HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-20-2008-5bORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 20, 2008
Action Agenda
Item No. s-
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
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 ardinance actually
becomes effective. Thus, the amendment itself would actually not be fully enforced until
January 1, 2010.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct cost associated with the review and consideration of
the proposed ordinance amendment. The costs of administering and enforcing the new
tethering provisions, if enacted, are .believed to be readily absorbed within the Animal Services
departmental budget and staffing complement. This expectation is based upon discussions with
animal control authorities in other jurisdictions with similar tethering regulations and the belief
that effective public relations and outreach can facilitate a transition in standards of animal care.
Costs will be incurred during the twelve-month period of public education and outreach. Staff
expects that the total costs will not exceed $1,500 and that these monies will largely be used for
display advertisements.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the BOCC conduct a public hearing
for the proposed ordinance amendment on the tethering of dogs and adopt the ordinance
amendment.
3
Tethering Amendment Proposal
As Recommended to the Board of County 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(Kl and XI(Ll 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
Recornrnerzded Tethering Arnendment Proposal
May 20`" 2008
Page 2
under the control of that competent person and the animal is on the premises. If any
unattended animal is restrained by a chain, leash or similar restraint, it shall be designated
and placed to prevent choking or strangulation. Such chain or restraint shall not be less
than ten (10) feet in length and shall be either on a swivel designed to prevent the animal
from choking or strangling itself, ^ ^"^~^ '^'^. The restraint of unattended 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 eu-t forth in Section VII(22) above.- and Sections
XI(Kl and XI(L) below.
5
Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal
May 20'x', 2008
Page 3
F. ...
G. ...
H. ...
I. ...
J. ...
K It shall be unlawful for anv person to restrain a dog using a chain, wire or
other tune of tethering device in a manner prohibited by this subsection.
l No person shall tether fasten, chain, tie, or restrain a dog. or cause
such restraining of a dog to a tree fence Host 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 dos
and entanslement with obiects.
2 No person shall tether fasten chain tie or restrain a dog or cause
such restrainins 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. Durins periods of
__--__
tetherins that are not unlawful under this subsection, the length of the cable alons which
the tethering device can move must be at least 10 feet and the tetherins device must be of
such lensth~that the dog is able to move 10 feet away from the cable perpendicularly.
3 No person shall tether a doh 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 pronsed collar to a dog.
5 No person shall tether with a chain, wire or other device to a doh
where the weisht of the tethering device and the collar combined exceeds ten (10) percent
of the dos's bodv weight.
6 No person shall tether with a chain or wire or other device a dos in
such manner that does not allow the dog access to adequate food water and shelter.
7 Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (1) and (21 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 engased in:
--
a Use of the dos in shepherding or herding livestock, or
Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal
May 20`x' 2008
Page 4
_ b Use of the dog in the business of cultivating agricultural
products if the restraining is reasonably necessary for the
--
safety of the dog, or
c Use of the dog in lawful hunting activities if the restraint is
reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog. or
d Use of the dog at dog training or performance events
including but not limited to field trials and obedience trials
_ where tethering does not occur for a period exceeding
_ 7 consecutive davs.
(ii) After taking possession of a dog that appears to be a stray dog and
after having advised animal control authorities of the capture of the
dog tether and restrain the dog in accordance with the provisions
of Section XI(K) for a period not to exceed seven (7) davs as the
person having taken possession of the dog is seeking the identity of
the owner of the dog.
(iii) Walk a dog with a handheld leash.
L It shall be unlawful for anv person to keep a dog outdoors in an enclosure
including a pen run kennel fence or electronically controlled containment device or
other outdoor enclosure in violation of this subsection.
