Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-03-2008-6aORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 3, 2008 Action Agenda Item No. (v - q SUBJECT: Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dogs DEPARTMENT: Animal Services PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): Abstract for May 20, 2008 BOCC Public INFORMATION CONTACT: Hearing Ross Oglesbee, J.D., Chair, Animal Proposed Ordinance Amendment Services Advisory Board 966-0599 Tethering Committee Final Report & Susan Elmore, DVM, Vice-Chair, Animal Recommendations Services Advisory Board 541-3474 Staff Memorandum Recommending Bob Marotto, Director, Animal Services Minimum Kennel Size Requirements 968-2287 Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting Summaries Animal Services Advisory Board Minutes from Meetings with Discussion on Tethering PURPOSE: To request that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a proposed ordinance amendment to the Orange County Animal Ordinance restricting the tethering of dogs. BACKGROUND: At its November 13, 2007 work session, the BOCC reviewed the Final Report and Recommendations of the Tethering Committee, and requested that a proposed ordinance amendment be drafted by the County Attorney's office, in consultation with the Animal Services staff, and presented for consideration. At that same work session, the BOCC indicated that the Animal Services Department should prepare and distribute outreach materials to ensure that the public was informed of the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment includes the following restrictions on the tethering of dogs: • No more than a total of 3 hours of tethering within a 24-hour period • A specification of the types of collars and equipment • A requirement for minimum kennel size • An exemption for certain organized and lawful animal functions • An 18-month education period, including twelve (12) months of public outreach and six (6) months of warnings The proposed amendment would become effective June 1, 2009, in order to allow effective public outreach and education. In addition, the amendment stipulates that only warnings would be issued for lack of compliance with the tethering restrictions during the six-month period following the date that the ordinance actually becomes effective. Thus, the amendment itself would actually not be fully enforced until January 1, 2010. In preparation for a public hearing at the May 20, 2008 BOCC meeting, Animal Services staff conducted extensive public outreach to ensure that infierested parties and the community as a whole were aware of and invited to participate in the public hearing. The Tethering Committee's full report, the staff recommended kennel sizes, the proposed amendment, and a set of frequently asked questions (FAQ) remain posted in full form on the Animal Services website at http://www.co.orange.nc.us/animalservices. At the May 20th BOCC public hearing, over twenty-five citizens spoke, offering diverse and varied opinions, and expressed strong feelings on both sides of the issue. Many of the significant issues expressed at the meeting had been previously heard by the Tethering Committee during its public input meetings and were discussed at length in the course of the Committee's deliberation. Exceptions for "escape artist" dogs and hunting or sporting dogs were considered, but ultimately decided against by the Tethering Committee because the exceptions were believed to be unworkable. For hunting and sporting dogs, the Tethering Committee decided against a full exception, but did allow for an exception during actual sporting or hunting events. Given the diverse opinions represented at the May 20th hearing, the BOCC decided to continue discussion of and possible decision regarding the proposed amendment for its June 3`d 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. ORANGE COUNTY '~"-=~' `ice.-} ~ ~ ~~?~~ BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGEND EM AB T Meeting Date: May 20, 2008 Action Agenda Item No. 5- ~ SUBJECT: Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dogs DEPARTMENT: Animal Services PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): Proposed Ordinance Amendment Tethering Committee Final Report & Recommendations Staff Memorandum Recommending Minimum Kennel Size Requirements Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting Summaries Animal Services Advisory Board Minutes from Meetings with Discussion on Tethering INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross Oglesbee, J.D., Chair, Animal Services Advisory Board 966-0599 Susan Elmore, DVM, Vice-Chair, Animal Services Advisory Board 541-3474 Bob Marotto, Director, Animal Services 968-2287 PURPOSE: To request that the Board of County Commissioners conduct a public hearing for a proposed ordinance amendment to the Orange County Animal Ordinance restricting the tethering of dogs, and adopt the ordinance amendment. BACKGROUND: At its November 13, 2007 work session, the BOCC reviewed the Final Report and Recommendations of the Tethering Committee, and requested that a proposed ordinance amendment be drafted by the County Attorney's office, in consultation with the Animal Services staff, and presented for consideration. At that same work session, the BOCC indicated that the Animal Services Department should prepare and distribute outreach materials to ensure that the public was informed of the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment includes the following restrictions on the tethering of dogs: • No more than a total of 3 hours of tethering within a 24-hour period ® A specification of the types of collars and equipment ® A requirement for minimum kennel size ® An exemption for certain organized and lawful animal functions • An 18-month education period, including twelve (12) months of public outreach and six (6) months of warnings Animal Services has initiated public outreach, indicating that the proposed amendment is scheduled for consideration at the May 20th BOCC meeting. The Tethering Committee's full report, the staff recommended kennel sizes, the proposed amendment, and a set of frequently ~ r~ [.J _~~ 2~ asked questions (FAQ) are all posted- in full form on the Animal Services website 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. J Tethering Amendment Proposal As Recommended to the Board of County Commissioners May 20`'', 2008 AMENDMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE (Only those sections or subsections amended are set out below) BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, hereby amends the Ordinance To Provide For Animal Control Protection In Orange County, North Carolina by adding (indicated by double underlined language) and deleting (indicated by stricken through language) as follows: Section VII -Definitions. As used in this ordinance, the following terms mean: 1 _ .... 2. .... 3. .... 22. Restraint: An animal is under restraint if it is under sufficient physical restrain such as a leash, cage, bridle, or similar effective and humane device which restrains and controls the animal, or within a vehicle, or adequately contained by a fence on the premises or other secure enclosure as permitted in accordance with Subsections XI(K) and XIfL) 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 Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal May 20rt: 2008 Page 2 under the control of that competent person and the animal is on the premises. If any unattended animal is restrained by a chain, leash or similar restraint, it shall be designated and placed to prevent choking or strangulation. Such chain or restraint shall not be less than ten (10) feet in length and shall be either on a swivel designed to prevent the animal from choking or strangling itself, ^w ^^ ^ ^"^~^ ^~^. The restraint of unattended dogs by a fence kennel outdoor enclosure chain leash or similar restraint is further regulated under Sections XI(Kl and XI(Ll of this ordinance. 23. ... 24. ... 25. ... Section XI -Mistreatment of Animals Unlawful. The following acts or failure to act relating to the mistreatment of animals are unlawful and violations of this ordinance: A. ... B. ... C. ... D. ... E. It shall be unlawful to restrain any animal except in a humane fashion; as set ettt forth in Section VII(22) above.- and Sections XI(K) and XI(L) below. 5 Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal May 20`x', 2008 Page 3 F. ... G. ... H. ... J. ... K It shall be unlawful for anv person to restrain a dog using a chain. wire or other tvpe 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 obiect for -_ more than a total of 3 hours in a 24-hour period. During periods of tethering that are not unlawful under this subsection anv tethering device used shall be at least 10 feet in length and attached in such manner as to prevent strangulation or other iniurv to the dog and entanglement with obiects. 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 peroendicularly. 3 No person shall tether a dog with a chain or wire or other device to or cause such attachment to. anv collar other than a buckle type collar or bodv --_ harness. 4 No person shall tether with a chain or wire or other device to. or cause such attachment to ahead harness choke-type collar or pronged collar to a dog. 5 No person shall tether with a chain wire or other device to a dog where the weight of the tethering device and the collar combined exceeds ten (10) percent of the dog's bodv 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 subiect to the provisions of subsections (3)-(6) of this Section XIK: (i) Tether and restrain a dog while actively engaged in: a Use of the dog in shepherding or herding livestock or l(~ Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal May 20`x', 2008 Page 4 b Use of the dos in the business of cultivatins asricultural products if the restrainins is reasonably necessarv for the safety of the dos. or c Use of the dos in lawful huntingactivities if the restraint is reasonably necessarv for the safety of the dos, or d Use of the dos at dos trainins or performance events, including but not limited to field trials and obedience trials where tetherins does not occur for a period exceedins 7 consecutive davs. (ril After talons possession of a dos that appears to be a stray dos and after havins advised animal control authorities of the capture of the dos tether and restrain the dos in accordance with the provisions of Section XI(K) for a period not to exceed seven (71 davs as the person havins taken possession of the dos is seekins the identity of the owner of the dos. (iiil Walk a dos with a handheld leash. L It shall be unlawful for anv person to keep a dos outdoors in an enclosure includins a pen run kennel fence or electronically controlled containment device or other outdoor enclosure in violation of this subsection. 1 Outdoor enclosures containins dogs must meet or exceed the followins dimensional requirements: Size of Dos Required Minimum Enclosure Area 1-35 Pounds 80 Square Feet 36-75 Pounds 100 Square Feet 76 Pounds and sreater 120 Square Feet All outdoor enclosures-must be of sufficient hersht so that the tallest dos contained within the enclosure is able to walk naturally without its head reachins the roof or top of said enclosure however the heisht of anv such enclosure shall not be included for the purposes of determinins the required minimum enclosure area. The provisions of this Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal May 20rr` 2008 Page S Section XI(L) shall not anvly to anv Person who held a valid permit to overate a Class I Kennel or Class II Kennel from Orange County on or before January 1.2008 for so lop as such permit remains in full force and effect without lavse or revocation. All Persons applyin~ for a new Class I or Class II Kennel Permit after January 1, 2008 shall comply with this Section XI(L) prior to the issuance of anv such permit.' (i) In addition to the reauired minimum enclosure area established herein additional space must be provided for each additional dog that is kept in an outdoor enclosure as follows• for the second and each additional dog that is kept in an outdoor enclosure with another dog fifty percent of the reauired minimum area specified in subsection XI(L)(1) must be added to the minimum enclosure area. The required minimum enclosure area shall be based on the weight of the largest dog contained within the enclosure. Subsections XI(K) and XI(Ll become effective June 1, 2009 and avply to acts committed on or after that date Anv nerson who violates either of these subsections after June 1. 2009 and prior to January 1 2010, shall be issued a written warning ~ivin~ the violator 30 days to come into compliance with the ordinance. Anv nerson who violates subsection XI(Kl and XI(L) after January 1, 2010, or anv violator who fails to comely with the ordinance after the expiration of 30 days followins such persons receipt of a warning specified in the preceding sentence is subiect to one or more of the Penalties established in Section XXI of this ordinance. Anv dog that is kept in violation of subsections XI(K) and XI(L) of this ordinance may be seized and subsequently impounded in accordance with Section XIII of this ordinance until such a time as the Animal Control Director is reasonably assured that the dos will not be subiect to restraint in violation of this ordinance The Animal Control Director shall post a notice at the place of the illegal restraint or at such other location, that is desr~ned to reasonably apprise the Owner or Keeper of the doe 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 Keener upon providing reasonable assurances to the Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal May 20"', 2008 Page 6 Animal Control Director that the doa will not be subiect to restraint in violation of this --- ordinance. Upon motion of Commissioner Commissioner Ordinance amendments were adopted this the 2008 and shall become effective as of the seconded by the foregoing Animal Control day of day of , 200_. Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners Tethering Committee Report July 30~', 2007 Orange County's Tethering Committee* Repo~^t and Proposal fog O~dznance Amendment July 3 0th, 2007 *Members of the Tethering Committee wish to thank Animal Services staff for their diligent and professional efforts to ensure that the Committee was effective as well as successful in meeting its charge in a timely manner. Direct staff support to the Tethering Committee was provided by Bob Marotto, Animal Services Director; Irene Paul, Manager, Animal Control Division; Lisa Smith, Office Assistant, Animal Control Division; and Andi Morgan, Administrative Assistant, Administration. io Tethering Committee Report TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Summary II. Introduction III. Findings IV Recommendations IV. Discussion V. Next Steps VI. Appendices July 30~', 2007 a. Appendix I: Creation of the Orange County Tethering Committee and Board of County Commissioners' Abstract for Creation of the Tethering Committee b. Appendix II: Committee Members, BOCC Liaison, and Staff c. Appendix III:- North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances d. Appendix V: Notes from Interviews with North Carolina Jurisdictions with Tethering Ordinances: Conducted by the Tethering Committee 2 Tethering Committee Report SUNIlVIARY July 30th, 2007 After asix-month-long deliberation that included seven meetings, the Orange County Tethering Committee has concluded that the practice of tethering is a concern from the standpoint of both animal and human welfare. With respect to the latter, tethered dogs can pose risks to the safety of community members, and in some circumstances, affect their enjoyment and use of their property. With respect to the former, it may be injurious to an animal and result in isolated lives of not-so- quiet desperation at the end of a chain or rope. Of particular concern are dogs that spend their lives tethered, as these are naturally active and social beings that require exercise and frequent interaction with humans and other animals. Additionally, the Committee is concerned that tethered animals develop behavioral problems, including aggression, that adversely affect public welfare. Notably, the Committee is recommending that tethering be limited rather than outlawed because it has concluded that there are certain circumstances under which tethering can be an acceptable method of confinement for several hours, whether the owner is in attendance or has left his or her residence for that time period. In light of this, the Committee is recommending that the County's current animal ordinance be amended to include the following with regard to tethering dogs: ® a three-hour limit within a 24-hour period; ® a specification of the types of collars and equipment that are allowed when a dog is tethered; ® a requirement for minimum kennel size for outdoor housing of dogs; ® an exemption for organized and lawful animal functions such as hunting, obedience training, and law enforcement training of a duration of not more than seven (7) days; ® an 18-month education period, including twelve (12) months of public outreach and six (6) months of issuing warnings before the citations would be issued. In general terms, the Committee is making these recommendations on the basis of these findings: Prolonged tethering can -and does deprive dogs of necessary exercise and socialization. Tethered dogs can and do contribute to various community problems, including pet overpopulation and nuisance barking. Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to public safety and health because they may become aggressive and they are not confined behind a physical barrier. In making these recommendations, the Committee has gathered general information about the humane and public safety aspects of tethering; researched existing ordinances that restrict or prohibit tethering in jurisdictions across the United States; interviewed Animal Services personnel in North Carolina jurisdictions with tethering ordinances; and held two meetings to obtain public input. i~ Tethering Committee Report July 30~', 2007 In addition, the Committee is making these recommendations recognizing that that the precedent for its proposal to change Orange County's animal ordinances is compelling. More specifically, numerous jurisdictions in North Carolina and around the United States (including four states) have successfully implemented tethering prohibitions or restrictions and have found them to be both enforceable and effective in reducing animal cruelty complaints and dog bite incidents. Given the charge it received from the Board of County Commissioners, the Tethering Committee is submitting its recommendations to the Animal Services Advisory Board, the appointed citizen body that advises the County regarding animal service matters. In turn, the Animal Services Advisory Board will decide what, if any, ordinance amendments to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners, the County's legislative body. 4 t3 Tethering Committee Report INTRODUCTION July 30th, 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.l 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 wallcing a dog on a leash, but instead refers to dogs that are tied out as a primary, if not exclusive, means of confinement. Currently, Orange County's animal ordinances, which apply to the unincorporated parts of the County and Hillsborough, allow tethering provided certain conditions are met. The Tethering Committee is proposing that this ordinance be amended, and specifically recommending the changes formulated in this report. The remainder of this report will outline and explain the changes that the Tethering Committee is recommending for Orange County's animal ordinances. It will. also provide information about the work of the Committee, its findings, and the rationale for its specific recommendations. 1 For background on the formation of the Tethering Committee and its charge from the Orange County Board of Commissioners, see Appendix I: Creation of the Orange County Tethering Committee and Board of County Commissioners' Abstract for the Creation of the Tethering Committee. ~~ Tethering Committee Report FINDINGS July 30th, 2007 Over asix-month period, the Tethering Committee met numerous times to organize itself, gather and review information about the practice of tethering, research ordinances to restrict or prohibit tethering in other North Carolina jurisdictions, and collect input from the public. Altogether there was one organizational meeting, two information gathering meetings, and two public input meetings. Two additional meetings were held to formulate recommendations and review and approve the Committee's Report mzd Proposal for Ordinance Amendment. The Cornrnittee came to its general findings on the basis of the weight of available information gathered through its meetings and work. These findings are generally consistent with the concerns that have prompted other jurisdictions to outlaw or otherwise control the practice of tethering. According to one source, there are now more than 50 jurisdictions in the United States with tethering regulations.2 Most of these are county and local governments, but there are also four states that have prohibited tethering. Some national organizations-including the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which has advised the County on animal sheltering issues-advocate for prohibitions on tethering dogs. Specifically, the Committee's fmdings include: Humane Concerns • Tethered dogs, and certainly those that are isolated and continuously tethered, may be deprived of essential exercise and socialization. • Tethered dogs are at risk of various tethering-related injuries, such as embedded collars and accidental strangulation or hanging. • Tethered dogs are also at risk of becoming tangled and prevented from reaching food, water and shelter, and attacks by other animals in which they are usually unable to defend themselves. z See http://www.helpinganimals.com/ga tetherLegislation.asp. 6 ~S Tethering Committee Report Public Safety Issues July 30th, 2007 • Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to the community. They can and do become highly territorial and aggressive and present a significant risk of injury to the public through dog bites and attacks. • Tethered dogs are also a risk with regard to aggressive incidents or actual bites because there is not a physical barrier between a dog and a child or other community member. By contrast, fences and kennels do create such barriers, thereby minimizing the risk a dog can pose to neighbors or passersby (while at the same time protecting that dog from attacks by other animals). Community Concerns • Tethered dogs are at risk of unplanned and unwanted breeding, and thus they can contribute to the significant problem of pet overpopulation. They may have litters of unwanted puppies, and also create problems by attracting and exciting other dogs (despite the requirement of County ordinance that an animal that is "in season" be suitably contained and not kept outside). • Tethered dogs can negatively impact community life through nuisance barking. Precedent • There is ample precedent for the enactment of an ordinance to prohibit or restrict tethering; at least 50 U.S. jurisdictions, including cities, counties and several states, have passed such laws. • Several North Carolina jurisdictions-including Catawba, New Hanover, and Scotland Counties, along with several North Carolina townships-have some level of tethering limitation currently in place.3 • Ordinances that restrict or prohibit tethering have proved to be both enforceable and effective in reducing animal cruelty complaints and incidents of dog bites. s See Appendix II: North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances. 7 IlO Tethering Committee Report RECOMMENDATIONS July 30th, 2007 The Orange County Tethering Committee, on the basis of its charge from the BOCC and after extensive research and public input, is proposing that there be an amendment to the County's animal ordinance to restrict but not prohibit the tethering of dogs in Orange County. This and closely related recommendations regarding matters such as the implementation of a new ordinance are presented in this section. An ordinance amendment is being proposed because there is presently very little regulation of tethering in Orange County's animal ordinances, regulations which apply in the unincorporated parts of the County and Hillsborough. A minimum standard is set out in Section VII in these terms: "If any unattended animal is restrained by a chain, leash or similar restraint, it shall be designed and placed to prevent choking or strangulation. Such chain or restraint shall not be less than ten (10) feet in length and either on a swivel designed to prevent the animal from choking or strangling itself, or on a chain run." a As formulated below, in order to more effectively regulate the practice of tethering in Orange County, the Tethering Committee's specific recommendations fall into four closely related areas: Limitation and Requirements ® Tethering should be limited to three (31 hours within atwenty-four-hour period, and a tethered animal shall be kept in accordance with all other laws, including but not limited to requirements for food, water and shelter. By limiting tethering to three (3) hours per day, such an ordinance would reduce the risk of uncontrolled contact between dogs and people, which is sometimes. responsible for dog attacks and bites, and it could improve or enhance the overall conditions and care of dogs themselves. It should be noted that the Committee is a North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) (sections 14-360 forward) pertaining to cruelty to animals may apply in some circumstances to how an animal is secured. With only one exception, however, it does not make any specific mention of restraint or tethering. The exception is NCGS 14-362.3 (Restraining dogs in a cruel manner), which makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor for someone to "maliciously restrain a dog using a chain or wire grossly in excess of the size necessary to restrain the dog safely." 8 ~~ Tethering Committee Report July 30a', 2007 recommending that tethering be limited rather than outlawed because it has concluded that there are certain circumstances under which tethering can be an acceptable method of confinement for several hours, whether the owner is in attendance or has left his or her residence for that time period. • Tethers must meet certain requirements. A tethered dog must have a tether at least ten feet in length that swivels at each end to prevent choking or strangulation and allows access to food, water and shelter. The weight of the tether and collar must not exceed ten percent of the dog's body weight. A tethered dog must be tethered using a buckle collar or harness. Choke chain collars and prong collars are not allowed when tethering a dog. These requirements are designed to avoid strangulation and ensure the welfare of the animal if and when it is tethered in accordance with the proposed ordinance. • A minimum~en size for outdoor enclosures for dogs should be established. This is necessary to empower Animal Control to ensure that dogs taken off tethers as a primary means of constraint are not confined to small spaces that compromise their welfare.s Exceptions • Tethering is allowed at training and performance (or sporting) events for dogs including; but not limited to field trails and obedience trails. In such cases, continuous tethering shall not be allowed for a period longer than seven (7) days. Implementation • An ordinance amendment regarding tethering should become effective 18 months after its adoption. This approach is informed by the successful experience of other communities in which awareness was raised and the public educated before a tethering regulation actually became effective. s An example of such requirement from New Hanover County, North Carolina, is that: "Outside enclosure means a pen large enough to provide each dog less than 25 pounds with a kennel of at least 8 feet x 10 feet in size, and each dog 25 pounds or greater with a kennel of 10 feet x 10 feet in size. Animal control services reserves the right to determine if a space is considered suitable for the number and size of dogs housed in an outdoor enclosure." (New Hanover County Code, Section 5-4) 9 ~~ Tethering Committee Report July 30~', 2007 • The implementation phase will involve ayear-long,~neriod of extensive public outreach and education regarding the ordinance amendment and practice of tethering, followed by a six- month period in which only warnings are issued. This is to ensure that dog owners have ample notice of the new ordinance and time to transition to other methods of confinement and take advantage of community resources to help with the implementation of alternatives. • Public outreach should include resources to help dog owners implement alternatives to the restraint of dogs by tethering, as well as information about the new ordinance. The Committee believes that public outreach and education is pivotal to its recommendations. These pursuits would presumably be led by the Animal Services Department, working in concert with, its citizen advisory board and perhaps other stakeholders. Enforcement • Upon initial contact for noncompliance with the new ordinance, after the six-month phase-in period, a doa owner will receive a warning that gives him or her thirty~30~da_ys to come into compliance. As with the initial implementation period itself, this initial enforcement approach is designed to ensure that dog owners are aware of and able to comply with the tethering ordinance. • Civil citations with a monetary penaltyprogressive (or graduated) schedule ordinarily will be issued for noncompliance after issuance of a warning to come into compliance. • An animal may be impounded after the issuance of a citation for a violation of the tethering ordinance-which itself would occur only after the issuance of awarning-subject to an ap~ropriate~rocess of appeal bathe 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 ~q Tethering Committee Report DISCUSSION July 30a', 2007 The Tethering Committee is recommending a tethering ordinance because there is good reason to believe limited or controlled tethering can alleviate the harm to animals and hardship to people that can be associated with the practice of tethering. By limiting tethering to a given number of hours within atwenty-four-hour period, such an ordinance would reduce the risk of uncontrolled contact between dogs and people, which. is sometimes responsible for dog attacks and bites, and it could improve or enhance the overall conditions and care of dogs themselves. Experience of Other Jurisdictions The Tethering Committee's recommendation to limit tethering is not without precedent and is consistent with the efforts of other jurisdictions in North Carolina and beyond to control or prohibit the practice of tethering. These precedents include ,state laws as well as local ordinances, and together they provide compelling evidence that tethering can be successfully regulated in a variety of different ways.6 As part of its information gathering, the Committee reviewed tethering ordinances in the North Carolina counties of Catawba, New Hanover and Scotland, along with several North Carolina townships, and interviewed officials in three of those jurisdictions.' The information gathered in this manner indicates that efforts to restrict or prohibit tethering elsewhere in North Carolina have been quite successful. The ordinances proved to be enforceable, and they appeared to actually reduce rather than increase the time required by humane investigators to attend to animal complaints. According to interviews with animal services officials from Catawba County, New Hanover County and the Town of Laurinburg in Scotland County, there were few, if any, unintended adverse impacts. Dogs were not surrendered by their owners, euthanized or just set free as a result of the s See http://www.hel~inganimals.com/ga tetherLegislation.asp for complete list of jurisdictions with tethering ordinances. ~ See Appendix II: North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances, and Appendix III: Notes from Interviews with North Carolina Jurisdictions with Tethering Ordnances: Conducted by