. My dogs comply and qualify with everything. Please comment. Thanks, Robert


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

pollo832 said:


> Ok Here is my take.
> 
> I agree the wording of this ordinance is weak. I would look at your summons and make sure your being charged with a violation of sec 10.24. if you are i think you have a reasonable defense. You do not need to hire an attorney as this is a kin to a traffic ticket and most people dont hire an attorney they just tell their story and the judge makes a decision. The animal control officer presents his own prosecution not an assistant district Attorney.
> 
> ...


Thanks so much for your input. The charge is violating 10-56. This as already gone to court where the Prosecutor rejected my petition to dismiss. Believe it or not but the prosecutor used the argument that a backyard fence is the same as a cattle fence (keep dog in and child out) and that part time on leash qualifies a dog for NOT AT LARGE. These in support of his own arguments. So this is the kind of attitude/brain power I'm dealing with. My argument revolves around no collar no leash. Looking at 10-24 one can conclude that's all about the tag but...why not say simply "without a tag" or "without a tag attached to collar. An why does the County call this situation "NOT at large? And why does the prosecutor even addresses the leash by discussing the not at large argument? AT LARGE (10-19) has nothing to do with a tag. Love to hear from you. Robert


----------



## pollo832 (Aug 25, 2015)

freealfin said:


> Thanks so much for your input. The charge is violating 10-56. This as already gone to court where the Prosecutor rejected my petition to dismiss. Believe it or not but the prosecutor used the argument that a backyard fence is the same as a cattle fence (keep dog in and child out) and that part time on leash qualifies a dog for NOT AT LARGE. These in support of his own arguments. So this is the kind of attitude/brain power I'm dealing with. My argument revolves around no collar no leash. Looking at 10-24 one can conclude that's all about the tag but...why not say simply "without a tag" or "without a tag attached to collar. An why does the County call this situation "NOT at large? And why does the prosecutor even addresses the leash by discussing the not at large argument? AT LARGE (10-19) has nothing to do with a tag. Love to hear from you. Robert


Ok 10-56, that was a pretty good guess on my part. I kinda figured there was a history with the Animal Control officer as these types of charges rarely escalate to citations. Keep in mind I am not from Arizona I have read the statues/ordinances and offer my experiences with cases like this. I am thinking the judge might look at the case like this: I do not think the judge is going to care if you were training the dog for hunting if you were in a public park. In the state statue of 11-1012d it essentially establishes all public parks as on-leash parks unless there is a sponsored event allowing such activities. The whole collar no collar thing in my opinion would only come in to play if you were in a "designated dog exercise area or dog park" if you were then I think your arguments have a good chance to prevail. If you were just in a regular public park, the animal control officers testimony might be something like this: On Such and such date, I was at "Public ParK" which is in the city of Suprise maricopa county, state of arizona and i observed the defendant with his dog fido without a required leash. I had advised the defendant that the dog needed to be on leash on other occasions and has refused to comply, thank you your honor. so then the judge will then look at ordinance 10-56 and make a judgement as to whether the facts of the case fit the elements of the crime as spelled out in 10-56. it sounds like based on your writings your defense would be that if you are hunt training there is no requirement for a collar and therefore no leash either. I think your thoughts are correct here but the judge i believe will lean in the direction that any dog at a public park by statute is required to be on leash at all times which would imply that a person really cant hunt train a dog at a public park unless the park sponsored an event allow these activities. I am sure there really is no case law for the judge to guide him/her for this judgment as I stated earlier that these cases rarely escalate to citations and I would imagine in the few cases that ended up in a bench trial with a guilty verdict the judge might take it under advisement and dismissed after 6 months with no other violations, so people dont go through the hassle of appealing up to district court. I hope everything works out for you cause I certainly agree there is no way this should have escalated to citations. I find your case interesting because here in Albuquerque all the parks here are on-leash only unless its a designated dog park and one day I saw a guy training his weimararners at a public park it was really fun to watch and got to thinking that if someone complained he would have to stop because he was in technical violation of the leash-laws which would suck for him cause he was very responsible and there was no one even close by which is what you would want anyways to minimize distractions. There is always the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and I think the spirit of this law that you are charged with is there to constrain irresponsible owners, which you do not appear to be, so I hope everything goes well. 

