HomeMy WebLinkAboutORD-2008-102a - Animal Control Ordinance - Tethering of DogsVALER /EP. FOUSHEE, CHAIR
BERNADETTE PELISS /ER, VICE
CHAIR
ALICE M. GORDON
PAM HEMM/NGER
BARRY✓ACOBS
MIKE NELSON
STEVE YUHASZ
O��- moo �- /oz✓GL-
aoc+8 4,6
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
POST OFFICE BOX 8181
200 SOUTH CAMERON STREET
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
CERTIFICATION OF THE ORANGE COUNTY
ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of the ordinance entitled "An
Ordinance to Provide for Animal Control and Protection in Orange County, North Carolina"
dated June 16, 1987 and amended December 1, 1987, March 1, 1988, December 3, 1990,
November 1, 1995 and December 2, 1996 (effective 1/1/1997) and. December 3, 2007
(effective 7/1/08), 11118108 (effective 11119109) and as included in the minute book of said
County.
This the 26th day of March 2010.
i "-1-11�
Do na S. Bak r, Clerk
Orange County Commissioners
www.co.orange.nc.us
Protecting and preserving — People, Resources, Quality of Life
Orange County, North Carolina — You Count!
(919) 245 -2130 • FAX (919) 644 -0246
"An Ordinance to Provide for Animal Control and Protection in Orange
County, North Carolina"
CONTENTS
Section
I Authority
II Animal Shelter
III Animal Control Officers
IV Animal License Privilege Taxes
V Licenses, Permits, Registrations, and
Fees Required by this Ordinance
VI Ordinance
VII Definitions
VIII Animal Control Program
IX Relation to Hunting Laws
X Notice in Case of Injury
XI Mistreatment of Animals Unlawful
XII Control of Vicious Animals; Security Dogs
XIII Impoundment of Animals
XIV Handling of Stray Animals
XV Public Nuisance
XVI Rabies Control
XVII Rabies Tag
XVIII Applicability to Veterinarians
XIX Kennel Standards
XX Permits and Standards for Animal
Collection
XXI Penalties
XXII Severability
XXIII Effective Date
i
Page #
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
8
11
11
11
14
15
16
17
17
17
18
18
22
27
29
29
ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR ANIMAL CONTROL
AND PROTECTION IN ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA,
Section I - Authority. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the power
granted Orange County in N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 153A -121, Section 153A-
127, Section 153A -153 and Section 153A -442.
Section II - Animal Shelter. Orange County shall operate and maintain a
County Animal Shelter for the purpose of impounding or caring for animals
held under the authority of state law, this ordinance or any other county
or municipal ordinance. Orange County may contract for the operation of
the Animal Shelter as it deems appropriate.
Section III - Animal Control Officers. Orange County may appoint one or
more Animal Control officers. Any such officer or officers shall be County
employees. County Animal Control Officers shall have only the following
powers and duties within Orange County and within any municipality therein
that has given prior approval therefore:
A. The responsibility for the enforcement of all state and local laws
including ordinances, resolutions and proclamations pertaining to the
ownership and control of dogs and other animals.
B. To cooperate with the County Health Director and all law enforcement
officers in the county and the towns therein and assist in the
enforcement of the laws of the state with regard to animals, the
vaccination of dogs and cats against rabies, the confinement and
leashing of vicious animals, and any other state law applicable to
animals or animal control.
C. To investigate reported or observed animal cruelty or animal abuse and
make written reports of such investigations and, when requested,
provide such reports to animal cruelty investigators, appropriate law
enforcement officers or the District Attorney's office.
D. To investigate reports of observed harassment or attacks by dogs or
other animals against domesticated livestock and to assist in locating
those persons owning or harboring the attacking animals.
E. County Animal Control Officers shall not have the power to arrest.
Section IV - Animal License Privilege Taxes. Orange 3/1/88 County may set
animal license privilege taxes as allowed by 11/1/95 law and set the tax
amounts annually as part of the Budget. 1/1/97 In order to further the
1
goals of controlling animal population, the taxes of unspayed or
unneutered dogs and cats shall be higher than those of neutered animals.
Within thirty days of acquisition of an animal for which a license is
required, the owner or keeper shall purchase the appropriate county license
Amended 311188, 1111195, 1/1/97
Section V- Licenses, Permits, Registrations, and Fees Required By This
Ordinance.
A. The following licenses, permits, and registrations are required by
this ordinance:
1. Licenses for dogs, cats, or other animals designated by the Board
of Commissioners in the Budget ordinance (see Section IV).
2. Registration of atrol dogs or sentry dogs (see Section
XII (D) �.
3. Rabies tags for dogs and cats (see Section XVII).
4. Permits for collecting of dogs and cats for sale (see
Section XX).
5. Permits for commercial (Class II) kennels, non commercial (Class
I) kennels and pet shops. (see Section XIX)
B. The amount of license or permit privilege tax shall be recommended by
the Animal Control Director and approved by the Board of Commissioners
in the Budget Ordinance. The Animal Control Director may propose for
approval by the Board of Commissioners such policies or procedures as
may be necessary or appropriate to allow for payment of privilege
taxes over extended periods of time, at reduced rates, or a waiver
of privilege taxes. Additionally, dog and cat owners or keepers who
furnish to the Animal Control Director a statement from a licensed
veterinarian that the animal, due to age, physical reasons, or chronic
health problems cannot withstand spay /neuter surgery, shall be allowed
to pay the license privilege taxes provided for spayed or neutered
animals.
C. When an animal is impounded under this ordinance there shall be paid,
in accordance with Section XIII, a redemption privilege taxes follows:
Number of Prior Incidents
of Impoundment
M
Redemption
Privilege Tax
$10.00
1 $50.00
2
2
$100.00
3 or more $200.00
D. In order to defray the costs of administering and enforcing ordinances
adopted under this Section V, and in order to account for the
additional costs of locating, responding to and caring, for
unvaccinated and unlicensed animals found within the County,
additional fees shall be assessed as follows if the Owner or Keeper of
an animal fails to pay the following fees within the time specified in
the ordinance:
Failure to Vaccinate for Rabies (Section XVI) $200.00
Failure to Wear Rabies Tag (Section XVII) $50.00
Failure to License (Section V) $200.00
Amended 311188, 1111195, 111197, 1213107 (effective 711108)
Section VI- Ordinance. All other Orange County ordinances in conflict with
this ordinance except the Ordinance to Regulate Wild and Vicious. Animals
are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. The Ordinance to
Provide for Animal Control and Protection in Orange County, adopted May 15,
1979, as amended October 3, 1983, is hereby repealed.
Section VII - Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following terms
mean:
1. Adequate Food: The provision at suitable intervals, not to exceed 24
hours, of a quantity of wholesome foodstuff suitable for the species
and age, sufficient to maintain a reasonable level of nutrition in
each animal. Such foodstuff shall be served in a receptacle, dish, or
container that is physically clean and in which agents injurious to
health have been removed or destroyed to a practical minimum.
2. Adequate Shelter: That shelter which will keep a nonaquatic animal
dry, out of the direct path of winds and out of the direct sun, at a
temperature level that is healthful for the animal. For dogs, cats
and other small animals, the shelter shall be a windproof and
moistureproof structure of suitable size to accommodate the animal and
allow retention of body heat. It shall include four walls, a roof and
a solid floor raised up off of the ground, with an opening entrance
large enough to allow access to the animal, but placed in such a way
as to keep the animal out of the direct path of winds. Metal barrels
do not provide adequate shelter for a dog, cat or other small animal
and are prohibited for that purpose. The structure shall be provided
with a sufficient quantity of suitable bedding material consisting of
3
hay, straw, cedar shaving, or the equivalent. For all animals the
containment area shall be free of accumulated waste and debris so that
the animal shall be free to walk or lie down without coming in contact
with any such waste or debris, and a suitable method of draining shall
be provided to eliminate rapidly excess water or moisture. Aquatic or
semi - aquatic animals shall have an adequate amount of clean water in
which to move.
3. Adequate Water: A constant access to a supply of clean, fresh water
provided in a sanitary manner.
4. Animal: Any live,' vertebrate creature specifically including but not
limited to dogs, cats, farm animals, birds, fish and reptiles.
5. Animal Control Director: That person designated by appropriate
authority in Orange County, and where appropriate, his or her
designee, charged with the responsibility and authority to implement
and enforce the Animal Control program in Orange County.
6. Animal Shelter: A place provided and operated by Orange County
directly or by contractual agreement, whether jointly with another
governmental unit or independently, for the restraint, are, adoption,
and disposition of animals.
7. At Large: Any animal shall be deemed to be at large when it is off the
property of its owner or its keeper and not under the restraint of a
competent person.
8. Class I Kennels: Any person maintaining an establishment where
animals of any species, excluding domesticated livestock, are kept for
the purpose of showing, competition, hunting or sport, and which
establishment is so constructed that the animals cannot stray
therefrom, and which maintains more than six (6) but less than
nineteen (19) animals.
9. Class II Kennels: Any person maintaining an establishment where
animals of any species excluding domesticated livestock, kept for the
purpose of breeding, buying, selling, or boarding such animals or
engaged in the training of dogs for guard or sentry purposes, and
which establishment is so constructed that the animals cannot stray
therefrom; or any person owning or keeping 20 or more animals,
excluding domesticated livestock, each of which is four months of age
or older.
10. Competent Person: A person of suitable age and discretion to keep an
animal under sufficient restraint and control in order to prevent harm
to the animal and to persons, other animals, including but not limited
to domesticated livestock, or property.
4
11. Cruel and Cruel Treatment: Every act, omission, or neglect whereby
unjustifiable physical pain, suffering, or death is caused or
permitted; such acts or omissions shall include, but not be limited
to, beating, kicking, hanging, submerge under water, suffocating,
poisoning, setting on fire, and depriving of food, water, and medical
treatment, or otherwise subjecting the animal to conditions
detrimental to its health or general welfare. Such terms, however,
shall not be construed to include lawful taking of animals under the
jurisdiction and regulation of the Wildlife Resources Commission,
lawful activities sponsored by agencies conducting biomedical research
or training, lawful activities for sport.
12. Domesticated Livestock: Livestock raised for the production of meat,
milk, eggs, fiber, or used for draft or equestrian purposes, including
but not limited to cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses, mules,
rabbits, and poultry.
13. Exposed to Rabies: An animal has been exposed to rabies within the
meaning of this ordinance if it has been bitten by, or-otherwise come
into contact with, any animal known or suspected to have been
infected with rabies,
14. Harbor: An animal shall be deemed to be harbored if it is fed or
sheltered by the same person or household for seventy -two (72)
consecutive hours or more.
15. Health Department: Orange County Health Department.
16. Health Director: Director of the Orange County Health Department.
17. Keeper: A person having custody of an animal or who keeps or harbors
an animal or who knowingly permits an animal to remain on or about any
premises occupied or controlled by such person.
18. Owner: Any person owning, keeping, having charge of, sheltering,
feeding, harboring or taking care of any animal. The owner of an
animal is responsible for the care, actions, and behavior of the
animal.
19. Person: Any individual, family, group of individuals, corporation,
partnership, organization, or institution recognized by law as a
person.
20. Pet Shop: A person that acquires for the purposes, of resale animals,
excluding domesticated livestock, bred by others whether as owner,
agent, or on consignment, and that sells, trades or offers to sell or
trade such animals at retail or wholesale, or a person that holds or
keeps animals, excluding domesticated livestock, for the purpose of
cleaning or grooming.
5
21. Public Nuisance: Actions deemed prima facie evidence of a public
nuisance include the following activities of an animal, or conditions
maintained or permitted by the animal's owner or keeper:
a) The animal is found at large off the premises of its owner or
keeper and not under the restraint of a competent person.
(b) The animal damages the property of anyone other than its owner or
keeper, including, but not limited to, turning over garbage
containers or damaging gardens, flowers, shrubbery, vegetables or
trees, fences or gates, or causes injury to domesticated
livestock or pets.
(c) The animal habitually and repeatedly barks, whines, or howls so
as to interfere seriously with the reasonable use and enjoyment
by neighboring residents of their property.
(d) The animal repeatedly chases, snaps at, or barks at persons,
domesticated livestock, pets, or vehicles when it is not in an
enclosure, leashed, or on the owner's or keeper's property.
(e) The owner or keeper fails to confine a female dog while in heat
(estrus) in a building or secure enclosure in such a manner that
she will not be in contact with another dog, provided, this
section shall not be construed to prohibit the intentional
breeding of animals within an enclosed area on the premises of
the owner or keeper of an animal involved in the breeding
process.
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
XI(K) and XI(L) 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 from choking or strangling
itself. The restraint of unattended dogs by a fence, kennel, outdoor
enclosure, chain, leash or similar restraint is further regulated
under Sections XI(K) and XI(L) of this ordinance.
6
23. Security Dog: Any dog used, kept or maintained on the premises of its
owner or keeper for the purpose of protecting any person or property.
Any such dog shall be further classified as a patrol dog, sentry dog,
or watchdog..
(a) Patrol dog: A dog that is trained or conditioned to attack or
otherwise respond aggressively, but only upon command from a
handler either off or on lead.
(b) Sentry dog: A dog that is trained or conditioned to attack or
otherwise respond aggressively without command.
(c) Watch dog: A dog that barks and threatens to bite any intruder
that has not been specially trained or conditioned for that
purpose.
24. Steel Jaw Trap: Spring - powered devices or traps which capture or hold
an animal by exerting a lateral force with fix mounted. jaws on the
leg, toe, paw, or any other part of the animal's body.
25. Stray: Any domestic animal that is not under restraint or is not on
the property of its owner and is wandering at large, or is lost, or
does not have an owner, or does not bear evidence of the
identification of any owner.
26. Suspected of Having Rabies: An animal which has bitten a person or
another animal.
27. Veterinary Hospital: Any place or establishment which is maintained
and operated under the supervision of by a licensed veterinarian as a
hospital where animals are harbored, boarded and cared for incidental
to the treatment, prevention or alleviation of disease processes
during the routine practice of the profession of veterinary medicine
for surgery, diagnosis and treatment of diseases and injuries of
animals.
28. Vicious Animal: Any animal on or off the premises of its owner or
keeper, security dog excluded, which animal is three months of age or
older and without provocation has bitten, or killed, or caused
physical harm through bites to people (a person) who are (is) not
trespassing and or has bitten or killed an animal(s) that is (are) not
where its (their) owner(s) has (have) been told such animal(s) cannot
be. Any dog that is owned or harbored for the purpose of dog fighting
or training for dog fighting is also defined as a vicious animal.
Amended 111197, 11118108 (effective 11 119109)
Section VIII- Animal Control Program. The Orange County Animal Control
Program, as herein described and as otherwise described I in other County
7
ordinances related to animals and as otherwise described in the laws of
North Carolina, shall be administered by the Animal Control Director.
Specifically:
A. The Animal Control Director shall designate employees or agents
enforcing this ordinance as Animal Control Officers and Rabies Control
Officers. Animal Cruelty Investigators may be appointed by the Board
of County Commissioners as provided by law. In the performance of
their duties, officers and investigators shall have all the power,
authority, and immunity granted under this ordinance and by the
general laws of this State to enforce the provisions of this
ordinance, and the laws of North Carolina as they relate to the care,
treatment, control or impounding of animals. All investigations of
reported or.observed animal cruelty or animal abuse shall be the joint
responsibility of and shall be jointly carried out by the Animal
Cruelty Investigators and the Animal Control Officers of Orange
County.
B. Except as may be otherwise .provided by law, no officer, agent, or
employee of the County charged with the duty of enforcing the
provisions of this ordinance or other applicable laws, shall be
personally liable for any damage that may accrue to persons or
property as a result of any act required or permitted in the discharge
of such duty unless he or she acts with actual malice.
C. It shall be unlawful for any person to interfere with, hinder, or
molest any Animal Control Officer, Rabies Control Officer, Animal
Cruelty Investigator, police officer while in the performance of any
duty authorized by this ordinance or the Animal Control Program, or to
seek to release any animal in the custody of said agents, except in
the manner as herein provided.
D. Animal Control Officers, Rabies Control Officers and Animal Cruelty
Investigators are not authorized to carry on their person firearms of
any kind except as provided herein. The Orange County Animal Control
Program may store at the Health Department and use firearms when
necessary to enforce sections of this ordinance or under applicable
law for the control of wild, vicious, or diseased animals.
E. The Animal Control Program shall:
1. Have the responsibility along with law enforcement agencies and
where applicable with animal cruelty investigators to enforce all
laws of North Carolina and all ordinances of Orange County
pertaining to animals and shall cooperate with all law
enforcement officers within Orange County in fulfilling this
duty.
2. Enforce and carry out all laws of North Carolina and all
ordinances of Orange County pertaining to rabies control.
8
3. Be responsible for the investigation of all reported animal
bites, for the quarantine of any dog or cat exposed to or
suspected of having rabies, for a period of not less than ten
(10) days, and for reporting to the Health Director as soon as
practicable the occurrence of any such animal bite and the
condition of any quarantined animal.
4. Be responsible for the investigation of reports or observations
of incidents of harassment of or injuries to domesticated
livestock caused by animals.
5. Be responsible for the seizure and arranging for the impoundment,
where deemed necessary, of any dog or other animal in Orange
County involved in a violation of this or any other County
ordinance or state law.
6. Investigate cruelty or abuse with regard to animals independently
or with a duly appointed Animal Cruelty Investigator.
7. Make such investigations or inquiries as necessary for the
purpose of ascertaining compliance with this ordinance or
applicable state statute.
8. Keep, or cause to be kept, accurate and detailed records of:
(a) Seizure, impoundment, and disposition of all animals coming
into the custody of the animal control program.
(b) Bite cases, violations and complaints, and investigation of
same, including names and addresses of persons bitten, date,
circumstances, and breed.
(c) Any other matters deemed necessary by the Animal Control
Director.
9. Be empowered to issue citations or notices of violation of this
ordinance in such form as the Animal Control Director may
prescribe.
10. Have employees who are trained to standards to be established by
the Animal Control Director, which training shall include, but
-- not be limited to, training in animal first aid taught by a
licensed veterinarian.
F. The premises for all Animal Shelters operated by or for the County
shall meet the standards prescribed for commercial (Class II) kennels
set out in Section XIX(A) of this ordinance.
0
G. The standards applicable to vehicles and care in transportation set
out in Sections XX(A)(2)(a) apply to Animal Control Officers
collecting, transporting, or holding animals in this County.
Section IX- Relation to Hunting Laws. Nothing in this ordinance is intended
to be in conflict with the laws of the State of North Carolina regulating,
restricting authorizing or otherwise affecting dogs while used in hunting,
but this exception applies only while the dogs are under the control of the
owner, keeper, or competent person, and are actually lawfully- -being used
for hunting or training for hunting in compliance with applicable statutes,
regulations, or ordinances. This ordinance should be read and enforced
consistent with any such law.
Section X- Notice in Case of Injury. It shall be unlawful for any person
who causes injury to an animal, including but not limited to, running over
or hitting the animal with any vehicle, to fail to notify immediately at
least one of the following:
(1) the owner(s) or keeper(s) of the animal (if known or ascertainable
with reasonable efforts made to locate the owner or keeper),
(2) an Animal Control Officer,
(3) the Sheriff's Department, or
(4) the Animal Shelter.
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. It shall be unlawful for any person to subject or cause to be
subjected any animal to cruel treatment or to deprive or cause to be
deprived any animal of adequate food and water, With respect to
domesticated animals or wild animals in captivity or under restraint,
it shall additionally be unlawful to deprive or cause to be deprived
any such animal of adequate shelter or veterinary care.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale, barter
or give away within the county baby chickens, baby ducklings or other
fowl under six (6)- weeks of age or rabbits under eight (8) weeks of
age as pets, toys, premiums or novelties; provided, however, that this
section shall not be construed to prohibit the sale or display of such
baby chickens, ducklings or other fowl or such rabbits in proper
facilities with adequate food, water, and shelter, by breeders or
stores engaged in the business of selling the animals for purposes
other than as pets or novelties.
10
C. It shall be unlawful to color, dye, stain or otherwise change the
natural color of baby chickens or other fowl or rabbits.
D. It shall be unlawful for any person to tether any fowl.
E. It shall be unlawful to restrain any animal except in a humane fashion
as set forth in Section VII(22) above and Subsection XI(K) below.
F. It shall be unlawful for any person to entice or lure any „animal out
of an enclosure or off the property of its owner or keeper, or to
seize, molest or tease any animal while the animal is held or
controlled by its owner or keeper or while the animal is on or off the
property of its owner or keeper.
G. It shall be unlawful to.possess any paraphernalia related to dog, cock
or other animal fighting, including, but not limited to, gaffs.
H. It shall be unlawful for any person to transport an animal in the
closed trunk of a vehicle, or closed compartment on a vehicle or
trailer when the ambient temperature in the vicinity of the vehicle or
trailer is greater than or equal to 70 degrees F.
I. It shall be unlawful for any person to commit any of the acts made
unlawful under the provisions of North Carolina General Statute
Section 14 -362, as the same relate to a dog or dogs, or to commit any
other act made unlawful by any other law of the State of North
Carolina relating to animal fighting or animal baiting. The repeal of
such law or laws of the State of North Carolina shall have no effect
upon this Section, and the acts herein made unlawful shall, in the
event of such repeal, be those referred to in said law or laws
immediately prior to such repeal.
J. It shall be unlawful for any person to abandon or forsake any animal
within the county.
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, 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. In no event shall the time limitations
established by this subsection 1 and subsection 2 below be added
together to allow for tethering, fastening, chaining, tying, or
11
restraining to either a stationary object or to a cable trolley
system for more than a total of 3 hours in a 24 -hour period.
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 which the 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 perpendicularly
and attached in such a manner as to prevent strangulation or
other injury to the dog and entanglement with objects.
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 body 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.
S. No person shall tether with a chain, wire or other device to a
dog where the weight of the tethering 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 (3) -(6) of this Section XI(K), and subject to the
requirement that any stationary tethering devise used shall be at
least 10 feet in length, and subject to the requirement that for
any cable trolley system used the length of the cable along which
the 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 perpendicularly:
(i) Tether and restrain a dog while actively engaged in:
a. Use of the dog in shepherding or herding livestock, or
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
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
12
trials where tethering does not occur for a period
exceeding 7 consecutive days, or
e. Camping or other recreation where tethering is required
by the camping or recreational area where the dog is
located, or
f. Any activity where a tethered dog is in visual range of
its Owner or Keeper, and the Owner or Keeper is located
outside with the dog.
(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 the 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.
Subsection XI(K) becomes effective one year following the adoption of this
amendment (the "effective date "). Any person who violates this subsection
after the effective date but prior to the expiration of the eighteenth
month following the date this amendment was adopted shall be issued a
written warning giving the violator notice of the provisions of this
amendment. Any person who violates subsection XI(K) after the expiration
of the eighteenth month following the date of the adoption of this
amendment 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) 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
subject 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 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 Animal Control Director that the dog will not be subject
to restraint in violation of this ordinance.
Amended 11118108 (effective 11119109)
Section XII- Control of Vicious Animals; Security Dogs.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep any vicious animal within
the county, unless under restraint and on the premises of the owner or
keeper. Security dogs are subject to all other provisions of this
ordinance while off the premises of their owner or keeper.
13
B. Upon an Animal Control Officer's observation of a vicious animal at
large or off the premises of its owner or keeper and not restrained by
a competent person, such officer shall impound the animal.
C. Upon an Animal Control Officer's receipt of a complaint that an animal
is behaving or has behaved viciously and is at large or off the
premises of its owner or keeper and not restrained by a competent
person, the officer shall investigate the complaint and, upon a
finding that there is probable cause to believe a violation of this
ordinance or other applicable law or regulation has occurred, shall
take any action allowed by this ordinance or State law as the
circumstances may require.
D. All persons owning security dogs that are classed as patrol dogs or
sentry dogs as defined by this ordinance shall register such animals
with the Animal Control Director; the owner or keeper of any dog that
is classed as a patrol dog or sentry dog under this ordinance shall
place a sign or placard on his premises noting "Beware of Dog" or
other information noting the presence of security dog(s).
E. If an animal is impounded as vicious, authorization for reclamation
after any required holding period shall be granted when the Animal
Shelter Manager in consultation with the Animal Control Director is
reasonably assured that the animal is not vicious or the vicious
animal will be properly restrained on the premises of. its owner or
keeper.
Section XIII - Impoundment of Animals.
A. A Domesticated animal impounded under this ordinance may be reclaimed
by its owner or keeper according to the procedures of the Animal
Shelter. The owner or keeper of an impounded domesticated animal
shall be responsible for and shall pay all expenses, boarding costs,
redemption privilege taxes and costs associated with such impoundment
prior to reclaiming the animal. Unless reclaimed, the impounded
domesticated animal may be allowed to be adopted or humanely
euthanized according to Animal Shelter procedures after five (5) days
of impoundment. Feral dogs and cats may be held for 72 hours and then
euthanized pursuant to Animal Shelter procedures for humane
euthanasia. The owner or keeper of an impounded domesticated animal
shall also comply with any vaccination and licensing directives and be
responsible for the payment to Orange County of all civil penalties
and license privilege taxes imposed or associated with the animal's
impoundment as prescribed in any citation or notice issued by the
Animal Control Director. Bite quarantined animals not reclaimed
within 72 hours after the end of the quarantine period will be
considered abandoned and will become the property of the Orange County
Animal Shelter and disposed of according to standard Animal Shelter
procedures.
14
B. In lieu of impoundment, the Animal Control Director is authorized to
issue a confinement order to the animal owner or keeper that would
require the owner. or keeper to confine a vicious animal or an animal
otherwise violating provisions of the ordinance. Failure to thus
confine the animal would constitute a further violation of the
ordinance, subjecting the owner to appropriate criminal or civil
penalties.
Amended 1111195, 1/1/97
Section XIV - Handling of Stray Animals. It shall be unlawful for any
person, without the consent of the owner or keeper, knowingly and
intentionally to harbor, feed, keep in possession by confinement or
otherwise any animal that does not belong to him, unless he has, within
seventy -two (72) hours from the time such animal came into his possession,
notified an Animal Control Officer or the Animal Shelter.
A. Any animal at large may in a humane manner be seized, impounded, and
confined in the Animal Shelter and thereafter adopted out or disposed
of pursuant to procedures of the Animal Shelter and applicable State
law.
B. Impoundment of such an animal shall not relieve the owner or keeper
thereof from any penalty which may be imposed for violation of this
ordinance.
C. Any animal seized and impounded that is badly wounded or diseased and
has no identification, may be destroyed pursuant to procedures of the
Animal Shelter. If the animal has rabies or is suspected of having
rabies, the body shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable
state regulations. If the animal has identification, the Animal
Shelter shall attempt expeditiously to notify the owner or keeper
before euthanizing such animal; in any event, and except as may be
otherwise provided by law, the Animal Shelter and Animal Control
Program shall have no liability for euthanizing wounded or diseased
animals when such action is taken upon the advice or recommendation of
a veterinarian who has been advised of the animal's condition.
Section XV - Public Nuisance. It shall be unlawful for an owner or keeper
to permit an animal or animals to create a public nuisance, or to maintain
a public nuisance, created by an animal or animals. Compliance shall be
required as follows:
A. When an Animal Control Officer or law enforcement officer observes a
violation, the owner or keeper will be provided written notification
of such violation and be given twenty -four (24) hours or less to abate
the nuisance.
15
B. Upon receipt of a written detailed and signed complaint alleging that
any person is maintaining a public nuisance as defined in this
ordinance, the Animal Control Director shall cause the owner or keeper
of the animal or animals in question to be notified that a complaint
has been received, and shall cause the situation complained upon to be
investigated and a written report thereon to be prepared.
C. If the written findings indicate that the complaint is justified, the
Animal Control Director shall cause the owner or keeper of the animal
or animals in question to be notified in writing, and shall order
abatement of such nuisance within twenty _ four -(24) hours or such
lesser amount of time which shall be designated on the abatement
order.
D. If, after twenty =four (24) hours or such lesser time as is designated
in the abatement order the nuisance is not abated, the animal creating
the nuisance may be impounded or a civil penalty may be issued and /or
a criminal summons may be issued.
Amended 1/1/97
Section XVI- Rabies Control. It shall be unlawful and a violation of this
ordinance for any animal owner, keeper or other person to fail to comply
with the laws of North Carolina relating to the control of rabies.
Amended 711108
Section XVII - Rabies Tag—. All dogs and cats shall wear a valid rabies
tag.
Amended 1111195, 111197, 7/1/08
Section XVIII - Applicability to Veterinarians. Hospitals, clinics and
other premises operated by licensed veterinarians for the care and
treatment of animals are exempt from the provisions of this ordinance
except for the provisions relating to cruelty to animals and rabies
control.
Section XIX - Kennel Standards.
A. Standards for Class II Kennels. All commercial kennels shall, in
addition to the other requirements of this ordinance, comply with the
minimum standards of this subsection. Owners or operators of Class II
kennels must apply to the Animal Control Director, pay any designated
fee, and receive a permit to own or operate a Class II commercial
kennel in Orange County. Facilities shall be subject to inspection
during reasonable hours by an Animal Control Officer upon his or her
16
request. A fee in the amount of $25.00 shall be assessed against the
Owners or Operators of a facility for failing to permit an inspection
pursuant to this subsection in order to defray the costs of repeat
travel to the facility. Failure to meet the standards set out herein
shall be grounds for the issuance of a citation subjecting the owner
to the penalties described herein, and /or the issuance of an abatement
order to comply with the provisions of this ordinance. The premises
of commercial kennels shall meet the following standards:
1. Buildings or enclosures must be provided which shall allow
adequate protection against extreme weather conditions. Floors
of buildings and runs, and walls shall be of a nonporous material
or otherwise constructed as to permit proper cleaning and
disinfecting. Temperatures in animal containment's shall be
maintained at a level that is healthful for every species of
animal in the containment.
2. Cages, kennels, or runs shall have sufficient space for each
animal to sit, stand up, lie down, turn around, and stretch out
to its full length without touching the sides or tops of the
cage, kennel, or run. Cages, kennels, and runs are to be of a
material and construction that permits cleaning and disinfecting,
and shall have an impervious surface. Cage, kennel, and run
floors of concrete shall have resting board or some type of
bedding. Cages, kennels, and runs shall provide protection from
the weather. All animal quarters are to be kept clean, dry, and
in a sanitary condition. Cages, kennels, and runs shall be
structurally sound and maintained in good repair to protect
animals from potential injury, contain the animals, and restrict
the entrance of other animals and people.