the Tethering Committee 11 a© Tethering Committee Report July 30~`, 2007 adoption of tethering ordinances. In addition, the ordinances had several positive impacts, for instance, reducing the number of animal cruelty complaints and incidents of dog bites. In terms of enforcement, these North Carolina officials reported that successful implementation required a reasonable phase-in period that allowed for adequate public education and outreach and sufficient time for dog owners to change from a tether to other methods of confinement. It is on the basis of their experience that the Committee is recommending an 18-month phase-in period as both reasonable and adequate for accomplishing these goals. Also, officials from New Hanover County and the Town of Laurinburg in Scotland County both reported that an outright ban or severe restriction on allowable hours for tethering was most enforceable. In 2000, Laurinburg changed its ordinance to restrict tethering from eight (8) hours to one (1) hour, a change that improved enforcement capability. Laurinberg's Animal Control Officer reported a 90 percent compliance rate with the ordinance at this time, and reports that the ability to impound animals has been essential to the enforcement of this law. The Committee believes that athree-hour limit on tethering is enforceable by Animal Control Officers in Orange County, given their regular work hours and the operating hours of the Animal Control Division of the Animal Services Department. Public Testimony As previously noted, the Tethering Committee held public input meetings in order to give the citizens of the County an opportunity to express their concerns and ideas. The first public input meeting, on April 23rd, 2007, was widely publicized and had approximately 25-30 people in attendance. The following meeting of the Tethering Committee, though not originally designed as such, became a second public input meeting, with approximately 20 citizens attending. Much was learned from the varied opinions and preferences expressed at these "listening sessions." Some individuals spoke against the practice of tethering on the grounds that it was not humane. Others addressed public safety and community welfare concerns. Yet others noted their belief that 12 oZ' Tethering Committee Report July 30~', 2007 tethering was not necessarily inhumane, and that for some individuals and animals, it could be the only possible or effective means of restraint Also at these sessions were representatives of an area hunting association, the Eno River Coon Hunters Association, and other interested parties who expressed two main concerns about the restriction of tethering. One was that they would not be able to hold their very successful annual field trial if tethering was prohibited. In this regard, they stressed that this event draws people from around the country and generates considerable income for the County. Their other concern was the keeping of hunting dogs themselves. They emphasized that these dogs were o$en, if not always, kept on tethers and that, in their opinion, it was sometimes the best way to keep such dogs. Advantages included the easy separation of incompatible dogs, and the allowance of greater space on a daily basis. Finally, they stated that dogs can be neglected in a variety of situations that do not involve tethering, for instance, the inappropriate confinement of dogs in small kennels and crates. Committee Deliberations The Committee weighed testimony from the public and came to a series of recommendations that are intended to address some, if not all, of the concerns raised in the public testimony. The Committee believes that tethering raises significant humane, public safety and community welfare concerns, and that the continuous tethering of dogs is inhumane. The Committee concurs that dogs can be neglected in other circumstances not involving tethering, but believes that there are significant public safety and humane issues unique to tethering that merit action by the BOCC. Because it believes that tethering can be humane for limited time periods under certain circumstances, the Committee is proposing athree-hour limit per 24 hours with specifications for appropriate tethers and equipment. The Committee believes that this should reduce any hardship imposed by this restriction, and accommodate the needs of those members of the public who wish to tie their dogs outside for limited periods of time. More generally, the Committee has attempted to limit the hardship imposed by this restriction by recommending aphase-in period for the law that 13 as Tethering Committee Report July 30~', 2007 would include education about the various alternatives and community resources available to help owners transition from tethers to other means of restraining their dogs. As the Committee does not want a much needed tethering ordinance to interfere with the conduct of legal sporting events, it is proposing an exemption for such events, provided the tethering is temporary, not lasting for more than seven (7) days in duration while such events are conducted. The Committee considered the possibility of an exception for hunting dogs given the concerns raised by hunters in its "listening sessions," but ultimately decided against recommending such an exception for several reasons. One is that belief that hunting dogs have the same social and physical needs as other types of dogs. Another is that such an exception would pose difficulties in the process of enforcement insofar as anyone with a dog from a hunting breed could contend that his or her dog should be exempted. It was also believed that the creation of an exception or exceptions would not be fair to dog owners who were not allowed to tether their dogs for a period longer than three hours under the proposed ordinance amendment. It was because of this concern that the Committee ultimately decided against recommending some kind of an exception for dogs that were known to be "escape artists," as well as an exception for hunting dogs. Deliberations regarding these and other concerns raised in public testimony occurred in the final two meetings held by the Tethering Committee. And it is on the basis of those deliberations, as well as the information it gathered from other sources, that the Committee is proposing that there be an ordinance amendment that limits the practice of tethering in Orange County. NEXT STEPS The recommendations made in this report will be submitted to the ASAB for timely review and deliberation of whether a proposed ordinance amendment should ultimately be adopted by the BOCC itself. The ASAB is made up of twelve County-appointed members and charged with providing input and advice to the Animal Services Department on various matters, including policy. 14 ~3 Tethering Committee Report July 30th, 2007 On the basis of its consideration of the Tethering Committee's recommendations, the ASAB is expected to decide whether to recommend any ordinance amendments to the BOCC. As the County's sole legislative body, the BOCC would decide whether to enact any recommended amendments, and its own deliberations would be based upon a public hearing about any proposed amendment, as well as the materials and recommendations received from the ASAB and Tethering Committee. 15 as"t _ Tethering Committee Report July 30a', 2007 APPEND~I: Creation of the Orange County Tethering Committee and Board of ,County Commissioners' Abstract for Creation of the Tethering Committee Committee Creation The concerns surrounding tethering vary greatly and include issues of both animal and public welfare. Because of these concerns, the practice of tethering has become a policy issue, not only in our own community, but in communities throughout North Carolina and around the country. Of particular concern are dogs that spend their lives tethered, as they are naturally social beings and thrive on frequent interaction with humans and other animals. Additionally, there is concern that tethered animals, deprived of socialization and exercise, develop behavioral problems or aggression, and as a result, pose a risk to the community through dog bites and attacks. Other concerns involve the role of tethered dogs in contributing to community problems such as pet overpopulation and nuisance barking. The issue of tethering in Orange County initially surfaced from the efforts of some local animal advocates, who created an area "Coalition to Unchain Dogs," and began to advocate against the practice of tethering. Their efforts mirrored initiatives elsewhere to limit, restrict or outlaw tethering. All of these efforts are concerned with both public safety and animal welfare. The Orange County Tethering Committee was formed by the BOCC in October 2006 in response to local concerns about the issue. An abstract for the creation of the Tethering Committee appears at the end of this Appendix.g The BOCC charged the committee with: ® Reviewing tethering as a policy issue and reporting on it as a means of confinement, including the activities and efforts of other communities; g The issue of tethering was originally considered by the ASAB, which created a subcommittee to address the matter. The subcommittee met and decided that it would need to bring in outside members of the community, a function reserved for the BOCC. It was at that time that the BOCC created the Tethering Committee to work in conjunction with the ASAB in deciding in what ways, if any, the ordinance that governs tethering should be changed. 16 as Tethering Committee Report July 30th, 2007 ® Obtaining general public comment or input about tethering from across-section of the community; and ® Recommending to the ASAB any appropriate or desirable changes with the understanding that the ASAB would itself make any final recommendations to the BOCC. The BOCC also specified the makeup of the Committee. Specifically, it would include two ASAB members, one law enforcement representative, one animal behaviorist, one animal health and wellness expert, one advocate for the restriction of tethering, one advocate for tethering, and three at-large representatives. BOCC Abstract and Committee Charge ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 3~d, 2006 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Creation of a Tethering Committee DEPARTMENT: Animal Services PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): Draft Charge To and Composition of Orange County Tethering Committee Tethering Meeting Summary Notes INFORMAT/ON CONTACT: Bob Marotto, Director, 968-2287 Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager, 245-2307 17 a~ Tethering Committee Report July 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 to the tethering of dogs. BACKGROUND: The issue of whether or not there should be more restrictive tethering requirements in Orange County's animal ordinances has come before the Animal Services Advisory Board. The same issue has been raised elsewhere in North Carolina and around the United States, and in some places, there have been ordinance or statutory changes that restrict or prohibit the use of tethers and chains to confine dogs. The issue of tethering was the subject of discussion at the August meeting of the Animal Services Advisory Board. Proponents of more restrictive tethering requirements addressed concerns with public safety and community livability as well as concerns with the humane care of animals. Another member of the community favorably compared tethering with other forms of confinement. On the basis of public comments on tethering, and discussion among its members regarding ordinances of this kind in the context of Orange County, the ASAB decided that a Tethering Committee ought to be created. Toward that end, the ASAB selected two representatives to meet and develop an approach in response to athree-pronged charge from the ASAB. First, they were to create a larger committee with 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 ordinance amendments regarding tethering. In early September, there was a meeting of the two ASAB representatives to the Tethering Committee. A primary outcome of that meeting was to identify positions for five additional members of that Committee defined as follows: (1) law enforcement; (2) expertise in the area of animal behavior; (3) expertise in the area of animal health and wellness; (4) an advocate of more limited tethering; and (5) an advocate for tethering as a means of confinement. Subsequent to the meeting, staff discovered that only the BOCC could create or authorize the creation of such a committee. Thus the creation of the Committee was referred back to the ASAB at its September meeting and, at that meeting, a motion was unanimously adopted asking the BOCC to either create a Tethering Committee, or to authorize the ASAB to itself create such a committee as described herein. Accordingly, the BOCC will also need to decide whether the additional five pre-defined positions on the Tethering Committee would be filled the ASAB itself or by the BOCC through its usual application process for volunteers. The Animal Services Department, under the direction of Bob Marotto, will serve as Secretary to the Tethering Committee under either scenario and the recommendations from the Tethering Committee will be reviewed and commented on by the ASAB as a whole before being presented to the BOCC for any possible action. 18 a~ Tethering Committee Report July 30~', 2007 It was discussed during Chair/Vice Chair agenda review that the BOCC might wish to create the Tethering Committee itself, and with the inclusion of the two ASAB representatives, appoint the five pre-defined positions as proposed along with three additional at-large representatives from the community. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact accompanies the creation of a Tethering Committee. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss options presented relative to the creation of a Tethering Committee and the appointment of its members, and provide direction to staff. CI~[ARGE TO Al~TD COMPOSITION OF ORANGE COUNTY TETHERING COMMITTEE At the request of the Animal Services Advisory Board, and upon recommendation of the County Manager, the Commissioners are creating a committee to aid in the determination of whether there should be change in the County's animal ordinances as these apply to the tethering or chaining of animals such as dogs. The composition of the committee is as follows: ® Two representatives. of the Animal Services Advisory Board chosen by that Board. ® A law enforcement representative. ® An expert in the area of animal behavior. ® An expert in the area of animal health and wellness. An advocate for the restriction of tethering. ® An advocate for tethering. ® Three at-large representatives (for BOCC consideration). The charge for the committee follows: ® To compile in a presentable form pertinent information on tethering and/or chaining as a means of confinement for animals such as dogs, including activities and efforts pursued by other communities. 19 ~~ Tethering Committee Report July 30~', 2007 ® To obtain general public comment on any possible ordinance amendments from across- section of the community through suitable mechanisms such as community hearings or facilitated focus groups. ® To recommend to the Animal Services Advisory Board any appropriate or desirable ordinance changes with the understanding that the ASAB will itself make any final recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. 20 a~ Tethering Committee Report APPENDIX II: Committee Members, BOCC Liaison, and Staff Committee Members Position 1: Kristine Bergstrand Animal Services Advisory Board Member Position 2: Jean H. Connerat-Levine Animal Services Advisory Board Member Position 3: Mary Dow Animal Behaviorist Position.4: VACANT July 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 appointment to this position.) Position 7: .Rachel Beckham At-Large Member Position 8: Margie Huggins At-Large Position 9: Kelly Strowd Law Enforcement Board of County Commissioners Liaison Commissioner Michael R. Nelson Animal Services Staff Bob Marotto Animal Services Director Irene Paul Manager, Animal Control Division 21 Tethering Committee Report Lisa Smith Office Assistant, Animal Control Division Andi Morgan Administrative Assistant, Administration July 30ei, 2007 z2 3l Tethering Committee Report July 30~', 2007 APPENDIX III.