HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2008-069 - Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dogs. oq- as -aab��
AMENDMENTS TO THE
ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
(Only those sections or subsections amended are set out below)
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, hereby amends the Ordinance To Provide For Animal
Control Protection In Orange County, North Carolina by adding (indicated by double
underlined language) and deleting (indicated by stricken through language) as follows:
Section VII — Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following terms mean:
1. ....
2. ....
3. ....
22. Restraint: An animal is under restraint if it is under sufficient physical
restrain such as a leash, cage, bridle, or similar effective and humane device which
restrains and controls the animal, or within a vehicle, or adequately contained by a fence
on the premises or other secure enclosure as permitted in accordance with Sub ection
(Kl and M(U of this ordinance. If a competent adult is physically outside on the land
with the animal, on land where the owner or keeper of the animal resides, then the animal
shall be deemed to be under restraint during the time the animal is in the company of and
under the control of that competent person and the animal is. on the premises. If any
unattended animal is restrained by a chain, leash or similar restraint, it shall be designated
and placed to prevent choking or strangulation. Such chain or restraint shall not be less
than ten (10) feet in length and shall be either on a swivel designed to prevent the animal
5
from choking or strangling itself, . The restraint of unattended dogs by a
fence. kennel outdoor enclosure chain leach pr similar restraint is hWher regulated
under Sections XI(Kl and XI(L) of this ordinance
23. ...
24. ...
25. ...
Section M — Mistreatment of Animals Unlawful The following acts or failure
to act relating to the mistreatment of animals are unlawful and violations of this
ordinance:
A. ...
B. ... .
C. ...
D. ...
E. It shall be unlawful to restrain any animal except in a humane fashion;
as-set eat forth in Section VII(22) above- and Sections
Kl and XI(Ll below
F. ...
G. ...
H. ...
I. ...
K. It shall be unlawful for any person to restrain a dog using a chain. wire or
other type of tethering device in a manner prohibited by this subsection.
1. No person shall tether. fasten, chain, tie, or restrain a dog. or cause
such restraining of a dog, to a tree fence post. do¢ house or other stationary obiec
more than a total of 3 hours in a 24 -hour period During periods of tethering that are not
unlawful under this subsection, any tethering device used shall be at least 10 feet in
length and attached in such manner as to prevent strangulation or other inim to the dog
and entanglement with obiects.
_ 2. No person shall tether. fasten. chain. tie, or restrain a dog. or cause
restraining of a dog, to a cable troLlev system. that allows movement of the
su
No person .
• • • • i . qh ain
•
er • • •
• evic
4, No'Derson shall
Wd= with a -chain
or wkc
or QtheT
&-)d
cause s"c attachment to, a head hmess,
cbQkc-tmx
collar or
pm=d
collar to
of • • • • • • •
6. No person shall
to-ther with a chain
or wir_e
pr QUM
devigg
a dog in
7, Natmdthstanding
th
A subsections
(1)
and (2)
of this
• • • • • • . • •
• • • n •
•mA
•.
• of this
Secti •
G) T-rbcr • re-slain
•
•
a. Use of
-Cog
• • • •
• • or
• •
•L
•
sAfM •
C. Use of the
• • • • or
dov in laxhd
hunting
acti3jties
if the, restrain
• Use Qf the
••• at ••• -training
ar
porf Oman=
• � �
• _ • �� -
• • � - •
•• - !
• • •ice -
- •
•! •.
• m•n haying iaLen possessioLi
the- om2L of • •
••• with a handheld
of ••'
is seeUng
the i
• •�� •
L.
It shall be unlawful
for
any pe on
to keen
a doe outdoors
in an enclosure_
including
a pen mn, kennel fence
or
electmnically
controlled containment
other outdoor
enclosure in violation
1 Outdoor enclosures
of this sub
containing
ection
dogs
must meet or
exceed the
following
dimensional reQuk
Size of Do¢
ments:
Reauired
Minimum
Enclo
ure Are
1 outdoor
1 -35 h2u—nds
36-75 P-Qunds
76 Pounds and greater
enclosures must be
of sufficient
80
1 rin
120
hen
Square Feet
au
Square
t o that
Feet
Feet
the taHest dog
con fined
within the
enclosure is We towalk
naMEauy
without
its head
reaching the
roof or ton of
said enclosure,
however the height
of
any such enclosure
shall not he included
for the
mmoses of
determining ft required
minimum
enclo re
area The provisions
of
Section XI(Ll
shall not apply to
any
Person who
held a valid
pe it to operate
a Class
ennel or
Class H Kennel from
O nge
County
on or before
January 1 2008
-I
for so long
as such permit
=ains in full force
and
effect without
lapse
or revocation
11 Person
applying for
it new Class I or Class
H
Kennel Pe
it after
Ja uary 1 2008
shall com lv
with this Section
XI(L) prior to
the issuance
of any
such
permit.
(i) In addition to the required minimum enclosure area
established herein, additional space mu t be provided for each additional dog that is kept
in an outdoor enclosure as follows: for the second and each _aMtional dog that is kept in
an outdoor enclosure with another dog fifty percent of the required minimum area
si2ecifiQd in subsection XI(L)(1) must be added to the minimum enclosure area. The
reauired minimum enclosure area shall be based on the wei2ht of the largest dog
cgnWned within the enclosure.
0
_e 111}' • • • • • u• 111' • • S' RI) x11 ,S • OI •V• - • 91 1-
q MW
OR TMEMM. TI -19 11
• • ••e ��R_ • _ • • • ee. . • • • •
11 • • _ 1 • - � e � • - • .� I - �_ � • 1 x/11 • 1- • • _I •_1 - 1 1 S Il- - ." _� -
S•. to-571- am GI • (77-7111 F. IIA-• e" •• IMI FTIM • • • e .
I • S • 1 • —1 - • •_ I ._I - " 1!e - 1` 11 1 1 l • — • • • •, _1
•1 e 1 - •1 • S •J- in RIM. • • s- e 1 • 1 •- S.
Animd Control Dim= that IaAaudll nQt b-C Sumbiect IQ restmint in viol
• • 1 c_i -
••e motion of ••en •e er seconded by
Commissioner e e foregoing Animal, Control
Ordinance a•• e•n a ••• • this the day of
11: and shall become effective of e day of 11
Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners
1
Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 (919) 968 -2287
The following documents have been prepared by Animal Services staff based upon
unapproved minutes from Board of County Commissioner (BOCC) meetings on May 2CP
and June P, 2008.
To summarize the concerns of over fifty citizens, staff has taken the minutes from those
two meetings where public comment was received and created from them two sets of
documents. One is a set of bullet point summaries of each speaker's concerns and
opinions. Those views were then organized into the second set of documents, which
contains main themes of concern both for and against the amendment, put together under
three main categories. Those categories are `Citizen and Animal Rights,' `Education and
Enforcement' and `Tethers and Pens.'
Both sets, as well as the original minutes taken from the two meetings, have been
provided as a part of this document for use by the BOCC members in looking at this
issue.
I. Main Themes and Views, For and Against
a. Citizen and Animal Rights
b. Education and Enforcement
c. Tethers and Pens
II. Summary of Minutes, For and Against
a. Those in opposition of amending ordinance
b. Those in favor of amending ordinance
III. Excerpts From BOCC Meeting Minutes
a. Excerpt from May 20th BOCC Meeting
b. Excerpt from June 3rd BOCC Meeting
f0
Main Themes and Views, For and Against
Citizen and Animal Rights
Arguments against Restriction of
Arguments for the Restriction of
Tetherine
Tethering
Animals do not have rights
Animals feel pain, fear, loneliness, etc. and
there is a public interest in protecting them
This is an encroachment on human rights.
It seems in society when we move toward
justice, always the oppressors feel that their
rights are being trampled
There should be an exception for sporting
There is an exception for sporting dogs
dos
during trials, for periods up to 7 days
Tethering is not mistreatment. Many
This is about the humane treatment of
tethered dogs are happy members of a
animals. Tethering can cause trachea
family.
damage, strangulation, starvation and make
animals more susceptible to attack and
ne ect
Many of those for this amendment do not
Many opposing amendment are out -of-
live in Orange County or are not even from
county paid lobbyist, breeders-or persons
the unincorporated areas of County that
charged with animal cruelty. All of the
will be affected.
ASAB members live in Orange County.
Those against the amendment were not
A position opposing tethering restrictions
invited to be on the Tethering Committee.
was advertised along with all other
Those against it are not being heard.
positions. No applications were received.
Public hearings were held by the tethering
committee and all sides were considered
and balanced by the committee.
Dog owners pay taxes on their animals and
Tethering leads to public nuisance and
should have the right to do what they want
unwanted litters of puppies, costing tax
for whatever reason.
payers money. It also presents a public
safety issue.
2
Main Themes and Views. For and A ainst
Education and Enforcement
Areuments against Restriction of
Areuments for the Restriction of
Tethering
Tethering
Mistreatment is already against the law.
Need enforceable laws to protect these
We should enforce the existing laws.
animals. Other jurisdictions have had
positive results.
Education is what is needed, not restricted
This will give ACO's an additional tool
tethering•
with which to enforce and educate the
public, as well as protect animals. Our
children should get the right message and
not be desensitized to animals' needs by
seeing them hying entl on chains.
Restricting tethering won't solve the
Animals can be neglected in many
animal mistreatment problem. Animals
situations, but tethering presents additional
can be neglected in fences just as easily as
concerns because of the lack of a barrier -
on tethers. This is a people problem, not a
makes animals more susceptible to outside
dog problem.
attacks and presents a public danger by not
preventing children and others from
approaching the dog. This is a step in the
right direction.
Breed is the problem in Orange County.
Many breeds have a tendency to become
We need a ban on dangerous dog breeds.
aggressive if chained. Dogs need more
than food and water.
Restricting tethering is expensive and
Other jurisdictions have found it to be
unenforceable
enforceable and have a positive effect on
the number of calls for bites, mistreatment,
unwanted litters, etc. Other jurisdictions
have also found that there is a short-tern
increase in work load but that the long -term
effects actually decrease work load
This amendment doesn't reflect the
This is only one tool to protect animals.
realities of life. There are times when a
Many people do not understand the
dog needs to be tethered
condition some of these animals are in or
the dangers presented to them.
lA
Main Themes and Views. For and Azainst
Tethers and Pens
Arguments against Restriction of
Arguments for the Restriction of
Tethering
Tethering
Tethers are better than pens because they
Tethers deprive dogs of their basic needs
can give more space than pen of equal size
for socialization and subject them to
and are easier to clean than pens.
dangers of attack, starvation, trachea
damage and other tethering-related injuries
USDA already has minimum pen sizes.
Smaller pens restrict movement and
exercise and deprive dogs of basic needs.
USDA ruling prohibits tethering as a
method of primary enclosure.
Some dogs escape from pens. There are
Coalition to Unchain Dogs builds fences
diggers, climbers and even dogs that chew
that escape artist dogs cannot get out of
throu fences.
Some tethered dogs are not mistreated and
Families in other areas that have received
have more interaction with family members
fences from the Coalition have reported
than they would in a pen. This amendment
positive results and have been pleased to
doesn't distinguish between responsible
discover dog's new personality when
and irre nsible tethering,
fenced instead of chained
Tethers are needed for some types of
Tethering is not productive in training
training.
animals
Tethers don't make animals aggressive.
Investigators, trainers, animal rescuers,
The studies that say that are flawed.
famous dog experts and various studies
have stated that tethered dogs are more
likely to become aggressive and contribute
to problems of public safety.
13
Summary of Minutes, For and Aiainst
Those in opposition of amending the animal ordinance
Name
Title
Snnport
Reasons
or
opoose
Henri
Lobbyist for
Oppose
• Animals do not have rights, but people do have rights and
McClees
NC Sporting
responsibilities
Dog
a This proposal does not meet the needs of the people
Association
. Inhumane treatment is already against the law
• Questions that tethering is mistreatment
• There is no distinguishing between animals that are
abused and not abused
Jason Payne
Member of
Oppose
. Restricting tethering would not accomplish better
Eno River
treatment of animals
Coon Hunters
Association
Lamar
Citizen
Oppose
• Some dogs chew through fences
Chapman
• Most people supporting this are not from Orange County
• People from unincorporated part of the County are not
aware of the proposal
George
President of
Oppose
• This is a people problem, not a dog problem
Painter
Eno River
• Need education of dog owners
Coon Hunters
. A person who neglects an animal will neglect it in a fence
Association
or tether
• Enforce the laws that are already there
Andrea
NC Director
Oppose
• People are being spoon fed the idea that tethering is wrong
Press
of
• Children get killed by dogs that aren't tethered as well
Responsible
from things such as parental neglect
Dog Owners,
• Responsible dog owners have the right to chain or not to
Pit Bull
chain for whatever reason
Breeder
• The most dangerous dog is an at -large dog
• Education is what is needed
Bobby Kirk
Citizen,
Oppose
. Has trained dogs for 40 years and his best dogs are
Trainer
tethered
• Tethering is not bad and some of the most aggressive dogs
have to be tethered to train them
• Education is what is needed
• Every dog is different
Michael I
Citizen
Oppose
• Doesn't know how the cost of the amendment will be
1�
Kirk
absorbed back into the budget
• Drove around within 5 miles of Chapel Hill alone and
counted 38 tethered dogs and 72 in kennels smaller than
those proposed
• His tethered dogs are his friendliest
• Thinks this is a slippery slope
Steven
Citizen
Oppose
• Thinks there needs to be an exception for sporting dogs or
Hopkins
people who cannot kennel
• Existing laws should be enforced
Susan Kelly
Citizen
Oppose
. Her dogs are tethered because they dig under the fence and
jump the fence
• Her dogs are not mistreated and she has no other options
• People want to do the right thing for their animals and she
thinks for some, that may be tethering
Lauren
Citizen
Oppose
. Has one tethered dog because she is overprotective of him
Knapp-
because of an accident he had while running free
Resnik
. The ordinance should be on a case by case basis
Joseph
Representativ
Oppose
. Do not fall into animal rights agenda
Clees
a of NC
. It is the responsibility of humans to protect these animals
Sporting Dogs
and take care of them
Chad
Citizen
Oppose
. If dogs on chains bite people, we should merely teach
Resnik
children not to go near strange dogs
• His dog is on a huge tether and it would be infeasible for it
to move to a much smaller 12 x 12 kennel
Tim Frazier
Officer of Eno
Oppose
. Didn't know how to get on the committee
River Coon
• He has a dog that will climb or dig out of a fence
Club
. Tethering is ok if people tether in a humane way
• The problem in Orange County is the breed
.Diane
Breeder
Oppose
. Problem is not tethering but the implementation of
Genteel
tethering
• Proper tethering socializes, cares for, and exercises
animals very well
• This is a question of education
• A dog on a 10 -ft tether has more room than a dog in a 10-
ft pen
Josh
Citizen
Oppose
. Just because a dog is on a chain does not mean it will be
Chapman
depressed
• You can abuse dogs by uttin them in a pen
Dennis
Quail Farm
Oppose
• This ordinance invades their rights as hunters and dog
Carden
Beagle Club
owners
• The USDA already has a standard size pen
Charles Best
Citizen
Oppose
• Does not see how smaller dogs need the same size pens as
larger dogs
• More laws are not needed because there are laws now for
/5
people who mistreat dogs
Robin
Citizen
Oppose
• This amendment does not make sense
Harrison
• Her dogs would climb, jump or dig out of a fence
Sandi Coy
Chairperson
Oppose
. It is impossible to enforce
Of .
. Statistics on dog bites are inaccurate and the study is
Responsible
flawed
Dog Owners-
. Other studies show that there is no significant difference
from
between dogs who are chained and those that are not
Kentucky
Phillip
Citizen
Oppose
• What we need is a dangerous dog breed ban, not a
Pennell
tethering ban
• A ten foot chain allows a ton more movement than a 10
foot pen
Tommy
Citizen
Oppose
. Chains are cleaner than pens
Frazier
• Citizens pay taxes on dogs and there should not be a law
on them
Amanda
Former
Oppose
. Anti- tethering is too restrictive
Stipe
Animal
• Each dog should be considered individually
Control
. Education on animal behavior is key to responsible dog
Officer
welfare and ownership
• Regulations should not be so restrictive that they hinder
options to dog owners who are willing to do the right
thing
Stillman
Citizen
Oppose
• He has tethered champion dogs and his dogs are not
Wright
mistreated
Frank Tilley
Citizen
Oppose
• Has seen plenty of aggessive dogs in pens
Brian Fee
Oppose
. Some tethered dogs are much happier and better treated
than penned dogs
• My dog has 2280 square feet on her trolley run and would
not be able to have nearly as much in a pen
• There is a whole segment of the population here not
represented- normal families with one or two dogs
humanely tethered
Mickey
Citizen
Oppose
. There are laws now that aren't being enforced
Oliver
Alan Green
Citizen
Oppose
. Owns working dogs and would prefer not to tether any of
them
• There are times, however, when he has to tether a dog on a
30 -foot chain
• There are instances when this law does not deal with the
realities of life
Brian Lane
Citizen
Oppose
• Does not own dogs but feels it his civic duty to oppose
this amendment because it is an encroachment on
individual freedom in Orange County
We need extensive proof of abuse before this ordinance
rG
should be amended
Frances
Citizen
Oppose
. Hunters have a right to do what they are doing
Jones
. Chapel Hill dogs are treated better than Fairview citizens
Kevin
Breeder
Oppose
. Pens are dirty when it rains
Young
. If embedded collars are a problem, use a body harness to
tether
. Education is very important
Fred Stipe
Sporting Dog
Oppose
. This amendment would not solve the problems of abuse
Owner
and neglect
• This would further complicate the job of Animal Control
Beth Oliver
Citizen
Oppose
. Against the ordinance
I
. She tethers her dogs for their protection
17
Summary of Minutes, For and ALrainst
Those in favor of amending the animal ordinance
Name
Title
Support
Reasons
or
Oppose
Dr. Ross
ASAB Chair
Support
a Humane Treatment of Animals
Oglesbee
a Tethering Committee already took all of these concerns
into account and made a fair recommendation
David
Citizen
Support
a Give ACOs an additional tool with which to come to the
Aman
aid distressed and neglected animals
Elaine
Animal
Support
a Laurinburg has a restricted tethering ordinance and it is
Modlin
Control
enforceable
Officer,
a We found chained dogs to be responsible for more
Laurinburg,
complaint calls than fenced dogs before passing
NC
legislation
a Passing restrictive legislation has definitely improved our
records for protecting citizens
a It has helped eliminate residence with multiple chained
dogs
a It has reduced nuisance, barking, and odor complaints
a It has reduced our number of dog bites
a It has drastically reduced the number of unwanted puppy
litters
a Owners have commented that dogs seem happier and are
easier to care for
Pat Sanford
ASAB
Support
a Tethering is not productive in training animals
Member and
a Did investigations for Orange County for 17 years and
Animal
found a very high number of those were with tethered
Trainer
animals
a Ordinance needs to pass to help the animals
a All ASAB members are from Orange County
Deanna
a Humane Treatment of Dogs
Rowan
a No one wants to take away right to hunt- it is just an issue
of how the dogs are kept
a This isn't about hunters, but about the hundreds of dogs
permanently chained, exposed to elements, rarely given
attention and subjected to abuse and neglect
Kitty Lynn
Animal
Support
a Has rescued hundreds of dogs and has seen chained dogs
Rescuer
become aggressive and territorial for lack of love and
attention.
19
10
• Chained dogs will attack those who enter their territory,
including children
• More and more communities are passing regulations on
tethering
Mark
Citizen
Support
. Public safety- chaining dogs contributes to aggression and
Soloman
is a public safety threat
• Humane treatment- prolonged chaining is harmful and
deprives dogs of necessary exercise and socialization,
subjects them to dangers caused by collars or starvation,
and makes them vulnerable to attack from wildlife or
roaming dogs
• Overpopulation- chained dogs greatly contribute to the
County's pet overpopulation problem. Chained dogs are
frequently unsterilized and cannot get away from breeders
• Important tool for Animal Control- other jurisdictions
have positive results from restrictive ordinances and a
decrease in cruelty and bite complaints
Nancy
Citizen of
Support
• Too important an issue to be silenced by intimidation.
Garson
New Hanover
Encourages commissioners to move forward thoughtfully,
County
compassionately and not fearfully
Ellen
Volunteer
Support
. It seems a lot of times in society, when we move toward
Whitaker
with Coalition
justice, always the people that are oppressors feel that their
to Unchain
rights are being trampled
Dogs
. This does not mean it is not right to pass the law
• The Coalition builds fences that even escape artist dogs
cannot get out of
• The recipients of their fences can see their dogs now have
a personality because they are not chained and able to run
around
Jackie
Citizen
Support
• Emphasized that it is restriction of tethering, not
Rosati
elimination of tethering
Arielle
Citizen
Support
• Been in Orange County since 1960's and this is long
Schechter
overdue
Jean
Animal
Support
• protection of community's companion animals
McNeill
Control
• You cannot enforce what you do not have- must have the
Mme',
law there to be able to effectively stop neglect and abuse
New Hanover
• Anti-tethering is a step in the right direction to enhance
County
responsible pet ownership
• Our residents have responded favorably to having a means
of preventing cruelty in at least one form
• Prior to our ordinance, we saw many cases of dogs left on
short ropes for hours or permanently, as well as cases of
strangulation, heat stroke and starvation
• Having an enforceable law was the only means we have to
prevent such cases
10
Z
11
• It is the responsibility of the County to act responsibly for
its pets
• The majority of your residents are counting on you to do
the right thing, despite the very vocal minority
Soren
Group of 9
Support
• Prolonged tethering deprives dogs of necessary exercise
Windram,
County
and socialization
DVM
Veterinarians
• Tethered dogs can and do contribute to various
Kay Bishop,
community nuisance issues such as barking and pet
DVM
overpopulation
Ken
• Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to public safety and
Redmont,
heap because they may become aggressive and are not
DVM
confined behind a barrier
Kathy
• Tethered dogs are subjected to a variety of physical
Crabtree,
dangers, including trachea damage, embedded collars and
DVM
injuries from attacks
Pat Pagel,
• Thy are many alternatives to chaining
DVM
Michelle
Droke,
DVM
Deborah
Stein, DVM
Megan
Harris,
DVM
Marjorie
Lindeke,
DVM
Suzanne
ASAB and
Support
• Neglected animals can be anywhere but there are special
Roy
Tethering
circumstances that make tethering an issue that should be
Committee
a policy issue
Member
• Lack of a barrier and lack of protection for people are
among main differences between tethering and other
forms of confinement
• Tethered dogs are a lure for children and children
constitute a large portion of attacks by chained dogs
• Tethering Committee did consider all sides.and
recommended an 18 -month phase in period specifically
for those people who would have to make changes if this
were passed
• Many of the opponents speaking are out -of- county paid
lobbyist or pit bull breeders
• One of the opponent speakers has animal cruelty charges
against her in another state — others have moved due to
citations for breaking anti- tethering laws elsewhere
• Tethering Committee did hold two public hearings and
11
KIN
12
invited those from all sides to be on the committee -
received no applications from members of the opposing
sides
• Read quote from Cesar Milan (The Dog Whisperer)
stating that chained dogs will have pent up energy and
frustration and are much more likely to become aggressive
and become a weapon
Elise
Citizen
Support
. Must remember that this is about public safety and the
Roosevelt
humane treatment of animals, not about professions or
financial welfare
• Referred to the USDA ruling prohibiting tethering as a
method of primary enclosure
• Cruelty comes in many forms and this is only one tool
Lori
Volunteer
Support
• Gives Animal Control an enforcement tool
Hensley
with Coalition
• Most people want what is best for their dogs, but need to
to Unchain
be shown how to do it a better way
Dogs
. Read success stories about people and neighborhoods that .
had received fences from the coalition and were changed
and grateful for the transition
Robert
Volunteer
Support
• Disturbed by animal cruelty charges on Ms. Coy
Hensley
with Coalition
• Made mention of other paid lobbyist in the crowd,
to Unchain
including breeders of fighting dogs
Dogs
. Built lots of fences for people in the past years and have
many success stories
Kris
ASAB and
Support
• Supports restriction of tethering
Bergstrand
Tethering
on behalf of
Committee
Jean Austin
Member
Walt Von
Citizen
Support
. Firmly believes that keeping dogs on chains will increase
Shernz
the propensity for the dog to develop anti- social behavior
• Watering and feeding a dog does not fulfill all its needs- a
dog needs to be unencumbered
Loren Hart
Citizen
Support
. Animals are individual beings that feel pleasure, pain, fear
and loneliness
• This amendment would help create a kinder and gentler
world that is more just, more peaceful and more loving
• Tethering for prolonged periods is a form of abuse that
should be stopped- it is neglect
• Ordinance should demand a higher level of care than it
does presently
• Animals should not be exploited,
• Animals have interests too and this isn't just about what
humans want
Amanda
Director of
Support
. Sometimes you must legislate in order to educate
Arrington
Coalition to
• Cruelty can happen in any situation, but chained dogs are
12
a
13
Unchain Dos
especially susceptible to things such as being
Jamie
Citizen
Support
. Owns a pit bull and was told by the breeder that in order
Jacobs
to make it aggressive and dangerous, all she had to do was
chain it and leave it alone
• This breed is very susceptible to becoming vicious and
dangerous if chained
• Must provide for dogs in other was and socialize them
Kris
ASAB and
Support
. Tethering Committee members learned a lot from Orange
Bergstrand
Tethering
County residents and worked hard to balance the citizens'
Committee
rights and animals' needs
Member,
• Humane Treatment of Dogs
DVM
• Public Safety
• Tethering Committee did extensive work on other
jurisdictions with tethering ordinances and found those to
have cost effective programs with decreases in dog bites,
unwanted puppies, and animal surrenders
• Benefits that other jurisdictions have seen will do well in
this County
Jane
Trainer
Support
• Expert on evaluation dogs for aggression and familiar with
Marshall
aggression triggers
• Living on a chain deprives a dog of its basic needs and
causes high levels of stress and frustration, which can lead
to aggression
• Chained dogs will often target anything moving nearby,
which is unfortunately often children
• It is important for children in our County to learn empathy
for other beings and to grow up to be compassionate,
contributing citizens
• Seeing dogs regularly tethered sends the wrong message
to children and desensitizes them to animals' needs
• Chained dogs are often victims of taunting
• We would be a more caring, compassionate community
with this restriction
Emily
Citizen
Support
• Animals do have rights
Weinstein
• Supports this amendment
Nancy
Citizen
Support
. Most people do not realize the conditions under which
Carson
many of these animals are found
Eickert
13
M11.
EXCERPT FROM MAY 20' BOCC MEETING
APPROVED 9/2/2008
EXCERPT from MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
May 20, 2008
7:30 p.m.
b. Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dons
The Board conducted a public hearing for a proposed ordinance amendment to
the Orange County Animal Ordinance restricting the tethering of dogs, and considered
adoption of the ordinance amendment.
Animal Services Director Bob Marotto said that there has been a concerted effort
involved in staff and the citizen advisors and the process has gone on for a year and a
half or more. He said that this issue came to the Animal Services Advisory Board from
the community as a serious issue for the community to consider and address and to
seek to resolve. He thinks that the concerned citizens have driven the process that staff
has pursued. One of the citizens advisory boards appointed by the Board was the
Tethering Committee, which met more than six times in 2007. This resulted in a
proposal for the ordinance amendment. The Animal Services Advisory Board has
considered this issue five additional times.
He said that he would underscore that the Tethering Committee and the ASAB
have tried to balance some conflicting concerns. He said that there are some
exceptions to the three -hour tethering limit and the proposal is not an outright prohibition
of tethering. He said that there has been a strong commitment to encourage education
and seek to implement this amendment over a period of time that would span 18
months, 12 of which would be dedicated to education and awareness. After the first 12
months, there will be another six -month period in which the new ordinance amendment
would not be fully enforced, but would be enforced with warnings. The amendment
would become effective and fully enforced as of January 1, 2010 and would become
effective as of July 1, 2009.
Vice -Chair of the ASAB, Susan Elmore recognized the Animal Services staff.
She said that there are strong passions concerning this issue on both sides of the fence.
She said that she is here in support of this proposal. She pointed out pages 16 -17 of the
Tethering Committee report, which outlines the tasks of the committee. She said that
the committee considered all of the concerns on both sides.
Commissioner Nelson commended the Tethering Committee and said that it was
hands down the best committee he has worked on, everyone genuinely listened to each
other, and there was a tremendous amount of discussion on this topic. He said that the
committee really listened to the community and the staff was extraordinary.
Commissioner Carey commended Bob Marotto and said that the ASAB worked
really hard to be reasonable and to educate regularly. He thinks that the proposal
reflects the character of what the County Commissioners are trying to do in Orange
County.
Chair Jacobs said that there are 22 people signed up to speak and he
encouraged people not to repeat what previous speakers have said.
14
d3
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Lori Hensley is a volunteer on the Coalition to Unchain Dogs and she said that
they build fences for owners of dogs that cannot afford them. The coalition also provides
free spay and neuter and vaccinations for the pets. She said that this type of ordinance
gives Animal Control another tool for enforcement. She said that most people want
better for their dogs, but they need to be shown that there is a better way to do things.
She read an email from the neighbor of a person who received a fence from the coalition
for a dog that was continuously chained in Chapel Hill. °I just have to tell you that your
civilizing Neptune has also civilized the entire family. Now whenever I stop by to see my
neighbor, Neptune is either sitting on the front porch with a family member, playing in the
house, or when he sees my car coming running down the stairs to greet and kiss me.
He even has his meals inside now and sleeps beside the bed. See how the beauty of
your work spreads to others. So much abuse and neglect are due to just plain
ignorance, are they not?" She said that this is not the only situation where the Coalition
has helped dogs. She asked the County Commissioners to approve the ordinance to
limit the chaining of dogs.
Henri McClees is a lobbyist for the North Carolina Sporting Dog Association,
which is a coalition of dog owners, dog breeders, and dog clubs. She said that the
membership's philosophy is that animals do not have rights, but people have rights and
responsibilities. They do not believe that this proposal meets the needs of the animals,
and they are certain that it does not meet the needs of the people. She said that it is a
bad idea, it is not needed, it is not fair, and it is bad public policy. She said that this
same concept was debated in a Senate committee in the legislature, but the bill never
got out of committee. She said that inhumane treatment of animals is already against
the law. She asked the County Commissioners to consider cautiously looking at this
from the attitude and the positions of the citizens. She questioned the assumption that
tethering is mistreatment of animals.
Jason Payne is a member of the Eno River Coon Hunters Association. He said
that he and his father have raised and trained dogs since he was 15 years old, and they
tether their dogs, but they also exercise them and take care of them. He is opposed to
this amendment because he does not believe that the descriptions in the amendment
would accomplish what people are trying to accomplish, which is better treatment of
animals.
Lamar Chapman lives in Orange County and said that he has numerous dogs
and most are not tethered. The ones that are tethered chew through a fence. He said
that he has been to all of the committee meetings and the committee is not listening to `
the citizens of Orange County. He said that most of the people that are supporting this
ordinance are not from Orange County. He said that people are scared of speaking
tonight because of Animal Control coming to their property. He said that the people of
unincorporated Orange County are not even aware of.this proposal. He showed some
pictures that someone else had brought of dogs that were chained and the collars were
not embedded and the dogs were healthy. He suggested having another public
meeting.
George Painter is President of the Eno River Coon Hunters Association. He said
that this is a people problem, not a dog problem, and there needs to be education of dog
owners on the treatment of dogs. He said that a person that neglects an animal will
neglect it no matter if it is on a chain or in a kennel. He said that the County
Commissioners should spend more time and better time on other problems in the
County than passing more laws that will not help dogs or the animal control problems.
15
Andrea Press is the N.C. Director of Responsible Dog Owners. She said that
this movement has been going through the country for the past year and a half. Animal
rights activists are quick to show pictures of dogs who have been chained improperly
and the media are quick to vilify the owner who tethers the dog. He said that people are
being spoon fed the idea that tethering is wrong by the animal rights activists. She gave
statistics of children that were killed by dogs because of parental neglect. She said that
responsible dog owners have the right to chain or not chain their dogs for whatever
reason.
Amanda Arrington said that she represents people not here as the Director of the
Coalition to Unchain Dogs. She said that sometimes you must legislate in order to
educate. She agreed that cruelty can happen in any situation. She said that dogs that
are chained are more susceptible to being attacked.
Bobby Kirk said that he is disappointed in the way that this is going. He has tried
to get on the committee, and he was not allowed. He said that he has trained dogs for
40 years. He said that he has dogs come to him from all over the country that have
been kenneled, but his best dogs are tethered. He urged the County Commissioners to
reconsider this. He said to the committee that they never listened to the Orange County
citizens. He said that tethering dogs is not bad.
Michael Kirk litres in southern Orange County. He said that he looked at the
Animal Services website and read the amendment. He said that the costs of this
amendment are supposed to be absorbed back in the budget. He asked if the Animal
Control Officers do anything all day now. He said that he rode around within five miles
of Chapel Hill and he counted 38 tethered dogs and 72 dogs that were in kennels
smaller than what is recommended. He does not know how the costs of this are going to
be absorbed, because this will be a lot of work. He said that he has had dogs all of his
life and the ones that are tethered are the friendliest dogs.
Steven Hopkins said that he is a citizen of Orange County and he has owned
dogs all of his life. He asked that there be an exemption for sporting dogs or for
homeowners that cannot kennel because most sporting dogs must have daily exercise
and must be chained to be in events. He said that putting dogs in kennels will not solve
any problems. He thinks that the existing laws should be enforced.
Pat Sanford is on the ASAB. She said that she is an animal trainer and she
would never tether her dogs because it is not productive in training. She said that for 17
years she did animal investigations for Orange County, and during that time there was a
very high number of investigations with tethered animals. She said that it is a human
problem and not an animal problem. She thinks that the ordinance needs to pass to
help the animals. She understands the sporting dog owners' concerns. She said that
she is in support of the ordinance.
Jamie Jacobs is a resident of Orange County and an owner of a pit bull. She
said that she was asked to speak by a friend to share some statistics. She said that her
breeder has been breeding pit bulls for over 20 years in the North Carolina mountains,
and he was very clear with her about what she needed to do with the dog if she wanted
him to become a vicious and dangerous animal, and that was to chain him and leave
him alone. If she wished him to become a loving and social animal, then she must
provide for him in other ways, which she does. She contains her dog with an Invisible
Fence and she takes him for long walks. She said that there is a book sold in pet stores
that gives very specific information about this breed, that if they are chained, they will
become vicious and dangerous animals.
Kris Bergstrand lives in Chapel Hill and was a member of the Tethering
Committee and the ASAB. She said that the members learned a lot from the residents
of Orange County and they struggled with how to balance the needs of the animals with
16
P-5
the rights of the citizens. She said that a number of people think that PETA activists
drove the subcommittee to make this recommendation. and she disagrees. She is a
veterinarian and she cares about the humane treatment of dogs. However, public safety
is very important to her. She said that the subcommittee got feedback from animal
control professionals in the state who said that they did not find it to be more work or
more costly to have tethering ordinances, they noticed a decrease in dog bites, a
decrease in puppies, and a decrease in surrenders. She thinks that the benefits that
other jurisdictions in the state have seen from restricted tethering would do well in this
County.
Susan Kelly lives in Carrboro and she has two dogs, which are tethered because
they dig under the fence and they jump the fence. Both of them are spayed. She said
that the dogs have a very nice area to live in, and she does not know what her option
would be other than not letting her dogs outside to play together.
Jacky Rosati is a resident of Orange County and she has a dog that lives inside
her house. She is in support of this ordinance and emphasized that it is restricting
tethering and not an anti - tethering ordinance. She said that she is also here on behalf of
Jane Marshall who could not be in attendance. She read a letter from Jane Marshall:
`Dear Commissioners,
I have been a dog trainer in Orange County for 20 years. One of my areas of
expertise is evaluating dogs for aggression and so I am very familiar with what triggers
aggression in dogs.
Living on a chain deprives a dog of his basic needs and causes high levels of
stress and frustration. Frustration is a pre - cursor to aggression. This is a very
dangerous type of aggression as the dog is in a highly aroused emotional and hormonal
state and will target anything moving_ nearby. The unfortunate victims of chained dogs
are often unsupervised children who wander into the dog's space. Mutilating injuries are
usually sustained in these situations.
I am also a mother, raising my children in this community, and a humane
educator. As well as the huge safety factor for children around chained dogs, it is
important for our children to leam empathy for everything around them, to grow up to be
caring, contributing citizens. Successful humane education programs focus on helping
children relate to the animals in their environment and to respect and care for them.
Living with a dog chained at the bottom of the garden desensitizes our children to the
needs of animals and conveys the wrong message to them. Chained dogs are often the
victims of taunts from neighborhood children, a terrible situation for the dog and an
incorrect leaming experience for the child.
So I respectfully ask you to disallow the permanent tethering of dogs in Orange
County, for the safety of our children, for the humane treatment of dogs and for Orange
County to become a caring, compassionate, community for all.
Jane Marshall'
Emily Weinstein thanked everyone for the work on the ordinance and said that
she believes that animals do have rights. She has fenced her yard and her dogs come
in and out of her house. She supports this ordinance.
Lauren Knapp- Resnik lives in Hillsborough and she thinks that everyone agrees
with no cruelty to animals, and she is a total animal lover. She lives on 20 acres and has
horses, chickens, dogs, cats. She has one dog that is tethered, because she is over
protective of him because of an accident that he had while he was running free. She is
against this ordinance because it is not a solution to this problem. She thinks that the
ordinance should be on a case -by -case basis.
17
t;26
Loren Hart is a UNC Alum and a resident of Orange County. He is here as an
advocate for all animals, human and otherwise. He said that animals can feel pleasure,
pain, fear, and loneliness. He suggested that if the County Commissioners pass this
ordinance, then they will help to create a kinder and gentler world, a world that is more
just, more peaceful and more loving. He said that chaining dogs for long periods is a
form of abuse and should be stopped. He suggested that humans should not exploit
animals for any reason.
Joseph Clees is a representative of the N.C. Sporting Dogs. He represents 12
different counties. He said that this is a very controversial issue. He said that he has
watched Chair Jacobs, and he has talked with sensitivity and compassion. He
complimented Chair Jacobs on this. He said that he can see some fundamental flaws
that there are segments of the population that feel that they have not had an adequate
public process. He said that there are members on both sides of the issue that feel fear
and intimidation. He asked the County Commissioners to please not fall into an animal
rights agenda. He said that it is the responsibility of humans to protect these animals
and take care of them. He encourages the County Commissioners to have at least 3-4
public hearings.
Suzanne Roy lives in Hillsborough and was on the Tethering Committee. She
said that the committee held two public hearings and invited members who are opposed
to this ordinance to come onto the committee, and she does not know of any
applications. She thinks that the committee has listened. She does not think that there
is any question that tethering dogs is inhumane. She read a quote from the Dog
Whisperer, "Chaining is a very dangerous and cruel practice. The more tightly a dog is
chained, the more pent up energy he will have. The more pent up energy, the more
aggression. A frustrated dog on a chain becomes a weapon and is nearly three times
more likely to attack or bite a person than a dog that is simply loose in the yard.° She
believes that this ordinance has broad community support.
Chad Resnick said that one of the people that spoke said that dogs on chains
have a tendency to bite people. His response to that is to teach children not to go near
dogs that they do not know. His dog has a 45 -foot lunge line with a 12 -foot lead on it
and has a heated and air - conditioned dog house. He said that it would be infeasible for
his dog to be in a 12x12 fence and restrict his movement that much, which is one of the
recommendations.
Tim Frazier is an officer of the Eno River Coon Club, but he is speaking for
himself. He said that he was told at the other public meetings that sporting dogs would
be exempt from the ordinance. He said that no one told him how to get on these
committees. He said that the sporting dog owners feel that they are being singled out.
He said that he has a dog that will dig out or climb out of a fence. He said that he did not
find anything out about this meeting until Saturday. He asked the County
Commissioners to really think about this before passing it.
Ellen Whitaker is with the Coalition to Unchain Dogs and she said that they build
fences that dogs cannot dig out of. She said that it is possible to keep a dog that digs in
a fence. She said that when the coalition is able to provide a fence, then the owner can
see that the dog now has a personality because it can run around and not be chained.
Diane Genteel said that she raises and shows rat terriers, and she does not
tether her dogs. She said that the problem is not the tethering, but the implementation of
tethering. She said that proper tethering socializes, cares for, and exercises animals
very well. She asked the County Commissioners to please consider tethering from a
different point of view.
Nancy Carson Eickert lives in Orange County and has participated with the
Coalition to Unchain Dogs. She affirmed everything that the representatives of the
18
Q'7
coalition said. She does not think that most people realize the conditions under which
they find some of these animals. She thinks that education about proper tethering would
help the situation.
Josh Chapman is 15 years old and was born and raised in Orange County. He
has had dogs all of his life, and said that just because a dog is on a chain does not mean
that it will be depressed. He said that his chained dogs run around and play and are
happy. He said that he had a dog that was in a pen and was not gaining weight and
barked all the time, and when the dog was put on a chain, it gained weight and stopped
barking. He asked the County Commissioners to please oppose the ordinance.
Commissioner Nelson said that he would like to absorb all of this and take time to
reflect and wait to make a decision.
Commissioner Carey agreed.
Chair Jacobs said that it would probably be on the June 3"d agenda. The public
asked for proper notice.
Chair Jacobs said that if the Board does not vote on it now, it will be scheduled
for June 3`d.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner
Foushee to defer this item to June 3'd on the regular agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
19
W
EXCERPT FROM JUNE 3rd BOCC MEETING
APPROVED 9/16/2008
EXCERPT From MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
June 3, 2008
7:30 p.m.
S. Reaular Agenda
a. Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dogs
The Board considered adopting a proposed ordinance amendment to the Orange
County Animal Ordinance restricting the tethering of dogs.
Animal Services Director Bob Marotto introduced Chair of the Animal Services
Advisory Board, Dr. Ross Oglesby. He said that the proposal before the Board is the
result of a tremendous amount of work by the Tethering Committee and the ASAB over
a very long period of time. The committee and the ASAB had discussions with experts
from other jurisdictions in North Carolina. Public input sessions also played a role in the
recommendations. He said that there was a concerted effort to reach a balance
between some opposing views in the community. He said that the original review and
discussion referenced exceptions for escape artist dogs and for hunting dogs. The draft
includes exceptions for these animals, but ultimately, the Tethering Committee and the
ASAB opted to not include those exceptions for three reasons:
1) concerns about the legal issues that might arise by creating exceptions;
2) impact that exceptions might have on the ease of enforcement; and
3) the issue of fairness.
Dr. Ross Oglesbee read her prepared statement:
As human beings we have free will, self- determination, and the power to control
our environment and the environment of all things on this planet. Along with the
privilege of being the dominant species, comes a responsibility to respect, not only each
other, but all other living things that are on this planet with us and to use our domination
responsibly and compassionately. Perhaps we should treat other species of animals as
we would wish them to treat us, were they in our dominant position. Dogs are conscious
beings. They feel cold, heat, pain, fear, pleasure, and affection. The overwhelming
information about this issue is that the quality of life for dogs, and their well- meaning
humans, would be improved if tethering was limited or eliminated entirely. You have
heard and read a lot about this issue. The Tethering Task Force, which is composed of
diverse and knowledgeable individuals from this county, at your behest, have already
spent a lot of time, effort, and research into this issue. The Task Force and Animal
Services Advisory Board have provided you with their consensus on this matter, they
have imparted their knowledge about this issue to you. Knowledge is power. You now
have the knowledge to do the right thing with respect to this issue. You know what the
right thing is and you have the power to do the right thing. Gandhi said: The greatness
of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I
will paraphrase that to say that the greatness of this county and its moral progress can
be judged by the way its animals are treated. Hippocrates said: I expect to pass
through this world but once; any good thing therefore that I can do, or any kindness that I
20
E
can show to any fellow creature, let me do it now; let me not defer or neglect it, for I shall
not pass this way again. The soul is in all living creatures, although the body of each is
different. And finally, from George Bernard Shaw: The worst sin towards our fellow
creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them, that is the essence of
inhumanity.