1 Outdoor enclosures containing dogs must meet or exceed the
following dimensional requirements:
Size of Dog Required Minimum Enclosure Area
1-35 Pounds 80 Square Feet
36-75 Pounds 100 Square Feet
76 Pounds and greater 120 Square Feet
All outdoor enclosures must be of sufficient height so that the tallest dog contained
within the enclosure is able to walk naturally without its head reaching the roof or top of
said enclosure however the height of anv such enclosure shall not be included for the
purposes of determining the required minimum enclosure area. The provisions of this
Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal
May 20`r' 200'8
Page 5
Section XI(L) shall not apply to anv Person who held a valid permit to operate a Class I
Kennel or Class II Kennel from Orange County on or before January 1 2008 for so long
as such Hermit remains in full force and effect without lapse or revocation. All Persons
aHHlyin~ for a new Class I or Class II Kennel Permit after January 1.2008 shall comply
with this Section XI(L) Hrior to the issuance of anv such Hermit.'
(il In addition to the reauired minimum enclosure area
established herein additional space must be Hrovided 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 Hercent of the reauired minimum area
specified in subsection XI(L)(1) must be added to the minimum enclosure area. The
reauired minimum enclosure area shall be based on the weieht of the lamest dou
contained within the enclosure.
Subsections XI(Kl and XI(Ll become effective June 1 2009 and apHly to acts committed
on or after that date Anv Herson who violates either of these subsections after June 1,
2009 and Hrior to January 1 2010 shall be issued a written warning ~ivin~ the violator
30 davs to come into compliance with the ordinance. Anv Herson who violates
subsection XI(K) and XI(L) after January 1 2010 or anv violator who fails to comply
with the ordinance after the expiration of 30 davs following 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 dog will not be subiect to restraint
in violation of this ordinance The Animal Control Director shall post a notice at the
place of the illeaal restraint or at such other location, that is designed to reasonably
apprise the Owner or Keeper of the dog the place date and time the dog was seized
along with the location where the dog was taken Such notice shall clearly state that the
dog may be returned to the Owner or Keeper upon Hrovidin~ reasonable assurances to the
Recommended Tethering Amendment Proposal
May 20`x`, 2008
Page 6
Animal Control Director that the doa will not be subiect to restraint in violation of this
ordinance.
Upon motion of Commissioner
seconded by
Commissioner ,the foregoing Animal Control
Ordinance amendments were adopted this the day of
2008 and shall become effective as of the day of , 200_.
Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners
~l
Tethering Committee Report
July 30~', 2007
®range County's Tethering Cornmittee*
Report and Proposal for Ordinance Amendment
7uly 3 0th, 200'7
*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.
ID
Tethering Committee Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
July 30~', 2007
I. Summary
II. Introduction
III. Findings
IV Recommendations
IV. Discussion
V. Next Steps
VI. Appendices
a. Appendix I: Creation of the Orange County Tethering Committee and Board of County
Commissioners' Abstract for Creation of the Tethering Committee
b. Appendix II: Committee Members, BOCC Liaison, and Staff
c. Appendix III: North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances
d. Appendix V: Notes from Interviews with North Carolina Jurisdictions with Tethering
Ordinances: Conducted by the Tethering Committee
2
Tethering Committee Report
SUMMARY
July 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 ar has left his or her
residence for that time period.
In light of this, the Committee is recommending that the County's current animal ordinance be
amended to include the following with regard to tethering dogs:
• a three-hour limit within a 24-hour period;
® a specification of the types of collars and equipment that are allowed when a dog is tethered;
® a requirement for minimum kennel size for outdoor housing of dogs;
® an exemption for organized and lawful animal functions such as hunting, obedience training,
and law enforcement training of a duration of not more than seven (7) days;
® an 18-month education period, including twelve (12) months of public outreach and six (6)
months of issuing warnings before the citations would be issued.
In general terms, the Committee is making these recommendations on the basis of these findings:
® Prolonged tethering can and does deprive dogs' of necessary exercise and socialization.
Tethered dogs can and do contribute to various community problems, including pet
overpopulation and nuisance barking.
® Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to public safety and health because they may become
aggressive and they are not confined behind a physical barrier.
In making these recommendations, the Committee has gathered general information about the
humane and public safety aspects of tethering; researched existing ordinances that restrict or
prohibit tethering in jurisdictions across the United States; interviewed Animal Services personnel
in North Carolina jurisdictions with tethering ordinances; and held two meetings to obtain public
input.
