What Are the Dog Leash Laws in Massachusetts?

Massachusetts has no statewide leash law. There is no general statute anywhere in the General Laws that says a dog must be on a leash in public, which is why the honest answer to this question is always local: the rule that applies to you was written by your city or town, not by the Legislature. What state law does is hand municipalities the power to write that rule, in two places, M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 167 and M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 173. Separately, and this catches people out, Massachusetts does regulate one form of restraint statewide, in M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 174E, which limits how long and under what conditions a dog may be chained or tethered outside. And none of it decides who pays when a dog bites, because M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 155 makes an owner liable for the damage a dog does whether or not the dog was leashed. To discuss a specific incident, call Jim Glaser Law at (617) JIM-WINS. The line is answered 24 hours a day. The first telephone consultation is offered without charge.

The Search for a Statewide Leash Law Comes Up Empty

People expect a leash law to work the way the seat belt law works: one statute, one rule, the same in Pittsfield as in Provincetown. Dogs are not regulated that way in Massachusetts.

Chapter 140 of the General Laws is where dogs live, running from sec. 136A through sec. 174F, and it is a long chapter. It covers licensing, kennels, rabies vaccination, dangerous dog hearings, tethering, liability for damage, and what happens to a dog that is found running loose. What it does not contain is a sentence requiring a leash.

That absence is not an oversight. It is a design choice, and sec. 173 states the design in one line: a city or town may make additional ordinances or by-laws relative to the licensing and control of animals not inconsistent with sections 136A to 174F, inclusive. The Commonwealth sets a floor and delegates the rest. A dense city with crowded sidewalks and a hill town with more conservation land than pavement do not need the same rule, and the statute lets them differ.

The practical consequence is that if you want to know the leash rule where you live, or where you were when a dog ran at you, the answer sits in a municipal code, not in the General Laws. Two towns that share a border can have genuinely different rules, and both are lawful.

The Two Statutes That Give Cities and Towns the Power

Section 167: orders restraining dogs from running at large

M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 167 is the older and blunter of the two. It provides that the mayor, aldermen or board of selectmen may order that all dogs shall be restrained from running at large during such times as shall be prescribed by the order.

Two details in that sentence matter. The power is to restrain dogs from running at large, which is not identical to requiring a leash; an order under sec. 167 can be satisfied by a fenced yard or by a dog under control. And the power is time-bounded by its own terms, during such times as shall be prescribed, so a sec. 167 order can be seasonal or limited to certain hours rather than permanent.

The section then sets out a procedure that is worth knowing about. Once an order is passed, a certified copy has to be posted in at least two public places in the city or town, or published once in a local daily newspaper if there is one. Following publication, the mayor, aldermen or selectmen may issue a warrant to a police officer or constable, who shall, not sooner than 24 hours after the publication of the notice, euthanize in a humane manner all dogs found running at large contrary to the order.

That is the current text of a current statute, and it reads harshly, so the qualifiers matter. The section immediately provides that notwithstanding the foregoing, an officer or constable may in their discretion hold any such dog for not more than seven days, and that if the owner claims the dog and pays a penalty of $40 for each day the dog has been held, the dog shall be returned. In practice, municipalities run animal control and impoundment; the point for an owner is that a loose dog can be picked up and that reclaiming one carries a daily statutory penalty.

Section 173: the general ordinance power

M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 173 is the provision most modern leash ordinances actually rest on. It is one sentence: a city or town may make additional ordinances or by-laws relative to the licensing and control of animals not inconsistent with sections 136A to 174F, inclusive.

Control is the operative word, and it is broad. It is what allows a municipality to require a leash of a stated maximum length, to designate on-leash and off-leash areas, to set fines, and to define what counts as a dog being under control. The limit built into the section is the phrase not inconsistent with sections 136A to 174F, which means a local rule cannot contradict the state scheme. A town cannot, for example, use its ordinance power to authorise a form of tethering that sec. 174E forbids.