Please don't be indifferent to the quality of a dog's life; don't be indifferent to the
information you have received; act on the knowledge you have. The Tethering
Committee did what it was charged to do and drafted a sound, reasonable, and fair
proposal. Now, with the power you have, do the right thing; vote tonight to approve the
tethering amendment. Thank you.
Commissioner Carey commended the ASAB and the Tethering Committee on
their hard work on this emotional issue. He said that the Board of County
Commissioners has not had a chance to discuss this item as a Board yet. He said that
the public all wants the same thing — humane treatment of animals. He does have
concerns about the size of the pen that is proposed in this ordinance and he wants to
discuss this. He said that the Board needs to talk about a three -hour limit of tethering
and he is not ready to make a decision on this item tonight.
Commissioner Nelson said that the last public comment session was about an
hour long and there are 60 + signed up to speak tonight. He said that when this is
brought back, it will be for Board of County Commissioners' discussion only. The Board
needs to be able to discuss this.
Commissioner Carey said that the Board may ask staff to bring back further
information and it may want to refer this back to the Tethering Committee or ASAB for
consideration, if need be.
Commissioner Foushee said that there are questions that the Board of County
Commissioners needs an opportunity to raise, but she does not want to bring this up
until the public has had their say. She has questions about enforcement.
Chair Jacobs made a few suggestions. He said that it is not a competition to see
who gets the most speakers or who has the loudest applause. He said that he sees a
number of people signed up to speak who spoke last time, and he asked that they not
speak again, in courtesy to others who have not spoken yet. He said that the Board
does listen, and the same things do not need to be said again. There was a citizen in
opposition to what Chair Jacobs said.
Chair Jacobs also asked that anyone that comes to speak please remove their
hats.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Dennis Carden is from Caldwell in Orange County and is a charter member of
the Quail Farm Beagle Club. This club has 50 kennels built to USDA standards, and
they oppose this tethering ordinance and the pen laws that are included in it. He said
that he is an AKC licensed judge and he travels all over judging beagles. He feels that
this ordinance invades their rights as hunters and dog owners. He said that these dog
owners have had a lifetime commitment and he feels like they are not even being
considered. He thinks that it is all about what the Tethering Committee thinks. He said
that USDA already has a standard size pen. He asked what is big enough. He said that
he takes very good care of his dogs and keeps his pens and feeding bowls clean. He
said that he was proud to be an Orange County citizen until recently.
Charles Best is a lifetime resident of Orange County. He owns 300 acres of land
and said that he works hard to keep it. His father taught him how to hunt as a child, to
respect a gun, and how to treat a dog. He said that in the 30's, it was good to have
21
•3o
rabbit or squirrel on the table. He said that he feels like he was losing his right to teach
his children about having dogs. He has small dogs now. He does not see how smaller
dogs need the same size pen as larger dogs. He does not think that more lain are
needed, because there are laws now for people that mistreat dogs. He challenged the
Board to come out to NC 54 and the Quail Farm Beagle Club. He said that revenues
come in to the County through the field trials that the beagle club coordinates. He said
that he has had dogs all of his life and he loves his dogs. He thinks that he is being
penalized.
David Aman said that he is speaking in favor of the tethering ordinance
amendment. He said that passage of this amendment would give the Animal Protection
officials an additional tool with which to come to the aid of a distressed and neglected
dog that has been chained for an inordinately long period of time. He said that this
ordinance amendment is based on a genuine expressed interest driven by citizens who
live within the boundaries of this County. To his knowledge, there is no ordinance
amendment supporter who receives money from anyone within or outside of the County
to professionally organize or lobby for the passage of this type of local issue. He said
that this process has been going on for one year, and this is the fourth public hearing.
Robin Harrison said that she has been a resident for 20 years. She said that her
dog is tethered now, and she would be breaking this ordinance by just attending this
meeting. She said that if she left her dogs loose, they would dig under, climb over, or
high jump her fence. She said that this amendment does not make sense and she is
opposed to it.
Elaine Modlin read a prepared letter to the County Commissioners. She is an
Animal Control Officer from Laurinburg, NC.
"Dear Commissioners:
The City of Laurinburg passed its first tethering ordinance in November, 1997
With an effective date of December 1998. The first ordinance allowed dog owners to
tether their dogs for up to 8 hours within a 24 -hour period. This proved to be too time -
consuming to enforce, so in 2000 we amended the ordinance to one hour within a 24-
hour period.
We passed our tethering ordinance for two main reasons (1) the safety of our
citizens and (2) for the humane treatment of animals. On the issue of safety, our records
indicated that fifty -one percent of our dog bites were from dogs that were confined on
chains or had been chained and had broken loose. This is compared to only 19 percent
of bites from dogs that were confined in a fence. On the issue of inhumane treatment of
animals, we were constantly receiving calls in reference to chained dogs. They were
usually tangled up and unable to get to shelter or water. Many of these cases had been
like this for long periods of time. Attempts to correct or eliminate these situations were
futile and time- consuming.
Passing this ordinance has definitely improved our records for protecting our
Citizens from dangerous dogs. It has helped eliminate residences with multiple dogs
chained out, reducing such complaints as nuisance barking and odor. Our cruelty cases
are significantly reduced as well as our dog bites from chained or loose dogs and
complaints about dogs running loose. We have also seen a dramatic reduction in litters
of puppies, partly because of the tethering ordinance, but also because of the state
spay /neuter law.
Although enforcing this ordinance had brought on extra work and time in the
beginning, after almost 10 years our impoundments have been reduced by half. And
most of these are strays, not owned by our citizens. It has been very rewarding seeing
the addition of fenced in backyards and the dogs happily running around. Owners have
22
31
commented to me that their dogs seem happier and easier to take care of. I hope that
Orange County decides to pass a tethering ordinance, you will be making the lives of
your residents safer and improving on the lives of many deserving dogs.'
Pat Sanford spoke at the last meeting and said that she is a member of the
ASAB and she supports this amendment. All of the members of the ASAB are from
Orange County.
Sandi Coy is the Chairperson of Responsible Dog Owners of the Eastern States.
She is also the new CEO of the United Responsible Dog Owners International. She is
from Kentucky and was asked by residents of Orange County to come and speak. She
said that she came tonight to try and set a few myths to bed. She said that laws of this
sort are very difficult to enforce and they tend to give another law on the books that
people are not going to follow. It is almost impossible to enforce, especially if there is a
short limit for tethering. She said that a lot of the groups that try and start the anti -
tethering movement have usually quoted a study done by the CDC, which was done in
1994 and is called, "Which Dogs Bites, a Case - Controlled Study of Risk Factors." This
study was done on dogs that were taken in by Denver Metro Animal Services in 1991, so
the study is already 17 years old. She said that the information is probably not still
pertinent. Also, there were lots of exclusions in the study. The study started out with
991 dogs, and by the time the exclusions were done, the number was down to 357 dogs.
She said that there are many flaws in this study. After this study was done, with all of
the flaws, and the authors even said that the study was flawed, the Animal Rights
Movement still uses it. She quoted something from the study: "One hundred and
sixteen were aggressive when they were approached in their fence. Only 64 of the
tethered dogs were aggressive. Our results, however, showed no significant difference
in the behavior of dogs chained and those not chained, suggesting that chaining was not
likely to have been the result of aggressive behavior."
Deanna Rowan is a resident of Orange County. She supports this ordinance
amendment. She said that this is not an animal rights agenda issue; it is a humane
treatment of dogs' issues. She said that no one wants to take away anyone's right to
have dogs and to hunt. The concern is how the dogs are being kept. She said that the
first part of her life was spent in Georgia and Alabama where hunting is a way of life, and
she had a lot of close friends that had hunting dogs, and none of them were chained or
tethered. She said that this is not about the hunters, but about the hundreds of dogs in
Orange County that are chained 24/7, exposed to elements, rarely contacted by their
owners, and are subjected to abuse and neglect.
Kitty Lynn said that she has rescued hundreds of dogs. She said that chained
dogs often become aggressive and territorial for a lack of love and nutrition. They will
attack children who enter their territory. She read the names of some children that have
been killed or injured by dogs all over the United States. She said that more and more
communities are passing laws that regulate the practice of tethering animals, and
Orange County will not be the first. She read the names of some cities that have done
this. She spoke in favor of the ordinance amendment.
Phillip Pennell said that his feelings run deep on this issue. He said that, from
the list of children read by Ms. Lynn, there were only a few that were killed by tethered
dogs. He said that Person County has a dangerous breed law that Orange County
needs to have to contain these types of dogs. He said that he has searched and not
once has a hound ever inflicted wounds, but they were mostly from dangerous breeds.
He brought out a chain to show the County Commissioners what the Orange County law
is with a ten foot chain. He said that a ten -foot chain would allow 400 square feet of
movement, versus 100 square feet with a ten foot pen. He read from the summary from
23
3D,
the Tethering Committee: "Of particular concern are dogs that spend their lives tethered
as they are naturally active and social, being that required exercise and frequent
interaction with humans and other animals.' He said that a ten -foot cage is restricting
the dog from exercise. He said that when you take the sociality out of a dog, it makes
them mean. He said that he has owned hundreds of dogs, and he has always taken
very good care of them. He does not appreciate people coming in and trying to say that
chains make bad dogs.
Tommy Frazier said that he has dogs and they are better off on a chain than in a
pen. He said that it is cleaner to have a chain than a pen. He said that the citizens pay
taxes on dogs and there should not be a law.
George Painter said that he is opposed to this becoming a law and if the ones on
the book now were enforced, there would not be a problem. He said that Ms. Modlin
was trying to do a good thing in Scotland County, but he pointed out that she said that
those that do not agree with the law are those whose dogs are not well taken care of.
He said that when the committee was formed, the Board of County Commissioners
asked that there be members on both sides of the argument. The one person that was
against it was not allowed to be on the committee. He said that he attended the first
open meeting for comment, and two people from his group volunteered to fill the vacant
position of someone that was in favor of tethering. This was denied. He said that the
whole study was done by those who wanted this amendment passed. He said that the
Board of County Commissioners needs to restudy this and put some people on the
committee that are on the other side of the issue so that it is fair.
Mark Soloman said that he supports this ordinance for several reasons. The first
is public safety. Chaining dogs contributes to aggression and constitutes a public safety
threat. He said that it has been shown that dogs that are chained are more likely to bite
than unchained dogs. The second is the humane issue. Prolonged chaining is harmful
to dogs and deprives them of necessary exercise and socialization; it subjects them to
dangers of becoming entangled, preventing them from reaching food, shelter, or water
and causing injuries such as strangulation, trachea damage from pulling, and the
embedding of collars; it makes dogs vulnerable to attack from free - roaming dogs and
wildlife. Numerous Orange County veterinarians have endorsed this tethering
restriction. The next reason is over - population. Chained dogs contribute to the
community's pet over - population problem. Dogs that are continuously tethered are
frequently unsterilized and there is no barrier protecting chained female dogs from
unwanted breeders. In fact, every chained female dog that the Coalition to Unchain
Dogs has helped locally has had at least one and often multiple fitters of puppies. The
puppies end up in local shelters and cost taxpayers' money. Finally, this is an important
tool for animal control. Seven North Carolina jurisdictions, including the counties of New
Hanover and Scotland, report positive results from anti - tethering ordinances, including a
decrease in the number of animal cruelty complaints and dog bite incidences.
Nancy Garson- Anger read a letter on behalf of Jean McNeill, Animal Control
Services Manager of New Hanover County. She said that the anti - tethering ordinance is
too important an issue to be silenced in an atmosphere of intimidation. She encouraged
the County Commissioners to move forward thoughtfully, compassionately, and not
fearfully.
"Dear County Commissioners,
I am writing this letter in support of your county passing an anti- tethering
ordinance for the protection of your community's companion animals. New Hanover
County has had the privilege of such a law for many years, and our residents enjoy the
24
33
safety it affords our pets. Animal cruelty is a serious matter, and we must do all we
know to do to keep it from happening in whatever manner we are able.
Many would argue that you should merely enforce the laws that you already
have; however, in our experience, you cannot enforce what you do not have. The
majority of offenders will not comply with suggestions, so adequate enforceable laws are
necessary to cause compliance. Anti tethering is a step in the right direction to enhance
responsible pet ownership. Having a pet entails great responsibility, so we must be
proactive in educating owners about the best care they can provide.
We passed the ordinance many years ago, but did not write actual citations until
quite some time after the law became effective. We issued warning notices, which gave
the dog owner time to make corrections. This is not nearly as effective as simply writing
the citation. In our experience, an owner will comply more rapidly, if there are
consequences for failure to do so. We have the administrative ability to void a citation, if
they correct the problem in a timely manner. Again, this would not be possible if no law
was on the books to enforce. Our residents have responded favorably to having a
means of preventing animal cruelty in at least one form.
Prior to passing the ordinance, we saw many cases of dogs being left on short
leads or ropes for many hours — or permanently — at the household. Many individuals
lost their pets due to strangulation, heat stroke, and in some severe cases — the owner's
intentional animal abuse of starvation. We had no means of preventing this abuse until
the law was enforceable.
The ordinance was challenged in April 2007. We had a group of Pit Bull owners,
who desired to tether their dogs with heavy chains connected to tire axles. Fortunately,
our advisory committee, board of health, and County Commissioners saw through these
individuals and upheld the law. We are grateful. We are also in high hopes that you will
also act as responsibly for your community pets as we have in New Hanover County.
The majority of your residents are counting on you to do the right thing, despite the very
vocal minority that opposes the law.
Please feel free to contact me about this important issue. I look forward to
hearing back from you with a good report. I can be reached at 910 - 798 -7505 or
imcneil(aanhcaov.com.
Sincerely,
Jean P. McNeil
New Hanover County
Animal Control Services Manager'
Amanda Stipe is a Chapel Hill native, a former Animal Control Officer within the
area, and a dog trainer. She believes that enforcement is an option. She said that a
one size fits all approach will not work to confine animals, protect them, and protect the
public. She said that governments and organizations should continue to work together
to educate the public to the responsibilities of dog ownership. She said that the proposal
for anti - tethering is too restrictive and each dog must be considered individually. She
read an excerpt from the book, 'The Love of a Dog,' by Patricia McConnell, where a
visiting young friend did not survive a dog attack. `The two girls were alone in the
house, except for a total of six large dogs. An adult male, an adult female, and four
adolescents. None of the dogs had been spayed or neutered. All were underweight and
in poor condition. None of the dogs had received any training, nor had they been
outside the house beyond being tied up to a chain in the yard. Neighbors reported
several incidents in which the dogs had been screamed at, struck, and kicked. Social
services reported that most of the surfaces in the home, including the beds, were
25
3q
covered with the dogs' urine and feces." She said that this shows the people problem
that we have. She said that a tethering law would not have helped in this circumstance
and might have been the reason the dogs were confined indoors with unsupervised
juveniles. Training people on animal behavior is key to responsible dog welfare and
ownership. Educating people on the benefits of spaying and neutering is also important.
She said that regulations or laws should not be so restrictive that they hinder options to
dog owners who are willing to do the right thing for themselves, the public, and their
pets. Animal Control may have a more difficult time in locating animal abusers as they
move indoors, no longer under plain sight. She asked the County Commissioners to
consider not enacting this proposal in its current state, but to provide Animal Control and
law enforcement additional monies to enforce current laws.
Lamar Chapman said that he spoke at the last meeting, but he said that he was
here to.speak on behalf of some people that could not attend. He said that at the last
meeting people were saying that dogs had feelings and were emotional, etc. He said
that all dogs may not like chains, just like some people like coffee or tea. He said that
some dogs will run off if left out, but his dog will run around and then come home. He
said that this is not mistreatment. He read from something: "We are our own town; we
don't care how other counties are run. If they said, 'jump in front of a bus,' would you do
it? Everything they have presented us with is from another county. It is not from Orange
County. We are our own county! He said that the committee should have talked to the
people in the community and not people from other counties. He said that most of the
people that are for the anti - tethering ordinance were not even raised in Orange County.
He said that if this ordinance is passed, his dogs will go to another residence in another
county.
Eliana Beattie does not live in Orange County, but she works at the animal
shelter. She read a letter signed by nine local veterinarians:
°To the Board of County Commissioners:
We, the undersigned veterinarians who practice in and around Orange County
urge the Board of County Commissioners to vote in favor of the Animal Control
Ordinance amendment to restrict the practice of tethering dogs and establish minimum
kennel sizes for dogs.
We agree with the Tethering Committee's findings that:
- Prolonged tethering deprives dogs of necessary exercise and socialization;
- Tethered dogs can and do contribute to various community nuisance issues
such as barking and pet overpopulation;
- Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to public safety and health because
they may become aggressive and they are not confined behind a barrier.
In addition, as veterinarians, we believe that chained dogs are subjected to a
variety of dangers, including trachea damage from pulling on the chain; embedded
collars; and injuries sustained in attacks from free- roaming dogs.
There are many alternatives to chaining available, including adequately -sized
pens, fends, and simply keeping dogs inside and walking them several times a day.
By voting in favor of this amendment, the BOCC will be taking a positive step
toward protecting the public and improving the treatment of dogs in our community. We
urge you to do so without delay.
Sincerely,
Soren Windram, DVM, New Hope Animal Hospital
M
15
Kay Bishop, DVM, New Hope Animal Hospital
Ken Redmond, Vine Veterinary Hospital
Kathy Crabtree, DVM, Carver Street Veterinary Hospital
Pat Pagel, DVM, Cole Park Veterinary Hospital
Michelle Droke, DVM, Cole Park Veterinary Hospital
Deborah Stein, DVM, Cole Park Veterinary Hospital
Megan Hams, DVM, Cole Park Veterinary Hospital
Marjorie Undeke, DVM, St. Francis Veterinary Hospital'
Timmy Frazier said that he has tried to make all of these meetings and has tried
to talk to people in the community, especially those in the northern part of the County.
He said that he is a responsible dog owner, and he believes that tethering is okay if the
owner takes care of his/her dogs and tethers in a humane way. He thinks that the
problem in Orange County is the dog breed. He said that when the County
Commissioners force something like this amendment down their throats, it makes the
citizens mad.
Susan Kelly is against the tethering amendment. She agreed with Commissioner
Carey and they all want to do the right thing for the animals. For some, she thinks that it
could be tethering.
Stillman Wright was bom and raised in Chapel Hill. He said that he has tethered
champion dogs and his dogs are not mistreated. He showed pictures of his dogs. His
dogs are kept on ten foot chains, which give them 365 square feet. He said that he is a
responsible dog owner. He also showed a picture of an American Pit Bull Terrier that
got out of a fence.
Josh Chapman was bom and raised in Orange County. He read from an article
from the News and Observer. °Barbara Sherman, a Clinical Associate Professor at N.
C. State University College of Veterinary Medicine, said `method of animal confinement
should not be blamed for neglect. You can abuse those same dogs by putting them in
tiny pens. We really need to examine the welfare of each dog." He asked those that
live in Orange County and that have dogs that live on chains to raise their hands. He
said that most people who raised their hands are from Orange County. He said that
most of the people that are pushing this are from Chapel Hill and are not going to be
affected by this. He said that he has dogs on chains at his house, and they will not stay
in pens.
Frank Tilley is opposed to the tethering ordinance. He said that there are
surveys that say that dogs on chains become aggressive. He has seen plenty of
aggressive dogs in pens. He has trained dogs for 12 years and you can make any dog
aggressive and it is not just because it is on a chain. A dog can be happy on a chain just
as much as he is in a pen.
Suzanne Roy was a member of the Tethering Committee and the ASAB. She
would like to answer any of their questions rather than referring it back to the Tethering
Committee. She said that neglected dogs can be anywhere, but there are special
circumstances that make tethering an issue that should be a policy decision — lack of a
barrier, protecting the people from the dog, etc. She said that it is a situation similar to
having an uncovered or unfenced pool. It is both a lure and a danger to children. She
said that 175 children in the last four years have been killed or injured by chained dogs.
She made reference to the people that would have to make changes if this ordinance is
passed, and she said that these were people that the Tethering Committee had in mind
when it recommended the 18 -month phasing period. Regarding the hunting committee,
there are very strongly held beliefs against government regulation related to animal
27
welfare. She respects those beliefs, but she does not agree with them. She said that
they believe that animals are property and they each should have a right to do what they
want with their animals. She said that animals are not property, and there is a public
interest in protecting them. She said that some other opponents here are out -of- county
paid lobbyists and Pit Bull breeders. She said that Sandi Coy, who spoke earlier, is a Pit
Bull breeder and has animal cruelty charges pending against her in Kentucky. Another
person is Andrea Press, who is also a Pit Bull breeder, who sells dogs with known dog
fighting blood lines. Ms. Press led the unsuccessful effort to overturn the New Hanover
County law, and she moved from that county after she was cited for illegally tethering
dogs: She said that animal cruelty is a serious issue, and as a community, they should
take a stand against it. Orange County needs this law, and she hopes that the County
Commissioners will pass it.
Arielle Schechter has been in Orange County since the early 1960's and she fully
supports the anti - tethering ordinance. She said that it is overdue.
Kris Bergstrand spoke on behalf of Jean Alston, who is a member of the
Tethering Committee and is in support of the ordinance amendment.
Elise Roosevelt lives in Hillsborough. She has been in Orange County for eight
years and she is a lifelong animal owner of dogs and cats. She strongly supports the
anti- tethering ordinance because what she- has personally seen and what she has read.
She said that it is important to remember that this is about both public safety and
humane treatment of animals. She referred to the USDA ruling prohibiting tethering as a
method of primary enclosure. She said that this is about 2417 enclosure and not 2 -3
hours. She said that cruelty comes in many forms, and this is only one tool. She said
that this is about the welfare of animals and the safety of the community and not about
people's professions and financial welfare.
Lori Hensley is opposed to chaining dogs.
Robert Hensley said that he is a volunteer with the Coalition to Unchain Dogs. In
the past year, they have built 50 fences in Orange, Durham, and Wake Counties and
have removed approximately 85 dogs from chains. He showed some pictures. He said
that one thing that disturbs him is that Ms. Coy was charged with cruelty to animals. He
read something from his PDA, including that one dead dog still on a chain was found on
her property. He also acknowledged that Andrea Press was involved in breeding dog
fighters, as mentioned above. Sitting next to Ms. Press is another paid lobbyist, Mr.
McClees, from the North Carolina Sporting Dogs Association. He spoke in support of
the anti- tethering ordinance.
Mickey Oliver has lived in Orange County for over 46 years. He said that this is a
touchy situation here and the Board of County Commissioners appreciates the work of
the Tethering Committee, and he asked that the Board please appreciate his
commitment to his dogs for over 50 years. He said that a law is out there now — the
leash law — that is not being enforced now.
Brian F. Fee read a prepared handout:
°Dear Sirs:
My name is Brian Fee and I live in Chapel Hill with my wife and three children.
After many years of renting homes and apartments, we bought a home in Chapel Hill —
one with a big yard for plants and animals. Last summer we were told about three
puppies that were dropped off and abandoned at a minister's house. We adopted the
puppy, which is part Labrador, part German Shepard..... but mostly mutt. Her name is
Lily and the kids painted rainbows and lilies on her doghouse that I built. The agreement
with my wife was that the dog would remain outside during the day on a line (a cable -
trolley system) but remain inside in the evening and in a crate at night. Everything was
working out fine .... even as she has grown to 60 lbs... until I saw Dave Hart's editorial in
28
37
the Chapel Hill News that brought up the tethering issue again. I was astonished that
the issue of tethering was still being debated.
Mr. Hart wrote that basically there were two distinct camps of thought — the anti -
tethering group that says that tethering can cause physical or psychological damage to a
dog, and a pro-tethering group, composed mainly of hunters and dog breeders who say
that tethering is humane and that neglect by people is the real problem. It seemed like
one major group — I would think they can be best called the silent majority — are families
who have one or two dogs that are humanely tethered and are played with in their
backyards. I was concerned enough that this group was not being represented that I
stand here tonight.
I read about how restrictions on tethering in other jurisdictions decreased dog
bites, reduced unwanted litters, and reduced cruelty due to improper tethering. Well, our
dog lives in our backyard, so even if she did have a mind to bit someone, which she
hasn't had a mind to yet, the person would have to be in our backyard. She has been
spayed, so puppies are not an issue. With regards to cruelty, Lily is a member of our
family. Her tether has been installed properly and she always has food, water, shade,
and room to run and dig. On this note, let's do some math.
She is on a trolley line 60 feet long and she can go 19 feet each way from the
center of the line. How many square feet can Lily play?
The answer is 2280 square feet. Our house is only around 1500 square feet!
This seems more humane than 100 -200 square feet in a kennel or a 10- square foot
crate. Attached to my talk is a picture of Lily's domain, where she can run, dig, and play
— either with us or by herself — sleep.... whatever she wants to do. By the way, we
certainly interact with her much more on a line than we would with her stuck in a kennel.
I believe the main issue is not-how a dog is confined, but how well a pet owner
takes care and interacts with an animal. Key words — pet owner responsibility. I'm all for
it. I once found a dog .... in a side yard .... on a chain .... with a collar that had grown into
the dog's neck. I knocked on the owner's door, and they said that there wasn't a
problem and that they were applying some sort of lotion to the neck .... and then to get
lost .... or something like that. I called animal control ASAP and the dog was removed.
The chain was not the problem — neglect was. 1 strongly support the laws against animal
cruelty.
This whole issue reminds me of gun control — some are adamantly against all
guns and others start quoting the 2"d Amendment to have as many guns as they want.
Neither side promotes gun -owner responsibility to solve the problem.
Bottom line — our dog Lily is one of the vast majorities of dogs that are humanely
tethered and cared for. I resent the fact that this proposed bill assumes that we are not
taking care of our dog. I take responsibility for her care and safety: If any of you
Commissioners wish to come over and visit Lily, just let me know."
S. Henri McClees said that she is the proud lobbyist of the North Carolina
Sporting Dog Association. She said that her clients are great guys and they love their
dogs. She said that the issue is really will the County Commissioners forbid her clients
to own their dogs and to care for them as they see fit. Based on this issue, she asked
the County Commissioners to reject this ordinance. She said that this proposal
demands that all dog owners comply with the demands of the small majority. This would
pit the citizens against each other in a needless battle that sets the stage for constant
conflict. She said that this is about the rights of the people. She said that the citizens
have the right to be protected from any tyranny that would be imposed upon them by a
small majority. She said that "the few' want to order all citizens to comply essentially
with their philosophy and they do not distinguish between animals that are abused or not
W
M If
abused. She said that the abuse does not come from the type of confinement, but
comes from the person.
Allan Green represents a group that does not own pet dogs or hunting dogs, but
own working dogs. He is a small farmer that lives in the Orange Grove community. He
has a number of Border Collies. He does not have a problem with the intent of having
humane treatment of dogs and he would prefer not to have to tether a dog. He said that
there are times when he has to tether a dog on a 30 -foot chain, particularly when a
female dog comes along and his dog can get out of his pen. He said that this is an
instance where the tethering law does not deal, with realities of life. He asked why the
exceptions were not allowed. He said that it seems that the committee was loaded with
members who think tethering is bad. He is opposed to the anti tethering law.
Brian Lane is from Chapel Hill and he is not a dog owner. He said that he has
come here out of civic duty and what he sees as an encroachment on individual freedom
in Orange County. He said that he believes in the citizens of Orange County, and the
Board of County Commissioners does not need to rule them with an iron fist. He is
proud of these hunters and how they treat their dogs. He thinks that a pressing case
would need to be made that is extensive proof of abuse before this ordinance is
amended. He thinks, that this is not happening here. He said that if this ordinance is
passed on such weak evidence, he would like to know where the Board will stop.
Walt Von Shemz is a resident of Durham County and he has lived in Orange
County before. He grew up in another state where there were a lot of hunters that
chained their dogs all the time. He said that from his own experience, he has seen what
chaining of dogs can do. He firmly believes that keeping dogs on a chain will increase
the propensity for the dog to develop anti - social behavior. He does not think that feeding
and watering a dog fulfills all of the needs of a dog. A dog needs to be unencumbered.
Andrea Press said that she was at the last meeting, and she would like to bring
both sides together. She said that the simple solution, instead of turning one half of the
room into criminals, would be to put the two groups together. She said that people can
be educated on proper ownership, continue building fences, if dogs are bad off on
chains. It is all about education. She said that education is not regulation. She said that
these people are here because they love their animals and they do not want to get rid of
them. She asked if the County Commissioners were prepared to take on the liability for
what happens when the dogs that are put in pens escape the pens. She said that the
bottom line is that the most dangerous dog is a dog at- large. On a personal level, she
said that she does raise American Pit Bull Terriers. The reason that she is not a paid
lobbyist is because New Hanover County ruined her existence with an anti-tether law.
She had dogs behind her fence tied up while she was at home and she received written
citations. She had four weeks to find a place to move and her daughter lost her spot in
private school.
Frances Jones is a lifetime citizen ,of Orange County. She said that she has
never seen the Chair disrespect citizens as he has tonight. She applauded the hunters
for standing up for their rights. The hunters have a right to do what they are doing. She
said that.dogs in Chapel Hill are treated better than Fairview Community citizens
because they have parks with trails. Fairview has been begging for a park for the last 30
years. She said that they are going to do what they have to do to get that park. She
said that most of the money in the County goes to Chapel Hill. This is why people feel
divided. The Fairview citizens feel that the County thinks more of the dogs in Chapel Hill
than it does the citizens. She said that the County Commissioners need to do what they
were voted in to do.
Bobby Kirk said that he has several good ideas, and the big one is education.
He said that there are only six ordinances nationwide that dictate kennel size. He said
30
3q
that he trains over 60 dogs a year, and he travels the nation in field trials. He has a dog
coming in tomorrow that is 75 pounds and is a biter. The first thing he will do with this
dog is put him on a tether. He said that his dogs are happy on tethers. He agrees that
everything has to be done right. He said that every dog is different and tethering is a
great thing for a dog. He urged the County Commissioners to vote against this. He said
that it would solve no problems and there is no way that it could be enforced.
Loren Hart said that he is in support of the dog ordinance. He said that dogs and
other animals are individual beings, can feel pleasure, pain, fear, and loneliness. For
these reasons, he believes that tethering dogs for prolonged periods is a form of abuse
that should be stopped. It is a different kind of abuse than kicking a dog, but it is a form
of neglect He thinks that the current ordinance should be amended to mandate a higher
level of care owed to the dogs by their human guardians. He said that he is a resident of
Orange County and he works at UNC. He made reference to his uncle who died
recently, and said that, in addition to being a veteran of the U. S. Navy, he was also an
avid duck hunter, a charter member of the Migratory Waterfowl Hunters and Ducks
Unlimited. He remembers fondly fishing with his uncle, but he never hunted with him.
He said that he used to eat fish, deer, and other animals, but he does not anymore
because he thinks that it is wrong to do so. He still respects his uncle and everyone in
this room, but he disagrees with animal exploitation. For the past five years he has
chosen a vegetarian diet because of the interests of animals. He thinks that this mindset
would be helpful in looking at this ordinance. He made reference to the comments about
tyranny and said that we all have rights and we all want to be free, but there is not
unlimited freedom. The freedom ends somewhere. He said that animals have interests
and it is not just about humans.
Kevin Young is a dog owner and breeder and he asked the Board of County
Commissioners to use common sense. He asked the County Commissioners to look at
the safety issue. He asked where the supervision was of the children who were killed by
dogs. He made reference to the breeding that happens and said that the leash laws
need to be enforced. Regarding cleanliness, when it rains with a dog in a pen, it causes
a multitude of problems. He said that this is not seen with a dog on a tether. He
suggested using a body harness to tether a dog so that there would not be embedding of
collars. If the dogs were taken care of, then there would not be a problem of embedded
collars. He said that education is very important.
Diane Genteel said that she spoke before. She said that the issues of
aggression, socialization, pet overpopulation, etc. will not be remedied by this law and it
is a question of education. Tethering is not the culprit; it's the inappropriate use of
tethering. She said that a dog on a ten -foot chain has more liberty than it would have in
a ten -foot pen.
Michael Kirk made reference to one of the committee members who is the North
Carolina Director of In Defense of Animals, and said that he is afraid of what will be next
with the tethering campaign. He is worried that if this gets passed, what will be next —
mandatory spay /neuter all dogs, taxes going through the roof, etc. He thinks that this is
a slippery slope.
Fred Stipe was born and raised in Orange County and he is the owner of the
number one ranked male American Fox Hound in the nation. His dog competes in AKC
and USDA - sanctioned agility trials. He is also the owner of one of the greatest
obedience trained beagles in the state. He said that this proposed amendment is not the
panacea that everyone would like to see. He believes that the County would be far
better served by increasing the resources available for Animal Control to more
vigorously enforce the existing abuse and neglect statutes. He said that passage of this
31
amendment would not solve the problem of abuse and neglect, but would create new
problems that would further complicate the job of Animal Control.
Ellen Whitaker is a volunteer with the Coalition to Unchain Dogs. She made
reference to the comments about this amendment being an infringement on rights and
said that it seems like a lot of times in the society, when we move towards justice,
always the people that are oppressors feel that their rights are being trampled. This
does not mean that it is not right to pass the laws.
Beth Oliver is opposed to the tethering ordinance. She said that she has animals
that are tethered during the day, and she lets them run free when she gets home. She
said that she tethers the dogs for their protection. She said that she loves and protects
her animals.
Chair Jacobs said that the Board of County Commissioners does take this issue
seriously and this item will be brought back in September. He said that all will be notified
of the next meeting.
32
"eel CP
3
454
Tethering Amendment Proposal
As Recommended to the Board of County Commissioners
May 20`h, 2008
AMENDMENTS TO THE
ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
(Only those sections or subsections amended are set out below)
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, hereby amends the Ordinance To Provide For Animal
Control Protection In Orange County, North Carolina by adding (indicated by double
underlined language) and deleting (indicated by stricken through language) as follows:
Section VII — Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following terms mean:
2. ....
3.
22. Restraint: An animal is under restraint if it is under sufficient physical
restrain such as a leash, cage, bridle, or similar effective and humane device which
restrains and controls the animal, or within a vehicle, or adequately contained by a fence
on the premises or other secure enclosure as permitted in accordance with Subsections
2a(L) and XIU of this ordinance. If a competent adult is physically outside on the land
with the animal, on land where the owner or keeper of the animal resides, then the animal
shall be deemed to be under restraint during the time the animal is in the company of and
11
Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal
May 20`l', 2008
Page 2
under the control of that competent person and the animal is on the premises. If any
unattended animal is restrained by a chain, leash or similar restraint, it shall be designated
and placed to prevent choking or strangulation. Such chain or restraint shall not be less
than ten (10) feet in length and hall a either on a swivel designed to prevent the animal
from choking or strangling itself, -or� The restraint of unattended does by a
fence, kennel outdoor enclosure chain leash or similar restraint is further regulated
under Sections XI(K) and XI(L) of this ordinance.
23. ...
24. ...
25. ...
Section XI — Mistreatment of Animals Unlawful. The following acts or failure
to act relating to the mistreatment of animals are unlawful and violations of this
ordinance:
A. ...
B. ...
C. ...
D. ...
E. It shall be unlawful to restrain any animal except in a humane fashion;
* a ds of r-estr as set eut firth in Section VII(22) above. and Sections
i(Kl and XI(L) below.
5
Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal
May 20`x', 2008
Page 3
F.
G.
H.
J. ...
K It shall be unlawful for any person to restrain a doe using a chain. wire or
other type_ of _tethering device jn a manner prohibited by this subsectio-
n-1. No person shall tether fasten chain tie or restrain a dog. or cause
such restraining of a dog to a tree fence post dog house or other stationary object for
more than a total of 3 hours in a 24 -hour period During periods of tethering that are not
unlawful under this subsection any tethering device used shall be at least 10 feet in
length and attached in such manner as to prevent strangulation or other injury to the dog
and entanglement with objects.
2 No person shall tether fasten chain tie or restrain a dog. or cause
such restraining of a dog to a cable trolley system that allows movement of the
restraining device for more than a total of 3 hours in a 24 -hour period. During periods of
tethering that are not unlawful under this subsection the length of the cable along whic
e tethering device can move must be at least 10 feet and the tethering device must be of
such length that the dog is able to move 10 feet away from the cable goMendjcularly.
3 No person shall tether a dog with a chain or wire or other device
to or cause such attachment to any collar other than a buckle type collar or bodv
harness.
4 No person shall tether with a chain or wire or other device to, or
cause such attachment to a head harness choke -type collar or pronged collar to a dog.
5 No person shall tether with a chain, wire or other device to a dog
where the weight of the teth ering device and the collar combined exceeds ten (10) percent
of the dog's body weight.
6 No person shall tether with a chain or wire or other device a dog in
such manner that does not allow the dog access to adequate food water and shelter
7 Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this
subsection a person may subject to the provisions of subsections (31 -(61 of this Section-
G) Tether and restrain a dog while actively engaged jn:
a Use of the dog in shepherding or herding livestock. or
Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal
May 200, 2008
Page 4
b Use of the doe in the business of cultivating agricultural
products if the restraining is reasonably necessary for the
safety of the dog. or
C. Use of the dog in lawful hunting activities if the restraint is
reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog. or
d Use of the dog at dog training or performance events.
including but not limited to field trials and obedience trials
where tethering does not occur for a period exceeding
7 consecutive days.
(ii) After taking possession of a dog that appears to be a stray dog and
after having advised animal control authorities of the capture of the
dog tether and restrain the dog in accordance with the provisions
^f Section XIM for a period not to exceed seven (7) days as the
person having taken possession of the dog is seeking the identity o
the owner of the dog.
(iii) Walk a dog with a handheld leash.
L It shall bg unlawful for any person to keep a dog outdoors in an enclosure
including a pen run kennel fence or electronically controlled containment device or
other outdoor enclosure in violation of this subsection.
1 Outdoor enclosures containing dogs must meet or exceed the
f llowing dimensional requirements:
Size of Dog Required Minimum Enclosure Area
1 -35 Pounds 80 Square Feet
36 -75 Pounds 100 Square Feet
76 Pounds and greater 120 Square Fled
1 outdoor enclosures must be of sufficient height so that the tallest dog contained
within the enclosure is able to walk naturally without its head reaching the roof or top o
said enclosure however the height of any such enclosure shall not be included for the
purooses of determining the required minimum enclosure area The provisions of this
Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal
May 20'x', 2008
Page 5
Section XI(L) shall not apply to any Person who held a valid permit to operate a Class I
Kennel or Class II Kennel from Orange County on or before January 1 2008 for so long
as such permit remains in full force and effect without lapse or revocation All Persons
applying for a new Class I or Class II Kennel Permit after January 1. 2008 shall comply
with this Section XI(L) prior to the issuance of any such permit."
(i) In addition to the required minimum enclosure area
established herein additional space must be provided for each additional dog that is kept
in an outdoor enclosure as follows• for the second and each additional dog that is kept in
an outdoor enclosure with another dog fifty percent of the required minimum area
specified in subsection MUD must be added to the minimum enclosure area The
required minimum enclosure area sh& be based on the weight of the largest dog
contained within the enclosure.
Subsections XI(K) and XI(L) become effective June 1 2009 and apply to acts committed
on or after that date Any person who violates either of these subsections after June 1
2009 and prior to January 1 2010 shall be issued a written warning giving the violator
30 days to come into compliance with the ordinance Any person who violates
subsection XI(K) and XI(L) after January 1 2010 or any violator who fails to comply
with the ordinance after the expiration of 30 days following such persons receipt oT
warning specified in the preceding sentence is subiect to one or more of the Penalties
established in Section XXI of this ordinance Any dog that is kept in violation of
subsections XI(K) and XI(L) of this ordinance may be seized and subsequently
impounded in accordance with Section XIII of this ordinance until such a time as the
Animal Control Director is reasonably assured that the dog will not be subiect to restraint
in violation of this or i ance The Animal Control Director shall post a notice at the
lace of the illegal restraint or at such other location that is designed to reasonably
apprise the Owner or Keeper of the dog the place date and time the dog was seized
along with_ the location where the dog was taken Such notice shall clearly state that the
dog may be returned to the Owner or Keeper upon providing reasonable assurances to the
C0
Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal
May 20`x`, 2008
Page 6
Animal Control Director that the doe will not be subject to restraint in violation of this
ordinance.
Upon motion of Commissioner
Commissioner
Ordinance amendments were adopted this the
2008 and shall become effective as of the
seconded by
the foregoing Animal Control
day of
day of , 200_.
Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners
0
Tethering Committee Report
July 30'', 2007
Orange County's Tethering Committee*
Report and Proposal for Ordinance Amendment
July 30th, 2007
*Members of the Tethering Committee wash to thank Animal Services stafffor their diligent and
professional efforts to ensure that the Committee was effective as well as successful in meeting its
charge in a timely manner. Direct staff support to the Tethering Committee was provided by Bob
Marotto, Animal Services Director; Irene Paul, Manager, Animal Control Division; Lisa Smith,
Office Assistant, Animal Control Division; and Andi Morgan, Administrative Assistant,
Administration.
Tethering Committee Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
July 3&, 2007
I. Summary
11. Introduction
III. Findings
IV Recommendations
IV. Discussion
V. Next Steps
VI. Appendices
a. Appendix I: Creation of the Orange County Tethering Committee and Board of County
Commissioners' Abstract for Creation of the Tethering Committee
b. Appendix II: Committee Members, BOCC Liaison, and Staff
c. Appendix III: North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances
d. Appendix V: Notes from Interviews with North Carolina Jurisdictions with Tethering
Ordinances: Conducted by the Tethering Committee
2
N
Tethering Committee Report
SAY
July 30'', 2007
After a six-month-long deliberation that included seven meetings, the Orange County Tethering
Committee has concluded that the practice of tethering is a concern from the standpoint of both
animal and human welfare. With respect to the latter, tethered dogs can pose risks to the safety of
community members, and in some circumstances, affect their enjoyment and use of their property.
With respect to the former, it may be injurious to an animal and result in isolated lives of not -so-
quiet desperation at the end of a chain or rope.
Of particular concern are dogs that spend their lives tethered, as these are naturally active and social
beings that require exercise and frequent interaction with humans and other animals. Additionally,
the Committee is concerned that tethered animals develop behavioral problems, including
aggression, that adversely affect public welfare.
Notably, the Committee is recommending that tethering be limited rather than outlawed because it
has concluded that there are certain circumstances under which tethering can be an acceptable
method of confinement for several hours, whether the owner is in attendance or has left his or her
residence for that time period.
In light of this, the Committee is recommending that the County's current animal ordinance be
amended to include the following with regard to tethering dogs:
• a three -hour limit within a 24 -hour period;
• a specification of the types of collars and equipment that are allowed when a dog is tethered;
• a requirement for minimum kennel size for outdoor housing of dogs;
• an exemption for organized and lawful animal functions such as hunting, obedience training,
and law enforcement training of a duration of not more than seven (7) days;
• an 18 -month education period, including twelve (12) months of public outreach and six (6)
months of issuing warnings before the citations would be issued.
In general terms, the Committee is making these recommendations on the basis of these findings:
• Prolonged tethering can and does deprive dogs of necessary exercise and socialization.
• Tethered dogs can and do contribute to various community problems, including pet
overpopulation and nuisance barking.
• Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to public safety and health because they may become
aggressive and they are not confined behind a physical barrier.