3. Animals shall not be placed in cages, kennels, or runs unless
such cages, kennels, or runs are so constructed to prevent animal
excreta from entering other cages, kennels, or runs.
4. Sufficient shade shall be provided to allow all animals kept
outdoors to protect themselves from the direct rays of the sun.
5. Each animal shall be given the opportunity for vigorous daily
exercise as appropriate.
6. Litter boxes shall be provided for cats and kittens.
7. Food shall not be contaminated, and shall be wholesome,
palatable, and of sufficient quantity and nutritive value and
offered at appropriate intervals to meet the normal daily
requirements for the condition, size, and age of the animal.
Food for all animals shall be served in a clean container so
mounted that the animals cannot readily tip it over or defecate
or urinate in it.
17
8. Supplies of food and bedding shall be stored in facilities which
adequately protect such supplies against infestation or
contamination by vermin. Refrigeration shall be provided for
supplies of perishable food.
9. All animals shall have fresh, drinkable water available at all
times. Water containers shall be of removable type and be
mounted or secured so that the animals cannot readily tip it over
or defecate or urinate in them.
10. All food and water containers shall be cleaned and disinfected
daily.
11. All animals must be fed and watered, cages and kennels cleaned
each day, including Sundays and holidays.
12. Adequate veterinary care shall be provided as needed for each
animal.
13. Provisions shall be made for the removal and disposal of animal
and food waste, bedding and debris.
14. Facilities such as a washroom, sink, or basin shall be provided
to maintain cleanliness among animal caretakers and animal food
and water containers.
15. Facilities for animals shall be adequately ventilated to provide
for the health and comfort of the animals at all times. Such
facilities shall be provided with fresh air, either by means of
windows, doors, vents, or air conditioning and shall be
ventilated so as to minimize drafts, odors, and moisture
condensation.
16. Facilities for animals shall have ample light by natural or
artificial means or both, of good quality and well distributed
and as appropriate for each animal's health and well being. Such
lighting shall provide uniformly distributed illumination of
sufficient light intensity to permit routine inspection and
cleaning during the entire working period. Enclosures shall be so
placed as to protect the animals from excessive illumination.
_ 17. Every person maintaining such a facility shall post a notice
clearly visible from the ground level at the main entrance to the
facility containing the names, addresses, and telephone numbers
of persons responsible for the facility where they may be
contacted during any hour of the day or night.
18
B. Standards for Class I Kennels. All non - commercial kennels shall, in
addition to other requirements of this ordinance, comply with the
minimum standards of this subsection. Owners or operators of Class I
kennels must apply to the Animal Control Director, pay any designated
privilege tax and receive a permit to own or operate a non - commercial
kennel in Orange County. Facilities shall be subject to inspection
during reasonable hours by the Animal Control Officers upon his or her
request. Failure to meet these standards set out herein shall be
grounds for the issuance of a citation subjecting the owner to the
penalties described herein, and /or the issuance of an abatement order
to comply with the provisions of this ordinance. The premises at non-
commercial kennels shall meet the following standards:
1. All enclosures housing animals must provide adequate shelter.
2. The food shall be. free from contamination, wholesome, palatable
and of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to meet the normal
daily requirements for the condition and size of the animal.
3. All animals shall have fresh water available at all times.
4. All areas housing animals shall be free of accumulated waste and
debris and shall be maintained regularly so as to promote proper
health.
5. All areas housing animals shall be free of accumulated or
standing water.
6. All animals housed shall be provided with proper veterinary care
to promote good health.
C. Standards for Pet Shops. All pet shops, as defined herein, including
pet shops run in conjunction with another animal facility, shall, in
addition to the other requirements.of this ordinance, comply with the
minimum standards of this section. Failure to meet these standards
shall be grounds for the issuance of a citation subjecting the owner
to the penalties described herein, and /or the issuance of an abatement
order to comply with the provisions of this ordinance. Owner or
operators of pet shops must apply to the Animal Control Director, pay
any designated privilege tax and receive a permit to own or operate a
pet shop in Orange County. Facilities shall be subject to inspection
during reasonable hours by the Animal Control Officer or other
appropriate representative of the Animal Control Officer or other
appropriate representative of the Animal Protection Program upon his
or her request. The premises for pet shops shall meet the following
standards:
1. There shall be available hot water at a minimum temperature of
140 degrees Fahrenheit for washing cages and disinfecting, and
cold water easily accessible to all parts of the shop.
19
2. Fresh water shall be available to. all species at all times.
Containers are to be cleaned and disinfected each day. All water
containers shall be removable for cleaning and be mounted so the
animal cannot turn them over or defecate in them.
3. The temperature of the area around the animal enclosures in the
shop shall be maintained at a level that is healthful for every
species of animals kept in the shop.
4. All cages and enclosures are to be of a nonporous material for
easy cleaning and disinfecting. Each cage must be of sufficient
size that the animal will have room to stand, turn, lie down, and
stretch out to its full length without touching the sides, or
tops of the enclosure, and floors of sufficient strength and
design to ensure the animal's limbs or paws cannot pass through
the floor material.
5. All animals under three (3) months of age are to be fed at least
two (2) times per twenty -four (24) hours. Food for all animals
shall be free from contamination, wholesome, palatable and of
sufficient quantity and nutritive value to meet the normal daily
requirements for the condition and size of the animal. Food for
all animals shall be served in a clean dish so mounted that the
animal cannot readily tip it over and be of the removable type.
6. Each bird must have a perch and sufficient room to sit on a
perch. Perches shall be placed horizontal to each other in the
same cage. Cages and perches must be cleaned every day and cages
must be disinfected when birds are sold or as otherwise
transferred. Parrots and other large birds shall have separate
cages from smaller birds.
7. There shall be sufficient clean, dry bedding to meet the needs of
each individual animal. Provision shall be made for the removal
and disposal of animal and food waste, bedding and debris, to
assure the enclosure is maintained in a clean and sanitary
manner.
B. All animals must be fed, watered, and all cages cleaned every
day, including Sundays and holidays.
Amended 311188, 111197, 1213107 (effective 711108)
Section XX - Permits and Standards for Animal Collection.
A. A permit for the collecting - of dogs and cats for sale shall be
required before any individual may engage in any action in Orange
County in furtherance of any action involving or relating to the
20
collection or procurement of dogs and cats for sale or disposal. A
permit allowing such actions will be issued only upon payment of a
privilege tax set by the County Commissioners and demonstration by the
applicant that the following requirements shall be met:
1. Permit Application:
a. An application for a collection permit shall be made by each
and every individual involved in the collecting of dogs
and /or cats in Orange County for the purpose of sale or
other disposal. Any such application for the above
mentioned purpose shall have to be made to the Animal
Control Director on a form prescribed by the Animal Control
Director.
b. An investigation may then be conducted by the Animal Control
Director which may include inspection of the premises where
the animals are to be kept and any vehicles in which animals
are to be transported. A fee in the amount of $25.00 shall
be assessed against an applicant or permit holder for
failing to permit an inspection pursuant to this subsection
in order to defray the costs of repeat travel.
C. Upon the determination by the Animal Control Director or
person duly authorized by the Animal Control Director that
the requirements of these regulations have been met and are
capable of continuing to be met during the duration of the
permit, a permit for no more than one (1) year shall be
issued, upon payment of applicable privilege taxes, to the
individual applicant only for the specific individual
applicant, premises, and vehicles listed on the application.
d. Application for a permit renewal is the responsibility of
the permit holder and shall be made no later than thirty
(30) days prior to the expiration of the current permit.
Failure to reapply prior to the 30 -day limit may result in a
civil penalty.
e. No individual shall be issued a collection permit unless:
1. the individual is properly licensed by- the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and /or N.C. Department of
Agriculture and such license is unsuspended and
unrevoked;
2. the individual complies with the Orange County Animal.
Control Ordinance and all other applicable laws and
regulations;
3. all requirements of this section have been met.
21
f. The following information shall be provided on or
with the application for a collection permit:
1. the name, address, and telephone number of the
applicant;
2. U.S. Department of Agriculture and /or N.C. Department
of Agriculture license number under which the applicant
operates;
3. a basic description of the applicant's background,
including but not limited to all licenses he may have
had for handling or keeping of animals, and all arrests
or convictions involving any matter or law in any way
pertaining to animals;
4. a complete description, including vehicle
identification number and vehicle license number of
each and every vehicle which will be used to collect
and /or transport animals;
5. the address and location where the a animals will be
kept or maintained for the five days after collection.
2. Permit Requirements:
a. No permit shall be issued or remain valid unless the Animal
Control Director or person duly authorized by the Animal
Control Director is satisfied that both the vehicles in
which the animals will be collected and transported and /or
the premises where the animals will be housed meet the
following requirements:
1. Premises. All premises shall meet the same standards
as set for Class II commercial kennels in Section XIX
of this ordinance.
2. Vehicles:
a. Vehicles used to transport animals must be
mechanically sound and equipped to provide fresh
air to all animals without harmful drafts.
-- b. The sections of the vehicles where the animals are
placed are to be constructed and maintained so
that engine exhaust fumes cannot get to the
animals.
22
C. The sections of the vehicles where the animals are
to be-kept should be cleaned and disinfected after
each use and as needed.
3. Enclosures In or On Vehicles:
a. Enclosures (including compartments or cages,
cartons, or crates) used to transport animals are
to be well constructed, well ventilated, and
designed in such a way to protect the health and
insure the safety of the animals.
b. These enclosures must be constructed or placed on
the vehicles so that:
(i) every animal in the vehicle has sufficient
fresh air for normal breathing,
(ii) the openings of these enclosures must be
easily accessible for emergency removals at
all times,
(iii)the animals must be adequately protected from
the elements, including heat and cold.
(iv) the animals must be adequately protected from
one another.
C. Only animals of the same species shall be
transported in the same enclosure. Puppies and
kittens under six (6) months of age shall not be
transported in the same enclosure with adult
animals, other than their mother.
d. Each enclosure used to transport animals shall be
large enough for each animal to stand erect, sit,
turn about freely and lie down in a normal
position.
e. Animals shall not be placed in enclosures over
other animals while being transported unless each
enclosure is so constructed to prevent animal
excreta from entering the other enclosures.
f. All enclosures used to transport animals shall be
disinfected after each use and as needed.
4. Care in Transit:
23
L:M
a. The attendant or driver shall be responsible for
inspecting the animals frequently enough to assure
the health and comfort of the animals and to
determine if emergency care is needed and to
obtain said emergency care if needed.
b. If any animal is in a vehicle for more than three
(3) hours, it shall be provided fresh, drinkable
water, and food as appropriate.
C. Each animal in transit shall have a tag affixed to
its collar of a type approved by the United States
Department of Agriculture.
3. Records:
a. Every person who sells, gives, exchanges, or otherwise
delivers any animal to a collector must receive from the
collector a written receipt, a copy of which is to be kept
by the collector, signed by both the owner or keeper and the
collector, stating the following:
1. the number of animals received by the collector;
2. the sex, breed, and a general description of each
animal received and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
number assigned to each animal;
3. the name, address, and telephone number of the location
to which the animal will be taken for the following
five (5) days;
4. the name, address, and telephone number of the
collector;
5. the name, address, and telephone number of the person
surrendering the animal.
b. A written report containing the above information shall be
delivered by the person collecting the animals to the Animal
Shelter within twenty -four (24) hours of the surrender of
the animal.
C. A record shall be kept of the disposition of every animal
which is collected.
d. Every collector shall maintain a copy of all receipts and
disposition records for one (1) year.
A quality assurance program to ensure adherence to these
24
standards shall be carried out within the Animal Control Division.
C. The Animal Control Director shall be responsible for the full and
proper application of this policy. Questions concerning the
applicability or interpretation of this policy shall be the
responsibility of the Animal Control Director.
Amended 311188, 1213107 (effective 7/1/08)
Section XXI - -Penalties. The following penalties shall pertain
to violations of this ordinance.
A. The violation of any provision of this ordinance shall be a
misdemeanor and any person convicted of such violation shall be
punishable as provided in North Carolina General Statute Section 14 -4,
or other applicable law. Each day's violation of this ordinance is a
separate offense. Payment of a fine imposed in criminal proceedings
pursuant to this subsection does not relieve a person of his liability
for taxes, fees or civil penalties imposed under this ordinance.
B. Enforcement of this ordinance may include any appropriate equitable
remedy, injunction or order of abatement issuing from a court of
competent jurisdiction pursuant to North Carolina General Statute
Section 153A -123 (d) and (e).
C. In addition to and independent of any criminal penalties and other
sanctions provided in this ordinance, a violation of this ordinance
may also subject the offender to the civil penalties hereinafter set
forth.
1. The Animal Control Director may issue to the known owner or
keeper of any animal, or to any other violator of the provisions
of this ordinance, a ticket or citation giving notice of the
alleged violation(s) and of the civil penalty imposed. Tickets
or citations so issued may be delivered in person or mailed by
first class mail to the person charged if that person cannot
readily be found. The following civil penalties shall be
assessed for each violation of this ordinance.
Mistreatment of Animals (Section XI) $200.00
The civil penalty for a nuisance violation (Section XV)
shall be as follows:
Number of Prior
Nuisance Violations
1
25
Amount
$ 50.00
2 $100.00
3 $200.00
4 $300.00
5 $400.00
This civil penalty, shall be paid to the Animal Control Director
or his or her designee within fourteen (14) days of receipt.
This civil penalty is in addition to any other fees, taxes, costs
or fines imposed that are authorized by this ordinance.
2. In the event that the applicable civil penalty is not paid within
the time period prescribed, a civil action may be commenced to
recover the penalty and costs associated with collection of the
penalty, and /or a criminal summons may be issued against the
owner or keeper or other alleged. violator of this ordinance, and
upon conviction, the owner shall be punished as provided by State
law. Failure on the part of the owner or keeper of an animal or
other alleged violator to pay the applicable civil penalty within
the time period prescribed is unlawful and a violation of the
ordinance. The civil - penalty for violation of this subsection is
Twenty -Five Dollars (25.00), except where the original violation
was for Failure to Vaccinate for Rabies in which case the civil
Penalty for violation of this subsection is One Hundred Dollars
($100.00).
Amended 311188, 1111195, 111197, 1213107 (effective 711108)
Section XXII - Severability. If any
invalid, such part shall be deemed
shall not affect the remaining parts.
part of this ordinance shall be held
severable and the invalidity thereof
Section XXIII - Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective January
1, 1988. Adopted this the 16th day of June, 1987. Upon motion of
Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Hartwell, the foregoing Animal
Control Ordinance was adopted this the 16th day of June, 1987.
Amended:03 11188, 11101195, 01101197
26
G6
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, are accurately reflected in the
Comprehensive Plan document prior to printing copies, and that any errors found in the future
will be brought forward promptly to the Commissioners and corrected.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Carey to
approve Commissioner Cordon's revisions, as shown above, and to approve the resolution, as
amended by Commissioner Gordon. Chair Jacobs made reference to page 3 of 32, item 11,
and the sentence about people with above average incomes making below average demands
on public services. He asked that this sentence be deleted. Also, on page 37 and the
statement about sustainability, he read some of his own revisions: "Orange County must move
toward becoming a sustainable community. We seek to develop a community that addresses
the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of the future generation
to meet their needs." He suggested deleting the next sentence about emerging consensus.
Commissioner Nelson and Commissioner Carey agreed with these changes.
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to update its Comprehensive Plan
for
the future development and preservation of Orange County;
WHEREAS, the Board authorized a timetable and process for the development of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan;
WHEREAS, the Commissioners established a team of County advisory boards, staff, and
consultants to prepare the Plan, held public hearings and information meetings to hear citizen
comments, and conducted work sessions on a draft Comprehensive Plan;
WHEREAS, the Planning Board at its October 1, 2008 meeting unanimously recommended
adoption of the draft Comprehensive Plan to include its proposed revisions that have been
conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners;
WHEREAS, the Board reviewed the draft Comprehensive Plan, public comments received
during the public hearing process, and the Planning Board's proposed revisions;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners that the Board hereby adopts the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as contained in
the May 6, 2008 draft, with revisions as reflected in Attachments 1 and 2, "Table of BOCC
Accepted Planning Board Revisions" and "Table of BOCC Additional Revisions ", respectively,
and with additional revisions made by the Board of County Commissioners at the November
18, 2008 meeting (revisions presented by Commissioner Gordon and Chair Jacobs); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County staff will work to ensure that the revisions, as
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, are accurately reflected in the
Comprehensive Plan document prior to printing copies, and that any errors found in the future
will be brought forward promptly to the Commissioners and corrected.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment Restricting the Tethering of Dogs
- Second Reading
The Board considered adopting on second reading the proposed amendment to the
Orange County Animal Ordinance restricting the tethering of dogs.
Animal Services Director Bob Marotto introduced this item. He summarized the
ordinance. The timetable for the proposed ordinance is the same, with public outreach for one
year and for the next six months only oral warnings would be issued. The staff will come back
on December 11th with a more developed plan for public relations and a plan of evaluation.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Amanda Stipe read a statement from the Durham Kennel Club.
Orange County Commissioners;
Comprised of over 250 members, more than 40 which live in Orange County, the
Durham Kennel Club (DKC) has been promoting the care and welfare of North Carolina's dogs
for over 39 years. Through owner education and community involvement, the DKC has striven
for the betterment of all dogs, regardless of their background. The DKS officially opposes
legislation limiting the rights of responsible dog owners to keep dogs in a humane manner,
including anti - tether legislation. Where there are already laws in place dealing with neglect
and animal cruelty, there is no need for further legislation to address the same issues.
The Orange County Animal Cruelty ordinance currently in place states:
All animals in Orange County are required to have the following:
- Adequate food - animals should be fed with foodstuff that is nutritious and suitable
for the species and age group. Such foodstuff shall be provided at least every 24
hours and served in a clean receptacle, dish, or container that is free of
contaminants that maybe injurious to the health of the animal.
- Adequate water- animals must receive constant access to a supply of clean, fresh
water provided in a sanitary manner.
- Adequate shelter- non - aquatic animals shall be provided shelter which will keep
them dry, out of the direct path of winds and the sun, and at a temperature level
that is healthful for the animal. The animal containment area shall be free of
accumulated waste and debris so that the animal can walk or lie down without
coming in contact with any such waste or debris, and a suitable method of draining
shall be provided to eliminate rapidly excess water or moisture.
- Aquatic animals shall be an adequate amount of clean water in which to move.
http: / /www.co. orange. nc. us /animalservices /occruelty.asp
Considering that it is entirely possible, indeed easy, to tether a dog while meeting all of
the stated requirements above, it is contradictory to define tethering in and of itself an act of
cruelty punishable by law. Dogs tethered in a manner inconsistent with existing laws are
already protected under said laws. We support the cruelty laws as they stand now and fully
condone continued efforts to enforce them against those that choose not to comply. Those
dog owners who keep their dogs responsibly on tethers, meeting all the requirements of the
law, should not be penalized for the negligent actions of those who choose not to abide by the
law.
Every "Issue" broached in the proposed anti - tether legislation is already addressed by
the current animal cruelty laws: adequate shelter, veterinary care, food and water, waste
removal, etc. Anti - tether bills, such as this one are couched in emotional appeals, and
personal anecdotes, rather than being based on factual evidence. Pictures of starving puppies
on logging chains are used to sell a horror story, one not representative of the norm, to
sympathetic dog lovers, the majority of which keep their dogs strictly inside as house dogs. It
is entirely possible to tether a dog responsibly in a manner consistent with, and even above
and beyond, all existing levels of mandatory care. Whether an outdoor dog lives in a kennel or
on a tether, the obligation exists to keep the dog responsibly, which is contingent upon a
combination of love, and common sense - neither of which can be created through legislation.
Regards,
The 250+ members of the Durham Kennel Club
7318 Guess Road
http: / /durhamkennelclub.com/
Brian Fee referred to at story in the Chapel Hill News where five people from Orange
County were asked if they supported an anti - tethering ordinance. Four of the five said that the
County should not have a role in this. There was no mention of abuse from the citizens. He
said that Orange County citizens expect that the County Commissioners see information from
all sides. He thinks that the original goal of the committee was to reduce dog abuse and
neglect. However, he believes that the County Commissioners have been influenced by the
Coalition to Unchain Dogs. He said that not one person on the Tethering Committee was pro -
tethering. He said that the whole process is stacked against citizens that chain their dogs. He
does not think that the County Commissioners have listened to the Orange County citizens.
He said that he wrote a Letter to the Editor about this issue.
Ellen Whitaker is a member of the Coalition to Unchain Dogs. She said that there are
certain things about tethering that are not covered in the anti - cruelty laws. She said that this
ordinance will be enforced by complaints only, so people who responsibly tether their dogs do
not need to worry.
Chair Jacobs said that he hoped that the information about tethering restrictions would
accompany license renewals for animals.
Bob Marotto clarified that the ordinance would apply to the unincorporated areas of
Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough and would not apply in Chapel Hill, Carrboro, or
Mebane.
Commissioner Foushee said that she will oppose this ordinance as amended because
she feels that it will impose a hardship on a large number of law - abiding citizens who very
responsibly and lovingly care for their dogs.
A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Carey to
approve adopting on second reading the proposed amendment to the Orange County Animal
Ordinance restricting the tethering of dogs.
VOTE: Ayes, 4; No, 1 (Commissioner Foushee)
c. Third Party Presence in the Employee Disciplinary Process
The Board considered a possible amendment to the Orange County Personnel
Ordinance Article IX, Section 4d(1); third party presence or representation for eligible
employees at apre - disciplinary conference involving demotion, suspension or termination.
COPY
ORANGE COUNTY
-BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 22, 2008
664?JO -,:;ZD0� 104.z_
Z wi_'6�
�
Action Agenda
Item No. .4
SUBJECT: Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dogs
DEPARTMENT: Animal Services
PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Proposed Ordinance Amendment INFORMATION CONTACT:
Staff Summary of Concerns Expressed at Bob Marotto, Director, Animal Services
Previous BOCC Meetings 968 -2287
• Main Themes and Views, For and
Against
• Summary of Minutes, For and Against
• Excerpts From BOCC Meeting Minutes
PURPOSE: For the Board of County Commissioners to discuss the proposed ordinance
amendment to the Orange County Animal Ordinance restricting the tethering of dogs and, as
needed, outline any additional steps required for decision making.
BACKGROUND: The BOCC has received considerable information about the tethering
amendment proposed by the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB) based upon the research
and report of the Tethering Committee. However, Commissioners have not had an opportunity
to discuss critical elements of the proposed tethering amendment among themselves given the
considerable input received at the public hearing, on tethering and a subsequent meeting at
which additional input was received.
At its November 13, 2007 work session, the BOCC reviewed the Final Report and
Recommendations of the Tethering Committee, and requested a proposed ordinance
amendment be drafted by the County Attorney's office, in consultation with the Animal Services
staff, and presented for consideration. The amendment drafted by staff and revised by the
ASAB includes the following restrictions on the tethering and alternative containment of dogs:
• No more than a total of 3 hours of tethering within a 24 -hour period
• A speclfication of the types of collars and equipment permissible for allowed tethering
• A requirement for minimum kennel sizes
• An exemption for certain organized and lawful animal functions
The proposed amendment is formulated so there is an 18 -month implementation period to
ensure effective public outreach and encourage voluntary compliance. An initial twelve month
period will consist of public outreach activities aimed at promoting awareness of the new
restrictions on tethering and requirements of altemative containment In addition, the
2
2
amendment stipulates only warnings would be issued for lack of compr'rance with the tethering
restrictions during the six -month period following the date the ordinance actually becomes
effective. - '
In response to direction received from the BOCC at its fag work session, Animal Services staff
sought to ensure broad awareness of the proposed tethering ordinance. In preparation for a
public hearing at the May 20°i, 2008, BOCC meeting, staff issued media advisories and posted
flyers to ensure interested parties were aware of and invited to participate in the public hearing.
In addition, a set of frequently asked questions (FAQ) was developed and posted on the Animal
Services website ao://www.co.oraLige.nc.usfanim , along with the proposed
amendment, the Tethering Comm'ittee's full report, and the staff document recommending
kennel sizes.
At the May 2& BOCC public hearing, over twenty-five citizens spoke, offering diverse and
varied opinions. It was clear there were very strong feelings on both sides of the issue. Many
of the issues expressed at the meeting had been previously heard by the Tethering Committee
during public input meetings. Exceptions for'escaps ariisY' doge and hunting or sporting dogs
were considered, but ultimately decided against by the Tethering Committee because they 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.
At the end of the May 20"'public hearing, the BOCC decided to reschedule tethering as an
agenda item for their June 3 meeting so there would be ample opportunity for them to consider
and reflect upon different viewpoints, as well as. the work of the Tethering Committee and
ASAB. In many respects, the June 3'd BOCC meeting mirrored the public hearing itself. No
fewer members of the public spoke than at the public hearing and again they expressed strong
and contradictory' views. As a result of the sheer volume of testimony, the Board was not able
to discuss the agenda item heft
At the and of testimony presented at the June 3'd meeting, the BOCC indicated the issue of
tethering would be brought back in September. Thus tethering is again being scheduled as an
agenda item with the expectation the BOCC will have the internal discussion that is an essential
step in its decision - raking process. In this way, the BOCC will be able to consider the
proposed tethering ordinance, Its critical elements and their justification, opinions heard from
members of the public as well as the recommendation of the ASAB and Tethering Committee.
To facilitate preparation for BOCC discussion, Animal Services staff has summarized the
concerns expressed by individuals who spoke for and against tethering at the May 2& and
June 3'd BOCC meetings. In addition to the proposed ordinance itself, this summary, and the
documents upon which it is based, are provided as attachments. Additional supporting
documents are available in hard copy at the Clerk's Office or at. the Animal Services website
( hW:// www. co .oranae.nc.ustanimalservices). These include the Abstracts for May -2e, 2008
BOCC Public Hearing and June 3, BOCC Meeting; the Tethering Committee's Rna/ Report &
Recommendations; an Animal Services Staff Memorandum Recommending Minimum Kennel
Size Requirements; Tethering Committee Meeting Summaries; and ASAB Minutes from
Meetings with Discussion on Tethering.
Related recent developments in Durham County deserve summary in this abstract On
September e, 2008, Durham's Board of County Commissioner adopted an amendment to the
County's animal control ordinances that limits tethering effective January 1, 2010. Under the
3
ordinance, tethering will be outlawed with several exceptions. The exceptions include `lawful
dog activities,' `shepherding'or herding livestock,' `meeting the requirements of a camping or
recreational area; and situations In which a caretaker is outside and within eyesight of a
tethered dog.
In addition, the Durham ordinance also establishes space requirements for outdoor enclosures.
Pen space for a dog less than 20 pounds must be a minimum of 100 unobstructed square feet,
and for dogs more than 20 pounds, it must be -a minimum of 200 unobstructed square feet.
Between now and the implementation of the ordinance at the beginning of 2010 there will be a
coordinated campaign for public outreach and education. Also, only warnings will be issued for
the first six months after implementation; citations will not be issued until July 1, 2010,
Durham Commissioners voted 4 to 1 in favor of the amendmenk Those in favor indicated the
amendment was justified for humane reasons and because the prohibition of tethering would
improve community life in a variety of ways such as curbing barking and reducing dog bites.
The Commissioner who voted against the amendment questioned whether tethering had been
demonstrated to be a problem and also expressed concerns there were no provisions to help
low-income pet owners build alternative enclosures.
On August, 2e, 2008, the Durham County Board of Commissioners held a public hearing on
the proposed amendment following its introduction at are earlier Work Session. More than
seventy -five citizens spoke and reports indicate that an overwhelming majority spoke in favor of
the amendment The proposed amendment was formulated by Durham County's Animal
Control Advisory Board in coordination with the County's Animal Control Program.
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 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 identify the necessary follow-up to facilitate
its decision- making process.
4
4
AlV MNI)b ENTS TO THE
ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
(Only those sections or subsections amended are set out below)
BE IT.ORDA RM BY THE BOARD OF COhOMSIONERS OF ORANGE
COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, hereby amends the Ordinance To Provide For Animal
Control Protection Ia 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 vetmit in 'accordance with Subsections
XtfKl and XI�LI of this ingn, 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 dating the time the animal is in the company of and
undo 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 ash 1 be either on a swivel designed to prevent die animal
5
fiom aholdng or strangling itself; The MMMWt of mwa nwkd does by a
f m laM CL_ or similu mWil ' MMIWd
dudes 9=M MM and XLR) of this gmAn* L
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. ...
A ...
R It shall be unlawful to restrain any animal except in a humane fashiont
t out jggbjn Section V M) above:_j2d S
XM and 2QM below.
F. ...
G. ...
IL ...
L
L ...
I IIJ twl } It; I It; ri•1Y. 1 RIJ WJ♦ 111111 F111 �-�ILot
II If; k; %t1II11} {IRfIN 11If 7111 I19JIPW[I}V'A1:]I
7T, 777111-17—M : i 7 I I Y! is 1 1 1 1 I
I}�1 �jl / :11 J X11_.•1 ill • IJ .yt.
1 � .! t•11] 1 1
�71r?1 } 1 ! / h� lI] II 1Jt n? } 1 i•�1 -.
- �II�11 1 11 :I _� } •� 1 } : /tl 11111 1}
I 1 71 X11 11_:_ IIi 1/' 1 1 11 1
II -i
MM M.
�71taI } {IIS:I I�I�}rlJ i•J111 _'x}1.1111 �'�IZIIJ
I1�1 IF :1 F pp", I [ �. .1 1_• 1
n u; � •�; niU - '11,411 1 n,-
� • i I}_ �1 X11 •] 1} - ►v% 1 • 1 •
t'7.—,AF. 754 F, ts
IUJ11 II - :_1 � 1111 -j1 11 •1f_ -. �
1 u- 11,x_. ,jilt 1 IY. 1111 �} /1 1 r•IC• Jib! li^!• •IS•'! ■ef•1 "o��t��I•.z.•1•_ - :va
11 1 :1 A/ } I) { IJ �; • 11 I_-1
1 I
ll _• :. 1 �:;I } :. �1.�. .