3
(~
Tethering Committee Report
July 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
c3
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 walking a dog on a leash, but instead refers to dogs that are tied out as a primary, if
not exclusive, means of confinement.
Currently, Orange County's animal ordinances, which apply to the unincorporated parts of the
County and Hillsborough, allow tethering provided certain conditions are met. The Tethering
Committee is proposing that this ordinance be amended, and specifically recommending the
changes formulated in this report.
The remainder of this report will outline and explain the changes that the Tethering Corrunittee 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.
i 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 30~', 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 and Proposal for Ordinance Amendment.
The Committee came to its general findings on the basis of the weight of available information
gathered through its meetings and work. These findings are generally consistent with the concerns
that have prompted other jurisdictions to outlaw or otherwise control the practice of tethering.
According to one source, there are now more than 50 jurisdictions in the United States with
tethering regulations.2 Most of these are county and local governments, but there are also four
states that have prohibited tethering. Some national organizations-including the Humane Society
of the United States (HSUS), which has advised the County on animal sheltering issues-advocate
for prohibitions on tethering dogs.
Specifically, the Committee's findings include:
Humane Concerns
® Tethered dogs, and certainly those that are isolated and continuously tethered, may be
deprived of essential exercise and socialization.
® Tethered dogs are at risk of various tethering-related injuries, such as embedded collars and
accidental strangulation or hanging.
® Tethered dogs are also at risk of becoming tangled and prevented from reaching food, water
and shelter, and attacks by other animals in which they are usually unable to defend
themselves.
z See http://www.helpinganimals.com/ga tetherLegislation.asp.
6
~5
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
i~
Tethering Committee Report
RECOMMENDATIONS
July 30~', 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 unplementation of a new ordinance
are presented in this section.
An ordinance amendment is being proposed because there is presently very little regulation of
tethering in Orange County's animal ordinances, regulations which apply in the unincorporated
parts of the County and Hillsborough. A minimum standard is set out in Section VII in these terms:
"If any unattended animal is restrained by a chain, leash or similar restraint, it shall be designed and
placed to prevent choking or strangulation. Such chain or restraint shall not be less than ten (10)
feet in length and either on a swivel designed to prevent the animal from choking or strangling
itself, or on a chain run." 4
As formulated below, in order to more effectively regulate the practice of tethering in Orange
County, the Tethering Committee's specific recommendations fall into four closely related areas:•
Limitation and Requirements
® Tethering_should be limited to three~31 hours within a twenty!--four-hour period, and a
tethered animal shall be kept in accordance with all other laws including but not limited to
requirements for food water and shelter. By limiting tethering to three (3) hours per day,
such an ordinance would reduce the risk of uncontrolled contact between dogs and people,
which is sometimes. responsible for dog attacks and bites, and it could improve or enhance
the overall conditions and care of dogs themselves. It should be noted that the Committee is
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 30~, 200'1
recommending that tethering be limited rather than outlawed because it has concluded that
there are certain circumstances under which tethering can be an acceptable method of
confinement for several hours, whether the owner is in attendance or has left his or her
residence for that time period.
• Tethers must meet certain requirements. A tethered dog must have a tether at least ten feet in
length that swivels at each end to prevent choking or strangulation and allows access to
food, water and shelter. The weight of the tether and collar must not exceed ten percent of
the dog's body weight. A tethered dog must be tethered using a buckle collar or harness.
Choke chain collars and prong collars are not allowed when tethering a dog. These
requirements are designed to avoid strangulation and ensure the welfare of the animal if and
when it is tethered in accordance with the proposed ordinance.
• A minimum pen size for outdoor enclosures for dogs should be established. This is
necessary to empower Animal Control to ensure that dogs taken off tethers as a primary
means of constraint are not confined to small spaces that compromise their welfare.s
Exceptions
• Tethering is allowed at training and performance (or sporting;) events for dogs including but
not limited to field trails and obedience trails. In such cases, continuous tethering shall not
be allowed for a period longer than seven (7) days.