In making these recommendations, the Committee has gathered general information about the
humane and public safety aspects of tethering; researched existing ordinances that restrict or
prohibit tethering in jurisdictions across the United States; interviewed Animal Services personnel
in North Carolina jurisdictions with tethering ordinances; and held two meetings to obtain public
input.
3
Tethering Committee Report
July 3&, 2007
lQ
In addition, the Committee is making these recommendations recognizing that that the precedent for
its proposal to change Orange County's animal ordinances is compelling. More specifically,
numerous jurisdictions in North Carolina and around the United States (including four states) have
successfully implemented tethering prohibitions or restrictions and have found them to be both
enforceable and effective in reducing animal cruelty complaints and dog bite incidents.
Given the charge it received from the Board of County Commissioners, the Tethering Committee is
submitting its recommendations to the Animal Services Advisory Board, the appointed citizen body
that advises the County regarding animal service matters. In turn, the Animal Services Advisory
Board will decide what, if any, ordinance amendments to recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners, the County's legislative body.
4
Tethering Committee Report
INTRODUCTION
July 30a', 2007
This is a report of the Orange County Tethering Committee, a committee created by the Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) and charged with considering what changes, if any, should be
made in the County's animal ordinances with regard to tethering.1
Tethering involves keeping dogs on tie -outs such as chains or ropes versus within a fenced structure
or inside the home. It is often defined in reference to a stationary object (for example, a dog chained
to a stake near a dog house) but may also be defined to include overhead trolley systems. Tethering
does not refer to walking a dog on a leash, but instead refers to dogs that are tied out as a primary, if
not exclusive, means of confinement.
Currently, Orange County's animal ordinances, which apply to the unincorporated parts of the
County and Hillsborough, allow tethering provided certain conditions are met. The Tethering
Committee is proposing that this ordinance be amended, and specifically recommending the
changes formulated in this report.
The remainder of this report will outline and explain the changes that the Tethering Committee is
recommending for Orange County's animal ordinances. It will. also provide information about the
work of the Committee, its findings, and the rationale for its specific recommendations.
' For background on the formation of the Tethering Committee and its charge from the Orange County Board of
Commissioners, see Appendix I: Creation of the Orange County Tethering Committee and Board of County
Commissioners' Abstract for the Creation of the Tethering Committee.
W
13
I,+
Tethering Committee Report
FINDINGS
July 3e, 2007
Over a six -month period, the Tethering Committee met numerous times to organize itself, gather
and review information about the practice of tethering, research ordinances to restrict or prohibit
tethering in other North Carolina jurisdictions, and collect input from the public. Altogether there
was one organizational meeting, two information gathering meetings, and two public input
meetings. Two additional meetings were held to formulate recommendations and review and
approve the Committee's Report and Proposal for Ordinance Amendment.
The Committee came to its general findings on the basis of the weight of available information
gathered through its meetings and work. These findings are generally consistent with the concerns
that have prompted other jurisdictions to outlaw or otherwise control the practice of tethering.
.According to one source, there are now more than 50 jurisdictions in the United States with
tethering regulations .2 Most of these are county and local governments, but there are also four
states that have prohibited tethering. Some national organizations — including the Humane Society
of the United States (HSUS), which has advised the County on animal sheltering issues— advocate
for prohibitions on tethering dogs.
Specifically, the Committee's findings include:
Humane Concerns
• Tethered dogs, and certainly those that are isolated and continuously tethered, may be
deprived of essential exercise and socialization.
• Tethered dogs are at risk of various tethering - related injuries, such as embedded collars and
accidental strangulation or hanging.
• Tethered dogs are also at risk of becoming tangled and prevented from reaching food, water
and shelter, and attacks by other animals in which they are usually unable to defend
themselves.
z See http://www.helpinganimals.com/ga_.tdhcrLegislation.asp.
6
Tethering Committee Report
Public Safety Issues
July 30'', 2007
• Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to the community. They can and do become highly
territorial and aggressive and present a significant risk of injury to the public through dog
bites and attacks.
• Tethered dogs are also a risk with regard to aggressive incidents or actual bites because there
is not a physical barrier between a. dog and a child or other community member. By
contrast, fences and kennels do create such barriers, thereby minimizing the risk a dog can
pose to neighbors or passersby (while at the same time protecting that dog from attacks by
other animals).
Community Concerns
• Tethered dogs are at risk of unplanned and unwanted breeding, and thus they can contribute
to the significant problem of pet overpopulation. They may have litters of unwanted puppies,
and also create problems by attracting and exciting other dogs (despite the requirement of
County ordinance that an animal that is "in season" be suitably contained and not kept
outside).
• Tethered dogs can negatively impact community life through nuisance barking.
Precedent
• There is ample precedent for the enactment of an ordinance to prohibit or restrict tethering;
at least 50 U.S. jurisdictions, including cities, counties and several states, have passed such
laws.
• Several North Carolina jurisdictions — including Catawba, New Hanover, and Scotland
Counties, along with several North Carolina townships —have some level of tethering
limitation currently in place.3
• Ordinances that restrict or prohibit tethering have proved to be both enforceable and
effective in reducing animal cruelty complaints and incidents of dog bites.
' See Appendix H: North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances.
7
(5
ho
Tethering Committee Report
RECONIlVIENDATIONS
July 30'x, 2007
The Orange County Tethering Committee, on the basis of its charge from the BOCC and after
extensive research and public input, is proposing that there be an amendment to the County's
animal ordinance to restrict but not prohibit the tethering of dogs in Orange County. This and
closely related recommendations regarding matters such as the implementation of a new ordinance
are presented in this section.
An ordinance amendment is being proposed because there is presently very little regulation of
tethering in Orange County's animal ordinances, regulations which apply in the unincorporated
parts of the County and Hillsborough. A minimum standard is set out in Section VII in these terms:
"If any unattended animal is restrained by a chain, leash or similar restraint, it shall be designed and
placed to prevent choking or strangulation. Such chain or restraint shall not be less than ten (10)
feet in length and either on a swivel designed to prevent the animal from choking or strangling
itself or on a chain run." 4
As formulated below, in order to more effectively regulate the practice of tethering in Orange
County, the Tethering Committee's specific recommendations fall into four closely related areas:
Limitation and Requirements
• Tethering should be limited to three (3) hours within a twenty- four -hour period, and a
tethered animal shall be kept in accordance with all other laws, including but not limited to
requirements for food. water and shelter. By limiting tethering to three (3) hours per day,
such an ordinance would reduce the risk of uncontrolled contact between dogs and people,
which is sometimes responsible for dog attacks and bites, and it could improve or enhance
the overall conditions and care of dogs themselves. It should be noted that the Committee is
4 North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) (sections 14360 forward) pertaining to cruelty to animals may apply in some
circumstances to how an animal is secured. With only one exception, however, it does not make any specific mention
of restraint or tethering. The exception is NCGS 14362.3 (Restraining dogs in a cruel manner), which makes it a Class
1 misdemeanor for someone to "maliciously restrain a dog using a chain or wire grossly in excess of the size necessary
to restrain the dog safely."
8
i-7
Tethering Committee Report
July 30th, 2007
recommending that tethering be limited rather than outlawed because it has concluded that
there are certain circumstances under which tethering can be an acceptable method of
confinement for several hours, whether the owner is in attendance or has left his or her
residence for that time period.
• Tethers must meet certain requirements. A tethered dog must have a tether at least ten feet in
length that swivels at each end to prevent choking or strangulation and allows access to
food, water and shelter. The weight of the tether and collar must not exceed ten percent of
the dog's body weight. A tethered dog must be tethered using a buckle collar or harness.
Choke chain collars and prong collars are not allowed when tethering a dog. These
requirements are designed to avoid strangulation and ensure the welfare of the animal if and
when it is tethered in accordance with the proposed ordinance.
A minimum pen size for outdoor enclosures for dogs should be established. This is
necessary to empower Animal Control to ensure that dogs taken off tethers as a primary
means of constraint are not confined to small spaces that compromise their welfare.5
Exceptions
• Tethering is allowed at training and performance (or sporting) events for dogs including but
not limited to field trails and obedience trails. In such cases, continuous tethering shall not
be allowed for a period longer than seven (7) days.
Implementation
• An ordinance amendment regarding tethering should become effective 18 months after its
adoption. This approach is informed by the successful experience of other communities in
which awareness was raised and the public educated before a tethering regulation actually
became effective.
5 An example of such requirement from New Hanover County, North Carolina, is that: "Outside enclosure means a pen
large enough to provide each dog less than 25 pounds with a kennel of at least 8 feet x 10 feet in size, and each dog 25
pounds or greater with a kennel of 10 feet x 10 feet in size. Animal control services reserves the right to determine if a
space is considered suitable for the number and size of dogs housed in an outdoor enclosure." (New Hanover County
Code, Section 5-4)
9
Tethering Committee Report
July 30a`, 2007
•
• The implementation phase will involve a year -long period of extensive public outreach and
education regarding the ordinance amendment and practice of tethering followed by a six-
month period in which only warnings are issued. This is to ensure that dog owners have
ample notice of the new ordinance and time to transition to other methods of confinement
and take advantage of community resources to help with the implementation of alternatives.
• Public outreach should include resources to help dog owners implement alternatives to the
restraint of dogs by tethering as well as information about the new ordinance. The
Committee believes that public outreach and education is pivotal to its recommendations.
These pursuits would presumably be led by the Animal Services Department, working in
concert with its citizen advisory board and perhaps other stakeholders.
Enforcement
• Upon initial contact for noncompliance with the new ordinance,- after the six -month phase -in
period, a dog owner will receive a warning, that gives him or her thi& (30) dys to come
into compliance. As with the initial implementation period itself, this initial enforcement
approach is designed to ensure that dog owners are aware of and able to comply with the
tethering ordinance.
• Civil citations with a monetar�penaI on a progressive or graduated) schedule ordinarily
will be issued for noncompliance after issuance of a warning to come into compliance.
• An animal may be impounded after the issuance of a citation for a violation of the tethering
ordinance —which itself would occur only after the issuance of a warning -- subject to an
appropriate process of appeal by the animal owner. Given the right to and requirements of
"due process," there would not only be an appeal process but a specific legal mechanism for
determining possession and ownership of an animal in the event that an appeal failed.
101
iq
Tethering Committee Report
DISCUSSION
July 30a', 2007
The Tethering Committee is recommending a tethering ordinance because there is good reason to
believe limited or controlled tethering can alleviate the harm to animals and hardship to people that
can be associated with the practice of tethering. By limiting tethering to a given number of hours
within a twenty- four -hour period, such an ordinance would reduce the risk of uncontrolled contact
between dogs and people, which is sometimes responsible for dog attacks and bites, and it could
improve or enhance the overall conditions and care of dogs themselves.
Experience of Other Jurisdictions
The Tethering Committee's recommendation to limit tethering is not without precedent and is
consistent with the efforts of other jurisdictions in North Carolina and beyond to control or prohibit
the practice of tethering. These precedents include state laws as well as local ordinances, and
together they provide compelling evidence that tethering can be successfully regulated in a variety
of different ways.6
As part of its information gathering, the Committee reviewed tethering ordinances in the North
Carolina counties of Catawba, New Hanover and Scotland, along with several North Carolina
townships, and interviewed officials in three of those jurisdiction.? The information gathered in
this manner indicates that efforts to restrict or prohibit tethering elsewhere in North Carolina have
been quite successful. The ordinances proved to be enforceable, and they appeared to actually
reduce rather than increase the time required by humane investigators to attend to animal
complaints.
According to interviews with animal services officials from Catawba County, New Hanover County
and the Town of Laurinburg in Scotland County, there were few, if any, unintended adverse
impacts. Dogs were not surrendered by their owners, euthanized or just set free as a result of the
c See bgp://www.helRlmzammals-com/= tetherLegislation.aso for complete list of jurisdictions with tethering
ordinances.
7 See Appendix 11: North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances, and Appendix III: Notes from
Interviews with North Carolina Jurisdictions with Tethering Ordnances: Conducted by the Tethering Committee
11
i M
Tethering Committee Report
July 30th, 2007
adoption of tethering ordinances. In addition, the ordinances had several positive impacts, for
instance, reducing the number of animal cruelty complaints and incidents of dog bites.
In terms of enforcement, these North Carolina officials reported that successful implementation
required a reasonable phase -in period that allowed for adequate public education and outreach and
sufficient time for dog owners to change from a tether to other methods of confinement. It is on the
basis of their experience that the Committ ee is recommending an 18 -month phase -in period as both
reasonable and adequate for accomplishing these goals.
Also, officials from New Hanover County and the Town of Laurinburg in Scotland County both
reported that an outright ban or severe restriction on allowable hours for tethering was most
enforceable. In 2000, Laurinburg changed its ordinance to restrict tethering from eight (8) hours to
one (1) hour, a change that improved enforcement capability. Laurinberg's Animal Control Officer
reported a 90 percent compliance rate with the ordinance at this time, and reports that the ability to
impound animals has been essential to the enforcement of this law.
The Committee believes that a three -hour limit on tethering -is enforceable by Animal Control
Officers in Orange County, given their regular work hours and the operating hours of the Animal
Control Division of the Animal Services Department.
Public Testimony
As previously noted, the Tethering Committee held public input meetings in order to give the
citizens of the County an opportunity to express their concerns and ideas. The first public input
meeting, on April 23rd, 2007, was widely publicized and had approximately 25 -30 people in
attendance. The following meeting of the Tethering Committee, though not originally designed as
such, became a second public input meeting, with approximately 20 citizens attending.
Much was learned from the varied opinions and preferences expressed at these "listening sessions."
Some individuals spoke against the practice of tethering on the grounds that it was not humane.
Others addressed public safety and community welfare concerns. Yet others noted their belief that
12
Tethering Committee Report July 30th, 2007
tethering was not necessarily inhumane, and that for some individuals and animals, it could be the
only possible or effective means of restraint.
a�
Also at these sessions were representatives of an area hunting association, the Eno River Coon
Hunters Association, and other interested parties who expressed two main concerns about the
restriction of tethering. One. was that they would not be, able to hold their very successful annual
field trial if tethering was prohibited. In this regard, they stressed that this event draws people from
around the country and generates considerable income for the County.
Their other concern was the keeping of hunting dogs themselves. They emphasized that these dogs
were often, if not always, kept on tethers and that, in their opinion, it was sometimes the best way to
keep such dogs. Advantages included the easy separation of incompatible dogs, and the allowance
of greater space on a daily basis. Finally, they stated that dogs can he neglected in a variety of
situations that do not involve tethering, for instance, the inappropriate confinement of dogs in small
kennels and crates.
Committee Deliberations
The Committee weighed testimony from the public and came to a series of recommendations that
are intended to address some, if not all, of the concerns raised in the public testimony. The
Committee believes that tethering raises significant humane, public safety and community welfare
concerns, and that the continuous tethering of dogs is inhumane. The Committee concurs that dogs
can be neglected in other circumstances not involving tethering, but believes that there are
significant public safety and humane issues unique to tethering that merit action by the BOCC.
Because it believes that tethering can be humane for limited time periods under certain
circumstances, the Committee is proposing a three -hour limit per 24 hours with specifications for
appropriate tethers and equipment. The Committee believes that this should reduce any hardship
imposed by this restriction, and accommodate the needs of those members of the public who wish to
tie their dogs outside for limited periods of time. More generally, the Committee has attempted to
limit the hardship imposed by this restriction by recommending a phase -in period for the law that
13
Tethering Committee Report July 30a`, 2007
would include education about the various alternatives and community resources available to help
owners transition from tethers to other means of restraining their dogs.
Qa
As the Committee does not want a much needed tethering ordinance to interfere with the conduct of
legal sporting events, it is proposing an exemption for such events, provided the tethering is
temporary, not lasting for more than seven (7) days in duration while such events are conducted.
The Committee considered the possibility of an exception for hunting dogs given the concerns
raised by hunters in its "listening sessions," but ultimately decided against recommending such an
exception for several reasons. One is that belief that hunting dogs have the same social and
physical needs as other types of dogs. Another is that such an exception would pose difficulties in
the process of enforcement insofar as anyone with a dog from a hunting breed could contend that
his or her dog should be exempted.
It was also believed that the creation of an exception or exceptions would not be fair to dog owners
who were not allowed to tether their dogs for a period longer than three hours under the proposed
ordinance amendment. It was because of this concern that the Committee ultimately decided
against recommending some kind of an exception for dogs that were known to be "escape artists,"
as well as an exception for hunting dogs.
Deliberations regarding these and other concerns raised in public testimony occurred in the final
two meetings held by the Tethering Committee. And it is on the basis of those deliberations, as
well as the information it gathered from other sources, that the Committee is proposing that there be
an ordinance amendment that limits the practice of tethering in Orange County.
NEXT STEPS
The recommendations made in this report will be submitted to the ASAB for timely review and
deliberation of whether a proposed ordinance amendment should ultimately be adopted by the
BOCC itself. The ASAB is made up of twelve County- appointed members and charged with
providing input and advice to the Animal Services Department on various matters, including policy.
14
Tethering Committee Report
July 30th, 2007
On the basis of its consideration of the Tethering Committee's recommendations, the ASAB is
expected to decide whether to recommend any ordinance amendments to the BOCC. As the
County's sole legislative body, the BOCC would decide whether to enact any recommended
amendments, and its own deliberations would be based upon a public hearing about any proposed
amendment, as well as the materials and recommendations received from the ASAB and Tethering
Committee.
15
IQ 3
Tethering Committee Report July 30 'h, 2007
APPENDIX I.
Creation of the Orange County Tethering Committee and Board of County
Commissioners' Abstract for Creation of the Tethering Committee
Committee Creation
a�
T
The concerns surrounding tethering vary greatly and include issues of both animal and public
welfare. Because of these concerns, the practice of tethering has become a policy issue, not only in
our own community, but in communities throughout North Carolina and around the country.
Of particular concern are dogs that spend their lives tethered, as they are naturally social beings and
thrive on frequent interaction with humans and other animals. Additionally, there is concern that
tethered animals, deprived of socialization and exercise, develop behavioral problems or aggression,
and as a result, pose a risk to the community through dog bites and attacks. Other concerns involve
the role of tethered dogs in contributing to community problems such as pet overpopulation and
nuisance barking.
The issue of tethering in Orange County initially surfaced from the efforts of some local animal
advocates, who created an area "Coalition to Unchain Dogs," and began to advocate against the
practice of tethering. Their efforts mirrored initiatives elsewhere to limit, restrict or outlaw
tethering. All of these efforts are concerned with both public safety and animal welfare.
The Orange County Tethering Committee was formed by the BOCC in October 2006 in response to
local concerns about the issue. An abstract for the creation of the Tethering Committee appears at
the end of this Appendix.$ The BOCC charged the committee with:
• Reviewing tethering as a policy issue and reporting on it as a means of confinement,
including the activities and efforts of other communities;
8 The issue of tethering was originally considered by the ASAB, which created a subcommittee to address the matter.
The subcommittee met and decided that it would.need to bring in outside members of the community, a function
reserved for the BOCC. It was at that time that the BOCC created the Tethering Committee to work in conjunction with
the ASAB in deciding in what ways, if any, the ordinance that governs tethering should be changed.
1R
Tethering Committee Report
July 3e, 2007
• Obtaining general public comment or input about tethering from a cross - section of the
community; and
• Recommending to the ASAB any appropriate or desirable changes with the understanding
that the ASAB would itself make any final recommendations to the BOCC.
The BOCC also specified the makeup of the Committee. Specifically, it would include two ASAB
members, one law enforcement representative, one animal behaviorist, one animal health and
wellness expert, one advocate for the restriction of tethering, one advocate for tethering, and three
at -large representatives.
SOCC Abstract and Committee Charge
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 3`d, 2006
SUBJECT: Creation of a Tethering Committee
DEPARTMENT: Animal Services
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Charge To and Composition of
Orange County Tethering Committee
Tethering Meeting Summary Notes
Action Agenda
.Item No.
PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Bob Marotto, Director, 968 -2287
Gwen Harvey, Assistant County
Manager, 245 -2307
L6
17
MIR
Tethering Committee Report July 30t`, 2007
PURPOSE: To request that the BOCC create a Tethering Committee for the purpose of
assessing whether and if so how the County's animal ordinances should be amended in
regard to the tethering of dogs.
BACKGROUND: The issue of whether or not there should be more restrictive tethering
requirements in Orange County's animal ordinances has come before the Animal Services
Advisory Board. The same issue has been raised elsewhere in North Carolina and around the
United States, and in some places, there have been ordinance or statutory changes that
restrict or prohibit the use of tethers and chains to confine dogs.
The issue of tethering was the subject of discussion at the August meeting of the Animal
Services Advisory Board. Proponents of more restrictive tethering requirements addressed
concerns with public safety and community livability as well as concerns with the humane care
of animals. Another member of the community favorably compared tethering with other forms
of confinement.
On the basis of public comments on tethering, and discussion among its members regarding
ordinances of this kind in the context of Orange County, the ASAB decided that a Tethering
Committee ought to be created. Toward that end, the ASAB selected two representatives to
meet and develop an approach in response to a three - pronged charge from the ASAB. First,
they were to create a larger committee with a cross - section of community views; second, to
compile pertinent information; and finally, to determine how general public comment ought to
be gathered about any possible ordinance amendments regarding tethering.
In early September, there was a meeting of the two ASAB representatives to the Tethering
Committee. A primary outcome of that meeting was to identify positions for five additional
members of that Committee defined as follows: (1) law enforcement; (2) expertise in the area
of animal behavior; (3) expertise in the area of animal health and wellness; (4) an advocate of
more limited tethering; and (5) an advocate for tethering as a means of confinement.
Subsequent to the meeting, staff discovered that only the BOCC could create or authorize the
creation of such a committee. Thus the creation of the Committee was referred back to the
ASAB at its September meeting and, at that meeting, a motion was unanimously adopted
asking the BOCC to either create a Tethering Committee, or to authorize the ASAB to itself
create such a committee as described herein. Accordingly, the BOCC will also need to decide
whether the additional five pre - defined positions on the Tethering Committee would be filled
the ASAB itself or by the BOCC through its usual application process for volunteers.
The Animal Services Department, under the direction of Bob Marotto, will serve as Secretary
to the Tethering Committee under either scenario and the recommendations from the
Tethering Committee will be reviewed and commented on by the ASAB as a whole before
being presented to the BOCC for any possible action.
18
a7
Tethering Committee Report
July 30 'b, 2007
It was discussed during Chair/Vice Chair agenda review that the BOCC might wish to
create the Tethering Committee itself, and with the inclusion of the two ASAB
representatives, appoint the five pre - defined positions as proposed along with three
additional at -large representatives from the community.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact accompanies the creation of a Tethering
Committee.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss options
presented relative to the creation of a Tethering Committee and the appointment of its
members, and provide direction to staff.
CHARGE TO AND COMPOSITION OF ORANGE COUNTY
TETHERING COMMITTEE
At the request of the Animal Services Advisory Board, and upon recommendation of the
County Manager, the Commissioners are creating a committee to aid in the determination of
whether there should be change in the County's animal ordinances as these apply to the
tethering or chaining of animals such as dogs.
The composition of the committee is as follows:
• Two representatives of the Animal Services Advisory Board chosen by that Board.
• A law enforcement representative.
• An expert in the area of animal behavior.
• An expert in the area of animal health and wellness.
• An advocate for the restriction of tethering.
• An advocate for tethering.
• Three at -large representatives (for BOCC consideration).
The charge for the committee follows:
• To compile in a presentable form pertinent information on tethering and /or chaining as a
means of confinement for animals such as dogs, including activities and efforts pursued by
other communities.
19
Tethering Committee Report
July 3CP, 2007
• To obtain general public comment on any possible ordinance amendments from a cross -
section of the community through suitable mechanisms such as community hearings or
facilitated focus groups.
• To recommend to the Animal Services Advisory Board any appropriate or desirable
ordinance changes with the understanding that the ASAB will itself make any final
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.
Mc
•
20
Tethering Committee Report
APPENDIX II:
Committee Members, BOCCLiaison, and Staff
Committee Members
Position l: Kristine Bergstrand
Animal Services Advisory Board Member
Position 2: Jean H. Connerat - Levine
Animal Services Advisory Board Member
Position 3: Mary Dow
Animal Behaviorist
Position4: VACANT
July 30th, 2007
Animal Wellness/ Health Expert
(In April, 2007, the person appointed to this position resigned from the Committee.)
Position 5: Suzanne Roy
Advocate against tethering
Position 6: VACANT
Advocate for tethering
(The BOCC did not make an appointment to this position.)
Position 7: Rachel Beckham
At -Large Member
Position 8: Margie Huggins
At -Large
Position 9: Kelly Strowd
Law Enforcement
Board of County Commissioners Liaison
Commissioner Michael R Nelson
Animal Services Staff
Bob Marotto
Animal Services Director
Irene Paul
Manager, Animal Control Division
a�
21
Tethering Committee Report
Lisa Smith
Office Assistant, Animal Control Division
Andi Morgan
Administrative Assistant, Administration
July 30t', 2007
KWI
22
31
Tethering Committee Report July 30a', 2007
APPENDIX III:
North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances
The following North Carolina jurisdictions have some sort of tethering regulation. For more
information see http ://www.helpinganimals.com/ga tetherLegislation.asp.
New Hanover County. North Carolina
Chaining or tethering dogs is prohibited. A chain or rope is not to be used in place of a leash when
walking dogs.
Sec. 3.4 (d) Restraint: An animal is under restraint within the meaning of this chapter if it is
controlled by means of a leash, or is sufficiently near the owner or handler to be under his direct
control and is obedient to that person's command; or is on or within a vehicle being driven or
parked; or is within a secure enclosure. Exceptions to restraint are as follows: Organized and lawful
animal functions e.g. hunting, obedience training, field and water training, law enforcement training
and/or in the pursuit of working or competing in those legal endeavors. When a dog is on the
property of its owner of guardian it shall be secured when not supervised by a competent person.
Ropes, chains, and the like shall not constitute adequate security under this ordinance.
Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina
June 13, 2006
This ordinance prohibits the tethering of dogs.
Section 91.22. Prohibition Against Tethering of Dogs.
A. It shall be unlawful to tether an unattended dog outside of the house.
Laurinburg, North Carolina
June 20, 2000
Dogs may not be chained for a period longer than one hour in a 24 -hour period.
Sec. 4 -21. Restraint of dogs.
When a dog is on the property of its owner or keeper and is not within a secure enclosure, it shall be
under the direct control of and obedient to the owner or keeper. At all other times when a dog is on
the property of its owner or keeper, it shall be kept within a secure enclosure, including a fenced in
area or electronic fence, house or other building, of sufficient strength and height to prevent the dog
from escaping there from; provided, the owner or keeper may, for a period not to exceed one (1)
23
M
July 30a', 2007
Tethering Committee Report
hour every twenty-four (24) hours, allow the dog to be tethered or chained to a stationary object or
pole so long as the dog is provided sufficient water and nourishment. All dogs off of the property of
the owner or keeper shall be controlled by means of a leash and under the direct control of and
obedient to the owner or keeper's command.
Noncompliance with any of the foregoing provisions in the section 4-21 may result in the
impoundment of the animal at any time, or it may result in a fine of one hundred dollars ($100.00)
or both.
Dogs utilized by law enforcement officers in the course of law enforcement activities are exempt
from the section. (Code 1975, § 4-5; Ord. No. 0- 1997 -29, 11- 18 -97; Ord. No. 0- 2000 -12, § 1, 6-
20-00)
Scotland Countyr. North Carolina
June 6, 2005
This ordinance prohibits the chaining of dogs for more than one hour in any 24 -hour period.
Section 9 (l): No person shall, at any time, fasten, chain, or tie any dog or cause such dog to be
fastened, chained, or tied, while such dog is on the dog owner's property, or on the property of the
dog owner's landlord no longer than one (1) hour per day.
Catawba County, North Carolina
(D) Chaining or tethering an animal to a stationary object for a period of time or under conditions
that an animal control officer or animal cruelty investigator deems harmful or potentially harmful to
the animal. Examples of improper chaining or tethering include, but are not limited to the following:
(1) Using a length or weight of a chain or tether that is not appropriate for the size, weight and
age of the animal. Guidelines for the proper weight and length of chains or tethers can be
obtained from the animal shelter or animal control
(2) Using a chain or tether made of rope, twine, cord or similar material.
(3) Using a chain or tether that is less than 10 feet in length and/or does not have swivels on
both ends. All chains or tethers must be attached to the animal by means of a properly fitting
harness or collar of not less than one inch in width.
(4) Chaining or tethering an animal to a stationary object for a period of time or under
conditions that an animal control officer or animal cruelty investigator deems harmful or
potentially harmful to the animal. Examples of improper chaining or tethering include, but
are not limited to the following:
(a) Using a length or weight of a chain or tether that is not appropriate for the size, weight
and age of the animal. Guidelines for the proper weight and length of chains or tethers
can be obtained from the animal shelter or animal control
(b) Using a chain or tether made of rope, twine, cord or similar material.
24
Tethering Committee Report
July 30O, 2007
33
(c) Using a chain or tether that is less than 10 feet in length and/or does not have swivels on
both ends. All chains or tethers must be attached to the animal by means of a properly
fitting harness or collar of not less than one inch in width.
(d) Using a chain or tether that exceeds ten percent of the animal's body weight.
(e) Allowing an animal to be chained or tethered such that the animal is not confined to the
owner's property or such that the chain or tether can become entangled and prevent the
animal from moving about freely, lying down comfortable or having access to adequate
food, water and shelter.
(f) Using a chain as a primary collar. All collars used for the purpose of chaining or
tethering an animal must be made of nylon or leather.
(5) Allowing an animal to be chained or tethered such that the animal is not confined to the
owner's property or such that the chain or tether can become entangled and prevent the
animal from moving about freely, lying down comfortable or having access to adequate
food, water and shelter.
(6) Using a chain as a primary collar. All collars used for the purpose of chaining or tethering an
animal must be made of nylon or leather.
Holly Springs, North Carolina
May 16, 2006
This ordinance prohibits the tethering of animals for a period of time or under conditions that are
deemed harmful to the animals. Tethers must be at least 10 feet long and weigh 10 percent of the
animal's body weight or less. Tethers must allow animals to move freely and allow them access to
food, water, and shelter.
Sec. 12 -65. Cruelty to animals.
(c) Prohibited acts. All animals shall be kept and treated under sanitary and humane conditions and
it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in one or more of the following acts:
8. Allowing a collar, rope or chain to become embedded in or cause injury to an animal's neck,
or allowing a choke or pinch collar to be used as a primary collar on an unsupervised animal,
or chaining or tethering an animal to a stationary object for a period of time or under
conditions that an animal control officer deems harmful or potentially harmful to the animal.
Examples of harmful or potentially harmful chaining or tethering include, but are not limited
to the following:
a. Using a length or weight of a chain or tether that is not appropriate for the -size, weight and
age of the animal. A chain or tether should not be less than ten feet long. Using a chain or
tether that exceeds ten percent of the animal's body weight shall be deemed not appropriate
and potentially harmful.
b. Allowing an animal to be chained or tethered such that the animal is not confined to the
owner's property or such that the chain or tether can become entangled and prevent the
animal from moving about freely, lying down comfortably or having access to adequate
food, water and shelter.
c. Tethering an animal on an appendage.
25
3,343
Tethering Committee Report July 3e, 2007
Greenville, North Carolina
This ordinance outlines what kind of tether may be used.
c. 45. Animal care generally.
(c) Any chain, leash, or similar device for animal restraint shall be designed and placed to prevent
choking or injury to the animal. The restraining device shall be at least ten feet in length and placed
on a swivel or on a chain run.
26
0
Tethering Committee Report
APPENDIX IV:
July 3e, 2007
Notes from Interviews with North Carolina Jurisdictions with Tethering
Ordinances: Conducted by the Tethering Committee
The following is a summary of comments from Animal Services officials from New Hanover County,
the City of Laurinburg and Catawba County, made in telephone interviews. The Tethering
Committee conducted these interviews on April 11 `", 2007 as apart of its information gathering.
Dr. Jean McNeil Animal Control Services Manager
New Hanover County
THE LAW: Prohibits tethering. Recently amended to add "attended" to the law so that dogs can be
tethered if their owner is present. They enacted a ban as opposed to time limits on tethering because
time limits are difficult to enforce because they would have to rely on a neighbor's testimony.
WHY ENACTED: County felt that tax dollars were being wasted responding to chaining
complaints. Also enacted because of the cruelty issues Dr. McNeil and her officers were seeing.
The county also wanted to promote a higher standard of pet ownership.
ENFORCEMENT: Violation of the law results in a civil fine. Violators have 60 days to correct the
violation, if they do, the fine is cancelled. If the fine is not paid, it is sent to the county legal
department for collection. As a government agency, the county can garnish a person's wages. New.
Hanover does not have the power of impoundment. They do not take people to court; the
enforcement is handled in -house by the legal department.
PHASE IN: New Hanover had a two -year education period during which only warning notices
were given. Dr. McNeil felt that two years was too long.
RESULTS OF ORDINANCE: The law has resulted in very few dogs being surrendered. Neglect
calls have decreased. They get about 30 tethering- related complaints a month. Some dogs probably
have run loose but those are the people who have no desire to be responsible pet owners.
PUBLIC REACTION: Support within the county. Majority of opposition has come from
elsewhere.
Elaine Modlin Animal Control Officer
City of Laurinburg Animal Control Department Scotland County
THE LAW: In 1988, Laurinburg passed a law limiting tethering to 8 hours a day. It was difficult to
enforce. In 2000, they changed it to one -hour and the change made enforcement much easier. The
27
35
Tethering Committee Report July 30a', 2007
county (Scotland) has the same ordinance as the city. They have a 90 percent compliance rate at this
point.
Laurinburg also has restrictions on pens size —10x10 for smaller dogs, 20x10 for larger. Animal
control wants larger requirements, but the city council has not agreed.
ENFORCEMENT: 1 -hour time limit verified by sitting and watching. Violators are given a two -
week warning notice in general, but animal control uses discretion and will give some situations
more time if the dog is in good condition. Violation results in a civil citation and $100 fine. They
do have the power to impound dogs and feel this has been an important tool.
Most people comply with the law by putting up a pen. The Humane Society has provided some
pens to those who cannot afford it. Those that don't comply and have their dogs impounded must
pay shelter fee, vaccinations, etc. to get the dog back. Sometimes the shelter fee is waived. About
25 % reclaim their dog and the rest are better off anyway.
PHASE IN: The city had a one -year education period before enforcement began. They educated the
community through fact sheets, newspaper, radio, posters, etc.
RESULTS OF ORDINANCE: Overall decrease in cruelty cases, cut down on pit bull problems,
decreased dog bites, and helped with overpopulation (penned dogs are not as easy to get pregnant).
Prior to the law, 50% of bites before were from chained dogs. No dramatic increase in surrenders
and no real problems with people turning their dogs loose.
PUBLIC REACTION: Positive— most people think chaining is cruel. Those that don't agree are
those whose dogs are not well taken care of anyway.
Joaine McKeel, Shelter Manaeer
Catawba County Animal Care and Control, Catawba County
THE LAW: Catawba does not have a ban, just requirements on conditions for tethering.
ENFORCMENT: They don't receive complaints very often. When they do it is because of length
of chain. They educate people as to why they have the requirements, and will write citations for
violators. The ten percent of body weight requirement is assessed by eyeballing the situation.
Some officers feel comfortable and some don't with having to make judgments on the situations.
No citations have been challenged
RESULTS OF LAW: More chaining occurs in the rural area. Approximately 90 — 95% of people
are compliant. They have not seen an increase in animals being surrendered. More animals are
surrendered under the nuisance ordinance than the tethering ordinance.
28
To:
From:
M
. P,P
P
Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968 -2287
September 10th, 2007
Animal Services Advisory Board
Bob Marotto, Animal Services Director, and Irene Paul, Animal Control
Manager
Required Kennel Space Recommendations
At the August meeting of the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB), we were asked
to recommend the minimum required size of kennels for dogs that are confined by such
enclosures. This was requested as part of the ASAB review of the final report of the
Tethering Committee, which recommended that the allowable dimensions of kennels be
set as part of an ordinance amendment that limits the time a dog may be tethered in
Orange County
Recommendation
As discussed further below, our recommendations are based upon our review of
regulations from other jurisdictions that have set the minimum required size of kennels
for dogs. They are as follows:
1. A minimum space requirement should be set in accordance with the size of the
dog (or dogs) that-are kenneled. More specifically, there should be a threefold
requirement as follows,
1 to 35 pounds
• 36 to 75 pounds
• 76 -plus pounds
80 square feet
100 square feet
120 square feet
2. Additional space should be provided for each additional dog that is kept in a
kennel. Specifically, we recommend that fifty percent of the minimum required
space be added for the second and each subsequent dog that is kept kenneled
with another dog; and that the additional space be based upon the size of the
largest of the dogs that are kenneled together.
3. Electronic containment devices and traditional fences shall be treated in the
same way as a kennel with respect to the minimum space required for one or
more dogs of different sizes.
37
Required Kennel Space
September 10th, 2007
Page 2
The rationale for these recommendations has several components. One is that they
ensure sufficient space for dogs that are kept and/or put outside. These are space
requirements that would apply if a dog is outside and not tethered in accordance with
the recommendations made in the Tethering Committee's Report and Proposal for
Ordinance Amendment. It is understood that a traditional fence or electronic fencing
would meet the same minimum requirements set for kennels.
Another rationale is relative ease and simplicity of enforcement. Generally speaking, it
is possible to measure the dimensions of a kennel (or fence), and the weight of a dog
may be determined in a variety of ways (including from veterinary records).
Background Information
Our recommendations are based upon our review of regulations from other jurisdictions
that have set minimum space requirements for kenneled dogs. Examples of such
progressive regulations have been compiled in the Appendix to this memorandum.
They are also based upon our review of information available from the Humane Society
of the United States (HSUS). Of the three pertinent. national organizations we
researched (including American Humane and the National Animal Control Association),
only HSUS offered specific guidelines on this issue.
As can be seen from sample regulations, most, but not all, jurisdictions draw a
distinction between dogs of different sizes, as is the case in our recommendation.
However, there is considerable variation in the minimum kennel space required per dog
by these sample regulations (with some as low as 48 square feet and others as high as
150 square feet). In this regard, we have formulated our own recommendations
between these extremes, and in recognition of what might be described as reasonable
standards.
As can also be seen from the sample regulations, it is often the case that more space is
required for additional dogs in the same kennel. Our recommendation mirrors this
model, using a standard of half the size of the largest dog in a shared kennel. This
standard is higher than many but seems reasonable given the need for additional dog
houses and proper drainage in accordance with other requirements of Orange County's
Animal Ordinances.
While electronic containment devices and traditional fences are not typically referenced,
finally, we have included them among to provide as much clarity as possible with regard
to legal requirements. Our approach is very practical in that these enclosures would
need to meet the same space requirements as a kennel if they are used as a means of
enclosure. Questions about their effectiveness are not germane to this discussion
since, if they were ineffective in a particular situation, any resulting issues would be
addressed through Orange County's animal nuisance ordinance.
0
Appendix l:
Required Kennel Space Regulations
This appendix contains two types of information used in the research of our
recommendations regarding minimum kennel space requirements.
The first section covers existing ordinances, including one from NC, that currently
regulate minimum kennel space requirements. The second part of the appendix covers
general recommendations and /or references from organizations that have formulated
findings for recommended minimum kennel space requirements.
Ordinances:
1. County of New Hanover- North Carolina
Outside enclosure means a pen large enough to provide each dog less than 25 pounds
with a kennel of at least 8 feet x 10 feet in size, and each dog 25 pounds or greater with -
a kennel of 10 feet x 10 feet in size. Animal control services reserves the right to
determine if a space is considered suitable for the number and size of dogs housed in
an outdoor enclosure.
2. Lincoln- Lancaster County Health Department - Nebraska Animal Control -
Kennel Runs
Kennels come in a variety of shapes and sizes with a comparatively low cost. When
your dog is confined in a kennel, use the minimum space requirements from the chart
below as a guide. An additional 16 square feet should.be used for each dog sharing
the pen with another. The minimum pen sizes include a shelter.
Kennels can come with tops for jumpers and climbers. For dogs that like to dig, the
kennel can be placed on a cement pad. Kennel runs might seem like a silly idea when
you have a large yard, but for dogs that love to escape; this may be a good choice.
Size of Do 9
Pen e
Extra Large
__.
(over 26" or over 75 lbs.)
48 j
Large
(over 20" or under 75 lbs.)
f
40
Medium 132
(over 12" or under 50 lbs.) ;l
'
I
(Small
24
99
(over 12" or under 20 lbs.)
Required Kennel Space
September le, 2007
Page 4
3.Town of Ellsworth — Wisconsin — Animal Control Ordinance
The minimum space for dogs kept in pens (not cages), excluding the shelter space (the
house) shall be as follows:
To 25 lbs.
25-50 lbs.
Over 50 lbs.
1 dog 21 Sq ft
60 Sq ft
80 Sq. ft
2 dogs 32 Sq ft
80 Sq ft
96 Sq it
3 dogs 45 Sq ft
96 Sq ft
140 sq ft
4. City of Bartlesville- Oklahoma
httpV/www.ciiyofbartiesville.or�g/index.ghR
• Pens in which dogs reside must contain at least 150 square feet of space per
adult dog. For potentially dangerous dogs the pen must have a secure top and
sides and de
• signed to prevent the escape of the dog or entry by children.
5. Live Oak- Texas (they have a tethering ban) — Animal Restraint Required
Any dogs confined within a fenced yard must have an adequate space for exercise
based on a dimension of at least one hundred (100) square feet. Provided further that
where dogs are kept or housed on property without a fenced yard, the owner of such
dogs or persons having custody of such dogs shall provide an enclosure for such dogs
meeting the one hundred (100) square feet dimension. Such enclosure shall be
constructed of chain link or similar type material with all four sides enclosed. The
enclosure shall be of sufficient height to prevent the dog from escaping from such
enclosure. The top of such enclosure shall be covered with materials to provide the dog
with shade and protection from the elements.
6.Maumelle- Arkansas
Confinement of Animals: From and after the passage of this Ordinance any person
owning animals whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, licensed or unlicensed, shall
confine such animal within an adequate fence or enclosure, or within a house, garage or
other building in conformance with Maumelle Bill of Assurance or its successor. Animals
shall not be tied or chained to doghouses, or other stationary objects, but must be in an
approved enclosure. Sterilized cats are exempt from confinement.
�"
Required Kennel Space
September le, 2007
Page 5
The ordinance also mandates that dog enclosures must provide at least one hundred
and fifty square feet of space for dogs over six months of age.
7.-Carroll County, Maryland
F. The owner of animal(s) that are fenced shall erect fencing normally considered
suitable for the species and type of animal to be. contained. Fencing shall be appropriate
so as to keep the intended animals restrained within its boundaries. Fencing shall be
monitored, well maintained and kept in good repair. In the case of a dog, if the owner
utilizes an "invisible fence" to restrain a dog it may only be used if it consistently and
effectively restrains the dog and is appropriate to be used for the dog.in question. No
aggressive dog may be restrained behind an "invisible fence ".
G. All areas where animals are confined shall be 'maintained so as to provide a safe and
healthy
8. Little Rock - Arkansas
Sec. 6 -16. Confinement. (3) When a dog is confined outside by means of an enclosure
or an electronic containment device, the following minimum space requirements shall be
met:
Size of Doo
Extra Large
(over 26" at withers or over 75 lbs)
Large
(over 20" at withers or not over 75)
Medium
(over 12" at withers or not over 50 Ibs)
Small
(12" or less or not over 20 Ibs)
Pen Size (i dog) ea. add. doo
48 sq. feet 24 sq. feet
40 sq. feet 20 sq. feet
32 sq. feet 16 sq. feet
24 sq feet 12 sq. feet
9. San Bernardino- California
D. DOG KENNELS must be tall enough to prevent the dog from jumping over or have a
secure top and be able to prevent dogs from digging out. Kennels must have a
minimum of 100 square feet for one dog, plus an additional 25 square feet for each
additional dog in the same enclosure.