._ �It1 ,..yi1� r�... �_ IJ •]t• I '' {.1 :I
\ / 1y t..1)1 i I
IJ 11,x' '/ 11 1 :1 I :/. t. • 1 11 � •_ /
' 1 7M 11 W77711 17 1 11_- 7711 I I Lao iA/ %
%IO 1}i" •
11 - 1 • • �1�1 � 1 'J 1
1 \ 1 1.!'l.�I�i _i —_ I
I�IIi� �/ 11 1 :1 1 1] ' /_t. I� • Ili; I
orki 191 I : 1 1 tl 1 •��•, 1 / • 11 • :
:.Y 1�• : I .•11 :_f- 1,I_ ' :_I� 1 1
_ \ I -a/ 11 � 11 I._I ' I
IJ s- Ill/ I i m If 71 • y11 7_77I Ij} • : 011-1
1107-761 a Ill. : a G4{I,u1 I 11 -7 'I 1/ may !1 11 •
•)t/ / 7 IJI 1 7t_/;.,�y} IJ I_. r 1� 1 �
�i yr� 1
1� 11 s
s 1 . 1 ;JI 1 jtll 1 • 1' 1 yt1111 \ .7
1]t•�III_y /, 1
11 l�yll: } I tom? -v� (.r.• I
,� • 1) 1
1_I 1 : : /ll 1 Itl 1 1 : 1 1 �. 11
1 • 11 I
I,I ' :1 • I • Ilj%1 1 1 •� 1.4� {I.11 }. %11 y-
}_ 1_11 1 1
1]11 1 •� 111 f�1 1 1 - 1 It : 1 1 • 1��
�=1 111110 1�I - t.
i73djirlft;; -iI iilllIT, A1111401W:rur.JtIi;II yam: %IUIII
=77, C77aMM
7 1J • m 11 - 1 : M. RMI r.
11 y 1�
�+I)IIIII RI[--;I RIJ *:II1- 211t:Is 11_I I--W:1 I WA 1�-� S, +JI WA1Jam'/IIJI i1r:i.f1n L� 9IJ0 1I��d
�. :11 1 1,1: nI,I r. ■ +, 1 '/11.111 1., a I .I.Ir A M.- : 1. I •.'11 �. ./�
its) III1) {II■II t4l,k I It; Il 1rjr. ISttallL 3a.11JiS;lAl+JI Kai W-!I+1It, %Y�IS+J 11v:71111715'11n�-� lr:+j of.-M
+ :. ai�Sl ! 74s►J U_�1 11- 11,. IJ (� _III ! _ .. 7 _ J �� ft + 1 +� II,UI +J I:I.
+)I
_IIII�If 1!4 _.-1 ! rr+J l+ %. I_.__ '/. 11 :YAw1 IJI .4II. I) ir, I__: 11_SU 0 1 :I IM I 11111 WI a_..1 t of ! - _1_-
:..1 1.1_ -- 07!_171 oil 7-y I+J A 7+ 1_1 :.:11I 7Ls U,_- 11 1!1 ' :I. ! +� 1. ;jl_IJ �y (+ 711F1. 1
1 I + :11 IJI 1 ire 11 A1_ I I.:IIiY- _Ijl 11, 1J � . IIJ ..1 : I. Ill - !-I 1 r Its
1
IPJ1 •_ I!. �J•. /1 �+ 1J 1 r.�ly� 1 11. -. 1 f 1 - � :_� / : :11 1 1.11 II - 1_1 :L._. ..d !�+
1.: yt;. - 1! ? II
1 + I A II VA I1- It illy! �1 11 11 17407-11 I) d 11
i 11 II.3. !Jl ii+ �J -SSy !i II__ 11_ �+' •�_ !Il �_ y11 qM 11 7771i91 _J .11 IJI Il II_
9
9
Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel BEL NC 27516 (919) 968 -2287
The following documents have been prepared by Animal Services staff based upon
�muved mimrtes from Board of County Commissioner WCC) meetings on May 2&
and Jame 3r� 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 thew organized into the second set of documents, which
contains main themes of concem both for and against the amendment part together under
tbree main categories. Those categories arc `Citizen and Animal Rights,' `Education and
Enforcement' and `Tether's and Pens.'
Both sets, as well as the original mimrtes taloen from 1t two meetings, have been
provided as a part of this document for use by the BOCC members in looking at this
issue.
L Main. Themes and Views, For and Against
a. Citizen and Anim l Rights
b. Education and Enforcement
c. Tethers and Pens
IL Summary of Minutes, For and Against
a. Those in opposition of amending ordinance
b. Those in favor of amending ordnance
III. Excerpts From BOCC Meeting I mIft9
a. Excerpt from May 20ffi BOCC Meeting
b. Excerpt from June 3'd.BOCC Meeting
HIC
to
Main Themes and Views, For and Against
.Citizen and Animal Rights
Am ments ME !w Restriction of
Arff�ents for the Restriction of
Tethe '
Tethe '
Animals do not have rights
Animals feel pain, fear, loneliness, etc. and
these is a public merest in them
This is an encroachment on human rights.
It seems in society when we move toward
justice, always the oppressors feed that their
rWft are being U=PW
There should be an exception for sporting
There is an exception for sporting dogs
dogs
&xring trials, for periods up to 7 days
M
Ted wing is not Mistreatment Many
This is about the humane treatment of
tedwed dogs are happy members of a
animals. Tethering can cause i wJ=
fly.
damage6 g ioontafirm starvation and make
animals more susceptible to attack and
neglect
Macy 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 a$ected.
ASAB members live in Orange County,
Those against the amendment were not
A position opposing tethering restrictions
invited to be on fire 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 Ming
committee and all sides were considered
and balanced by the committee.
Dog owners pay taxes on their amals and
Tethering leads to public nuisance and .
should have the right to do what they want
unwanted litters of puppies, costing tax
for wbatever r ason.
payers money. It also presents a public
MfOLY issue.
11
Main Themes and Views, For and Against
Education and Enforcement
Amments SMIN t Restriction of
Arguments for the Restriction of
TOMIdag
Tethedn
lVrstrce#ment is already against the law.
Need enforceable laws to protect these
We should enforce the existing laws.
animals. Other jurisdictions have la}d
Posi 'We results.
Education is what is needed, not restricted
This will give ACO's an additional tool
tetheringw
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 on chains.
Restricting tethering won't solve the
Animals can be neglected in many
animal mishudment 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
pmeymbrig dMren and others from
Ong the dog. This is a step in the
direction.
Breed is the problem in Orange County.
Many breeds have a tendency to became
We aced 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, eta Other jurisdictions
have also found that there is a short -teen
increase is work load but that the long-term
effects actually decrease work load.
This amendment doesn't reflect the
This is only one tool to prated animals.
realities of life. There are times when a
Many people do not understand the
dog needs to be tethered.
condition some of these eaimals are in or
.
the dangers presented to them.
12
to
Main Themes and Views, For and Against
Tethers and Pens
Arguments noainst Restriction of
Areuments for the Restriction of
TetheringTethe
'
Tethers are better than pens because they
Tethers deprive dogs of their basic needs
can give more space than pea of equal size
for socialization and subject them to
and are easier to clean than pens:
dangers of attack, starvation, trachea
damage and other - related injuries
USDA already has mmimm pen sizes.
Smaller pens restrict movement and
exercise and deprive dogs of basic needs.
USDA ruling proln"bits tethering as a
method of primmy enclosure.
Some dogs escape from pens. There are
Coalition to Unchain Dogs builds fences
dium, climbers and even dogs that chew
that escape artist dogs cannot get out of
ihto fences.
Some tethered dogs; are not mistreated. and
Families in other areas that have received .
bave more interaction with family members
fences from the Coalition have .repotted
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 iammonsible ft&siin&
fenced instead of chained
Tethers are needed for some types of
Tethering is not prductive in training
animals
Tethets don't make animals aggressive.
Investigators, trainers, animal rescuers,
The studies that say that are flawed.
famous dog experts and various studies
have slated that tethered dogs are more
h'kely to become aggressive and contribute
14 blems of public
13
13
Summary of Minutes, For and Against
Those in opposition of amending the animal ordinance
Name
We
s rr
R.em=
or.
Henri
Lobbyist for
Oppose
• Animals do not have rights, but people do have rights and
McClees
NC Sporting
responsibilities
Dog
• This proposal does not meet the needs of the people
• Inhumane treatment is already against the law
• Questions that tethering is mistreahneml
• Tim is no di " fisbing between animnls 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
•. Most people supporting this are not from Orange County
• People fivm --w - - iporated part of the County are not
aware of the ploposla
George
President of
Oppose
• This is a people problem, not a dog problem
Painter
Eno River
• Need education of dog owners
Coon Hugs
• 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
Brooder
• 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
• Tiring is not bad and some of the most aggressive dogs
have to be tethered to train them
• Educa iomis what is needed
• Every ft is different
Nfichael
Citizen
Oppose
• Doesn't know how the cost of the amendment will be
14
IT
Kids
absorbed back into the budget
• Drove around within 5 miles of Chapel Dill alone and
ocnmbed 38 tethered dogs and 72 in kennels smaller than
those proposed
• FTis Lathered dogs ace his frieadiiest
• Thinks this is a slippery 01gy
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 miser and she has no other options
• People want to do the right thing for their animals and she
thinks for some, that may be tedgming
Lauren
Citizen
Oppose
• Has one Ugherod dog because she is overprotective of him
Knapp-
because of an accident he had while running fine
Resndc
• The ordinance should be on a case by case basis
Joseph
Rev
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
Resm'k
children not to go near sfrange dogs
• His dog is on a huge tetheF and it would be infeasible for it
to move to a much smaller 12 x 12 kennel
Tim Frazier
Oficer of F.no
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
Chub
• Tethering is ok if people tether in a humane way
• The blew in Orange County is the breed
Diane
Breeder.
Oppose
• Problem is not tethering but the" of
Genteel
tethering
Pmper tethering socializes, cares for, and exercises
animals very well
• This is a question of won
• A dog on a 10-ft Nether has more room than a dog'in a 10-
ft pan
Josh
Citizen
Oppose
• Just because a dog is on a chain does not mesa it will be
-
Chapman
&Tressed
• You can abuse dogs by putting them in a pen
Dennis
Quail Fans
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 we how smaller dogs need the same size pens as
largeir dogs
• More laws are not needed because there are laws now for
15
15
-people who mistreat dogs
Robin
Citizen
Oppose
• This amendment does not mare sense
Hen
• Her do .would climb, jump or gig 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 mss-
• Other studies show that there is no significant diff==
from
between dogs who are chained and those that are not
Phillip
Citizen
Oppose
• What we need is a dangerous dog breed ban, not a
Fennell
tethering ban
• A teen foot chain allows a ton more movement than a 10
foot
Tommy
Citizen
Oppose
. Chains are cleaner than pens
Frazier
. Citizens pay tunes on dogs and these 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 tathered champion dogs and his dogs are not
Wright
mistreated
Frank Tilley
Citizen
Oppose
• Has seen plenty of aggressive 42p 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 neatly as much in a pen
• There is a whole segment of the population here not
rested- normal families with one or two dogs
humanebr 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
• Tyre 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
16
1�
should be amended
Frances
Citizen
Oppose
. Hums have a A& 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
• M 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 abase
Owner
and neglect
• This would fm1ber complicate the 'ob of Animal Control
Beth Oliver
Citizen
Oppose
• Against the ordinance
9 She tethers her dogs for fbeir protection
1'7
17
Summary of Minutes. For and AnL st
Those in favor of amending the animal ordinance
Name
Me
Snunort
Reasons
or
,
Dr. Ross
ASAB Chair
Support
a Hyman Treatment of Animals
Oglesbee
• . Tethering Commium already took all of these concerns
into account and made a fair recommendation
David
Citi=
Support
. Cave ACOs an additional tool with which to come to the
Amon
aid distressed and neglected animals
Elaine
Animal
Support
• Lmninbuurg has a restricted tethering ordinance and it is
Modlin
Control
enforceable
Officer;
• We found chained dogs to be responsible for more
Laurinburg,
complaint ells than fenced dogs before passing
•
NC
legislation
• passing restritidw legislation has definitely improved our
records for protecting Citizens
• It has helped eliminate residence with multiple chained
dogs
• It has reduced nuisance, barking, and odor complaints
a It has reduced our number of dog bites
• It has drastically reduced the number of unwanted puppy
litters .
• Owners have commented that dogs sem' happier and are
easier to care for
Pat Sanford
ASAB
Support
. Tethering is not productive in training animals
Member and
. Did investigations for Orange County for 17 years and
Animal
found a very high number of those were with tethered
Trainer
animals
• Ordinance needs to pass to help the animals
• All ASAB members are from Omw County
Deanna
• Humane Treaimat of Dogs
Rowan
• No one wants to, take away right to hum- it is just an issue
of how the dogs are kept
• This isn't about hu ntm% but about the hundreds of dogs
rarely give
permanently chained, exposed to elements, rare s
-
attention and 'ected to abuse and ne ext
Kitty Lynn
Animal
Support
• Has rescued hundreds of dogs and has seen chained dogs
Rescuer
become aWessive and tm ibodal for lack of love and
attention
. 9
18
19
10
• Chained dogs will attack those who enter their territory ,
including
children
• More and more comities are passing regulations on
tethering
Mark
Citizen
Support
• Public safety- cham ng dogs cantributes to aggression and
Soloman
is a public safety threat
• Humane treatment prolonged chaining is harofvl 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
• Overpopuilation 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 m cruchy and bite complaints
Nancy
Citizen of
Support
. Too important an issue to be silenced by intimidation.
Garson.
New Hanover
Encoiusges rs to move forward tboughffulty,
County
y and not femrfull
lalen
Volunteer
Support
. It seems a lot of times in society, when we move toward
WW=
with Coalition
justice, always the people that are oppressors feel Bunt 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
Arielle
Schechter
Citizen
Support
• Been in Orange County since 1960's and this is long
overdue
Jean
Animal
Support
. Protection of community's companion animals
McNeill
Control
. You cannot enforce what you do not bave- must have the
Manager,
law there to be able to effectively stop neglect and abase
New Hanover
• Anti- firing is a step in the right direction to enhance
Cody
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
straagu ation, treat strobe and starvation
• Having an enforceable law was the only means we have to
prevent such cases
10
19
1q
11
• It is the responsibility of the County to act responsibly fior
its pets
• The majority of your residents are counting on you to do
the right bing, despite tfie-very vocal minority
Soren
Group of 9
Support
• Prolonged tethering deprives dogs of necessary eaercise
Wig,
Coumy
and socialization
DVM
Vegans
• Tethered dogs can and do coninbate to various
Kay Bisbop,
community nuisance issues such as barking and pet
DVM
overpopulation
Ken
. Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to public safety and
Redmont,
health because they may become aggressive and are not
DVM
confined behind a bander
Kathy
• Tethered dogs are sabjected tp a variety of physical
Crabtree,
dangers, including trachea damage, embedded collars and
DVM
injaaies from attacks
Pat Pagel,
. There are many alternatives to chaining
DVM
Michelle
Drake,
DVM
Deborah
Stein, DVM
Megan
DVM
Marjorie
Lmdeke,
DVM
Suzanne
ASAB and
Support
• Neglected animals can be anywhere but there are special
Roy
Tethering
ciiuumstaaces that malae tethering an issue that should be
Committee'
a policy issue
Member
• Lack of a bander and lack of protection for people are
among main differences between tadming and other
farms of confinement
• Tethered dogs are a hue for children and children
constitute a large portion of shacks 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 spealm has animal cruelty charges
against her in another stare — others have moved due to
citations for breaking anti tethering -laws elsewhere
• Tdknng Committee did hold two pubhc hearings and
11
20
F
12
invited those from all sides to be on•the committee-
received no moos from members of the opposing
sides
. Read quote from Cesar Mlan (Tbe Dog Whisperer)
stating that chained dogs will have pent up energy and
frustration. and are much more h1wly to become aggressive
and become a weapon
Elise
CIfi=
Support
. Must remember that this is about public safety and the
Roosevelt
humane treatment of animals, not about professions or
financial welfare
• Refehred to the USDA Wiling prohibiting tethhering as a
method of primary enclosure
Cruelty comes in many forms and this is mly 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 bow 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 gratrP4 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
Bcrggtrand
Tag
on behalf of
Committee '
Jean Austin
Member
Walt Von
Citizen
Support
. Firmly believes that keeping dogs on chains will increase
Shemz
the propensity for the dog to develop anti-social behavior
. Wagering and feeding a dog does not fulfill all its needs -_a
dog needs to be unencumbered
Loren Dart
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
. Tag for prolonged periods is a form of abuse that
should be stopped it is neglect
. ordinance should demand a higher level of can than it
does presently
. Animals should not be exploited..
. Animals have inter 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
21
III
o
13
UnchainDogs
MOMPOID m 9&0 such as being atfsclmd
Jamie
Citizen
Support
. Owns a pit ball and was told by the breeder that in orb
Jacobs
to make it aggsive 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 'do for in other and socialize them
provi
Kris
ASAB and
Support
a Tethering Committee members learned a lot from Orange
Beagstrend
Tethering
County residents and wodwd 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 eflixtive programs with decreases in dog bites,
unwanted puppies, and animal sw enders
• Benefits that other jurisdictions have seen will do well in
this county
Jane
Trainer
Support
• Expect 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 fimsttafion, which can lead
W aggression
Chained dogs will often target anything moving nearby,
which is unfc rdmately often children
• it is important for children in our County to leant empathY
fm . other beings and to grow up to be compassionate,
contnibuting citizens
• Seeing dogs regularly tethered sends the wrong message
to children and desensitizes them to animals' needs
a Chained dogs are often victims of taunting
a we would be a more caring, compassionate community
With this restriction
Emily
Citizen.
Support
. Animals do have rights
Weinstein
• Sup1mrts this amendment
Nancy
Citizen
Support
a Most people do not realize the conditions under which
Carson
Eickart
many of these animals are found
13
22
9oZ
EXCERPT FROM MAY 20S BOCC MEETING
EXCERPT thorn MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
May 20, 2008
7:30 pm.
b. Proposed Anknai Ordinance Amendment on do Teiherina of Dons
The Board conducted a public hearing for a proposed ordnance amendment to
the Orange County Animal Ordinance.restricting the tethering of dogs, and considered
adoption of the ordinance amendment
Animal Services Director Bob Maratto said that there has been a concerted effort
involved in staff and the athen 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 dens advisory boards appointed by the Board was the
Tethering Committee, which met more than sic 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 -roar tethering limit and the proposal is not an outright prohibition
of tethering. He said that two 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 orwhich would be dedicated to education and awareness. After the fast 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.
Yloe -Chair of the ASAB, Susan Elmore recognized the Animal Services staff.
She said that there are strong passions concerning Oft issue on both sides of the fence.
She said that she is here to support of this proposal. She pointed out pages 16-17 of the
Tethering.Commiltee 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'lrstened 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 Maro to 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
23
M
PUBLJC COMENT.
Lai 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 two Is a better way to do things.
She read an entail from the neighbor of a person who received a fence from the c oa6tion
for a dog that was continuously sly chained in Chapel Hill. `I just have to tell you that your
civilizing Neptune has also civilized the entire family. Now whenever I slop by to see my
neighbor, Neptune is either string 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 Was 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 notr She said that this is not the only situation where the Coalition
has helped dogs. She asked the County Commissioners to approve the ordnance to
limit the chaining of dogs.
Henri McCiees is a lobbyist for the North Carolina Sporting Dog Association,
which is a coalition of dog owners, dog breeders, and dog dubs. She said that the
membership's philosophy is that animals do not have rights, but people have rights and
responsibilities. They do not befieve 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 brill 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 cis. 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 fWw 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 al 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 properly. He said that the people of
unincorporated Orange County are not even aware of this proposal. He showed some
pictures that someone also 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 time 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
24
MI
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 drained improperly
and the media are quick to vft the owner who tethers the dog. He said that people are
being spoon fed the idea that fe#oft 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 cruelly can happen In arry 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 creme to tiara from all over the country that have_
been kenneled, but his best dogs are tethered. He urged the County Commrscioners'to
reconsider this. He said to the committee that they never ristened to the Orange County
citizens. He sold that tethering dogs is not bad.
Michael [Ork Eves in southern Orange County. He said that he looked at the
Animal Services website wid read the amendment. He said that the costs of this
amendment are supposed to be absorbed back in the budget He asked I the Animal
Control Officers do anything all day now. He said that he rode around within five mites
of Chapel Hrg and he counted 38 tethered dogs and 72 dogs•tlat were in kennels
smaller than what is recommended He does not know how the costs of this are going to
be absorbed, because this wig be a lot of work. He said that he has had dogs all of his
fife 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 I estigations 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 bug. 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 dear with her abooA what she needed to do with the dog if she wanted
him to become a vicious and dangerous animal, and that was to chain firm and heave
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 chat there is a book sold in pet stores
that gives very specific information about this treed, that If they are chained, they will
become vicious and dangerous animals.
Kris Bergstrand frees 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 struMled with how to balance the needs of the animals with
16
25
P-5
the rights of the cam. She said that a number of people think that PErA activists
drove the subcommittee to make this recornmmndafion and she disagrees. She is a
veterinarian and she ones about the humane treatment of dogs. However, public safely
is very important to her. She said that the sub comm liee got feedbadc from animal
control profiessionds in the state who said that they did not find it to -be more work or
more costly to have tothervrg ordinances, they noticed a decrease in dog bites, a
decrease in puppies, and a decrease in surrenders. She thinks that the benefits that
other junsdiciions in the stabs have seen from restricted tethering would do well in this
County.
Susan Keay rives in Can boro 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
chat the dogs have a very nice area to be k% and she does not Maw 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 rives inside
her hone. 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 sit intions.
1 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 loam empathy for everything around them, to grow up to be
caring, contributing cW ens. 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 foaming wpwienoe for the child.
So I respectfully ask you to disallow the permanent tethering of dogs to Orange
County, for the safety of our children, for the humane treatment of dogs and for Orange
County to become a caring, compasslonate, community for all.
Jane Marshalr
Emily Weinstein thanked everyone for the work on the ordinance and said that
she believes that animals do have rights. She has fend her yard and her dogs come
in and out of her horse. She supports this ordinance.
Duren Knapp - Resnik rives 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 ordnance because it is riot a solution to this problem. She thinks that the
ordnance should be on a case-by -case basis.
17
26
g;2G
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 9 the County Commiwioners pass this
ordinance, then they will help to create a kinder and gentler world, a world that is moFe
just, more peacefiul and more loving. He said that draining dogs for king periods is a
form of abuse and should be stopped. He suggested that humans should not woo8
animals for any reason. .
Joseph Clew is a representative of the N.C. Sporting Dogs. He represents 12
dillbrent 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 infumdation. 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 time animals
and take care of them. He encourages the County Commissioners to have at least 3-4
public hearings.
Suzanne Roy rums 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 fivsbated 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 In ordirian a has broad commpnity support.
Chad Resnick said that one of the people that spoke said that dogs on drains
have a tendency to bite people. His response to that is to teach children not to go now
dogs that they do not imow His dog has a 454bot hinge rive 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 Coaltion 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
we that the dog row has a personality because ft 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
Lathering. She said that proper tethering socializes, cares for, and exercises animals
very wen. She asked the County Commissioners to please consider tethering from a
different point of view.
Nancy Carson Eidkert lives in Orange County and has participated with the
Coalition to Unchain Dogs. She affirmed everything that the representatives of the
18
27
V7
coaNion said. She does not think that most people realize the conditions undw 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 fits, and said that just because a dog is on a chain does not mean
that ti will be depressed. He said that his chained dogs nm 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 ordnance.
Commieskoner 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 3id agenda The public
asked for proper notice.
Chair Jacobs said that W 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 31d on the regular agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
19
28
E0
EXCERPT FROM JUNE 3'd BOCC MEETING
APPROVED 9116=8
EXCERPT From MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
June X 2008
7:30 p.m.
S. Reaular Agenda
a. Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendmerrt on the Tethering of Doas
The Board considered adopting a proposed ordinance amendment to the Orange
County Animal Ordinance restricting the tethering of dogs.
Animal Services Director Bob Mannto 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 Ung things that are on this planet with us and to use our domination
responsibly and compassionately. Perteps we should treat other species of animals as
we would wish them to beat us, were they in our dominant position. Dogs are conscious
beings. They feel cold, heat, pain, fear, Kure, 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
29
`,
can show to any fellow creature, let me do it now; let me not defer or neglect it for 1 shag
not pass thfs way again. The soul is in all living c eabmes, although the body of each is
different. And finally, from George Bernard Shaw: The worst sin k wards 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
Oak hand 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 talc 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 Iasi public comment session was about an
hour tong 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 Foushes 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 tine, and he asked that they not
speak again, to 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.
PUSUC COMMENT:
Dennis Carden is from Caldwell in Orange County and is a charier member of
the Quail Faun Beagle Club. This dub' 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 hwis 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 gfetsne commitment and he feats 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 dean. He
said that he was proud to be an Orange County cfizen until recently.
Charles Best is a Ilfetime 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 to the 30's, it was good to have
21
30.
-30
rabbit or squirrel on the table. He said that he feels tike he was losing his right loo beach
Wes 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 MC-54 and the Quaff Farm Beagle (tub. He said that revenues
come in to the County through the field trials that the beagle dub coordinates. He said
that he has had dogs all of his rde and to loves his dogs. He thinks that he is being
penalized.
David Aman said that he is. speaking in favor of the betha ft 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 diced and neglected
dog that has been c harried for an inoniinately long period of time He said that this
ordinance amendment is based on a genuine expressed interest driven by citizens who
We 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 sold 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 atteridng 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 iss
opposed to it
Elaine Modlin read a prepared letter to the County Commissioners. She is an
Animal Control Otfirer from Laurinburg, NC.
'ear Commissioners:
The City of Laurinburg passed its fast tethering ordnance in November, 1997
with an a fedtve date of December 1998. The first ordnance allowed dog owners to
tether their dogs for up to 8 hours within a 24hour 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 tathering ordinance for two main reasons (1) the safety of our
cii¢erw 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 9-peracent
of bites from dogs that were confined to a fence. On the issue of inhumane treatment of
animals, we were constantly receiving calls to reference to chained dogs. They were
usually tangled up and unable to get to shelter or water. Many of these rases 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 ratters
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
begirmfog, 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 happffy running around. Owners have
22
31
St
commented to me that their dogs seem happier and easier to take care of. 1 hope that
Orange County decides to pass a tetherkig ordinance, you will be making the Ives of
your residents safer and improving on the Wes of many deserving dogs.'
Pat Samford spoke at the last meeting and said that she is a member of the
ASAS and she supports this amendment. AN 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 Linked Responsible Dog Owners Intemational. She Is
from Kentucky and was asked by residents of Orange County to come and speak She
said that she came taught to try and set a faun myths to bed. She said that hms 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
perbnm onL Also, there were lots of exclusions in the sturdy. 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 k She quoted something from the study: `One hundred and
sixteen were aggressive when they were approached in their fence. Only 64 of the
to t eed 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 dose friends that had hunting dogs, and none of them were rained or
tethered. Shd said that this is not about the hunters, but about the hundreds of dogs in
Orange County that are drained 2417, 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 berme aggressive and territorial for a lack of love and nutrition. They will
attack children who enter their tenitory. 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 fast 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 iMiicted wounds, but they were mostly from dangerous breeds.
He brought out a drain to show the County Commissioners what the Orange County law
Is with a ten4bot chain. He said that a ten4bot chain would allow 400 square feet of
movement, versus 100 square feet with a ten -foot pen. He read from the summary from
32
3a
the Tethering Commiitbee. `Of particular concern are dogs that spend their fives tethered
as they are naturally active and social, being that required exercise and frequerd
Interaction with humans and other animal.' He said that a tergoot cage is restricting
the dog from exercise. He said that when you take the sociality out of a dog, it makes
Own mean. He said that he has owned hundreds or 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 sold that tl 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 V the ones on
the book now were eriforced, 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 warded 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 We
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 and up in local shelters and cod taxpayers' money. Finally, this is an important
tool for animal control. Seven North Carolina jurisdictions, inducting the counties of New
Hanover and Scotland, report positive results from anti4ethering ordinances, inducting a
decrease in the number of animal cruelty complaints and dog bite incidences.
Nancy Gerson- Anger read a letter on behalf of Jean McNeill, Animal Control
Services Manager of New Hanover County. She said that the antifietliering 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,
1 am uniting 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
33
safety it aftords or 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 wady
have; however, in our experience, you cannot enforce what You do not have. The
majority of offenders will not comply with suggestion, 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 responsbility, so we must be
proactive in educating owners about the best care they can provide.
We passed the ordnance many years ago, but did not write actual citations until
quite some time after the law became ef%c bm We issued warning notices, which gave
the dog owner time to make corrections. This is not newly 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 cation, if
they corned the problem in a timely manner. Again, this would not be possible I 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 ordnance, 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. rortunatey.
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 ad 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 tree to contact me about this important issue. I look forward to
hearing bads from you with a good report I can be reached at 910 -798 -7505 or
Lmcneilfthcopv.conm.
Sincerely,
Jean P. McNeil
New Hanover County
Animal Control Services Manager
Amanda Stipe Is a Chapel Hill native, a former Animal Control Office' 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 an#4ethe ft is too rntictive 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 gins 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' . Ali 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 paid 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 confused 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 regubibm 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 diitficult time in locating animal abusers as they
move indoors, no longer under plain sight She asked the County Commissioners to
cxansider not enacting this proposal in its current state, but to pnyvide Animal Control and
law enforcenent additional monies to enfome 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 We 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 mistmat ment He read from something: 'We are our own town; we
don't care how other counties are run. If they said, lump 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 taked 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-
Elldna Beattie does not five 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 Cordrol
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 bander.
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 albematives to chaining available, including adequately -sized
pens, fences, and simply keeping dogs inside and walling 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
26
34
35
35
Kay Bishop, DVM, New Hope Animal Hospital
Ken Redmond, Vme Veterinary Hospital
Kathy Crabtree, DVM, Carver Shad Veterinary Hospital
Pat Pagel, DVM, Cole Park Veterinary Hospital .