Implementation
• An ordinance amendment regarding tethering should become effective 18_ months after its
adoption. This approach is informed by the successful experience of other communities in
which awareness was raised and the public educated before a tethering regulation actually
became effective.
s An example of such requirement from New Hanover County, North Carolina, is that: "Outszde 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_period of extensive public outreach and
education regarding. the ordinance amendment and practice of tethering, followed by a six-
. month period in which only warnings are issued. This is to ensure that dog owners have
ample notice of the new ordinance and time to transition to other methods of confinement
and take advantage of community resources to help with the implementation of alternatives.
• Public outreach should include resources to help dog owners implement alternatives to the
restraint of dogs by tethering as well as information about the new ordinance. The
Committee believes that public outreach and education is pivotal to its recommendations.
These pursuits would presumably be led by the Animal Services Department, working in
concert with its citizen advisory board and perhaps other stakeholders.
Enforcement
• Upon initial contact for noncompliance with the new ordinance, after the six-month phase-in
period, a dog_owner will receive a warning_that gives him or her thirty_(30) days to come
into compliance. As with the initial implementation period itself, this initial enforcement
approach is designed to ensure that dog owners are aware of and able to comply with the
tethering ordinance.
• Civil citations with a monetary_penalty on a progressive (or graduated) schedule ordinarily
will be issued for noncompliance after issuance of a warning to come into compliance.
• An animal may be impounded after the issuance of a citation for a violation of the tethering
ordinance-which itself would occur onlXafter the issuance of a warning subject to an
ap~ro~riate process of appeal by the animal owner. Given the right to and requirements of
"due process," there would not only be an appeal process but a specific legal mechanism for
determining possession and ownership of an animal in the event that an appeal failed.
10
iq
Tethering Committee Report
DISCUSSION
July 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.b
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
e See http~//www he~inganimals com/~a tetherLeaislation.asn for complete list of jurisdictions with tethering
ordinances.
~ See Appendix II: North Cazolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances, and Appendix III: Notes from
Interviews with North Carolina Jurisdictions with Tethering Ordnances: Conducted by the Tethering Cozrunittee
11
ao
Tethering Committee Report
July 30a', 2007
adoption of tethering ordinances. In addition, the ordinances had several positive impacts, for
instance, reducing the number of animal cruelty complaints and incidents of dog bites.
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 confinernent. 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 Apri123rd, 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
a~
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 often, if not always, kept on tethers and that, in their opinion, it was sometimes the best way to
keep such dogs. Advantages included the easy separation of incompatible dogs, and the allowance
of greater space on a daily basis. Finally, they stated that dogs can be neglected in a variety of
situations that do not involve tethering, for instance, the inappropriate confinement of dogs in small
kennels and crates.
Committee Deliberations
The Committee weighed testimony from the public and came to a series of recommendations that
are intended to address some, if not all, of the concerns raised in the public testimony. The
Committee believes that tethering raises significant humane, public safety and community welfare
concerns, and that the continuous tethering of dogs is inhumane. The Committee concurs that dogs
can be neglected in other circumstances not involving tethering, but believes that there are
significant public safety and humane issues unique to tethering that merit action by the 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 30th, 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
a~
Tethering Committee Report July 30~', 2007
APPENDIX I:
Creation of the Orange County Tethering Committee and Board of County
Commissioners' Abstract for Creation of the Tethering Committee
Committee Creation
The concerns surrounding tethering vary greatly and include issues of both animal and public
welfare. Because of these concerns, the practice of tethering has become a policy issue, not only in
our own community, but in communities throughout North Carolina and around the country.
Of particular concern are dogs that spend their lives tethered, as they are naturally social beings and
thrive on frequent interaction with humans and other animals. Additionally, there is concern that
tethered animals, deprived of socialization and exercise, develop behavioral problems or aggression,
and as a result, pose a risk to the community through dog bites and attacks. Other concerns involve
the role of tethered dogs in contributing to community problems such as pet overpopulation and
nuisance barking.
The issue of tethering in Orange County initially surfaced from the efforts of some local animal
advocates, who created an area "Coalition to Unchain Dogs," and began to advocate against the
practice of tethering. Their efforts mirrored initiatives elsewhere to limit, restrict or outlaw
tethering. All of these efforts are concerned with both public safety and animal welfare.
The Orange County Tethering Committee was formed by the BOCC in October 2006 in response to
local concerns about the issue. An abstract for the creation of the Tethering Committee appears at
the end of this Appendix.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;
s 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.
SOCC 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
~NFORnnArion- co~vracr:
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 ChairNice Chair agenda review that the BOCC might wish to
create the Tethering Committee itself, and with the inclusion of the two ASAB
representatives, appoint the five pre-defined positions as proposed along with three
additional at-large representatives from the community.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact accompanies the creation of a Tethering
Committee.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss options
presented relative to the creation of a Tethering Committee and the appointment of its
members, and provide direction to staff.
CHARGE TO ANI) 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
~8
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 ar 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 l: Kristine Bergstrand
Animal Services Advisory $oard Member
Position 2: Jean H. Connerat-Levine
Animal Services Advisory Board Member
Position 3: Mary Dow
Animal Behaviorist
Position.4: VACANT
July 30~', 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 CountX 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 30~', 2007
22
31
Tethering Committee Report July 30~', 2007
APPENDIX III:
North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances
The following North Carolina jurisdictions have some sort of tethering regulation. For more
information see http://www.helpinganimals com/ga tetherLegislation.asp.
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Chaining or tethering dogs is prohibited. A chain or rope is not to be used in place of a leash when
walking dogs.
Sec. 3.4 (d) Restraint: An animal is under restraint within the meaning of this chapter if it is
controlled by means of a leash, or is sufficiently near the owner or handler to be under his direct
control and is obedient to that person's command; or is on or within a vehicle being driven or
parked; or is within a secure enclosure. Exceptions to restraint are as follows: Organized and lawful
animal functions e.g. hunting, obedience training, field and water training, law enforcement training
and/or in the pursuit of working or competing in those legal endeavors. When a dog is on the
property of its owner of guardian it shall be secured when not supervised by a competent person.
Ropes, chains, and the like shall not constitute adequate security under this ordinance.
Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina
June 13, 2006
This ordinance prohibits the tethering of dogs.
Section 91.22. Prohibition Against Tethering of Dogs.
A. It shall be unlawful to tether an unattended dog outside of the house.
Laurinburg, North Carolina
June 20, 2000
Dogs may not be chained for a period longer than one hour in a 24-hour period.
Sec. 4-21. Restraint of dogs.
When a dog is on the property of its owner or keeper and is not within a secure enclosure, it shall be
under the direct control of and obedient to the owner or keeper. At all other times when a dog is on
the property of its owner or keeper, it shall be kept within a secure enclosure, including a fenced in
area or electronic fence, house or other building, of sufficient strength and height to prevent the dog
from escaping there from; provided, the owner or keeper may, for a period not to exceed one (1)
23
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 (1-~: No person shall, at any time, fasten, chain, or tie any dog or cause such dog to be
fastened, chained, or tied, while such dog is on the dog owner's property, or on the property of the
dog owner's landlord no longer than one (1) hour per day.
Cafawba 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 30th, 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.
Holly Sprin,~s 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
~~4
Tethering Committee Report July 30th, 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 30~', 2007
AnpENnlx Iv.•
Notes from Interviews with North Carolina Jurisdictions with Tethering
Ordinances: Conducted by the Tethering Committee
The following is a summary of comments from Animal Services officials from New Hanover County,
the City of Laurinburg and Catawba County, made in telephone interviews. The Tethering
Committee conducted these interviews on April 11 `~', 2007 as a part of its information gathering.
Dr Jean McNeil, Animal Control Services Manager
New Hanover County
THE LAW: Prohibits tethering. Recently amended to add "attended" to the law so that dogs can be
tethered if their owner is present. They enacted a ban as opposed to time limits on tethering because
time limits are difficult to enforce because they would have to rely on a neighbor's testimony.
WHY ENACTED: County felt that tax dollars were being wasted responding to chaining
complaints. Also enacted because of the cruelty issues Dr. McNeil and her officers were seeing.