41
Required Kennel Space
September le, 2007
Page 6
Recommendations / References:
1. Getting Your Dog off the Chain
Humane Society of the United States (from "Do You Chain Your Dog ")
The second reason for the tougher stance on chaining is that many dog owners have
learned to solve the problems that caused them to tie their dogs outside in the first
place. If you would like to provide your dog with an alternative to a rope or chain,
consider these suggestions:
• Install a fence if your property does not already have one. Or consider installing a
large chain -link dog run. If you install a dog run, make sure it meets these
minimum space requirements. Be sure to allow extra space for a doghouse.
Number
of Dogs
Under 50 Ibs.
Over 50 Ibs.
1
6x10 (60 sq. feet)
8x10 (80 sq. feet)
2
8x10 (80 sq. feet)
8x12 (96 sq. feet)
3
8x12 (96 sq. feet)
1 0x1 4 (140 sq. feet)
4
10x12 (120 sq. feet)
I 12x16 (192 sq. feet)
Note: Depending on where you live, your city or county may require that you provide
more space than these guidelines suggest.
2. Unchain Your Dog website / PowerPoint
When a dog is confined outside by means of an enclosure or an electronic containment
device, the following minimum space requirements shall be met:
Size of Dog Pen (increase pen size by half of total area per additional dog)
Extra Large (over 75 Ibs) ** sq. feet
Large (50 -75 Ibs) * *sq. feet
Medium (20 -50 lbs) * *sq. feet
Small (under 20lbs) **sq. feet
( ** Represent number to be inserted once decided upon. No set recommendations.
Power Point is provided for those areas wanting to introduce no tethering regulations
and allows for insertion of agencies information and/or recommendations)
Required Kennet Space
September 10h, 2007
Page 7
3. Prince George County — Maryland
Care Standards for Enforcement of Anti - Cruelty Laws
Dogs in Pens:
The size of the pen is determined by the size and number of dogs housed therein. Dogs
housed together must be socially compatible. It is recommended that no more than four
compatible dogs be housed in single pen.
Minimum space for dogs in pens (not including shelter space) shall be as follows:
# of Dogs Small ( <25lbs) Medium (25- 50lbs) ' Large (> 50lbs)
1 3x7 (21 sq ft)
6x10 (60sq ft)
8x10 (80 sq ft)
2 4x8 (32sq ft)
8x10 (80 sq ft)
8x12 (96 sq ft)
3 5x9'(45 sq ft)
8x12 (96 sq ft)
10x14 (140 sq ft)
4 8x10 (80 sq ft)
10x12 (120 sq ft)
12x16 (192 sq ft)
Note — The above standards are also listed in the Washington DC Humane Society's
Humane Law Enforcement Manual.
143
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Tuesday, February 27th, 2007, 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
Meeting Summary
Location: John Link Government Services Center Conference Room, 200 South
Cameron Street, Hillsborough
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Kristine Bergstrand, DVM, Jean Connerat
Austin, Mary Dow, Margie Huggins, Alane Koki, Michael Nelson, Suzanne Roy,
Kelly Strowd,Animal Services Director Robert Marotto, Animal Control Manager
Irene Paul, and Office Assistant Lisa Smith.
OCTC Members Absent: Rachel Beckham
Others in Attendance: Drew Brinkley
Introduction of Committee Members and Staff: Each OCTC Member and staff .
introduced him or herself.
Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and
accepted.
Timetable and Process: Bob gave an overview of the process. The Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) constituted this committee to go through this
process of considering amendments of Orange County Ordinances. The
committee will bring recommendations to Animal Services Advisory Board
(ASAB). The ASAB advises both the Animal Services Department and BOCC on
matters of this kind. The ASAB will receive and review recommendations or
findings from the Tethering Committee and make any final recommendations to
the BOCC, which is the policy making body for Orange County.
The background here from the standpoint of the ASAB is that the issue of
tethering was brought to ASAB last year. ASAB created a committee consisting
Of ASAB Member Kris Bergstrand, and ASAB Member Jean Connerat Austin with
staff support to review these considerations. They first determined who should be
involved in this process. It became apparent the ASAB itself does not have the
authority to create a county committee consisting of individuals who are not
already members of the ASAB. Thus, the ASAB made a request to the BOCC to
create a Tethering Committee with a variety of defined membership positions.
At the recent BOCC meeting in February all, the members for the Tethering
Committee were appointed. A timetable was proposed for this committee as a
part of that discussion. The understanding of this timetable is that by June 1St,
2007, there would be some recommendations or findings from the Tethering
Committee that would be presented to the ASAB for its consideration.
q41
Tethering Committee Inaugural Meeting
February 27th, 2007
Page 2
Meeting Schedule and Format: There was a discussion about the coordination
of the committee and whether staff should coordinate or a chair and vice chair
should do so.. In this context, it was noted that Animal Services Director Bob
Marotto would provide staff support, since the BOCC charge for the committee
indicates that he will be the principle staff member for this committee. It was
decided staff would coordinate this committee and that if a chair and vice chair
was needed at a later time it could be done.
Motion was made by Margie Huggins and seconded by Jean Connerat Austin to
approve staff coordinating this committee. VOTE: Unanimous
There was a draft schedule presented for this committee, which referred to four
types of meetings that could be held within the three -month period during which it
was hoped that the committee's work would be completed. These meetings
would precede the presentation of any findings or recommendations to the ASAB
and subsequent steps involving the BOCC.
The four types of meetings specified for the Tethering Committee are:
Organizing Meeting (tonight)
Information Meeting(s)
Public Input/Comment
Discussion & Findings
Throughout this portion of the meeting, there was general discussion of the issue
of tethering. However, the focus was on agreeing on a process, as this was the
intent of this meeting to organize the work of the committee.
The meeting ended with a short presentation on tethering and the animal
ordinances that exist in Orange County. The presentation was based upon a
memorandum to the Tethering Committee from Bob that addressed the issue of
jurisdiction, reviewed the County's current ordinance, and reviewed a range of
more restrictive regulations (e.g.,
Connecticut General Statues, New Hanover County, NC, Restraint Ordinance,
and St Paul, Minnesota, Ordinance). A short discussion then ensued about the
current enforcement of Orange County's ordinances as they related to the care
and welfare of dogs.
It was agreed that the committee would meet Wednesday, March 7, 2007 for an
information meeting.
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Wednesday, March 7`h, 2007, 7:00 — 8:30 p.m.
Meeting Summary
Location: Conference Room, Southern Human Services Center, 2501 Homestead Road,
and Chapel Hill.
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Mary Dow, Alane Koki,
Michael Nelson, Suzanne Roy, Kelly Strowd, Animal Services Director Robert Marotto,
Animal Control Manager Irene Paul, Office Assistant Lisa Smith.
OCTC Members Absent: Rachel Beckham, Kristine Bergstrand, and Margie Huggins.
Others in Attendance: Amanda Arrington.
Approval of Meeting Summary from February 27`h, 2007: Motion was made Jean
Connerat Austin to approve Meeting Summary and seconded by Suzanne Roy.
VOTE: Unanimous
Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and accepted.
General Public Comments: Amanda Arrington with Coalition to Unchain Dogs spoke
regarding the importance of banning the tethering of dogs in Orange County. She talked
about a recent incident of a child being attacked by one of the family's dogs that was
chained in the backyard in Durham.
Obtaining Public Input: There was a discussion on how to get public input to allow
people to comment on the tethering issue. It was decided staff would create a simple
survey to hand out at the next rabies clinics regarding if they are for or against tethering
and informing residents of the public input meeting. Getting information on Animal
Services Website with a brief introduction and links to ordinances with tethering bans
and tethering limitations. Sending out media advisories, and advertising on forums and
blogs soliciting public input.
Review of Various Tethering Regulations: There was a review of three different
categories of tethering ordinances.
• Prohibition of tethering
• Time limited tethering
• Tethering with attached conditions (proper collar, length and kind of tether)
MAI
Discussion: There was a discussion of possibly observing a residence(s) that have a
tethered dog(s) and are proponents of tethering. It was agreed to have another
informational meeting, asking people from other counties or jurisdictions that have a
tethering ordinance or a limited tethering ordinance to come and speak before having a
public input meeting on Monday April. 23`d, 2007. There was agreement that this would
be the next step in the Committee's information process and that others could be invited
to address the Committee after that meeting with other animal control/service personnel.
More specifically, for the next meeting staff committed to contacting their counterparts in
jurisdictions with more restrictive regulations in North Carolina to discuss the
implementation and enforcement of their ordinances. Committee members requested that
staff arrange for a representative from a jurisdiction with an outright ban as well as one
with a set of restrictions (or conditions) that were subject to enforcement. Staff indicated
that they would do their best to arrange for such representatives.
Next Meeting Date: It was agreed the committee would meet Tuesday March 27t", 2007
for an information meeting.
LI-7
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Wednesday April 11th, 5:30 — 8:00 p.m.
Meeting Summary
Location: Conference Room, John Link Government Services Center, 200
South Cameron Street, Hillsborough.
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand,
Alane Koki, Michael Nelson, Animal Services Director Robert Marotto, Animal
Control Manager Irene Paul, Office Assistant Lisa Smith.
OCTC Members Absent: Rachel Beckham, Mary Dow, Margie Huggins,
Suzanne Roy, and Kelly Strowd.
Others in Attendance: Amanda Arrington, Andrew Brinkley, Gary Morrison,
Ross Oglesbee, Ashley Roberts, Jim Sanford, Pat Sanford, and Jennifer Strom.
Information Meeting: There were three speakers, Dr Jean Mc Neil, Animal
Control
Manager, New Hanover County, Elaine Modlin, Animal Control Officer, City of
Laurinburg Animal Control Department, Scotland County, and Joaine McKeel,
Shelter Manager, Catabawa County Animal Care and Control. Each speaker
gave us background on their tethering ordinances and how long it has been in
existence, how they enforce it, the number of people that comply, how they
comply and the number of people that do not comply and what they result is if
they do not comply. Please see the attached detailed summary of comments
from the animal control officials.
Approval of Meeting Summary from March 7th, 2007: Motion was made Jean
Connerat Austin to approve Meeting Summary and seconded Kristine
Bergstrand. VOTE: Unanimous
Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and
accepted.
General Public Comments: Ross Oglesbee ASAB member brought copies of
an article from the Indy Weekly and expressed concerns regarding the article.
Discussion: There was a brief discussion on the advertising of the upcoming
public input meeting. It was suggested to make the flier title larger and bold.
There was a brief discussion of possible inviting a sponsor of the bill being
proposed to the state to ban tethering.
Next Meeting Date: It was agreed the committee would meet Monday April 23,
2007 for a public input meeting on the tethering issue.
I
Meeting Adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Summary of comments from animal control officials from New Hanover,
Laurinburg and Catawba.
Dr. Jean McNeil, Animal Control Services Manager, New Hanover County
THE LAW: Prohibits tethering. Recently amended to add, "attended" to the law
so that dogs can be tethered if their owner is present. They enacted a ban as
opposed to time limits on tethering because time limits are difficult to enforce
because they would have to rely on a neighbor's testimony.
WHY ENACTED: County felt that tax dollars were being wasted responding to
chaining complaints. Also enacted because of the cruelty issues Dr. McNeil and
her officers were seeing. The county also wanted to promote a higher standard of
pet ownership.
ENFORCEMENT: Violation of the law results in a civil fine. Violators have 60
days to correct the violation, if they do, the fine is cancelled. If the fine is not paid,
it is sent to the county legal department for collection. As a government agency,
the county can garnish a person's wages. New Hanover does not have the power
of impoundment. They do not take people to court; the legal department handles
the enforcement in- house.
PHASE IN: New Hanover had a two -year education period during which only
warning notices were given. Dr. McNeil felt that two years was too long.
RESULTS OF ORDINANCE: The law has resulted in very few dogs being
surrendered. Neglect calls have decreased. They get about 30 tethering - related
complaints a month. Some dogs probably have run loose but those are the
people who have no desire to be responsible pet owners.
PUBLIC REACTION: Support within the county. Majority of opposition has come
from elsewhere.
Elaine Modlin, Animal Control Officer, City of Laurinburg Animal Control
Department, Scotland County
THE LAW: In 1988, Laurinburg passed a law limiting tethering to 8 hours a day. It
was difficult to enforce. In 2000, they changed it to one -hour and the change
made enforcement much-easier. The county (Scotland) has the same ordinance
as the city. They have a 90 percent compliance rate at this point.
Laurinburg also has restrictions on pens size —10x10 for smaller dogs, 20x10 for
larger. Animal control wants larger requirements, but the city council has not
agreed.
ENFORCEMENT: 1 -hour time limit verified by sitting and watching. Violators are
given -a two -week warning notice in general, but animal control uses discretion
and will give some situations more time if the dog is in good condition. Violation
results in a civil citation and $100 fine. They do have the power to impound dogs
and feel this has been an important tool.
`fil
Most people comply with the law by putting up a pen. The Humane Society has
provided some pens to those who cannot afford it. Those that do not comply and
have their dogs impounded must pay shelter fee, vaccinations, etc. to get the dog
back. Sometimes the shelter fee is waived. About 25 % reclaim their dog and the
rest are better off anyway.
PHASE IN: The city had a one -year education period before enforcement began.
They educated the community through fact sheets, newspaper, radio, posters,
etc.
RESULTS OF ORDINANCE: Overall decrease in cruelty cases, cut down on pit
bull problems, decreased dog bites, and helped with overpopulation (penned
dogs are not as easy to get pregnant). Prior to the law, 50% of bites before were
from chained dogs. No dramatic increase.in surrenders and no real problems
with people turning their dogs loose.
PUBLIC REACTION: Positive— most people think chaining is cruel. Those that do
not agree are those whose dogs are not well taken care of anyway.
Joaine McKeel, Shelter Manager, Catawba County Animal Care and Control,
Catawba County
THE LAW: Catawba does not have a ban, just requirements on conditions for
tethering.
ENFORCMENT: They do not receive complaints very often. When they do, it is
because of length of chain. They educate people as to why they have the
requirements, and will write citations for violators. Eyeballing the situation
assesses the ten percent of body weight requirement. Some officers feel
comfortable and some do not with having to make judgments on the situations.
No citations have been challenged
RESULTS OF LAW: More chaining occurs in the rural area. Approximately 90 —
95% of people are compliant. They have not seen an increase in animals being
surrendered. More animals are surrendered under the nuisance ordinance than
the tethering ordinance.
50
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Wednesday April 23rd, 7:00 — 9:00 p.m.
Meeting Summary
Location: F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, 106 E Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand,
Mary Dow, Margie Huggins, Michael Nelson, Suzanne Roy, Kelly Strowd, Animal
Control Manager Irene Paul, Office Assistant Lisa Smith.
OCTC Members Absent: Rachel Beckham, Alane Koki
Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and
accepted.
Public Comment Period: Commissioner Nelson gave an Introduction to the
tethering issue and background information. What the current ordinance is now
and where does it apply, what other NC ordinances the committee has looked at.
What the process for considering the issue, what the expected timetable is for
the committee to give their recommendations.
General Public Comments:
Citizens offering public comment:
Phillip Pennell, Orange County Resident
Dietrich Haugwitz, Orange County Resident
Debbie Nichols, Orange County Resident
Bobby Kirk, Orange County Resident
Stephen Hopkins, Orange County Resident
Amanda Arrington, Durham County Resident
Kathleen Coldwell, Orange County Resident
Amelia Perrin, Orange County Resident
George Painter, Orange County Resident
Karen Aruetames, Orange County Resident
Lamar Chapman, Orange County Resident
Emily Weinstein, Durham County Resident
Eliana Beebe, Durham County Resident
Fred Cates, Orange County Resident
Amy Efland, Orange County Resident
Judith Reitman, Orange County Resident
Ellen Whitaker, Durham County Resident
Mike Kirk, Orange County Resident
Meeting Adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
5l
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Monday May 7th, 6:30 p.m. — 8:00 p.m.
Meeting Summary
Location: Conference Center, John Link Government Services Center, 200
South Cameron Center, Hillsborough.
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand,
Mary Dow, Michael Nelson, Suzanne Roy, Kelly Strowd, and Office Assistant
Lisa Smith.
OCTC Members and Staff Absent: Margie Huggins, Animal Services Director
Robert Marotto.
Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and
accepted.
Public Comment Period: It was agreed to change this meeting into a second
public input meeting due to the amount of citizens wanting to speak. There were
20+ citizens and many of whom spoke were the president and some if their
members of the Eno River Coon Club and Cane Creek Farms. Kris Bergstrand
gave a brief history regarding how and why the ASAB board and the tethering
subcommittee was created. The concerns people had were why were people
from other counties attending and speaking at these meetings, why does Animal
Control come to residences with out having received a complaint. Other concerns
were why people are not able to get onto the tethering committee when there are
openings, how do they get onto the ASAB and how that is advertised when there
are openings. The hunters feel like they are and have always been
signaled out regarding animal laws. There are people who are not able to afford
fences and pens and do not have time to go to dog parks. We need to enforce
the laws we already have and not make more.
Approval of Meeting Summaries from April 11 m and April 23rd tethering
meetings: Motion was made by Jean Connerat Austin to approve meeting
summary from April 110, meeting and add a summary from the speakers and
approve at the next meeting, seconded by Kris Bergstrand. Motion made by Jean
Connerat Austin to approve meeting summary from the April 23" meeting and
seconded by Kris Bergstrand. VOTE: Unanimous
Meeting Adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Orange County Animal Services
57,�),
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968 -2287
Animal Control Robert A. Marotto, Animal Shelter
PO Box 8181 Director . 1081 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
304 Revere Rd Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 967 -7383
(919) 245 -2075
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
June 13'', 2007, 6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Unapproved Meeting Summary
Location: Conference Room, John Link Government Services Center, 200 South Cameron
Street, Hillsborough.
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand, Mary Dow,
Commissioner Mike Nelson, Animal Services Director Robert Marotto, Animal Control Manger
Irene Phipps, and Office Assistant Lisa Smith.
OCTC Members Absent: Margie Huggins and Kelly Strowd
Agenda Review: Review and adoption of meeting agenda
The supplemental notes from the April 11`s, 2007, meeting summary and May 7h 2007, meeting
summary were reviewed and approved.
Discussion: Committee members discussed the information that had been gathered throughout
the committee meetings. The purpose of this discussion was to provide a preliminary set of
recommendations and framework for the final report and recommendation of the Tethering
Committee. It was understood that staff would prepare a draft report on. the basis of this
discussion.
Committee members recalled the interviews with North Carolina Animal Control authorities in
counties with more restrictive tethering ordinances. From those interviews, staff learned that
tethering ordinances seemed to work well; they did not appear to have any extra -added cost; and
negative or unanticipated outcomes were few and far between. They also learned that any such
change should be phased in over a long period of time in which there was considerable
education, and that it must be an enforceable change.
Committee members also discussed the possibility of having hunting dogs, dogs that are difficult
to confine and dogs participating in sporting events exempted from any proposed tethering
restrictions. Each of these potential exemptions was discussed in detail and it was agreed that
their exemption should be part of the draft report and recommendations.
Tethw in f Committee Meeting
June IY , 2007
Page 2
53
There was a lengthy discussion of what should be the time limit for permissible tethering. This
discussion took into account the enforceability of different time limits, their implications and
affect for animal care, and whether they would reasonably accommodate responsible pet owners.
It was decided that three hours constituted the best time limit when considered from all angles
and thus should be the Committee's recommendation.
In addition, there was a discussion of whether required minimal kennel sizes should be included
in the Committee's recommendation. The Committee decided that this was a critical issue but
that it could be left as separate issue to be considered by the Animal Services Advisory Board.
Finally, it was agreed that staff would prepare an unapproved working document for discussion
at the next meeting of the Tethering Committee.
Meeting Adjourned 8:00 p.m.
# 54
Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968 -2287
Animal Control Robert A. Marotto, Animal Shelter
PO Box 8181 Director 1081 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
304 Revere Rd Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 967 -7383
(919) 245 -2075
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
July 11`h, 2007 6:30 p.m. -8:00 p.m.
Unapproved Meeting Summary
Location: Meeting Room (A -014), Whitted Building, 300 Tryon Street, Hillsborough.
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand, Mary Dow,
Margie Huggins, Commissioner Mike Nelson, Kelly Strowd, Animal Services Director
Robert Marotto, Office Assistant Lisa Smith.
Agenda Review: Review and adoption of meeting agenda
Discussion: The Committee reviewed the draft report and recommendations that staff
prepared on the basis of general discussion at its last meeting. Numerous votes were initiated
and taken to decide various issues.
There was considerable discussion on changes in exemptions for individual dogs that are
hard to keep confined, as well as the exemption of hunting dogs. It was agreed to change the
exceptions to only allow tethering at training and performance (or sporting) events for dogs,
including but not limited to field and obedience trails. It was argued that was the only fair
approach and that the Committee should concern itself with what the best policies regarding
tethering were.
Also, it was agreed to add to the limitation and requirements that a tethered dog must have
access to food, water and shelter, and that any and all other legal requirements for animal
care be met. It was further agreed that the weight of the tether and collar must not exceed ten
percent of the dog's total body weight.
The committee again discussed whether a minimum kennel size should be set insofar as more
dogs would be expected to be kenneled and there should be some assurance that they were
kept in a humane manner. It was agreed that a minimum pen size for outdoor enclosures for
dogs should be established but the specification of this pen size was left to the Animal
Services Advisory Board with Animal Services Staff.
5-15
Tethering Committee Meeting
July 11`' 2007
Page 2
Finally, it was agreed that the implementation period should be changed so that an adopted
amendment would become fully enforceable eighteen months after its adoption. The first
twelve months would be an education period prior to the ordinance becoming effective, and
the final six months would involve limited enforcement using only warnings.
Committee members agreed that once the approved changes were made, the report should be
presented to the ASAB for review and a decision as to whether it should be recommended to
the BOCC. It was further agreed that Bob Marotto and Margie Huggins would prepare a
final draft that would then be circulated by email to all Committee members for their
approval.
Meeting Adjourned 8:00 p.m.
The Orange County Tethering Committee Report and Proposal for Ordinance Amendment
(dated July 301h, 2007) was submitted to the Animal Services Advisory Board and
subsequently approved.
i
Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968 -2287
Animal Control Robert A. Marotto, Animal Shelter
PO Box 8181 Director 1081 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
304 Revere Rd Chapel 11"ill, NC 27514
Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 967 -7383
(919) 245 -2075
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Wednesday April 2nd, 2008 6:30 p.m.-8.00 p.m.
Unapproved Meeting Summary
Location: Conference Room, Economic Development Building, 110 East King Street, Hillsborough
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand, Suzanne Roy, Animal
Services Director Robert Marotto, and Office Assistant Lisa Smith
OCTC Members Absent: Mary Dow, Commissioner Mike Nelson, and Kelly Stowd
Agenda Review: The proposed agenda for this meeting was reviewed and accepted
Discussion: Staff organized this meeting at the request of the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB).
At the last ASAB meeting on March 190', 2008 the ASAB decided that the Tethering Committee should
reconvene to consider whether the proposed restriction of tethering should be limited to three hours
within a twenty- four -hour period or three consecutive hours within a twenty- four -hour period.
Committee members discussed the difference between these definitions from the standpoint of animal
husbandry and care, and from the standpoint of enforceability. The committee members who were
present decided that the language for the proposed ordinance amendment should be, "not more than a
total of three hours in a twenty- four -hour period."
As only three members of the committee were present it was decided that the language should be ratified
by email so that there was a record of the majority approval. All members of the Tethering Committee
approved that the language of the ordinance amendment should be, "not more than a total of three hours
in a twenty-four -hour period."
Meeting Adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Staff then brought this language back to the Animal Services Advisory Board for final approval at its
April 16th, 2008 meeting.
57
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Approved Minutes for August 15, 2007 Meeting
Present ASAB Members: Daniel Textoris, Kristine Bergstrand, Ross Oglesbee, Pat Sanford, Susan
Elmore, Jean Connerat Austin, Tracy Carroll, James Kramer, Carolina Green and Dewana Anderson
Absent ASAB Members: Bonnie Norwood and Moses Carey.
Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Control Manager Irene Paul and
Administrative Assistants Paula Ragan and Andi Morgan.
Public Members Present. Margie Huggins and Suzanne Roy
Welcome and Opening Comments - -Chair of the ASAB Committee, Kristine Bergstrand
Motion was made by Ross Oglesbee and seconded by Jean Connerat Austin to approve the Agenda dated
August 15, 2007. VOTE: Unanimous
Motion was made by Jean Connerat Austin and seconded by Daniel Textoris to approve the Minutes
dated July 18, 2007 VOTE: Unanimous
General Public Comment —None
Unfinished Business
Rabies Lecture— Dr. Carl Williams Public Health Veterinarian N. C. Dept of Health will be giving an
public lecture on September 4, 2007 regarding rabies in North Carolina. This is being held during the
week of the Inaugural World Rabies Day.
Public Relations Plan for Proposed Fine Updates --- Bob Marotto reminded everyone that the
BOCC did not adopt fine increases for violations of select animal ordinances as part of the
budget process. Rather, the BOCC asked that staff return to it with a public relations plan that
would make people aware of those fine increases in advance of their implementation and provide
justification for the increases. A staff work group was formed which developed elements of the
plan that was distributed for discussion. Andi Morgan gave an overview to the committee of the
"Working Document ". A motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by James Kramer that the
Animal Services Advisory Board feels this is a very strong document that should be used and
recommended to the BOCC with a few minor modifications that staff agreed to make.. VOTE:
Unanimous
Report and Proposal for Orange County's Tethering Committee Ordinance Amendment - -The'
committee reviewed and discussed the document prepared by the Tethering Committee. Among other
issues, discussion included the public input process of the Tethering Committee, the enforcement of the
recommended ordinance changes, and how the recommended changes related to other state and local
regulations. A motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by Ross Oglesbee that the proposal
formulated by the Tethering Committee be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for
59
Approved ASAB Minittes-
August 15th, 2007
Page 2
consideration with the addition of a specific section of the kenneling spaces /sizes for kennels. Staff will
bring back some recommendations regarding kennel /sizes to the September 19*, 2007 ASAB meeting for
discussion, and then those recommendations, if accepted, will be referred to the County Manger for
presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. VOTE: 10 in favor and 1 against
Motion was made by Ross Oglesbee and seconded by Daniel Textoris to adjourn the meeting at 8: 00 p. m.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Next ASAB Meeting: Wednesday, September 19th, 2007 at 6: 30 p. m. in the Economic Development
Center Conference Room, 110 E. King Street Hillsborough.
�c
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Approved Minutes for September 19, 2007 Meeting
Present ASAB Members. Daniel Textoris, Ross Oglesbee, Pat Sanford, Susan Elmore, Jean Connerat
Austin, James Kramer, Carolina Green, Dewana Anderson Bonnie Norwood and Moses Carey.
Absent ASAB Members: Kristine Bergstrand and Tracy Carroll
Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Control Manager Irene Paul,
Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison and Administrative Assistant Paula Ragan.
Public Members Present: Suzanne Roy
Welcome and Opening Comments ASAB Vice - Chair, Ross Oglesbee
Motion was made by Susan Elmore and seconded by James Kraemer to approve the Agenda dated
September 19, 2007. VOTE: Unanimous
Motion was made by Bonnie Norwood and seconded by Susan Elmore to approve the Minutes dated
August 15, 2007. VOTE. Unanimous
General Public Comment None
Unfinished Business
Final Report: ASAB Keeping of Wild Animal Ordinance Amendment Task Force Ross Oglesbee
presented the "Final Report ", dated August 29, 200. She reported that the Task Force had met for a total
offour times and determined that it would only consider changes in relation to North Carolina native
species and rehabilitation. However, after the meetings the Task Force concluded that there should be no
change in the current ordinance. The committee does want to go on record for saying that they believe
that Orange County should provide support for wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and education only to those
organizations that have the space, on -site expertise, budget and other resources to humanely and
appropriately rehabilitate, and educate the public about, native North Carolina wildlife. This could be
done in a form of a multi - county wildlife cooperative. Motion was made by James Kramer and seconded
by Bonnie Norwood to pass the Final Report dated August 29, 2007, to the BOCC VOTE: Unanimous
Report and Proposal for Orange County's Tethering Committee Ordinance Amendment —Bob Marotto
and Irene Paul provided the ASAB members with a Required Kennel Space Recommendation Memo dated
September 10`h, 2007, that proposed a tier system for such requirements based upon their review of such
restrictions in other jurisdictions. Staff prepared this memo in response to a request at the last ASAB
meeting that more information be made available about minimum kennel sizes in relation to any proposal
to limit tethering. Motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by Susan Elmore to accept the
Tethering Committee Ordinance Amendment Recommendation with the attached Memo and forward it to
the County Manager for recommendation to the BOCC. VOTE: Unanimous
Pet Overpopulation Subcommittee— Caroline Green reported that the committee met in August to
discuss its purpose and develop its charge. A summary describing that information was provided to the
Approved ASAB Minutes —
September 191h, 2007
60
Page 2
Members for review. Caroline asks that if anyone has any suggestions or comments to please send those
to her or Pat Sanford.
Animal Placement and Fostering Updates Jessica Allison gave a brief summary of accompanying
documents on the foster program and sheltering activities for the months of July and August. She was
excited to report that these are the highest adoption numbers reported so far this calendar year.
AdoptiomPlacement Committee Progress Report— Jessica Allison reported that the committee met on
August 106, 2007 and made a few revisions to the Partner /Placement document. The committee discussed
and decided that it would be prudent to gather input from the rescue groups with whom we currently
work The documents have been sent to six selected groups and to the county attorney for additional
feedback. Information gathered via this process will be review at the committee's next meeting scheduled
for September 28, 2007.
Bob Marotto reported that there were three low cost rabies clinics in conjunction with World Rabies
Days with over 200 vaccinations administered.
Animal Identification: Provisional Proposal— Bob Marotto reported that staff fj`'has reviewed current
practices to develop a coherent as well as a practical approach to animal identification and it was
decided that it would be best not to add another tag to the one that the Animal Shelter already provides.
Instead, that the Shelter will continue to issue the rabies tag as our licensing tag, but order them from a
private company instead of the North Carolina Health Department so that we can have our contact
information added to the tags. There are two primary groups that leave the shelter without tags
(approximately 1 %) and those are animals that are too young to receive rabies vaccines and reclaimed
animals that have a current rabies vaccination. Strategies for identifying animals in these two groups are
a generic tag for puppies and kittens indicating that have a microchip, and a hard - written collar for those
animals with a current vaccination. Another option would be on -site personalized identification machine
but due to the cost of the machine and staffing issues it was decided that this option would need to be
explored further. More research will be done and a final product will be brought back to the committee
for review and approval.
New Business-
Creation of ASAB Nominations Subcommittee- Caroline Green, Daniel Textoris and Tracy Carroll have
agreed to be on this committee and will come back to the October 17`h, 2007, ASAB meeting with a
proposed slate of officers and at a subsequent meeting in November the vote will take place.
Required Annual Review of ASAB Committee Structure Bob Marotto gave an overview of the
requirements of our charter and the two committees . that we currently have are the Potentially Dangerous
Dog Committee and the Adoption Appeals Committee. Motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by
Jean Connerat Austin to maintain the two standing committees. VOTE: Unanimous
Motion was made by Jean Connerat Austin and seconded by Pat Sanford to adjourn the meeting at 7: 45
p.m. VOTE: Unanimous.
Next ASAB Meeting: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in the Southern Human Services Center
Conference Room, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill.
61
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Approved Minutes for February 20, 2008 Meeting
Present ASAB Members: Ross Oglesbee, Daniel Textoris, Pat Sanford, Susan Elmore, Jean Austin,
James Kramer, Bonnie Norwood, Dewana Anderson, and Kristine Bergstrand
Absent ASAB Members: Tracy Carroll, Suzanne Roy, Rachel Beckham and Moses Carey
Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison
and Administrative Assistant Paula Ragan.
Public Members Present: None
Welcome and Opening Comments ASAB Chair, Ross Oglesbee, called the meeting to order.
Motion was made by Bonnie Norwood and seconded by Susan Elmore to approve the Agenda dated
February 20, 2008 with two changes in the order of items. VOTE: Unanimous.
Motion was made by Daniel Textoris and seconded by Bonnie Norwood to approve the minutes dated
January 16, 2008. VOTE: Unanimous
General Public Comment None
Announcements—
Spay Day Resolution— Ross Oglesbee announced that the Board of County Commissioners adopted the
Spay Day Resolution at their January 15, 2008 meeting. The resolution was received with very positive
feedback and a framed copy of the resolution will be displayed at the Animal Services office on Franklin
Street.
Ms Oglesbee also announced that she attended the reception for Committee Chairs on Advisory Boards.
There was a discussion of Commissioners involvement in various advisory boards. There was also a
discussion about the FY08109 budget and what kinds of requests are being made to staff programs and to
have resources available for them. Ms Oglesbee would like to be informed as a board what kinds of
request are being made for staff in this year's budget in order to meet the objectives and various
programs that the board has set.
It was mentioned that after this year Commissioner Moses Carey will no longer be the ASAB liaison due
to his retirement from the BOCC. There was discussion from the board members about the process for his
replacement and whether or not recommendations by the ASAB can be made. Mr. Marotta will look in to
how the process for new BOCC appointments are handled and report back to the ASAB in March.
Ms Oglesbee suggested that the board think about having an annual Animal Services Day to focus on the
programs and invite the BOCC and public to attend. This would be a great way to promote the
spay /neuter programs and to conduct educational outreach to the community.
Approved ASAB Minutes
February 200*, 2008
�a
Page 2
Unfinished Business—
Tethering Ordinance Update— There was a lengthy and detailed discussion of the tethering amendment
drafted by the County Attorney in consultation with Animal Services staff on the basis ofprior work by
the ASAB and the County's Tethering Committee. Various motions were considered until one received
majority support and these are recorded below.
• A motion was made by Daniel Textoris and seconded by Susan Elmore to accept the Tethering
Amendment as is. There was no second and more discussion was held on the document. Motion
did not carry.
• A motion was made again by Daniel Textoris and seconded by Susan Elmore to accept the
Tethering Amendment and to exclude the class 1 and class 2 licensed kennels for the meantime,
with the understanding they would be addressed in the future. There was more discussion about
concerns by members about addressing the issue later. Motion did not carry as the vote was 2 in
favor and 6 against.
• A motion made by Jean Ausiin to present the Tethering Amendment as we have it and exempt the
minimal kennel sizes for Class I and Class 2 licensed kennels. There was no second and it was
requested to have more discussion. Motion did not carry.
• A motion was made again by Jean Austin and seconded by Pat Sanford to accept the Tethering
Amendment to Orange County Animal Control Ordinance and exempt Class I and Class 2
kennels existing as of January 1, 2008, from only the minimal enclosure size requirement. It was
understood that the permit requirements and ordinance would be revisited at a later date. This
motion carried by a vote of S in favor 3 opposed
• Motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by Jean Austin to accept the overall amendment
with the correction of several typographical errors and several wording changes in different
sections of the Amendment. This motion carried by a vote of 6 in favor 2 opposed.
Once the County Attorneys have made revisions to the proposed Tethering Amendment staff will request
that the County Manager place it before the BOCC for its deliberation.
FAQ Working Document— Board members were pleased with the work that had been done and gave
very positive feedback There were a couple of typographical changes requested and the board would
like to mention public health risk and the amount of tax dollars spent to address this issue. Once changes
are made an abstract and amendment to move forward will by completed by the March meeting.
New Business—
Chair Ross Oglesbee mentioned that a member of the public has made a request to speak with the board
at the March meeting to address the adoption of pit bull and pit bull mixes from the shelter. She asked
that ASAB members prepare for a discussion of this topic at its March meeting.
Approved ASAB Minutes
February 20" 2008
63
Page 3
Motion was made by Susan Elmore and seconded by Jean Austin to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p. m.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Next ASAS Meeting. Wednesday, March 19, 2008, at 6: 30 p. m. in the Southern Human Services
Conference Room, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill.
64
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Approved Minutes for March 19, 2008 Meeting
Present ASAB Members. Daniel Textoris, Pat Sanford, Susan Elmore, Jean Austin, James Kramer,
Moses Cary, and Kristine Bergstrand.
Absent ASAB Members: Ross Oglesbee, Bonnie Norwood, Tracy Carroll, Dewana Anderson, Suzanne
Roy and Rachel Beckham.
Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison,
Animal Control Manager Irene Phipps and Administrative Assistant Paula Ragan.
Public Members Present. Elliott Cramer
Welcome and Opening Comments ASAB Co- Chair, Susan Elmore, called the meeting to order.
Motion was made by James Kramer and seconded by Daniel Textoris to approve the Agenda dated
March 19, 2008 with one change to add an item to discuss the Carolina North chemical remediation.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Motion was made by Daniel Textoris and seconded by Kristine Bergstrand to approve the minutes dated
February 20, 2008 with one change to add `It was understood that the permit requirement and ordinance
would be revisited at a later date" to bullet four on page 2. VOTE: Unanimous
General Public Comment—None
Unfinished Business—
Tethering Ordinance Update— Bob Marotto reported that there were two issues with additional changes
made in the proposed amendment by the county attorney since the last meeting. (1) the exemption of
existing kennel permits from the enclosure requirement; and (2) matter of notice in the event that an
animal is seized and impounded under the proposed amendment.. The County Attorney has since then
received information regarding related litigation that is occurring now in Wake County and the issue in
that litigation is the issue of notice. The County Attorney thought it would be best to incorporate those
changes at the same time.
In addition, a member of the board indicated that there was an inconsistency in the restrictive language
of the proposed Tethering Document. After considerable discussion, a motion was made by Kristine
Bergstrand and seconded by Moses Cary that the Tethering Committee would reconvene as a matter of
procedure to decide on a consistent language and make a recommendation to the ASAB. VOTE.
Unanimous
Bob Marotto reported that at the commissioner's work session it was suggested that we go forward with
the amendment and as we proceed there should be some period of time designated for the proposed
preliminary Amendment and FAQ to be available for the community to review on our website and in
media advisories. This would be a prelude to the scheduling of the item on the BOCC Agenda.
'L1
Animal Services Advisory Board Meeting
Approved Minutes
March 19, 2008
Page 2
Animal Noise Ordinance —Irene Phipps gave an update on an item that was discussed at the November
2007 ASAB meeting regarding a request from an Orange County citizen (David Sykes) to review the
current Animal Ordinance as it relates to the noise disturbance associated with roosters. Presently the
County's ordinance only addresses nuisance barking and does not allow any type of resolution for other
animal noises. In 2007, the Animal Control Division of Animal Services received only three complaints in
different locations regarding roosters and specifically the noise that they make. Research was conducted
on Municode to determine which counties around the state had ordinance provisions to address these
issues. Ms. Phipps provided members of the board with a report listing the findings.
A motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Moses Cary that the Animal Services Advisory Board
does not feel it is appropriate to move forward with a recommendation that the Animal Ordinance be
changed but that there be further contact with Mr. Sykes regarding potential civil relief. VOTE:
Unanimous
Pet Overpopulation Committee —Pat Sanford reported that they gathered a lot of information at the last
meeting and Beth Livingston of Animal Kind reported that at the present time they are spaying and
neutering about 100 animals a year in Orange County without any funds from Orange County Animal
Services and that at an average cost per surgery of $75 -$100 they could do 100 more surgeries. Animal
Kind would do all the administration and currently Animal Kind has contracts with local veterinarians.
Ms. Sanford also reported that the feral cat caretakers are coming back to discuss how to handle feral cat
colonies and to try and reduce the number offeral cats coming in to the shelter.
Bob Marotto reported that there is now $16, 000.00 in the County's Community Spay Neuter fund and'that
the amount is expected to grow to -$25, 000 or more before the end of the fiscal year. Some of the funds
were used for the Spay Day USA program where we sterilized 20 animals belonging to clients of the
Department of Social Services. The actual list was 31 animals but due to the exact compliment of
males /females and cats /dogs, we were only able to process 20 that particular day. We plan on going back
to the veterinarian with a supplemental contract to capture the other eleven animals. The plan is to use
remaining money in this account in the last quarter for a variety ofprograms, which will help with the
prevention of unwanted pets that end up in the shelter. The committee will come back at the next board
meeting with a specific programmatic and monetary recommendation and proceed on that basis.
Adoption/Placement Committee—Bob Marotto would like to get support from the ASAB for the
agreement and the guideline documents that have been developed by the committee. The idea is to be in a
position to f nalize the documents in the near future, and that would require review and approval by the
Board of County Commissioners
• A motion was made by Jean Austtn and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to add "appropriate
socialization" after the word veterinary care of item 2 on page 2 of the document. VOTE:
Unanimous
• A motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to remove the word "may"
and replace it with the word "must" in item 10 ofpage 4. VOTE: Unanimous
• A motion was made by Moses Cary and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to strike the last sentence of
item 10 of page 4. VOTE: Unanimous
tle 4
Animal Services Advisory Board Meeting
Approved Minutes
March 19, 2008
Page 3
• A motion was made by Jean Ausim and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to remove "a timely
manner" and replace with "no later than the end of the following quarter" in item 16 ofpage S.
VOTE. Unanimous
One item that has not been resolved yet is with the requirement for general liability insurance. A survey
was done with the five rescue groups, all of which indicated that it would not inhibit them to work with
the Orange County Animal Shelter. A question was then raised whether smaller rescue groups would be
impeded by the requirement. Research is currently being done to get a general cost of what the insurance
would be and that information will be brought back to the board for further discussion.
Foster Program Report Jess Allison reported that a meeting was held on January 31, 2008, and it was
decided to provide the activity reports to the Animal Services Advisory Board committee on a six -month
basis rather than one -month basis. Staff and committee members discussed the growth of the program
and identified areas that require improvements to the Foster Program forms. There were edits made in
enclosure A of the guidelines and home visit checklist, interview and application that were shown in the
handout provided to the board members. Bob Marotto reported that there is a limited ability to invest in
the fosterprogram but that the program can be maintained. The discussion with staff indicated that to try
and grow the program would exceed our human resources and we should take the time that we do have
available and invest it in the relationships with placement partners and rescue groups and to work
towards building bridges with the community. A motion was made by Jean Ausitn and seconded by Kris
Bergstrand to adopt and accept the amendments in both Foster Home Policy and Procedures of
Enclosures A & C. VOTE. Unanimous
Ms. Allison gave an overview of the January and February 2008 statistical summaries. It was pointed out
that February adoptions were lower than January and it appears that March's will also be low. This is a
concern and there was a brief discussion that mentioned factors such as the price of gas and economy.
New Business Bob Marotto reported that the appearance of the current Animal Shelter and
access to it would change as a result of a remediation project being conducted by UNC. He
stressed that it would be very important to keep the public informed that the Animal Shelter was
continuing to operate on its normal schedule, and asked that the ASAB help to communicate to
members of the public is open and operating with normal hours of business.
2008 -2009 Budget Update—Bob Marotto reported that he has been asked to prepare a
continuation budget, which amounts to approximately a $1.6 million dollar operating budget for
the fiscal year. He further noted that Animal Services has requested five new full time positions
(some of which are conversions of temporary funds). He also noted that a significant concern is
the compliance of animal control vehicles with the "transportation standards" set out in the
Animal Welfare Act of the State of North Carolina. (which indicates that compartment
temperature must be between 50 and 85 degrees). Thus fleet renewal with compliant boxes is an
important objective for Animal Services in the County's budget process.