Wdvle Droke, DVM, Cole Park Veterinary Hospital
Deborah Stein, DVM, Cole Park Vetere► Hospital
Megan Harris, DVM, Cole Park Veterinary Hospital
Marjorie Lnrdeks, DVM, St Francis Veterinary Hospitar
Tirnmy Frazier said that he has tried to make all of time 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 beleves that tethering is okay U the
owner takes care of hislher 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 fake something like this amendment down their throats, it makes the
citizens mad.
Susan Kelly is against the tethering amendment She agreed with Commissioner
Caney 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 olctures 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 aiticle
from the News and Observer. `Barbara Sherman, a Crmlcal 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
two in Orange County and that have dogs that rive 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
aggmaNe-dogs In pens. He has trained dogs for 12 years and you can make any dog
aggressive and it b 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 bike 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
bander, 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 Ust 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 bereft against government regulation related to animal
27
36
36
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 thane is a public
Interest in protecting them. She saki'that some other opponents here are out-0f-county
(raid lobbyists and Pit Bub brebders. 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 fines. Ms. Press led the unsuccessful eifiort to overturn the New Hanover
County law, and she moved from that county after she was coed 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 kt
Addle Schechter has been in Orange County since the early 1960's and she fully
supports the antl4ethering 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 fives 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•and- tethering ordinance.
Midrey Oliver has fired 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 Sits:
My name is Brian Fee and I lire In Chapel Hill with my wife and three children.
After marry 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 fine (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... unfit I saw Dave Hart's editorial in
29
37
37
the Chapel HiH News that brought up the tethering issue again. I was astonished that
the issue of tethering was stiff being debated.
F& Had wrote that basically theme were two distinct ramps of thought — the and -
tethering group that says that tethering can cause physical or psychological damage to a
dog, and a pro4athering group, composed mainly of hums and dog breaders who say
that tetherurg is humane and that neglect by people Is the real problem. It seemed We
one major group -1 would think they can be best crafted 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 is Lions on tethering in other jurisdictions decreased dog
bites, reduced unwanted litters, and reduced c udW due to improper tethering. Well, our
dog Ceres in our backyard, so even if she did have a mind to bit someone, w ilch 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 property and she always has food, water, shade,
and room to nm 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 or the One. 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 talc is a pictise 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 One 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 nec k....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
gums 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 brie - 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. tf any of you
Commissioners wish to come over and visit Lily, just let me know.'
S.:Hend McCkses said that she is the proud lobbyist of the North Carotin
Sporting Dog Assocdaiion. 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 cifzens to comply essentially
with their philosophy and they do not distinguish between animals that are abused or not
29
Wj
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 Was 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 in have to tether a dog. He said that
there are tunes when he has to tathw a dog on a 304bot drain, 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 reafities.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 Oka to bring
both sides together. She said that the simple solution, instead of tumbng one half of the
room into criminals, would be to put the two groups togedw. 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 sold 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 at4arge. 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 lifstirne 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 got 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 IGrk said that he has several good ideas, and the big one is education.
He said that there are only sic ordinances nationwide that dictate kennel size. He said
30
38
39
0
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 fhfg 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 aril there is no way that it could be enfamed.
Loren Hart said that to is in support of the dog ordinance. He said that dogs and
other ananals are Individual beings, can feel pleasure, pain, fear, and Ionellness. For
these reasons, he believes that tethering dogs for prolonged periods a a form of abuse
that should be stopped. It is a different kind of abuse than Nddng 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 urine 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 undo, but he now 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 undo 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 wars 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 hunans.
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 Idled by
dogs. He made reference to the breeding that happens and said that the leash laws
need to be ennfined. Regarding deanlrness, 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 importaft
Diane Genteel said that she spoke before. She said that the issues of
aggression, socialization, pet overpopulation, eta will not be remedied by this law and it
is a question of education. Tethering Is not the culprit; Ws the inappropriate use of
tethering. She said that a dog on a ten4bot 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 al dogs, taxes going through the roof, etc. He thinks that this is
a slippery slope.
Fred Siipe 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 fa
bets 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
CD
qt
IS
too
to
to
41
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 3, 2008
Action Agenda
Item No. &—Q
SUBJECT: Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dogs
DEPARTMENT: Animal Services PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
PURPOSE: To request that the Boars! 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 dratted 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
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 Boars! 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 dratted 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
42
2
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 amendmerd, and a
set of frequently asked questions (FAQ) remain posted in full form on the Animal Services
website at httpJ/ www. co.orange.nc.us/animalservk;es. .
At the May 201' 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
Commiittee-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 2& hearing, the BOCC decided to continue
discussion of and possible decision regarding the proposed amendment for its June 3"s 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.
COPYORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGEND M T
Meeting Dafie. May 20, 2008
COPY An
Action Agenda
Nam No. S-
SUBJECT: Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dogs
DEPARTMENT: Animal Services
PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) Yes
43
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 Attomey'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.organtred 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 s'¢es, the proposed amendment and a set of frequently
ATTACHMENT(S):
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Ross Oglesbee, J.D., Chair, Animal
Tethering Committee Final Report &
Services Advisory Board 96"599
Recommendations
Susan Elmore, DVM, Vice - Chair, Animal
Staff Memorandum Recommending
Services Advisory Board 541 -3474
. Minimum Kennel Size Requirements
Bob Marotto, Director, Animal Services
Animal Services Tethering Committee
968-2287
Meeting Summaries
Animal Services Adviso'ry-Board Minutes
from Meetings with Discussion on
Tethering
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 Attomey'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.organtred 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 s'¢es, the proposed amendment and a set of frequently
44
26
as�Ce questions (FAQ) are all posted in full form on the Animal Services wr bsibe at
httPJlwrnrw. 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 websiite 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 fnr lack of compliance with the
tethering restrictions during the six -month period following the date that the ordinance actually
becomes effeective. 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 faciirdate 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.
Tethering Amendment Proposal
As Recommended to the Board of County Commissioners
May 20m, 2008 .
AMENDMENTS TO THE
ORANGE COUNTY ANDiAL 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 tens mean:
1T�...
2. ....
3. ....
22. Restraint: An animal is under restraint if it is under sufficient physical
restrain such as a leash, cage, bridle, or simil ar 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 enc1os= m ''"" "'iM i arrmr KW Math SW=onS
2M and XI(Ll of this 980 MM N 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
45
4 46
Reeonunended Tetkerfng Amendment Proposal
May 200, 2008
Page 2
under the control of that competent person and the animal is on the premises. If any
unatinxW 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) few in length and sham either on a swivel designed to prevent the animal
from choking or spangling itself 13M restraint of unattended dun by a
fence, kenn_el_- outdoor enclose*+' chai _ leash or dwilu restWW is farther reeWated
Rader Sections MM and 2U 1 of d1k ordnance.
23. ...
25. ...
Section M — b listreatment of Animals Unlawful. The following acts or failure
to act relating to the mistreatment of animals are unlawful and violations of this
A. ...
C. ...
E. It shall be unlawful to restrain any animal except in a humane fashion;
ant min Section VII(22) above ®andSecp'ons
0
Re=wwnded Tethering Amm&nent Proposal
May 200, 2008
Pagi 6
Upon motion of Commissioner - - seconded by
Commissioner . the foregoing Animal Control
Ordinance amendments were adopted this the day of
2008 and shall become effective as of the day of .200—,
Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange ConntY Commissioners
50
9 51
Te dung Committee Report
July 301 , 2007
Orange County's Tethering Committee*
Report and Proposal for Ordinance Amendment
July 30th, 2007
*Members of the Tethering Committee wish to tha *Anunal Services stafffor their Mgwd and
Professional efforts to ensure that the Conmu tee was a ectm as well as successful in meeting &
charp in a timely mamw Direct staff support to the Tethering Covwu tee ww provided by Bob
Marotto, Animal Services Director; Irene Paul, Manager, Animal Control Division; Lisa Smith,
Offfce AssWaK Anhnd Control DMdon; and Audi Morgan A&nbd 7rative_ Assistant,
Admiirion. .
Tethering Committee Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
July 30, 2007
105 2
I. Summary
IL Introduction
IIL Findings
N Rccomm I ations
IV. Discussion
V. Next Steps
VL Appendices -
a.. Appendix I: Creation of the Orange County Tethering Committee and Board of County
Commissioners' Abstract for Creation ofthe Tethering Committx
b. Appendix II: Coerce Members, BOCC Liaison, and Staff
c. Appendix. III:- North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances
d. Appendix V: Notes from R ter views with North Carolina Jurisdictions with Tethering
Ordinances: Conducted by the Tethering Committee
2
Il 53
Tethering Committee Report
July 3&, 2007
After a six moa&bng deliberation that included seven meetings, the Orange County Teihaing
Committee has concluded that the practice of tethrmg 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 cir -umstances, 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 thee end of a chain or rope.
Ofparticular concern are dogs that spend their lives tethered, as these are naturally active and social
beings that require exercise andfr pwd 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 ckcwnstacees 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 fight of this, the Committee is recomaundmg that the County's current animal ordinance be
amended to include the following with regard to tethering dogs:
• a threo-bour limit within a 24 -honer 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 nuking these recommendations on the basis of these findings:
• Prolonged tethering can sod does deprive dogsofnexessary exercise and socialization.
• Tethered dogs can and do cenhnlRrte to various community problems, including pet
overpopulation and nnisaace 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.
Ia making these recommendations, the Committee: has gathered general information about the
humane and public safety aspects of tethering; researched existing ordntiances 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.
Tethering Committee Report
July 3e, 2007
IQ 54
In addition, die Committu is making these recommendations recognizin g that that the precedcat fior
its proposal to change Orange County's animal ordinances is compelling. More spe MOMY,
numerous jurisdictions in North Carolma and around the United States (mchvdmg fDur states) have
successfully nnplemented tethering prohibitions or resftwbDm and have found them to be both
enforc mble and effective in reducing animal cruelty complaints and dog bite incidents.
Given the cdmge it received from the Board of County Commissioners, the Tethering Committee is
submitting rts recommetrdatians to the Animal Services Advisory Board, the appointed citizen body
that advises the Courtly 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.
Tethering Committee Report
July 3&, 2007
This is a report of the Orange County Tethering Committee, a committee created by the Board of
County Comm3issioners (BOCC) and charged with considering what changm if any, should be
made in the County's animal ordinances with regard to tethering!
Tethering involves keeping dogs on to-outs such as chains or ropes versus within a fenced shvctum
or inside the home. It is often defined in reference to a stationary object (fur example, a dog chained
to a stake now a dog house) but may also be defied 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
Canremtly, 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 fvrmalated in this report
The Wider 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 b wkWouod on the fi mudon of the Tethering Committee and its diarp from Ste Orange County Board of
Commissional, see Appauft L Creation of the Orange County Td raft Committee and Board of County
Commissional' Abstract far the Creation of the Tethering Cam z6 ee.
5
(355
1 J-
Tethering Committee Report
July 3& 2007
Over a six-month period, the Tethering Commits met numerous times to organize itself; gather
and review information about the practice of tee research ordinances to restrict or prohibit
tethering in other North Carolina ju isdictions, and collect input from the public. Altogether there
was one organizational meeting, two information gathering meetings, and two public input
meetings. Two additional m6atings were held to formulate recommendations aid review and
approve the Committee's Report and Proposal for Ordbuin a Amendwent
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 hive 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? Most of these are county and local governments, but these 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.
2 See ht rJ/wwwIc4inganInW& am/ga t &w egistaiian.esp.
6
56
Tethering Committee Report
Public Safety Issues
July 30ei, 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 iroy to the public through dog
bites and attacks.
• Tedma -ed 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 contrrbuute
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, halve passed such
laws.
• Several North Carolina jurisdictions —inehW ng Catawba, New Hanover, and Scotland
Counties, along with several North Carolina townships- ve soave level of tethering
limitation Cullently in platy?
• Ordinances that restrict or probrbit tethering have proved to be both enforceable and
effective in reducing animal cruelty complaints and incidents of dog bites.
3 Sm A.pp=Ax b North Carolina Counties and Townships with Te&wing Ordinances.
7
57
I�
58
U9
Tedwring Committee Report
July 30, 2007
The Orange County Tethering Committee, on the psis 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 Msborough. 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 eSectively regulate the practice of tethering in Orange
County, the Tethering Committee's specific recommendations fall into four closely related areas:
Limitation and Requirements
• jethe ' g should be limited to there (a1 bours,yw�ithin �a(t�a,►entw four -hom p�eryiod. and a
t L 1 L ll be L_a ' r M with all Other laws. nicl�g but not to
yes n?I'Pis i17RIH� non �� b911L u 0. Ji`�w'ey
rewkements far food. water and shelter. By limiting tethering to 6ree (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 Gmecucl Sb*ft (NC" (SWbons 14360 forward) pertaining to csnelty to animals may' apply in some
circumstances to how an animal is seemed Vdh only one =Vdan, however, it does not malm any specific mwdm
of restraint or tethering. The exception is NCt3S 143623 (Restraining dogs in a crud maffial which makes it a Class
1 misdemeanor for someone to - maliciously restrain a dog using a chain or wire grossly in aocess of the size necessary
to restrain the dog safely."
I7
Tethering Committee Report
July 3&, 2007
recommending that tethering be limited rather than outlawed because it has concluded that
these are certain circumstances coder 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.
a Tethers must mad certain r Wdmmetrts. A tethered dog most have a tether at least ten feet in
length that swivels at each and to prevent choking or strangulation and allows access to
flood, water and shelter. The weight of the tether and collar must not exceed tea 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 am 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 vea size for outdoor enclosures for dogs should be estab 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
•
1.ffimWg is allowed at txuWU and performance (or MQ&W events for dog& including but
not limited to field trails and obedience trads. In such cases, continuous tethering shall not
be allowed for a period longer than seven (7) days.
Implementation
• An Ordb=M amendment regarding tee' should become effective 18 months after its
a& Z= This approach is infiarmed by the successful experience of other communities in
which awareness was raised and the public educated before a tethering regulation actually
became effective.
S An ==AD of such requu'emmt from New Hanover County, North Carolina, is that "Outside enclamm mesas a pea
large eaongh to provide each dog less then 25 ponmds with a beard of at ImA 8 feet x to feet in size, and each dog 25
pounds or greater with a beanel of 10 feet x 10 tixt in sox. Animal control services reserves the right to dete1laine if a
space is considered suitable for &e number and size of dogs housed in as outdoor eudosuue." (New Fhmmw Cawity
Code, Section 5-4)
- 9
59
Tetficring Cow Report
July 3&, 2007
18 60
• The imoi n phase will ini►olve a veer lMg Mdod of extensive unblk 01&each and
education Mmft the ordinance aunt and miga of Wb9dWfDUDWVd by a six-
mosth =wd in which Q& BMW we issue This is to ensure tlmt dog owners have
ample notice of the new ordinance and time to transition to other methods of confinement
and take advantage of Com®mity resources to help with the implementation of alternatives.
public outma& should include resources to b* dog owners alternatives to the
restraint of dogs by kfthM 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, worldng in
concert with its citizen advisory board and perhaps other stakeholders.
Enforcement
• Upon initial contact fxnr noncompliance with the new ordinance; after the six-month phase -in
period, adog owner will receive a wamins that gives him or her thirty (30) days to come
into eomnliance. 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 ordnance.
Z ♦ ♦♦ .�i �_ Imo.♦ "A ♦ �Ac a a_.;♦, .�. i ♦���V
�� � �� �♦ fit♦ �u♦ c�i♦ : � :_i��_ �Y�i, ♦ ��� i♦ � ♦ ♦ i�. ill ♦ r♦ ��i♦ t
An animal may be' jopp{ _a$,et issuance of a citation for a violation of the tethering
g ♦w i�q_^Uph itself would .,..cur g& after the imm of a Wit= subject to an
�
==vd-mg mcess of ann� lea 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
detenmi,ning possession and ownership of an animal in the event that an appeal failed.
10•
!q
Tethering Committee Report July 30'x, 2007
The Tethering Committee is recommending a tetberiag 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 tdhering. By limiting tethering to a given number of hours
within a twenty-four -lour period, such an ordinance would reduce the risk of uncontrolled coax
between dogs and people, which. is sometimes responsible for dog attaclCS 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 tutee 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 tame required by humane investigators to attend to animal
complaiats.
According to interviews with animal services officials from Catawba County, Now Hanover County
and the Town of Laurinburg in Scotland County, there were few, Warty, unintended adverse
impacts. Dogs were M surrendered by their owners, euthanized or just set free as a result of the
6 Sea hftwJh VOVW.I d*wm maILcom %3 tp&a .!'.Q'1S gjgMW far �TEte Fist of j1II13dic11ops with Whaing
ardinsiceL - - -
7 See Appends IL North Caroling Crnmties and Townships with Tdhering Ordmenees, and App aft IM Notes fraoi
Interviews with Nardi Carolina briActioos vh& Tdhering Ordnancew Combed by the Tiering Committee
- 11
61
Tcthermg Committee Report
3aly 3&, 2007
adoption of tedwing ordinances. In addition, the ordinances had several positive impacts, for
instance, reducing the number of animal cruelty complaints and incidents of dog bites.
X62
In temus of en'orcearent, these North Carolina officials reported that sue mffl implementation
required a reasonable phase -in period that allowed for adequate public education and outreach and
sufficient t®e for dog owneas 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 phaso-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, Laurmburg changed its ordinance to restrict tethering from eight (9) 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 enfiorceable 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. DepartnW t.
Public Testimony
As previously noted, the Tethering Committee bold public input meetings in order to give the
citizens of the County an opportunity to express their concerns and ideas. The fast public input
meeting, on April 23rd, 2007, was widely publicized and had approximately 25 -30 people in
attendance. The Mowing 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 prohi=ms expressed at these "listening sessions."
Some individuals spolm 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
TC6=il3g Committee Report July 30, 2007
at
tethering was not necessarily inhumane, and that for some individuals and animals, it could be the
only possible or effective mums of restraint.
Also at these sessions were representatives of as area huntin g association, the Fmo River Coon
Hunters Association, and other interested patties who expressed two main concerns about the
remotion of tethering. One was that they would not be able to hold their very successful annual .
field trial if tethering was prohibited. Tn 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 huatmg dogs themselves. They emphasized that these dogs .
were o$en, if not always, kept on tethers and that, in their opinion, it was sometimes the but way to
keep such dogs. Advantages included the easy separation of incompatible dogs, and the allowance
of greater space on a daily basis. Finagy, 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 Dehberntfons
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 ci rumstumes 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 ran, and accomnlodaie fire 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
63
94
Tethering Committee Report July 30 , 2007
would include won about the various wives and community resources available to help
owners transition from tethers to other means of restraining their dogs.
As the Comte does not want a much needed tethering ordinance to iatffem with the conduct of
legal sporting events, it is proposing an exemption for such events, provided the tearing is
temporary, not lasting fior 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 hinting 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 enftircement 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 occuaed 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.
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
Jnly 30, 2007
On the basis of its consideration of the Tethering Committee's recommendations, the ASAB is
capected to decide whether to reconnnend any ordinance amendments to the BOCC. As the
County's sole legislative body, the BOCC would decide wbedw to enact any recommended
amendment- and its own dens would be based upon a public hearing about airy proposed
ammiment, as well as the materials and recommendations received from the ASAB and Teffiwing
Cow.
15
4365
Tethering Committee Report July 3&, 2007
APPENDIX I:.
creation of the Orange Cownty Tetkernng Committee and Board of County
COMML siomrs' Abstract for creation of the Tednersng COl MAMee
0
Committee Creation
The concerns stMM ding 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 com numity, 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 fivquent •interaction with humans and other animals. Additionally, there is concern that
tethered animals, deprived of socialisation 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 ted red dogs in contributing to community problems such as pet overpopulation and
The issue of tethering m 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 tothwing as a policy issue and reporting on it as a means of confinement;
including the activities and efforts of other communities;
$ The issue of tdthaing was originally considered by the ASA% which created a saboommmttm to address the matter
The suboau mittm and and decided that it wooldmeed to bring in outside mambas of he oommunky, a fimation
reserved for the BOCC. it was at that time 9W the BOOC crated the Te dw ft' Committee to work in conjunction, with
the ASAB in deciding in what vat's, if any, ihe ardumce that governs tethaing should be chsagmL
16
66
Tethering Commktce Report
July 3& 2007
• Obtaining general public comment or input about tethering from a cross - section of the
commmmity; and
• Recommending to the ASAB any approprite a or desirable changes with the imdasianding
that the ASAB would itself maim any final recommendations to the BOCC.
Thu BOCC also specified the makeup of the Committee. Specifically, it would iochWe two ASAB
members, one law enforcement representattive, one animal behaviorist, one animal health and
weIIness expert, one advocate for the restriction of tethering, one advocate for tethering, and three
at-law representatives.
BOCC Abstract and Committee Charge
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA REM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October e, 2006
Action Agenda
Rom No.
SUBJECT: Creation of a Tethering Committee
DEPARTMENT: Animal Services PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Charge To and Composition of
Orange County Tethering Committee
Tethering Meeting Summary Notes
INFORMATION CONTACT
Bob Marotto, Direabor, 968 -2287
Gwen Harvey, Assistant County
Manager, 245 -2307
as 67
17
Ted=igg Committee Report Ady 30, 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 too the tethering of dogs.
�Gs8
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 concems 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-sect ion 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 Septeffd)er, 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 Comrittee, 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 Connrettee 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.
is
69
071
Tedoft Committee Report
July 30, 2007
it was discussed during CholdVice Chair agenda review that the BOCC might wish to
create tin Tethering Committee Itself, and with the inclusion of the two ASAB
reps -- 11 aiives, appoint the five predefined positions as proposed along with three
additional at4arge represeniatives from the community.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact accompanies the creation of a Teth ering
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 COMPOSTITON OFDRANGE COUNTY
TETH RING COAUVEDME
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 conunitlee 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 foilows:
• To compile in a presentable form pertinent informadon on tethering and/or chaining as a
means of confinement for animals such as dogs, Including activities and efforts pursued by
other communities.
19
Ted wring Committee Raport
J* 3&, 2007
• To obtain general public comment on any possible ordnance 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 wig itself make any final
recommendations to the Board of County Comrnissioners.
20
70
Tethering Committee Report
APPFJWff. I.-
Comn&ee Members, BOCCLM&on, and Staff
Position 1: Kristine Bergstrand
Animal SerAes Advisory Board Member
Position 2: Jew H. Connerat Levine
Animal Services Advisory Board Member
Position 3: Mary Dow
Animal Behaviorist
Position 4: VACANT
July 30a', 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 appokamernt to this position.)
Position 7: Rachel Beckbam
At -Large Member
Position 8: Margie Huggins
At -Large
Position 9: Kelly Strowd
Law Enforcement
Board of County Commissioners Liaison
Commission Michael R. Nelson
Animal Services Staff
Bob Marotto
Animal Services Director
Irene Paul
Manager, Animal Control Division
air 71
21
Tethering Corumitbee Report
Lisa Smith
Ofte Assistant, Animal Control Division
Andi Morgan
Administrative Assists Administration
J* 3&, 2007
22
72
73
31
Tethering Commftee; Report Ady 3&, 2007
APPENDIKL :
North Caroffna Coundw and Townships with T&*er&g Ordinances
The following North CarOmw j oxs halve some sort of tw*ff ig regagedom For more
information sec http ✓APww.hdpurgmrimalacom/ga_t herLerisladomarA
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Chaining or tethering dogs is prohibited. A chain or rope is not to be used in place of a lush when
walking dogs.
Sec. 3.4 (d) Reshaint: An animal is under restraint within the meaning ofthis chapter if it is
controlled by mesos of a leash, or is sufficiently near the owner or handler to be ®der 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. F=eptions to restraint are as follows: Organized and lawful
animal 8mctions e.g. hnmting, 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 Mo. shall not constitute adequate security under this ordinance.
Roanoke lands. North Carolina
June 13, 2006
This ordinance prohibits the tethering of dogs.
Section 91.22. Prohibition Against Teffiaing of Dogs.
A. It shall be unlawful to tether an unattended dog outside of the house.
Laurinburn North Carolina
June 20, 2000
Dogs may not be chained for a period longer than one hour in a 24 -130ur 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
3.Q
Tethering Commi tee_Report July30, 2007
hour every twenty-fnur (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 og of the properly of
the owner or keeper shall be controlled by mom of a leash and under the direct control of and
obedient to the owner or beeper's command.
Noncompliance with any of the foregoing provisions in the section 4-21 may result in the
impoundment of the animal at anytime, 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)
Scoiiand 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 (l): No person shall, at any time, fasten, chain, or tie any dog or cause such dog to be
fitstened, chained, or fled, while such dog is on the dog owner's properly, 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 inchWe, but are not limited to the fo Mowing•.
(1) Using a length or weight of a chain or tether that is not appropriate for-the size, weight and
age of the animal. Gruidelines for the proper *eight and length of chains or Whom can be
obtained from the animal shelter or animal control
(2) Using a chain or tether made of rope, twine, cord or similar materiel.
(3) Using a chain or tether that is less than 10 feet in length and/or does not have swivels on
both ends. nds. All chain s or tethers must be attached to the animal by means of a properly Ming
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 fallowing:
(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 tcthw made of rope, twine, cord or similar material.
24
74
Tethering Committee Report
July 30', 2007
33
(c) Using a chain or tether that is less than 10 fleet in length and/or does not have swivels on
both ends. All chains or tethers mast be attached to the animal by means of a properly
Eating harness or collar of not less than one inch in width.
(d) Using a chain or tether that oweeds ten percent of the animars 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 prevem 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 Swims, North Carolina
May 16, 2006
This ordinance prohibits the tethering of animals for a period of time or under conditions that are
deemed harmild to the animals. Tethers must be at least 10 feet long and weigh 10 percent of the
animal's body weight or less. Tethers mist 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 fior 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 harmfirl to the animal.
Examples of harmful or potentially harmful chaining or tethering i mhx* but are not limited
to the fiollowing:
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 fieet long. Using a chain or
tether that c=eeds ten percent of the animal's body weight shall be deemed not appropriate
and potentially hamrfirl.
b. Allowing an animal to be chained or tethered such that the animal is not confined to the -
owner's properly 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
flood, water and shelter.
c. Tethering an animal on an append "age.
25
75
Tethering Committee Report
July 30, 2007
76
334
Greetmft North Carorna
This ordinance outlines what kind of tether may be used.
c.-9 -5. Animal care generally.
(c) Any chain, leash, or similar device for animal restraint shall be designed and placed to prevent
choking or iduuy to the animal- The restraining device shall be at least ten feet in length and placed
on a swivel or on a chain ran.
26
,477
Tag Committee Report July 3&, 2007
APPENDIXIi'-
Notes from Interviews with North Carolina Awisdkdons with Tethering
Ordxances- Conducted by the Tethering Convn& e
T Ire following is a swmnm y of comments from A mnal Sawces qftials from New Hanover County.
the City ofLaw*&mrg imd Catawba County, made in telephone interviews. Tlie Tethering
Commiftee conducted these interviews on April Its; 2007 as apart of its i#brrnation gathering.
Dr. dean McNeil. Animal Control Services Manaser
New over County.
THE LAW: Prohibits tethering. Recently amended to add "aftendcC to the law so that dogs can be
tethered if their owner is present. Thcy 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 wa ntad to promote a higher standard of putt ownership.
ENFORCEMENT: Violation ofthe law rasolts 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
depuuiment for collection. As a government agency, the county can gamish 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 Iegal department.
PHASE IN New Hanover had a two -year educabion period during which only warning notices
were given. Dr. McNeil felt that two yam was too long.
RESULTS OF ORDINANCE: The law bas resulted in very few dogs being smx=Amed. Neglect
calls have decreased. They get about 30 tethering-related, complaints a month. Some dogs probably
have run loose hart those are the people who have no desire to be responsible pet owners.
PUBLIC REACT ION: Support withmt 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 3e 2007
35 78
county (Scotland) has the same ordinance as the city They have a 90 percent compliance rate at tins
pow
Laurinburg also has runs on pens Sim — IOx10 for smaller dogs, 20x10 for larger. Animal
control wants larger requirements, but the city council has not agreed.
ENFORCIIV MU: 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 citafon 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 patting up a pen. The Humane Society has provided some
pens to those who cannot afford iL Those that don't comply and have their dogs impounded mist
pay shelter flee, 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 ere not well taken care of anyway.
Joalne McKeeL Shelter Manager
Catawba County Anal Care and ControL Catawba County
TIM 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 m4*mcA 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 texhering ordinance.
28
a�79
Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968 -2287
September 1 &, 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
Recommendatlon
As discussed further belo%4 our recommendations are based upon our review of
regulations from other jurisdctions 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
So square feet
• 36 to 75 pounds
100 square feet
a 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 80
Required Kennel Space
September le, 20107
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 thud 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).
Ba ground 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.
36 81
Appendix I:
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 exisfing'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 requirerfients.
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 t0 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- Lancester County Health Department - Nebraska Animak 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 rums 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 Dog
I
Pen She
Sq. R)
Extra Large
(over 26" or over 75 lbs.)
48
Large
(over 20" or under 75 Ibs.)
40
Medium 132
(over 12" or under 50 lbs.)
Small
24
39 s 2
11(over 12" or under 20 bs.)
September 100, 2W7
Page 4
3-Town of Eilsworih — 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
60 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
bo://www.glkofbartiesville.orarindey-r)hg
• 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. Uve 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 shag 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.Niaumelle. Arkansas
Confinement of Animals: From and after the passage of this Ordnance 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 Big 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 Kerw d Space
SWIM - er 100, 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 sic 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)
Medum
(over 12` at withers or not over 50 ibs)
Small
(12" or less or not over 20 ft)
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- Califomia
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 ouL 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.
4
Required Kennel Spam
sepiemb�er 100, 2907
Forge 6
Recommendations / References:
1. Getting Your Dog off the Chain
Humane Society of the Unified States (from "Do You Chain Your Dog")
The second reason for the tougher stance on chaining is that marry 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 altemative 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 lbs.
Over 50 lbs.