• North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances The following North Carolina jurisdictions have some sort of tethering regulation. For more information see http://www.helpinganimals comlga tetherLegislation.asp. New Hanover County, North Carolina Chaining or tethering dogs is prohibited. A chain or rope is not to be used in place of a leash when walking dogs. Sec. 3.4 (d) Restraint: An animal is under restraint within the meaning of this chapter if it is controlled by means of a leash, or is sufficiently near the owner or handler to be under his direct control and is obedient to that person's command; or is on or within a vehicle being driven or parked; or is within a secure enclosure. Exceptions to restraint are as follows: Organized and lawful animal functions e.g. hunting, obedience training, field and water training, law enforcement training and/or in the pursuit of working or competing in those legal endeavors. When a dog is on the property of its owner of guardian it shall be secured when not supervised by a competent person. Ropes, chains, and the like shall not constitute adequate security under this ordinance. Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina June 13, 2006 This ordinance prohibits the tethering of dogs. Section 91.22. Prohibition Against Tethering of Dogs. A. It shall be unlawful to tether an unattended dog outside of the house. Laurinburg, North Carolina June 20, 2000 Dogs may not be chained for a period longer than one hour in a 24-hour period. Sec. 4-21. Restraint of dogs. When a dog is on the property of its owner or keeper and is not within a secure enclosure, it shall be under the direct control of and obedient to the owner or keeper. At all other times when a dog is on the property of its owner or keeper, it shall be kept within a secure enclosure, including a fenced in area or electronic fence, house or other building, of sufficient strength and height to prevent the dog from escaping there from; provided, the owner or keeper may, for a period not to exceed one (1) 23 3a Tethering Committee Report July 30~', 2007 hour every twenty-four (24) hours, allow the dog to be tethered or chained to a stationary object or pole so long as the dog is provided sufficient water and nourishment. All dogs off of the property of the owner or keeper shall be controlled by means of a leash and under the direct control of and obedient to the owner or keeper's command. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing provisions in the section 4-21 may result in the impoundment of the animal at any time, or it may result in a fine of one hundred dollars ($100.00) or both. Dogs utilized by law enforcement officers in the course of law enforcement activities are exempt from the section. (Code 1975, § 4-5; Ord. No. 0-1997-29, 11-18-97; Ord. No. 0-2000-12, § 1, 6- 20-00) Scotland County. North Carolina June 6, 2005 This ordinance prohibits the chaining of dogs for more than one hour in any 24-hour period. Section 9 (~: No person shall, at any time, fasten, chain, or tie any dog or cause such dog to be fastened, chained, or tied, while such dog is on the dog owner's property, or on the property of the dog owner's landlord no longer than one (1) hour per day. Catawba County, North Carolina (D) Chaining or tethering an animal to a stationary object for a period of time or under conditions that an animal control officer or animal cruelty investigator deems harmful or potentially harmful to the animal. Examples of improper chaining or tethering include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Using a length or weight of a chain or tether that is not appropriate for the size, weight and age of the animal. Guidelines for the proper weight and length of chains or tethers can be obtained from the animal shelter or animal control (2) Using a chain or tether made of rope, twine, cord or similar material. (3) Using a chain or tether that is less than 10 feet in length and/or does not have swivels on . both ends. All chains or tethers must be attached to the animal by means of a properly fitting harness or collar of not less than one inch in width. (4) Chaining or tethering an animal to a stationary object for a period of time or under conditions that an animal control officer or animal cruelty investigator deems harmful or potentially harmful to the animal. Examples of improper chaining or tethering include, but are not limited to the following: (a) Using a length or weight of a chain or tether that is not appropriate for the size, weight and age of the animal. Guidelines for the proper weight and length of chains or tethers can be obtained from the animal shelter or animal control (b) Using a chain or tether made of rope, twine, cord or similar material. 24 33 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 on both ends. All chains or tethers must be attached to the animal by means of a properly fitting harness or collar of not less than one inch in width. (d) Using a chain or tether that exceeds ten percent of the animal's body weight. (e) Allowing an animal to be chained or tethered such that the animal is not confined to the owner's property or such that the chain or tether can become entangled and prevent the animal from moving about freely, lying down comfortable or having access to adequate food, water and shelter. (f) Using a chain as a primary collar. All collars used for the purpose of chaining or tethering an animal must be made of nylon or leather. (5) Allowing an animal to be chained or tethered such that the animal is not confined to the owner's property or such that the chain or tether can become entangled and prevent the animal from moving about freely, lying down comfortable or having access to adequate food, water and shelter. (6) Using a chain as a primary collar. All collars used for the purpose of chaining or tethering an animal must be made of nylon or leather. Holl r~~rings, North Carolina May 16, 2006 This ordinance prohibits the tethering of animals for a period of time or under conditions that are deemed harmful to the animals. Tethers must be at least 10 feet long and weigh 10 percent of the animal's body weight or less. Tethers must allow animals to move freely and allow them access to food, water, and shelter. Sec. 12-65. Cruelty to animals. (c) Prohibited acts. All animals shall be kept and treated under sanitary and humane conditions and it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in one or more of the following acts: 8. Allowing a collar, rope or chain to become embedded in or cause injury to an animal's neck, or allowing a choke or pinch collar to be used as a primary collar on an unsupervised animal, or chaining or tethering an animal to a stationary object for a period of time or under conditions that an animal control officer deems harmful or potentially harmful to the animal. Examples of harmful or potentially harmful chaining or tethering include, but are not limited to the following: a. Using a length or weight of a chain or tether that is not appropriate for the size, weight and age of the animal. A chain or tether should not be less than ten feet long. Using a chain or tether that exceeds ten percent of the animal's body weight shall be deemed not appropriate and potentially harmful. b. Allowing an animal to be chained or tethered such that the animal is not confined to the' owner's property or such that the chain or tether can become entangled and prevent the animal from moving about freely, lying down comfortably or having access to adequate food, water and shelter. c. Tethering an animal on an appendage. 25 ~~q Tethering Committee Report July 30~h, 2007 Greenville North Carolina This ordinance outlines what kind of tether may be used. c. 4-5. Animal care generally. (c) Any chain, leash, or similar device for animal restraint shall be designed and placed to prevent choking or injury to the animal. The restraining device shall be at least ten feet in length and placed on a swivel or on a chain run. 26 Tethering Committee Report July 30th, 2007 APPENDIX IY.~ Notes from Interviews with North Carolina Jurisdictions with Tethering Ordinances: Conducted by the Tethering Committee The following is a summary of comments from Animal Services officials from New Hanover County, the City of Laurinburg and Catawba County, made in telephone interviews. The Tethering Committee conducted these interviews on April 11th, 2007 as a part of its information gathering. Dr. Jean McNeil, Animal Control Services Manager New Hanover County THE LAW: Prohibits tethering. Recently amended to add "attended" to the law so that dogs can be tethered if their owner is present. They enacted a ban as opposed to time limits on tethering because time limits are difficult to enforce because they would have to rely on a neighbor's testimony. WIIY ENACTED: County felt that tax dollars were being wasted responding to chaining complaints. Also enacted because of the cruelty issues Dr. McNeil and her officers were seeing. The county also wanted to promote a higher standard of pet ownership. ENFORCEMENT: Violation of the law results in a civil fine. Violators have 60 days to correct the violation, if they do, the fine is cancelled. If the fine is not paid, it is sent to the county legal department for collection. As a government agency, the county can garnish a person's wages. New Hanover does not have the power of impoundment. They do not take people to court; the enforcement is handled in-house by the legal department. PHASE IN: New Hanover had 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 surrendered. Neglect calls have decreased. They get about 30tethering-related complaints a month. Some dogs probably have run loose but those are the people who have no desire to be responsible pet owners. PUBLIC REACTION: Support within the county. Majority of opposition has come from elsewhere. Elaine Modlin Animal Control Officer City of Laurinburg Animal Control Department, Scotland County THE LAW: In 1988, Laurinburg passed a law limiting tethering to 8 hours a day. It was difficult to enforce. In 2000, they changed it to one-hour and the change made enforcement much easier. The 27 35 Tethering Committee Report July 30th, 2007 county (Scotland) has the same ordinance as the city. They have a 90 percent compliance rate at this point. Laurinburg also has restrictions on pens size - 10x10 for smaller dogs, 20x10 for larger. Animal control wants larger requirements, but the city council has not agreed. ENFORCEMENT: 1-hour time limit verified by sitting and watching. Violators are given atwo- week warning notice in general, but animal control uses discretion and will give some situations more time if the dog is in good condition. Violation results in a civil citation and $100 fine. They do have the power to impound dogs and feel this has been an important tool. Most people comply with the law by putting up a pen. The Humane Society has provided some pens to those who cannot afford it. Those that don't comply and have their dogs impounded must pay shelter fee, vaccinations, etc. to get the dog back. Sometimes the shelter fee is waived. About 25 % reclaim their dog and the rest are better off anyway. PHASE IN: The city had none-year education period before enforcement began. They educated the community through fact sheets, newspaper, radio, posters, etc. RESULTS OF ORDINANCE: Overall decrease in cruelty cases, cut down on pit bull problems, decreased dog bites, and helped with overpopulation (penned dogs are not as easy to get pregnant). Prior to the law, 50% of bites before were from chained dogs. No dramatic increase in surrenders. and no real problems with people turning their dogs loose. PUBLIC REACTION: Positive- most people think chaining is cruel. Those that don't agree are those whose dogs are not well taken care of anyway. Joaine McKeel, Shelter 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 don't receive complaints very often. When they do it is because of length of chain. They educate people as to why they have the requirements, and will write citations for violators. The ten percent of body weight requirement is assessed by eyeballing the situation. Some officers feel comfortable and some don't with having to make judgments on the situations. No citations have been challenged RESULTS OF LAW: More chaining occurs in the rural area. Approximately 90 - 95% of people are compliant. They have not seen an increase in animals being surrendered. More animals are surrendered under the nuisance ordinance than the tethering ordinance. 28 a,~ .~,. o.~~ as Orange County Animal Services 501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968-2287 September 10th, 2007 To: Animal Services Advisory Board From: Bob Marotto, Animal Services Director, and Irene Paul, Animal Control Manager Re: Required Kennel Space Recommendations At the August meeting of the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB), we were asked to recommend the minimum required size of kennels for dogs that are confined by such enclosures. This was requested as part of the ASAB review of the final report of the Tethering Committee, which recommended that the allowable dimensions of kennels be set as part of an ordinance amendment that limits the time a dog may be tethered in Orange County Recommendation As discussed further below, our recommendations are based upon our review of regulations from other jurisdictions that have set the minimum required size of kennels for dogs. They are as follows: 1. A minimum space requirement should be set in accordance with the size of the dog (or dogs) that are kenneled. More specifically, there should be a threefold requirement as follows; • 1 to 35 pounds 80 square feet • 36 to 75 pounds 100 square feet • 76-plus pounds 120 square feet 2. Additional space should be provided for each additional dog that is kept in a kennel. Specifically, we recommend that fifty percent of the minimum required space be added for the second and each subsequent dog that is kept kenneled with another dog; and that the additional space be based upon the size of the largest of the dogs that are kenneled together. 3. Electronic containment devices and traditional fences shall be treated in the same way as a kennel with respect to the minimum space required for one or more dogs of different sizes. 37 Required Kennel Space September 10th, 2007 Page 2 The rationale for these recommendations has several components. One is that they ensure sufficient space for dogs that are kept and/or put outside. These are space requirements that would apply if a dog is outside and not tethered in accordance with the recommendations made in the Tethering Committee's Report and Proposal for Ordinance Amendment. It is understood that a traditional fence or electronic fencing would meet the same minimum requirements set for kennels. Another rationale is relative ease and simplicity of enforcement. Generally speaking, it is possible to measure the dimensions of a kennel (or fence), and the weight of a dog may be determined in a variety of ways (including from veterinary records). Background Information Our recommendations are based upon our review of regulations from other jurisdictions that have set minimum space requirements for kenneled dogs. Examples of such progressive regulations have been compiled in the Appendix to this memorandum. They are also based upon our review of information available from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Of the three pertinent. national organizations we researched (including American Humane and the National Animal Control Association), only HSUS offered specific guidelines on this issue. As can be seen from sample regulations, most, but not all, jurisdictions draw a distinction between dogs of different sizes, as is the case in our recommendation. However, there is considerable variation in the minimum kennel space required per dog by these sample regulations (with some as low as 48 square feet and others as high as 150 square feet). In this regard, we have formulated our own recommendations between these extremes, and in recognition of what might be described as reasonable standards. As can also be seen from the sample regulations, it is often the case that more space is required for additional dogs in the same kennel. Our recommendation mirrors this model, using a standard of half the size of the largest dog in a shared kennel. This standard is higher than many but seems reasonable given the need for additional dog houses and proper drainage in accordance with other requirements of Orange County's Animal Ordinances. While electronic containment devices and traditional fences are not typically referenced, finally, we have included them among to provide as much clarity as possible with regard to legal requirements. Our approach is very practical in that these enclosures would need to meet the same space requirements as a kennel if they are used as a means of enclosure. Questions about their effectiveness are not germane to this. discussion since, if they were ineffective in a particular situation, any resulting issues would be addressed through Orange County's animal nuisance ordinance. 