Animal Services Advisory Board Meeting
Approved Minutes
March 19, 2008
Page 4
Adoption of Pitt Bulls from Orange County's Animal Shelter— In order to allow enough time
for discussion of this subject, it was decided (with the assent of Mr. Elliott Kramer) to reschedule
this topic for the April 16, 2008 ASAB meeting. Mr. Kramer gave ASAB members an
informational handout to review in advance of that meeting.
Announcements Moses Cary announced that he will be leaving the ASAB at the end of this year and
also there will be three new Board of County Commissioners elected in November He encouraged the
ASAB to be proactive and to get to know the new commissioners. The Animal Services Advisory Board
may make a recommendation to the commissioners but the commissioners do not have to agree and will
have the final decision.
Motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to adjourn the meeting at 8:20p. M.
VOTE: Unanimous.
NextASAB Meeting: Wednesday, April 16, 2008, at 6 :30 p.m. in the Government Services Center
Conference Room, 200 S. Cameron Street, Hillsborough.
M
DRAFT:
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Minutes for April 16, 2008 Meeting
Scheduled for Review and Approval at next ASAB Meeting
Present ASAB Members. Daniel Textoris, Pat Sanford, Susan Elmore, Jean Austin, James Kramer,
Ross Oglesbee, Bonnie Norwood, Tracy Carroll and Suzanne Roy
Absent ASAB Members: Dewana Anderson, Kristine Bergstrand and Moses Carey.
Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison,
Animal Control Manager Irene Phipps and Administrative Assistant Paula Ragan.
Public Members Present: Elliott Cramer and Michael Soluski
Welcome and Opening Comments ASAB Chair, Ross Oglesbee, called the meeting to order.
Motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by James Kramer to approve the Agenda dated April 16,
2008, with one change to move item 4a until Mr. Cramer arrives for discussion. VOTE: Unanimous.
Motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by James Kramer to approve the minutes dated March
19, 2008, with corrections to a few typographical errors. VOTE: Unanimous
General Public Comment —None
Unfinished Business—
Tethering Ordinance Update— Mr. Marotto reported that the Tethering Committee reconvened to
ensure that they have agreement about definition of the proposed tethering restriction and the definition
of the restriction that is now incorporated in the version that is being reviewed for approval by board
members. The definition is that it would not be permissible to tether a dog for more than a total of three
hours in a 24 -hour period. Motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Bonnie Norwood to
approve the Tethering Ordinance Amendment and to pass along to the Board of County Commissioners.
VOTE. 6 in favor 2 opposed – Motion Carries.
Pet Overpopulation Committee —Pat Sanford reported that the committee has been working with the
feral cat caretakers and the feral cat coalition and they would like to see owner's offeral cats to be
licensed or at least know where they are located within the community. The committee would like to see a
spay /neuter program through Animal Kind be offered to the owners of the feral cat colonies in order to
reduce the number coming in to the shelter being euthanized. Motion was made by Bonnie Norwood and
seconded by Jean Austin to approve the budget outline in the Memorandum from Animal Services
Director Bob Marotto (dated April 10, 2008) regarding Community Spay/Neuter Fund. • Program and
Guideline Proposal. VOTE. Unanimous
March Statistical Summary —Ms. Jess Allison gave an overview of the March 2008 statistical
summaries. It was pointed out that the March adoptions were low, as she had predicted they would be at
the March 20, 2008 meeting. Ms. Allison did report that the reclaims were higher than in past months.
The committee and staff are working to identify additional things that could be done to help increase the
adoption numbers. Some ASAB members suggested that the general condition of the economy and the
0
"Draft" Page 2
Animal Services Advisory Board
Meeting Minutes April l6' , 2008
UNC remediation effort around the current shelter location may be affecting adoptions. One specific
suggestion was that there be more media coverage to inform the community that the shelter is still open to
and serving the public..
Adoption of Pit bulls from Orange County's Animal Shelter —A member of the public, Mr. Elliott
Cramer gave an overview of the information he previously provided and requested that the ASAB limit
the numbers of pit bulls on display to the public and feels that they are being adopted out to people who
are not appropriate adopters. In addition, Mr. Cramer suggested that this breed of dog should only be
adopted out to people that have experience handling pit bulls and are aware of their.behavioral traits and
tendencies as he believes there is evidence showing that these dogs are inherently more dangerous than
other breeds. He also emphasized that he was struck by the number of pit bulls and pit bull mixes at the
shelter and on the shelter's website
Another member of the public, Mr. Michael Soluski, conveyed that he owns a pit bull and a boxer and
that he believes that his own and other dogs behave as allowed by owners, who are responsible for
ensuring acceptable behavior. He indicated that he was against any breed specific changes in adoption
practices, and asked where such changed would end if they were initiated. .
Ms. Jess Allison reported that the shelter is very careful about the evaluations and adoptions of this
particular breed of dogs. She indicated that the Animal Shelter staff generally holds this particular breed
of dog to a higher standard. If there are any signs of aggressive behavior, they are usually not put up for
adoption. Mr. Marotto suggested that we think about whether or not we are at or beyond the best
practices in the industry for our evaluation and placement of these dogs and other dogs. The best
practices of the industry should be our guide, not being discriminatory but recognizing that there are
some special considerations that should be to factor in.
ASAB members discussed various issues throughout and on the basis of statements made by staff and
members of the public. These issues included the quality and accuracy of available statistics on dog bites
by breed, the challenges or difficulties of breed (and mixed breed) identification; the extent to which
aggression has genetic rather than environmental roots, and the extent to which animal owners are
responsible for the behavior of their animal and how they affect others in human communities.
Motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Bonnie Norwood to individually gather more
information on this topic and to table this request for now. VOTE: 6 in favor 2 opposed- - Motion Carries.
New Business —Bob Marotto reviewed the Project and Activity Schedule handout and reported
that this is a way to plan and organize our work and commitments. It ensures that we are not
doing too much, and risking doing anything less'than very well, and that it helps ensure that our
work load is commensurate with available resources.
Select Updates Irene Phipps reported. that two rabies clinics were held today, one earlier today
at the Animal Control Office in Hillsborough with 27 vaccines administered and 14 licensed. The
second clinic is being held in the Annex Parking lot next door this evening. The next two rabies
clinics will be held at the Animal Shelter on Saturday, April 19, 2008 and Wednesday April 23,
2008.
70
"Draft' Page 3
Animal Services Advisory Board
Meeting Minutes April 16'h, 2008
Jess Allison provided an overview of the ZINC remediation effort that is underway near the
Animal Shelter. She reported that staff has been reviewing safety protocols just in case there is
any release of chemicals into the air during this effort. A safety drill with staff was held today at
the shelter and went very well. Ms. Allison mentioned that the entranceway in to the shelter is
now different due to the remediation project and signage has been placed throughout the new
route in to the shelter off of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd to help direct traffic to the shelter.
Motion was made by James Kramer and seconded by Jean Austin to adjourn the meeting at 8: 05 p. m.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Next ASAB Meeting: Wednesday, May 21, 2008, at 6.30 p.m. in the Southern Human Services
Conference Room, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill.
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 3, 2008
Action Agenda
Item No. (v — Q
SUBJECT: Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dogs
DEPARTMENT: Animal Services PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Abstract for May 20, 2008 BOCC Public
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hearing
Ross Oglesbee, J.D., Chair, Animal
Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Services Advisory Board 966 -0599
Tethering Committee Final Report &
Susan Elmore, DVM, Vice - Chair, Animal
Recommendations
Services Advisory Board 541 -3474
Staff Memorandum Recommending
Bob Marotto, Director, Animal Services
Minimum Kennel Size Requirements
968 -2287
Animal Services Tethering Committee
Meeting Summaries
Animal Services Advisory Board Minutes
from Meetings with Discussion on
Tethering
PURPOSE: To request that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a proposed ordinance
amendment to the Orange County Animal Ordinance restricting the tethering of dogs.
BACKGROUND: At its November 13, 2007 work session, the BOCC reviewed the Final Report
and Recommendations of the Tethering Committee, and requested that a proposed ordinance
amendment be drafted by the County Attorney's office, in consultation with the Animal Services
staff, and presented for consideration. At that same work session, the BOCC indicated that the
Animal Services Department should prepare and distribute outreach materials to ensure that the
public was informed of the proposed amendment.
The proposed amendment includes the following restrictions on the tethering of dogs:
• No more than a total of 3 hours of tethering within a 24 -hour period
• A specification of the types of collars and equipment
• A requirement for minimum kennel size
• An exemption for certain organized and lawful animal functions
• An 18 -month education period, including twelve (12) months of public outreach and six
(6) months of warnings
The proposed amendment would become effective June 1, 2009, in order to allow effective
public outreach and education. In addition, the amendment stipulates that only warnings would
be issued for lack of compliance with the tethering restrictions during the six -month period
following the date that the ordinance actually becomes effective. Thus, the amendment itself
would actually not be fully enforced until January 1, 2010.
In preparation for a public hearing at the May 20, 2008 BOCC meeting, Animal Services staff
conducted extensive public outreach to ensure that interested parties and the community as a
whole were aware of and invited to participate in the public hearing. The Tethering
Committee's full report, the staff recommended kennel sizes, the proposed amendment, and a
set of frequently asked questions (FAQ) remain posted in full form on the Animal Services
website at http: / /www.co.orange.nc.us /animalservices.
At the May 20th BOCC public hearing, over twenty -five citizens spoke, offering diverse and
varied opinions, and expressed strong feelings on both sides of the issue.
Many of the significant issues expressed at the meeting had been previously heard by the
Tethering Committee during its public input meetings and were discussed at length in the course
of the Committee's deliberation. Exceptions for "escape artist" dogs and hunting or sporting
dogs were considered, but ultimately decided against by the Tethering Committee because the
exceptions were believed to be unworkable. For hunting and 'sporting dogs, the Tethering
Committee decided against a full exception, but did allow for an exception during actual sporting
or hunting events.
Given the diverse opinions represented at the May 20th hearing, the BOCC decided to continue
discussion of and possible decision regarding the proposed amendment for its June 3rd meeting
so that there would be ample opportunity for consideration and reflection upon those viewpoints
and the work of the Tethering Committee and the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct cost associated with the review and consideration of
the proposed ordinance amendment. The costs of administering and enforcing the new
tethering provisions, if enacted, are believed to be readily absorbed within the Animal Services
departmental budget and staffing complement. This expectation is based upon discussions with
animal control authorities in other jurisdictions with similar tethering regulations and the belief
that effective public relations and outreach can facilitate a transition in standards of animal care.
Costs will be incurred during the twelve -month period of public education and outreach. Staff
expects that the total costs will not exceed $1,500, and that these monies will largely be used for
display advertisements.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the proposed
ordinance amendment on the tethering of dogs and provide any feedback and direction to staff.
luddplhopy ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGEND jMay M AB T
Meeting Date: 2 0, 2008
Action Agenda
Item No. s— b
SUBJECT: Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dogs
DEPARTMENT: Animal Services PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Tethering Committee Final Report &
Recommendations
Staff Memorandum Recommending
Minimum Kennel Size Requirements
Animal Services Tethering Committee
Meeting Summaries
Animal Services Advisory Board Minutes
from Meetings with Discussion on
Tethering
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ross Oglesbee, J.D., Chair, Animal
Services Advisory Board 966 -0599
Susan Elmore, DVM, Vice- Chair, Animal
Services Advisory Board 541 -3474
Bob Marotto, Director, Animal Services
968 -2287
PURPOSE: To request that the Board of County Commissioners conduct a public hearing for a
proposed ordinance amendment to the Orange County Animal Ordinance restricting the
tethering of dogs, and adopt the ordinance amendment.
BACKGROUND: At its November 13, 2007 work session, the BOCC reviewed the Final Report
and Recommendations of the Tethering Committee, and requested that a proposed ordinance
amendment be drafted by the County Attorney's office, in consultation with the Animal Services
staff, and presented for consideration. At that same work session, the BOCC indicated that the
Animal Services Department should prepare and distribute outreach materials to ensure that the
public was informed of the proposed amendment.
The proposed amendment includes the following restrictions on the tethering of dogs:
• No more than a total of 3 hours of tethering within a 24 -hour period
• A specification of the types of collars and equipment
• A requirement for minimum kennel size
• An exemption for certain. organized and lawful animal functions
• An 18 -month education period, including twelve (12) months of public outreach and six
'(6) months of warnings
Animal Services has initiated public outreach, indicating that the proposed amendment is
scheduled for consideration at the May 20th BOCC meeting. The Tethering Committee's full
report, the staff recommended kennel sizes, the proposed amendment, and a set of frequently
26
asked questions (FAQ) are all posted in full form on the Animal Services website at
hfto://Www.co.orange.nc.us/animalservices.
The FAQ provides detail about not only the restrictions, but also the process of implementation
and a tentative hearing date. A brochure version of the FAQ has been developed and
distributed at select sites, such as Animal Control, the Animal Shelter, the Government Services
Center, and the Gateway Center.
A flyer has been distributed throughout the County at various locations by Animal Control
Officers. These are the same locations where rabies vaccination clinic dates are routinely
posted. Also, a display advertisement will appear in the News of Orange and News of Orange
Extra during the week before the proposed amendment is scheduled for a BOCC meeting.
An initial media release was sent out on April 30, 2008. The advisory informed the public of the
tentatively scheduled date (May 20, 2008) and referenced the website for additional information.
Another media release will be distributed the week prior to the actual BOCC meeting date.
The proposed amendment would become effective June 1, 2009, in order to allow effective
public outreach and education. Pending the adoption of the ordinance, Animal Services staff
will prepare and implement a public relations plan for that time period. In addition, the
amendment stipulates that only warnings would be issued for lack of compliance with the
tethering restrictions during the six -month period following the date that the ordinance actually
becomes effective. Thus, the amendment itself would actually not be fully enforced until
January 1, 2010.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct cost associated with the review and consideration of
the proposed ordinance amendment. The costs of administering and enforcing the new
tethering provisions, if enacted, are believed to be readily absorbed within the Animal Services
departmental budget and staffing complement. This expectation is based upon discussions with
animal control authorities in other jurisdictions with similar tethering regulations and the belief
that effective public relations and outreach can facilitate a transition in standards of animal care.
Costs will be incurred during the twelve -month period of public education and outreach. Staff
expects that the total costs will not exceed $1,500 and that these monies will largely be used for
display advertisements.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the BOCC conduct a public hearing
for the proposed ordinance amendment on the tethering of dogs and adopt the ordinance
amendment.
Aj0
presentation tonight. She said that there should be a date certain that things should stop
changing, because the Planning Board still has some critical questions.
Michelle Kempinski, Planning Board member, asked if the Board of County
Commissioners received the two copies of the Holshouser report. She said that there are
differences in the two analyses. The second version contains an extra page, which is the
methodology section.
Laura Blackmon said that the first copy was a draft that was given to the Planning
Board, and the Planning Board asked for additional information.
Chair Jacobs suggested moving forward and having the Planning Board take its
economic development recommendations to the EDC and having the Planning Board work on
Planning items — traffic analysis, issues about water and sewer, conditions, etc. The Economic
Development Commission meets this month and in July, and there can be a recommendation
back to the Board of County Commissioners from the EDC also.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to
accept the Planning Board's recommendation and schedule the Planning Board to come back
with a report on September 2 "d
Commissioner Nelson thanked the members of the Planning Board for their candor. He
said that this economic analysis was not a good product.
Chair Jacobs asked what to communicate to the consultant and Commissioner Nelson
said that he does not want the consultant to do another report.
Geof Gledhill clarified that the motion was to condense the Administration
recommendation to direct the Planning Board to complete its work and provide its
recommendation by the last meeting before September, which is August 6'n. The County
Commissioners would have to adjourn the public hearing to September 2nd at a specified time
and place. The Board does not have to receive into evidence information or the
recommendations of the Planning Board at this time. The recommendations could be folded
into one recommendation for the next time this is considered. He suggested that the Planning
Board recommendation be brought back to the Board of County Commissioners no later than
September 2 "d and that the public hearing be adjourned until September 2 "d
Chair Jacobs asked Geof Gledhill to clarify what he is suggesting.
Geof Gledhill said that if the Planning Board does not complete its work by August 6'n
then that means that, in order for it to provide a recommendation back to the Board before
September 2 "d, it has to have a special meeting. He suggested that the recommendation be
brought back to the Board of County Commissioners no later than September 2nd and that the
public hearing be adjourned to September 2 "d
Commissioner Gordon agreed to amend her motion to reflect Geof Gledhill's comments
above, to adjourn the public hearing until September 2nd and have the recommendations come
back from the Planning Board at this time. Commissioner Nelson accepted this.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6. Reaular Agenda
a. Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dogs
The Board considered adopting a proposed ordinance amendment to the Orange
County Animal Ordinance restricting the tethering of dogs.
Animal Services Director Bob Marotto introduced Chair of the Animal Services Advisory
Board, Dr. Ross Oglesby. He said that the proposal before the Board is the result of a
tremendous amount of work by the Tethering Committee and the ASAB over a very long
period of time. The committee and the ASAB had discussions with experts from other
jurisdictions in North Carolina. Public input sessions also played a role in the
recommendations. He said that there was a concerted effort to reach a balance between
some opposing views in the community. He said that the original review and discussion
referenced exceptions for escape artist dogs and for hunting dogs. The draft includes
exceptions for these animals, but ultimately, the Tethering Committee and the ASAB opted to
not include those exceptions for three reasons:
1) concerns about the legal issues that might arise by creating exceptions;
2) impact that exceptions might have on the ease of enforcement; and
3) the issue of fairness.
Dr. Ross Oglesbee read her prepared statement:
As human beings we have free will, self- determination, and the power to control our
environment and the environment of all things on this planet. Along with the privilege of being
the dominant species, comes a responsibility to respect, not only each other, but all other living
things that are on this planet with us and to use our domination responsibly and
compassionately. Perhaps we should treat other species of animals as we would wish them to
treat us, were they in our dominant position. Dogs are conscious beings. They feel cold, heat,
pain, fear, pleasure, and affection. The overwhelming information about this issue is that the
quality of life for dogs, and their well- meaning humans, would be improved if tethering was
limited or eliminated entirely. You have heard and read a lot about this issue. The Tethering
Task Force, which is composed of diverse and knowledgeable individuals from this county, at
your behest, have already spent a lot of time, effort, and research into this issue. The Task
Force and Animal Services Advisory Board have provided you with their consensus on this
matter; they have imparted their knowledge about this issue to you. Knowledge is power. You
now have the knowledge to do the right thing with respect to this issue. You know what the
right thing is and you have the power to do the right thing. Gandhi said: The greatness of a
nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I will
paraphrase that to say that the greatness of this county and its moral progress can be judged
by the way its animals are treated. Hippocrates said: I expect to pass through this world but
once; any good thing therefore that I can do, or any kindness that I can show to any fellow
creature, let me do it now; let me not defer or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.
The soul is in all living creatures, although the body of each is different. And finally, from
George Bernard Shaw: The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to
be indifferent to them, that is the essence of inhumanity.
Please don't be indifferent to the quality of a dog's life; don't be indifferent to the
information you have received; act on the knowledge you have. The Tethering Committee did
what it was charged to do and drafted a sound, reasonable, and fair proposal. Now, with the
power you have, do the right thing; vote tonight to approve the tethering amendment. Thank
you.
Commissioner Carey commended the ASAB and the Tethering Committee on their
hard work on this emotional issue. He said that the Board of County Commissioners has not
had a chance to discuss this item as a Board yet. He said that the public all wants the same
thing — humane treatment of animals. He does have concerns about the size of the pen that is
proposed in this ordinance and he wants to discuss this. He said that the Board needs to talk
about a three -hour limit of tethering and he is not ready to make a decision on this item tonight.
Commissioner Nelson said that the last public comment session was about an hour
long and there are 60 + signed up to speak tonight. He said that when this is brought back, it
will be for Board of County Commissioners' discussion only. The Board needs to be able to
discuss this.
Commissioner Carey said that the Board may ask staff to bring back further information
and it may want to refer this back to the Tethering Committee or ASAB for consideration, if
need be.
Commissioner Foushee said that there are questions that the Board of County
Commissioners needs an opportunity to raise, but she does not want to bring this up until the
public has had their say. She has questions about enforcement.
Chair Jacobs made a few suggestions. He said that it is not a competition to see who
gets the most speakers or who has the loudest applause. He said that he sees a number of
people signed up to speak who spoke last time, and he asked that they not speak again, in
courtesy to others who have not spoken yet. He said that the Board does listen, and the same
things do not need to be said again. There was a citizen in opposition to what Chair Jacobs
said.
Chair Jacobs also asked that anyone that comes to speak please remove their hats.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Dennis Carden is from Caldwell in Orange County and is a charter member of the Quail
Farm Beagle Club. This club has 50 kennels built to USDA standards, and they oppose this
tethering ordinance and the pen laws that are included in it. He said that he is an AKC
licensed judge and he travels all over judging beagles. He feels that this ordinance invades
their rights as hunters and dog owners. He said that these dog owners have had a lifetime
commitment and he feels like they are not even being considered. He thinks that it is all about
what the Tethering Committee thinks. He said that USDA already has a standard size pen.
He asked what is big enough. He said that he takes very good care of his dogs and keeps his
pens and feeding bowls clean. He said that he was proud to be an Orange County citizen until
recently.
Charles Best is a lifetime resident of Orange County. He owns 300 acres of land and
said that he works hard to keep it. His father taught him how to hunt as a child, to respect a
gun, and how to treat a dog. He said that in the 30's, it was good to have rabbit or squirrel on
the table. He said that he feels like he was losing his right to teach his children about having
dogs. He has small dogs now. He does not see how smaller dogs need the same size pen as
larger dogs. He does not think that more laws are needed, because there are laws now for
people that mistreat dogs. He challenged the Board to come out to NC 54 and the Quail Farm
Beagle Club. He said that revenues come in to the County through the field trials that the
beagle club coordinates. He said that he has had dogs all of his life and he loves his dogs.
He thinks that he is being penalized.
David Aman said that he is speaking in favor of the tethering ordinance amendment.
He said that passage of this amendment would give the Animal Protection officials an
additional tool with which to come to the aid of a distressed and neglected dog that has been
chained for an inordinately long period of time. He said that this ordinance amendment is
based on a genuine expressed interest driven by citizens who live within the boundaries of this
County. To his knowledge, there is no ordinance amendment supporter who receives money
from anyone within or outside of the County to professionally organize or lobby for the
passage of this type of local issue. He said that this process has been going on for one year,
and this is the fourth public hearing.
Robin Harrison said that she has been a resident for 20 years. She said that her dog is
tethered now, and she would be breaking this ordinance by just attending this meeting. She
said that if she left her dogs loose, they would dig under, climb over, or high jump her fence.
She said that this amendment does not make sense and she is opposed to it.
Elaine Modlin read a prepared letter to the County Commissioners. She is an Animal
Control Officer from Laurinburg, NC.
"Dear Commissioners:
The City of Laurinburg passed its first tethering ordinance in November, 1997 with an
effective date of December 1998. The first ordinance allowed dog owners to tether their dogs
for up to 8 hours within a 24 -hour period. This proved to be too time - consuming to enforce, so
in 2000 we amended the ordinance to one hour within a 24 -hour period.
We passed our tethering ordinance for two main reasons (1) the safety of our citizens
and (2) for the humane treatment of animals. On the issue of safety, our records indicated that
fifty -one percent of our dog bites were from dogs that were confined on chains or had been
chained and had broken loose. This is compared to only 19 percent of bites from dogs that
were confined in a fence. On the issue of inhumane treatment of animals, we were constantly
receiving calls in reference to chained dogs. They were usually tangled up and unable to get
to shelter or water. Many of these cases had been like this for long periods of time. Attempts
to correct or eliminate these situations were futile and time - consuming.
Passing this ordinance has definitely improved our records for protecting our citizens
from dangerous dogs. It has helped eliminate residences with multiple dogs chained out,
reducing such complaints as nuisance barking and odor. Our cruelty cases are significantly
reduced as well as our dog bites from chained or loose dogs and complaints about dogs
running loose. We have also seen a dramatic reduction in litters of puppies, partly because of
the tethering ordinance, but also because of the state spay /neuter law.
Although enforcing this ordinance had brought on extra work and time in the beginning,
after almost 10 years our impoundments have been reduced by half. And most of these are
strays, not owned by our citizens. It has been very rewarding seeing the addition of fenced in
backyards and the dogs happily running around. Owners have commented to me that their
dogs seem happier and easier to take care of. I hope that Orange County decides to pass a
tethering ordinance, you will be making the lives of your residents safer and improving on the
lives of many deserving dogs."
Pat Sanford spoke at the last meeting and said that she is a member of the ASAB and
she supports this amendment. All of the members of the ASAB are from Orange County.
Sandi Coy is the Chairperson of Responsible Dog Owners of the Eastern States. She
is also the new CEO of the United Responsible Dog Owners International. She is from
Kentucky and was asked by residents of Orange County to come and speak. She said that
she came tonight to try and set a few myths to bed. She said that laws of this sort are very
difficult to enforce and they tend to give another law on the books that people are not going to
follow. It is almost impossible to enforce, especially if there is a short limit for tethering. She
said that a lot of the groups that try and start the anti - tethering movement have usually quoted
a study done by the CDC, which was done in 1994 and is called, "Which Dogs Bites, a Case -
Controlled Study of Risk Factors." This study was done on dogs that were taken in by Denver
Metro Animal Services in 1991, so the study is already 17 years old. She said that the
information is probably not still pertinent. Also, there were lots of exclusions in the study. The
study started out with 991 dogs, and by the time the exclusions were done, the number was
down to 357 dogs. She said that there are many flaws in this study. After this study was
done, with all of the flaws, and the authors even said that the study was flawed, the Animal
Rights Movement still uses it. She quoted something from the study: "One hundred and
sixteen were aggressive when they were approached in their fence. Only 64 of the tethered
dogs were aggressive. Our results, however, showed no significant difference in the behavior
of dogs chained and those not chained, suggesting that chaining was not likely to have been
the result of aggressive behavior."
Deanna Rowan is a resident of Orange County. She supports this ordinance
amendment. She said that this is not an animal rights agenda issue; it is a humane treatment
of dogs' issues. She said that no one wants to take away anyone's right to have dogs and to
hunt. The concern is how the dogs are being kept. She said that the first part of her life was
spent in Georgia and Alabama where hunting is a way of life, and she had a lot of close friends
that had hunting dogs, and none of them were chained or tethered. She said that this is not
about the hunters, but about the hundreds of dogs in Orange County that are chained 24/7,
exposed to elements, rarely contacted by their owners, and are subjected to abuse and
neglect.
Kitty Lynn said that she has rescued hundreds of dogs. She said that chained dogs
often become aggressive and territorial for a lack of love and nutrition. They will attack
children who enter their territory. She read the names of some children that have been killed
or injured by dogs all over the United States. She said that more and more communities are
passing laws that regulate the practice of tethering animals, and Orange County will not be the
first. She read the names of some cities that have done this. She spoke in favor of the
ordinance amendment.
Phillip Pennell said that his feelings run deep on this issue. He said that, from the list of
children read by Ms. Lynn, there were only a few that were killed by tethered dogs. He said
that Person County has a dangerous breed law that Orange County needs to have to contain
these types of dogs. He said that he has searched and not once has a hound ever inflicted
wounds, but they were mostly from dangerous breeds. He brought out a chain to show the
County Commissioners what the Orange County law is with a ten -foot chain. He said that a
ten -foot chain would allow 400 square feet of movement, versus 100 square feet with a ten -
foot pen. He read from the summary from the Tethering Committee: "Of particular concern
are dogs that spend their lives tethered as they are naturally active and social, being that
required exercise and frequent interaction with humans and other animals." He said that a ten -
foot cage is restricting the dog from exercise. He said that when you take the sociality out of a
dog, it makes them mean. He said that he has owned hundreds of dogs, and he has always
taken very good care of them. He does not appreciate people coming in and trying to say that
chains make bad dogs.
Tommy Frazier said that he has dogs and they are better off on a chain than in a pen.
He said that it is cleaner to have a chain than a pen. He said that the citizens pay taxes on
dogs and there should not be a law.
George Painter said that he is opposed to this becoming a law and if the ones on the
book now were enforced, there would not be a problem. He said that Ms. Modlin was trying to
do a good thing in Scotland County, but he pointed out that she said that those that do not
agree with the law are those whose dogs are not well taken care of. He said that when the
committee was formed, the Board of County Commissioners asked that there be members on
both sides of the argument. The one person that was against it was not allowed to be on the
committee. He said that he attended the first open meeting for comment, and two people from
his group volunteered to fill the vacant position of someone that was in favor of tethering. This
was denied. He said that the whole study was done by those who wanted this amendment
passed. He said that the Board of County Commissioners needs to restudy this and put some
people on the committee that are on the other side of the issue so that it is fair.
Mark Soloman said that he supports this ordinance for several reasons. The first is
public safety. Chaining dogs contributes to aggression and constitutes a public safety threat.
He said that it has been shown that dogs that are chained are more likely to bite than
unchained dogs. The second is the humane issue. Prolonged chaining is harmful to dogs and
deprives them of necessary exercise and socialization; it subjects them to dangers of
becoming entangled, preventing them from reaching food, shelter, or water and causing
injuries such as strangulation, trachea damage from pulling, and the embedding of collars; it
makes dogs vulnerable to attack from free - roaming dogs and wildlife. Numerous Orange
County veterinarians have endorsed this tethering restriction. The next reason is over-
population. Chained dogs contribute to the community's pet over - population problem. Dogs
that are continuously tethered are frequently unsterilized and there is no barrier protecting
chained female dogs from unwanted breeders. In fact, every chained female dog that the
Coalition to Unchain Dogs has helped locally has had at least one and often multiple litters of
puppies. The puppies end up in local shelters and cost taxpayers' money. Finally, this is an
important tool for animal control. Seven North Carolina jurisdictions, including the counties of
New Hanover and Scotland, report positive results from anti - tethering ordinances, including a
decrease in the number of animal cruelty complaints and dog bite incidences.
Nancy Garson- Anger read a letter on behalf of Jean McNeill, Animal Control Services
Manager of New Hanover County. She said that the anti - tethering ordinance is too important
an issue to be silenced in an atmosphere of intimidation. She encouraged the County
Commissioners to move forward thoughtfully, compassionately, and not fearfully.
"Dear County Commissioners,
I am writing this letter in support of your county passing an anti - tethering ordinance for
the protection of your community's companion animals. New Hanover County has had the
privilege of such a law for many years, and our residents enjoy the safety it affords our pets.
Animal cruelty is a serious matter, and we must do all we know to do to keep it from happening
in whatever manner we are able.
Many would argue that you should merely enforce the laws that you already have;
however, in our experience, you cannot enforce what you do not have. The majority of
offenders will not comply with suggestions, so adequate enforceable laws are necessary to
cause compliance. Anti - tethering is a step in the right direction to enhance responsible pet
ownership. Having a pet entails great responsibility, so we must be proactive in educating
owners about the best care they can provide.
We passed the ordinance many years ago, but did not write actual citations until quite
some time after the law became effective. We issued warning notices, which gave the dog
owner time to make corrections. This is not nearly as effective as simply writing the citation. In
our experience, an owner will comply more rapidly, if there are consequences for failure to do
so. We have the administrative ability to void a citation, if they correct the problem in a timely
manner. Again, this would not be possible if no law was on the books to enforce. Our
residents have responded favorably to having a means of preventing animal cruelty in at least
one form.
Prior to passing the ordinance, we saw many cases of dogs being left on short leads or
ropes for many hours — or permanently — at the household. Many individuals lost their pets
due to strangulation, heat stroke, and in some severe cases — the owner's intentional animal
abuse of starvation. We had no means of preventing this abuse until the law was enforceable.
The ordinance was challenged in April 2007. We had a group of Pit Bull owners, who
desired to tether their dogs with heavy chains connected to tire axles. Fortunately, our
advisory committee, board of health, and County Commissioners saw through these
individuals and upheld the law. We are grateful. We are also in high hopes that you will also
act as responsibly for your community pets as we have in New Hanover County. The majority
of your residents are counting on you to do the right thing, despite the very vocal minority that
opposes the law.
Please feel free to contact me about this important issue. I look forward to hearing
back from you with a good report. I can be reached at 910 - 798 -7505 or imcneil _nhc ov.com.
Sincerely,
Jean P. McNeil
New Hanover County
Animal Control Services Manager"
Amanda Stipe is a Chapel Hill native, a former Animal Control Officer within the area,
and a dog trainer. She believes that enforcement is an option. She said that a one size fits all
approach will not work to confine animals, protect them, and protect the public. She said that
governments and organizations should continue to work together to educate the public to the
responsibilities of dog ownership. She said that the proposal for anti - tethering is too restrictive
and each dog must be considered individually. She read an excerpt from the book, "The Love
of a Dog," by Patricia McConnell, where a visiting young friend did not survive a dog attack.
"The two girls were alone in the house, except for a total of six large dogs. An adult male, an
adult female, and four adolescents. None of the dogs had been spayed or neutered. All were
underweight and in poor condition. None of the dogs had received any training, nor had they
been outside the house beyond being tied up to a chain in the yard. Neighbors reported
several incidents in which the dogs had been screamed at, struck, and kicked. Social services
reported that most of the surfaces in the home, including the beds, were covered with the
dogs' urine and feces." She said that this shows the people problem that we have. She said
that a tethering law would not have helped in this circumstance and might have been the
reason the dogs were confined indoors with unsupervised juveniles. Training people on
animal behavior is key to responsible dog welfare and ownership. Educating people on the
benefits of spaying and neutering is also important. She said that regulations or laws should
not be so restrictive that they hinder options to dog owners who are willing to do the right thing
for themselves, the public, and their pets. Animal Control may have a more difficult time in
locating animal abusers as they move indoors, no longer under plain sight. She asked the
County Commissioners to consider not enacting this proposal in its current state, but to provide
Animal Control and law enforcement additional monies to enforce current laws.
Lamar Chapman said that he spoke at the last meeting, but he said that he was here to
speak on behalf of some people that could not attend. He said that at the last meeting people
were saying that dogs had feelings and were emotional, etc. He said that all dogs may not like
chains, just like some people like coffee or tea. He said that some dogs will run off if left out,
but his dog will run around and then come home. He said that this is not mistreatment. He
read from something: "We are our own town; we don't care how other counties are run. If
they said, 'jump in front of a bus,' would you do it? Everything they have presented us with is
from another county. It is not from Orange County. We are our own county." He said that the
committee should have talked to the people in the community and not people from other
counties. He said that most of the people that are for the anti - tethering ordinance were not
even raised in Orange County. He said that if this ordinance is passed, his dogs will go to
another residence in another county.
Eliana Beattie does not live in Orange County, but she works at the animal shelter.
She read a letter signed by nine local veterinarians:
"To the Board of County Commissioners:
We, the undersigned veterinarians who practice in and around Orange County urge the
Board of County Commissioners to vote in favor of the Animal Control Ordinance amendment
to restrict the practice of tethering dogs and establish minimum kennel sizes for dogs.
We agree with the Tethering Committee's findings that:
- Prolonged tethering deprives dogs of necessary exercise and socialization;
- Tethered dogs can and do contribute to various community nuisance issues such
as barking and pet overpopulation;
- Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to public safety and health because they
may become aggressive and they are not confined behind a barrier.
In addition, as veterinarians, we believe that chained dogs are subjected to a variety of
dangers, including trachea damage from pulling on the chain; embedded collars; and injuries
sustained in attacks from free - roaming dogs.
There are many alternatives to chaining available, including adequately -sized pens,
fences, and simply keeping dogs inside and walking them several times a day.
By voting in favor of this amendment, the BOCC will be taking a positive step toward
protecting the public and improving the treatment of dogs in our community. We urge you to
do so without delay.
Sincerely,
Soren Windram, DVM, New Hope Animal Hospital
Kay Bishop, DVM, New Hope Animal Hospital
Ken Redmond, Vine Veterinary Hospital
Kathy Crabtree, DVM, Carver Street Veterinary Hospital
Pat Pagel, DVM, Cole Park Veterinary Hospital
Michelle Droke, DVM, Cole Park Veterinary Hospital
Deborah Stein, DVM, Cole Park Veterinary Hospital
Megan Harris, DVM, Cole Park Veterinary Hospital
Marjorie Lindeke, DVM, St. Francis Veterinary Hospital"
Timmy Frazier said that he has tried to make all of these meetings and has tried to talk
to people in the community, especially those in the northern part of the County. He said that
he is a responsible dog owner, and he believes that tethering is okay if the owner takes care of
his /her dogs and tethers in a humane way. He thinks that the problem in Orange County is the
dog breed. He said that when the County Commissioners force something like this
amendment down their throats, it makes the citizens mad.
Susan Kelly is against the tethering amendment. She agreed with Commissioner
Carey and they all want to do the right thing for the animals. For some, she thinks that it could
be tethering.
Stillman Wright was born and raised in Chapel Hill. He said that he has tethered
champion dogs and his dogs are not mistreated. He showed pictures of his dogs. His dogs
are kept on ten -foot chains, which give them 365 square feet. He said that he is a responsible
dog owner. He also showed a picture of an American Pit Bull Terrier that got out of a fence.
Josh Chapman was born and raised in Orange County. He read from an article from
the News and Observer. "Barbara Sherman, a Clinical Associate Professor at N. C. State
University College of Veterinary Medicine, said `method of animal confinement should not be
blamed for neglect. You can abuse those same dogs by putting them in tiny pens. We really
need to examine the welfare of each dog. "' He asked those that live in Orange County and
that have dogs that live on chains to raise their hands. He said that most people who raised
their hands are from Orange County. He said that most of the people that are pushing this are
from Chapel Hill and are not going to be affected by this. He said that he has dogs on chains
at his house, and they will not stay in pens.
Frank Tilley is opposed to the tethering ordinance. He said that there are surveys that
say that dogs on chains become aggressive. He has seen plenty of aggressive dogs in pens.
He has trained dogs for 12 years and you can make any dog aggressive and it is not just
because it is on a chain. A dog can be happy on a chain just as much as he is in a pen.
Suzanne Roy was a member of the Tethering Committee and the ASAB. She would
like to answer any of their questions rather than referring it back to the Tethering Committee.
She said that neglected dogs can be anywhere, but there are special circumstances that make
tethering an issue that should be a policy decision — lack of a barrier, protecting the people
from the dog, etc. She said that it is a situation similar to having an uncovered or unfenced
pool. It is both a lure and a danger to children. She said that 175 children in the last four
years have been killed or injured by chained dogs. She made reference to the people that
would have to make changes if this ordinance is passed, and she said that these were people
that the Tethering Committee had in mind when it recommended the 18 -month phasing period.
Regarding the hunting committee, there are very strongly held beliefs against government
regulation related to animal welfare. She respects those beliefs, but she does not agree with
them. She said that they believe that animals are property and they each should have a right
to do what they want with their animals. She said that animals are not property, and there is a
public interest in protecting them. She said that some other opponents here are out -of- county
paid lobbyists and Pit Bull breeders. She said that Sandi Coy, who spoke earlier, is a Pit Bull
breeder and has animal cruelty charges pending against her in Kentucky. Another person is
Andrea Press, who is also a Pit Bull breeder, who sells dogs with known dog fighting blood
lines. Ms. Press led the unsuccessful effort to overturn the New Hanover County law, and she
moved from that county after she was cited for illegally tethering dogs. She said that animal
cruelty is a serious issue, and as a community, they should take a stand against it. Orange
County needs this law, and she hopes that the County Commissioners will pass it.
Arielle Schechter has been in Orange County since the early 1960's and she fully
supports the anti - tethering ordinance. She said that it is overdue.
Kris Bergstrand spoke on behalf of Jean Alston, who is a member of the Tethering
Committee and is in support of the ordinance amendment.
Elise Roosevelt lives in Hillsborough. She has been in Orange County for eight years
and she is a lifelong animal owner of dogs and cats. She strongly supports the anti - tethering
ordinance because what she has personally seen and what she has read. She said that it is
important to remember that this is about both public safety and humane treatment of animals.
She referred to the USDA ruling prohibiting tethering as a method of primary enclosure. She
said that this is about 24/7 enclosure and not 2 -3 hours. She said that cruelty comes in many
forms, and this is only one tool. She said that this is about the welfare of animals and the
safety of the community and not about people's professions and financial welfare.
Lori Hensley is opposed to chaining dogs.
Robert Hensley said that he is a volunteer with the Coalition to Unchain Dogs. In the
past year, they have built 50 fences in Orange, Durham, and Wake Counties and have
removed approximately 85 dogs from chains. He showed some pictures. He said that one
thing that disturbs him is that Ms. Coy was charged with cruelty to animals. He read something
from his PDA, including that one dead dog still on a chain was found on her property. He also
acknowledged that Andrea Press was involved in breeding dog fighters, as mentioned above.
Sitting next to Ms. Press is another paid lobbyist, Mr. McClees, from the North Carolina
Sporting Dogs Association. He spoke in support of the anti - tethering ordinance.
Mickey Oliver has lived in Orange County for over 46 years. He said that this is a
touchy situation here and the Board of County Commissioners appreciates the work of the
Tethering Committee, and he asked that the Board please appreciate his commitment to his
dogs for over 50 years. He said that a law is out there now — the leash law — that is not being
enforced now.
Brian F. Fee read a prepared handout:
"Dear Sirs:
My name is Brian Fee and I live in Chapel Hill with my wife and three children. After
many years of renting homes and apartments, we bought a home in Chapel Hill — one with a
big yard for plants and animals. Last summer we were told about three puppies that were
dropped off and abandoned at a minister's house. We adopted the puppy, which is part
Labrador, part German Shepard.....but mostly mutt. Her name is Lily and the kids painted
rainbows and lilies on her doghouse that I built. The agreement with my wife was that the dog
would remain outside during the day on a line (a cable- trolley system) but remain inside in the
evening and in a crate at night. Everything was working out fine....even as she has grown to
60 Ibs... until I saw Dave Hart's editorial in the Chapel Hill News that brought up the tethering
issue again. I was astonished that the issue of tethering was still being debated.
Mr. Hart wrote that basically there were two distinct camps of thought — the anti -
tethering group that says that tethering can cause physical or psychological damage to a dog,
and a pro- tethering group, composed mainly of hunters and dog breeders who say that
tethering is humane and that neglect by people is the real problem. It seemed like one major
group — I would think they can be best called the silent majority — are families who have one or
two dogs that are humanely tethered and are played with in their backyards. I was concerned
enough that this group was not being represented that I stand here tonight.
I read about how restrictions on tethering in other jurisdictions decreased dog bites,
reduced unwanted litters, and reduced cruelty due to improper tethering. Well, our dog lives in
our backyard, so even if she did have a mind to bit someone, which she hasn't had a mind to
yet, the person would have to be in our backyard. She has been spayed, so puppies are not
an issue. With regards to cruelty, Lily is a member of our family. Her tether has been installed
properly and she always has food, water, shade, and room to run and dig. On this note, let's
do some math.
She is on a trolley line 60 feet long and she can go 19 feet each way from the center of
the line. How many square feet can Lily play?
The answer is 2280 square feet. Our house is only around 1500 square feet! This
seems more humane than 100 -200 square feet in a kennel or a 10- square foot crate.
Attached to my talk is a picture of Lily's domain, where she can run, dig, and play — either with
us or by herself — sleep....whatever she wants to do. By the way, we certainly interact with her
much more on a line than we would with her stuck in a kennel.