The county also wanted to promote a higher standard of pet ownership.
ENFORCEMENT: Violation of the law results in a civil fine. Violators have 60 days to 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 Manaser
Catawba Count~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.
II 4
F`~b a.•~~••
Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968-2287
September 10th, 2007
To
From:
Re:
Animal Services Advisory Board
Bob Marotto, Animal Services Director, and Irene Paul, Animal Control
Manager
Required Kennel Space Recommendations
At the August meeting of the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB), we were asked
to recommend the minimum required size of kennels for dogs that are confined by such
enclosures. This was requested as part of the ASAB review of the final report of the
Tethering Committee, which recommended that the allowable dimensions of kennels be
set as part of an ordinance amendment that limits the time a dog may be tethered in
Orange County
Recommendation
As discussed further below, our recommendations are based upon our review of
regulations from other jurisdictions that have set the minimum required size of kennels
for dogs. They are as follows:
1. A minimum space requirement should be set in accordance with the size of the
dog (or dogs) that are kenneled. More specifically, there should be a threefold
requirement as follows;
® 1 to 35 pounds 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 10t~', 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).
Backciround 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
~Sp... Ft)
Extra Large 48
(over 26" or over 75 lbs.) _
Large 40
over 20" or under 75 lbs.
;Medium
32
over 12" or under 50 lbs.
Small.........._. ................................................................................................,......: 24....................................
~~
over 12 or under 20 lbs.
( )
Required Kennel Space
September i0f~', 2007
Page 4
S.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
htt~//www. cityofbartlesvi I le. o rg/i ndex. ph p
• 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 10th, 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, nAaryland
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
Extra Large
(over 26" at withers or over 751bs)
Large
(over 20" at withers or not over 75)
Medium
(over 12" at withers or not over 501bs)
Small
(12" or less or not over 20 Ibs)
Pen Size L doa) ea. add. doa
48 sq. feet 24 sq. feet
40 sq. feet 20 sq. feet
32 sq. feet 16 sq. feet
24 sq feet 12 sq. feet
9. San Bernardino- California
D. DOG KENNELS must be tall enough to prevent the dog from jumping over or have a
secure top and be able to prevent dogs from digging out. Kennels must have a
minimum of 100 square feet for one dog, plus an additional 25 square feet for each
additional dog in the same enclosure.
~~
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.
Note: Depending on where you live, your city or county may require that you provide
more space than these guidelines suggest.
2. Unchain Your Dog website / PowerPoint
When a dog is confined outside by means of an enclosure or an electronic containment
device, the following minimum space requirements shall be met:
Size of Dog Pen (increase pen size by half of total area per additional doa)
Extra Large (over 751bs) ** sq. feet
Large (50-75 /bs) *'~sq. feet
Medium (20-501bs) **sq. feet
Small (under 201bs) **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)
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)
~a
Required Kennel Space
September 70t", 2007
Page 7
3. Prince George County -Maryland
Care Standards for Enforcement of Anti-Cruelty Laws
Dogs in Pens:
The size of the pen is determined by the size and number of dogs housed therein. Dogs
housed together must be socially compatible. It is recommended that no more than four
compatible dogs be housed in single pen.
Minimum space for dogs in pens (not including shelter space) shall be as follows:
# of Dogs Small (<251bs) Medium (25-501bs) urge (> 501bs)
1 3x7 (21 sq ft) 6x10 (60sq ft) 8x10 (80 sq ft)
2 4x8 (32sq ft) 8x10 (80 sq ft) 8x12 (96 sq ft)
3 5x9' (45 sq ft) 8x12 (96 sq ft) 10x14 (140 sq ft)
4 8x10 (80 sq ft) 10x12 (120 sq ft) 12x16 (192 sq ft)
Note -The above standards are also listed in the Washington DC Humane Society's
Humane Law Enforcement Manual.
"~
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Tuesday, February 27m, 2007, 7:30 to 9:00 p.m.