3~ Appendix l: Required Kennel Space Regulations This appendix contains two types of information used in the research of our recommendations regarding minimum kennel space requirements. The first section covers existing ordinances, including one from NC, that currently regulate minimum kennel space requirements. The second part of the appendix covers general recommendations and/or references from organizations that have formulated findings for recommended minimum kennel space requirements. Ordinances: 1. County of New Hanover- North Carolina Outside enclosure means a pen large enough to provide each dog less than 25 pounds with a kennel of at least 8 feet x 10 feet in size, and each dog 25 pounds or greater with a kennel of 10 feet x 10 feet in size. Animal control services reserves the right to determine if a space is considered suitable for the number and size of dogs housed in an outdoor enclosure. 2. Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department -Nebraska Animal Control - Kennel Runs Kennels come in a variety of shapes and sizes with a comparatively low cost. When your dog is confined in a kennel, use the minimum space requirements from the chart below as a guide. An additional 16 square feet should be used for each dog sharing the pen with another. The minimum pen sizes include a shelter. Kennels can come with tops for jumpers and climbers. For dogs that like to dig, the kennel can be placed on a cement pad. Kennel runs might seem like a silly idea when you have a large yard, but for dogs that love to escape; this may be a good choice. Size of Dog ....~._.. Pen Size S t ~ (q ) Extra Large (over 26" or over 75 lbs.) 48 Large over 20" or under 75 lbs. 40 Medium ' (over 12" or under 50 lbs.) 32 Small, ...... ._.. 24............... 39 : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (over 12" or under 20 lbs.) Required Kennel Space September 10t~', 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 http://www.cityofbartlesville.org/index.php ® Pens in which dogs reside must contain at least 150 square feet of space per adult dog. For potentially dangerous dogs the pen must have a secure top and sides and de ® signed to prevent the escape of the dog or entry by children. 5. Live Oak- Texas (they have a tethering ban) -Animal Restraint Required Any dogs confined within a fenced yard must have an adequate space for exercise based on a dimension of at least one hundred (100) square feet. Provided further that where dogs are kept or housed on property without a fenced yard, the owner of such dogs or persons having custody of such dogs shall provide an enclosure for such dogs meeting the one hundred (100) square feet dimension. -Such enclosure shall be constructed of chain link or similar type material with all four sides enclosed. The enclosure shall be of sufficient height to prevent the dog from escaping from such enclosure. The top of such enclosure shall be covered with materials to provide the dog with shade and protection from the elements. 6.Maumelle- Arkansas Confinement of Animals: From and after the passage of this Ordinance any person owning animals whether vaccinated or unvaccinated, licensed or unlicensed, shall confine such animal within an adequate fence or enclosure, or within a house, garage or other building in conformance with Maumelle Bill of Assurance or its successor. Animals shall not be tied or chained to doghouses, or other stationary objects, but must be in an approved enclosure. Sterilized cats are exempt from confinement. ~b Required Kennel Space September 70th, 2007 Page 5 The ordinance also mandates that dog enclosures must provide at least one hundred and fifty square feet of space for dogs over six months of age. 7 -Carroll County, Maryland F. The owner of animal(s) that are fenced shall erect fencing normally considered suitable for the species and type of animal to be contained. Fencing shall be appropriate so as to keep the intended animals restrained within its boundaries. Fencing shall be monitored, well maintained and kept in good repair. In the case of a dog, if the owner utilizes an "invisible fence" to restrain a dog it may only be used if it consistently and effectively restrains the dog and is appropriate to be used for the dog in question. No aggressive dog may be restrained behind an "invisible fence". G. All areas where animals are confined shall be maintained so as to provide a safe and healthy 8. Little Rock- Arkansas Sec. 6-16. Confinement. (3) When a dog is confined outside by means of an enclosure or an electronic containment device, the following minimum space requirements shall be met: Size of Doa Pen Size (1 dog,~ ea. add. dog Extra Large 48 sq. feet 24 sq. feet (over 26" at withers or aver 75 Ibs) Large (aver 20" at withers or not over 75) 40 sq. feet 20 sq. feet Medium 32 sq. feet 16 sq. feet (over 12" at withers or not over 50 Ibs) 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 top and be able to prevent dogs from digging out. Kennels must have a minimum of 100 square feet for one dog, plus an additional 25 square feet for each additional dog in the same enclosure. 41 Required Kennel Space September 10th, 2007 Page 6 Recommendations /References: 1. Getting Your Dog off the Chain Humane Society of the United States (from "Do You Chain Your Dog") The second reason for the tougher stance on chaining is that many dog owners have learned to solve the problems that caused them to tie their dogs outside in the first place. If you would like to provide your dog with an alternative to a rope or chain, consider these suggestions: • Install a fence if your property does not already have one. Or consider installing a large chain-link dog run. If you install a dog run, make sure it meets these minimum space requirements. Be sure to allow extra space for a doghouse. Number of Dogs Under 50 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 10x12 (120 sq. feet) 12x16 (192 sq. feet) Note: Depending on where you live, your city or county may require that you provide more space than these guidelines suggest. 2. Unchain Your Dog website / PowerPoint When a dog is confined outside by means of an enclosure or an electronic containment device, the following minimum space requirements shall be met: Size of Doc,~Pen (increase pen size by half of total area per additional doa) Extra Large (over 75 Ibs) ~`* sq. feet Large (50-75 /bs) **sq. feet Medium (20-50 Ibs) ~*sq. feet Small (under 20 Ibs) **sq. feet (** Represent number to be inserted once decided upon. No set recommendations. Power Point is provided for those areas wanting to introduce no tethering regulations and allows for insertion of agencies information and/or recommendations) ~~ Required Kennel Space September i0f", 2007 Page 7 3. Prince George County -Maryland Care Standards for Enforcement of Anti-Cruelty Laws Dogs in Pens: The size of the pen is determined by the size and number of dogs housed therein. Dogs housed together must be socially compatible. It is recommended that no more than four compatible dogs be housed in single pen. Minimum space for dogs in pens (not including shelter space) shall be as follows: # of Dogs 2 3 4 Small (<251bs) 3x7 (21 sq ft) 4x8 (32sq ft) 5x9' (45 sq ft) 8x10 (80 sq ft) Medium (25-501bs) 6x10 (60sq ft) 8x10 (80 sq ft) 8x12 (96 sq ft) 10x12 (120 sq ft) Large (> 501bs) 8x10 (80 sq ft) 8x12 (96 sq ft) 10x14 (140 sq ft) 12x16 (192 sq ft) Note -The above standards are also listed in the Washington DC Humane Society's Humane Law Enforcement Manual. ~°~ Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting Tuesday, February 27tH, 2007, 7:30 to 9:00 p.m. Meeting Summary Location: John Link Government Services Center Conference Room, 200 South Cameron Street, Hillsborough OCTC Members and Staff Present: Kristine Bergstrand, DVM, Jean Connerat Austin, Mary Dow, Margie Huggins, Alane Koki, Michael Nelson, Suzanne Roy, Kelly Strowd,Animal Services Director Robert Marotto, Animal Control Manager Irene Paul, and Office Assistant Lisa Smith. OCTC Members Absent: Rachel Beckham Others in Attendance: Drew Brinkley Introduction of Committee Members and Staff: Each OCTC Member and staff introduced him or herself. Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and accepted. Timetable and Process: Bob gave an overview of the process. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) constituted this committee to go through this process of considering amendments of Orange County Ordinances. The committee will bring recommendations to Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB). The ASAB advises both the Animal Services Department and BOCC on matters of this kind. The ASAB will receive and review recommendations or findings from the Tethering Committee and make any final recommendations to the BOCC, which is the policy making body for Orange County. The background here from the standpoint of the ASAB is that the issue of tethering was brought to ASAB last year. ASAB created a committee consisting of ASAB Member Kris Bergstrand, and ASAB Member Jean Connerat Austin with staff support to review these considerations. They first determined who should be involved in this process. It became apparent the ASAB itself does not have the authority to create a county committee consisting of individuals who are not already members of the ASAB. Thus, the ASAB made a request to the BOCC to create a Tethering Committee with a variety of defined membership positions. At the recent BOCC meeting in February all, the members for the Tethering Committee were appointed. A timetable was proposed for this committee as a part of that discussion. The understanding of this timetable is that by June 1St, 2007, there would be some recommendations or findings from the Tethering Committee that would be presented to the ASAB for its consideration. ~~ Tethering Committee Inaugural Meeting February 27tH, 2007 Page 2 Meeting Schedule and Format: There was a discussion about the coordination of the committee and whether staff should coordinate or a chair and vice chair should do so.. In this context, it was noted that Animal Services Director Bob Marotto would provide staff support, since the BOCC charge for the committee indicates that he will be the principle staff member for this committee. It was decided staff would coordinate this committee and that if a chair and vice chair was needed at a later time it could be done. Motion was made by Margie Huggins and seconded by Jean Connerat Austin to approve staff coordinating this committee. VOTE: Unanimous There was a draft schedule presented for this committee, which referred to four types of meetings that could be held within the three-month period during which it was hoped that the committee's work would be completed. These meetings would precede the presentation of any findings or recommendations to the ASAB and subsequent steps involving the BOCC. The four types of meetings specified for the Tethering Committee are: Organizing Meeting (tonight) Information Meeting(s) Public Input/Comment Discussion & Findings Throughout this portion of the meeting, there was general discussion of the issue of tethering. However, the focus was on agreeing on a process, as this was the intent of this meeting to organize the work of the committee. The meeting ended with a short presentation on tethering and the animal ordinances that exist in Orange County. The presentation was based upon a memorandum to the Tethering Committee from Bob that addressed the issue of jurisdiction, reviewed the County's current ordinance, and reviewed a range of more restrictive regulations (e.g., Connecticut General Statues, New Hanover County, NC, Restraint Ordinance, and St Paul, Minnesota, Ordinance). A short discussion then ensued about the current enforcement of Orange County's ordinances as they related to the care and welfare of dogs. It was agreed that the committee would meet Wednesday, March 7, 2007 for an information meeting. `"C~ Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 7:00 - 8:30 p.m. Meeting Summary Location: Conference Room, Southern Human Services Center, 2501 Homestead Road, and Chapel Hill. OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Mary Dow, Alane Koki, Michael Nelson, Suzanne Roy, Kelly Strowd, Animal Services Director Robert Marotto, Animal Control Manager Irene Paul, Office Assistant Lisa Smith. OCTC Members Absent: Rachel Beckham, Kristine Bergstrand, and Margie Huggins. Others in Attendance: Amanda Arrington. Approval of Meeting Summary from February 27th, 2007: Motion was made Jean Connerat Austin to approve Meeting Summary and seconded by Suzanne Roy. VOTE: Unanimous Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and accepted. General Public Comments: Amanda Arrington with Coalition to Unchain Dogs spoke regarding the importance of banning the tethering of dogs in Orange County. She tallced 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) 4~ Discussion: There was a discussion of possibly observing a residence(s) that have a tethered dog(s) and are proponents of tethering. It was agreed to have another informational meeting, asking people from other counties or jurisdictions that have a tethering ordinance or a limited tethering ordinance to come and speak before having a public input meeting on Monday April. 