I believe the main issue is not how a dog is confined, but how well a pet owner takes
care and interacts with an animal. Key words — pet owner responsibility. I'm all for it. I once
found a dog....in a side yard....on a chain....with a collar that had grown into the dog's neck. I
knocked on the owner's door, and they said that there wasn't a problem and that they were
applying some sort of lotion to the neck....and then to get lost....or something like that. I called
animal control ASAP and the dog was removed. The chain was not the problem — neglect
was. I strongly support the laws against animal cruelty.
This whole issue reminds me of gun control — some are adamantly against all guns and
others start quoting the 2nd Amendment to have as many guns as they want. Neither side
promotes gun -owner responsibility to solve the problem.
Bottom line — our dog Lily is one of the vast majorities of dogs that are humanely
tethered and cared for. I resent the fact that this proposed bill assumes that we are not taking
care of our dog. I take responsibility for her care and safety. If any of you Commissioners
wish to come over and visit Lily, just let me know."
S. Henri McClees said that she is the proud lobbyist of the North Carolina Sporting Dog
Association. She said that her clients are great guys and they love their dogs. She said that
the issue is really will the County Commissioners forbid her clients to own their dogs and to
care for them as they see fit. Based on this issue, she asked the County Commissioners to
reject this ordinance. She said that this proposal demands that all dog owners comply with the
demands of the small majority. This would pit the citizens against each other in a needless
battle that sets the stage for constant conflict. She said that this is about the rights of the
people. She said that the citizens have the right to be protected from any tyranny that would
be imposed upon them by a small majority. She said that "the few" want to order all citizens to
comply essentially with their philosophy and they do not distinguish between animals that are
abused or not abused. She said that the abuse does not come from the type of confinement,
but comes from the person.
Allan Green represents a group that does not own pet dogs or hunting dogs, but own
working dogs. He is a small farmer that lives in the Orange Grove community. He has a
number of Border Collies. He does not have a problem with the intent of having humane
treatment of dogs and he would prefer not to have to tether a dog. He said that there are
times when he has to tether a dog on a 30 -foot chain, particularly when a female dog comes
along and his dog can get out of his pen. He said that this is an instance where the tethering
law does not deal with realities of life. He asked why the exceptions were not allowed. He
said that it seems that the committee was loaded with members who think tethering is bad. He
is opposed to the anti - tethering law.
Brian Lane is from Chapel Hill and he is not a dog owner. He said that he has come
here out of civic duty and what he sees as an encroachment on individual freedom in Orange
County. He said that he believes in the citizens of Orange County, and the Board of County
Commissioners does not need to rule them with an iron fist. He is proud of these hunters and
how they treat their dogs. He thinks that a pressing case would need to be made that is
extensive proof of abuse before this ordinance is amended. He thinks that this is not
happening here. He said that if this ordinance is passed on such weak evidence, he would like
to know where the Board will stop.
Walt Von Shernz is a resident of Durham County and he has lived in Orange County
before. He grew up in another state where there were a lot of hunters that chained their dogs
all the time. He said that from his own experience, he has seen what chaining of dogs can do.
He firmly believes that keeping dogs on a chain will increase the propensity for the dog to
develop anti - social behavior. He does not think that feeding and watering a dog fulfills all of
the needs of a dog. A dog needs to be unencumbered.
Andrea Press said that she was at the last meeting, and she would like to bring both
sides together. She said that the simple solution, instead of turning one half of the room into
criminals, would be to put the two groups together. She said that people can be educated on
proper ownership, continue building fences, if dogs are bad off on chains. It is all about
education. She said that education is not regulation. She said that these people are here
because they love their animals and they do not want to get rid of them. She asked if the
County Commissioners were prepared to take on the liability for what happens when the dogs
that are put in pens escape the pens. She said that the bottom line is that the most dangerous
dog is a dog at- large. On a personal level, she said that she does raise American Pit Bull
Terriers. The reason that she is not a paid lobbyist is because New Hanover County ruined
her existence with an anti - tether law. She had dogs behind her fence tied up while she was at
home and she received written citations. She had four weeks to find a place to move and her
daughter lost her spot in private school.
Frances Jones is a lifetime citizen of Orange County. She said that she has never
seen the Chair disrespect citizens as he has tonight. She applauded the hunters for standing
up for their rights. The hunters have a right to do what they are doing. She said that dogs in
Chapel Hill are treated better than Fairview Community citizens because they have parks with
trails. Fairview has been begging for a park for the last 30 years. She said that they are going
to do what they have to do to get that park. She said that most of the money in the County
goes to Chapel Hill. This is why people feel divided. The Fairview citizens feel that the County
thinks more of the dogs in Chapel Hill than it does the citizens. She said that the County
Commissioners need to do what they were voted in to do.
Bobby Kirk said that he has several good ideas, and the big one is education. He said
that there are only six ordinances nationwide that dictate kennel size. He said that he trains
over 60 dogs a year, and he travels the nation in field trials. He has a dog coming in tomorrow
that is 75 pounds and is a biter. The first thing he will do with this dog is put him on a tether.
He said that his dogs are happy on tethers. He agrees that everything has to be done right.
He said that every dog is different and tethering is a great thing for a dog. He urged the
County Commissioners to vote against this. He said that it would solve no problems and there
is no way that it could be enforced.
Loren Hart said that he is in support of the dog ordinance. He said that dogs and other
animals are individual beings, can feel pleasure, pain, fear, and loneliness. For these reasons,
he believes that tethering dogs for prolonged periods is a form of abuse that should be
stopped. It is a different kind of abuse than kicking a dog, but it is a form of neglect. He thinks
that the current ordinance should be amended to mandate a higher level of care owed to the
dogs by their human guardians. He said that he is a resident of Orange County and he works
at UNC. He made reference to his uncle who died recently, and said that, in addition to being
a veteran of the U. S. Navy, he was also an avid duck hunter, a charter member of the
Migratory Waterfowl Hunters and Ducks Unlimited. He remembers fondly fishing with his
uncle, but he never hunted with him. He said that he used to eat fish, deer, and other animals,
but he does not anymore because he thinks that it is wrong to do so. He still respects his
uncle and everyone in this room, but he disagrees with animal exploitation. For the past five
years he has chosen a vegetarian diet because of the interests of animals. He thinks that this
mindset would be helpful in looking at this ordinance. He made reference to the comments
about tyranny and said that we all have rights and we all want to be free, but there is not
unlimited freedom. The freedom ends somewhere. He said that animals have interests and it
is not just about humans.
Kevin Young is a dog owner and breeder and he asked the Board of County
Commissioners to use common sense. He asked the County Commissioners to look at the
safety issue. He asked where the supervision was of the children who were killed by dogs. He
made reference to the breeding that happens and said that the leash laws need to be
enforced. Regarding cleanliness, when it rains with a dog in a pen, it causes a multitude of
problems. He said that this is not seen with a dog on a tether. He suggested using a body
harness to tether a dog so that there would not be embedding of collars. If the dogs were
taken care of, then there would not be a problem of embedded collars. He said that education
is very important.
Diane Genteel said that she spoke before. She said that the issues of aggression,
socialization, pet overpopulation, etc. will not be remedied by this law and it is a question of
education. Tethering is not the culprit; its the inappropriate use of tethering. She said that a
dog on a ten -foot chain has more liberty than it would have in a ten -foot pen.
Michael Kirk made reference to one of the committee members who is the North
Carolina Director of In Defense of Animals, and said that he is afraid of what will be next with
the tethering campaign. He is worried that if this gets passed, what will be next — mandatory
spay /neuter all dogs, taxes going through the roof, etc. He thinks that this is a slippery slope.
Fred Stipe was born and raised in Orange County and he is the owner of the number
one ranked male American Fox Hound in the nation. His dog competes in AKC and USDA -
sanctioned agility trials. He is also the owner of one of the greatest obedience trained beagles
in the state. He said that this proposed amendment is not the panacea that everyone would
like to see. He believes that the County would be far better served by increasing the resources
available for Animal Control to more vigorously enforce the existing abuse and neglect
statutes. He said that passage of this amendment would not solve the problem of abuse and
neglect, but would create new problems that would further complicate the job of Animal
Control.
Ellen Whitaker is a volunteer with the Coalition to Unchain Dogs. She made reference
to the comments about this amendment being an infringement on rights and said that it seems
like a lot of times in the society, when we move towards justice, always the people that are
oppressors feel that their rights are being trampled. This does not mean that it is not right to
pass the laws.
Beth Oliver is opposed to the tethering ordinance. She said that she has animals that
are tethered during the day, and she lets them run free when she gets home. She said that
she tethers the dogs for their protection. She said that she loves and protects her animals.
Chair Jacobs said that the Board of County Commissioners does take this issue
seriously and this item will be brought back in September. He said that all will be notified of
the next meeting.
b. Housing Bond Program
The Board was to consider awarding housing bond funds in the amount of $1,000,000
to the TBLF Eno Haven LLC to assist in the construction of Eno Haven, a 76 -unit multi - family
rental complex in Hillsborough and authorize the Manager in consultation with the County
Attorney to enter into a Development agreement detailing the conditions of the award.
DEFERRED
C. BOCC Goals and Initiatives
The Board was to consider reviewing and approving the Goals and Initiatives of the
Board as initially expressed by the Board, in conjunction with staff, at the February 8, 2008
BOCC Retreat.
DEFERRED
7. Reports-NONE
8. Board Comments (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner)
9. County Manager's Report
10. Appointments
a. J_ oint Orange Chatham Community Action (JOCCA) — New Appointment
The Board was to consider making one appointment to Joint Orange Chatham
Community Action (JOCCA).
Tethering Amendment Proposal
As Recommended to the Board of County Commissioners
May 200, 2008
AMENDMENTS TO THE
ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
(Only those sections or subsections amended are set out below)
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, hereby amends the Ordinance To Provide For Animal
Control Protection In Orange County, North Carolina by adding (indicated by double
underlined language) and deleting (indicated by stricken through language) as follows:
Section VII — Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following terms mean:
2. ....
3. ....
22. Restraint: An animal is under restraint if it is under sufficient physical
restrain such as a leash, cage, bridle, or similar effective and humane device which
restrains and controls the animal, or within a vehicle, or adequately contained by a fence
on the premises or other secure enclosure as2g0Mtted in accordance with Subsections
X M and XRQ of this ordinance. If a competent adult is physically outside on the land
with the animal, on land where the owner or keeper of the animal resides, then the animal
shall be deemed to be under restraint during the time the animal is in the company of and
rd
Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal
May 20', 2008
Page 2
under the control of that competent person and the animal is on the premises. If any
unattended animal is restrained by a chain, leash or similar restraint, it shall be designated
and placed to prevent choking or strangulation. Such chain or restraint shall not be less
than ten (10) feet in length and shall be either on a swivel designed to prevent the animal
from choking or strangling itself, The restraint of unattended doss by a
fence, kennel, outdoor enclosure, chain, leash or similar restraint is further regulated
under Sections XI(K) and XI(L) of this ordinance
23. ...
24. ...
25. ...
Section XI — Mistreatment of Animals Unlawful. The following acts or failure
to act relating to the mistreatment of animals are unlawful and violations of this
ordinance:
A. ...
B. ...
C. ...
D. ...
E. It shall be unlawful to restrain any animal except in a humane fashion,
ininiffmm standards of set eut forth in Section VII(22) above. and Sections
XIOQ and XI(L) below.
M
Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal
May 2e, 2008
Page 3
F. ...
G. ...
H. ...
I. ...
J. ...
K. It shall
be unlawful for any
person to restrain a
doe using a chain,
wire or
other tune of tethering
1.
device in a manner
No person shall tether.
prohibited by this subsection
fasten, chain, tie,
or restrain a dog.
or cause
such restraining of a dog,
to a tree, fence,
post, dog house, or other
stationary object
for
more than a total of 3 hours
in a 24 -hour
period. During periods
of tethering that
are not
nlawful under this subsection.
any tethering
device used shall
be at least 10 feet
in
length and attached in
such manner as to
prevent strangulation
or other iniurv_to the dog
and entanglement with
2.
objects.
No person shall tether
fasten, chain, tie,
or restrain a dog,
or cause
such restraining of a dog,
straining device, for
to a cable trolley
more than a total of
system, that allows
3 hours in a 24-hour
movement of the
period. During periods
of
tethering that are not unlawful
under this subsection, the length
of the cable along
which
t e tethering device can
move must be at
least 10 feet, and the tethering device must
be of
such length that the dog
is able to move 10
feet away from the
cable 12Mendicularly.
3.
No person shall tether
a dog with a chain
or wire or other device
t . or cause such attachment
to. any collar
other than a buckle type
collar or body
4.
No person shall tether
with a chain or wire or other device
to. or
ause such attachment
to. a head harness,
choke -type collar or
pronged collar to a
dog.
5.
No person shall tether
with a chain, wire
or other device to
a dog
ere the weight of the
tethering device and
the collar combined
exceed ten (10)
percent
of the dog's body weight.
6.
No person shall tether with a chain or wire or other device
a dog in
such manner that does
not allow the dog access
to adequate food,
water, and shelter.
7
Notwithstanding the
provisions of subsections
(1) and (2) of
this
subsection, a person may,
subject to th e provisions
A subsections
(3) -(6) of this Sectio
(j) Tether
and restrain
a dog while actively
engaged in-
a.
Use of the dog
in shepherding or
herding livestock.
or
A
Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal
May 20'h, 2008
Page 4
b. Use of the dog in the business of cultivating agricultural
products, if the restraining is reasonably necessary for the
safety of the dog. or
C. Use of the dog in lawful hunting activities if the restr 'nt is
reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog or
d Use of the dog at dog training or performance event
including but not limited to field trials nd obedience trial
where tethering does not occur for a period exceeding
7 consecutive days
ii) After taking possession of a dog that appears to be a stray dog and
after having advised animal control authorities of the capture of the
dog, tether and restrain the dog in accordance with the provisions
of Section XI(K) for a period not to exceed seven (7) days as e
person having taken possession of the dog is seeking the identity of
the owner of the dog.
(iii) Walk a dog with a handheld leash.
L. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep a dog outdoors in an enclosure
including a pen, run, kennel, fence, or electronically controlled containment device a
other outdoor enclosure in violation oLthis subsection
1. Outdoor enclosures containing dogs must meet or exceed the
following dimensional requirements:
Size of Dog Required Minimum Enclosure Area
1 -35 Pounds 80 Sguare Feet
36 -75 Pounds 100 Square Feet
76 Pounds and greater 120 Square Feet
All outdoor enclosures must be of sufficient height so that the tallest dog contained
within the enclosure is able to walk naturally without its head reac 'ng a roof or top of
said enclosure, however the height of any such enclosure shall not be included for the
purooses of determining the required minimum enclosure area. The provisions of this
I
Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal
May 20'x`, 2008
Page 5
Section XI(L) shall not
apply to any Person who held a valid permit to operate a Class I
Kennel or Class II Kennel
from Orange County on or before January 1 2008 for so long
as such permit remains in full force and effect without lapse or revocation All Persons
applying for a new Class
I or Class II Kennel Permit after January 1. 2008 shall comply
with this Section XI(L)
(j)
prior to the issuance of any such permit.'
In addition to the reauired minimum enclosure area
established herein additional space must be provided for each additional dog that is kept
in an outdoor enclosure
as follows; for the second and each additional dog that is kept in
an outdoor enclosure with another dog fifty percent of the required minimum area
specified in subsection
XI(L)(1) must be added to the minimum enclosure area. The
required minimum enclosure
area shall be based on the weight of the largest dog
contained within the enclosure.
Subsections XI(K) and
XI(L) become effective June 1 2009 and apply to acts committed
on or after that date Any
person who violates either of these subsections after June 1.
2009 and prior to January
1 2010 shall be issued a written warning giving the violator
30 days to come into compliance
with the ordinance Any person who violates
subsection XI(K) and XIR)
after January 1 2010, or any violator who fails to comply
with the ordinance after
the expiration of 30 days following such persons receipt of a
arcing specified in the
preceding sentence is subject to one or more of the Penalties
established in Section
XXI of this ordinance Any dog that is kept in violation of
subsections XI(K) and
XI(L) of this ordinance may be seized and subsequently
impounded in accordance
with Section XM of this ordinance until such a time as the
Animal Control Director is reasonably assured that the dog will not be subiect to restraint
in violation of this ordinance
The Animal Control Director shall post a notice at the
place of the illegal restraint
or at such other location that is designed to reasonably
apprise the Owner or Keeper
of the dog the place date and time the dog was seize
along with the location
where the dog was taken Such notice shall clearly state that the
dog may be returned to
the Owner or Keeper upon providing reasonable assurances to the
C�
r
Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal
May 20'", 2008
Page 6
Animal Control Director that the dos will not _be sub_ ject to restraint in violation of this
ordinance.
Upon motion of Commissioner
Commissioner
Ordinance amendments were adopted this the
2008 and shall become effective as of the
seconded by
the foregoing Animal Control
day of
day of , 200_.
Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners
0
Tethering Committee Report
July 30", 2007
Orange County's Tethering Committee*
Report and Proposal for Ordinance Amendment
July 30th, 2007
*Members of the Tethering Committee wish to thank Animal Services stafffor their diligent and
professional efforts to ensure that the Committee was effective as well as successful in meeting its
charge in a timely manner. Direct staff support to the Tethering Committee was provided by Bob
Marotto, Animal Services Director; Irene Paul, Manager, Animal Control Division; Lisa Smith,
Office Assistant, Animal Control Division; and Andi Morgan, Administrative Assistant,
Administration.
Tethering Committee Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
July 3e, 2007
IN
I. Summary
H. Introduction
III. Findings
IV Recommendations
IV. Discussion
V. Next Steps
VI. Appendices
a. Appendix I: Creation of the Orange County Tethering Committee and Board of County
Commissioners' Abstract for Creation of the Tethering Committee
b. Appendix II: Committee Members, BOCC Liaison, and Staff
c. Appendix III: North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances
d. Appendix V: Notes from Interviews with North Carolina Jurisdictions with Tethering
Ordinances: Conducted by the Tethering Committee
2
Tethering Committee Report
SUMMARY
July 30a', 2007
After a six-month-long deliberation that included seven meetings, the Orange County Tethering
Committee has concluded that the practice of tethering is a concern from the standpoint of both
animal and human welfare. With respect to the latter, tethered dogs can pose risks to the safety of
community members, and in some circumstances, affect their enjoyment and use of their property.
With respect to the former, it may be injurious to an animal and result in isolated lives of not -so-
quiet desperation at the end of a chain or rope.
Of particular concern are dogs that spend their lives tethered, as these are naturally active and social
beings that require exercise and frequent interaction with humans and other animals. Additionally,
the Committee is concerned that tethered animals develop behavioral problems, including
aggression, that adversely affect public welfare.
Notably, the Committee is recommending that tethering be limited rather than outlawed because it
has concluded that there are certain circumstances under which tethering can be an acceptable
method of confinement for several hours, whether the owner is in attendance or has left his or her
residence for that time period.
In light of this, the Committee is recommending that the County's current animal ordinance be
amended to include the following with regard to tethering dogs:
• a three -hour limit within a 24 -hour period;
• a specification of the types of collars and equipment that are allowed when a dog is tethered;
• a requirement for minimum kennel size for outdoor housing of dogs;
• an exemption for organized and lawful animal functions such as hunting, obedience training,
and law enforcement training of a duration of not more than seven (7) days;
• an 18 -month education period, including twelve (12) months of public outreach and six (6)
months of issuing warnings before the citations would be issued.
In general terms, the Committee is making these recommendations on the basis of these findings:
• Prolonged tethering can and does deprive dogs-of necessary exercise and socialization.
• Tethered dogs can and do contribute to various community problems, including pet
overpopulation and nuisance barking.
• Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to public safety and health because they may become
aggressive and they are not confined behind a physical barrier.
In making these recommendations, the Committee has gathered general information about the
humane and public safety aspects of tethering; researched existing ordinances that restrict or
prohibit tethering in jurisdictions across the United States; interviewed Animal Services personnel
in North Carolina jurisdictions with tethering ordinances; and held two meetings to obtain public
input.
3
Tethering Committee Report
July 30th, 2007
ILA:
In addition, the Committee is making these recommendations recognizing that that the precedent for
its proposal to change Orange County's animal ordinances is compelling. More specifically,
numerous jurisdictions in North Carolina and around the United States (including four states) have
successfully implemented tethering prohibitions or restrictions and have found them to be both
enforceable and effective in reducing animal cruelty complaints and dog bite incidents.
Given the charge it received from the Board of County Commissioners, the Tethering Committee is
submitting its recommendations to the Animal Services Advisory Board, the appointed citizen body
that advises the County regarding animal service matters. In turn, the Animal Services Advisory
Board will decide what, if any, ordinance amendments to recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners, the County's legislative body.
4
Tethering Committee Report
INTRODUCTION
July 301, 2007
This is a report of the Orange County Tethering Committee, a committee created by the Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) and charged with considering what changes, if any, should be
made in the County's animal ordinances with regard to tethering.'
Tethering involves keeping dogs on tie -outs such as chains or ropes versus within a fenced structure
or inside the home. It is often defined in reference to a stationary object (for example, a dog chained
to a stake near a dog house) but may also be defined to include overhead trolley systems. Tethering
does not refer to walking a dog on a leash, but instead refers to dogs that are tied out as a primary, if
not exclusive, means of confinement.
Currently, Orange County's animal ordinances, which apply to the unincorporated parts of the
County and Hillsborough, allow tethering provided certain conditions are met. The Tethering
Committee is proposing that this ordinance be amended, and specifically recommending the
changes formulated in this report.
The remainder of this report will outline and explain the changes that the Tethering Committee is
recommending for Orange County's animal ordinances. It will also provide information about the
work of the Committee, its findings, and the rationale for its specific recommendations.
1 For background on the formation of the Tethering Committee and its charge from the Orange County Board of
Commissioners, see Appendix I: Creation of the Orange County Tethering Committee and Board of County
Commissioners' Abstract for the Creation of the Tethering Committee.
5
(3
Tethering Committee Report
FINDINGS
July 3e, 2007
Over a six -month period, the Tethering Committee met numerous times to organize itself, gather
and review information about the practice of tethering, research ordinances to restrict or prohibit
tethering in other North Carolina jurisdictions, and collect input from the public. Altogether there
was one organizational meeting, two information gathering meetings, and two public input
meetings. Two additional meetings were held to formulate recommendations and review and
approve the Committee's Report and Proposal for Ordinance Amendment.
The Committee came to its general findings on the basis of the weight of available information
gathered through its meetings and work. These findings are generally consistent with the concerns
that have prompted other jurisdictions to outlaw or otherwise control the practice of tethering.
According to one source, there are now more than 50 jurisdictions in the United States with
tethering regulations.2 Most of these are county and local governments, but there are also four
states that have prohibited tethering. Some national organizations — including the Humane Society
of the United States (HSUS), which has advised the County on animal sheltering issues — advocate
for prohibitions on tethering dogs.
Specifically, the Committee's findings include:
Humane Concerns
e Tethered dogs, and certainly those that are isolated and continuously tethered, may be
deprived of essential exercise and socialization.
• Tethered dogs are at risk of various tethering - related injuries, such as embedded collars and
accidental strangulation or hanging.
Tethered dogs are also at risk of becoming tangled and prevented from reaching food, water
and shelter, and attacks by other animals in which they are usually unable to defend
themselves.
2 See http://www-helpinganimals.com/gkpffierLqesiation.asp.
Z
14-
(5
Tethering Committee Report
Public Safety Issues
July 30t`, 2007
• Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to the community. They can and do become highly
territorial and aggressive and present a significant risk of injury to the public through dog
bites and attacks.
• Tethered dogs are also a risk with regard to aggressive incidents or actual bites because there
is not a physical barrier between a dog and a child or other community member. By
contrast, fences and kennels do create such barriers, thereby minimizing the risk a dog can
pose to neighbors or passersby (while at the same time protecting that dog from attacks by
other animals).
Community Concerns
• Tethered dogs are at risk of unplanned and unwanted breeding, and thus they can contribute
to the significant problem of pet overpopulation. They may have litters of unwanted puppies,
and also create problems by attracting and exciting other dogs (despite the requirement of
County ordinance that an animal that is "in season" be suitably contained and not kept
outside).
• Tethered dogs can negatively impact community life through nuisance barking.
Precedent
• There is ample precedent for the enactment of an ordinance to prohibit or restrict tethering;
at least 50 U.S. jurisdictions, including cities, counties and several states, have passed such
laws.
• Several North Carolina jurisdictions — including Catawba, New Hanover, and Scotland
Counties, along with several North Carolina townships —have some level of tethering
limitation currently in place s
• Ordinances that restrict or prohibit tethering have proved to be both enforceable and
effective in reducing animal cruelty complaints and incidents of dog bites.
3 See Appendix H: North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances.
7
1(0
Tethering Committee Report July 30a', 2007
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Orange County Tethering Committee, on the basis of its charge from the BOCC and after
extensive research and public input, is proposing that there be an amendment to the County's
animal ordinance to restrict but not prohibit the tethering of dogs in Orange County. This and
closely related recommendations regarding matters such as the implementation of a new ordinance
are presented in this section.
An ordinance amendment is being proposed because there is presently very little regulation of
tethering in Orange County's animal ordinances, regulations which apply in the unincorporated
parts of the County and Hillsborough. A minimum standard is set out in Section VII in these terms:
"If any unattended animal is restrained by a chain, leash or similar restraint, it shall be designed and
placed to prevent choking or strangulation. Such chain or restraint shall not be less than ten (10)
feet in length and either on a swivel designed to prevent the animal from choking or strangling
itself, or on a chain run." 4
As formulated below, in order to more effectively regulate the practice of tethering in Orange
County, the Tethering Committee's specific recommendations fall into four closely related areas:
Limitation and Requirements
• Tethering should be limited to three (33) hours within a twenty four -hour period, and a
tethered animal shall be kept in accordance with all other laws, including but not limited to
requirements for food. water and shelter. By limiting tethering to three (3) hours per day,
such an ordinance would reduce the risk of uncontrolled contact between dogs and people,
which is sometimes responsible for dog attacks and bites, and it could improve or enhance
the overall conditions and care of dogs themselves. It should be noted that the Committee is
4 North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) (sections 14360 forward) pertaining to cruelty to animals may apply in some
circumstances to how an animal is secured. with only one exception, however, it does not make any specific mention
of restraint or tethering. The exception is NCGS 14362.3 (Restraining dogs in a cruel manna), which makes it a Class
1 misdemeanor for someone to "maliciously restrain a dog using a chain or wire grossly in excess of the size necessary
to restrain the dog safely."
8
1-7
Tethering Committee Report
July 30`x', 2007
recommending that tethering be limited rather than outlawed because it has concluded that
there are certain circumstances under which tethering can be an acceptable method of
confinement for several hours, whether the owner is in attendance or has left his or her
residence for that time period.
• Tethers must meet certain requirements. A tethered dog must have a tether at least ten feet in
length that swivels at each end to prevent choking or strangulation and allows access to
food, water and shelter. The weight of the tether and collar must not exceed ten percent of
the dog's body weight. A tethered dog must be tethered using a buckle collar or harness.
Choke chain collars and prong collars are not allowed when tethering a dog. These
requirements are designed to avoid strangulation and ensure the welfare of the animal if and
when it is tethered in accordance with the proposed ordinance.
• A minimum pen size for outdoor enclosures for dogs should be established. This is
necessary to empower Animal Control to ensure that dogs taken off tethers as a primary
means of constraint are not confined to small spaces that compromise their welfare.s
Exceptions
• Tethering is allowed at training and performance (or sporting) events for dogs, including but
not limited to field trails and obedience trails. In such cases, continuous tethering shall not
be allowed for a period longer than seven (7) days.
Implementation
• An ordinance amendment regarding tethering should become effective 18 months after its
adoption. This approach is informed by the successful experience of other communities in
which awareness was raised and the public educated before a tethering regulation actually
became effective.
5 An example of such requirement from New Hanover County, North Carolina, is that. "Outside enclosure means a pen
large enough to provide each dog less than 25 pounds with a kennel of at least 8 feet x 10 feet in size, and each dog 25
pounds or greater with a kennel of 10 feet x 10 feet in size. Animal control services reserves the right to determine if a
space is considered suitable for the number and size of dogs housed in an outdoor enclosure." (New Hanover County
Code, Section 5-4)
9
Tethering Committee Report
July 30'', 2007
P
• The implementation phase will involve a year-long period of extensive public outreach and
education regarding the ordinance amendment and practice of tethering followed by a six
month period in which only warnings are issued This is to ensure that dog owners have
ample notice of the new ordinance and time to transition to other methods of confinement
and take advantage of community resources to help with the implementation of alternatives.
Public outreach should include resources to help dog owners implement alternatives to the
restraint of dogs by tethering, as well as information about the new ordinance. The
Committee believes that public outreach and education is pivotal to its recommendations.
These pursuits would presumably be led by the Animal Services Department, working in
concert with its citizen advisory board and perhaps other stakeholders.
Enforcement
• Upon initial contact for noncompliance with the new ordinance, after the six -month phase -in
period, a doe owner will receive a warning that gives him or her thirty (30) days to come
into compliance. As with the initial implementation period itself, this initial enforcement
approach is designed to ensure that dog owners are aware of and able to comply with the
tethering ordinance.
• Civil citations with a monetary VenaLty on a progressive (or graduated) schedule ordinarily
will be issued for noncompliance after issuance of a warning to come into compliance
• An animal may be impounded after the issuance of a citation for a violation of the tethering
ordinance —which itself would occur only after the issuance of a warning— subject to an
appropriate process of appeal by the animal owner. Given the right to and requirements of
"due process," there would not only be an appeal process but a specific legal mechanism for
determining possession and ownership of an animal in the event that an appeal failed.
10
iq
Tethering Committee Report
DISCUSSION
July 30x`, 2007
The Tethering Committee is recommending a.tethering ordinance because there is good reason to
believe limited or controlled tethering can alleviate the harm to animals and hardship to people that
can be associated with the practice of tethering. By limiting tethering to a given number of hours
within a twenty -four -hour period, such an ordinance would reduce the risk of uncontrolled contact
between dogs and people, which is sometimes responsible for dog attacks and bites, and it could
improve or enhance the overall conditions and care of dogs themselves.
Experience of Other Jurisdictions
The Tethering Committee's recommendation to limit tethering is not without precedent and is
consistent with the efforts of other jurisdictions in North Carolina and beyond to control or prohibit
the practice of tethering. These precedents include state laws as well as local ordinances, and
together they provide compelling evidence that tethering can be successfully regulated in a variety
of different ways.6
As part of its information gathering, the Committee reviewed tethering ordinances in the North
Carolina counties of Catawba, New Hanover and Scotland, along with several North Carolina
townships, and interviewed officials in three of those jurisdictions.. The information gathered in
this manner indicates that efforts to restrict or prohibit tethering elsewhere in North Carolina have
been quite successful. The ordinances proved to be enforceable, and they appeared to actually
reduce rather than increase the time required by humane investigators to attend to animal
complaints.
According to interviews with animal services officials from Catawba County, New Hanover County
and the Town of Laurinburg in Scotland County, there were few, if any, unintended adverse
impacts. Dogs were not surrendered by their owners, euthanized or just set free as a result of the
s See ho://www.helpLmganimals-com/ga tetheLeeislation.asn for complete list of jurisdictions with tethering
ordinances.
See Appendix II: North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances, and Appendix lII: Notes from
Interviews with North Carolina Jurisdictions with Tethering Ordnances: Conducted by the Tethering Committee
11
Tethering Committee Report
July 30a`, 2007
adoption of tethering ordinances. In addition, the ordinances had several positive impacts, for
instance, reducing the number of animal cruelty complaints and incidents of dog bites.
F__-AM
In terms of enforcement, these North Carolina officials reported that successful implementation
required a reasonable phase -in period that allowed for adequate public education and outreach and
sufficient time for dog owners to change from a tether to other methods of confinement. It is on the
basis of their experience that the Committee is recommending an 18 -month phase -in period as both
reasonable and adequate for accomplishing these goals.
Also, officials from New Hanover County and the Town of Laurinburg in Scotland County both
reported that an outright ban or severe restriction on allowable hours for tethering was most
enforceable. In 2000, Laurinburg changed its ordinance to restrict tethering from eight (8) hours to
one (1) hour, a change that improved enforcement capability. Laurinberg's Animal Control Officer
reported a 90 percent compliance rate with the ordinance at this time, and reports that the ability to
impound animals has been essential to the enforcement of this law.
The Committee believes that a three -hour limit on tethering is enforceable by Animal Control
Officers in Orange County, given their regular work hours and the operating hours of the Animal
Control Division of the Animal Services Department.
Public Testimony
As previously noted, the Tethering Committee held public input meetings in order to give the
citizens of the County an opportunity to express their concerns and ideas. The first public input
meeting, on April 23rd, 2007, was widely publicized and had approximately 25 -30 people in
attendance. The following meeting of the Tethering Committee, though not originally designed as
such, became a second public input meeting, with approximately 20 citizens attending.
Much was learned from the varied opinions and preferences expressed at these "listening sessions."
Some individuals spoke against the practice of tethering on the grounds that it was not humane.
Others addressed public safety and community welfare concerns. Yet others noted their belief that
12
Tethering Committee Report July 30'. 2007
I
1
tethering was not necessarily inhumane, and that for some individuals and animals, it could be the
only possible or effective means of restraint.
Also at these sessions were representatives of an area hunting association, the Eno River Coon
Hunters Association, and other interested parties who expressed two main concerns about the
restriction of tethering. One was that they would not be able to hold their very successful annual
field trial if tethering was prohibited. In this regard, they stressed that this event draws people from
around the country and generates considerable income for the County.
Their other concern was the keeping of hunting dogs themselves. They emphasized that these dogs
were often, if not always, kept on tethers and that, in their opinion, it was sometimes the best way to
keep such dogs. Advantages included the easy separation of incompatible dogs, and the allowance
of greater space on a daily basis. Finally, they stated that dogs can be neglected in a variety of
situations that do not involve tethering, for instance, the inappropriate confinement of dogs in small
kennels and crates.
Committee Deliberations
The Committee weighed testimony from the public and came to a series of recommendations that
are intended to address some, if not all, of the concerns raised in the public testimony. The
Committee believes that tethering raises significant humane, public safety and community welfare
concerns, and that the continuous tethering of dogs is inhumane. The Committee concurs that dogs
can be neglected in other circumstances not involving tethering, but believes that there are
significant public safety and humane issues unique to tethering that merit action by the BOM
Because it believes that tethering can be humane for limited time periods under certain
circumstances, the Committee is proposing a three -hour limit per 24 hours with specifications for
appropriate tethers and equipment. The Committee believes that this should reduce any hardship
imposed by this restriction, and accommodate the needs of those members of the public who wish to
tie their dogs outside for limited periods of time. More generally, the Committee has attempted to
limit the hardship imposed by this restriction by recommending a phase -in period for the law that
13
Tethering Committee Report July 30a', 2007
as
would include education about the various alternatives and community resources available to help
owners transition from tethers to other means of restraining their dogs.
As the Committee does not want a much needed tethering ordinance to interfere with the conduct of
legal sporting events, it is proposing an exemption for such events, provided the tethering is
temporary, not lasting for more than seven (7) days in duration while such events are conducted.
The Committee considered the possibility of an exception for hunting dogs given the concerns
raised by hunters in its "listening sessions," but ultimately decided against recommending such. an
exception for several reasons. One is that belief that hunting dogs have the same social and
physical needs as other types of dogs. Another is that such an exception would pose difficulties in
the process of enforcement insofar as anyone with a dog from a hunting breed could contend that
his or her dog should be exempted.
It was also believed that the creation of an exception or exceptions would not be fair to dog owners
who were not allowed to tether their dogs for a period longer than three hours under the proposed
ordinance amendment. It was because of this concern that the Committee ultimately decided
against recommending some kind of an exception for dogs that were known to be "escape artists,"
as well as an exception for hunting dogs.
Deliberations regarding these and other concerns raised in public testimony occurred in the final
two meetings held by the Tethering Committee. And it is on the basis of those deliberations, as
well as the information it gathered from other sources, that the Committee is proposing that there be
an ordinance amendment that limits the practice of tethering in Orange County.
NEXT STEPS
The recommendations made in this report will be submitted to the ASAB for timely review and
deliberation of whether a proposed ordinance amendment should ultimately be adopted by the
BOCC itself. The ASAB is made up of twelve County - appointed members and charged with
providing input and advice to the Animal Services Department on various matters, including policy.
14
Tethering Committee Report
July 30`x, 2007
On the basis of its consideration of the Tethering Committee's recommendations, the ASAB is
expected to decide whether to recommend any ordinance amendments to the BOCC. As the
County's sole legislative body, the BOCC would decide whether to enact any recommended
amendments, and its own deliberations would be based upon a public hearing about any proposed
amendment, as well as the materials and recommendations received from the ASAB and Tethering
Committee.
15
1:8
Tethering Committee Report July 30 'h, 2007
APPENDIX I:
Creation of the Orange County Tethering Committee and Board of County
Commissioners' Abstract for Creation of the Tethering Committee
Committee Creation
The concerns surrounding tethering vary greatly and include issues of both animal and public
welfare. Because of these concerns, the practice of tethering has become a policy issue, not only in
our own community, but in communities throughout North Carolina and around the country.
Of particular concern are dogs that spend their lives tethered, as they are naturally social beings and
thrive on frequent interaction with humans and other animals. Additionally, there is concern that
tethered animals, deprived of socialization and exercise, develop behavioral problems or aggression,
and as a result, pose a risk to the community through dog bites and attacks. Other concerns involve
the role of tethered dogs in contributing to community problems such as pet overpopulation and
nuisance barking.
The issue of tethering in Orange County initially surfaced from the efforts of some local animal
advocates, who created an area "Coalition to Unchain Dogs," and began to advocate against the
practice of tethering. Their efforts mirrored initiatives elsewhere to limit, restrict or outlaw
tethering. All of these efforts are concerned with both public safety and animal welfare.
The Orange County Tethering Committee was formed by the BOCC in October 2006 in response to
local concerns about the issue. An abstract for the creation of the Tethering Committee appears at
the end of this Appendix.$ The BOCC charged the committee with:
• Reviewing tethering as a policy issue and reporting on it as a means of confinement,
including the activities and efforts of other communities;
8 The issue of tethering was originally considered by the ASAB, which created a subcommittee to address the matter.
The subcommittee met and decided that it would need to bring in outside members of the community, a fimcdon
reserved for the BOCC. It was at that time that the BOCC created the Tethering Committee to work in conjunction with
the ASAB in deciding in what ways, if any, the ordinance that governs tethering should be changed.
16
Tethering Committee Report
July 30, 2007
• Obtaining general public comment or input about tethering from a cross - section of the
community; and
• Recommending to the ASAB any appropriate or desirable changes with the understanding
that the ASAB would itself make any final recommendations to the BOCC.
The BOCC also specified the makeup of the Committee. Specifically, it would include two ASAB
members, one law enforcement representative, one animal behaviorist, one animal health and
wellness expert, one advocate for the restriction of tethering, one advocate for tethering, and three
at -large representatives.
BOCC Abstract and Committee Charge
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 3`d, 2006
SUBJECT: Creation of a Tethering Committee
DEPARTMENT: Animal Services
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Charge To and Composition of
Orange County Tethering Committee
Tethering Meeting Summary Notes
Action Agenda
Item No.
PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) I No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bob Marotto,, Director, 968 -2287
Gwen Harvey, Assistant County
Manager, 245 -2307
Q5
17
Tethering Committee Report July 30th, 2007
PURPOSE: To request that the BOCC create a Tethering Committee for the purpose of
assessing whether and if so how the County's animal ordinances should be amended in
regard to the tethering of dogs.
"M
BACKGROUND: The issue of whether or not there should be more restrictive tethering
requirements in Orange County's animal ordinances has come before the Animal Services
Advisory Board. The same issue has been raised elsewhere in North Carolina and around the
United States, and in some places, there have been ordinance or statutory changes that
restrict or prohibit the use of tethers and chains to confine dogs.
The issue of tethering was the subject of discussion at the August meeting of the Animal
Services Advisory Board. Proponents of more restrictive tethering requirements addressed
concerns with public safety and community livability as well as concerns with the humane care
of animals. Another member of the community favorably compared tethering with other forms
of confinement.
On the basis of public comments on tethering, and discussion among its members regarding
ordinances of this kind in the context of Orange County, the ASAB decided that a Tethering
Committee ought to be created. Toward that end, the ASAB selected two representatives to
meet and develop an approach in response to a three - pronged charge from the ASAB. First,
they were to create a larger committee with a cross - section of community views; second, to
compile pertinent information; and finally, to determine how general public comment ought to
be gathered about any possible ordinance amendments regarding tethering.
In early September, there was a meeting of the two ASAB representatives to the Tethering
Committee. A primary outcome of that meeting was to identify positions for five additional
members of that Committee defined as follows: (1) law enforcement; (2) expertise in the area
of animal behavior; (3) expertise in the area of animal health and wellness; (4) an advocate of
more limited tethering; and (5) an advocate for tethering as a means of confinement.
Subsequent to the meeting, staff discovered that only the BOCC could create or authorize the
creation of such a committee. Thus the creation of the Committee was referred back to the
ASAB at its September meeting and, at that meeting, a motion was unanimously adopted
asking the BOCC to either create a Tethering Committee, or to authorize the ASAB to itself
create such a committee as described herein. Accordingly, the BOCC will also need to decide
whether the additional five pre - defined positions on the Tethering Committee would be filled
the ASAB itself or by the BOCC through its usual application process for volunteers.
The Animal Services Department, under the direction of Bob Marotto, will serve as Secretary
to the Tethering Committee under either scenario and the recommendations from the
Tethering Committee will be reviewed and commented on by the ASAB as a whole before
being presented to the BOCC for any possible action.
18
M_
Tethering Committee Report
July 3e, 2007
It was discussed during Chair/Vice Chair agenda review that the BOCC might wish to
create the Tethering Committee itself, and with the inclusion of the two ASAB
representatives, appoint the five pre - defined positions as proposed along with three
additional at -large representatives from the community.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact accompanies the creation of a Tethering
Committee.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss options
presented relative to the creation of a Tethering Committee and the appointment of its
members, and provide direction to staff.
CHARGE TO AND COMPOSITION OF ORANGE COUNTY
TETHERING COMMITTEE
At the request of the Animal Services Advisory Board, and upon recommendation of the
County Manager, the Commissioners are creating a committee to aid in the determination of
whether there should be change in the County's animal ordinances as these apply to the
tethering or chaining of animals such as dogs.
The composition of the committee is as follows:
• Two representatives of the Animal Services Advisory Board chosen by that Board.
• A law enforcement representative.
• An expert in the area of animal behavior.
• An expert in the area of animal health and wellness.
• An advocate for the restriction of tethering.
• An advocate for tethering.
• Three at -large representatives (for BOCC consideration).
The charge for the committee follows:
• To compile in a presentable form pertinent information on tethering and /or chaining as a
means of confinement for animals such as dogs, including activities and efforts pursued by
other communities.
19
Tethering Committee Report
July 3e, 2007
• To obtain general public comment on any possible ordinance amendments from a cross -
section of the community through suitable mechanisms such as community hearings or
facilitated focus groups.
• To recommend to the Animal Services Advisory Board any appropriate or desirable
ordinance changes with the understanding that the ASAB will itself make any final
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners.
20
i
Tethering Committee Report
APPENDIX II.•
Committee Members, BOCC Liaison, and Staff
Committee Members
Position 1: Kristine Bergstrand
Animal Services Advisory Board Member
Position 2: Jean H. Connerat - Levine
Animal Services Advisory Board Member
Position 3: Mary Dow
Animal Behaviorist
Position.4: VACANT
July 3e, 2007
Animal Wellness/ Health Expert
(In April, 2007, the person appointed to this position resigned from the Committee.)