1
6x10 (60 sq. feet)
8x10 (80 sq. feet)
2
8x10 (80 sq. feet)
8x12 (96 sq. feet)
3
8x12 (96 sq. feet)
10x14 (140 0. feet)
4
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:
Extra Large (over 75 li s) ** sq. feet
Large (50- 75bs) **sq. feet
Medium (20-50 /bs) **sq. feet
Small (under 20 lbs) **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)
84
Required Kennel Space
Sep%rnber 100, 20107
Page 7
3. Prime George CounW— Natryland
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 ih pens (not including shelter space) shall be as follows:
# of Dogs Small (d5lbs) Medium (25- 501bs) - 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.
86
43
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Tuesday, February 27th, 2007, 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
Meeting Summary
Location: John Link Govemment Services Center Conference Room, 200 South
Cameron Street, Hillsborough
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Kristine Bergstrand, DVM, Jean Connerat
Austin, Mary Dow, Margie Huggins, -Alan Koki, Michael Nelson, Suzanne Roy,
Kelly Sbowd,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 th 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 ail, 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 s4
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 Aleeifng
February 276, 2W7
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.
87
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Wednesday, March 7a`, 2007, 7:00 — 8:30 p.m.
Meeting Summary
Location: Conscience Room, Southern Human Services Center, 2501 Homestead Road,
and Chapel Hill
OC TC Members and Staff Present: Jean Comm -at Austin, Mary Dow, Aline 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 Bergst<and, and Margie Huggins.
Others in Attendance: Amanda Arrington.
Approval of Meeting Summary from February 276, 2007: Motion was made Jean
Connera t 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 Continents: 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 lin*ations. 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 ennui, length and kind of tether)
::
'it
Discussion: There was a discussion ofpossibly observing a residence(s) that have a
tethered dog(S) and are proponents of tethering. It was agreed to have another
in 6 atxmd 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 23rt 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 controllservice pmsomuel
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 runs (or conditions) that were subject to enforcement. Staff indicated
that they would do their best to arrange for such des.
-- - -- Next Meeting Date: It was agreed the committee would meet Tuesday March 27", 2007
for an information meeting.
89
47
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Wednesday April I IiN 5:30 — 6:00 P.M.
Meeting Summary
Location: Conference Room, John Unk Government Services Center, 200
South Cameron Street, Hillsborough.
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand,
Alane Kold, 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
Laudnburg 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 7n+, 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 filer title larger and bold.
There was a brief discussion of possible inviting a sponsor of the bill being
proposed loo the state to ban tethering.
Next Meeting Date: It was agreed the committee would most Monday April 23,
2007 for a public input meeting on the tethering issue.
�F
4
Meeting Adjoumed at 7:30 p.m.
Summary of comments from animal control officials from New Hanover,
Laurinburg and Catawba.
Dr. Joan 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 fell 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.
Laudnburg 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.
92
/V
Most people comply with the law by putting up a pen. The Humane Society has
provided some pens to those who cannot afford iL 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 % reciaun 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,
eta
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.
570
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 Usa Smith.
OCTC Members Absent: Rachel Beckham, Alone 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 Pannell. Orange County Resident
Dietrich*Haugwdz, Orange County Resident
Debbie Nichols, Orange County Resident
Bobby Kirk, Orange County Resident
Stephen Hopkins, Orange County Resident
Amanda Arrington, Durham County Resident
Kathleen Coldweil, Orange County Resident
Amelia Perrin, Orange County Resident
George Painter, Orange County Resident
Karen Arustames, 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 Adjoumed at 8:00 p.m.
93
94
51
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
Usa 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 concems
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 then;
are openings. The hunters feel like they are and have always been
signaled out regarding animal laws. There aye 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 I V, 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.
95
579
Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968 -2287
Animal Control Robot A. Marotto, Animal Shelter
PO Box 8181 Daecror • 1081 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
304 Revere Rd Chapel hill, NC 27514
lEllssbmx g-h, NC 27278 (919) 967-7383
(919) 245-2075
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
June IP, 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 Commit Austin, Kristine Bergstrand, Mary Dow,
Commissioner Mdse Nelson, Animal Services Director Robert Marotto, Animal Control Manger
Irene Phipps, and C�ice 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 1111, 2007, meeting summary and May 7* 2007, meeting
summary were reviewed and approved.
Discasstoa: 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. R was understood that staff would prepare a draft report an 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 for 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.
96
63
Tcowndwe Meeting , 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 ffiree 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 neat meeting of the Tethering Committee.
Meeting Adjourned 8:00 p.m.
97
Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968-2287
Animal Control Robert A. Marotto. Animal Sher
PO Box 8181 Director 1081 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
304 geew Rd Chapel EM NC 27514
Blibborough, NC 27278 (919) 967-7383
(919) 245-2(Y75
Animal Services'Tetheiing Committee Meeting
July 11'x, 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 Bergstsand, Mary Dow,
Margie Huggins, Commissioner Nike Nelson, Kelly Strowd, Animal Services Director
Robert Maratto, 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 Udkrn 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 pert DOMCe (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.
98
5-15'
Tethering Consmettia Meaiing
j lla; 2007
Page 2
Finally, it was agreed that the implementation period should be changed so that an adapted
amendment would become fully enforceable eighteen months after its adoption. The fast
twelve months would be an education period prior to the ordinance becoming effective, and
the final six months would involve limited a nkmment 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
fire 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 Tethcring Committee Report and Proposal for Ordinance Amendment
(dated July 30*, 2007) was snbmftted to the Animal Services Advisory Board and
subsequently. approved.
99
56
Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Frill, 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 iM NC 27514
ff0sbarough, NC 27278 (919) 967 -7383
(919) 245 -2075
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Wednesday April e, 2008 6:30 p.m. -8:00 p.m.
Unapproved Meeting Summary
Location: Conference Roam, Economic Development Building, 110 East Sing Street, lfiDsborongh
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean C'.oncerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand, Suzanne Roy, Animal
Services Director Robert Marotto, and Office Assistant Lisa Smith
OCTC Members Absent: Mary Dow, Commissioner Milos 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 1?, 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 twee y-f thou period or three consecutive hours within a twenty-four-hour period.
Committee members discussed the difference between these definitions from the standpoint of animal
re,
husbandry and. ca and fi-om the standpoint of enforceability. III,-- 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- four4x= 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
approvod that the language of the ordinance amendment should be, 'hot 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 160'.2008 meeting.
100
57
Ani msi services Aavimy Board (ASAB)
Approved Mi uft fur Angmst A 2007 Meeting
PresentASABMembers: Daniel Textorit Kristine.Bagstrand, Boss Ogleabm Pat Smfoal, Susan
Elmore. Jean Connerat Austin, Tracy Carroll, James Kramer, Carolina Green and Dem ana Anderson
Absen(ASAB Mexrberse Bonnie Norwood and Moses Carey.
Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Mmotto, Animal Control Manager Irene Paul and
Administrative Assistants Paula Ragan andAndi Morgan.
Poblic Hembers Pmene Mang% Huggins and S=amne Boy
Wekaome and Opening Commend— hair of the ASAB Committee, Kristine* Beigst and
Motion was made by Ross Oglesbee and seconded by Jean ConneratAusttn to approve the Agenda dated
August I5, 2007. VOTE: Unanimous
Motion was made by Juan Connerat Austin and seconded by Daniel TWoris to approve the 1finutes
dated July 1$ 2007. VOTE: Ummimous
Gknend Public Comment —None
Unfin*ked Business
Rabies Lecture— Dr. Carl Williams Public Health Vetaft:riat N.G Dept afHeaM will be giving an
public lecture on September 4, 2007 reganft rabwj in Non* Carolina Ybis i4 being held during the
week of the Inaugural World Rabies Day.
Public Relartions Plan for Proposed Fine Update*— Bob Marotto reminded everyone that the
BOCC did not adoptfne lncreases 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 thowfwe increases in advance of their implementation and provide
justifrcation for the yes A staff work group was fgrmed which developed elements of the
plat that was distributed for discussion. Anars Morgan gave an overview to the committee of the
"Working DocumaW " A motion was made by PatSa¢ord and seconded by James Kramer that the
Animal Services AA*myBoardfeels this is a very strong document that should be used and
recommended to the BOCC with a few minor mod f' ncadons that staff agreed to male;.. VOTE:
Unanimous
Report and Proposal for On oW County's Tethering Comae OrrlinancrAmendme>lt ---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 andseconded by Ross Oglesbee that theproposal
formulated by the Tetha ft Committee be forwarded to -the Board of County Commissioners for
101
M
App r+ o v e d A SA B ArD l a to a-
Angaal 1504 2007
Page 2
consideration with the adaWwn ofa spec* section of the hnnehng space 1sizes for ken iela StaffmU
bring backsome recommendations regrndingkmmel /saes to the SVftnbff 19ei, 2007ASAB meetingfor
discussion, and then drone recommendations, if'acaeepted, 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 byDanwJ Todoris to adjourn the meetfngat 8:00p m.
VOTE: UnaninnouL
Neal ASAB MeeOng: Wednesday, September 19th; 2007 at 6: 30 p.m. in the Economic Development
Center CoM'bw ce Room 110 K King Street Higsborough
102
15
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Approved Mimes for September 19, 2007 Meeting
Present ASAB Members: Daniel Te dorik .Ross OglesbM Pat Sanford Susan Elmore; Jean Comm,21
Austin, James Kramer, Carolina Green, Dewana Anderson Bonnie Norwood and Moses Carey.
Absent ASAB Members: Kristine Bergsteand and Tracy Carroll
Others inAnendwwa Animal Services Director Bob Marotta, Animal Control Manager Irene Pau4
Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison and Administrative AssistantPaula Bagam
Public Ma nbers Presort: Suzanne Boy
Wekome and Opening C;znwmb --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 Ebnore to approve the Mnutes dated
August IS, 2007. VOTE: Unanimous
General Public Commevac—None
Unfurished Business
Fern 1epora ASAB Seeping of Wild Animal Ordnance Amendment Task Force -Boss Oglesbee
presented the "Final Report'; dated August 29, 200. She reported that the Task Force had metfor a total
of four times and determined that it would only consider changes in relations to North Carolina native -
species and rehabdkadwL However, after the meetings the Task Force concluded that there should be no
change in the current ordinance. 77se 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 wildlf cooperative. Motion was made by James Kramer and seconded
by Bonnie Norwood to pass the Fitnal Report dated August 29, 2007, to the BOCC. VOTE: Unanimous
Report and Proposal for Orange County's Takering Committee Ordinance Amendment—Bob Marotta
and Irene Paul provided the ASAB members with a Required Kennel Space Recommendation Memo dated
September 10er, 2007, that proposed a tier system for such requirements based upon their review of such
restrictions in other jurisdictions. Staf'prepared this memo in response to a request at the last ASAB
meeting dust 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 Ordnance Amendment Recommendation with the attached Memo and forward it to
the County Manager for recommendation to the BOCC. VOTE: Unanimous
Pet Overpopulation Subcomndtee -- Caroline Green reported that the committee met in August to
discuss its purpose and develop its charge: A summmy describing that information was provided to the
Approved ASAB Mein- -
S 1*4 2007
103
FRI
Page 2
Members for review Caroline asks that if myone /many y suggestions or comments to please send those
to her or PatSarford
Animal Placement and Fostering Update— Jessica Allison gave a brief summmy of accompwrying
documents on the foster propwn and sheltering activities for the months ofJuly and August. She was
excited to report that these are the highest adoption numbers reported so far this calendar year
Adopdon/Placxment Comm ifte Progress Rgwr — Jessica Allison reported that the committee met on
August 10er, 2007 and made a few revisions to the Parftw&lacement document The committee discussed
and decided that it would be prudent to gather mput from the rescue groups with whom we currently
work The dwwnents have beers sent to sir selected groups and to the =nty attorney for additional
feedback Information gathered via this process will be review at the committee's next meeting scheduled
for September 28, 2007.
Bob Marotta, 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 identUication 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 Ikensing.tag but order them from a
private company instead of the North Carolina Health Department so that we can have our contact
it formation added to the tags There are two primary groups that leave the shelter without tags
(approxAnately 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 tagfor puppies and linens indicating that have a microchip, and a hard - written collar for those
animals with a current vaccination. Another option would be on -site personalized ident#cadon machine
but due to the cost of the machine and stcfing issues it was decided that this option would need to be
e gxfored further. More research wilf be done and a final product will be brought back to the committee
for review and approval
New B-
C.3 radon ofASABNomhudonsSabco ---- -- eo- Caroline Green, Daniel Textoris and Tracy Carroll have
agreed to be on this committee and will come bacl E to the October 17e 2007, ASAB meeting with a
proposed slate of of`icers and at a subsequent meeting in November the vote will take place
Required Annual Review of ASAB Com m tiee Structure -Bob Marano gave an overview of the
requirements of our charier and the two committees.that we currently have are the Potentially Dangerous
Dog Committee and the Adoption Appeals Committees, Motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by
Jean Cannerrat.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
104
Aaimat Services Advisory Board (ASAAB)
Approved Minutes for February 20, 2008 Meedug
.PreseWASASMember�• Ross Oglesbee, Daniel Tenor►; Pat Sw#br4 Susan Elmore, Jean Austin,
Jones Kramer. BomdeNw woo4 Dewrma Anderson, and KristineBergstrand
Abse nt ASAB Members: Tracy Cairolt one Roy, Rachel Beckham and Muses Carey
Others hr Admdwsw Animal Services Director Bob Mw%Wo, Animal Shelter Manager J=dwAllison
and Administrative Assistant Paula Ragam
Peblic Members Present None
Welcome and Opening Comment —ASAB Chair, Ross Oglesbe4 called the meeting to order.
Motion was made by Bone Norwood andseconded 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 Tenorm and sewnded by Bonnie Norwood to approve the minutes dated
Jan wy]6, 200& VOTE: Unanimous
Gmvaal Public Commad None
Annoancrnu►ds- .
Spay Day R=vhn on- --Ross Oglesbee announced that the Board of County Commwiarers adopted the
Spay Day Resolution at On* January 15, 2008 meeting The rssohntion was received with very positive
feedback and a framed copy of the resolution will be dispkDW at the Animal Services oftae on Fn=Uin
Street
Ms OgImbee also announced dw she attended the rer eption 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 pwgrama and to
have resources available for them. Ms Oglesbee would IiJEe to be vfonned as a board what lands of
request are being made for stafirin 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 Maces Carey will no longer be the ASAB kaison due
to his retirementfrom the BOCr— There war discussion from the board members about the process for his
replacement and whether or not recamma dations by theASAB can be made M. Marotta will look in to
how,theprocessfor new BOCC appointments are handed and report back to the ASAB in March.
Ms Oglesbee suggested that the board think about having an amoral Animal Semaces Day to focus on due
programs and invite the BOCC and public to attend This would be a great way to promote the
spayhmuter programs and to conduct educational outreadn to the community.
Approved ASAB Minutes
February 20, 2WS
105
Ga
Page 2
Unfinished Bnssmes --
Tdkaft Orden sm 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 ofp w work by
the ASAB and the CouWy's Tethering Committee Various motions were considered until one received
majority support and these are rworded below.
• A motion vies made by Daniel Textork 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 c mTF.
• A motion was made again by Daniel Tedarzs and seconded by Susan Elmore to accept the
Tethering Ama dment and to exclude the class I and class 21icensed kennels for the meantime,
with the un dl rstandmg they would be addressed in the fuhare'There was more discussion about
concerns by members about addressing the issue later. Motion did not carry arthe vote was 2. in
favor and 6 against
• A motion made by Jean Austin to present the Tethering Amendment as wee have it and exempt the
minimal kennel saes for Class I and Glass 2 licensed ken nets. There was no second and it wins
requested to have more discussion. Motion did not carry.
• A motion was made again by Jet: Austin and seconded by Pat Sanford to accept the Tethering
Amendment to Orange County Animal Control Ordimmce and exempt Class 1 and Class 2
kcm& adnUg as ofjwnuvy 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 5 in favor 3 opposed
• Motion wnu 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 dfflkwd
sections of the Amendment: This notion carried by a vote of 6 in farar 2 opposed
Once the County Attorneys have made revisions to the proposed Tethering Amendment staff`' will request
that the County Managerplace it before the BOCCfor its deliberation.
FAQ Wor kr W Document -- Board members were pleased with the work that had been done and gave
very positive feedback There were a couple of typogrqphicitl changes requested and the board would
like to mention public health risk and the amount of tar dollars spent to address this issue Once changes
are made an abstract and amendment to movie forward will by completed by the March meeting:
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 mb= from the shelter. She asked
thatASAB members prepare for a discussion of tha topic at its March meeting.
Approved ASAB Afinuto
February 20*, 20M
106
w
Page 3
Motion tans made by Susan Elmore and seaanded byJean Austin to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
VOTE. Unanimous
Next ASAR Nading: Wednesday, March 19, 2008, at 6.•30 p.m. in the Skn dvent Human Services
Conference Room, 2501 Homestead Road Chapel HjU
107
(P Lf
Amimal services AdvWU Board (ASAB)
Approved Minutes for Mm b 19,2M Meeting
Present ASAB Membea: Daniel Testori; Pat Sanford, Susan Elmore, Jean Austin, Janes Kramer,
Moses Cary, and Kris mBergstrand
Abseil ASAB Membe - Ross OglesbM Bonnie Norwood Ttray Ccamg Dewarna Anderson, Suzmme
Roy and Rachel Beckham.
Others in.4g dw.= Animal Services Director Bob Mai Otto, Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison,
Animal Control Manager Irene Phipps andAd n=ArativeAssistantPaula Ragan.
PablicMembea Present Elliott flamer
Welcome end Opaft Commod"SAB Co-Chair, Susan Elmore axrlled the meeting to order.
Motion was made by James Kramer and seconded by Daniel Textork 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 wrns made by Daniel Tedoris and seconded by Kristine Bergstrand to apprmv the minutes dated
Februa y 20, 2008 with one charge 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
Genes oL Pablic Compnens -None
Unfinished Bur humF-
Tdhaft 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
edsttng kenmel permits from the enclosure requb ement; and (2) matter of notice in the event that an
animal it seized and impounded under the proposed amendment.. 77ne County Attorney has since then
received in formation regarding related litigation that is occurring now in Wake County and the issue in
that litigation is the issue of notIce, 77ne County Attorney thought it would be best to ancorporate 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 discussions 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 M:zrotto reported that at the commissioner's work session it war suggested that we go forward with
the amoubnent and as we proceed there should be some period of time designated for the proposed
prelbnbwy 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
108
(05
Anhn d Services Advisory Borad MCrft
Apprrow -d Mlrmtes
March 19,20W
Page 2
Anfind Nome Ordnanc& –Irene phipps gave an update on an item that was discussed at the November
2007 AMB meeting regardng a requwt from an Ormage County cdwm (David Sylres) to review the
current Animal Ordinance as it relates to the noise drsturbance associated with roosters. Presently the
County's orduaance only addresses nuisance bar*mg and does not allow any type ofresohaun for other
animal noises In 2007, the Animal Control Division ofAnimal Services received only three complaints to
di, awd locations regarding roosters and spe ft ally the noise dx d they make, Research was conducted
on Mradcode 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 due fma ngs
A motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by A&W Cary that the Animal Services Advisory Board
does not feel it is appropriate to movie forward with a recommendation that the Animal Ordinance be
changed but that there be further contact with Mr. 4*vs_regardingpotential civil relief VOTE:
Unanimous
Pd o* population Comnrkum—Pat Sanford reported that they gathered a lot of informalion at the last
meding and Beth Livingston ofAmmal Kind reported that at the present time they are spaying and
neutering about 100 animals ayear in Orange County without arty funds from Orange County Animal
Services and that at an average costper surgery of 3754100 they could do 100 more surgeries. Animal
Kind would do all the administration and currently Animal n d has contracts with local V&WVkW7anL
Ms Sanford also reported that the feral cat cardakffs are coming back to d1wuss how to handle feral cat
colondes and to try and reduce the number offeral adds coming in to the shelter.
Bob Movao reported that there is now 316, 000.00 in the County's Community SpayNeuterfwnd and that
the amount is expected to grow to - ,125,000 or more before the end of theftwalYear. Some of the funds
were used for the Spay Day USA program where we sterilized 20 animals belonging to clients of the
Deportment of social Services. The actual list was 31 animals but duce to the exact compliment of
males/females and cats /dogs, we were only able to process 20 drat particul ar day. We plan ongoing 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 quarterfor a variety► ofprograms, which will help with the
prevention of unwanted pets that and up in the shelter. The committee will come back at the meet board
meeting with a specific programmatic and monetary recommendation and proceed on that basis
Adopdoa/P&rzwurt ConarW ---Bob Marotto would Ii a to get suppo t 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 fnnalize the documents in the near future, and that would require review and approval by the
Board of Cowdy Commissioners
A motion was made byJeam Ausitm and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to add "appropriate
socialization" after the word voter hung care of item 2 on page 2 of the document YO
Unanimous
A motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Kris Bergatrrrnd to remove the word "may"
and replace it with the word " must" in item 10 ofpage 4 YOTE: Unanimous
A motion was made by Moses Cary and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to strike the last sentence of
item 10 ofpage 4. VOTE: Unimbnous
109
W/ 4
Amoral Servicer Advisory Board Meiling
Approved M miler
March 19, 2003
Page 3
A motion wos made by Jean Ausim and seconded by Kris Bergsdrnud to remove "a timely
mauler" and replace with "no later than the end of thefollowing quarter" in item 16 ofpage 5.
VOTE: Unanimous
One item that has not been resolved yet is with the requirement for general liability buswatce A survey
war done with the fire rescue groups, all of which indicated that it would not inhibit them to. work with
Me Orange County Animal Shelter. A question was then raised whether smaller rescue groups would be
in3 ad by the rMuirement: Research is currently being done to get a general cost ofwhat the insurance
would be and that vrfonmation will be brought back to the boardfor further discussion.
Foster Program Repont–Jess Allison rgw1ed that a meeting war held on January 31, 200$ 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 checlUis4 interview and application diat were shown in the
handout provided to the board memberx Bob Marotto reported that there is a limited ability to invest in
thefosterprogram but dual theprogram can be maintainer, The discussion with stcf indicated that to try
and grow the program would our human resources and we should take the time that we do have
available and invet 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 Ausdn and seconded by Kris
Bagstrand to adopt and accept the amendments in both Foster Home Policy and Procedures of
Enclosures A dr C VOTE: Unanimous
Ma Allison gave an overview of the January and February 2008 statistical summaries. B was pointed out
that February adoptions were lower than January and it appears that March's will also below T hu u a
concern and there was a brief docussion that mendoned factors such as the price of gas and economy.
New Business —Bob Marano 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 beep the public Wormed 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 bushww.
2008 -2009 Budget Update- mob Marotta reported that he has been asked to prepare a
conthtuation budget; which amounts to approximately a $1.,6 million dollar operating budgetfor
the fiscal year He fta truer 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.
110
47
Animl services Adars" Board Medhw
AppivPed,W urtes
March 19, 2003
Page 4
Adoption of Pitt Bulls fmm Orange County's Animal Shelter-- In order to allow enough time
for discussion of this subject it was decided (with the assent of ]& Elliott Kramer) to reschedule
this topic for the April 16, 2008 ASAB meeting. A& Kramer gave ASAB members an
informational handout to review in advance of that meeting.
Annoancemeno- -Aloes Cary announced that he will be leaving the ASLIB 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 toed to know the new commissioner& The Animal Services Advisory Board
may make a recommendadon to the commissioners but the commixsioners do not have to agree and will
have the final decision
Motion ws made by Jean Austin and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to adjourn the meeting at 8.20p &L
V02W. Unanimous.
Nett ASAB Meeting: Wednesday, Apri116. 2008, at 6.•30 p_m. in the Government Services Center
Conference Room, 200 S- Cameron Sired, Hillsborough.
i11
M
DRAFT:
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Minutes for April 16h 2008 Meeting
Scheduled for Review and Approval at next ASAB Meeting
PresentASAB Members: Daniel Tcdoris, Pat Sanford, Susan Elmore, Jean Ausf James Kramer,
Ross Oglesbee; Bonnie Norwood, Tracy Carroll and Suzanne Roy
AbsentASAB Members: Dewana Anderson, Kristine Bergstrand and Moses Carey.
Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotta, Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison,
Animal Control Manager Irene Phipps and Administrative Assistant Paula Ragan.
Public Members Present: Elliott Cramer and Mchael SoluslEi
Welcome and Opening Comments- --ASAB Chair, Ross Oglesbe% 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 arrtvar 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
Unf ukked Business --
Tethering Ordinance Update— Afr. Marotta reported that the Tethering Committee reconvened to
ensure that they have agreement about definition of the proposed tethering restriction and the defaddon
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 CozmV Commissioners.
VOTE: 6 in favor 2 opposed— Motion Carries
Pet OveWpuladon Committee --Pat Sanford reported that the committee has been workvng with the
feral cat caretakws 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 offe -ed to the owners of the feral cat colonies in order to
reduce the number coming in to the shelter being eud umized ' Motion was made by Bonnie Norwood and
seconded by Jean Austin to approve the budget outline in the Memorandum from Animal Services
Director Bob Marotta (dated Apri110, 2008) regarding Community Spay/Neuter Fund.• Program and
Guideline.Proposal. VOTE: Unanimous
March S'taddical Samna) —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
112
M
`Draft" Page 2
Anima! Service Advisory Board
MeaftMm- WaAprill6*, 200x'
UNC remedatlon effort around the crarentshelter location may be affecting adopa ms One specific
suggestion was that there be more media coverage to h form the community that the shelter is still open to
and serving the public.
Adoption of Pit bullsfrm Orange County's Animal Shelter` --A member ofthepubliq JW Elliott
Cramer gave an overview of the information he prevlousty provided and requested that the AM limit
the numbers ofpit bu& on'dsplay to the public and frJs that they are being adopted out to people who
are not appropriate adoptem In addition 141x. Cramer suggested that this breed ofdogshould only be
adopted out to people that have cWenence 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 alto emphasized that he was struck by the member ofpit bulls and pit bull mixes at the
shelter and on the shelter's webstte
Another member of the publfc� Afr Michael Solusk$ 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 bread specific changes in adoption
pract ices, 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 breedof dogs. She indicated that the Animal Shelter staff `'generally holds thisparacular bread.
ofdog to a higher standard Ifthere are any signs of agp=ave behavior, they are usually not put up for
adoption. Mr. Marotta, suggested that we think about whether or not we are at or beyond the best
practices in the fndusby for our evaluation and placement of these dogs and other dogs. The best
practices ofthe industry should be our guide, not being &scrimbtaia,ry but recognizing that there are
some special considerations that should be to factor in.
ASAB members d1 scussed various issues throughout and on the basis of statements made by BAff and
members of thepublic. These issues included the quality and accuracy of available statistics on dog bites
by breed; the challenges or di, % ddes 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 thew 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 Businers --Bob MarotM 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 wel4 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 Off rce in Hillsborough mth 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.
113
70
OD „paV 3
Animal SoWeesAds6ory Board
Meeting Mi ud a4rM 168', 2008
Jess Allison provided an overview of the UNC rennediation 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 stafj`'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 remeakWon project and signage has been placed throughout the new
route in to the shelter of of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd to help direct tr ffw to the shelter.
Motion was made by James Kramer and seconded by Jean Austin to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
VOTE. Unanbww.
Neat AMB Meeting: Wednesday, May 21, 2008, at 6: 30 p.m. in the Southern Human Services
Conference Room, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel HUL
114
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 20, 2008
Action Agenda
Item No. 5-b
SUBJECT: Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dogs
DEPARTMENT: Animal Services
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
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ross Ogiesbee, J.D., Chair, Animal
Services Advisory Board 96-0599
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 Attomey`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
115
2
asked questions (FAQ) are all posted in full form on the Animal Services websits at
http:// 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
3
Tethering Amendment Proposal
As Recommended to the Board of County Commissioaeas
May 20° 2008
AMEMMWM TO THE
ORANGE COUNTY ANDM CONTROL ORDINANCE
(Only those sections or subsections amended are set out below)
BE 1T 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 berms 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 nemditted in accordance with Subsxtions
MM and XilLl 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
1.16
M
Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal
May 20`x, 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 either on a swivel designed to prevent the animal
from choking or strangling itself, The rests M of nnactenM does by a
fenc& kOWL ontd..M encl_osum. chain IMb or similar MM MW is furber reFUlaW
Oft Sections 2M and XW of tiis oidina*+ce.
23. ...
24. ...
25. ...
Section M — Mishv went 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. ...
D. ...
R It shall be unlawful to restrain any animal except in a humane fashion;
t out &Wn Section VII(22) above: and Sections
117
0
Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal
May 20`x, 2008
Page 6
•_��_�l.i _, „� r.17-7; MUM .7c J .,. "` -...� - 7! i —�� i �Sci.! -.i � _._.. , •..rill'
Flit-" • ILt
Upon motion of Commissioner seconded by
Commissioner . the foregoing Animal Control
Ordinance amendments were adopted this the day of
2008 and shall become effective as of the day of 200
Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners
121
0
Tethering Committee Report
J* 3e, 2007
0=ge County's Tethering Committee*
Report and Proposal for Ordinance Amendment
July 30t14 2007
'`Members of the Tethering Committee wish to d=kAnimal Services sta fffor their diligent and
professional e,, onty to enswe that the Committee was e,,ffechw as well as successful in meeting its
charge in a timely may w. Direct sta ff support to the Tethering Committee wm provided by Bob
Mwouv, Anrnwl Servic w Director; Irene Pain Manager, Animal Co?&ol Division; Lisa Smith
QfteAssistwg Animal Control Division; andAn&Morgan A&nbd drative Assistant
A&nbds&m o?L
122
Tethering Committee Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
July 30 , 2007
It323
L Summary
IL Introduction
IIL Findings
IV Recommendations
IV. Discussion
V. Next Steps
VL Appendices
a. Appendix I: Creation of the Orange County Tethering Committee and Board of County
Commissioners' Abstract fir 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 Tetheriog Committee
2
124
Tethering Cow Report
July 30, 2007
Auer a six-mouth-long delibewation 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 men* s, and in some circo, tstsnces, a&ct their enjoyment and use of their property.
W'dh 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.
Ofpsrtimdw concern are dogs that spend their lives tethered, as these are naturally active and social
beings that require exercise and fivquent 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 confinemert 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:
0 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 a requirement fior minimum kennel size for outdoor housing of dogs;
• an cumaption 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 1 8-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 Comintft is making these recommendations on the basis of these findings:
Prolonged tethering can and does deprive doWof necessary exercise and socialization.
Tethered dogs can and do contribute to various community problems, including pet
overpopulation and nuisance badang.
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
is North Carolina jurisdictions with tethering ordinances; and held two meetings to obtain public
input.