23`d, 2007. There was agreement that this would be the next step in the Committee's information process and that others could be invited to address the Committee after that meeting with other animal controUservice personnel. More specifically, for the next meeting staff committed to contacting their counterparts in jurisdictions with more restrictive regulations in North Carolina to discuss the implementation and enforcement of their ordinances. Committee members requested that staff arrange for a representative from a jurisdiction with an outright ban as well as one with a set of restrictions (or conditions) that were subject to enforcement. Staff indicated that they would do their best to arrange for such representatives. . Next Meeting Date: It was agreed the committee would meet Tuesday March 27th, 2007 for an information meeting. ~~ Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting Wednesday April 11 tn, 5:30 - 8:00 p.m. Meeting Summary Location: Conference Room, John Link Government Services Center, 200 South Cameron Street, Hillsborough. OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand, Alane Koki, Michael Nelson, Animal Services Director Robert Marotto, Animal Control Manager Irene Paul, Office Assistant Lisa Smith. OCTC Members Absent: Rachel Beckham, Mary Dow, Margie Huggins, Suzanne Roy, and Kelly Strowd. Others in Attendance: Amanda Arrington, Andrew Brinkley, Gary Morrison, Ross Oglesbee, Ashley Roberts, Jim Sanford, Pat Sanford, and Jennifer Strom. Information Meeting: There were three speakers, Dr Jean Mc Neil, Animal Control Manager, New Hanover County, Elaine Modlin, Animal Control Officer, City of Laurinburg Animal Control Department, Scotland County, and Joaine McKeel, Shelter Manager, Catabawa County Animal Care and Control. Each speaker gave us background on their tethering ordinances and how long it has been in existence, how they enforce it, the number of people that comply, how they comply and the number of people that do not comply and what they result is if they do not comply. Please see the attached detailed summary of comments from the animal control officials. Approval of Meeting Summary from March 7cn, 2007: Motion was made Jean Connerat Austin to approve Meeting Summary and seconded Kristine Bergstrand. VOTE: Unanimous Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and accepted. General Public Comments: Ross Oglesbee ASAB member brought copies of an article from the Indy Weekly and expressed concerns regarding the article. Discussion: There was a brief discussion on the advertising of the upcoming public input meeting. It was suggested to make the flier title larger and bold. There was a brief discussion of possible inviting a sponsor of the bill being proposed to the state to ban tethering. Next Meeting Date: It was agreed the committee would meet Monday April 23, 2007 for a public input meeting on the tethering issue. "'f ~/ Meeting Adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Summary of comments from animal control officials from New Hanover, Laurinburg and Catawba. Dr. Jean McNeil, Animal Control Services Manager, New Hanover County THE LAW: Prohibits tethering. Recently amended to add, "attended" to the law so that dogs can be tethered if their owner is present. They enacted a ban as opposed to time limits on tethering because time limits are difficult to enforce because they would have to rely on a neighbor's testimony. WHY ENACTED: County felt that tax dollars were being wasted responding to chaining complaints. Also enacted because of the cruelty issues Dr. McNeil and her officers were seeing. The county also wanted to promote a higher standard of pet ownership. ENFORCEMENT: Violation of the law results in a civil fine. Violators have 60 days to correct the violation, if they do, the fine is cancelled. If the fine is not paid, it is sent to the county legal department for collection. As a government agency, the county can garnish a person's wages. New Hanover does not have the power of impoundment. They do not take people to court; the legal department handles the enforcement in-house. PHASE IN: New Hanover had 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 surrendered. Neglect calls have decreased. They get about 30 tethering-related complaints a month. Some dogs probably have run loose but those are the people who have no desire to be responsible pet owners. PUBLIC REACTION: Support within the county. Majority of opposition has come from elsewhere. Elaine Modlin, Animal Control Officer, City of Laurinburg Animal Control Department, Scotland County THE LAW: In 1988, Laurinburg passed a law limiting tethering to 8 hours a day. It was difficult to enforce. In 2000, they changed it to one-hour and the change made enforcement much easier. The county (Scotland) has the same ordinance as the city. They have a 90 percent compliance rate at this point. Laurinburg also has restrictions on pens size -10x10 for smaller dogs, 20x10 for larger. Animal control wants larger requirements, but the city council has not agreed. ENFORCEMENT: 1-hour time limit verified by sitting and watching. Violators are given atwo-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. `''1` 1 Most people comply with the law by putting up a pen. The Humane Society has provided some pens to those who cannot afford it. Those that do not comply and have their dogs impounded must pay shelter fee, vaccinations, etc. to get the dog back. Sometimes the shelter fee is waived. About 25 % reclaim their dog and the rest are better off anyway. PHASE IN: The city had aone-year education period before enforcement began. They educated the community through fact sheets, newspaper, radio, posters, etc. RESULTS OF ORDINANCE: Overall decrease in cruelty cases, cut down on pit bull problems, decreased dog bites, and helped with overpopulation (penned dogs are not as easy to get pregnant). Prior to the law, 50% of bites before were from chained dogs. No dramatic increase in surrenders and no real problems with people turning their dogs loose. PUBLIC REACTION: Positive- most people think chaining is cruel. Those that do not agree are those whose dogs are not well taken care of anyway. Joaine McKeel, Shelter Manager, Catawba County Animal Care and Control, Catawba County THE CAW: 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. ~~ Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting Wednesday April 23rd, 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. Meeting Summary Location: F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, 106 E Margaret Lane, Hillsborough OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand, Mary Dow, Margie Huggins, Michael Nelson, Suzanne Roy, Kelly Strowd, Animal Control Manager Irene Paul, Office Assistant Lisa Smith. OCTC Members Absent: Rachel Beckham, Alane Koki Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and accepted. Public Comment Period: Commissioner Nelson gave an Introduction to the tethering issue and background information. What the current ordinance is now and where does it apply, what other NC ordinances the committee has looked at. What the process for considering the issue, what the expected timetable is for the committee to give their recommendations. General Public Comments: Citizens offering public comment: Phillip Pennell, Orange County Resident Dietrich Haugwitz, Orange County Resident Debbie Nichols, Orange County Resident Bobby Kirk, Orange County Resident Stephen Hopkins, Orange County Resident Amanda Arrington, Durham County Resident Kathleen Coldwell, Orange County Resident Amelia Perrin, Orange County Resident George Painter, Orange County Resident Karen Aruetames, Orange County Resident Lamar Chapman, Orange County Resident Emily Weinstein, Durham County Resident Eliana Beebe, Durham County Resident Fred Cates, Orange County Resident Amy Efland, Orange County Resident Judith Reitman, Orange County Resident Ellen Whitaker, Durham County Resident Mike Kirk, Orange County Resident Meeting Adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ~' Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting Monday May 7th, 6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Meeting Summary Location: Conference Center, John Link Government Services Center, 200 South Cameron Center, Hillsborough. OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand, Mary Dow, Michael Nelson, Suzanne Roy, Kelly Strowd, and Office Assistant Lisa Smith. OCTC Members and Staff Absent: Margie Huggins, Animal Services Director Robert Marotto. Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and accepted. Public Comment Period: It was agreed to change this meeting into a second public input meeting due to the amount of citizens wanting to speak. There were 20+ citizens and many of whom spoke were the president and some if their members of the Eno River Coon Club and Cane Creek Farms. Kris Bergstrand gave a brief history regarding how and why the ASAB board and the tethering subcommittee was created. The concerns people had were why were people from other counties attending and speaking at these meetings, why does Animal Control come to residences with out having received a complaint. Other concerns were why people are not able to get onto the tethering committee when there are openings, how do they get onto the ASAB and how that is advertised when there are openings. The hunters feel like they are and have always been signaled out regarding animal laws. There are people who are not able to afford fences and pens and do not have time to go to dog parks. We need to enforce the laws we already have and not make more. Approval of Meeting Summaries from April 11 m and April 23ra tethering meetings: Motion was made by Jean Connerat Austin to approve meeting summary from April 11~h 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~d meeting and seconded by Kris Bergstrand. VOTE: Unanimous Meeting Adjourned at 8:00 p.m. o. ~ ~., a~°' -'J ~ '~ . Orange County Animal Services ~~ 501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968-2287 Animal Control Robert A. Marotto, Animal Shelter PO Box 8181 Director 1081 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd 304 Revere Rd Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 967-7383 (919) 245-2075 Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting June 13`", 2007, 6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. Unapproved Meeting Summary Location: Conference Room, John Link Government Services Center, 200 South Cameron Street, Hillsborough. OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand, Mary Dow, Commissioner Mike Nelson, Animal Services Director Robert Marotto, Animal Control Manger Irene Phipps, and Office Assistant Lisa Smith. OCTC Members Absent: Margie Huggins and Kelly Strowd Agenda Review: Review and adoption of meeting agenda The supplemental notes from the April 11`", 2007, meeting summary and May 7`" 2007, meeting summary were reviewed and approved. Discussion: Committee members discussed the information that had been gathered throughout the committee meetings. The purpose of this discussion was to provide a preliminary set of recommendations and framework for the final report and recommendation of the Tethering Committee: It was understood that staff would prepare a draft report on, the basis of this discussion. Committee members recalled the interviews with North Carolina Animal Control authorities in counties with more restrictive tethering ordinances. From those interviews, staff learned that tethering ordinances seemed to work well; they did not appear to have any extra-added cost; and negative or unanticipated outcomes were few and far between. They also learned that any such change should be phased in over a long period of time in which there was considerable education, and that it must be an enforceable change. Committee members also discussed the possibility of having hunting dogs, dogs that are difficult to confine and dogs participating in sporting events exempted from any proposed tethering restrictions. Each of these potential exemptions was discussed in detail and it was agreed that their exemption should be part of the draft report and recommendations. ~~ Tethering Committee Meeting June 13` `, 2007 Page 2 There was a lengthy discussion of what should be the time limit for permissible tethering. This discussion took into account the enforceability of different time limits, their implications and affect for animal care, and whether they would reasonably accommodate responsible pet owners. It was decided that three hours constituted the best time limit when considered from all angles and thus should be the Committee's recommendation. In addition, there was a discussion of whether required minimal kennel sizes .should be included in the Committee's recommendation. The Committee decided that this was a critical issue but that it could be left as separate issue to be considered by the Animal Services Advisory Board. Finally, it was agreed that staff would prepare an unapproved working document for discussion at the next meeting of the Tethering Committee. Meeting Adjourned 8:00 p.m. lo~~ W// Orange County Animal Services 501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968-2287 Animal Control Robert A. Marotto, Animal Shelter PO Box 8181 Director 1081 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd 304 Revere Rd Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 967-7383 (919)245-2075 Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting July l l~h, 2007 6:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m. Unapproved Meeting Summary Location: Meeting Room (A-014), Whitted Building, 300 Tryon Street, Hillsborough. OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand, Mary Dow, Margie Huggins, Commissioner Mike Nelson, Kelly Strowd, Animal Services Director Robert Marotto, Office Assistant Lisa Smith. Agenda Review: Review and adoption of meeting agenda Discussion: The Committee reviewed the draft report and recommendations that staff prepared on the basis of general discussion at its last meeting. Numerous votes were initiated and taken to decide various issues. There was considerable discussion on changes in exemptions for individual dogs that are hard to keep confined, as well as the exemption of hunting dogs. It was agreed to change the exceptions to only allow tethering at training and performance (or sporting) events for dogs, including but not limited to field and obedience trails. It was argued that was the only fair approach and that the Committee should concern itself with what the best policies regarding tethering were. Also, it was agreed to add to the limitation and requirements that a tethered dog must have access to food, water and shelter, and that any and all other legal requirements for animal care be met. It was further agreed that the weight of the tether and collar must not exceed ten percent of the dog's total body weight. The committee again discussed whether a minimum kennel size should be set insofar as more dogs would be expected to be kenneled and there should be some assurance that they were kept in a humane manner. It was agreed that a minimum pen size for outdoor enclosures for dogs should be established but the specification of this pen size was left to the Animal Services Advisory Board with Animal Services Staff. ~~ Tethering Committee Meeting July llt1i, 2007 Page 2 Finally, it was agreed that the implementation period should be changed so that an adopted amendment would become fully enforceable eighteen months after its adoption. The first twelve months would be an education period prior to the ordinance becoming effective, and the final six months would involve limited enforcement using only warnings. Committee members agreed that once the approved changes were made, the report should be presented to the ASAB for review and a decision as to whether it should be recommended to the BOCC. It was further agreed that Bob Marotto and Margie Huggins would prepare a final draft that would then be circulated by email to all Committee members for their approval. Meeting Adjourned 8:00 p.m. The Orange County Tethering Committee Report and Proposal for Ordinance Amendment (dated July 30`'', 2007) was submitted to the Animal Services Advisory Board and subsequently .approved. ~• ' ~••. ~~ c ~: ~. Orange County Animal Services 501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968-2287 Animal Control Robert A. Marotto, Animal Shelter PO Box 8181 Director 1081 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd 304 Revere Rd Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 967-7383 (919)245-2075 Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting Wednesday Apri12"d, 2008 6:30 p.m.-8:00 p.rn. Unapproved Meeting Summary Location: Conference Room, Economic Development Building, 110 East King Street, Hillsborough OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand, Suzanne Roy, Animal Services Director Robert Marotto, and Office Assistant Lisa Smith OCTC Members Absent: Mary Dow, Commissioner Mike Nelson, and Kelly Stowd Agenda Review: The proposed agenda for this meeting was reviewed and accepted Discussion: Staff organized this meeting at the request of the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB). At the last ASAB meeting on March 19°i, 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 atwenty-four-hour period or three consecutive hours within atwenty-four-hour period. Committee members discussed the difference between these definitions from the standpoint of animal husbandry and care, and from the standpoint of enforceability. The corrunittee members who were present decided that the language for the proposed ordinance amendment should be, "not more than a total of three hours in atwenty-four-hour period." As only three members of the committee were present it was decided that the language should be ratified by email so that there was a record of the majority approval. All members of the Tethering Committee approved that the language of the ordinance amendment should be, "not more than a total of three hours in atwenty-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 16"', 2008 meeting. 