Position 5: Suzanne Roy
Advocate against tethering
Position 6: VACANT
Advocate for tethering
(The BOCC did not make an appointment to this position.)
Position 7: Rachel Beckham
At -Large Member
Position 8: Margie Huggins
At -Large
Position 9: Kelly Strowd
Law Enforcement
Board of County Commissioners Liaison
Commissioner Michael R. Nelson
Animal Services Staff
Bob Marotto
Animal Services Director
Irene Paul
Manager, Animal Control Division
01
21
Tethering Committee Report
Lisa Smith
Office Assistant, Animal Control Division
Andi Morgan
Administrative Assistant, Administration
July 30th, 2007
22
OW
31
Tethering Committee Report July 30', 2007
APPENDIX III:
North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances
The following North Carolina jurisdictions have some sort of tethering regulation. For more
information see http:/fwww helpinganimals.com/ga tetherLegisladon.asp.
New Hanover County. North Carolina
Chaining or tethering dogs is prohibited. A chain or rope is not to be used in place of a leash when
walking dogs.
Sec. 3.4 (d) Restraint: An animal is under restraint within the meaning of this chapter if it is
controlled by means of a leash, or is sufficiently near the owner or handler to be under his direct
control and is obedient to that person's command; or is on or within a vehicle being driven or
parked; or is within a secure enclosure. Exceptions to restraint are as follows: Organized and lawful
animal functions e.g. hunting, obedience training, field and water training, law enforcement training
and/or in the pursuit of working or competing in those legal endeavors. When a dog is on the
property of its owner of guardian it shall be secured when not supervised by a competent person.
Ropes, chains, and the like shall not constitute adequate security under this ordinance.
Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina
June 13, 2006
This ordinance prohibits the tethering of dogs.
Section 91.22. Prohibition Against Tethering of Dogs.
A. It shall be unlawful to tether an unattended dog outside of the house.
Laurinburg. North Carolina
June 20, 2000
Dogs may not be chained for a period longer than one hour in a 24 -hour period.
Sec. 4 -21. Restraint of dogs.
When a dog is on the property of its owner or keeper and is not within a secure enclosure, it shall be
under the direct control of and obedient to the owner or keeper. At all other times when a dog is on
the property of its owner or keeper, it shall be kept within a secure enclosure, including a fenced in
area or electronic fence, house or other building, of sufficient strength and height to prevent the dog
from escaping there from; provided, the owner or keeper may, for a period not to exceed one (1)
23
Tethering Committee Report July 30'`, 2007
3IQ
hour every twenty -four (24) hours, allow the dog to be tethered or chained to a stationary object or
pole so long as the dog is provided sufficient water and nourishment. All dogs off of the property of
the owner or keeper shall be controlled by means of a leash and under the direct control of and
obedient to the owner or keeper's command.
Noncompliance with any of the foregoing provisions in the section 4-21 may result in the
impoundment of the animal at any time, or it may result in a fine of one hundred dollars ($100.00)
or both.
Dogs utilized by law enforcement officers in the course of law enforcement activities are exempt
from the section. (Code 1975, § 4 -5; Ord. No. 0- 1997 -29, 11- 18 -97; Ord. No. 0- 2000 -12, § 1, 6-
20 -00)
Scotland County, North Carolina
June 6, 2005
This ordinance prohibits the chaining of dogs for more than one hour in any 24 -hour period.
Section 9 (1): No person shall, at any time, fasten, chain, or tie any dog or cause such dog to be
fastened, chained, or tied, while such dog is on the dog owner's property, or on the property of the
dog owner's landlord no longer than one (1) hour per day.
Catawba Counter, North Carolina
(D) Chaining or tethering an animal to a stationary object for a period of time or under conditions
that an animal control officer or animal cruelty investigator deems harmful or potentially harmful to
the animal. Examples of improper chaining or tethering include, but are not limited to the following:
(1) Using a length or weight of a chain or tether that is not appropriate for the size, weight and
age of the animal. Guidelines for the proper weight and length of chains or tethers can be
obtained from the animal shelter or animal control
(2) Using a chain or tether made of rope, twine, cord or similar material.
(3) Using a chain or tether that is less than 10 feet in length and/or does not have swivels on
both ends. All chains or tethers must be attached to the animal by means of a properly fitting
harness or collar of not less than one inch in width.
(4) Chaining or tethering an animal to a stationary object for a period of time or under
conditions that an animal control officer or animal cruelty investigator deems harmful or
potentially harmful to the animal. Examples of improper chaining or tethering include, but
are not limited to the following:
(a) Using a length or weight of a chain or tether that is not- appropriate for the size, weight
and age of the animal. Guidelines for the proper weight and length of chains or tethers
can be obtained from the animal shelter or animal control
(b) Using a chain or tether made of rope, twine, cord or similar material.
24
Tethering Committee Report
July 30a', 2007
33
(c) Using a chain or tether that is less than 10 feet in length and/or does not have swivels on
both ends. All chains or tethers must be attached to the animal by means of a properly
fitting harness or collar of not less than one inch in width.
(d) Using a chain or tether that exceeds ten percent of the animal's body weight.
(e) Allowing an animal to be chained or tethered such that the animal is not confined to the
owner's property or such that the chain or tether can become entangled and prevent the
animal from moving about freely, lying down comfortable or having access to adequate
food, water and shelter.
(f) Using a chain as a primary collar. All collars used for the purpose of chaining or
tethering an animal must be made of nylon or leather.
(5) Allowing an animal to be chained or tethered such that the animal is not confined to the
owner's property or such that the chain or tether can become entangled and prevent the
animal from moving about freely, lying down comfortable or having access to adequate
food, water and shelter.
(6) Using a chain as a primary collar. All collars used for the purpose of chaining or tethering an
animal must be made of nylon or leather.
Holly Springs, North Carolina
May 16, 2006
This ordinance prohibits the tethering of animals for a period of time or under conditions that are
deemed harmful to the animals. Tethers must be at least 10 feet long and weigh 10 percent of the
animal's body weight or less. Tethers must allow animals to move freely and allow them access to
food, water, and shelter.
Sec. 12 -65. Cruelty to animals.
(c) Prohibited acts. All animals shall be kept and treated under sanitary and humane conditions and
it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in one or more of the following acts:
8. Allowing a collar, rope or chain to become embedded in or cause injury to an animal's neck,
or allowing a choke or pinch collar to be used as a primary collar on an unsupervised animal,
or chaining or tethering an animal to a stationary object for a period of time or under
conditions that an animal control officer deems harmful or potentially harmful to the animal.
Examples of harmful or potentially harmful chaining or tethering include, but are not limited
to the following:
a. Using a length or weight of a chain or tether that is not appropriate for the size, weight and
age of the animal. A chain or tether should not be less than ten feet long. Using a chain or
tether that exceeds ten percent of the animal's body weight shall be deemed not appropriate
and potentially harmful.
b. Allowing an animal to be chained or tethered such that the animal is not confined to the
owner's property or such that the chain or tether can become entangled and prevent the
animal from moving about freely, lying down comfortably or having access to adequate
food, water and shelter.
c. Tethering an animal on an appendage.
25
33,q
Tethering Committee Report July 30'', 2007
Greenville, North Carolina
This ordinance outlines what kind of tether may be used.
c. 45. Animal care generally.
(c) Any chain, leash, or similar device for animal restraint shall be designed and placed to prevent
choking or injury to the animal_ The restraining device shall be at least ten feet in length and placed
on a swivel or on a chain run.
26
Tethering Committee Report July 3e, 2007
APPENDIX IV
Notes from Interviews with North Carolina Jurisdictions with Tethering
Ordinances: Conducted by the Tethering Committee
The following is a summary of comments from Animal Services officials from New Hanover County,
the City of Laurinburg and Catawba County, made in telephone interviews. The Tethering
Committee conducted these interviews on April 11'h, 2007 as a part of its information gathering.
Dr. Jean McNeil- Animal Control Services Manager
New Hanover County
THE LAW: Prohibits tethering. Recently amended to add "attended" to the law so that dogs can be
tethered if their owner is present. They enacted a ban as opposed to time limits on tethering because
time limits are difficult to enforce because they would have to rely on a neighbor's testimony.
WHY ENACTED: County felt that tax dollars were being wasted responding to chaining
complaints. Also enacted because of the cruelty issues Dr. McNeil and her officers were seeing.
The county also wanted to promote a higher standard of pet ownership.
ENFORCEMENT: Violation of the law results in a civil fine. Violators have 60 days to convect the
violation, if they do, the fine is cancelled. If the fine is not paid, it is sent to the county legal
department for collection. As a government agency, the county can garnish a person's wages. New
Hanover does not have the power of impoundment. They do not take people to court; the
enforcement is handled in -house by the legal department.
PHASE IN: New Hanover had a two -year education period during which only warning notices
were given. Dr. McNeil felt that two years was too long.
RESULTS OF ORDINANCE: The law has resulted in very few dogs being surrendered. Neglect
calls have decreased. They get about 30 tethering- related complaints a month. Some dogs probably
have run loose but those are the people who have no desire to be responsible pet owners.
PUBLIC REACTION: Support within the county. Majority of opposition has come from
elsewhere.
Elaine Modlin, Animal Control Officer
City of Laurinbum Animal Control Department Scotland County
THE LAW: In 1988, Laurinburg passed a law limiting tethering to 8 hours a day. It was difficult to
enforce. In 2000, they changed it to one -hour and the change made enforcement much easier. The
27
Tethering Committee Report
July 30t' 2007
county (Scotland) has the same ordinance as the city. They have a 90 percent compliance rate at this
point.
Laurinburg also has restrictions on pens size —10x10 for smaller dogs, 20x10 for larger. Animal
control wants larger requirements, but the city council has not agreed.
ENFORCEMENT: 1 -hour time limit verified by sitting and watching. Violators are given a two -
week warning notice in general, but animal control uses discretion and will give some situations
more time if the dog is in good condition. Violation results in a civil citation and $100 fine. They
do have the power to impound dogs and feel this has been an important tool.
Most people comply with the law by putting up a pen. The Humane Society has provided some
pens to those who cannot afford it. Those that don't comply and have their dogs impounded must
pay shelter fee, vaccinations, etc. to get the dog back. Sometimes the shelter fee is waived. About
25 % reclaim their dog and the rest are better off anyway.
PHASE IN: The city had a one -year education period before enforcement began. They educated the
community through fact sheets, newspaper, radio, posters, etc.
RESULTS OF ORDINANCE: Overall decrease in cruelty cases, cut down on pit bull problems,
decreased dog bites, and helped with overpopulation (penned dogs are not as easy to get pregnant).
Prior to the law, 50% of bites before were from chained dogs. No dramatic increase in surrenders
and no real problems with people turning their dogs loose.
PUBLIC REACTION: Positive— most people think chaining is cruel. Those that don't agree are
those whose dogs are not well taken care of anyway.
Joaine McKeel, Shelter Manaeer
Catawba County Animal Care and Control. Catawba County
THE LAW: Catawba does not have a ban, just requirements on conditions for tethering.
ENFORCMENT: They don't receive complaints very often. When they do it is because of length
of chain. They educate people as to why they have the requirements, and will write citations for
violators. The ten percent of body weight requirement is assessed by eyeballing the situation.
Some officers feel comfortable and some don't with having to make judgments, on the situations.
No citations have been challenged
RESULTS OF LAW: More chaining occurs in the rural area. Approximately 90 — 95% of people
are compliant. They have not seen an increase in animals being surrendered. More animals are
surrendered under the nuisance ordinance than the tethering ordinance.
28
35
W.
�•,� Gam..
Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968 -2287
September 10th, 2007
To: Animal Services Advisory Board
From: Bob Marotto, Animal Services Director, and Irene Paul, Animal Control
Manager
Re: Required Kennel Space Recommendations
At the August meeting of the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB), we were asked
to recommend the minimum required size of kennels for dogs that are confined by such
enclosures. This was requested as part of the ASAB review of the final report of the
Tethering Committee, which recommended that the allowable dimensions of kennels be
set as part of an ordinance amendment that limits the time a dog may be tethered in
Orange County
Recommendation
As discussed further below, our recommendations are based upon our review of
regulations from other jurisdictions that have set the minimum required size of kennels
for dogs. They are as follows:
1. A minimum space requirement should be set in accordance with the size of the
dog (or dogs) that are kenneled. More specifically, there should be a threefold
requirement as follows;
• 1 to 35. pounds
80 square feet
• 36 to 75 pounds
100 square feet
• 76 -plus pounds
120 square feet
2. Additional space should be provided for each additional dog that is kept in a
kennel. Specifically, we recommend that fifty percent of the minimum required
space be added for the second and each subsequent dog that is kept kenneled
with another dog; and that the additional space be based upon the size of the
largest of the dogs that are kenneled together.
3. Electronic containment devices and traditional fences shall be treated in the
same way as a kennel with respect to the minimum space required for one or
more dogs of different sizes.
37
Required Kennel Space
September 10h, 2007
Page 2
The rationale for these recommendations has several components. One is that they
ensure sufficient space for dogs that are kept and/or put outside. These are space
requirements that would apply if a dog is outside and not tethered in accordance with
the recommendations made in the Tethering Committee's Report and Proposal for
Ordinance Amendment. It is understood that a traditional fence or electronic fencing
would meet the same minimum requirements set for kennels.
Another rationale is relative ease and simplicity of enforcement. Generally speaking, it
is possible to measure the dimensions of a kennel (or fence), and the weight of a dog
may be determined in a variety of ways (including from veterinary records).
Background Information
Our recommendations are based upon our review of regulations from other jurisdictions
that have set minimum space requirements for kenneled dogs. Examples of such
progressive regulations have been compiled in the Appendix to this memorandum.
They are also based upon our review of information available from the Humane Society
of the United States (HSUS). Of the three pertinent. national organizations we
researched (including American Humane and the National Animal Control Association),
only HSUS offered specific guidelines on this issue.
As can be seen from sample regulations, most, but not all, jurisdictions draw a
distinction between dogs of different sizes, as is the case in our recommendation.
However, there is considerable variation in the minimum kennel space required per dog
by these sample regulations (with some as low as 48 square feet and others as high as
150 square feet). In this regard, we have formulated our own recommendations
between these extremes, and in recognition of what might be described as reasonable
standards.
As can also be seen from the sample regulations, it is often the case that more space is
required for additional dogs in the same kennel. Our recommendation mirrors this
model, using a standard of half the size of the largest dog in a shared kennel. This
standard is higher than many but seems reasonable given the need for additional dog
houses and proper drainage in accordance with other requirements of Orange County's
Animal Ordinances.
While electronic containment devices and traditional fences are not typically referenced,
finally, we have included them among to provide as much clarity as possible with regard,
to legal requirements. Our approach is very practical in that these enclosures would
need to meet the same space requirements as a kennel if they are used as a means of
enclosure. Questions about their effectiveness are not germane to this discussion
since, if they were ineffective in a particular situation, any resulting issues would be
addressed through Orange County's animal nuisance ordinance.
WWI
Appendix l:
Required Kennel Space Regulations
This appendix contains two types of information used in the research of our
recommendations regarding minimum kennel space requirements.
The first section covers existing ordinances, including one from NC, that currently
regulate minimum kennel space requirements. The second part of the appendix covers
general recommendations and /or references from organizations that have formulated
findings for recommended minimum kennel space requirements.
Ordinances:
1. County of New Hanover- North Carolina
Outside enclosure means a pen large enough to provide each dog less than 25 pounds
with a kennel of at least 8 feet x 10 feet in size, and each dog 25 pounds or greater with
a kennel of 10 feet x 10 feet in size. Animal control services reserves the right to
determine if a space is considered suitable for the number and size of dogs housed in
an outdoor enclosure.
2. Lincoln- Lancaster County Health Department - Nebraska Animal Control -
Kennel Runs
Kennels come in a variety of shapes and sizes with a comparatively low costa When
your dog is confined in a kennel, use the minimum space requirements from the chart
below as a guide. An additional 16 square feet should be used for each dog sharing
the pen with another. The minimum pen sizes include a shelter.
Kennels can come with tops for jumpers and climbers. For dogs that like to dig, the
kennel can be placed on a cement pad. Kennel runs might seem like a silly idea when
you have a large yard, but for dogs that love to escape; this may be a good choice.
99
(over 12" or under 20
Required Kennel Space
September 10'h, 2007
Page 4
3-Town of Ellsworth — Wisconsin — Animal Control Ordinance
The minimum space for dogs kept in pens (not cages), excluding the shelter space (the
house) shall be as follows:
To 25 lbs.
25 -50 lbs.
Over 50 lbs.
1 dog 21 Sq ft
60 Sq ft
80 Sq. ft
2 dogs 32 Sq ft
80 Sq ft
96 Sq ft
3 dogs 45 Sq ft
96 Sq ft
140 sq ft
4. City of Bartlesville- Oklahoma
httgV/www.cityofbartlesville.orc rndex.phe
• Pens in which dogs reside must contain at least 150 square feet of space per
adult dog. For potentially dangerous dogs the pen must have a secure top and
sides and de
• signed to prevent the escape of the dog or entry by children.
5. Live Oak- Texas (they have a tethering ban) — Animal Restraint Required
Any dogs confined within a fenced yard must have an adequate space for exercise
based on a dimension of at least one hundred (100) square feet. Provided further that
where dogs are kept or housed on property without a fenced yard, the owner of such
dogs or persons having custody of such dogs shall provide an enclosure for such dogs
meeting the one hundred (100) square feet dimension. Such enclosure shall be
constructed of chain link or similar type material with all four sides enclosed. The
enclosure shall be of sufficient height to prevent the dog from escaping from such
enclosure. The top of such enclosure shall be covered with materials to provide the dog
with shade and protection from the elements.
6.16umelle- Arkansas
Confinement of Animals: From and after the passage of this Ordinance any person
owning animals whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, licensed or unlicensed, shall
confine such animal within an adequate fence or enclosure, or within a house, garage or
other building in conformance with Maumelle Bill of Assurance or its successor. Animals
shall not be tied or chained to doghouses, or other stationary objects, but must be in an
approved enclosure. Sterilized cats are exempt from confinement.
ra
Required Kennel Space
September 10'h, 2007
Page 5
The ordinance also mandates that dog enclosures must provide at least one hundred
and fifty square feet of space for dogs over six months of age.
7.-Carroll County, Maryland
F. The owner of animal(s) that are fenced shall erect fencing normally considered
suitable for the species and type of animal to be contained. Fencing shall be appropriate
so as to keep the intended animals restrained within its boundaries. Fencing shall be
monitored, well maintained and kept in good repair. In the case of a dog, if the owner
utilizes an "invisible fence" to restrain a dog it may only be used if it consistently and
effectively restrains the dog and is appropriate to be used for the dog in question. No
aggressive dog may be restrained behind an "Invisible fence ".
G. All areas where animals are confined shall be maintained so as to provide a safe and
healthy
8. Little Rock - Arkansas
Sec. 6 -16. Confinement. (3) When a dog is confined outside by means of an enclosure
or an electronic containment device, the following minimum space requirements shall be
met:
Size of Dog
Extra Large
(over 26" at withers or over 75 lbs)
Large
(over 20" at withers or not over 75)
Medium
(over 12" at withers or not over 50 lbs)
Small
(12" or less or not over 20 lbs)
Pen Size (1 dog) ea. add. dog
48 sq. feet 24 sq. feet
40 sq. feet 20 sq. feet
32 sq. feet 16 sq. feet .
24 sq feet 12 sq. feet
9. San Bernardino - California
D. DOG KENNELS must be tall enough to prevent the dog from jumping over or have a
secure top and be able to prevent dogs from digging out. Kennels must have a
minimum of 100 square feet for one dog, plus an additional 25 square feet for each
additional dog in the same enclosure.
41
Required Kennel Space
September 10th, 2007
Page 6
Recommendations / References:
1. Getting Your Dog off the Chain
Humane Society of the United States (from "Do You Chain Your Dog ")
The second reason for the tougher stance on chaining is that many dog owners have
learned to solve the problems that caused them to tie their dogs outside in the first
place. If you would like to provide your dog with an alternative to a rope or chain,
consider these suggestions:
• Install a fence if your property does not already have one. Or consider installing a
large chain -link dog run. If you install a dog run, make sure it meets these
minimum space requirements. Be sure to allow extra space for a doghouse.
Number
of Dogs
Under 50 Ibs.
Over 50 Ibs.
1
6x10 (60 sq. feet)
8x10 (80 sq. feet)
.... .............
2
8x10 (80 sq. feet)
8x12 (96 sq. feet)
3
8x12 (96 sq. feet)
1 0x1 4 (140 sq. feet)
E-T]
10x12 (120 sq. feet)
12x16 (192 sq. feet)
Note: Depending on where you live, your city or county may require that you provide
more space than these guidelines suggest.
2. Unchain Your Dog website / PowerPoint
When a dog is confined outside by means of an enclosure or an electronic containment
device, the following minimum space requirements shall be met:
Size of Doo Pen (increase pen size by half of total area per additional dog)
Extra Large (over 75 Ibs) ** sq. feet
Large (50 -75 Ibs) **sq. feet
Medium (20 -50 lbs) * *sq. feet
Small (under20 /bs) **sq. feet
( ** Represent number to be inserted once decided upon. No set recommendations.
Power Point is provided for those areas wanting to introduce no tethering regulations
and allows for insertion of agencies information and/or recommendations)
M
Required Kennel Space
September 10th, 2007
Page 7
3. Prince George County — Maryland
Care Standards for Enforcement of Anti- Cruelty Laws
Dogs in Pens:
The size of the pen is determined by the size and number of dogs housed therein. Dogs
housed together must be socially compatible. It is recommended that no more than four
compatible dogs be housed in single pen.
Minimum space for dogs in pens (not including shelter space) shall be as follows:
# of Dogs Small ( <25lbs) Medium (25- 50lbs) Large (> 50lbs)
1 3x7 (21 sq ft)
6x10 (60sq ft)
8x10 (80 sq ft)
2 4x8 (32sq ft)
8x10 (80 sq ft)
8x12 (96 sq ft)
3 5x9 (45 sq ft)
8x12 (96 sq ft)
10x14 (140 sq ft)
4 8x10 (80 sq ft)
10x12 (120 sq ft)
12x16 (192 sq ft)
Note — The above standards are also listed in the Washington DC Humane Society's
Humane Law Enforcement Manual.
r4 3
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Tuesday, February 27th, 2007, 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
Meeting Summary
Location: John Link Government Services Center Conference Room, 200 South
Cameron Street, Hillsborough
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Kristine Bergstrand, DVM, Jean Connerat
Austin, Mary Dow, Margie Huggins, Alane Koki, Michael Nelson, Suzanne Roy,
Kelly Strowd,Animal Services Director Robert Marotto, Animal Control Manager
Irene Paul, and Office Assistant Lisa Smith.
OCTC Members Absent: Rachel Beckham
Others in Attendance: Drew Brinkley
Introduction of Committee Members and Staff: Each OCTC Member and staff
introduced him or herself.
Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and
accepted.
Timetable and Process: Bob gave an overview of the process. The Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) constituted this committee to go through this
process of considering amendments of Orange County Ordinances. The
committee will bring recommendations to Animal Services Advisory Board
(ASAB). The ASAB advises both the Animal Services Department and BOCC on
matters of this kind. The ASAB will receive and review recommendations or
findings from the Tethering Committee and make any final recommendations to
the BOCC, which is the policy making body for Orange County.
The background here from the standpoint of the ASAB is that the issue of
tethering was brought to ASAB last year. ASAB created a committee consisting
of ASAB Member Kris Bergstrand, and ASAB Member Jean Connerat Austin with
staff support to review these considerations. They first determined who should be
involved in this process. It became apparent the ASAB itself does not have the
authority to create a county committee consisting of individuals who are not
already members of the ASAB. Thus, the ASAB made a request to the BOCC to
create a Tethering Committee with a variety of defined membership positions.
At the recent BOCC meeting in February all, the members for the Tethering
Committee were appointed. A timetable was proposed for this committee as a
part of that discussion. The understanding of this timetable is that by June 1 st,
2007, there would be some recommendations or findings from the Tethering
Committee that would be presented to the ASAB for its consideration.
Tethering Committee Inaugural Meeting
February 27th, 2007
Page 2
Meeting Schedule and Format: There was a discussion about the coordination
of the committee and whether staff should coordinate or a chair and vice chair
should do so.. In this context, it was noted that Animal Services Director Bob
Marotto would provide staff support, since the BOCC charge for the committee
indicates that he will be the principle staff member for this committee. It was
decided staff would coordinate this committee and that if a chair and vice chair
was needed at a later time it could be done.
Motion was made by Margie Huggins and seconded by Jean Connerat Austin to
approve staff coordinating this committee. VOTE: Unanimous
There was a draft schedule presented for this committee, which referred to four
types of meetings that could be held within the three -month period during which it
was hoped that the committee's work would be completed. These meetings
would precede the presentation of any findings or recommendations to the ASAB
and subsequent steps involving the BOCC.
The four types of meetings specified for the Tethering Committee are:
Organizing Meeting (tonight)
Information Meeting(s)
Public Input/Comment
Discussion & Findings
Throughout this portion of the meeting, there was general discussion of the issue
of tethering. However, the focus was on agreeing on a process, as this was the
intent of this meeting to organize the work of the committee.
The meeting ended with a short presentation on tethering and the animal
ordinances that exist in Orange County. The presentation was based upon a
memorandum to the Tethering Committee from Bob that addressed the issue of
jurisdiction, reviewed the County's current ordinance, and reviewed a range of
more restrictive regulations (e.g.,
Connecticut General Statues, New Hanover County, NC, Restraint Ordinance,
and St Paul, Minnesota, Ordinance). A short discussion then ensued about the
current enforcement of Orange County's ordinances as they related to the care
and welfare of dogs.
It was agreed that the committee would meet Wednesday, March 7, 2007 for an
information meeting.
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 7:00 — 8:30 p.m.
Meeting Summary
Location: Conference Room, Southern Human Services Center, 2501 Homestead Road,
and Chapel Hill.
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Mary Dow, Alane Koki,
Michael Nelson, Suzanne Roy, Kelly Strowd, Animal Services Director Robert Marotto,
Animal Control Manager Irene Paul, Office Assistant Lisa Smith.
OCTC Members Absent: Rachel Beckham, Kristine Bergstrand, and Margie Huggins.
Others in Attendance: Amanda Arrington.
Approval of Meeting Summary from February 27th, 2007: Motion was made Jean
Connerat Austin to approve Meeting Summary and seconded by Suzanne Roy.
VOTE: Unanimous
Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and accepted.
General Public Comments: Amanda Arrington with Coalition to Unchain Dogs spoke
regarding the importance of banning the tethering of dogs in Orange County. She talked
about a recent incident of a child being attacked by one of the family's dogs that was
chained in the backyard in Durham.
Obtaining Public Input: There was a discussion on how to get public input to allow
people to comment on the tethering issue. It was decided staff would create a simple
survey to hand out at the next rabies clinics regarding if they are for or against tethering
and informing residents of the public input meeting. Getting information on Animal
Services Website with a brief introduction and links to ordinances with tethering bans
and tethering limitations. Sending out media advisories, and advertising on forums and
blogs soliciting public input.
Review of Various Tethering Regulations: There was a review of three different
categories of tethering ordinances.
• Prohibition of tethering
• Time limited tethering
• Tethering with attached conditions (proper collar, length and kind of tether)
41
Discussion: There was a discussion of possibly observing a residence(s) that have a
tethered dog(s) and are proponents of tethering. It was agreed to have another
informational meeting, asking people from other counties or jurisdictions that have a
tethering ordinance or a limited tethering ordinance to come and speak before having a
public input meeting on Monday April 23`d, 2007. There was agreement that this would
be the next step in the Committee's information process and that others could be invited
to address the Committee after that meeting with other animal control/service personnel.
More specifically, for the next meeting staff committed to contacting their counterparts in
jurisdictions with more restrictive regulations in North Carolina to discuss the
implementation and enforcement of their ordinances. Committee members requested that
staff arrange for a representative from a jurisdiction with an outright ban as well as one
with a set of restrictions (or conditions) that were subject to enforcement. Staff indicated
that they would do their best to arrange for such representatives.
Next Meeting Date: It was agreed the committee would meet Tuesday March 27th, 2007
for an information meeting.
47
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Wednesday April 11th, 5:30 — 8:00 p.m.
Meeting Summary
Location: Conference Room, John Link Government Services Center, 200
South Cameron Street, Hillsborough.
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand,
Alane Koki, Michael Nelson, Animal Services Director Robert Marotto, Animal
Control Manager Irene Paul, Office Assistant Lisa Smith.
OCTC Members Absent: Rachel Beckham, Mary Dow, Margie Huggins,
Suzanne Roy, and Kelly Strowd.
Others in Attendance: Amanda Arrington, Andrew Brinkley, Gary Morrison,
Ross Oglesbee, Ashley Roberts, Jim Sanford, Pat Sanford, and Jennifer Strom.
Information Meeting: There were three speakers, Dr Jean Mc Neil, Animal
Control
Manager, New Hanover County, Elaine Modlin, Animal Control Officer, City of
Laurinburg Animal Control Department, Scotland County, and Joaine McKeel,
Shelter Manager, Catabawa County Animal Care and Control. Each speaker
gave us background on their tethering ordinances and how long it has been in
existence, how they enforce it, the number of people that comply, how they
comply and the number of people that do not comply and what they result is if
they do not comply. Please see the attached detailed summary of comments
from the animal control officials.
Approval of Meeting Summary from March 7th, 2007: Motion was made Jean
Connerat Austin to approve Meeting Summary and seconded Kristine
Bergstrand. VOTE: Unanimous
Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and
accepted.
General Public Comments: Ross Oglesbee ASAB member brought copies of
an article from the Indy Weekly and expressed concerns regarding the article.
Discussion: There was a brief discussion on the advertising of the upcoming
public input meeting. It was suggested to make the flier title larger and bold.
There was a brief discussion of possible inviting a sponsor of the bill being
proposed to the state to ban tethering.
Next Meeting Date: It was agreed the committee would meet Monday April 23,
2007 for a public input meeting on the tethering issue.
e�
Meeting Adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Summary of comments from animal control officials from New Hanover,
Laurinburg and Catawba.
Dr. Jean McNeil, Animal Control Services Manager, New Hanover County
THE LAW: Prohibits tethering. Recently amended to add, "attended" to the law
so that dogs can be tethered if their owner is present. They enacted a ban as
opposed to time limits on tethering because time limits are difficult to enforce
because they would have to rely on a neighbor's testimony.
WHY ENACTED: County felt that tax dollars were being wasted responding to
chaining complaints. Also enacted because of the cruelty issues Dr. McNeil and
her officers were seeing. The county also wanted to promote a higher standard of
pet ownership.
ENFORCEMENT: Violation of the law results in a civil fine. Violators have 60
days to correct the violation, if they do, the fine is cancelled. If the fine is not paid,
it is sent to the county legal department for collection. As a government agency,
the county can garnish a person's wages. New Hanover does not have the power
of impoundment. They do not take people to court; the legal department handles
the enforcement in- house.
PHASE IN: New Hanover had a two -year education period during which only
warning notices were given. Dr. McNeil felt that two years was too long.
RESULTS OF ORDINANCE: The law has resulted in very few dogs being
surrendered. Neglect calls have decreased. They get about 30 tethering - related
complaints a month. Some dogs probably have run loose but those are the
people who have no desire to be responsible pet owners.
PUBLIC REACTION: Support within the county. Majority of opposition has come
from elsewhere.
Elaine Modlin, Animal Control Officer, City of Laurinburg Animal Control
Department, Scotland County
THE LAW: In 1988, Laurinburg passed a law limiting tethering to 8 hours a day. It
was difficult to enforce. In 2000, they changed it to one -hour and the change
made enforcement much easier. The county (Scotland) has the same ordinance
as the city. They have a 90 percent compliance rate at this point.
Laurinburg also has restrictions on pens size —10x10 for smaller dogs, 20x10 for
larger. Animal control wants larger requirements, but the city council has not
agreed.
ENFORCEMENT: 1 -hour time limit verified by sitting and watching. Violators are
given a two -week warning notice in general, but animal control uses discretion
and will give some situations more time if the dog is in good condition. Violation
results in a civil citation and $100 fine. They do have the power to impound dogs
and feel this has been an important tool.
4q
Most people comply with the law by putting up a pen. The Humane Society has
provided some pens to those who cannot afford it. Those that do not comply and
have their dogs impounded must pay shelter fee, vaccinations, etc. to get the dog
back. Sometimes the shelter fee is waived. About 25 % reclaim their dog and the
rest are better off anyway.
PHASE IN: The city had a one -year education period before enforcement began.
They educated the community through fact sheets, newspaper, radio, posters,
etc.
RESULTS OF ORDINANCE: Overall decrease in cruelty cases, cut down on pit
bull problems, decreased dog bites, and helped with overpopulation (penned
dogs are not as easy to get pregnant). Prior to the law, 50% of bites before were
from chained dogs. No dramatic increase, in surrenders and no real problems
with people turning their dogs loose.
PUBLIC REACTION: Positive— most people think chaining is cruel. Those that do
not agree are those whose dogs are not well taken care of anyway.
Joaine McKeel, Shelter Manager, Catawba County Animal Care and Control,
Catawba County
THE LAW: Catawba does not have a ban, just requirements on conditions for
tethering.
ENFORCMENT: They do not receive complaints very often. When they do, it is
because of length of chain. They educate people as to why they have the
requirements, and will write citations for violators. Eyeballing the situation
assesses the ten percent of body weight requirement. Some officers feel
comfortable and some do not with having to make judgments on the situations.
No citations have been challenged
RESULTS OF LAW: More chaining occurs in.the rural area. Approximately 90 —
95% of people are compliant. They have not seen an increase in animals being
surrendered. More animals are surrendered under the nuisance ordinance than
the tethering ordinance.
)0
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Wednesday April 23rd, 7:00 — 9:00 p.m.
Meeting Summary
Location: F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, 106 E Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand,
Mary Dow, Margie Huggins, Michael Nelson, Suzanne Roy, Kelly Strowd, Animal
Control Manager Irene Paul, Office Assistant Lisa Smith.
OCTC Members Absent: Rachel Beckham, Alane Koki
Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and
accepted.
Public Comment Period: Commissioner Nelson gave an Introduction to the
tethering issue and background information. What the current ordinance is now
and where does it apply, what other NC ordinances the committee has looked at.
What the process for considering the issue, what the expected timetable is for
the committee to give their recommendations.
General Public Comments:
Citizens offering public comment:
Phillip Pennell, Orange County Resident
Dietrich Haugwitz, Orange County Resident
Debbie Nichols, Orange County Resident
Bobby Kirk, Orange County Resident
Stephen Hopkins, Orange County Resident
Amanda Arrington, Durham County Resident
Kathleen Coldwell, Orange County Resident
Amelia Perrin, Orange County Resident
George Painter, Orange County Resident
Karen Aruetames, Orange County Resident
Lamar Chapman, Orange County Resident
Emily Weinstein, Durham County Resident
Eliana Beebe, Durham County Resident
Fred Cates, Orange County Resident
Amy Efland, Orange County Resident
Judith Reitman, Orange County Resident
Ellen Whitaker, Durham County Resident
Mike Kirk, Orange County Resident
Meeting Adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
5I
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Monday May 7th, 6:30 p.m. — 8:00 p.m,
Meeting Summary
Location: Conference Center, John Link Government Services Center, 200
South Cameron Center, Hillsborough.
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand,
Mary Dow, Michael Nelson, Suzanne Roy, Kelly Strowd, and Office Assistant
Lisa Smith.
OCTC Members and Staff Absent: Margie Huggins, Animal Services Director
Robert Marotto.
Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and
accepted.
Public Comment Period: It was agreed to change this meeting into a second
public input meeting due to the amount of citizens wanting to speak. There were
20+ citizens and many of whom spoke were the president and some if their
members of the Eno River Coon Club and Cane Creek Farms. Kris Bergstrand
gave a brief history regarding how and why the ASAB board and the tethering
subcommittee was created. The concerns people had were why were people
from other counties attending and speaking at these meetings, why does Animal
Control come to residences with out having received a complaint. Other concerns
were why people are not able to get onto the tethering committee when there are
openings, how do they get onto the ASAB and how that is advertised when there
are openings. The hunters feel like they are and have always been
signaled out regarding animal laws. There are people who are not able to afford
fences and pens and do not have time to go to dog parks. We need to enforce
the laws we already have and not make more.
Approval of Meeting Summaries from April 11th and April 23rd tethering
meetings: Motion was made by Jean Connerat Austin to approve meeting
summary from April 111, meeting and add a summary from the speakers and
approve at the next meeting, seconded by Kris Bergstrand. Motion made by Jean
Connerat Austin to approve meeting summary from the April 23^' meeting and
seconded by Kris Bergstrand. VOTE: Unanimous
Meeting Adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Orange County Animal Services
-50,
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968 -2287
Animal Control Robert A. Marotto, Animal Shelter
PO Box 8181 Director 1081 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
304 Revere Rd Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 967 -7383
(919) 245 -2075
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
June 13a', 2007, 6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Unapproved Meeting Summary
Location: Conference Room, John Link Government Services Center, 200 South Cameron
Street, Hillsborough.
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand, Mary Dow,
Commissioner Mike Nelson, Animal Services Director Robert Marotto, Animal Control Manger
Irene Phipps, and Office Assistant Lisa Smith.
OCTC Members Absent: Margie Huggins and Kelly Strowd
Agenda Review: Review and adoption of meeting agenda
The supplemental notes from the April 1 Vh, 2007, meeting summary and May 7`h 2007, meeting
summary were reviewed and approved.
Discussion: Committee members discussed the information that had been gathered throughout
the committee meetings. The purpose of this discussion was to provide a preliminary set of
recommendations and framework for the final report and recommendation of the Tethering
Committee. It was understood that staff would prepare a draft report on. the basis of this
discussion.
Committee members recalled the interviews with North Carolina Animal Control authorities in
counties with more restrictive tethering ordinances. From those interviews, staff learned that
tethering ordinances seemed to work well; they did not appear to have any extra -added cost; and
negative or unanticipated outcomes were few and far between. They also learned that any such
change should be phased in over a long period of time in which there was considerable
education, and that it must be an enforceable change.
Committee members also discussed the possibility of having hunting dogs, dogs that are difficult
to confine and dogs participating in sporting events exempted from any proposed tethering
restrictions. Each of these potential exemptions was discussed in detail and it was agreed that
their exemption should be part of the draft report and recommendations.
53
Tethering Committee Meeting
June 13 , 2007
Page 2
There was a lengthy discussion of what should be the time limit for permissible tethering. This
discussion took into account the enforceability of different time limits, their implications and
affect for animal care, and whether they would reasonably accommodate responsible pet owners.
It was decided that three hours constituted the best time limit when considered from all angles
and thus should be the Committee's recommendation.
In addition, there was a discussion of whether required minimal kennel sizes should be included
in the Committee's recommendation. The Committee decided that this was a critical issue but
that it could be left as separate issue to be considered by the Animal Services Advisory Board.
Finally, it was agreed that staff would prepare an unapproved working document for discussion
at the next meeting of the Tethering Committee.
Meeting Adjourned 8:00 p.m.
r
r )4
Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968 -2287
Animal Control Robert A. Marotto, Animal Shelter
PO Box 8181 Director 1081 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
304 Revere Rd Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 967 -7383
(919) 245 -2075
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
July 1 la', 2007 6:30 p.m. -8:00 p.m.
Unapproved Meeting Summary
Location: Meeting Room (A -014), Whitted Building, 300 Tryon Street, Hillsborough.
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand, Mary Dow,
Margie Huggins, Commissioner Mike Nelson, Kelly Strowd, Animal Services Director
Robert Marotto, Office Assistant Lisa Smith.
Agenda Review: Review and adoption of meeting agenda
Discussion: The Committee reviewed the draft report and recommendations that staff
prepared on the basis of general discussion at its last meeting. Numerous votes were initiated
and taken to decide various issues.
There was considerable discussion on changes in exemptions for individual dogs that are
hard to keep confined, as well as the exemption of hunting dogs. It was agreed to change the
exceptions to only allow tethering at training and performance (or sporting) events for dogs,
including but not limited to field and obedience trails. It was argued that was the only fair
approach and that the Committee should concern itself with what the best policies regarding
tethering were.
Also, it was agreed to add to the limitation and requirements that a tethered dog must have
access to food, water and shelter, and that any and all other legal requirements for animal
care be met. It was further agreed that the weight of the tether and collar must not exceed ten
percent of the dog's total body weight.
The committee again discussed whether a minimum kennel size should be set insofar as more
dogs would be expected to be kenneled and there should be some assurance that they were
kept in a humane manner. It was agreed that a minimum pen size for outdoor enclosures for
dogs should be established but the specification of this pen size was left to the Animal
Services Advisory Board with Animal Services Staff.
Tethering Committee Meeting
July 11 '2007
Page 2
5-15
Finally, it was agreed that the implementation period should be changed so that an adopted
amendment would become fully enforceable eighteen months after its adoption. The first
twelve months would be an education period prior to the ordinance becoming effective, and
the final six months would involve limited enforcement using only warnings.
Committee members agreed that once the approved changes were made, the report should be
presented to the ASAB for review and a decision as to whether it should be recommended to
the BOCC. It was further agreed that Bob Marotto and Margie Huggins would prepare a
final draft that would then be circulated by email to all Committee members for their
approval.
Meeting Adjourned 8:00 p.m.
The Orange County Tethering Committee Report and Proposal for Ordinance Amendment
(dated July Vx', 2007) was submitted to the Animal Services Advisory Board and
subsequently approved.
Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968 -2287
Animal Control Robert A. Marotto, Animal Shelter
PO Box 8181 Director 1081 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
304 Revere Rd Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 967 -7383
(919) 245 -2075
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Wednesday April 2" a, 2008 6:30 p.m. -8:00 p.m.
Unapproved Meeting Summary
Location: Conference Room, Economic Development Building, 110 East King Street, Hillsborough
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand, Suzanne Roy, Animal
Services Director Robert Marotto, and Office Assistant Lisa Smith
OCTC Members Absent: Mary Dow, Commissioner Mike Nelson, and Kelly Stowd
Agenda Review: The proposed agenda for this meeting was reviewed and accepted
Discussion: Staff organized this meeting at the request of the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB).
At the last ASAB meeting on March 19"', 2008 the ASAB decided that the Tethering Committee should
reconvene to consider whether the proposed restriction of tethering should be limited to three hours
within a twenty-four -hour period or three consecutive hours within a twenty- four -hour period.
Committee members discussed the difference between these definitions from the standpoint of animal
husbandry and care, and from the standpoint of enforceability. The committee members who were
present decided that the language for the proposed ordinance amendment should be, "not more than a
total of three hours in a twenty- four -hour period."
As only three members of the committee were present it was decided that the language should be ratified
by email so that there was a record of the majority approval. All members of the Tethering Committee
approved that the language of the ordinance amendment should be, "not more than a total of three hours
in a twenty- four -hour period."
Meeting Adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Staff then brought this language back to the Animal Services Advisory Board for final approval at its
April 10h, 2008 meeting.
57
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Approved Minutes for August 15, 2007 Meeting
Present ASAB Members: Daniel Textoris, Kristine Bergstrand, Ross Oglesbee, Pat Sanford, Susan
Elmore, Jean Connerat Austin, Tracy Carroll, James Kramer, Carolina Green and Dewana Anderson
Absent ASAB Members: Bonnie Norwood and Moses Carey.
Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Control Manager Irene Paul and
Administrative Assistants Paula Ragan and Andi Morgan.