Tom


----------



## PhilipL (Sep 28, 2018)

Just wondering what the outcome of this was in the end?


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

freealfin said:


> I live in the city of Surprise, Arizona. The Animal Control branch of the Police department has been harassing me for training my two Vizslas off leash despite being allowed by city ordinance 10-24 which pretty much says that herding and hunting dogs can be trained without a collar hence no leash. Over 3 plus years I been warned several times and finally a week ago I got a written summons to appear in court. The officer that did this even asked for proof that my Vizslas where hunting dogs.
> I'm not rich and hiring an attorney is not within my means. Does anybody know of an organization that will help me fight this?


Gentlemen: Thank you for your inputs. Went to court, represented myself and lost..... $200.00 fine. I was armed with everything I needed to win. Copies of Hunting license, pedigrees, pictures of training and hunting, (etc., etc) and the Arizona State law, Maricopa County law and 7 other cities laws around Surprise.They are all the same. The County and the 7 cities translate 10-24 as "not at large". I even had an email from AG&F stating that my training was legal. All of them having the same law makes sense because Arizona is a Modified Dillon State. I knew I was in trouble when Judge Tinker refused all evidence linked to hunting dogs.Officer Robbins, Prosecutor Weber, Judge Dominguez and Judge Tinker conspired to deprive me of a fair trial and violated my civil rights thus committing Miscarriage of Justice. Surprise City Mayor Hall, City Attorney Wingo, Arizona State Attorney Brnovich and Arizona Sate Governor Deucy failed to answer my complaints. So much for the law..


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

freealfin said:


> I live in the city of Surprise, Arizona. The Animal Control branch of the Police department has been harassing me for training my two Vizslas off leash despite being allowed by city ordinance 10-24 which pretty much says that herding and hunting dogs can be trained without a collar hence no leash. Over 3 plus years I been warned several times and finally a week ago I got a written summons to appear in court. The officer that did this even asked for proof that my Vizslas where hunting dogs.
> I'm not rich and hiring an attorney is not within my means. Does anybody know of an organization that will help me fight this?





PhilipL said:


> Just wondering what the outcome of this was in the end?


See my final statement, Robert


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

pollo832 said:


> Ok 10-56, that was a pretty good guess on my part. I kinda figured there was a history with the Animal Control officer as these types of charges rarely escalate to citations. Keep in mind I am not from Arizona I have read the statues/ordinances and offer my experiences with cases like this. I am thinking the judge might look at the case like this: I do not think the judge is going to care if you were training the dog for hunting if you were in a public park. In the state statue of 11-1012d it essentially establishes all public parks as on-leash parks unless there is a sponsored event allowing such activities. The whole collar no collar thing in my opinion would only come in to play if you were in a "designated dog exercise area or dog park" if you were then I think your arguments have a good chance to prevail. If you were just in a regular public park, the animal control officers testimony might be something like this: On Such and such date, I was at "Public ParK" which is in the city of Suprise maricopa county, state of arizona and i observed the defendant with his dog fido without a required leash. I had advised the defendant that the dog needed to be on leash on other occasions and has refused to comply, thank you your honor. so then the judge will then look at ordinance 10-56 and make a judgement as to whether the facts of the case fit the elements of the crime as spelled out in 10-56. it sounds like based on your writings your defense would be that if you are hunt training there is no requirement for a collar and therefore no leash either. I think your thoughts are correct here but the judge i believe will lean in the direction that any dog at a public park by statute is required to be on leash at all times which would imply that a person really cant hunt train a dog at a public park unless the park sponsored an event allow these activities. I am sure there really is no case law for the judge to guide him/her for this judgment as I stated earlier that these cases rarely escalate to citations and I would imagine in the few cases that ended up in a bench trial with a guilty verdict the judge might take it under advisement and dismissed after 6 months with no other violations, so people dont go through the hassle of appealing up to district court. I hope everything works out for you cause I certainly agree there is no way this should have escalated to citations. I find your case interesting because here in Albuquerque all the parks here are on-leash only unless its a designated dog park and one day I saw a guy training his weimararners at a public park it was really fun to watch and got to thinking that if someone complained he would have to stop because he was in technical violation of the leash-laws which would suck for him cause he was very responsible and there was no one even close by which is what you would want anyways to minimize distractions. There is always the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and I think the spirit of this law that you are charged with is there to constrain irresponsible owners, which you do not appear to be, so I hope everything goes well.
> 
> Tom


See #24, robert


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

pollo832 said:


> Ok Here is my take.
> 
> I agree the wording of this ordinance is weak. I would look at your summons and make sure your being charged with a violation of sec 10.24. if you are i think you have a reasonable defense. You do not need to hire an attorney as this is a kin to a traffic ticket and most people dont hire an attorney they just tell their story and the judge makes a decision. The animal control officer presents his own prosecution not an assistant district Attorney.
> 
> ...


Bob an Phil....I belong to the RSVC.....they are not interested.....not even the Vizsla Club of America......it was not a park..it was a flood control and retention area (Irrelevant to 10-56)....I had a 6 foot leash.....all within the LAW....


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

pollo832 said:


> Ok 10-56, that was a pretty good guess on my part. I kinda figured there was a history with the Animal Control officer as these types of charges rarely escalate to citations. Keep in mind I am not from Arizona I have read the statues/ordinances and offer my experiences with cases like this. I am thinking the judge might look at the case like this: I do not think the judge is going to care if you were training the dog for hunting if you were in a public park. In the state statue of 11-1012d it essentially establishes all public parks as on-leash parks unless there is a sponsored event allowing such activities. The whole collar no collar thing in my opinion would only come in to play if you were in a "designated dog exercise area or dog park" if you were then I think your arguments have a good chance to prevail. If you were just in a regular public park, the animal control officers testimony might be something like this: On Such and such date, I was at "Public ParK" which is in the city of Suprise maricopa county, state of arizona and i observed the defendant with his dog fido without a required leash. I had advised the defendant that the dog needed to be on leash on other occasions and has refused to comply, thank you your honor. so then the judge will then look at ordinance 10-56 and make a judgement as to whether the facts of the case fit the elements of the crime as spelled out in 10-56. it sounds like based on your writings your defense would be that if you are hunt training there is no requirement for a collar and therefore no leash either. I think your thoughts are correct here but the judge i believe will lean in the direction that any dog at a public park by statute is required to be on leash at all times which would imply that a person really cant hunt train a dog at a public park unless the park sponsored an event allow these activities. I am sure there really is no case law for the judge to guide him/her for this judgment as I stated earlier that these cases rarely escalate to citations and I would imagine in the few cases that ended up in a bench trial with a guilty verdict the judge might take it under advisement and dismissed after 6 months with no other violations, so people dont go through the hassle of appealing up to district court. I hope everything works out for you cause I certainly agree there is no way this should have escalated to citations. I find your case interesting because here in Albuquerque all the parks here are on-leash only unless its a designated dog park and one day I saw a guy training his weimararners at a public park it was really fun to watch and got to thinking that if someone complained he would have to stop because he was in technical violation of the leash-laws which would suck for him cause he was very responsible and there was no one even close by which is what you would want anyways to minimize distractions. There is always the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and I think the spirit of this law that you are charged with is there to constrain irresponsible owners, which you do not appear to be, so I hope everything goes well.
> 
> Tom


Tom: Thanks.....you put a lot of effort on your reply and I thank you very much. The Officer tried to make it happen in a City Park but made the mistake of giving an address which corresponds to a flood control and retention area which is where we were. Regardless, location is irrelevant to sec. 10-56. I posted the end of this story in posting #24. Robert


----------



## PhilipL (Sep 28, 2018)

Thanks for the update Robert, I'm sorry to see the Court case outcome went against you. Seems very unfair from what you have submitted.


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

PhilipL said:


> Thanks for the update Robert, I'm sorry to see the Court case outcome went against you. Seems very unfair from what you have submitted.


I never had much faith in the Police but this put the entire Judicial System at the same level. Oh well...live and learn...and I thought at 85 the world did not have many surprises left for me.....Thanks, Robert


----------



## texasred (Jan 29, 2012)

Unless it is a designated area for off-leash, or private property, the state of Texas has a 6ft leash law.
It makes it very clear. Plenty of us abuse that law, but know we will pay the price if caught.
Not sure why Arizona would have a hunting dog provision, if they don't plan to let owners use it.


----------



## gunnr (Aug 14, 2009)

That's a shame. If they're not going to use the wording of the regulation, they should do away with it, so as to not catch people out with an interpretation.
Leash laws for dogs are always a pain in the behind. As with Texas, we also have the 6' leash law, but they sell those plastic leash reels, with extendable 15' leads, everywhere! Yet my 9' leash is technically not legal.
We have some strange laws in Connecticut also.


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

texasred said:


> Unless it is a designated area for off-leash, or private property, the state of Texas has a 6ft leash law.
> It makes it very clear. Plenty of us abuse that law, but know we will pay the price if caught.
> Not sure why Arizona would have a hunting dog provision, if they don't plan to let owners use it.


Yes, I know but there must be another law that allows hunting dogs to hunt and train without a leash because you can hunt quail and ducks in Texas and it will be very hard to do so with the dog attached to the hunter with a leash.


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

gunnr said:


> That's a shame. If they're not going to use the wording of the regulation, they should do away with it, so as to not catch people out with an interpretation.
> Leash laws for dogs are always a pain in the behind. As with Texas, we also have the 6' leash law, but they sell those plastic leash reels, with extendable 15' leads, everywhere! Yet my 9' leash is technically not legal.
> We have some strange laws in Connecticut also.


In most States there's a leash law and then there's an exception to that law because, in most States there's hunting birds (or?) with dogs. Like Arizona, it's most likely hidden because the "system" does not want the general public to know about it. It is also true In Sates where there's herding or dog races or dogs shows, specially so if they have Agility competition.


----------



## gunnr (Aug 14, 2009)

I'm kind of running into that right now.
The place I take Finn to train is a designated off leash, dog training,field trials area. The rules for the use of the area are posted at the entrance,but they are not consistent with the information on the state's DEEP website for the state with regards to the use of live birds during training.
I'll keep complying with the posted rules at the site, but it would be nice if they were the same as the state's DEEP website.
Fortunately, I see the conservation officer at the site working her lab, and she's observed what I am doing, so I "should" be alright. I hope.

As an aside, you've been into Vizslas for over 50 years from what I've read you post.That's amazing! You would have had to have been one of a very few in the country that had a Vizsla when you started. There weren't many Vizslas in the US at all then.


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

gunnr said:


> I'm kind of running into that right now.
> The place I take Finn to train is a designated off leash, dog training,field trials area. The rules for the use of the area are posted at the entrance,but they are not consistent with the information on the state's DEEP website for the state with regards to the use of live birds during training.
> I'll keep complying with the posted rules at the site, but it would be nice if they were the same as the state's DEEP website.
> Fortunately, I see the conservation officer at the site working her lab, and she's observed what I am doing, so I "should" be alright. I hope.
> ...


Yes....54 years ago when my daughter was one year old I decided to give her a puppy (and me a hunting puppy) for her birthday (We lived in Paramus, NJ at the time) so I looked in the "classified ads" (no WEB then) and found a VIZSLA for sale in Northen NJ.....what the **** is a VIZSLA?......and the love affair outlasted two wives and many a girlfriend in between.....I'll tell a story...at the time, professional trainers would say that starting to train a hunting dog before he was two years old was a mistake. I started training my pup as soon as he got home....him and I made many mistakes....but we learned together. When he was 6 months old we went hunting Pheasants in a private preserve. We headed for a field where a man was coming out with his beautiful pair of English Setters. He had four or five tail feathers sticking out from his vests and told us "there are no birds left there". We were there so we went in. We got three birds......I had paid for three so we went to the club house....the hunter had watched us hunt the field......he asked for my pup's breed...I said "a Vizsla" and he said "a what?....20 minutes into the conversation he offered me $500 (tons of money then) for my pup. I was so proud of my pup I almost cried.... Unfortunately, Vizslas are going the way Poodles and Irish Setters have gone......too many people get them for their looks only.


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

texasred said:


> Unless it is a designated area for off-leash, or private property, the state of Texas has a 6ft leash law.
> It makes it very clear. Plenty of us abuse that law, but know we will pay the price if caught.
> Not sure why Arizona would have a hunting dog provision, if they don't plan to let owners use it.


Is not Arizona...it's the Cities....they want everybody to believe all dogs must be on a leash....When you look at their website looking for dog regulations the first thing you see is "All dogs mus be on a leash....it's the law" and no mention of the exception.


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

pollo832 said:


> Ok 10-56, that was a pretty good guess on my part. I kinda figured there was a history with the Animal Control officer as these types of charges rarely escalate to citations. Keep in mind I am not from Arizona I have read the statues/ordinances and offer my experiences with cases like this. I am thinking the judge might look at the case like this: I do not think the judge is going to care if you were training the dog for hunting if you were in a public park. In the state statue of 11-1012d it essentially establishes all public parks as on-leash parks unless there is a sponsored event allowing such activities. The whole collar no collar thing in my opinion would only come in to play if you were in a "designated dog exercise area or dog park" if you were then I think your arguments have a good chance to prevail. If you were just in a regular public park, the animal control officers testimony might be something like this: On Such and such date, I was at "Public ParK" which is in the city of Suprise maricopa county, state of arizona and i observed the defendant with his dog fido without a required leash. I had advised the defendant that the dog needed to be on leash on other occasions and has refused to comply, thank you your honor. so then the judge will then look at ordinance 10-56 and make a judgement as to whether the facts of the case fit the elements of the crime as spelled out in 10-56. it sounds like based on your writings your defense would be that if you are hunt training there is no requirement for a collar and therefore no leash either. I think your thoughts are correct here but the judge i believe will lean in the direction that any dog at a public park by statute is required to be on leash at all times which would imply that a person really cant hunt train a dog at a public park unless the park sponsored an event allow these activities. I am sure there really is no case law for the judge to guide him/her for this judgment as I stated earlier that these cases rarely escalate to citations and I would imagine in the few cases that ended up in a bench trial with a guilty verdict the judge might take it under advisement and dismissed after 6 months with no other violations, so people dont go through the hassle of appealing up to district court. I hope everything works out for you cause I certainly agree there is no way this should have escalated to citations. I find your case interesting because here in Albuquerque all the parks here are on-leash only unless its a designated dog park and one day I saw a guy training his weimararners at a public park it was really fun to watch and got to thinking that if someone complained he would have to stop because he was in technical violation of the leash-laws which would suck for him cause he was very responsible and there was no one even close by which is what you would want anyways to minimize distractions. There is always the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and I think the spirit of this law that you are charged with is there to constrain irresponsible owners, which you do not appear to be, so I hope everything goes well.
> 
> Tom


Tom: The "at large" law usually defines what is "at large" and it's usually separated from where a dog can and can not be "at large".Typically, Schools and Parks are areas where dogs can not be at large.


----------



## gunnr (Aug 14, 2009)

freealfin said:


> Yes....54 years ago when my daughter was one year old I decided to give her a puppy (and me a hunting puppy) for her birthday (We lived in Paramus, NJ at the time) so I looked in the "classified ads" (no WEB then) and found a VIZSLA for sale in Northen NJ.....what the **** is a VIZSLA?......and the love affair outlasted two wives and many a girlfriend in between.....I'll tell a story...at the time, professional trainers would say that starting to train a hunting dog before he was two years old was a mistake. I started training my pup as soon as he got home....him and I made many mistakes....but we learned together. When he was 6 months old we went hunting Pheasants in a private preserve. We headed for a field where a man was coming out with his beautiful pair of English Setters. He had four or five tail feathers sticking out from his vests and told us "there are no birds left there". We were there so we went in. We got three birds......I had paid for three so we went to the club house....the hunter had watched us hunt the field......he asked for my pup's breed...I said "a Vizsla" and he said "a what?....20 minutes into the conversation he offered me $500 (tons of money then) for my pup. I was so proud of my pup I almost cried.... Unfortunately, Vizslas are going the way Poodles and Irish Setters have gone......too many people get them for their looks only.


Nice!
I got my first Vizsla in 1987. A male, I named Boone, out of then DC ,Upwind Selkie
I ran into a lot of bias against the breed at that time, and "velcro" was not a complimentary breed trait then.
I remember reading the philosophy about waiting until a dog was two years old before starting them. I didn't buy it then. That's a lot of lost time. 
I was using magazine articles by Delmar Smith, Jim Spencer, and Ken Roebuck, as my guidance, and wore out Richard Wolter's "Gun Dog" book ,training my first dog. God that was fun!
I know that they tried to breed them to be bigger runners. Not sure there was much success in that endeavor, but Gunnr, my last V, was a big runner. In her mind it was your job to keep up. Only Vizsla I ever thought I'd need a GPS tracker for. She was "difficult", but I miss her terribly.
I start them the very first night by just playing games with them. I'll hide a bird wing under a chair, or in a house plant, and just kind of let them find it. Retrieval training start the same night. A pair of rolled, old socks, and some quail scent, and play fetch against the wall. I have wire poultry cages that I can put quail into and hide them in the yard. The puppy can "find them" and jump all over that cage and not hurt any birds. It's always cute watching an 8 week old puppy point. Their legs are so short! You don't know if they're pointing, or peeing.
Same kinds of stories with other hunters also. I ran across two guys that had shot a pheasant and crippled it. I told them I'd let Boone run it to ground. They kept telling me that Boone wasn't following the birds trail, and was going in the wrong direction. I restarted Boone, let him go, and he followed the same track again to their bird.
Then they asked me what kind of dog he was. They though he was a cross breed.
These dogs can be very tough, driven, focused, tenacious dogs. People sometimes don't understand that about them.


----------



## texasred (Jan 29, 2012)

freealfin said:


> Yes, I know but there must be another law that allows hunting dogs to hunt and train without a leash because you can hunt quail and ducks in Texas and it will be very hard to do so with the dog attached to the hunter with a leash.


National Forest/Preserves have areas that you can hunt with dogs on certain dates. Hunt clubs can also reserve dates for training, and events.
Texas is known a pay to play state, as most as land is privately owned.
You either own the property, or you pay to lease it for hunting/training. 

I hunt my dogs a lot, and have lived in the this state my entire life.
For years we paid thousands of dollars on leases. The last 8 years, I've been given permission to run, and hunt my dogs on private property, without paying for it. Although we do help mow, build duck blinds, and whatever else is asked of us.


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

texasred said:


> National Forest/Preserves have areas that you can hunt with dogs on certain dates. Hunt clubs can also reserve dates for training, and events.
> Texas is known a pay to play state, as most as land is privately owned.
> You either own the property, or you pay to lease it for hunting/training.
> 
> ...


----------



## freealfin (Jun 8, 2017)

I started uniting in the 60's when all you had to do was be polite, respectful of property and animals and ask farmers for permission and share some of the meat of big game. I used to hunt pheasants and deer out of a little town in eastern PA called Emmaus in the Lehigh valley. There where always dozens of Pheasants on the front yards of the houses. 10 birds was the limit. I hunted Grouse in New Hampshire and Vermont and bear and moose in Maine. You could hunt bear in Maine all year around, no limit and with a small game licence. I always carry bailing wire to repair broken fences and a few six packs to leave at the farmhouse upon departure. Never paid a dime. Those were the days my friend......Glad you found a way of hunting in Texas without have to pay..


----------