125
IQ
Tethering Committee Report
July 30a', 2007
In addition, the Committee is making these recommendations recognizing that that the pry for
its proposal m change Orange County's animal ordinances is compelling. More specifically,
numerous jurisdiction m North Carolina and around the United States (including four states) have
successfiully implemented tethering prohibitions or restrictions and lave found them to be both
enforceable and efii ctive in reducing animal cruelty complaints and dog bite incidents.
Given the charge it received from the Board of County Commissioners, the Tethering Cow is
submitting its recaommendations to the Animal Services Advisory Board, the appointed citizen body
that advises the County regarding animal service matters. In tarn, the-Animal Services Advisory
Board will decide what, if any, ordnance amendments to recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners, the County's legislative body.
Tethering Committee a Report
Jaly 3e, 2007
This is a report of the Orange County Tethering Committee, a committee created by the Board of
county Commissions (BOCC) aid charged with considering what changes, if any, should be
made in the County's animal ordinances with regard to tedhermg.t
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 (f)r eutample, a dog chained
to a stake, near a dog house) but may also be defined to inchule 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 exchnive, means of confinement.
Curremtiy, Orange County's animal ordinances, which apply to the unincorporated parts of the
County and EWJsborough, 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 fur Orange County's animal ordinances. It will also provide information about the
work of the Committee, its findings, and the rationale fur its specific recommendations.
t
For ba+ckgravind an the fmmudm of the Tethering Committee and its charge Rm the Orange County Board of
Commissioners, see Appendix L• Creation of the Orange Cam iy Tethering C azzutbee and Board of C amW
Commissioners' Abstrad for the Creagan of the Tethering Cammif m
(A26
14
Tethering Committee Report
lily 30s , 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 prob bit
tag in other North Carolina jurisdictions, and collect input from the public. Altogether there
was one orgsnizafional meeting, two information gathering meetings, and two public input
naxtings. Two additional meetings were held to formnlate recommendations and review and
approve the Committee's Report and Proposal for Ordbw= Amendment
The Committee carne to its general findings on the basis of the weight of available infoormation
gathered through its meetings and wort 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 regu lations.Z Most of these are county and local governments, but there are also four
states that have prob bited 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 deSend
themselves.
2 Sex MtpJtwww.be[pmgM&MWLC dga_tdherLegLWOn.asp-
b
127
Tethering Committee Report
Pabfic Safely issues
July 30a', 2007
* Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to the community. They can and do become highly
tearnorial and aggressive and present a signiScant risk of miury 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 annuals).
Community Concerns
• Tethered dogs arc 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 r pirememt 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 enactme t of an ordinance to prohibit or restrict tethering;
at least 50 U.S. jurisdictions, inchuding 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?
• Ordinances that restrict or prohibit tethering have proved to be both enfiomeable and
ei%ctive in reducing animal cruelty complaints and incidents of dog bites.
3 See Appendu M North C�zoUnz Co mtics and Townships Vd& Te&aiag ohrdmsaees.
7
128
t5
129
la
Tethering Cow Report
July 30P, 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 bur 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 miniamm standard is set out in Section VII in these terns:
"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
itselE, or on a chain run." 4
As fDrmukftd 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
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. inchuiina but not limited to
reak menu for food, wad and sheltex 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 enbm=
the overall conditions and care of dogs themselves. It should be noted that the Committee is
4 NW& Carolina General Statute (NCGS) (sedions 14360 mod) pig to Caner to animals UW BPP;y in some
rarcomsI mcm tD how an anal is seemed. With only one exception, however, it does not nhake any specific mendan
of reshaiQt or tddhain& The c=cpdcn is NCW 143623 (Restraining dogs in a crud manner}, which makes it a Class
1 misdameanar for someone to "maliciously reshain a dog using a chain or wire grossly in excess of the sim necessary
to reshain the dog softy."
130-
17
Tethering Committee Report
July 3(P, 2007
recommending that tethering be limited rather than oudswed because it has conchuied that
there are c a tam cIffaunstances under which tethering can be an acceptable method of
cones far sevaal hours, whether, the owner is in attendance or has left his or her
residence fur that timee period.
• Tethers must moot certain a9 m Me-A . A tethered dog mast have a tether at least ten feet in
length that swivels at each end to prevemt choking or strangulation and allows access to
f)od, water and shelter. The weight of the tether and collar mad not exceed ten percent of
the dog's body weight A tethered dog mast 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 L sin for outdoor enclosures for dogg 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 welf ire.s
Exceptions
• jalbad g,is allowed at training and nabrmance (QrzzgdW events for dog& includinsr but
not hatted 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 regegi g lot
Job& should become effective 18 months after its
adoo This approach is infiormed by the successful experience of other communities in
which awareness was raised and the public educated before a tethering regulation actually
became effective.
s An example of such repro went from New Ebnover County, Narth Carolina, is there "Outside endosmti means a pea
large enough to provide each dog less than 25 pounds with a beffid of at least 8 fed x 10 fret in size, and each dog 25
pounds or greaft wigs a k=md of 10 fret x 10 feet in sim Animal cant al services reserves the right to detumine if a
space is considered suitable for the number and size of dogs housed in an outdoor endamrce ° (Now Hanover Caunv
Code, Sudan 5-4)
Tetheaing Committee Report
131
I$
Jnly 30P, 2007
• 3k kolementation phase will involve a year hnp period of extensive Mblic oVWzph and
education regnd' g the ordinance amendmont and Ragm of tethering .followed by a six-
month period in which only warnings are issued. This is to ensure that dog owners have
ample Mice of the new ordinance and time to trSWkbn to other methods of confine
and take advantage of community resources to help with the implementation of alternatives.
• Public outreach should iaclude rmurces to help dog owners implement alternatives to the
restraint of dogaby 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; afkw the six-month phase -in
period, a dog 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.
• An animal may be impounded after the issuance of a citation for a violation of the jadm ing
ordinance,-4 r h itself would occur only after the issuance of a waning —subipct to
wMadwk process of MARW 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-
04
W-� ,. . D� ti . 0:
-
• An animal may be impounded after the issuance of a citation for a violation of the jadm ing
ordinance,-4 r h itself would occur only after the issuance of a waning —subipct to
wMadwk process of MARW 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-
132
19
Tethering Committee Report July 30et, 2007
The Tctbermg Committee is recommending a taming 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 tweet -four- -hoot period, such an ordinance would reduce the risk ofuncontrolled 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
consistelt 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 cam be successfully regulated m 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 requa+ed by humane investigators to attend to animal
complaints.
According to interviews with animal services officials from Catawba County, Now Hanover County
and the Town of Lauriaburg in Scotland County, there were few, if any, unintended adverse
impacts. Dogs were not surrendered by their owners, cethanized or just set fee as a result of the
6 See } rJ/www.he eanimals ca®/ t_ ;djaLSislatian.aso foe complete fist ofju dsddims w»h tdha%g
ardiaaa=
7 See Append x M North Carobna Covatie s and Townships vd& Te&eriag Onfi=cxs, and App =ft III: Notes from
k4mviam with North Carolina JurMotions with Tdhermg Ordoanoes: Cmduc ted by the Tdhaft Cammnttm
- 11
Tethering Comae Report
July 30ffi, 2007
adoption of tethering ordinances. In addition, the ordinances had several positive impacts, for
instance, reducing the member of animal cruelly complaints and incidents of dog bites.
�33
In terms of eubrceme4 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 met&ods 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 taming was most
enforceable. In 2000, Laurinburg changed its ordinance to restrict tethering from eight (8) horns 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
att endance. 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 cqx ssed 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 3&, 2007
tag was not necessarily inhumane, and that for some individuals and animals, it could be the
only possible or effactive means of restraint.
A
Also at these sessions were representatives of sn area %rating association, the Eno River Coon
Hunters Association, and other i tmvsted 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 coaccm was the keeping of hturnting dogs themselves. They emphasized that these dogs .
were o$em, 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 sepaustion 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 an, 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 ci not involving tethering, but believes that there are
signi5caz . 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
cmumswncM the Cow is proposing a three -hour limit per 24 hours with specificatYams 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 recommendvng a phase -in period for the law that
13
134
Tethering Committee Report July 3&, 2007
would hwhule won about the various awes and community resources available to help
owners transition from tethers to other means of restraining their dogs.
135
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 bunters in its "listening sessions," but ultimately decided against recommending such an
exception for several reasons. One is that belief that hvuting 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 hurting 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 tetlieir their dogs for a peed 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 dehberations, as
well as the information it pffiered from other sources, that the Committee is proposing that there be
an ordinance amendment that limits the practice of tethering in Orange County.
The recommendations made in this report will be submitted to the ASAB for timely review and
dehiberation of whether a proposed ordnance amendment should ultimately be adopted by the
BOCC itsek£ 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
Teffim tg Committee Report
July 30 , 2007
On the basis of its consideration of die Tethering Comnniitec's rec:onmo�endations, the ASAB is
expected to decide whetter to recommend any ordmance amendmeats to the BOCC. As the
County's sole legislative body, the BOCC would decide whether to enact any recom
amendments, and its own dehberatiuns would be based upon a public hearing about any proposed
amendment, as well as the materials and recommendations received from the ASAB and Tethering
Coerce.
15
136
�23
Tethering Committee Report July 30$ 2007
APPENDIXI-
Creation of the Orange Corraty Tetherfng Committee and Board Of
Commh:doners' Abstract for Creation of the Tethering Committee
137
rid'
Committee Creation
The concerns mtaroiunding 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 is commm uties 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 concerti that
tethered ant annals, deprived of socialization and exercise, develop behavioral problems or aggression,
and as a result, pose a risk to the community through dog bites and shacks. Other concerns involve
the role of tethered dogs in contributing to community problems such as pet overpopulation and
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 W limit, restrict or outlaw
tedxzin& All of these efforts are concerned with both public safety and animal welfare.
Ile Orange County Tethering Committee was formed by the BOCC is 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 tang as a policy issue and reporting on k as a means of confinement,
including the activities and e$vris of other communities;
a The issue of telhermg was aigmaIIy considered by the ASAB, which aeated a subcammiam to address die matter.
The subcommittee met and decided drat it watldneed to bring is outside members of die cmnmmitY, a 5mctioa
reserved far the BOCC. It was at that time that the BOCC -1,11 d the Tedzaing Commute to work in cogjuncdw with
the ASAB in deciding in And ways, if any, the ordnance drat governs tethering should be changed.
16
Tethering Committee Report
July 30`. 2007
• Obtaining general public cow or input about tearing from a crown of the
community; and
• Recommending to the ASAB any appropriate or desirable changes with the understanding
that the ASAB would itself maim any final recommendations to the BOCC.
The BOCC also specffied the makeup of the Comm d thee. 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 represeirtatives.
BOCC Abstract and Committee Charge
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 3td, 2006
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Creation of a Tethering Committee
DEPARTMENT: Animal Services PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Charge To and Composition of INFORMATION CONTACT:
Orange County Tethering Committee Bob Marotto, Director, 968 -2287
Tethering Meeting Summary Notes
Gwen Harvey, Assistant County
Manager, 245 -2307
as
17
138
Tcd=iAg Commkov Report July 30, 2007
PURPOSE: To request that the BOCC create a Tethering Comur>lttee 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.
139
ONO
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 me=mber 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 idnd 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 infbrmation; 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 Commtitiee would be ttited
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.
is
Tcdxeng Cow Report
July 30, 2007
a-1
It was discussed during ChairlNice Chair agenda review that the SOCC might wish to
create the Tethering Committee itself, and with the inclusion of the two ASAB
representathres, appoint the five pre - defined positions as proposed along with three
additional at4arge representatives from the community.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact accompanies the creation of a Tethering
Committee.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recor mends 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 COAD41TTER
At the request of the Animal Services Advisory Board, and upon recommendation of the
County Manager, the Commissioners are creating a comnittee 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 Iblows:
• 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 at4arge representatives (for BOCC consideration).
The charge for the committee follows:
• To compile in a presentable form pertinent infomnafion on tethering and/or chaining as a
means of confinement for animals such as dogs, including acfiivides and efforts pursued by
other communities.
19
140
Tetlwring Commftw Report
My 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 wig itself make any final
recommendations to the Board of County Comurriissioners.
20
141
128
142
C9
Tedwring Cow Report
APPMWVr I.-
July 3&, 2007
Committee Members, BOCC.Lidsom and Staff
Committee Members
Position 1: Kristine Bergs'rand
Animal Services Advisory Board Member
Position 2: Jean H. Connerat Levine
Animal Services Advisory Board Member
Position 3: Mary Dow
Animal BehaviDitist
PoskionA: VACANT
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-Lap
Position 9: Kelly Stmwd
Law Enforcement
Hoard of County Commissioners Liaison
Commissioner Michael R Nelson
Animal Services Staff
Bob Marotto
Animal Services Director
i
Irene Paul
i
Manager, Animal Control Division
I
21
Tethering Committee Report
Lisa Smith
Office Assistant, Animal Control Division
Andi Morgan
Administradw Assistant, Administration
J* 30a', 2007
143
30
22
314
Tethering Committee Report J* 30a', 2007
APPEIMM •
North Carofina Cornaiies and Townships with Tethering Or &Wanes
The foIIowing North CaroHxa j ons luxe some sort of tetba ig regalation For more
ncformradom see http✓/www he 1pi comr*a_tdJeerieg. . aaA
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) ResbrainrG 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 hollows: Organized and lawful
animal functions e.g. hunting, obedience graining, field and water training, law enforcement training
and/or in the pursuit of woddng or competing in those legal endeavors. When a dog is on the
property of its owner of guardian it shall be scoured when not supervised by a competant person.
Ropes, chains, and the We shall not eonsttUtO adequate security under this ordinance.
Roanoke rapids. North Carolina
June 13, 2005
This ordinance prohibits the tethering of dogs.
Section 91.22. Prohibition Against Tethering of Dogs.
A. It shall be unlawfiil to tether an unattended dog outside of the house.
Laurinburv. North Carorna
June 20, 2000
Dogs may not be chained for a period longer than one hour in a 24-hour period.
Sec. 421. 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 sacuret enclosure, in rhiding a fenced in
•area or ekxlronic ice, 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 Repo July 3&, 2007
3a
hour every twesaq-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 kepper 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 -1 8-97; 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 (H): No person sba% at any time, fasten, chain, or tie any dog or cause such dog to be
fastaned, chained, or tied, while such dog is on the dog owner's property, or on the property of the
dog ownex'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 tithe or under conditions
that an animal control officer or animal cruelty investigator deems harmfid 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 *eight and length of chains or tethers can be
obtained from the animal shelter or animal control.
(2) Using a chain or tee made of rope, twine, cord or similar material
(3) Using a chain or tdhw that is less than 10 iixt in length and/or does not have swivels on
both ends. All chains or tetras mast be attached to the snimai 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 Iunited 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
145
Tethering Committee Report
July 30a', 2007
33
(c) Using a chain or tether that is less than 10 fixt 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 animals body weight.
(e) Allowing an animal to be chained or tethered such drat 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
(1) Using a chain as a primary collar. All collars used fur 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
flood, 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 Spdr s. North Carolina
May 16, 2006
This ordinance prohibits the tethering of animals fora period of time or under conditions that are
deemed harmful to the animals. Tethers must be at least 10 lira 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 ads:
S. 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 £or a period of time or under
conditions that an animal control-officer deems harmful orpotenially harmful to the animal.
Examiples of harmful or potentially harmfizl chairing 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 Ims than ten fleet long. Using a chain or
tether that exceeds ten percent of the animal's body weight shall be deemed not appropriate
and potentially barmfuL
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.
PER
146
147
93q
Tethering Coffee Report July 30a; 2007
Greenville, North Carolina
This ordnance outlines what kind of tether may be used.
c. -45. Annual care generally.
(c) Ana► chain, leash, or similar device for animal restraint shall be designed and placed to prevent
choking orn>jnry to the animal. The restraining device shall be at least ten fiat in length and p laced
on a swivel or on a chain ran.
26
148
Te&nieg Committee Report July 30a; 2007
APPENDIX IV.•
Notes from Ixterviews w#h North Carolina hQis&doxs wish Tethering
Ordifiww,a: Conduced by the Tethering Committee
The f,ollowmg is a summary of eommenb from Ananal Sery M d ichis from New Hanover County,
Me City of Laurinbwg and Catawba Courdy, made in telephone i dwWews. The Tedrering
Committee conducted these wom►iews. on April 11 ° ; 2007 as apart of its information gathering-
Dr. Jean McNeil. Animal Control Services NLn_�er
NOW 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 enf me because they would have t i 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 off cers were seeing.
The county also wanted to promote a higher standard of pet ownership.
ENFOKCEMEN'T: 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 in the county legal
department fur 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 talm 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. Somt 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 Modfin Animal Control Ufficer
City of 1LaurinbuM Animal Control Department, Scotland County
THE LAW: k 1988, Laurinburg passed a law limiting tethering to 8 hours a day. It was difficult to
eafDrce. In 2000, they changed it to one -hour and the change made enforcement much easier. The
27
Tethering Committee Report
July 30, 2007
149
3S
county (Scotland) has the same ordinance as the city. They have a 90 pm=nt compliance rate at this
point-
Lauriaburg also has restrictions on pens size —10$10 for smaller dogs, 20XI O for Iarger. Animal
control wants larger raemeats, but the city, council has not agreed.
ENFORCEMENT: 1- hourtime limit verified by sitting and vvatihing. Violawa 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 civiil citafon and $100 fine. They
do have the power to impound dogs and £eel this has been an important tool
Most people comply with the law by putting up a pen. The Hm nane 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 lack. Sometimes the shelter fee is waived. About
25 % reclaim their dog and the rest are bMw off anyway.
PHASE IN: The city had a one-year education period before enfDrcement be_ gan. They educated the
community through But 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•A of bites before were from chained dogs. No dramatic increase in surrenders
and no rest 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 McKwl Shelter Managg�
Catawba Couaty Animal Care and Control Catawba County
TIM LAW Catawba does not have a ban, just requirements on conditions for tag.
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 fur
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. red. More animals are
surrendered under the nrism= ordinance than the tethering ordinance.
29
a150
_r
to ix
�J
Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin St, Smite 106, Chapel. ML NC 27514 (919) 968 -2287
September 1&, 2007
To: Animal Services Advisory Board
From: Bob Manrito, 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
Rwpdred Kennel Spam
sepfiember ld*, =7
PWV 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
Ordfnanae 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 enforoemeft Generally speaking, it
is possible to measure the dimensions of a kennel (or fend), and the weight of a dog
may be determined in a variety of ways (including from veterinary records).
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 (inducing 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.
151
Appendfx l:
Required Kennel Space Regruladons
This appendix contains two types of information used in the research of our
recommendations regardng minimum kennel space requirements.
The first section covers e)asdng ordinances, including one from NC, that currently
regulate minimum kennel space requirements. The second part of the appendbc 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. UncolwLancaster County HeaM Department - Nebraska Animar 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 Dog
fen Size
Sq. Ft
Large
(over 26" or over 75 lbs.
Larger
j
(over 20" or under 75 Ibs. )
i40
Mecum 1�2
(over 12" or under 50 lbs.
Small
24
152
39
(over 12' or under 20 lbs.
Required Kennel %ace
September 100, 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
hitpJ/ www .citvofbartlesvllle.orgrndex.ohp
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.
S. Live Oak Texas (they have a tethering ban) — Animal Restraint Required
Any dogs confined within a fenced yank 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 yank, the owner of such
dogs or perms 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 shag 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 Will 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. Sterifrzed cats are exempt from confinement.
153
154
40
Ownber 100, 2W7
Page 5
The ordnance 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 it 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
B. Little Rock Arkansas
Sec. 616. 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 ft)
Large
(over 20" at withers or not over 75)
Medium
(over 12" at withers or not over 50 !bs)
Small
(12" or few or not over 20 fbs)
Pen Size M 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.
155
41
Required Kennel 4wce
September 100, 2107
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 lbs.
Over 50 lbs.
1
6x10 (60 sq. feet)
8x10 (80 sq. feet)
2
8x10 (80 sq. feet)
8x12 (96 sq. feet)
3
8x12 (96 sq. feet)
10x14 (140 sq. feet)
4
1 0x1 2 (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 Dog Pen rincrease pen size by half of total area oer additional dog)
Extra Large (over 75 !bs) ** sq. feet
Large (50-75 ft) **sq. feet
Medium (20-50 lbs) **sq. feet
Small (under 20 lbs) *%q. 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)
156
4Q
Req~ Kennel Spam
September 100, 2007
Page 7
3. Prime George County — Maryland
Cane Standards for Enforcement of And - Cruelly 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) shag be as follows:
# of Dogs
Small (<25lbs)
Medium (25- 50lbs) '
Large (> 50ibs)
1
3x7 (21 sq ft)
6x10 (60stq 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 fhe Washington DC Humane Society's
Humane Law Enforcement Manual.
157
q3
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, 20p South
Cameron Street, Hillsborough
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Kristine Bergshand, DVM, Jean Connerat
Austin, Mary Dow, Margie Huggins, -Alan 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 134
2007, there would be some recommendations or findings from the Tethering
Committee that would be presented to the ASAB for its consideration.
L{if
Tegkving Gammime Inaugural Meeting
February 27e�, 2W7
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, Ordnance). 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.
158
45"
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Wednesday, March 7&, 2007, 7:00 — 8:30 p m.
Meeting Summary
Location: Confrxence Room, Southern Human Services Centex, 2501 Homestead Road,
and Chapel Hill.
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Mary Dow, Alane Kola,
Michael Nelson, Suzanne Roy, Kelly Strowd, Animal Services Director Robert Marotto,
Animal Control Manager Irene Paul, Office Assistant Lisa Smith.
OCTC Members Absent: Rachel Beckbam, Kristine Bergstrand, and Margie Huggins.
Others in Attendance: Amanda Arrington.
Approval of Meeting Summary from February 276, 2007: Motion was made Jean
Connerat Anstin to approve Meeting Summary and seconded by Suzanne Roy.
VOTE: Unanimous
Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda fier 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 tallmd
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)
159
41
Diseunion: There was a discussion of possibly observing a residence(s) that have a
tethered dog(s) and are propoceats of tetbmmg. It was agreed to have another
informational meeting, aslang 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 Apn123rt 2007. There was agreement that this would
be the neat step in the Committee's information process and that others could be invited
to address the Committee after that meeting with other animal controUservice personnel.
More specifically, for the next meeting staff commuted to contBCft their counterparts in
jurisdictions with more restrictive regulations in North Carolina to discuss the
implementation and enkreement of their ordinances. Commiktee members requested that
staff arrange for a representative from a jurisdiction with aaoutrigbt 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 des.
Next Meeting Dste: It was agreed the committee would meet Tuesday M :arch 27s', 2007
for an information meeting.
160
47
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Wednesday April 11 m, 5:30 — 8.00 p.m.
Meeting Summary
Location: Coke Room, John Unk 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 Modiln, 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 7m, 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 tide 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.
161
162
Meeting Adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Summary of comments from animal control officials from New Hanover,
L.aurinburg 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 cnn7 fine. Violators have 60
days to correct the Aolation; 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.
Laudnburg also has restrictions on pens size —10x10 for smaller dogs, 20xi 0 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.
163
09
Most people comply with the law by putting up a pen. The Humane Society has
provided some pens to those who cannot afford 1L 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, 509 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.
Joalne 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 Usa 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*Haugwiiz, Orange County Resident
Debbie Nichols, Orange County Resident
Bobby Kirk, Orange County Resident
Stephen Hopkins, Orange County Resident
Amanda Arrington, Durham County Resident
Kathleen Coldweli, Orange County Resident
Amelia Perrin, Orange County Resident
George Painter, Orange County Resident
Karen Arustames, Orange County Resident
Lamar Chapman, Orange County Resident
Emily Weinstein, Durham County Resident
Etiana 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.
164
51
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 nh and April 23rd tethering
meetings: Motion was made by Jean Connerat Austin to approve meeting
summary from April 111h 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.
165
166
G
Orange County Animal Services
57a
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel IM NC 27514 (919) 968 -2287
Animal Control Robert A. Maotto, Animal Shelter
PO Box 8181 Director . 1081 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
304 Revere Rd Chapel 11611, NC 27514
Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 967 -7383
(919) 245 -2075
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
June 13°', 2007, 6:30 p.m. - 5:00 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 Mrilm Nelson, Animal Services Director Robert Marotto, Animal Control Manger
here 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 l la', 2007, meeting summary and May -/* 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 fiameworic 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 wodc 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.
167
53
Teafffiv CommOee 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 accxamt the enkrocability 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 racommendation.
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.
168
�I
Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel BEL NC 27514 (919) 968 -2287
Animal Control Robert A. Marotto, Animal Shelter
PO Box 8181 Direct 1081 Martia Lather King Jr Blvd
304 Revere Rd Chapel EML NC 27514
Ifftbarough, NC 27278 (919) 967-7383
(919) 245 -2075
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
July 11*, 2007 6:30 p.m. -8:00 p.m.
Unapproved Meeting Summary
Location: Meeting Room (A -014), Wbitted Building, 300 Tryon Street, Hillsborough.
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand, Mary Dow,
Margie Huggins, Commissioner 1V ft Nelson, Kelly Strowd, Animal Services Director
Robert Marotta, Office Assistant Lisa Smith.
Agenda Review: Review and adoption of meeting agenda
Discmdon: 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
hand 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 farther 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.
169
55
Teering Committee Meeting
July Ila; 2007
Page 2
Finally, it was agreed that die impleaoeniation 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 enfarcemmt using only warnings.
Committee members agreed that once the approved changes were made, the report should be
presented to die 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 Ordbuuwe Amendment
(dated July 301h, 2007) was submitted to the Animal Services Advisory Board and
subsequently approved.
170
9 56
Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Rill, NC 27514 (919) 968 -2297
Animal Control Robert A. ManXto, Anhual Shelter
PO Box 8181 Director 1081 Martin Ludmw Sing Jr. Blvd
304 Revere Rd Chapel iM NC 27514
Hillsborough, NC 27218 (919) 967-7383
(919) 245 -2075
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Wednesday April e. 2008 6:30 p.m. -8:00 p m.
Unapproved Meeting Summary
Location: Conference Room, Economic Development Building, East Sing Street, Hillsborough
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jew Connerat Anstin, Kristine Bragstrand, Suzanm Roy, Animal
Services Di caw Robert Marotto, and Office Assistant Lisa Smith
OCTC Members Absent: Mary Dow, Commissioner Mike Nelson, and Keay StDwd
Agenda Review: The proposed agenda for this meeting was reviewed and accepted
Discussion: Staff organized this at the request of the Animal services Advisory Board (ASAB).
At the last ASAB meeting on Match, 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 cart, and from the standpoint of eifforceabiility. 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 emar7 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,4x r 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 1616, 2008 meeting.
171
57
Aahnal services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Approved MInutes for Aagnst 15, 2007 Mating
PraentASAB Mm*ers: Daniel Tmliori,& Kristine Bergstranct Ross Ogim&r, Pat Sanford, Susan
Elmore, Jean ConneratAusft Tracy Carrot% James Kramer, Caitolimt Green and Deward Anderson
A.bsad ASAB Members: Bonnie Norwood and Moses Carry.
Odmm in AMendanaG Anbnal Services DbrctorBob Marano, Animal Control Manager Irene Paul and
AdmirnlstraYm Assistants Paula Ragan and Ands Morgan.
Public Hemtbers Preseft Margie Huggins and Suzanne Roy
. Weleomm w d Opming Commmb- -Chair oftheAMO Committee, K,b*te Bergstrand
Motion was made by Ross Oglesbee and seconded by Jean CormeratAustin to approve the Agenda dated
August 15, 2007. VOTE. Unanimous
Motion was made byJemt ConneratAustbr and seconded by Daniel Tevoris to approve the Mimaes
dated July 18, 2007 VOTE: Unanimous
Gaearal Public Comm and —None
Unfafshed Busarers
Babies Lecare —Dr, Carl Wdlliams Public Health Veterinarian N.0 Dept ofHealfh will be giving an
public lecture on September 4, 2007 regarding rabies in North Carolina 77iis is being held during the
week of the Inaugural World Rabies Day.
PubllcRelations Plant jorPrvposed Fine Updates --Bob Marotta reminded everyone that the
BOCC did not adoptfine increases for violations of select animal ordinances as part of the
budget process Rather, the BOCC asked that staffreturn to it with a public relations plan that
would make people aware of those fine increases in advance of their implementation and provide
justificationfor the increases A staff work group was foamed which developed elements of the
plan that was distributed for discussion. And! Morgan gave an overview to the committee of the
"Working Document" : A motion was made by Pat Sanford and secondeodbyJames Kramer that the
Animal Services Advisory Board feels this is a wary strong document that should be used and
recomrnendeod to the BOCC with a few minor modification that staff agreed to make.. VOTE.
Unanimous
Report and Proposal for Orange Como s Teflterft Comm Wee Ordinance Amtendweid - --The'
committee reviewed and dlacussed the document prepared by the Tethering Committee Among other
issues, dlsmzdon included thepublic blp aprocess ofthe 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 Sandford and seconded by Ross Oglesbee that the proposal
formulated by the Tethering Committee be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for
172
M
Approved ASAB Mntutem-
AngzW 159k 2007
Page 2
consideration with the addition of a sped* section ofthe kenneling spaces/skesfor h noels SV fj`•wdl
bring bwksome rwvmmendations regarding komd /sa to the September 1O, 2007 ASAB meetingfor
disc union and then those reoommenda dona, if accepters will be referred to die County Manger for
presentation to the Board of County Commissioners VOM 10 in favor and 1 against
Motion wrus made by Rosa Oglesbee and seconded byDwnd Teddr a to adjourn the meeting at 9 00p nt
VOTE: Unanimous
NadASAB Mc&ft. Wednesday, September 19th, 2007 at 6:30p.m. in the Ec onomicDevelopment
Center Conference Room, 110 K King Str6eiHillsboraugk
173
15'q
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Approved Minutes for September 19, 2007 Meeting
Present ASAB Members: Daniel T=Vri4 Ross Oglesbee, Pat Sanford Susan Elmore, Jean Connerat
Austin, James Kramer, Carolina Green, Dewa na Anderson Bonnie Norwood and Moses Carey.