Answer Capsule

Massachusetts has no statewide dog leash law. Leash rules are municipal, adopted by cities and towns under M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 173, which allows local ordinances and by-laws relative to the licensing and control of animals, and under M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 167, which allows a mayor, aldermen or board of selectmen to order dogs restrained from running at large. State law does regulate outdoor chaining and tethering everywhere in the Commonwealth under M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 174E. A leash violation is not what creates liability for a bite; M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 155 makes an owner or keeper liable for damage a dog causes regardless of leashing, subject to defences for trespass, other tort, and teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog.

The Section Most Summaries Cite Was Repealed in 2012

If you search for the Massachusetts leash statute you will find M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 147A cited repeatedly, in articles, in forum answers, and in material that looks authoritative.

Section 147A no longer exists. Its page in the General Laws returns a single line: Repealed, 2012, 193, Sec. 19. It was struck by section 19 of chapter 193 of the Acts of 2012, the animal control law that also rebuilt the dangerous dog procedure now found in sec. 157.

This matters for a practical reason rather than a pedantic one. A citation to a repealed section is a sign that whatever you are reading was written before 2012 and has not been checked since, and the 2012 act changed real things, including how a dog is deemed dangerous and what a hearing authority may order. If a summary cites sec. 147A, treat the rest of it with the same caution.

What Massachusetts Does Regulate Statewide: Tethering

The one restraint rule that is uniform across the Commonwealth concerns chaining and tethering, and it is detailed. M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 174E applies whether or not your municipality has a leash ordinance.

The core limits in subsection (a) are these. No person owning or keeping a dog shall chain or tether a dog for longer than five hours in a 24 hour period, and outside from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., unless the tethering is for not more than 15 minutes and the dog is not left unattended. A tether may not allow the dog to leave the owner’s property. It must be designed for dogs, so logging chains and other lines not made for tethering are out. No chain or tether may weigh more than one eighth of the dog’s body weight. No dog under the age of six months may be tethered outside for any length of time.

The section then adds a sentence that answers the question people usually have when they read it: nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a person from walking a dog on a hand-held leash. Section 174E is about leaving a dog attached to something, not about walking one.

Subsection (b) sets out the approved ways to confine a dog outside instead: a pen or secure enclosure of at least 100 square feet, enclosed on all four sides and high enough to hold the dog; a fully fenced, electronically fenced or otherwise securely enclosed yard; or a trolley system or cable run, which carries its own specifications, including only one dog per cable run, a properly fitting collar or harness with room for two adult fingers at the throat, no choke or pinch collars, a swivel to prevent tangling, a tether and cable run each at least ten feet long, and a cable mounted at least four feet and not more than seven feet above the ground.

Subsection (c) requires access to clean water and a shelter that keeps the dog dry, enclosed on at least three sides, roofed, with a solid floor, clean bedding, and sized so the dog can stand, lie down and turn comfortably. Subsection (d) bars leaving a dog outside when a weather advisory, warning or watch has been issued, or when conditions such as extreme heat, cold, wind, rain, snow or hail pose an adverse risk to that particular dog given its breed, age or physical condition, again with the 15 minute exception.

Enforcement is graduated. Under subsection (g), a first offense draws a written warning or a fine of not more than $50, a second offense a fine of not more than $200, and a third or subsequent offense a fine of not more than $500, together with possible impoundment of the dog at the owner’s expense pending compliance, or loss of ownership.

A Leash Violation Is Not What Makes an Owner Liable

This is the part that most affects someone who has been bitten, and it usually runs opposite to expectation.

Massachusetts does not require you to prove that a dog was off its leash, or that the owner was careless in any way, to recover for a dog bite. M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 155 provides that if any dog shall do any damage to either the body or property of any person, the owner or keeper, or the parent or guardian if the owner or keeper is a minor, shall be liable for such damage. The statute carries its own exceptions, for damage sustained by a person who at the time was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog. Where the injured person is a child under seven, the statute presumes the child was doing none of those things and puts the burden of proving otherwise on the defendant.

Nothing in that sentence turns on a leash. A dog that bites while leashed produces the same liability as a dog that bites while loose. The full picture of how that works is set out in the companion article on who is liable for a dog bite in Massachusetts.

So the honest framing is this. A leash ordinance is a public safety rule enforced by the municipality with a fine. Section 155 is the compensation rule. They are separate systems, and a claim does not depend on the first one.

Where a Leash Ordinance Does Matter

There is a real place where the local rule enters a case, and it is worth being precise about it, because it is often overstated.

M.G.L. c. 231, sec. 85 is the Massachusetts comparative negligence statute. Its second paragraph provides that the violation of a criminal statute, ordinance or regulation by a plaintiff which contributed to said injury, death or damage, shall be considered as evidence of negligence of that plaintiff, but that the violation shall not as a matter of law and for that reason alone serve to bar a plaintiff from recovery.

Read that carefully, because it cuts in a specific direction. The clause is about a violation by the plaintiff, and it names ordinances expressly, which is what a municipal leash rule is. So if the person who was hurt was themselves breaking a local ordinance, and that violation contributed to what happened, it becomes evidence a jury may weigh, and it still cannot end the claim by itself. The word contributed is doing work: a violation that had nothing to do with the injury is not evidence of anything.

The rest of sec. 85 fills in the framework. Contributory negligence does not bar recovery so long as the injured person’s share of the negligence was not greater than the total attributable to the parties they are recovering from, and damages are reduced in proportion to that share. The defense of assumption of risk is abolished. The burden of alleging and proving negligence that would reduce or bar recovery falls on the party asserting it, and the plaintiff is presumed to have been in the exercise of due care. This site covers that framework in more depth in the article on comparative negligence and partial fault in Massachusetts.

For a dog owner, the mirror image applies as a practical matter: an ordinance violation is a fact that comes into the case, not a switch that decides it.

Dangerous Dog Orders Are the Other Restraint Rule

The last place restraint appears in state law is after a specific dog has caused a problem. Under M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 157, any person may complain in writing to the municipal hearing authority that a dog is a nuisance dog or a dangerous dog, and the hearing authority holds a public hearing and decides.

The statute is careful about what cannot support a dangerous finding. A dog may not be deemed dangerous solely for growling or barking, or on the basis of the dog’s breed, or where the dog was reacting to a person or animal and the reaction was not grossly disproportionate to circumstances the statute lists, including defending itself, its offspring, another domestic animal or a person, or responding to someone committing a crime against the owner or their property, or to someone teasing, tormenting, battering, assaulting, injuring or otherwise provoking it.

If a dog is deemed dangerous, sec. 157 requires the hearing authority to order one or more remedies, and the first listed is that the dog be humanely restrained, with an express prohibition on any order that the dog be chained, tethered or otherwise tied to an inanimate object such as a tree, post or building. That is a restraint requirement aimed at one dog, imposed after a hearing, rather than a general leash rule. The process, and what else the hearing authority may order, is covered in will a dog be put down for biting someone in Massachusetts.

If a Loose Dog Hurt You

A few things are worth doing early, and they are the same whether or not a leash ordinance was broken.

Identify the dog and the owner or keeper before you leave, because sec. 155 liability attaches to a person and an unidentified dog is a hard claim. Get the address where the dog is kept. Report the incident to the local animal control officer or police, which creates the record and starts any sec. 157 process. Get medical attention and keep the records, since dog bite injuries carry infection risk that is not obvious at the scene. Photograph the injuries and the location, including any fence, gate or enclosure, while it looks the way it did. If anyone saw it, take their name and number.

Then check the municipal code for the city or town where it happened rather than assuming a statewide rule exists. If there is a leash ordinance and it was broken, that is a useful fact. If there is not, or it was not, the sec. 155 claim is unaffected.

Common Questions

Q: Is there a leash law in Massachusetts?