Public Members Present: Margie Huggins and Suzanne Roy
Welcome and Opening Comments —Chair of the ASAB Committee, Kristine Bergstrand
Motion was made by Ross Oglesbee and seconded by Jean Connerat Austin to approve the Agenda dated
August 15, 2007. VOTE. Unanimous
Motion was made by Jean Connerat Austin and seconded by Daniel Textoris to approve the Minutes
dated July 18, 2007. VOTE: Unanimous
General Public Comment--None
Unfinished Business
Rabies Lecture— Dr. Carl Williams Public Health Veterinarian N. C. Dept of Health will be giving an
public lecture on September 4, 2007 regarding rabies in North Carolina. This is being held during the
week of the Inaugural World Rabies Day.
Public Relations Plan for Proposed Fine Updates— Bob Marotto reminded everyone that the
BOCC did not adopt fine increases for violations of select animal ordinances as part of the
budget process. Rather, the BOCC asked that staff return to it with a public relations plan that
would make people aware of those fine increases in advance of their implementation and provide
justification for the increases. A staff work group was formed which developed elements of the
plan that was distributed for discussion. Andi Morgan gave an overview to the committee of the
"Working Document". A motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by James Kramer that the
Animal Services Advisory Board feels this is a very strong document that should be used and
recommended to the BOCC with a few minor modifications that staff agreed to make.. VOTE:
Unanimous
Report and Proposal for Orange County's Tethering Committee Ordinance Amendment - -The
committee reviewed and discussed the document prepared by the Tethering Committee. Among other
issues, discussion included the public input process of the Tethering Committee, the enforcement of the
recommended ordinance changes, and how the recommended changes related to other state and local
regulations. A motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by Ross Oglesbee that the proposal
formulated by the Tethering Committee be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for
5g
Approved ASAB Minutes —
August 15th, 2007
Page 2
consideration with the addition of a specific section of the kenneling spaces /sizes for kennels. Staff will
bring back some recommendations regarding kennel /sizes to the September 19*, 2007 ASAB meeting for
discussion, and then those recommendations, if accepted, will be referred to the County Manger for
presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. VOTE: 10 in favor and 1 against
Motion was made by Ross Oglesbee and seconded by Daniel Teztoris to adjourn the meeting at 8: 00 p. m.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Next ASAB Meeting: Wednesday, September 19th, 2007 at 6: 30 p.m. in the Economic Development
Center Conference Room, 110 E. King Street Hillsborough.
51
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Approved Minutes for September 19, 2007 Meeting
Present ASAB Members: Daniel Textoris, Ross Oglesbee, Pat Sanford, Susan Elmore, Jean Connerat
Austin, James Kramer, Carolina Green, Dewana Anderson Bonnie Norwood and Moses Carey.
Absent ASAB Members: Kristine Bergstrand and Tracy Carroll
Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Control Manager Irene Paul,
Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison and Administrative Assistant Paula Ragan.
Public Members Present: Suzanne Roy
Welcome and Opening Comments ASAB Vice - Chair, Ross Oglesbee
Motion was made by Susan Elmore and seconded by James Kraemer to approve the Agenda dated
September 19, 2007. VOTE. Unanimous
Motion was made by Bonnie Norwood and seconded by Susan Elmore to approve the Minutes dated
August IS, 2007. VOTE: Unanimous
General Public Comment —None
Unfinished Business
Final Report: ASAB Keeping of Wild Animal Ordinance Amendment Task Force Ross Oglesbee
presented the "Final Report", dated August 29, 200. She reported that the Task Force had met for a total
offour times and determined that it would only consider changes in relation to North Carolina native
species and rehabilitation. However, after the meetings the Task Force concluded that there should be no
change in the current ordinance. The committee does want to go on record for saying that they believe
that Orange County should provide support for wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and education only to those
organizations that have the space, on -site expertise, budget and other resources to humanely and
appropriately rehabilitate, and educate the public about, native North Carolina wildlife. This could be
done in a form of a multi- county wildlife cooperative. Motion was made by James Kramer and seconded
by Bonnie Norwood to pass the Final Report dated August 29, 2007, to the BOCC. VOTE: Unanimous
Report and Proposal for Orange County's Tethering Committee Ordinance Amendment —Bob Marotto
and Irene Paul provided the ASAB members with a Required Kennel Space Recommendation Memo dated
September 10'h, 2007, that proposed a tier system for such requirements based upon their review of such
restrictions in other jurisdictions. Staffprepared this memo in response to a request at the last ASAB
meeting that more information be made available about minimum kennel sizes in relation to any proposal
to limit tethering. Motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by Susan Elmore to accept the
Tethering Committee Ordinance Amendment Recommendation with the attached Memo and forward it to
the County Manager for recommendation to the BOCC. VOTE: Unanimous
Pet Overpopulation Subcommittee — Caroline Green reported that the committee met in August to
discuss its purpose and develop its charge. A summary describing that information was provided to the
Approved ASAB Minutes —
September 19th, 2007
60
Page 2
Members for review. Caroline asks that if anyone has any suggestions or comments to please send those
to her or Pat Sanford.
Animal Placement and Fostering Updates Jessica Allison gave a brief summary of accompanying
documents on the foster program and sheltering activities for the months of July and August. She was
excited to report that these are the highest adoption numbers reported so far this calendar year.
AdoptiomPlacement Committee Progress Report— Jessica Allison reported that the committee met on
August 10`", 2007 and made a few revisions to the Partner /Placement document. The committee discussed
and decided that it would be prudent to gather input from the rescue groups with whom we currently
work. The documents have been sent to six selected groups and to the county attorney for additional
feedback Information gathered via this process will be review at the committee's next meeting scheduled
for September 28, 2007.
Bob Marotto reported that there were three low cost rabies clinics in conjunction with World Rabies
Days with over 200 vaccinations administered.
Animal Identification: Provisional Proposal— Bob Marotto reported that staff has reviewed current
practices to develop a coherent as well as a practical approach to animal identification and it was
decided that it would be best not to add another tag to the one that the Animal Shelter already provides.
Instead, that the Shelter will continue to issue the rabies tag as our licensing tag, but order them from a
private company instead of the North Carolina Health Department so that we can have our contact
information added to the tags. There are two primary groups that leave the shelter without tags
(approximately 1 %) and those are animals that are too young to receive rabies vaccines and reclaimed
animals that have a current rabies vaccination. Strategies for identifying animals in these two groups are
a generic tag for puppies and kittens indicating that have a microchip, and a hard - written collar for those
animals with a current vaccination. Another option would be on -site personalized identification machine
but due to the cost of the machine and staffing issues it was decided that this option would need to be
explored further. More research will be done and a final product will be brought back to the committee
for review and approval.
New Business -
Creation ofASAB Nominations Subcommittee- Caroline Green, Daniel Textoris and Tracy Carroll have
agreed to be on this committee and will come back to the October 17`h, 2007, ASAB meeting with a
proposed slate of officers and at a subsequent meeting in November the vote will take place.
Required Annual Review of ASAB Committee Structure -Bob Marotto gave an overview of the
requirements of our charter and the two committees that we currently have are the Potentially Dangerous
Dog Committee and the Adoption Appeals Committee. Motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by
Jean Connerat Austin to maintain the two standing committees. VOTE: Unanimous
Motion was made by Jean Connerat Austin and seconded by Pat Sanford to adjourn the meeting at 7:45
p.m. VOTE: Unanimous.
Next ASAB Meeting: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 6: 30 p. m. in the Southern Human Services Center
Conference Room, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill.
61
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Approved Minutes for February 20, 2008 Meeting
Present ASAB Members: Ross Oglesbee, Daniel Textoris, Pat Sanford, Susan Elmore, Jean Austin,
James Kramer, Bonnie Norwood, Dewana Anderson, and Kristine Bergstrand
Absent ASAB Members: Tracy Carroll, Suzanne Roy, Rachel Beckham and Moses Carey
Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison
and Administrative Assistant Paula Ragan.
Public Members Present: None
Welcome and Opening Comments ASAB Chair, Ross Oglesbee, called the meeting to order.
Motion was made by Bonnie Norwood and seconded by Susan Elmore to approve the Agenda dated
February 20, 2008 with two changes in the order of items. VOTE: Unanimous.
Motion was made by Daniel Textoris and seconded by Bonnie Norwood to approve the minutes dated
January 16, 2008. VOTE: Unanimous
General Public Comment —None
Announcements—
Spay Day Resolution— Ross Oglesbee announced that the Board of County Commissioners adopted the
Spay Day Resolution at their January 15, 2008 meeting. The resolution was received with very positive
feedback and a framed copy of the resolution will be displayed at the Animal Services office on Franklin
Street.
Ms Oglesbee also announced that she attended the reception for. Committee Chairs on Advisory Boards.
There was a discussion of Commissioners involvement in various advisory boards. There was also a
discussion about the FY08109 budget and what kinds of requests are being made to staff programs and to
have resources available for them. Ms Oglesbee would like to be informed as a board what kinds of
request are being made for staff in this year's budget in order to meet the objectives and various
programs that the board has set.
It was mentioned that after this year Commissioner Moses Carey will no longer be the ASAB liaison due
to his retirement from the BOCC. There was discussion from the board members about the process for his
replacement and whether or not recommendations by the ASAB can be made. Mr. Marotto will look in to
how the process for new BOCC appointments are handled and report back to the ASAB in March.
Ms Oglesbee suggested that the board think about having an annual Animal Services Day to focus on the
programs and invite the BOCC and public to attend. This would be a great way to promote the
spay /neuter programs and to conduct educational outreach to the community.
Approved ASAB Minutes
February 26e, 2008
G�
Page 2
Unfinished Business—
Tethering Ordinance Update -- There was a lengthy and detailed discussion of the tethering amendment
drafted by the County Attorney in consultation with Animal Services staff on the basis ofprior work by
the ASAB and the County's Tethering Committee. Various motions were considered until one received
majority support and these are recorded below.
• A motion was made by Daniel Textoris and seconded by Susan Elmore to accept the Tethering
Amendment as is. There was no second and more discussion was held on the document. Motion
did not carry.
• A motion was made again by Daniel Textoris and seconded by Susan Elmore to accept the
Tethering Amendment and to exclude the class I and class 2 licensed kennels for the meantime,
with the understanding they would be addressed in the future. There was more discussion about
concerns by members about addressing the issue later. Motion did not carry as the vote was 2 in
favor and 6 against.
• A motion made by Jean Austtn to present the Tethering Amendment as we have it and exempt the
minimal kennel sizes for Class I and Class 2 licensed kennels. There was no second and it was
requested to have more discussion. Motion did not carry.
• A motion was made again by Jean Austin and seconded by Pat Sanford to accept the Tethering
Amendment to Orange County Animal Control Ordinance and exempt Class I and Class 2
kennels existing as of January 1, 2008, from only the minimal enclosure size requirement. It was
understood that the permit requirements and ordinance would be revisited at a later date. This
motion carried by a vote of S in favor 3 opposed
• Motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by Jean Austin to accept the overall amendment
with the correction of several typographical errors and several wording changes in different
sections of the Amendment. This motion carried by a vote of 6 in favor 2 opposed. '
Once the County Attorneys have made revisions to the proposed Tethering Amendment staff will request
that the County Manager place it before the BOCC for its deliberation.
FAQ Working Document— Board members were pleased with the work that had been done and gave
very positive feedback There were a couple of typographical changes requested and the board would
like to mention public health risk and the amount of tax dollars spent to address this issue. Once changes
are made an abstract and amendment to move forward will by completed by the March meeting.
New Business—
Chair Ross Oglesbee mentioned that a member of the public has made a request to speak with the board
at the March meeting to address the adoption of pit bull and pit bull mixes from the shelter. She asked
that ASAB members prepare for a discussion of this topic at its March meeting.
Approved ASAB Minutes
February 201h, 2008
63
Page 3
Motion was made by Susan Elmore and seconded by Jean Austin to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p. m.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Next ASAB Meeting: Wednesday, March 19, 2008, at 6.30 p. m. in the Southern Human Services
Conference Room, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill.
('94
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Approved Minutes for March 14, 2008 Meeting
Present ASAB Members: Daniel Textoris, Pat Sanford, Susan Elmore, Jean Austin, James Kramer,
Moses Cary, and Kristine Bergstrand.
Absent ASAB Members: Ross Oglesbee, Bonnie Norwood, Tracy Carroll, Dewana Anderson, Suzanne
Roy and Rachel Beckham.
Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison,
Animal Control Manager Irene Phipps and Administrative Assistant Paula Ragan.
Public Members Present: Elliott Cramer
Welcome and Opening Comments —ASAB Co- Chair, Susan Elmore, called the meeting to order.
Motion was made by James Kramer and seconded by Daniel Textoris to approve the Agenda dated
March 19, 2008 with one change to add an item to discuss the Carolina North chemical remediation.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Motion was made by Daniel Textoris and seconded by Kristine Bergstrand to approve the minutes dated
February 20, 2008 with one change to add `It was understood that the permit requirement and ordinance
would be revisited at a later date" to bullet four on page 2. VOTE: Unanimous
General Public Comment—None
Unfinished Business—
Tethering Ordinance Update— Bob Marotto reported that there were two issues with additional changes
made in the proposed amendment by the county attorney since the last meeting: (1) the exemption of
existing kennel permits from the enclosure requirement, and (2) matter of notice in the event that an
animal is seized and impounded under the proposed amendment.. The County Attorney has since then
received information regarding related litigation that is occurring now in Wake County and the issue in
that litigation is the issue of notice. The County Attorney thought it would be best to incorporate those
changes at the same time.
In addition, a member of the board indicated that there was an inconsistency in the restrictive language
of the proposed Tethering Document. After considerable discussion, a motion was made by Kristine
Bergstrand and seconded by Moses Cary that the Tethering Committee would reconvene as a matter of
procedure to decide on a consistent language and make a recommendation to the ASAB. VOTE:
Unanimous
Bob Marotto reported that at the commissioner's work session it was suggested that we go forward with
the amendment and as we proceed there should be some period of time designated for the proposed
preliminary Amendment and FAQ to be available for the community to review on our website and in
media advisories. This would be a prelude to the scheduling of the item on the BOCC Agenda.
6-5
Animal Services Advisory Board Meeting
Approved Minutes
March l9, 2008
Page 2
Animal Noise Ordinance —Irene Phipps gave an update on an item that was discussed at the November
2007 ASAB meeting regarding a request from an Orange County citizen (David S)kes) to review the
current Animal Ordinance as it relates to the noise disturbance associated with roosters. Presently the
County's ordinance only addresses nuisance barking and does not allow any type of resolution for other
animal noises. In 2007, the Animal Control Division ofAnimal Services received only three complaints in
different locations regarding roosters and specifically the noise that they make. Research was conducted
on Municode to determine which counties around the state had ordinance provisions to address these
issues. Ms. Phipps provided members of the board with a report listing the findings.
A motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Moses Cary that the Animal Services Advisory Board
does not feel it is appropriate to move forward with a recommendation that the Animal Ordinance be
changed but that there be further contact with Mr. Sykes regarding potential civil relief. VOTE.
Unanimous
Pet Overpopulation Committee —Pat Sanford reported that they gathered a lot of information at the last
meeting and Beth Livingston ofAnimal Kind reported that at the present time they are spaying and
neutering about 100 animals a year in Orange County without any funds from Orange County Animal
Services and that at an average cost per surgery of $75 -$100 they could do 100 more surgeries. Animal
Kind would do all the administration and currently Animal Kind has contracts with local veterinarians.
Ms. Sanford also reported that the feral cat caretakers are coming back to discuss how to handle feral cat
colonies and to try and reduce the number offeral cats coming in to the shelter.
Bob Marotto reported that there is now $16, 000.00 in the County's Community Spay Neuter fund and that
the amount is expected to grow to -$25, 000 or more before the end of the fiscal year. Some of the funds
were used for the Spay Day USA program where we sterilized 20 animals belonging to clients of the
Department of Social Services. The actual list was 31 animals but due to the exact compliment of
males /females and cats /dogs, we were only able to process 20 that particular day. We plan on going back
to the veterinarian with a supplemental contract to capture the other eleven animals. The plan is to use
remaining money in this account in the last quarter for a variety ofprograms, which will help with the
prevention of unwanted pets that end up in the shelter. The committee will come back at the next board
meeting with a specific programmatic and monetary recommendation and proceed on that basis.
Adoption/Placement Committee —Bob Marotto would like to get support from the ASAB for the
agreement and the guideline documents that have been developed by the committee. The idea is to be in a
position to finalize the documents in the near future, and that would require review and approval by the
Board of County Commissioners
• A motion was made by Jean Austtn and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to add "appropriate
socialization" after the word veterinary care of item 2 on page 2 of the document. VOTE:
Unanimous
• A motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to remove the word "may"
and replace it with the word "must" in item 10 ofpage 4. VOTE: Unanimous
• A motion was made by Moses Cary and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to strike the last sentence of
item 10 ofpage 4. VOTE: Unanimous
IF 4
Animal Services Advisory Board Meeting
Approved Minutes
March 19, 2008
Page 3
• A motion was made by Jean Ausitn and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to remove "a timely
manner" and replace with "no later than the end of the following quarter" in item 16 ofpage 5.
VOTE: Unanimous
One item that has not been resolved yet is with the requirement for general liability insurance. A survey
was done with the five rescue groups, all of which indicated that it would not inhibit them to work with
the Orange County Animal Shelter. A question was then raised whether smaller rescue groups would be
impeded by the requirement. Research is currently being done to get a general cost of what the insurance
would be and that information will be brought back to the board for f rrher discussion.
Foster Program Report—Jess Allison reported that a meeting was held on January 31, 2008, and it was
decided to provide the activity reports to the Animal Services Advisory Board committee on a six -month
basis rather than one -month basis. Staff and committee members discussed the growth of the program
and identified areas that require improvements to the Foster Program forms. There were edits made in
enclosure A of the guidelines and home visit checklist, interview and application that were shown in the
handout provided to the board members. Bob Marotto reported that there is a limited ability to invest in
the foster program but that the program can be maintained. The discussion with staff indicated that to try
and grow the program would exceed our human resources and we should take the time that we do have
available and invest it in the relationships with placement partners and rescue groups and to work
towards building bridges with the community. A motion was made by Jean Ausitn and seconded by Kris
Bergstrand to adopt and accept the amendments in both Foster Home Policy and Procedures of
Enclosures A & C. VOTE: Unanimous
Ms. Allison gave an overview of the January and February 2008 statistical summaries. It was pointed out
that February adoptions were lower than January and it appears that March's will also be low. This is a
concern and there was a brief discussion that mentioned factors such as the price of gas and economy.
New Business Bob Marotto reported that the appearance of the current Animal Shelter. and
access to it would change as a result of a remediation project being conducted by UNC. He
stressed that it would be very important to keep the public informed that the Animal Shelter was
continuing to operate on its normal schedule, and asked that the ASAB help to communicate to
members of the public is open and operating with normal hours of business.
2008 -2009 Budget Update Bob Marotto reported that he has been asked to prepare a
continuation budget, which amounts to approximately a $1.6 million dollar operating budgetfor
the fiscal year. He further noted that Animal Services has requested five new full time positions
(some of which are conversions of temporary funds). He also noted that a significant concern is
the compliance of animal control vehicles with the "transportation standards" set out in the
Animal Welfare Act of the State of North Carolina. (which indicates that compartment
temperature must be between 50 and 85 degrees). Thus fleet renewal with compliant boxes is an
important objective for Animal Services in the County's budget process.
Animal Services Advisory Board Meeting
Approved Minutes
March 19, 2008
Page 4
Adoption of Pitt Bulls from Orange County's Animal Shelter— In order to allow enough time
for discussion of this subject, it was decided (with the assent of Mr. Elliott Kramer) to reschedule
this topic for the April 16, 2008 ASAB meeting. Mr. Kramer gave ASAB members an
informational handout to review in advance of that meeting.
Announcements Moses Cary announced that he will be leaving the ASAB at the end of this year and
also there will be three new Board of County Commissioners elected in November He encouraged the
ASAB to be proactive and to get to know the new commissioners. The Animal Services Advisory Board
may make a recommendation to the commissioners but the commissioners do not have to agree and will
have the final decision.
Motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p. M.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Next ASAB Meeting: Wednesday, April 16, 2008, at 6.•30 p.m. in the Government Services Center
Conference Room, 200 S. Cameron Street, Hillsborough.
l 0
DRAFT:
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Minutes for April 16, 2008 Meeting
Scheduled for Review and Approval at next ASAB Meeting
Present ASAB Members: Daniel Textoris, Pat Sanford, Susan Elmore, Jean Austin, James Kramer,
Ross Oglesbee, Bonnie Norwood, Tracy Carroll and Suzanne Roy
Absent ASAB Members: Dewana Anderson, Kristine Bergstrand and Moses Carey.
Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison,
Animal Control Manager Irene Phipps and Administrative Assistant Paula Ragan.
Public Members Present: Elliott Cramer and Michael Soluski
Welcome and Opening Comments ASAB Chair, Ross Oglesbee, called the meeting to order.
Motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by James Kramer to approve the Agenda dated April 16,
2008, with one change to move item 4a until. Mr. Cramer arrives for discussion. VOTE: Unanimous.
Motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by James Kramer to approve the minutes dated March
19, 2008, with corrections to a few typographical errors. VOTE: Unanimous
General Public Comment —None
Unfinished Business—
Tethering Ordinance Update— Mr. Marotto reported that the Tethering Committee reconvened to
ensure that they have agreement about definition of the proposed tethering restriction and the definition
of the restriction that is now incorporated in the version that is being reviewed for approval by board
members. The definition is that it would not be permissible to tether a dog for more than a total of three
hours in a 24 -hour period. Motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Bonnie Norwood to
approve the Tethering Ordinance Amendment and to pass along to the Board of County Commissioners.
VOTE: 6 in favor 2 opposed- - Motion Carries.
Pet Overpopulation Committee —Pat Sanford reported that the committee has been working with the
feral cat caretakers and the feral cat coalition and they would like to see owner's of feral cats to be
licensed or at least know where they are located within the community. The committee would like to see a
spay /neuter program through Animal Kind be offered to the owners of the feral cat colonies in order to
reduce the number coming in to the shelter being euthanized. Motion was made by Bonnie Norwood and
seconded by Jean Austin to approve the budget outline in the Memorandum from Animal Services
Director Bob Marotto (dated April 10, 2008) regarding Community Spay/Neuter Fund.• Program and
Guideline Proposal. VOTE: Unanimous
March Statistical Summary —Ms. Jess Allison gave an overview of the March 2008 statistical
summaries. It was pointed out that the March adoptions were low, as she had predicted they would be at
the March 20, 2008 meeting. Ms. Allison did report that the reclaims were higher than in past months.
The committee and staff are working to identify additional things that could be done to help increase the
adoption numbers. Some ASAB members suggested that the general condition of the economy and the
49
"Draft" Page 2
Animal Services Advisory Board
Meeting Minutes April 16'h, 2008
UNC remediation effort around the current shelter location may be affecting adoptions. One specific
suggestion was that there be more media coverage to inform the community that the shelter is still open to
and serving the public..
Adoption of Pit bulls from Orange County's Animal Shelter —A member of the public, Mr. Elliott
Cramer gave an overview of the information he previously provided and requested that the ASAB limit
the numbers of pit bulls on display to the public and feels that they are being adopted out to people who
are not appropriate adopters. In addition, Mr. Cramer suggested that this breed of dog should only be
adopted out to people that have experience handlingpit bulls and are aware of their behavioral traits and
tendencies as he believes there is evidence showing that these dogs are inherently more dangerous than
other breeds. He also emphasized that he was struck by the number of pit bulls and pit bull mixes at the
shelter and on the shelter's website
Another member of the public, Mr. Michael Soluski, conveyed that he owns a pit bull and a boxer and
that he believes that his own and other dogs behave as allowed by owners, who are responsible for
ensuring acceptable behavior. He indicated that he was against any breed specific changes in adoption
practices, and asked where such changed would end if they were initiated. .
Ms. Jess Allison reported that the shelter is very careful about the evaluations and adoptions of this
particular breed of dogs. She indicated that the Animal Shelter staff generally holds this particular breed
of dog to a higher standard. If there are any signs of aggressive behavior, they are usually not put up for
adoption. Mr. Marotto suggested that we think about whether or not we are at or beyond the best
practices in the industry for our evaluation and placement of these dogs and other dogs. The best
practices of the industry should be our guide, not being discriminatory but recognizing that there are
some special considerations that should be to factor in.
ASAB members discussed various issues throughout and on the basis of statements made by staff fj'and
members of the public. These issues included the quality and accuracy of available statistics on dog bites
by breed; the challenges or difficulties of breed (and mixed breed) identification; the extent to which
aggression has genetic rather than environmental roots; and the extent to which animal owners are
responsible for the behavior of their animal and how they affect others in human communities.
Motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Bonnie Norwood to individually gather more
information on this topic and to table this request for now. VOTE: 6 in favor 2 opposed- - Motion Carries.
New Business Bob Marotto reviewed the Project and Activity Schedule handout and reported
that this is a way to plan and organize our work and commitments. It ensures that we are not
doing too much, and risking doing anything less than very well, and that it helps ensure that our
work load is commensurate with available resources.
Select Updates Irene Phipps reported that two rabies clinics were held today, one earlier today
at the Animal Control Office in Hillsborough with 27 vaccines administered and 14 licensed. The
second clinic is being held in the Annex Parking lot next door this evening. The next two rabies
clinics will be held at the Animal Shelter on Saturday, April 19, 2008 and Wednesday April 23,
2008.
AN
"Draft" Page 3
Animal Services Advisory Board
Meeting Minutes April 16`x`, 2008
Jess Allison provided an overview of the UNC remediation effort that is underway near the
Animal Shelter. She reported that staff has been reviewing safety protocols just in case there is
any release of chemicals into the air during this effort. A safety drill with staff was held today at
the shelter and went very well. Ms. Allison mentioned that the entranceway in to the shelter is
now different due to the remediation project and signage has been placed throughout the new
route in to the shelter off of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd to help direct traffic to the shelter.
Motion was made by James Kramer and seconded by Jean Austin to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Next ASAB Meeting: Wednesday, May 21, 2008, at 6: 30 p. m. in the Southern Human Services
Conference Room, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill.
f�vlex')- X09- a4 y
" I,
Mike Mills said that NCDOT would defer this item and have a community meeting.
Commissioner Carey made reference to the realignment of Eubanks Road and Old NC
86 and asked whether it included purchase of the right -of -way, and Mike Mills said that they are
going to and get the right -of -way free of charge.
Commissioner Gordon asked what happens if the Ben Wilson Road issue cannot be
resolved, and Mike Mills.said that the funding would go to Hensley Road.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Lynne Holtkamp is a property owner on Ben Wilson Road. She said that she has letters
from landowners along the road and in the adjoining area. She thanked the Board for its work
on this.
Chair Jacobs asked her to briefly summarize the points of the letters.
Lynne Holtkamp said that the residents would abide by whatever the Board wishes to
do. The residents have had conversations with DOT and there are only eight houses on the
road and it is completely rural with no traffic. The residents believe that having the road paved
would lead to future potential development, which is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan
for this area. If the Board decides to defer paving, then she will present the letters at that time.
Sara Shields lives on Jimmy Ed Road, which is a very rural road with three homes on it.
It is a road that goes nowhere and there is one church at the beginning of the,road, which is
probably the reason why it has been bumped up to be considered for paving. The residents did
not know that the road was going to be paved until recently, so they are not prepared to present
letters from homeowners about how they feel about this. The residents would like an
opportunity to gather this together. She asked that the County Commissioners defer this until
there is a general consensus. She said that the residents have been told that their land values
would be higher if the road was paved, but they would like to maintain the, rural character. She
said that, with all of the budget problems, paving a road that goes nowhere just seems
inappropriate.
Todd Shields is a landowner on Jimmy Ed Road and he reiterated what Sara Shields
said. He said that it does not make sense to him to pave this road with the budget crisis as it is.
Commissioner Carey said that the monies being spent for paving roads is not available
for the County to use for funding of the schools, but it can only be used for paving roads. The
Board of County Commissioners cannot take the money to use for something else.
Sara Shields asked if there was a way to get some time to get the community together
and Mike Mills said that DOT could meet with the community or survey the road first. He said
that the road could be partially paved for the church. This can be deferred until DOT meets
with the homeowners. The money will stay in Orange County and the secondary road system.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to
defer Ben Wilson Road and Jimmy Ed Road and approve the remainder of the 2008 -2009
Secondary Roads Construction Program for Orange County; and that the Board requests a
report from Mike Mills, Chuck Edwards, and staff to see how the meetings with the residents
are going.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dons
The Board conducted a public hearing for a proposed ordinance amendment to the
Orange County Animal Ordinance restricting the tethering of dogs, and considered adoption of
the ordinance amendment.
Animal Services Director Bob Marotto said that there has been a concerted effort
involved in staff and the citizen advisors and the process has gone on. for a year and a half or
more. He said that this issue came to the Animal Services Advisory Board from the community
as a serious issue for the community to consider and address and to seek to resolve. He thinks
that the concerned citizens have driven the process that staff has pursued. One of the citizens
advisory boards appointed by the Board was the Tethering. Committee, which met more than six
times. in 2007. This resulted in a proposal for the ordinance amendment. The Animal Services
Advisory Board has considered this issue five additional times.
He said that he would underscore that the Tethering Committee and the ASAB have
tried to balance some conflicting concerns. He said that there are some exceptions to the
three -hour tethering limit and the proposal is not an outright prohibition of tethering. He said
that there. has been a strong commitment to encourage education and seek to implement this
amendment over a period of time that would span 18 months, 12 of which would be dedicated
to education and awareness. After the first 12 months, there will be another six -month period in
which the new ordinance amendment would not be fully enforced, but would be enforced with
warnings. The amendment would become effective and fully enforced as of January 1, 2010
and would become effective as of July 1, 2009.
Vice -Chair of the ASAB, Susan Elmore recognized the Animal Servic=es staff. She said
that there are strong passions concerning this issue on both sides of the fence. She said that
she is here in support of this proposal. She pointed out pages 16 -17 of the Tethering
Committee report, which outlines the tasks of the committee. She said that the committee
considered all of the concerns on both sides.
Commissioner Nelson commended the Tethering Committee and said that it was hands
down the best committee he has worked on, everyone genuinely listened to each other, and
there was a tremendous amount of discussion on this topic. He said that the committee really
listened to the community and the staff was extraordinary.
Commissioner Carey commended Bob Marotto and said that the ASAB worked really
hard to be reasonable and to educate regularly. He thinks that the proposal reflects the
character of what the County Commissioners are trying to do in Orange County.
Chair Jacobs said that there are 22 people signed up to speak and he encouraged
people not to repeat what previous speakers have said.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Lori Hensley is a volunteer on the Coalition to Unchain Dogs and she said that they build
fences for owners of dogs that cannot afford them. The coalition also provides free spay and
neuter and vaccinations for the pets. She said that this type of ordinance gives Animal Control
another tool for enforcement. She said that most people want better for their dogs, but they
need to be shown that there is a better way to do things. She read an email from the neighbor
of a person who received a fence from the coalition for a dog that was continuously chained in
Chapel Hill. " I just have to tell you that your civilizing Neptune has also civilized the entire
family. Now whenever I stop by to see my neighbor, Neptune is either sitting on the front porch
with a family member, playing in the house, or when he sees my car coming running down the
stairs to greet and kiss me. He even has his meals inside now and sleeps beside the bed. See
how the beauty of your work spreads to others. So much abuse and neglect are due to just
plain ignorance, are they not ?" She said that this is not the only situation where the Coalition
has helped dogs. She asked the County Commissioners to approve the ordinance to limit the
chaining of dogs.
Henri McClees is a lobbyist for the North Carolina Sporting Dog Association, which is a
coalition of dog owners, dog breeders, and dog clubs. She said that the membership's
philosophy is that animals do not have rights, but people have rights and responsibilities. They
do not believe that this proposal meets the needs of the animals, and they are certain that it
does not meet the needs of the people. She said that it is a bad idea, it is not needed, it is not
U
fair, and it is bad public policy. She said that this same concept was debated in a Senate
committee in the legislature, but the bill never got out of committee. She said that inhumane
treatment of animals is already against the law. She asked the County Commissioners to
consider cautiously looking at this from the attitude and the positions of the citizens. She
questioned the assumption that tethering is mistreatment of animals.
Jason Payne is a member of the Eno River Coon Hunters Association. He said that he
and his father have raised and trained dogs since he was 15 years old, and they tether their
dogs, but they also exercise them and take care of them. He is opposed to this amendment
because he does not believe that the descriptions in the amendment would accomplish what
people are trying to accomplish, which is better treatment of animals.
Lamar Chapman lives in Orange County and said that he has numerous dogs and most
are not tethered. The ones that are tethered chew through a fence. He said that he has been
to all of the committee meetings and the committee is not listening to the citizens of Orange
County. He said that most of the people that are supporting this ordinance are not from Orange
County. He said that people are scared of speaking tonight because of Animal Control coming
to their property. He said that the people of unincorporated Orange County are not even aware
of this proposal. He showed some pictures that someone else had brought of dogs that were
chained and the collars were not embedded and the dogs were healthy. He suggested having
another public meeting.
George Painter is President of the Eno River Coon Hunters Association. He said that
this is a people problem, not a dog problem, and there needs to be education of dog owners on
the treatment of dogs. He said that a person that neglects an animal will neglect it no matter if
it is on a chain or in a kennel. He said that.the County Commissioners should spend more time
and better time on other problems in the County than passing more laws that will not help dogs
or the animal control problems.
Andrea Press is the N.C. Director of Responsible Dog Owners. She said that this
movement has been going through the country for the past year and a half. Animal rights
activists are quick to show pictures of dogs who have been chained improperly and the media
are quick to vilify the owner who tethers the dog. He said that people are being spoon fed the
idea that tethering is wrong by the animal rights activists. She gave statistics of children that
were killed by dogs because of parental neglect. She said that responsible dog owners have
the right to chain or not chain their dogs for whatever reason.
Amanda Arrington said that she represents people not here as the Director of the
Coalition to Unchain Dogs. She said that sometimes you must legislate in order to educate.
She agreed that cruelty can happen in any situation. She said that dogs that are chained are
more susceptible to being attacked.
Bobby Kirk said that he is disappointed in the way that this is going.. He has tried to get
on the committee, and he was not allowed. He said that he has trained dogs for 40 years. He
said that he has dogs come to him from all over the country that have been kenneled, but his
best dogs are tethered. He urged the County Commissioners to reconsider this. He said to the
committee that they never listened to the Orange County citizens. He said that tethering dogs
is not bad.
Michael Kirk lives in southern Orange County. He said that he looked at the Animal
Services website and read the amendment. He said that the costs of this amendment are
supposed to be absorbed back in the budget. He asked if the Animal Control Officers do
anything all day now. He said that he rode around within five miles of Chapol Hill and he
counted 38 tethered dogs and 72 dogs that were in kennels smaller than what is recommended.
He does not know how the costs of this are going to be absorbed, because this will be a lot of
work. He said that he has had dogs all of his life and the ones that are tethered are the
friendliest dogs.
0
Steven Hopkins said that he is a citizen of Orange County and he has owned dogs all of
his life. He asked that there be an exemption for sporting dogs or for homeowners that cannot
kennel because most sporting dogs must have daily exercise and must be chained to be in
events. He said that putting dogs in kennels will not solve any problems. He thinks that the
existing laws should be enforced.
Pat Sanford is on the ASAB. She said that she is an animal trainer and she would never
tether her dogs because it is not productive in training. She said that for 17 years she did
animal investigations for Orange County, and during that time there was a very high number of
investigations with tethered animals. She said that it is a human problem and not an animal
problem. She thinks that the ordinance needs to pass to help the animals. She understands
the sporting dog owners' concerns. She said that she is in support of the ordinance.
Jamie Jacobs*is a resident of Orange County and an owner of a pIt bull. She said that
she was asked to speak by a friend to share some statistics. She said that her breeder has
been breeding pit bulls for over 20 years in the North Carolina mountains, and he was very
clear with her about what she needed to do with the dog if she wanted him to become a vicious
and dangerous animal, and that was to chain him and leave him alone. If she wished him to
become a loving and social animal, then she must provide for him in other ways, which she
does. She contains her dog with an Invisible Fence and she takes him for long walks. She said
that there is a book sold in pet stores that gives very specific information about this breed, that
if they are chained, they will become vicious and dangerous animals.
Kris Bergstrand lives in Chapel Hill and was a member of the Tethering Committee and
the ASAB. She said that the members learned a lot from the residents of Orange County and
they struggled with how to balance the needs of the animals with the rights of the citizens. She
said that a number of people think that PETA activists drove the subcommittee to make this
recommendation and she disagrees. She is a veterinarian and she cares about the humane.
treatment of dogs. However, public safety is very important to her. She said that the
subcommittee got feedback from animal control professionals in the state who said that they did
not find it to be more work or more costly to have tethering ordinances; they noticed a decrease
in dog bites, a decrease in puppies, and a decrease in surrenders. She thinks that the benefits
that other jurisdictions in the state have seen from restricted tethering would do well in this
County.
Susan Kelly lives in Carrboro and she has two dogs, which are tethered because they
dig under the fence and they jump the fence. Both of them are spayed. She said that the dogs
have a very nice area to live in, and she does not know what her option v✓ould be other than not
letting her dogs outside to play together.
. Jacky Rosati is a resident of Orange County and she has a dog that lives inside her
house. She is in support of this ordinance and emphasized that it is restricting tethering and
not an anti - tethering ordinance. She said that she is also here on behalf of .lane Marshall who
could not be in attendance. She read a letter from Jane Marshall:
"Dear Commissioners,
I have been a dog trainer in Orange County for 20 years. One of my areas of expertise
is evaluating dogs for aggression and so I am very familiar with what triggers aggression in
dogs.
Living on a chain deprives a dog of his basic needs and causes high levels of stress and
frustration. Frustration is a pre- cursor to aggression. This is a very dangerous type of
aggression as the dog is in a highly aroused emotional and hormonal state and will target
anything moving nearby. The unfortunate victims of chained dogs are often unsupervised
children who wander into the dog's space. Mutilating injuries are usually sustained in these
situations.
r-
I am also a mother, raising my children in this community, and a humane educator. As
well as the huge safety factor for children around chained dogs, it is important for our children
to learn empathy for everything around them, to grow up to be caring, contriputing citizens.
Successful humane education programs focus on helping children relate to the animals in their
environment and to respect and care for them. Living with a dog chained at the bottom of the
garden desensitizes our children to the needs of animals and conveys the wrong message to
them. Chained dogs are often the victims of taunts from neighborhood children, a terrible
situation for the dog and an incorrect learning experience for the child.
So I respectfully ask you to disallow the permanent tethering of dogs in Orange County,
for the safety of our children, for the humane treatment of dogs and for Orange County to
become a caring, compassionate, community for all.
Jane Marshall'
Emily Weinstein thanked everyone for the work on the ordinance and said that she
believes that animals do have rights. She has fenced her yard and her dogs come in and out of
her house. She supports this ordinance.
Lauren Knapp- Resnik lives in Hillsborough and she thinks that everyone agrees with no
cruelty to animals, and she is a total animal lover. She lives on 20 acres and has horses,
chickens, dogs, cats. She has one dog that is tethered, because she is over protective of him
because of an accident that he had while he was running free. She is against this ordinance
because it is not a solution to this problem. She thinks that the ordinance should be on a case -
by -case basis.
Loren Hart is a UNC Alum and a resident of Orange County. He is here as an advocate
for all animals, human and otherwise. He said that animals can feel pleasure, pain, fear, and
loneliness. He suggested that if the County Commissioners pass this. ordinance, then they will
help to create a kinder and gentler world, a world that is more just, more peaceful and more
loving. He said that chaining dogs for long periods is a form of abuse and should be stopped.
He suggested that humans should not exploit animals for any reason.
Joseph Clees is a representative of the N.C. Sporting Dogs. He represents 12 different
counties. He said that this is a very controversial issue. He said that he has watched Chair
Jacobs, and he has talked with sensitivity and compassion. He complimented Chair Jacobs on
this. He said that he can see some fundamental flaws that there are segments of the
population that feel that they have not had an adequate public process. He said that there are
members on both sides of the issue that feel fear and intimidation. He asked the County
Commissioners to please not fall into an animal rights agenda. He said that it is.the
responsibility of humans to protect these animals and take care of them. He encourages the
County Commissioners to have at least 3-4 public hearings.
Suzanne Roy lives in Hillsborough and was on the Tethering Committee. She said that
the committee held two public hearings and invited members who are opposed to this ordinance
to come onto the committee, and she does not know of any applications. She thinks that the
committee has listened. She does not think that there is any question that tethering dogs is
inhumane. She read a quote from the Dog Whisperer, "Chaining is a very dangerous and cruel
practice. The more tightly a dog is chained, the more pent up energy he will have. The more
pent up energy, the more aggression. A frustrated dog on a chain becomes a weapon and is
nearly three times more likely to attack or bite a person than a dog that is simply loose in the
yard." She believes that this ordinance has broad community support.
Chad Resnick said that one of the people that spoke said that dogs on chains have a
tendency to bite people. His response to that is to teach children not to go near dogs that they
do not know. His dog has a 45 -foot lunge line with a 12 -foot lead on it and has a heated and
0
air - conditioned dog house. He said that it would be infeasible for his dog to. be in a 12x12 fence
and restrict his movement that much, which is one of the recommendations.
Tim Frazier is an officer of the Eno River Coon Club, but he is speaking for himself. He
said that he was told at the other public meetings that sporting dogs would be exempt from the
ordinance. He said that no one told him how to get on these committees. He said that the
sporting dog owners feel that they are being singled out. He said that he has a dog that will dig
out or climb out of a fence. He said that he did not find anything out about this meeting until
Saturday. He asked the County Commissioners to really think about this before passing it.
Ellen Whitaker is with the Coalition to Unchain Dogs and she said that they build fences
that dogs cannot dig out of. She said that it is possible to keep a dog that digs in a fence. She
said that when the coalition is able to provide a fence, then the owner can see that the dog now
has a personality because it can run around and not be chained.
Diane Genteel said that she raises and shows rat terriers, and she does not tether her
dogs. She said that the problem is not the tethering, but the implementation of tethering. She
said that proper tethering socializes, cares for, and exercises animals very well. She asked the
County Commissioners to please consider tethering from a different point of view.
Nancy Carson Eickert lives in Orange County and has participated with the Coalition to
Unchain Dogs. She affirmed everything that the representatives of the coalition said. She does
not think that most people realize the conditions under which they find some of these animals.
She thinks that education about proper tethering would help the situation.
. Josh Chapman is 15 years old and was born and raised in Orange County. He has had
dogs all of his life, and said that just because a dog is on a chain does not mean that it will be
depressed. He said that his chained dogs run around and play and are happy. He said that he
had a dog that was in a pen and was not gaining weight and barked all the time, and when the
dog was put on a chain, it gained weight and stopped barking. He asked the County
Commissioners to please oppose the ordinance.
Commissioner Nelson said that he would like to absorb all of this and take time to reflect
and wait to make a decision.
Commissioner Carey agreed.
Chair Jacobs said that it would probably be on the June 3`� agenda. The public asked
for proper notice.
Chair Jacobs said that if the Board does not vote on it now, it will be scheduled for June
3`d.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
defer this item to June 3`d on the regular agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6. Regular Agenda
a. Approval of Funding Plan for Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Elementary
#11
The Board considered approving a funding plan or construction of Elementary #11 for
the Chapel Hill /Carrboro City Schools.
Commissioner Foushee made reference to the second page and the third paragraph,
and said that it should say "Northside" and not "Northern" Human Services. Center.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
approve the funding plan for construction of Elementary #11 for the Chapel Hill /Carrboro City
Schools.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS