AUGUSTA – The Legislature’s Agriculture Committee went to the dogs on Monday, kenneled for hours on five bills that would substantially affect canines and their owners.

One bill took nearly two hours to debate, with legislators bogged down in the details of a proposal that would have protected dogs who live their entire lives at the end of a chain or tether.

At a public hearing on LD 204 last week, animal experts testified that “chained-for-life” dogs are the most frequent subjects of animal abuse complaints.

Committee members were concerned that kennel dogs, sled dogs and dogs left outside for mere minutes might get caught up in the bill’s enforcement.

“I just want to make sure that we’re not treating the dog owner who puts a dog out for an hour exactly the same as someone who leaves a dog out, neglected, 24-7,” Sen. Kevin Raye, D-Perry, said.

Norma Worley, the head of the state’s Animal Welfare Program, agreed. “Thirty minutes [outside] may be OK for one breed but could be a death sentence for another,” she said.

The committee did agree that exempting Arctic dogs and requiring a four-sided shelter and a swivel to prevent chain twisting will help, but could not agree on setting a time limit on how long a dog can be left outside before the new requirements become effective.

Eventually they directed legal analyst Jill Ippoliti to investigate what other states have done about imposing a time requirement.

The committee unanimously voted to pass LD 1309, which protects dogs that are used to guard or herd livestock from local barking dog laws.

Recognizing that a dog could be a guarding or herding breed but not used for that purpose, the committee changed the wording of the law to require that any such dog is actually a working dog, engaged in agricultural work.

LD 967, which was voted not to pass, would have forced animal control officers to quarantine any dog without proof of rabies that has bitten another person or animal at a veterinary clinic, kennel or shelter. Currently, any such animal may be quarantined in the owner’s home, at the animal control officer’s discretion.

Worley testified against the proposal since it would have included dangerous dogs, a move that would have made it nearly impossible to find shelters or clinics willing to take the animals.

Two other bills dealt with changes within the animal health and welfare laws to clarify procedures and fines.