Absent ASAB Manba- KristineBergstrand and Tracy Carroll
Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marano, Animal Control Manager Irene Pain
Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison and AdminislrativeAssistant Paula Ragan.
Public Members Present• Suzanne Roy
Welcome and Opening Comment& —AMB Yme- 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 Mnmmes dated
August 15, 2007. VOTE: Unanimous
Gureral Public Comment - None
Unfinished Bushma
Final Report ASAB Seeping of Wild Animal Ordinance Amendment Task Force Ross Oglesbee
presented the "Final Report ", datedAugust 29, 200. She reported that the Task Force had metfar a total
offour times and determined dwt 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 Country should pr ovide support for wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and education only to those
organizatFons that have the space, on -site cWerilm budget and other resources to humanely and
appropriately rehabdttaf0, and educate the public about, native North Carolina wildlife; This could be
done in a form of a multi - county wd&zfe 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 Ted raft Comm met OrdinanceAmuendmen"ob Marotto
and Irene Paul provided the ASAB members with a Required Kennel Space Recommendation Memo dated
September 100*, 2007, that proposed a tier system jibe such requirements based upon their review of such
restrictions in otherfurisdktions Staffprepared this memo in response to a request at the last ASAB
meeting that more it formation 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 Mmuagerfor recommendation to the BOCC. VOTE: Unanimous
Pet Ompopula&n Sabcomuuitee— 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 19tk, 2007
174
0
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 Pkeement and Fostering Updates -- Jessica Allison gave a brief summary of accompanying
documents on the foster program and sheltering activities for the months ofJuly and August She was
excited to report that these are the highest adoption numbers reported so far this calendar year.
Ad option /Placement Committee Progress Report — Jessica Allison reported that the committee met on
August 100, 2007 and made a few revisions to the Partner /Placement document. The committee discussed
and decided that it would be prudent to gather inputfrom the rescue groups with whom we currer *
work T fie documents have been sent to sir selected groups and to the county attorney for additfanal
feedback Information gathered via this process will be review at the committee's new 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
Anfind enti tcation: Provisional Proposd— Bob Marotto reported that staff has reviewed current
practices to develop a coherent as well as apractical 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 19o) and those are animals that are too young to receive rabies vocacines 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 inchcating 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 stafirrg issues it was decided that this option would need to be
explored fwther: More research will be done and a f final product will be brought back to the committee
for review and approval
New Doiness-
Creadon ofASAB Nominations Subcommittee- Caroline Green, Daniel Textorzs and T racy Cavroll have
agreed to be on this committee and will come back to the October 1701, 2007, ASAB meeting with a
proposed slate of q fcers and at a subsequent meeting in November the vote will take placer
Repaired Annual Review ofASAB Commkim Structure-Bob Marotta gave an overview of the
requirements of our charter arui the two committees that we currently have are tare Potentially Dangerous
Dog Committee and the Adoption Appeals Committee. Motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by
Jean CormeratAustin to maintain the two standing committees. VOTE: Unanimous
Motion was made by Jean CornieratAustin and seconded by Pat Sanford to adjourn the meedngat 7:45
p.m. VOTE: Unanimous
Nett ASAB Meeting. Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 6.•30 pm. in the Southern Human Services Center
Conference Room, 2501 Homestead Road Chapel Hill.
175
6%
Anl mal services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Approved Minates for February 20, 2M Meefing
PrewdASAB litesrbaa: Ross OgImbey Daniel Textoris, Pat Surfoal, Susan Ebnore; Jean Austin
Janes Kramer, Bonnie Norwood Dewana Anderson and Kristine Begstrand
Absent ASAB Mambas: Tracy Carob &OWI ne Ray, Rachel Bwkham and Moses Carey
Others in AMMAffner Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Shelter Manage' Jessica Allison
and AdmMist udw Assistant Paula Ragan.
Public Members Prosent None
Welcome and Opening Commerrb —ASAB Chair, Mass Oglesbx 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 Teed&& and seconded by Bormle Norwood to approve the minutes dated
January 16, 2008. VOTE: Unanimous
General Public Command-None
Annoancem ants --
Spay Day Resohdon — Ross Oglesbee announced that the Board of County Commissioners adopted the
Spay Day Resolution at their January 15, 2008 meeting The resolution wins received with very positive
feedback and a framed copy of the resolution will be displayed at the Animal Services Qfflce 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 wens also a
discussion about the FY08109 budget and what kinds of requests are being made to staffprograms and to
have resources available for them. Ms Oglesbea would like to be it formed as a board what kinds of
request are being made for eta, fj'in this year's budget in order to meet the objedhw and various
programs that the board has set
It wens mentioned that after this year Commissioner Moses Carey wiU no longer be the ASAB liaison due
to his revvnert from the BOCC There was discussion fii-am the board members about the process for his
replacement and whether or not recommendations by the ASAB can be made Mr. Marotto wig loop 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 armral 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 Aftrudes
February 200, 2008
176
G.P.
Page 2
Uv%dkhed Baai„esF --
Tethering Ordinance Update— There w u a lengthy and dd=led discussion of the tethering aom dWent
drafted by the County Attorney w consultation with Animal Service* staff on the basis ofp lar work by
the ASAD and the County's Tethering Committee. Paribus motions were considered until one received
majority support and these are recorded below.
• A motion was made by Daniel Textorb mud seconded by Susan Elmore to amt the Tethering
Amendment as it There was no second and more discussion wins held on the document Mohan
did not carrA
• A motion was made agaur by Daniel Tworts and seconded by Susan Elmore to accept the
Tethering Amendment and to exclude the class I and class 2 licensed kenmels fir the meantimg
with the understandI ng they would be addressed m the future. There was more discussion about
concerns by members about addressing the issue later, Motion did not carry as due vale was 2-in
favor and 6 against
• A motion made by Jean Austin to present the TetheringAmendment as we have it and exempt the
minimal kwnel saes for Class 1 and Class 2 licensed l eimels. 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 1 and Closs 2
kennels existing as ofJamrwy 1, 2008, from only the minimal arclosure sae requirement It was
understood that thepermit requirements mud ordinance would be revisited at a later date. TA*
motion carried by a vote of S in favor 3 opposed
• Motion was made by Pat Sw*rd and seconded by Jean Austin to accept the overall amendment
with the correction ofseveral typographical errors and several wording changes fa d fferent
sections of the Amendment Ift moden carried by a vote of b in favor 2 opposed
Once the County Attor nqr have made revisions to the proposed Tethering Amendment staff will request
that the County Manager place u before the BOCCfor its deliberations
FAQ WorhirgDocamod- -Board members were pleased with the work that had been done andgave
very positive feedback There were a couple of typographical changes requested and the board would
like to mention public health riskand 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 ofthepublic has made a request to speak with the board
at the March meeting to address the adoption of pit bull and pit bull mares from the shelter. She asked
that ASAB members prgwre for a discussion of this topic at its March meeting.
Approved ASAB Mimics
Febrcary ZOa, 208
177
63
Page 3
Jktum wars made by Susan Elmore and seconded by Jean Austin to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 pm.
VOTE: Unanimous.
NcdASABMeeting: Wednesday, March 19, 2008, at 6.•30p.m. in the Southern Human Services
Coyerence Room, 2501 Homestead Road Chapel Hill
178
(4
AdmA Services Advisor' Board (ASAB)
Approved Mlenlra for Muth 19, 2008 Meeting
PresentASA.B Members: Dadel Tertvrk, Pat Sanfwd,, .S xan Elmore, Jean Austin, James Kramer,
Moses Cary, andDlstmBergstrand
AhwW A MB Maabem Ross Oghwbee, Bomde Nmwoo4 Tracy Carroll, Deward Anderson, Suzanne
Roy and Rachel Becitham.
Others in AttrndaneG Animal Services Dbvdor Bob Marano, Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison,
Animal Control Managerlrene Phipps anrdAdkimsiratnve AssWad Paula Ragnt.
Public Members Prmene Elliott Cramer
Weleomn mid Opening Commrenlm —ASAS Co- Chair, Susan Elmore; called the meeting to order.
Motion was made by James Kramer and seconded by Daniel Teztorm to approve the Agenda dated
March 19, 2008 with one change to add an item to discuss the Carolina North chemical remediadonn.
VOTE. Unanimous
Motion was made by Daniel Textoris and seconded by Kristine Bergstrand to appro ve the minutes dated
Februmy 20, 2008 with one change to add "It was understood that thepermit requirement and ordinance
would be revisited at a later date" to bullet four on page 2 VOTE Unanimous
General Public Commie, -None
Unfinished Business—
Tethering Ordinance Update — Bob Marotta reported that there were two issues with additional changes
made in thepropmed amendment by the comity attorney since the last meeting. (1) the exemption of
cdatng koxnel permits from the enclosure requirement; and (2) matter of notice in the event that an
animal is seized and impounded under theproposed amendment.. The County Attorney has since then
received information regarding related litigation that is occurring now in Wade 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 reahiadve language
of the proposed Tethering Document After considerable discussion, a motion mus made by Kristine
Bergstrand and seconded by Maser Cary that the Tethering Committee would reconvene as a matter of
procedure to decide an a consistent language and made a recommendation to theASAB. VOTE:
Unanimous
Bob Marono 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 somepowd oftime designated for the proposed
preliminary Amendment and FAQ to be available for the community to review an our websitie and in
media advisorfes T Jris would be a prelude to the scheduling of the item on the BOCC Agenda
179
(05
AxhW Savices Advisory Board Meedrrg
ApprovedArmutra
Ham* 19,2M
pMe 2
Amaral Noise Or&nanae —Irene Phipps gave an update on an item dW was discussed at the November
2007 ASAB meding regard0nng a request from an Orange County citizen (David Symms) to review the
current AnimalOrdawnce as it relates to the noise diirArbance associated with roosters Presently the
Coun & s csdunance only messes musance barking and does not allow any type ofresobdum for other
animal noises In 2007, the Animal Control Division ofAntmal Services received only three complaints in
dent locations regarding roasters and specifncally the noise that they make Research w mr concluded
on Afianfcode to determine which counties around the state had a dbnance provisions to address these
issues. Ms Phipps provided members of the board with a report luWW thefindings
A motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by hbses Cary that the Animal Services Advisory Board
does notfeel it is appropriate to move forward with a recommendation that the Animal Ordinance be
changed but that there be "er contact with Ur regarding potential devil relief.' TOTE:
Unanimous -
Pd OrerpopaUtion CoamWee -Pat Sanford reported dW they gathered a lot of information at the last
meeting and Beth Livingston ofdnimal Kind reported that at the present time they are spaying and
neutering about 100 animals a year in Orange County without day fords from Orange County Animal
Services and that at an average cost per surgery of $7S-$100 they could do 100 more surgeries Animal
Kind would do all the administration and airrendy Animal Kind has contrails with local veterinarians.
Ms Sanford also reported that the feral cat caretakers are coming back to discuss how to handle feral chat
Monies and to try and reduce the number of feral cats coming into the shelter.
Bob Marotb reported that there is now 316, 000.00 in the County's Community Spay Neuterf ind and That
the amount is espeded to grow to - $25,000 or more before the end of thefacalyear. Some of the funds
were used for the Splay Day USA program where we sterilized 20 animals belonging to clients of the
Department ofSocial Services T7ne actual list was 31 animals but due to the exact compliment of
males /fanales and eats/dogs, we were only able to process 20 that particular day. We plan ongoing back
to the veterinarian with a supplemental contract to capture the other eleven animals The plan is to use'
remaining money in this accownt in the last quarter for a variety ofproruns, which will help with the
prevention ofwamnted pets that end up in the shelter. The committee will come back at the next board
meeting with a spec 7c programmatic and monetary recommendation and proceed on that basis
Adopiiow7fiteem ad ConmwWWee —Bob Marotto would like to get support from the ASAB for the
agr eeument 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 wens made by Jean Austm and seconded by Kris Berg owul to add "appropriate
socialization" after the word veterinary care of item 2 on page 2 ofthe document VOTE:
Unanimous
• A motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Kris Bergshu nd to remove the word "may"
and replace it with the word "must" in item 10 ofliage 4. VOTE: Unanimous
• A motion was made by Moses Cary and seconded by Kris Bergstrdmd to strike the last sentence of
item 10 ofpage 4. VOTE: Unanimous
180
a/ `
Awnd services Advisory Board Meetbrg
Approved
Mmrh 19,2M8
Page 3
A motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to remove "a timely
manner" and replace with "no later than tke end ofthefollowing quarter" in item 16 ofpage S.
VOTE- Unmwnous
One item that has not been resolved yet is with the requirement for general liability insra=Wf- A survey
was done with the fm rescue groups, all ofwhich indicated that it would not inhibit them to work with
Me Orange County Animal Shelter. A question was then raised whether smaller rescue groups would be
impeded by the requirement: Research is ewrendy bebg done to get a general cost of what the insurance
would be and that b formation wilt be brought back to the board for further discussion.
Foster Program Report -Jess Allison reported that a meeting was held on January 31, 2004 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 identySed areas that require improvements to the Foster Program forms There were edits made in
enchm e A of dne guidelines and home visit chw Kist; interview and application that were shown in the
handout provided to the board members Bob Marotta report that there a a limited ability to invest in
the foster program but that the program can be maintained The dtscusdon with staff indicated that to try
and grow the program would our human resources and we should take the time that we do have
avadable 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 Austin and seconded by iris
Bagsbwnd to adopt and accept the amendments in both Foster Home Policy and Procedures of
EnclosuresA & 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 Jwwwy and d appears that Marrh's will also be low This is a
concern and there was a brie %discuawn that mentioned factors such as the price ofgas and economy.
New Badnew ---Bob Marotto reported that the appearance of the current Animal Shelter and
access to it would change as a result of a remedlation project being conducted by UNC He
stressed that it would be very important to keep the public it formed 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
com*ivation budget; which amounts to approximately a a1.6 million dollar operating budget for
the fiscal year He futher noted that Animal Services has requesied jive new frcll time positions
(some of which are conversions of temporary funds). He also noted that a sign ficant concern a
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 fleetrenewal with compliant boxes is an
important objective for Animal Services in the County's budget process.
181
Aereml Services Advisory Board Meeting
Approved M Wdw
Mork 19,2M8
Page 4
Adoption of Pill Balls from Orange ComoIs Animal Shelter —In order to allow enough time
for discussion of this subject, it was decided (with the assent of Mr. Ellin# Kramer) to reschedule
this topic for the April 16, 2008 ASAB meeting. M Kramer gave ASAB members an
informational handout to review in advance of that meeting.
Announcemerds- -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 Commkdoners 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 fatal 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 Mee6utg: Wednesday, April 16, 2008, at 6.•30 p.m. in the Government Services Center
Conference Room, 200S, Cameron Street, Hillsborough.
182
M
DRAn:
Animal Services Advisory Board (AS")
Minutes for April 16, 2008 Meeting
Scheduled for Review and Approval at next ASAB Meeting
Present ASAB Membern- Daniel Textoris, Pat Say ford Susan Elmore, Jean Austin, James Kramer,
Ross Oglesbee, Bonnie Norwood Tracy Carroll and Sxaanne Roy
AbseWAUD Mme. Dewana Anderson, Kristine Be gsdrand and Moses Cam.
Others in Attend ffw&- Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison,
Animal Control Manager Irene Phipps and Admbustrative Assistant Paula Ragan.
Public Membas Present• Elliott Cramer and Michael Soluski
Welcome and OpeaW Comment"SAB 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 wail Ann: Cramer arrives for discussion. VOTE: Unanimous.
Motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by James Kramer to approve the mundes dated March
19, 2008, with corrections to a few typographical errors VOTE: Unanimous
General Public Comma —None
Unfinished Business—
Tethering Ordinance Update — A& Marotto reported that the Tethering Committee reconvened to
ensure that they have agreement about defmition of theproposed 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 m 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 Connrmftw-Pat San ford 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 litre to see a
spayhwWer program through Animal Kind be offered to the owners of theferal cat colonies in order to
reduce the number coming in to the shelter being euthwdzed Motion was made by Bonnie Norwood and
seconded by Jean Austin to approve the budget outline in the Memorandum from Animal Services
Director Bob Marotta (dated April 10, 2008) regard1hg Community Spay/Neuter Fund Program and
Guideline Proposal, VOTE: Unanimous
March Stakstical Sammwy —Ms Jess Allison gave an overview of the March 2008 statistical
summaries 1t was pointed out that the March adoptions were low, as she had preduaed they would beat
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
183
M
`Drg/t'° Page 2
Animal Services Advisory Board
Heeft Aftuft AprH 16°r, 2008
UNC remediatum effort around the cw7wa shelter location may be affecting adoptions. One sped
suggestion was that there be more media coverage to it form the community that the shelter is still open to
and serving the public..
Adoption of Apt bulls from Orange County's Animal Shelter —A member of the publf4 A& Elliott
Cramer gave an overview of the information he previously provided and requested that the ASAB limit
the numbers ofpit 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 b:herently more dangerous than
other breeds. He also emphasized that he was struck by the number of pit buffs and pit bull mixes at the
shelter and on the shelter's website
Another member of the public, Mr: Afichael 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 sped changes in adoption
practices, and asked where such changed would end if they were initiated .
MLs. 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 staffgenerally holds this particular breed .
of dog to a higher standard If there are any signs of aggressive behavior, they are usually notput up for
adoption. A& Ahu Otto suggested that we think about whether or not we are at or beyond the best
practices in the uidko y 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 dlfflculties of breed (and milted breeiO identification; the extent to which
aggression has genettc rather than environmental roots; and the eztient 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 wort E and commitments It ensures that we are not
doing too much, and risking doing arrything less than very weld 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 R Ilsborough with 27 vaccines administered and 14 licensed Tile
second clinic is tieing 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.
184
PLO
'Dna�t'Page 3
Anhn d Services Addsory Baand
MeilmgMiaWmApril l6*, 200x'
Jess Allison provided an overview of the UNC remedia wn ggiv t that is w derway-near the
Armnat 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 di,$erent due to the remedwhon project and signage has been placed throughout the new
route in to the shelter off ofMartin Luther King Jr. Blvd to hetp direct b f k 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 Meiling: Wednesday, May 21, 2008, at 6:30 p.m. in the Southern Human Services
Cor ference Room, 2501 Homestead Road Chapel HM
185
. ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIOI
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Dale: November 13, 2007
Action Agenda
Item No. I
SUBJECT: Tethering Committee Final Report and Recommendations
DEPARTMENT: Animal Services Advisory PUBLJC HEARING: (Y" No
Board
ATTACHMENT(S): (Under Separate
Cover)
Tethering Committee Report and
Proposal for Ordinance Amendment
Staff Memorandum Regarding Required
Kennel Space Recommendations
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristine Bergstrand, DVM, Chair, Animal
Services Advisory Board, 624 -6971
Ross Oglesbee, JD, Vice- Chair, Animal
Services Advisory Board, 966-0599 -
Bob Marotto, Secretary, Animal Services
Advisory Board and.Animal Services
Director, 968 -2287
PURPOSE: To request that the Board of County Commissioners receive the report of the
County's Tethering Committee, discuss recommendations with members of the Animal Services
Advisory Board and Tethering Committee, decide whether the Tethering Committee should be
sunset upon receipt of the report, and provide direction to the County Manager and staff on any
next steps based of the recommendations of the Animal Services Advisory. Board and the
Tethering Committee.
BACKGROUND: This is a request that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) receive
and review the Tethering Committee's Report and Proposal for Ordinance Amendment. The
Commftl ee's report not only includes its recommendations, but also outlines and describes the
process and research that the Committee used in formulating these specific recommendations.
On the * basis of the thorough research and work - of the Tethering Committee, the Animal
Services Advisory Board (ASAB) is recommending that the Board of County Commissioners
initiate amendment of the County's Animal Ordinance. The summary section of its final report
provides an overview of the recommendations and findings of the Committee, which include the
following restrictions to tethering:
a three -hour limit within a 24 -hour period.
• a specification of collar types that can be used in tethering
• an exemption for certain organized and lawful animal functions
• a requirement of minimum sizes for dog kennels
• an 18 -month implementation period, including twelve (12) months of public outreach and
a six (6) months period' in which only warnings are issued
186
2
The abstract regarding the creation of the Tethering Committee and its charge from the BOCC
Is included in an appendix of the Commitl ee's Final Report and Proposal for Onfnance
Amendment As outlined in that charge, the Tethering Committee has coordinated with the
ASAB to address the issue of tethering and prepare any recommendations for ordinance
amendment that are made to the BOCC.
These recommendations were formally approved by the ASAB at its August meeting by a nearly
unanimous vote. At that meeting, the ASAB requested that staff put together a set of
recommendations for minimum kennel sizes for dogs housed by means of kennel or fence to
accompany the Tethering Comm'ittee's report Based on research from other North Carolina
jurisdictions, as well as recommendations from nationally recognized organizations such as the
Humane Society of the United States, staff recommended guidelines for minimum kennel size
for dogs of different sizes and weights in an attached memorandum (dated . September 10,
2007). The ASAB unanimously recommended these recommendations at its meeting in
September.
As previously noted, this is the final report of the Tethering Committee and it is requested that
the BOCC receive and review the attached Report and Proposal for Ordinance Amendment.
Members of the Countys Tethering Committee and the ASAB will be present at the work
session to discuss their work and the materials presented.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the BOCC formally receive and
review the Tethering Committee's Reportt and Proposal for Ordinance Amendment; decide
whether to sunset the Tethering Committee, and provide staff with direction regarding the
amendment of the County's Animal Ordinances.
187
Tethedntg Committee Report
July 30$, 2007
Orange County's Tethering Committee*
Report and Proposal for Ordinance Amendment
July 30th, 2007
*Members of the Tethering Committee wish to thank Animal Services sta,,�`for their diligent and
professional efforts to ensure that the Committee was of `ecctive as well as successf d in meeting its
charge in a timely manner. Direct stff support to the Tethering Committee was provided by Bob
Marotto, Annnal Services Director; hene Pau4 Manager, Animal Control Division; Lira Smith ,
Ofce Assistan4 Armnal Control Division; and An& Morgan; Administrative Assi Am74
A&ninusdationc
Tethering Committee Report
TABLE OF CON1N'TS
July 30$, 2007
188
L Summary
IL Intr+oduction
III. Findings -
IV
IV. Discussion
V. Next Steps
VL Appendices
a. Appendix L• Creation of the Orange County Tethering Committee and Board of County
Commissioners' Abstract for Creation of the Tethering Committee
b. Appendix M Committee Members, BOCC Liaison, and Staff
c. -Appendix iII: North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances
d. Appendix V: Notes from Iiterviews with North Carolina Jurisdictions with Tethering
Ordinances: Conducted by the Tethering Committee
2
189
Tetbesing Committee Report
SUMMARY
July 3&, 2007
Afters, siac -mantl -long dependion that included wven meetings, the OMge County Tcfficdng
Committee has concluded that the practice of tethering is a corn from the standpoint of both
animal and human welfare. With respect to the latter, tedgred. dogs can pose risks to the safety of
cximraumty members, and in some circnmstaaces, affeci 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 ant -so-
quiet desperation at the end of a chain or rope.
of particular concern are dogs that spend their lives tethered, as these are nafinally 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
hours, whether
method of confinement for several the owner is in attendance or has left his or her
residence for that time period.
Iu 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 1 S -month education period, including twelve (12) months of public outreach and sic (G)
months of issuing warnings before the citations would be issued.'
In general terms, the Committee is malting these recommendations on the basis of these findings:
prolonged tethering can and does deprive dogs of necessary exercise and socializaxion.
Tethered dogs can and do cotmrlmte 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 barter.
In making these recommendations, 'the Committee has gathered general information about the
htmoane and public safety aspects of tethering; researched existing ordinances dud 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.
4%.
IPA
ter
191
Tethering Committee Report
INTRODUCTION
July 30s`, 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 cow
Currently, Orange County's animal ordinances, which apply to the unincorporated parts of the
County and H'lli sborough, allow tethering provided certain conditions are met The Tethering
Committee is proposing that this ordinance be amended, and specifically recomm inn 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 Endings, and the rationale for its specific recommendations.
"For background on tine formation of the Tethering Comnrttee and its dwp from tha Orange County Board of
Cammissioae m see Appaudm L• (lion of the Orange County Tes&=g Commif a and Board of County
Commissiooers' Abd rad for the Oration of the Tethering Committee.
5
192
Tethering Cow Report July 30a`, 2007
FINDINGS
Over a six -month period, the Tedw6ng Committee met pus times to organize its% gather
and review information about tie practice, of tethering, research oil W restrict or prohubit
tethering is other North Carolina jurisdictions, and collect input from the public Altogedw there
was one organizational meetirg two won gathering meetings, and two public input
meetings. T*o, additional meetings were held to formulate recommendations and review and
approve the Committee's Report arras Proposal for Ordbuvce 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 wgu lations? Most of these are county and local governments, but there are also foie
states that have prohibited Whering. Some national o ohs— incluuding the Humane Society
of the United States (HSUS), which has advised the County on animal sheltering .
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
e Tethered dogs are at risk of various tethering related injuudes, 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 MipJ/wrvw.i *+ingnimntc Cpm/gg te&W egislati aqp.
6
193
Tethering Committee Report
Pablie Safety llssnea
July 30ffi, 2007
• Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to the co~.y. They can and do become highly
teaitorial acct aggressive and pmesent a sigmficaat risk of iaju,~ y to the public through. dog . .
bites and .
• 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 commxmify member. By
contrast, fences and kennels do create such barriers, thereby *n~'*+i*~i~+nR the risk a dog can
pose to neighbors or passersby (while at the same time protecting that dog from attacks by
other anima]s).
Community Concerns
• Tethered dogs are at risk of unplanned and unwanted br+eediag, and thus they can contribute
to the significant problem of pet overpopulation. They may have litters of unwa~ed puppies,
and also create problems'by attracting cad excit2ng other dogs (despite the r of
County ordinance that an animal that is "in season" be'suitably contained and not kept -
ouiside).
• Tethered dogs- can negatively impact community life through nuisance barking.
Precedent
• There is ample precedent for the enactment of an ordinance to prom'bit or res4dct be4heribg;
at least 50 U.S. jurisdictions, including cities, counties and several sues, have passed such
laws.
• Several North Carolina jurisdictions-including Catawba, New Hanover, and Scotland
Counties, along with several North Carolina townslups•-wave some level of tethezing
limitation cuuently in place s '
• Ordinances that resEdct or prohibit tethering have proved to be both enforceable ate.
effective in reducing animal cruelty complaints and incidents of dog bites.
a See Appenduc IL• North (:aroIma Counties end Townships with Tethering Ordinances.
7
194
Ted>ering Comnnitbee Report
RR1Y~M,IVIENDATIONS
July 30m, 2007
Tire Orange Comriy Tet~g Committee, on the basis of its charge fivm the BOCC and after
extensive rematch and pQblic input, is proposing Ebel these be as meat to the Cotmty's
aairnal ordina~e do restrict bat not pr+nhibl~t the tetberring of dogs in Orange County: This and
closely related recommendations regarding masters such as the impl.on of a new ordinance
are greseated in this seckion.
An ordinances amendment is being proposed because there is presently very little regulation of
tiethering is Orange County's animal ordinances, regulations which apply is the unincorporated
parts of the County and Id'illsborough. A minimwn standaz+d.~ is set out in Section YII in these terms:
"If any tmattended animal is ressrained by a chain, leash or similar restraint, it shall be designed and
placid to prevent choking or 'strangulation. Such chain or restraint shall not be less than tea (10)
feet in length and either oa a swwwel designed to prevent the animal from choking or strauglmg
itself; or on a chain rue" a
As formulated below, in order to more effectively regalate the practice of tethering in Orange
County, the Tethering Committee's specific recommendationsEallinto Erna closely related areas:
Linnitstion and Requirements
• Tom' should be limited to three !31 homswithin atwenty-four-hour period. and a
tethered ~:.:.,.: ;all be keat in accordance with all othcr Laws. inchidmg~bat not limited to
:.,~,+P.,ta fur fc~od_ water and shelter. By limiting tethering to three (3) hours per day,
such as ordinance would reduce the risk of nonconttoIled contact between dogs and P~P~
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 Csrolioa General Statota (NOGS'~ (sa~ians 14360 farvvercl) peiiaming to deity is animals roaY ePPIY in some
cite m bow an animsl is sagged. With only one exoepRion. howevor, it does not make say specific mention
of reshaiat ~ bethrtiag. The exczpfion is NCGS 143623 (Restraining dogs in a creel mamrer),'wbich makes it a-Giese
1 misdemeanor Sor someone to "malicioasly resizain a dog using a chsia or wicz grossly m e~ccess of the si~a neoessmy
to res[~sia fie dog safiely."
195
Tefhering Committee Report
July 30ffi, 2007
recommending that g be limited rather than outlawed becange it has cxtncluded that
there are cectaia cirarms~ under which tethering can be as acceptable method of
confinement for several horns, whether the ownea is in ice or has left his or her
residence for that ttme periocL .
• Tethers must meet certain requm. A tethered dog mast have a Nether at least ten feet in
length that swivels ax each end to prevent choking or strangulation and allows access m
food, water and shelter. The weight of the tether and Dollar must not egcxed: tea percent of
the dog's body weight. A tethered dog mnst be tethered using a buckle collar or harness.
Choke chain collars and prong collars are not allowed when tethering a dog.. These
r are designed to avoid shangulation and eastue the welfffie of the animal if and
when it is tethered in accordance with the proposed ordinance.
• A minimum~en size for outdoor enclosures for dog should be established. This is
necessary to empower Animal Control to ensure that dogs taken offtethers as a primary
means of constraint are not confined to small spaces that compromise their welfare.5
Ezceptions
• Te~Lerinn is allowed at tr~~ing and verformance (or .~*h~) events for does. includme but
not limited to field trails and obedience trails. Ia such cases, continuous tethering shall not
be allowed for a period longer than seven ('7) days.