A: Not at the state level. No provision of the General Laws requires a dog to be on a leash in public. Leash requirements in Massachusetts are municipal, enacted by cities and towns using the authority in M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 173, which permits local ordinances and by-laws relative to the licensing and control of animals, and M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 167, which permits a mayor, aldermen or board of selectmen to order dogs restrained from running at large. To find the rule that applies to you, read the code of the specific city or town.

Q: How long is a dog allowed to be tied up outside in Massachusetts?

A: Not longer than five hours in any 24 hour period, and not outside at all between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., under M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 174E, unless the tethering lasts no more than 15 minutes and the dog is not left unattended. The tether must be designed for dogs, may not weigh more than one eighth of the dog’s body weight, and may not allow the dog to leave the owner’s property. A dog under six months old may not be tethered outside for any length of time. These limits apply statewide, whether or not the municipality has a leash ordinance.

Q: Does M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 147A set the Massachusetts leash law?

A: No, and this is a common error worth correcting. Section 147A was repealed by section 19 of chapter 193 of the Acts of 2012, and the statutory page for it now reads only Repealed, 2012, 193, Sec. 19. Sources that still cite it for leash authority predate that act and have not been updated. The operative provisions today are sec. 167 and sec. 173, with statewide tethering rules in sec. 174E.

Q: If a dog was on a leash when it bit me, do I still have a claim?

A: Yes. Massachusetts liability for a dog bite does not depend on whether the dog was leashed. M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 155 makes the owner or keeper liable for damage the dog does to a person’s body or property, subject to the statute’s exceptions for someone who was committing a trespass or other tort, or was teasing, tormenting or abusing the dog. A leash is relevant to a municipal fine, not to whether sec. 155 applies.

Q: Does breaking a leash ordinance automatically mean the owner loses?

A: No. Under M.G.L. c. 231, sec. 85 the violation of an ordinance that contributed to an injury is considered as evidence of negligence, and the statute says in terms that such a violation shall not, as a matter of law and for that reason alone, bar recovery. It is a fact for the fact finder to weigh, in either direction, rather than an automatic result. In a dog bite case the more direct route is usually sec. 155, which does not require proof of negligence at all.

Q: Can my town’s leash rule be stricter than state law?

A: It can be more detailed and more demanding, within a limit. Section 173 allows additional ordinances and by-laws relative to the licensing and control of animals so long as they are not inconsistent with sections 136A to 174F of chapter 140. A town may set leash length, designate on-leash and off-leash areas and set fines. It may not adopt a rule that contradicts the state scheme, such as permitting a method of tethering that sec. 174E prohibits.

Q: What happens to a dog picked up running loose?

A: Under M.G.L. c. 140, sec. 167, where a restraint order is in force and has been posted or published, an officer or constable may hold the dog for up to seven days, and the dog shall be returned to an owner who claims it and pays a penalty of $40 for each day it was held. The same section contains an older provision permitting humane euthanasia of dogs found running at large contrary to a published order no sooner than 24 hours after publication of the notice. In practice this is handled through municipal animal control and impoundment, and the seven day hold is the route an owner should expect to use.

Q: My dog is off leash on my own fenced property. Is that a violation?

A: Generally not, and sec. 174E contemplates it directly. Subsection (b) lists a fully fenced, electronically fenced or otherwise securely enclosed yard as an approved method of confining a dog outside, alongside a pen of at least 100 square feet and a properly specified cable run. Local ordinances are typically written around control and running at large rather than leashing on private property, but because the rule is municipal, the code for your own city or town is the one that answers this.

Q: Is Jimmy Knows AI giving me legal advice?

A: No. This is general information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney client relationship. Municipal ordinances vary from one city or town to the next and change over time, and whether any statute or ordinance applies to a particular incident depends on facts this page cannot know. For a specific situation, speak with a Massachusetts lawyer about your own facts. To discuss an incident, call Jim Glaser Law at (617) JIM-WINS. The line is answered 24 hours a day. The first telephone consultation is offered without charge.