5~7 Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB) Approved Minutes for August 15, 2007 Meeting Present ASAB Members: Daniel Textoris, Kristine Bergstrand, Ross Oglesbee, Pat Sanford, Susan Elmore, Jean Connerat Austin, Tracy Carroll, James Kramer, Carolina Green and Dewana Anderson Absent ASAB Members: Bonnie Norwood and Moses Carey. Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Control Manager Irene Pazrl and Administrative Assistants PaZtla Ragan and Andi Morgan. Public Members Present: Margie Huggins and Sa~zanne Roy Welcome and Opening Comments-Chair of the ASAB Committee, Kristine Bergstrand Motion was made by Ross Oglesbee and seconded by Jean Connerat Austin to approve the Agenda dated August I5, 2007. VOTE: Unanimous Motion was made by Jean Connerat Austin and seconded by Daniel Textoris to approve the Minutes dated July I8, 2007. VOTE: Unanimous General Pr~blic Comment-None Unfinished Br~siness Rabies Lecture- Dr. Carl Williams Public Health Veterinarian N.C. Dept of Health will be giving an public lecture on September 4, 2007 regarding rabies in North Carolina. This is being held during the week of the Inaugural World Rabies Day. Prcblic Relations Plan for Proposed Fine Updates---Bob Marotto reminded everyone that the BOCC did not adopt fine increases for violations of select animal ordinances as part of the budget process. Rather, the BOCC asked that staff return to it with a public relations plan that would make people aware of those fine increases in advance of their implementation and provide justification for the increases. A staff work group was formed which developed elements of the plan that was distributed for discussion. Andi Morgan gave an overview to the committee of the "Working Document ". A motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by James Kramer that the Animal Services Advisory Board feels this is a very strong document that should be used and recommended to the BOCC with a few minor modifications that staff agreed to make.. VOTE: Unanimous Report and Proposal for Orange Cotrnty's Tethering Committee Ordinance Amendment ----The' committee reviewed and discussed the docz~ment prepared by the Tethering Committee. Among other issues, discussion included the pz~blic input process of the Tethering Committee, the enforcement of the recommended ordinance changes, and how the recommended changes related to other state and local regztlations. A motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by Ross Oglesbee that the proposal formulated by the Tethering Committee be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for ~~ Approved ASAB Minrctes- August 15th, 2007 Page 2 consideration with tl7e addition of a specific section of the kenneling spaces/sizes for kennels. Staff will bring back some recommendations regarding kennel /sizes to the September 19`x', 2007 ASAB meeting for discz~ssion, and then those recommendations, if accepted, will be referred to the County Manger for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. VOTE: 10 in favor and 1 against Motion was made by Ross Oglesbee and seconded by Daniel Textoris to adjourn the meeting at 8: 00 p. m. VOTE: Unanimous. Next ASAB Meeting: Wednesday, September 19th, 2007 at 6: 30 p. m. in the Economic Development Center Conference Room, 110 E. King Street Hillsborough. ~~ Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB) Approved Minutes for September 19, 2007 Meeting Present ASAB Mefnbers: Daniel Textoris, Ross Oglesbee, Pat Sanford, Susan Elmore, Jean Connerat Austin, James Kramer, Carolina Green, Dewana Anderson Bonnie Norwood and Moses Carey. Absent ASAB Members: Kristine Bergstrand and Tracy Carroll Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Control Manager Irene Paul, Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison and Administrative Assistant Paula Ragan. Public Mefnbers Present: Suzanne Roy Welcome and Opening Comments ASAB Vice-Chair, Ross Oglesbee Motion was made by Susan Elmore and seconded by James Kraemer to approve the Agenda dated September 19, 2007. VOTE: Unanimous Motion was made by Bonnie Norwood and seconded by Susan Elmore to approve the Minutes dated August 1 S, 2007. VOTE: Unanimous General Public Comment None Unfinished Business Final Report: ASAB Keeping of Wild Animal Ordinance Amendment Task Force Ross Oglesbee presented the "Final Report ", dated August 29, 200. She reported that the Task Force had met for a total of four times and determined that it would only consider changes in relation to North Carolina native species and rehabilitation. However, after the meetings the Task Force concluded that there should be no change in the current ordinance. The committee does want to go on record for saying that they believe that Orange County should provide support for wildlife rescue, rehabilitation and education only to those organizations that have the space, on-site expertise, budget and other resources to humanely and appropriately rehabilitate, and educate the public about, native North Carolina wildlife. This could be done in a form of amulti-county wildlife cooperative. Motion was made by James Kramer and seconded by Bonnie Norwood to pass the Final Report dated August 29, 2007, to the BOCC. VOTE: Unanimous Report and Proposal for Orange County's Tethering Committee Ordinance Amendment-Bob Marotto and Irene Paul provided the ASAB members with a Required Kennel Space Recommendation Memo dated September 10`l', 2007, that proposed a tier system for such requirements based upon their review of such restrictions in other jurisdictions. Staff prepared this memo in response to a request at the last ASAB meeting that more information be made available about minimum kennel sizes in relation to any proposal to limit tethering. Motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by Susan Elmore to accept the Tethering Committee Ordinance Amendment Recommendation with the attached Memo and forward it to the County Manager for recommendation to the BOCC. VOTE: Unanimous Pet Overpopulation Subcommittee-Caroline Green reported that the committee met in August to discuss its purpose and develop its charge. A summary describing that information was provided to the Approved ASAB Minutes- September 1 Ath, 2007 ~© Page 2 Members for review. Cap°oline asks that if anyone has any suggestions or comments to please send those to her or Pat Sanford. Animal Placement and Fostering Updates Jessica Allison gave a brief summary of accompanying documents on the foster program and sheltering activities for the months of July and August. She was excited to report that these are the highest adoption numbers reported so far this calendar year. Adoption/Placement Committee Progress Report- Jessica Allison reported that the committee met on August 1 D`", 2007 and made a few revisions to the Partner/Placement document. The committee discussed and decided that it would be prudent to gather input from the rescue groups with whom we currently work. The documents have been sent to six selected groups and to the county attorney for additional feedback. Information gathered via this process will be review at the committee's next meeting scheduled for September 28, 2007. Bob Marotto reported that there were three low cost rabies clinics in conjunction with World Rabies Days with over 200 vaccinations administered. Animal Identification: Provisional Proposal- Bob Marotto reported that staff has reviewed current practices to develop a coherent as well as a practical approach to animal identification and it was decided that it would be best not to add another tag to the one that the Animal Shelter already provides. Instead, that the Shelter will continue to issue the rabies tag as our licensing tag, but order them from a private company instead of the North Carolina Health Department so that we can have our contact information added to the tags. There are two primary groups that leave the shelter without tags (approximately 1 %) and those are animals that are too young to receive rabies vaccines and reclaimed animals that have a current rabies vaccination. Strategies for identifying animals in these two groups are a generic tag for puppies and kittens indicating that have a microchip, and ahard-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 staff ng issues it was decided that this option would need to be explored further. More research will be done and a final product will be brought back to the committee for review and approval. New Business- Creation of ASAB Nominations Subcommittee- Caroline Green, Daniel Textoris and Tracy Carroll have agreed to be on this committee and will come back to the October 17`x', 2007, ASAB meeting with a proposed slate of off cers and at a subsequent meeting in November the vote will take place. Required Annual Review of ASAB Committee Structure-Bob Marotto gave an overview of the requirements of our charter and the two committees that we currently have are the Potentially Dangerous Dog Committee and the Adoption Appeals Committee. Motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by Jean Connerat Austin to maintain the two standing committees. VOTE: Unanimous Motion was made by Jean Connerat Austin and seconded by Pat Sanford to adjoz~rn the meeting at 7:45 p.m. VOTE: Unanimous. Next ASAB Meeting: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 6: 30 p. m. in the Southern Hzrman Services Center Conference Room, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill. ~r Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB) Approved Minutes for February 20, 2008 Meeting Present ASAB Members: Ross Oglesbee, Daniel Textoris, Pat Sanford, Susan Elmore, Jean Azrstin, James Kramer, Bonnie Norwood, Dewana Anderson, and Kristine Bergstrand Absent ASAB Members: Tracy Carroll, Suzanne Roy, Rachel Beckham and Moses Carey Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison and Administrative Assistant Paula Ragan. Public Members Present: None Welcome and Opening Cornrnenis ASAB Chair, Ross Oglesbee, called the meeting to order. Motion was made by Bonnie Norwood and seconded by Susan Elmore to approve the Agenda dated Febrzary 20, 2008 with two changes in the order of items. VOTE: Unanimous. Motion was made by Daniel Textoris and seconded by Bonnie Norwood to approve the minzztes dated January 16, 2008. VOTE: Unanimous General Pr~blic Comment None Annor~ncements Spay Day Resolr~tion-Ross Oglesbee announced that the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Spay Day Resolution at their Janzzary 1 S, 2008 meeting. The resolution was received with very positive feedback and a framed copy of the resolution will be displayed at the Animal Services off ce 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 variozzs advisory boards. There was also a discussion about the FY08/09 budget and what kinds of requests are being made to staff programs and to have resozrrces available for them. Ms Oglesbee would like to be informed as a board what kinds of request are being made for staff in this year's budget in order to meet the objectives and various programs that the board has set. It was mentioned that after this year Commissioner Moses Carey will no longer be the ASAB liaison due to his retirement from the BOCC. There was discussion from the board members about the process for his replacement and whether or not recommendations by the ASAB can be made. Mr. Marotto will look in to how the process for new BOCC appointments are handled and report back to the ASAB in March. Ms Oglesbee suggested that the board think about having an annual Animal Services Day to focus on the programs and invite the BOCC and public to attend. This would be a great way to promote the spay/neuter programs and to conduct educational outreach to the community. Approved ASAB Minr~tes February 20`x', 2008 !~ Page 2 Unfinished Brrsiness- Tethering Ordinance Update- There was a lengthy and detailed discussion of tlse tethering amendment drafted by the Cozxnty Attorney in consultation with Animal Services staff ~on the basis of prior work by the ASAB and the County s Tethering Committee. Various motions were considered until one received majority support and these are recorded below. • A motion was made by Daniel Textoris and seconded by Susan Elmore to accept the Tethering Amendment as is. There was no second and more discussion was held on tl~e document. Motion did not carry. • A motion was made again by Daniel Textoris and seconded by Susan Elmore to accept the Tethering Amendment and to exclude the class 1 and class 2 licensed kennels for the meantime, with the understanding they would be addressed in the fixture. There was more discussion about concerns by members about addressing the issue later. Motion did not carry as the vote was 2 in favor and 6 against. e A motion made by Jean Ausitn to present the Tethering Amendment as we have it and exempt the minimal kennel sizes for Class 1 and Class 2 licensed kennels. There was no second and it was requested to have more discussion. Motion did not carry. e 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 Class 2 kennels existing as of January 1, 2008, from only the minimal enclosure size requirement. It was understood that the permit regzrirements and ordinance would be revisited at a later date. This motion carried by a vote of S in favor 3 opposed • Motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by Jean Austin to accept the overall amendment with the correction of several typographical errors and several wording changes in different sections of the Amendment. This motion carried by a vote of 6 in favor 2 opposed. Once the County Attorneys have made revisions to the proposed Tethering Amendment staff will request that the County Manager place it before the BOCC for its deliberation. FAQ Working Docriment--Board members were pleased with the work that had been done and gave very positive feedback. There were a couple of typographical changes requested and the board would like to mention public health risk and the amozrnt 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- Chaix° Ross Oglesbee mentioned that a member of the public has made a regzxest to speak with the board at the March meeting to address the adoption of pit bzxll and pit bull mixes from the shelter. She asked that ASAB members prepare for a discussion of this topic at its March meeting. Approved ASAB Minutes Febrr~ary 20"', 2008 CP Page 3 Motion was made by Susan Elmore and seconded by Jean Austin to adjoaarn the meeting at 8:10 p. m. VOTE: Unanimous. Next ASAB Meeting: Wednesday, March 19, 2008, at 6: 30 p. m. in the Southern Harman Services Conference Room, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill. CP "~" Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB) Approved Minutes for March 19, 2008 Meeting Present ASAB Members: Daniel Textoris, Pat Sanford, Susan Elmore, Jean Austin, Janzes Kramer, Moses Cary, and Kristine Bergstrand. Absent ASAB Members: Ross Oglesbee, Bonnie Norwood, Tracy Carroll, Dewana Anderson, Suzanne Roy and Rachel Beckham. Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison, Animal Control Manager Irene Phipps and Administrative Assistant Pazzla Ragan. Pr~blic Members Present: Elliott Cramer Welcome and Opening Comments ASAB Co-Chair, Szrsan Elmore, called the meeting to order. Motion was made by James Kramer and seconded by Daniel Textoris to approve the Agenda dated March 19, 2008 with one change to add an item to disczzss the Carolina North chemical remediation. VOTE: Unanimous. Motion was made by Daniel Textoris and seconded by Kristine Bergstrand to approve the minzrtes dated February 20, 2008 with one change to add "It was understood that the permit requirement and ordinance wozrld be revisited at a later date" to bzrllet four on page 2. VOTE: Unanimous General Pr~blic Cornrnent--None Unfinished Br~siness- Tethering Ordinance Update- Bob Marotto reported that there were two issues with additional changes made in the proposed amendment by the county attorney since the last meeting: (1) the exemption of existing kennel permits from the enclosure requirement; and (2) matter of notice in the event that an animal is seized and impounded under the proposed amendment.. The County Attorney has since then received information regarding related litigation that is occzrrring now in Wake County and the issue in that litigation is the issue of notice. The County Attorney thought it would be best to incorporate those changes at the same time. In addition, a member of the board indicated that there was an inconsistency in the restrictive language of the proposed Tethering Document. After considerable disczrssion, a motion was made by Kristine Bergstrand and seconded by Moses Cary that the Tethering Committee would reconvene as a matter of procedure to decide on a consistent language and make a recommendation to the ASAB. VOTE: Unanimous Bob Marotto reported that at the commissioner's work session it was suggested that we go forward with the amendment and as we proceed there should be Bonze period of time designated for the proposed preliminary Amendment and FAQ to be available for the conznzzrnity to review on oz~r website and in media advisories. This wozzld be a prelzzde to the scheduling of the item on the BOCC Agenda. (0~ Animal Services Advisory Board Meeting Approved Minr~tes March 19, 2008 Page 2 Animal Noise Ordinance Irene Phipps gave an zrpdate on an item that was discussed at the November 2007 ASAB meeting regarding a regzrest from an Orange Cozrnty citizen (David Sykes) to review the current Animal Ordinance as it relates to the noise distzrrbance associated with roosters. Presently the County's ordinance only addresses nzrisance barking and does not allow any type of resolzrtion for other animal noises. In 2007, the Animal Control Division of Animal Services received only three complaints in different locations regarding roosters and specifically the noise that they make. Research was conducted on Municode to determine which cozrnties around the state had ordinance provisions to address these issues. Ms. Phipps provided members of the board with a report listing the findings. A motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Moses Cary that the Animal Services Advisory Board does not feel it is appropriate to move forward with a recommendation that the Animal Ordinance be changed but that there be further contact with Mr. Sykes regardingpotential civil relief VOTE: Unanimous Pet Overpopulation Committee Pat Sanford reported that they gathered a lot of information at the last meeting and Beth Livingston ofAnimal Kind reported that at the present time they are spaying and neutering about 100 animals a year in Orange County without any funds from Orange Cozrnty Animal Services and that at an average cost per surgery of $75-$100 they could do 100 more surgeries. Animal Kind would do all the administration and currently Animal Kind has contracts with local veterinarians. Ms. Sanford also reported that the feral cat caretakers are coming back to discuss how to handle feral cat colonies and to try and reduce the number offeral cats coming in to the shelter. Bob Marotto reported that there is now $16, 000.00 in the County's Community Spay Neuter fund and that the amount is expected to grow to -$25, 000 or more before the end of the fiscal year. Some of the funds were used for the Spay Day USA program where we sterilized 20 animals belonging to clients of the Department of Social Services. The actual list was 31 animals but dare to the exact compliment of males/females and cats/dogs, we were only able to process 20 that particular day. We plan on going back to the veterinarian with a supplemental contract to capture the other eleven animals. The plan is to use remaining inoney in this account in the last quarter for a variety of programs, which will help with the prevention of unwantedpets that end up in the shelter. The committee will come back at the next board meeting with a specific programmatic and monetary recommendation and proceed on that basis. Adoption/1'lacernent Committee Bob Marotto would like to get support front the ASAB for the agreement and the guideline documents that have been developed by the committee. The idea is to be in a position to finalize the documents in the near future, and that wozrld require review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners • A motion was made by Jean Austtn and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to add "appropriate socialization "after the word veterinary care of item 2 on page 2 of the document. VOTE: Unanimous • A motion was made by .lean Azrstin and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to remove the word "Wray" and replace it with the word "mzrst" in item 10 ofpage 4. VOTE: Unanimozrs A motion was made by Moses Cary and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to strike the last sentence of item 10 ofpage 4. VOTE: Unanimozrs Ct~ Animal Services Advisory Board Meeting Approved Minutes March 19, 2008 Page 3 • A motion was made by Jean Ausitn and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to remove "a timely manner" and replace with "no later than the end of the following gzzarter" in item 16 ofpage S. VOTE: Unanimous One item that has not been resolved yet is with the requirement for general liability insurance. A survey was done with the five rescue groups, all of which indicated that it would not inhibit them to work with the Orange County Animal Shelter. A question was then raised whether smaller rescue groups would be impeded by the requirement. Research is currently being done to get a general cost of what the insurance would be and that information will be brought back to the board for further discussion. Foster Program Report Jess Allison reported that a meeting was 17e1d on January 31, 2008, and it was decided to provide the activity reports to the Animal Services Advisory Board committee on a six-month basis rather than one-month basis. Staff and committee members discussed the growth of the program and identified areas that require improvements to the Foster Program forms. There were edits made in enclosure A of the guidelines and home visit checklist, interview and application that were shown in the handout provided to the board members. Bob Marotto reported that there is a limited ability to invest in the foster program but that the program can be maintained. The discussion with staff indicated that to try and grow the program would exceed our human resources and we should take the time that we do have available and invest it in the relationships with placement partners and rescue grozzps and to work towards building bridges with the community. A motion was made by Jean Ausitn and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to adopt and accept the amendments in both Foster Home Policy and Procedures of Enclosures A & C. VOTE: Unanimous Ms. Allison gave an overview of the January and February 2008 statistical summaries. It was pointed out that February adoptions were lower than January and it appears that March's will also be low. This is a concern and there was a brief discussion that mentioned factors such as the price of gas and economy. New Brtsiness Bob Marotto reported that the appearance of the current Animal Shelter and access to it would change as a result of a remediation project being conducted by UNC. He stressed that it would be very important to keep the public informed that the Animal Shelter was continuing to operate on its normal schedule, and asked that the ASAB help to communicate to members of the public is open and operating with normal hours of business. 2008-2009 Bridget Update Bob Marotto reported that he has been asked to prepare a continuation budget, which amounts to approximately a $1.6 million dollar operating budget for the fiscal year. He further noted that Animal Services has requested five new full time positions (some of which are conversions of temporary funds). He also noted that a significant concern is the compliance of animal control vehicles with tlZe "transportation standards" set out in the Animal Welfare Act of the State of North Carolina. (which indicates that compartment temperature must be between SO and 85 degrees). Thus fleet renewal with compliant boxes is an important objective for Animal Services in the County's budget process. ~~ Animal Services Advisory Board Meeting Approved Minutes March 19, 2008 Page 4 Adoption of Pitt Bulls from Orange Coranty's Animal Shelter- In order to allow enough time for discussion of this subject, it was decided (with the assent of Mr. Elliott Kramer) to reschedule this topic for the April 16, 2008 ASAB meeting. Mr. Kramer gave ASAB members an informational handout to review in advance of that meeting. Announcefnents Moses Cary announced that he will be leaving the ASAB at the end of this year and also there will be three new Board of County Commissioners elected in November He encouraged the ASAB to be proactive and to get to know the new commissioners. The Animal Services Advisory Board may make a recommendation to the commissioners but the commissioners do not have to agree and will have the final decision. Motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p. m. VOTE: Unanimous. NextASAB Meeting: Wednesday, April 16, 2008, at 6.•30 p.m. in the Government Services Center Conference Room, 200 S. Cameron Street, Hillsborough. U~ DRAFT: Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB) Minutes for April 16, 2008 Meeting Scheduled for Review and Approval at next ASAB Meeting Present ASAB Members: Daniel Textoris, Pat Sanford, Susan Elmore, Jean Austin, James Kramer, Ross Oglesbee, Bonnie Norwood, Tracy Carroll and Suzanne Roy Absent ASAB Members: Dewana Anderson, Kristine Bergstrand and Moses Carey . Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison, Animal Control Manager Irene Phipps and Administrative Assistant Paula Ragan. Public Members Present: Elliott Cramer and Michael Soluski Welcome and Opening Comments ASAB Chair, Ross Oglesbee, called the meeting to order. Motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by James Kramer to approve the Agenda dated April 16, 2008, with one change to move item 4a until Mr. Cramer arrives for discussion. VOTE: Unanimous. Motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by James Kramer to approve the minutes dated March 19, 2008, with corrections to a few typographical errors. VOTE: Unanimous General Public Comment-None Unfinished Business- Tethering Ordinance Update- Mr. Marotto reported that the Tethering Committee reconvened to ensure that they have agreement about definition of the proposed tethering restriction and the definition of the restriction that is now incorporated in the version that is being reviewed for approval by board members. The definition is that it would not be permissible to tether a dog for more than a total of three hours in a 24-hour period. Motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Bonnie Norwood to approve the Tethering Ordinance Amendment and to pass along to the Board of County Commissioners. VOTE: 6 in favor 2opposed---Motion Carries. Pet Overpopulation Committee Pat Sanford reported that the committee has been working with the feral. cat caretakers and the feral cat coalition and they would like to see owner's of feral cats to be licensed or at least know where they are located within the community. The committee would like to see a spay/neuter program through Animal Kind be offered to the owners of the feral cat colonies in order to reduce the number coming in to the shelter being euthanized. Motion was made by Bonnie Norwood and seconded by Jean Austin to approve the budget outline in the Memorandum from Animal Services Director Bob Marotto (dated April 10, 2008) regarding Community Spay/Neuter Fund: Program and Guideline Proposal. VOTE: Unanimous March Statistical Suu:mary-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 ident~ 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 ~9 "Draft" Page 2 Animal Services Advisory Board Meeting Minutes April 16'x', 2008 UNC remediation effort around the current shelter location may be affecting adoptions. One specific suggestion was that there be more media coverage to inform the community that the shelter is still open to and serving the public.. Adoption of Pit bulls from Orange County's Animal Shelter A member of the public, Mr. Elliott Cramer gave an overview of the information he previously provided and requested that the ASAB limit the numbers of pit bulls on display to the public and feels that they are being adopted out to people who are not appropriate adopters. In addition, Mr. Cramer suggested that this breed of dog should only be adopted out to people that have experience handling pit bulls and are aware of their behavioral traits and tendencies as he believes there is evidence showing that these dogs are inherently more dangerous than other breeds. He also emphasized that he was struck by the number of pit bulls and pit bull mixes at the shelter and on the shelter's website Another member of the public, Mr. Michael Soluski, conveyed that he owns a pit bull and a boxer and that he believes that his own and other dogs behave as allowed by owners, who are responsible for ensuring acceptable behavior. He indicated that he was against any breed specific changes in adoption practices, and asked where such changed would end if they were initiated.. Ms. Jess Allison reported that the shelter is very careful about the evaluations and adoptions of this particular breed of dogs. She indicated that the Animal Shelter staff generally holds this particular breed of dog to a higher standard. If there are any signs of aggressive behavior, they are usually not put up for adoption. Mr. Marotto suggested that we think about whether or not we are at or beyond the best practices in the industry for our evaluation and placement of these dogs and other dogs. The best practices of the industry should be our guide, not being discriminatory but recognizing that there are some special considerations that should be to factor in. ASAB members discussed various issues throughout and on the basis of statements made by staff and members of the public. These issues included the quality and accuracy of available statistics on dog bites by breed; the challenges or difficulties of breed (and mixed breed) identification; the extent to which aggression has genetic rather than environmental roots; and the extent to which animal owners are responsible for the behavior of their animal and how they affect others in human communities. Motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Bonnie Norwood to individually gather more information on this topic and to table this request for now. VOTE: 6 in favor 2opposed---Motion Carries. New Business Bob Marotto reviewed the Project and Activity Schedule handout and reported that this is a way to plan and organize our work and commitments. It ensures that we are not doing too much, and risking doing anything less than very well, and that it helps ensure that our work load is commensurate with available resources. Select Updates Irene Phipps reported,that two rabies clinics were held today, one earlier today at the Animal Control Office in Hillsborough with 27 vaccines administered and 14 licensed. The second clinic is being held in the Annex Parking lot next door this evening. The next two rabies clinics will be held at the Animal Shelter on Saturday, April 19, 2008 and Wednesday April 23, 2008. 70 "Draft" Page 3 Animal Services Advisory Board Meeting Minutes April 16'x', 2008 Jess Allison provided an overview of the UNC remediation effort that is underway near the Animal Shelter. She reported that staff has been reviewing safety protocols just in case there is any release of chemicals into the air during this effort. A safety drill with staff was held today at the shelter and went very well. Ms. Allison mentioned that the entranceway in to the shelter is now different due to the remediation project and signage has been placed throughout the new route in to the shelter off of Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd to help direct traffic to the shelter. Motion was made by James Kramer and seconded by Jean Austin to adjourn the meeting at 8: OS p. m. VOTE: Unanimous. Next ASAB Meeting: Wednesday, May 21, 2008, at 6: 30 p.m. in the Southern Human Services Conference Room, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill.