Dogs; tethering and confinement requirements provided; persons and activities exempted; criminal penalties for, animal control officer enforcement of, violations established
SB361 establishes statewide requirements for tethering and confining dogs outdoors in Alabama. The bill generally prohibits tethering a dog to a stationary object unless the dog is attached through a trolley system that meets detailed safety standards, including limits on weight, proper collar or harness fit, swivel attachments, and access to food, water, and shelter. It also restricts confinement in outdoor enclosures unless the enclosure is secure, fully fenced, spacious enough for normal movement, and provides continuous access to basic care.
The bill defines minimum shelter standards for dogs kept outside, requiring protection from weather, adequate ventilation, a solid floor, sufficient space, and cleanliness. It creates several exemptions for veterinary practices, kennels, shelters, dog shows, training and working dogs, service animals, grooming facilities, temporary weather-related situations, leashed walks, USDA-licensed commercial breeders, and certain short-term tethering near businesses, campsites, recreation areas, or homes. The act takes effect October 1, 2026.
SB361 amends Alabama animal welfare law by creating specific statewide standards for outdoor dog tethering, confinement, and shelter, and by authorizing county and municipal animal control officers to investigate alleged violations. It also allows certified law enforcement officers to remove a dog believed to be in immediate danger or order corrective care at the owner’s expense, while tying those actions to existing hearing and disposition procedures in the Alabama Code. Violations carry escalating criminal penalties, from a Class C misdemeanor for a first offense to a Class A misdemeanor for repeated offenses, along with liability for boarding and veterinary costs.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support overall, as reflected in its passage through both chambers and final enactment. The vote history shows strong majorities on final passage, though not unanimous, suggesting general agreement with the goal of improving dog welfare and clarifying enforcement authority. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the recorded votes indicate the measure was ultimately accepted despite some opposition or reservations.
The main points of contention likely center on how far the state should regulate ordinary dog ownership and outdoor restraint practices, especially for rural, agricultural, hunting, and working-dog contexts. The bill addresses those concerns by carving out exemptions for livestock herding, hunting, retrieving, training, service animals, and short-term tethering near businesses or at campsites and homes. Another likely area of concern is enforcement authority, including warrant-based entry, dog removal, and criminal penalties, which may raise questions about property rights, due process, and the scope of animal control officer powers.