Implementation
• An ordinance amendment rega~mg.tieth~ng should become e$~ective 18 months after its
This approach is infomied~by the successful experience of other communities is
which awareness was raised and the public before a tethering regulation acfiaally
became effective.
s An example of such requirement from New Hanover Cotmty, North Camlina, is that "Outside enclas~a~e means a pen
huge e~oough to provide each dog less than 25 pounds with a loeanel of at least 8 Eeeet x 10 fxt in sin, and each dog 25
pounds or greater with a loennel of 10 feet x 10 feet in sire. Animal cx~+ol service's reserves the right to determine if a
space is considered suitable fur the number and size of dogs housed in as o~OOr enclosure." (New Hanover County
Code, Sxtion S-4)
196
Tethe~ng Committee Report
July 30a`, 2007
• The imp~cme~tion phase will involve a veer loan period of egbeasive tinblic oulrearli and
edn~ion res~uding >~ ordinance a aari~ractice of 'tethering„ followed by a six
math peaod in which only are• issueds This is to ensure that dog owners liave
ample notice of the new ordinance and tiara to transition to oilaex methods of t
and talae advmntage of commnmty resources to help with the impleion of .
• Public outreach should inchxie resrnaces to heh3 dog owners implement alternatives to the
of does by ~erinn- 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, wor>ang in
concert with its citizen Y board sad 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 wamina that ewes him or her thirty (301 lava to come
into com~lianic:e. As with the initial implementation period itself; this initial enforcement
approach. is designed to enstu+e that dog owners are aware of and able to comply with the
tethering ordinance.
• Civil citations with a moneta~-~aalty on a~avan~ve for ~ schedule ozdinarils
w01 be issued for noncompliance after issuance of a warning to come into compliance
• Ani~ay be inmotmded aflnr the issuance of a citation far a violation of the tethering
ordinance-which itself would ocxvr only after the issusmce of a waraia¢-~ub~ect to an
a e process of by tare animal owner. (3iv~ the right to and regmre~nents of
"due process," there would not only be as appeal pmcess but a specific legal mechanism for
det,emf;n;ng possession and ownership of as animal in the event that an appeal failed.
10
197
Ted~ing Committee Report
DISCUSSION
July 30s; 2007
The Tethering Cow is recommending a tethering ordinance because there is good reason to
believe limited or oonlrolled tang can alleviate the harm to anipoals and hardship to people that
can be associated with the prauctice of tethering. By limiting t~hedng to a given number of hams
within atwenty-fog her peaod, such an or+dinancx would reduce the risk of ~mcontiolled contact
between dogs sad people, which is sometimes resptinsi'ble for dog attacks and bites, and it could
iaipmve or enhance the overall conditions and care of dogs themselves. -
F.zperience of Other Jnrisdictiona
The Tethering Committee's recommendation to limit tethering is not without precedent wind 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 s~lccessfi~lly regulated in~ a variety
of different ways.6
As part of its infotmation gatheaing, 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 is three of those jvrisdictions.~ The information gathered is
this manner indicates that efforts to restrict or prohibit tethering elsewhere in North Carolina have
been quite ~. The ordinances proved to be enforceable, and they appeared to actually
reduce rather than increase the time required by humane investigators to extend to animal
complaints.
According to interviews with animal services officials from Catawba County, New Hanover County
and the Town of Laurinbtug in Scotland County, there were few, if any, imintcnded adverse
impacts. Dogs were ~t stnrendert~d by their owners, euthanized or just set free as a remit of the
e See Irtt~J/www.helpi~~als.com/g~ teth~I.e ' e~1 hmtias' p for complete list of~misdicliaos with tag
or3inances. '
r Sx Appendnc II: North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordmancxs, and Appendix III: Notes from
-Interviews with North Carolina Jmisdidions with Tethering Ordnances: Candncbed by the Tethering Committee
' 11
1 ~98
Te#luering Committee Report
July 3l?a`, 2007
adoption of tethering ordinances. In addition, the ordinances had several positive impacts, for
instance, reducing the number of animal crnetty complaints and incidents of dog bities.
Ia terms of enforcement, these Noath Carolina officials reported that sa~sstul impleion
ieq~rired a reasonable pbaso-in period that allowed for adegnate public won and ouheach and
sufficient time liA dog owners to change from a tether to other methods of confinement It is oa the
basis of their experience that the Committee is rECOmmeading as 18-month phase-in period as both
reasonable end adequate for accomplishing these goals. .
Also, officials from New Hanover Cotmty and the Town of Laurinlnng is Scotland County both
reported that as outright ban ox severe restriction on aIlowable hours for triag was most
enforceable. In 2000, Laauinburg changed its ordinance to restrict terming from eight (8) horns to
one (1) hour, a change that improved enfoi~ment capability. Laurinberg's Animal Control Officer
reported a 90 percent compliance rate with the ordinance at this time, and reports ifia# the ability to
impound animals has been essential to the enforcement of this law:
The Committee believes that athree-twat limit on beduering is enforceable by Animal Control
Off cers in Uiange Cou~y, given their regular work houLS and tb,e operating hours of tl~e Animal
Control Division of the Animal Services Department.
Public Testimony
As previously noted, the Tethering Committee held pnblic input meetings is order to give the
citizens of the County an opport~mity to express their concerns and ideas. The first public input
meeting, on Apri123rd, 2007, was widely publicized and had approxmoately 25-30 people in -
ce. The following meeting of the Tethering Committee, ihongh not originally designed as
sack, became a second public input meeting, with approximately 20 citizens attending.
Much was Ieamed from the varied opinions and prefer at these `listening sessions."
Some individuals spoke against the practice of tethering on the grounds that it was not humane.
Others addressed public safely mud community welfare concerns. Yet others noted their belief that
12
199
Tag ~~ Report July 30°i, 2007
tethering was not necessanly inhnm~ne, and that for some individuals and. ansmals, it could be the
Daly possible or e$ective means of restrains
Also at these sessions were repre.ves of an area. hamting association, the F,no Rives Coon
Hunters Association, and other inte~esbed parties who expressed two' mala cones about the
restriction of ~bethering. One was that they would not be able m hold their very successful annual
field. trial if tiering was pmla'bited. In this regard, they stressed that this event draws people from
around the country and generates consideaable income for the Counfy.
Their other concern was the keeping of boating dogs themselves. They emphasized thatthese-dogs
were often, if not always, ]Dept on tethers and that, in their opinion, it was sometimes the best way to
keep such dogs. Advantages iachided the easy sepaiutioa of incompatible dogs, and the allowance
of greater space on a daily basis. Finally, they siateci 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 DeI~erstiona
The Committee weighed testimony from the public and came to a series of recommendationsthat
are iatcnded to address some, if not all, of the concerns raised is the public testimony. The
Committee believes that fiethering raises significant humane, public safely and community welfare
concerns, and that the contmnous tethering of dogs is inhumane. The Committee concurs that dogs
can be neglected in other circumstances not involving but believes that there are
significant public safely and humane issues unique to t~fihering that merit action by the BOCC.
Because it believes that tethering can be humane for limited time periods tinder certain
circumstaaces,lhe Committee is proposing a three-hour limit per 24 hours with specific~.tions for
appropriate tethers and . The Committee believes that this shotild reduce any hardship
imposed by this restriction, sad 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 irr
limit the hardship imposed by ties restriction by rec~*~+**+~_!~ a phase-in period for the law that
13
200
T.g C.ommittee Report July 30s', 2007
would inchu]e education about the various albenoadives and oomm~ity resources avatiable to help .
owners won firm bets to other means of n~csining their dogs.
As the Committee does not want a much needed betheaing ordinance to intetlbre with the conduct of
legal sporting eveaLs, it is proposing an exemption for such events, provided the tang is
temporary, not lasting for mor$ than seven ('7) days in duration while such events are conducted.
The Committee considered the possibility of as exception fur huatia8 dogs given the concerns
raised by hunters in its "listening sessions," but ultimately decided against rec~m , ins such an
exception for several reasons. One is that belief that himtiag 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 hwrting breed oouid contend that
liis or her dug should be exempted.
It was also believed that the creation of as exception or exccptians would not be fair to dog owners
who wean not allowed to tether their dogs for a period longer than tIu~ee horns under the prolwsed
ordinance amendme~tt. It was because of tins concern that the Committee ultimately decided
against rec~nmendng some kind of an exception for dogs that were kruown to be "escape artists,"
as well as an exception for hunting dogs.
Deliberations regarding these and other concerns raised is public testimo~- occurred in the final
two meetings held by the Tethering Cow. And it is on the basis of those deliberations, as
well es the information rt gathered fmm other sources, that the Committee is proposing that thence be
an ardinance t than limits the pn~ctice of tethering in Orange County.
NEXT STEPS
The recommendations made in this report will be submitted to .the ASAB for timely review and
dehberation 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 inpuf and advice to the Animal Services Department on various , including policy.
14
201
Tethering Committee Report
July 30~, 2007
On the basis of its consideration of the Tethering Commit#ee's recomm®dations, the ASAB is
expected to decide whethex to recomanend. any ordinance- am~eafs do the BOCC. As the
County's sole legislative body, the BO(.''C world decide to enact any recommended
and its own desi'bera#ions would be based upon a public hearing about any proposed
as well as the ma~ials and recommendations received fiom the A3AB and Tethering
Committee
15
zo2
Tag CAn~ittee July 30a', 2007
APPENDIX I:
Creation of the Orange County Tethering Corruruaee and Board of Coanty
Comnu~ioiiers' Abstract for G~eation of the Tethering Committee
Commie Creatiaa
The conceias smmanding 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 eommnnity, bat in communities tlnaoghout North Catalina. and amend the coimiry. : .
Of particular concernn are dogs that spend their lives tethered, as they are naturally social beings and
thrive on frequent i~eraction with humans and other animals. Additionally, there is caacera that
tethered animaL4, deprived of socialization aad exercise, develop behavioral Problems or aggression,
. .and as a result; pose a risk to the community through dog bites and attacks. Other coacems involve
the role of tethered dogs in conta'buting to community Problems such as pet overpopulation and ' .
The issue of tethering is Orange County initially surfaced from the efforts of some local animal
advocates, who created an area "Coalition to Unchain. Dogs," and began to advocstee against the
practice of tethering. Their efforts mirrored initiatives elsewhere to limit, restrict or outlaw
All of these efforts are concerned with both Public safety and animal welfare.
The Osage Cou~y Tethering Committee was fom~ed by the BOCC in October 2006 in response fn
local concerns about the issue. An. abstract for the creation of the Tethering Committee appears at
the end of this Appeadix.a The BOCC charged the committee with:
• Reviewing tethering as a policy issue and reporting on it as a means of con5nemeat,
including the activities and efforts of other comm~mities;
g The issue of tethering was otiginaily considered by the ASAB, which dated a saber to address the mattxr.
The sobcamomittx met and decided that it world need tie bring in oudsida members of the comnuanity, a timdion
reserved fior' fhe BOCG It was at that time that the BOCC created the Tethering Commit6ee to work in conloncfina with
the ASAB m deciding is what ways, if any, fire ordinance that governs tethetzng should be changed.
16
203
Tag ~~ g,~~ ~ July 30a', 2007
• Obtaining general. public comment or input abouttetheringfrom across-section of the
community; and.
• ~PCOmmending t0 the ASAB ffiY apprOprlSte or desirable changes With the nnd~ Bind
that the ASAB world 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, vne 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 .
Nearing Date: October 3'~, 2006
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT• Creation of a Tethering Comrnitbee
DEPARTMENT: Animal Services
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Charge To and Composition of
Orange County Tethering Comm'~ttee
Tethering Meeting Summary Notes
PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bob Marotto. Director, 968-2287
Gwen Harvey, Assistant County
Manager, 245-2307
17
. - .204 .
Tethering ~~ ~rt ~ ~ July 30'h,_2007
PURPOSE: To n~uest that the BOCC cream a Tethering Committee for the purpose of
assessing whether and if so how the County's animal ordinances should be amended in
regard bu the tiethering of dogs.
BACKGROUND: The issue of whether or not there should be more restrictive tethering
requiremenffi in Orange County's animal ordinances has come before the Mimal Services
Advisory Board. The same issue has been raised elsewhere in North Carolina and around the
Un"rted Stafies, and in some places, there have been ordinance or statutory changes that•
restrict or prohibit the use of tethers and chains fio 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 requiremerrts addressed
conoems with public safely and community 1'rvabitity as wea as concerns with the humane care
of animals. Another member of the community favorably companad tethering with other forms .
of confinement
On the basis of public comments on tethering. and discussion among its members reganding
ordinances of this kind in the context of Orange County, the ASAB decided that a Tethering
Commitfiee ought to be created. Toward that end, the ASAB selected two representatives to
meet and develop an approach in response fio a three-pronged charge from the ASAB. First,
they were to cxeate alargercommitteewith across-section of community views; second,.to
compile pertinent information; and finally, to determine how general public comment ought to
be gathered about any possible.oniinance amendmerrts 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 th 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 n3fenEd bade to the
ASAB at its September meeting and, at that meeting, a motion was unanimously adopted
aslong the BOCC fio either create a Tethering Commitfiae, or m authorize the ASAB to itself
create such a committee as described herein: Accordingly, the BOCC will also need fio dedde
whether the additional five pn:-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 wilt be reviewed and commented on by the ASAB as a whole before
being presented to the BOCC for any possible action. .
18
205
Tethering Committee R,epart
July 30~', 2007
It was discussed during ChairMce Chair agenda review that the BOCC might w~h to
create the Tethering Committee itself, and with tfie inclusion of the two ASAB
n3presenffitives, appoint the five pre-defined posHions as proposed along with three
addiitional at-large represet~ffitives 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 appointmerrt of ifs
members, and pnwide direction th staff.
CHARGE TO AND COMPOSITION OF ORANGE COUN7.'Y
' TETHER~TG CONIIVIITTEE
At the request of the Animal Services Advisory Board, and upon recommendation of the
County Manager, the Commissioners are creating a committee fio'aid in the determination o_f
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 commit6ee is as follows:
• Two representatives of the Animal Services Advisory Board chosen by that Boani.
• A law enforcanent 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.
• Thn3e at-large representatives (for BOCC consideration).
The charge for the committee follows:
• To compile in a presentable form pertinent infoimation on tethering and/or chaining as a
means of confinement for animals such as dogs, inducting activities and efForts~pursued by
other communities.
19
206
Tethering C,om~mittee Report
July 30~; 2007
• To obtain. general pub("~c comment on any possible ~oniinance amendments from across-
section of the community thnwgh suitable mechanisms such as community hearings or
faalitabed focus groups.
• To recommend tD the Animal Services Advisory Board any appropnaUe or desin~ble
oniinance dranges with the understandmg that the dSAB will itself make any final
recommendations to tta3 Board of County Commissioners.
20
207
Tethering Committee Report
.APPENDIXII:
July 30m 2007
Committee M BOCC Liaison and 5ta, fj`'
Committee Members '
Position 1: Kristine Bergst'iand .
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' '
.. Animal Wellness/ Health Expert .
.. ~ (In April, 2007, the person appointed to this position resigned. fiom the Committee.)
Position 5: Suzanne Roy
Advocate against tethering .
Position 6: VACANT
Advocate for tethering
(The BOCC did not make as appointiment to this position.}
Position 7: Rachel Beckham
At Large Member
Position 8: Margie Huggins
At Large
Position 9: Kelly Strowd
Law F~nforcement .
Board of County Commissioners Liaison
Commissioner 1V1lchael R Nelson
Animal Services Staff
Bob. Mamtto
Animal Services Director
Irege Pahl
Manager, Animal Control Division
21
208.
Tetimdng C.o®mittee Report
Lisa Smith
Office Assistant, Animal Cool Division
Andi Moigaa
Administrative Assistanf; Administcaiion
July 30'x, 2007
22
209
Tethering Committee Report ~ July 30a; 2007
APPEIVDIX~TII:
North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances
T7~cfollowingNordf~ Canvliiea~r~sdirh'o~rs hm~e some sort of tdhe~g regulanom For~more
information su htipJfwww.helpingoncom/ga tdhecLegtsla~oa±asp. .
New Hanover County. North Carolina
Chaining or tethering dogs is pmin'bited. A chain or rape is not to be used in place of a leash when
vvallang ~~.
Sec. 3.4 (d) Restraint: Aa 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 paining
and/or in the pursuit of working or competing in those legal endeavors. When a dog is on the
property of its •owner of gnaniian it shall be secured when not supervised by a.competent person.
Ropes, chains, and the like shall not constifiibe adequate security under this ordinance.
Roanoke Rapids. North Carolina
June 13, 2006 "
This ordinance pzoln'bits the tethering of dogs.
Section 91.22. Prolu'bition Against Tethering of Dogs.
A. It shall be unlawful to tether an dog outside of the house.
Laurinburg. North Carolina
June 20, 2000
Dogs may not be chained far a period longer than one hour is 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 sad 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 gad height to prevent the dog
from escaping there from; provided, the owner or keeper may, for a period not to exceed. one (1)
23
210
Tethering Committee Report
July 30u; 2007
hour everytwenty-fora (24) hours, allow the dog to be tethered or chained to a stationary objector
pole so long as the dog is provided sufficient weber and nornishment. All dogs off of the property of
the owner or keeper shall be controlled by means of a leash and ender the direct control ofand
obedient bo the owner or keeper's command.
Noncompliance with say of the fu-regoing provisions in the section 422 may result in the
impoundmc~t of the animal at any time, or it may result is a fine of one hundred dollars (5100.00)
or both.
Dogs utilized by law enforcement officers in the course of law enforcemea~t activities are exempt
from the section. (Code 1975, § 45; Ord. No. 0-1997-29,11-1 &97; Ord. No. 0-2000-12, § 1, 6-
20-00)
Scotland Counfy. North Carolina
June 6, 2005
This ordinance prole'bits the chaining of dogs for more than one hour in any 24hovr period.
Section 9 (II): No person shall, at any time, fasten, chain, or tie any deg 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 Counfy. North Carolina
(D) Chaining ar tethering an animal to a stationary object for a period of tune or uadez conditions
that as animal control officer or animal czvelty 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. t3uidelines 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 rape, 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 mesas of a properly ~fiixing
harness or collar of not less than one inch in width
(4) Chaining or tethering as 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 baneful 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. Cruidelines for the proper weight and length of chains or tethers
c~a be obtained fmna the animal shelter or animal w~rtrol
(b) Using a chain. or tether made of rope, twine, cord or similar material
24
211
Tethering Committee Report
July 30~, 2007
(c) Using a chain or tether that is less than 10 feet in length and/or does not have swivels oa
both ends. All chains or tethers must be attached. to the animal by means of a properly
fitting haaness or collar of not less than one inch is wid#h.
(d) Using a chain or tether that exceeds ten percent of the animal's body weight
(e) Allowing as animal to be chained or such that the animal is not confined to the
owner's property or such that the chain or tether c;an became entangled and prevent the
animal from moving about finely, lying down comfortable or having access to adequate
food, water and shelbec: -
(flUsing achain as a primary-collar. All collars used for the purpose of chaining or
tethering as animal must be made of nylon or leather.
(5) Allowing an animal to be chained or tethered such that the animal is not confiined to the
owner's pmperiy oar snch that the chain or tether can become entangled and prevent the
aaimial from moving about freely, lying down comfortable or having access to adequate. .
£ood, water and shelter.
(6) Using a chain as a primary collar. All collars used for the purpose of chaining or tethering as
animal must be made of nylon or leather. -
Holly Sarin4s. North Carolina
May 16, 2006
This ordinance probe'bits the tethering of animals for a period of time or under conditions that are
deemed hamnful 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 fnely and allow them access to
food, water, and shelter.
Sec.12-65. Cruelty to animals. .
(c) Proln'bited acts. All animals shall be kept and treated under sanitary and humane conditions and
it shall be imlavvfiil for any person to engage in one ar more of the following acts:
. 8. Allowing a collar, rope ar 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 aaimaL
Examples of hmaiful 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 nod.
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
212
Tag ~~,~ g~ July 30a; 2007
Greenville. North Carolina
This ordinance oirtlines what kind of tether may be need.
c_ 45. Animal care gcaerally.
(c) Any ~ 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 m length and placed.
on a swivel or on a chain run.
26
213
Tethering Committee Report • July 30a', 2007
APPENDIXI'T~• .
Notes from Interviews with .North Cruolina Jurisdictions with TetJteri~eg
Ord: Conducted by the Tethering Committee
The following is a su~rancn y of comments from Animal Services o,~cials from New Hanover Corany,
the City ofLaurinb~a~g and Catawba County, made in telephone interviews The Tethering
Commi#tee conducted these interviews on April Il ~; 2007 as a part of its information gathering.
Dr. Jean McNe~7. Animal Control Services Manaeer
New Hanover ConntY .
THE LAw: Prohibits tethering. Recently amended to add "attended" to the law so that dogs can. be
tethcred if their owner is present. They enacted a ben as opposed to time limits on tethering because
time Limits are dif6icult to enforce because they would have to rely on a neighbor's testimony.
WHY ENACTED: County felt that tag 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.
ENFORCElV1ET`1'r: V olation of tt~e law results in a civil fn1e. V'iolatoxs have 60 days to comet the
violation, if they do, the fine is cancelled. If the fine is not paid, it is sent to the county Iega1
depeartment for collection. As a govenmaent agency, the county can garnish a person's wages. New
Hanover does not have the power of impouadmeat They do not tape people to court; the
enforcement ishandled in.-horse by the 1e~1 departmet<t.
PHASE IN: New Hanover had atwo-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 snaendored. Neglect
calls have decreased. They get about 30 tetlteang-related complaints a month. Some dogs pz+obably
have rue loose but those are the people who have no desire to be responsible pet owners.
PUBLIC REACTION: Support within the county. Majority of apposition has come fiom
elsewhere.
Elaine Modlin. Animal Control Officer
City of Lanrinbnre Animal Control Department. Scotland Comity
T~ LAW: In 1988, Laininbiag 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 enforceme~ much easier. The
27
214
T~~g ~~~ ~rt Ju1y 30ffi, 2007
county (Scotland) has the same ordinance as the city. They have a 90 percent compliance rate at this
pow-
I~urinburg also bas restrictions on pens size - I On10 for smaller dogs, 20s10 for larger. Animal
control wants larger require~rnents, but the city counci'1 has not agreed.
IIJFORCF.N)ET1T: 1 hour time limit verified by sitting and watching. Vio1a#ors are given a two-
week warning notice in general, but animal control uses discxetian and wi71 give some situations
more time if the dog is in good condition. ~olahon results in a civil citatiion and X100 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 itA Those that don't comply and have their dogs impo~mded must
pay shelter fee, vaccinations, etc. to get the dog baalc. Sometimes the shelter fee is waived. About
25 % reclaim their dog and the rest are betxer off anyway.
PHASE ]N: The city had a ono-year education period before enforcement began They educated the
community through fact sheets, newspaper, radio, posters, etc.
RESULT5 OF ORDINANCE: Overall decrease in cruelty cases, cut down on pit bull problems,
decreased dog bites, and helped with overpopulation (penned dogs are nvt as easy to get pregnant).
Prior to the law, 50.0 of bites before were fivnx chained dogs. No dramatic increase in sun~eaders
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 nut well taken care of anyway:
Joaine MGKeeL Shelter Maaaser
Catawba County Animal Care and Control Catawba County
THB LAW: Catawba does not have a ban, just requirements on conditions for tethering.
ENFORCNIEI~IT: They don't receive complaints very o$w. When fiery 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 regmrement is assessed by eyeballing the situation.
Some officers feel comfortable and some don't with having to make jt~dgnaents 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 is animals being s~uzendered.. More animas are
~~readered under the nuisance ordinance than the tethering ordinance.
28
215
[ 1/
- Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin S~ Smte 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968-22$7
September 10~', 2007
To: Animal Services Advisory Board
From: Bob Mar+otbo, Animal Services Director, and Inane Paul, Animal Control
Manager
Re: Required, ICenne! 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 Commitfiee, 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 requin:d size of kennels
for dogs. They an: as follows:
1. A minimum spate n~uirement should be set in acxordance 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 addifional dog that is kept in a
kennel. Specifically, we recommend that fifty percent of the minimum required
space be added fior the second and each subsequent dog that is kept kenneled
with another dog; and that the addfional 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 n~pect to the minimum space n'quired for one or
more dogs of different s¢es. -
216
Regrrir+ed Kennel Space
September 70°', 2007
Pegs 2
The raBonale for These recommendations has several components. One is that they
ensure strFfident space for dogs that are kept and/or put outside. These are space
requirements that uwukl apply if a dog is outside and not tethered in acxordanoe with
the recommendations made in the Tethering Committee's Report and Propos®1 f+~r
Ordinance Amendment k is understiood that a traditional fence or electronic fendng
would meet the same minimum requirements set for kennels.
Another rationale is relative ease and simpi'idty 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 complied in the Appendix to this memorandum.
They are also based upon our review of information avaifabie from the Humane Soclety
of the United Stales (HSU5). Of the three pertinent national organizations we
researched ~nciuding American Humane and the National Animal Control Association),
only HSUS offend speclfic guidelines on this issue. "
As can be seen from sample regulations, most, but not a(1, jurisdictions draw a
distinction between dogs of different sizes, as is the case in our recommendation.
However, there is considerable variation in the min~num 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 formulaUed our cum recommendations "
between these extremes, and in recognition of what might be descn'bed as reasonable
standards. "
As can also be seen from the sample regulations, it is often the case that more space is
requin~d 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
standarcl is higher than many but seems reasonable given the need for additional dog
.houses and proper drainage in acxoniance with other requirements of Orange County's
Animal Ordinances.
While electronic containment devices and traditional fences are not typically referenced,
finally, uve have included them among to provide as much clarity as possible with regard
to legal requinments. Our approach is very practical in that these enclosures wouk!
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 ineffiective in a particular situation, any resulting issues would be
addressed through Orange County's animal nuisance ordinance.
'217
Appendix !:
Required Kennel Space Regulations
This appendbc contains two types of information used in the research of our
recommendations reganiing minimum kennel space requirements.
The first section covers e~osting ordinances, including one from NC, that curnentiy
regulate minimum kennel space n:quinrmerns. The second part of the append'a covers
general recorrrmendations and/or references from organizations that have formulated
findings for recommended minimum kennel space. n~uiremerrts.
Ordinances:
1. County of New Hanover- North Carolina
Outside enclosuB 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 senrices reserves the right to
determine if a space is considered su'~table for the number and s'¢e 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 s'¢es 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, tha
kennel can be placed on a Dement pad. Kennel runs might seem like a silly idea when
you have a large yani, but for dogs that love th escape; this may be a good choice.
Size of Dog Pen Size
(Sq. Ft)
F,ctra Large
over 26" or over 75 lbs.) 8
Large ~
(over 20" or under 75 lbs.) 40
Medium ~
over 12" or under 50 lbs. 32
Small 24
218
o~ner 12" or under 20 lbs.
Required Kenner Space
SgpGern6er 10°i, 2007
Pag® 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 BO Sq ft 96 Sq ft
3 dogs 45 Sq ft 96 Sq ft 140 sq ft
4. City of Bartlesville- Oklahoma
htta•//www citvofbartlesvilie.ororndex.aho
" 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 Meth®rin® 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 properly without a fenced yard, the owner of such
dogs or persons having cusfiody of such dogs shaft provide an enclosure for such dogs
meeting the one. hundn~d (100) square feet d'nnension. Such enclosure shall be
construcfied 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 enclosun: shall be coven:d 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 vacclnated 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 Bitl of Assurance or its sucxessor. Animals
shall riot be tied or chained th doghouses, or other stationary objects, but must bean an
approved enclosure. Sterilized cats are exempt from confinement
219
Requlreal Kennel Space
September 10s', 2007
Page 5
The ordinance also mandates that dog enclosures must provide at least one hundred
and filly square feet of space for dogs over snc 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. Fenclng 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 "invisble fence". ~ '
G. All areas where animals are confined shall be maintained so. as to provide a safe and
healthy
8. Lithe 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-~ Pen Size (1 dog) ea. add. doa
Extra Large 48 sq. feet ~ 24 sq. feet
(over 26" at withers or over 75 Its)
Large 40 ~sq. feet 20 sq. feet
(over 20" at withers or not over 75)
Medium 32 sq. feet 16 sq. feet
(over 12" at wiliFiers or not outer 5016s)
Small 24 sq feet 12 sq. feet
(12" or less or not over 20 lbs)
9. San Bernardino- California
D. DOG KENNELS must be tall enough to prevent the dog from jumping over or have a
secure flop and be able to prevent dogs from digging out. Kennels must have ~a .
minimum of 100 square feet for one dog. plus an addifional 25 square feet for each
addfional dog in the same enclosure.
220
Requlr~ed Kennel Space
September 10ei, 2007
Page 6
Recommendations /References: -
1. Getting Your Dog off the Chain -
Humane Society of the United States (from ~Do You Chain Your Dog's
The second reason for the tougher stance on chaining ~ that many dog owners have
teamed to solve the problems that caused them to tie their dogs outside in the first
place. tf 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 chaiMink dog run. ff you install a dog run, make sure rt meets these
minimum space n:quiremer~s. Be sure to alkniv extra space for a doghouse.
Number
of Dogs .Under 501bs. Over 50 Ibs.
1 ~ 6x10 (60 sq. five#) 8x10 (80 sq. feet)
2 8x10 (80 sq. feet) 8x12 (96 sq. feet)
3 8x12 (96 sq. feet) 10x14 (140 sq. feet)
4 10x12 (120 sq. feet) 12x16 (192 sq. feet)
Note: Depending on where you five, your city. or county may require that you provide
more space than these guidelines suggest.
- Z. Unchain Your Dog website 1 PowerPoint
When a dog is confined outside by means of an enclosun: or an electronic containment
device, the following minimum space n3quirements shall be met
Size of Pen (increase nen size by half of total area aer additional doc,~
F,ctra Large (over 75 Ibs) *' sq. feet
Large (50-75Ibs) *'~q, feet - -
Medium (20-50Ibs) *1'sq. feet -
Small (under 20 /bs) "*sq. feet .
(** Repn3sent 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 agenaes information and/or n~ommendations)
221
Requited Kennel Space
September 10°i, 2007
Page 7 .
3. Prince George County -Maryland
Care Standanis for Enforcement ofAnti-Crueky Laws
Dogs in Pens:
The size of the pen is determfied by the size and number of dogs housed therein. Dogs
housed together must be socially ov~npahble. It is recommended that no more than four
compatible dogs be housed in single pen.
Minimum space for dogs in pens (not induding shelter space) shall be as follows:
# of Dogs Small (<251bs) Medium (25-501bs) Large (> 501bs)
1 3x7 (21sq 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 ais also listed in the Washington DC Humane Society's
Humane Law Enf+~rcement Manual.