Meeting Summary
Location: John Link Government Services Center Conference Room, 200 South
Cameron Street, Hillsborough
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Kristine Bergstrand, DVM, Jean Connerat
Austin, Mary Dow, Margie Huggins, Alane Koki, Michael Nelson, Suzanne Roy,
Kelly Strowd,Animal Services Director Robert Marotto, Animal Control Manager
Irene Paul, and Office Assistant Lisa Smith.
OCTC Members Absent: Rachel Beckham
Others in Attendance: Drew Brinkley
Introduction of Committee Members and Staff: Each OCTC Member and staff .
introduced him or herself.
Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and
accepted.
Timetable and Process: Bob gave an overview of the process. The Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) constituted this committee to go through this
process of considering amendments of Orange County Ordinances. The
committee will bring recommendations to Animal Services Advisory Board
(ASAB). The ASAB advises both the Animal Services Department and BOCC on
matters of this kind. The ASAB will receive and review recommendations or
findings from the Tethering Committee and make any final recommendations to
the BOCC, which is the policy making body for Orange County.
The background here from the standpoint of the ASAB is that the issue of
tethering was brought to ASAB last year. ASAB created a committee consisting
of ASAB Member Kris Bergstrand, and ASAB Member Jean Connerat Austin with
staff support to review these considerations. They first determined who should be
involved in this process. It became apparent the ASAB itself does not have the
authority to create a county committee consisting of individuals who are not
already members of the ASAB. Thus, the ASAB made a request to the BOCC to
create a Tethering Committee with a variety of defined membership positions.
At the recent BOCC meeting in February all, the members for the Tethering
Committee were appointed. A timetable was proposed for this committee as a
part of that discussion. The understanding of this timetable is that by June 1 sc,
2007, there would be some recommendations or findings from the Tethering
Committee that would be presented to the ASAB for its consideration.
`y. L~
Tethering Committee Inaugural Meeting
February 27rn, 2007
Page 2
Meeting Schedule and Format: There was a discussion about the coordination
of the committee and whether staff should coordinate or a chair and vice chair
should do so.. In this context, it was noted that Animal Services Director Bob
Marotto would provide staff support, since the BOCC charge for the committee
indicates that he will be the principle staff member for this committee. It was
decided staff would coordinate this committee and that if a chair and vice chair
was needed at a later time it could be done.
Motion was made by Margie Huggins and seconded by Jean Connerat Austin to
approve staff coordinating this committee. VOTE: Unanimous
There was a draft schedule presented for this committee, which referred to four
types of meetings that could be held within the three-month period during which it
was hoped that the committee's work would be completed. These meetings
would precede the presentation of any findings or recommendations to the ASAB
and subsequent steps involving the BOCC.
The four types of meetings specified for the Tethering Committee are:
Organizing Meeting (tonight)
Information Meeting(s)
Public Input/Comment
Discussion & Findings
Throughout this portion of the meeting, there was general discussion of the issue
of tethering. However, the focus was on agreeing on a process, as this was the
intent of this meeting to organize the work of the committee.
The meeting ended with a short presentation on tethering and the animal
ordinances that exist in Orange County. The presentation was based upon a
memorandum to the Tethering Committee from Bob that addressed the issue of
jurisdiction, reviewed the County's current ordinance, and reviewed a range of
more restrictive regulations (e.g.,
Connecticut General Statues, New Hanover County, NC, Restraint Ordinance,
and St Paul, Minnesota, Ordinance). A short discussion then ensued about the
current enforcement of Orange County's ordinances as they related to the care
and welfare of dogs.
It was agreed that the committee would meet Wednesday, March 7, 2007 for an
information meeting.
~~
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Wednesday, March 7th, 2007, 7:00 - 8:30 p.m.
Meeting Summary
Location: Conference Room, Southern Human Services Center, 2501 Homestead Road,
and Chapel Hill.
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Mary Dow, Alane Koki,
Michael Nelson, Suzanne Roy, Kelly Strowd, Animal Services Director Robert Marotto,
Animal Control Manager Irene Paul, Office Assistant Lisa Smith.
OCTC Members Absent: Rachel Beckham, Kristine Bergstrand, and Margie Huggins.
Others in Attendance: Amanda Arrington.
Approval of Meeting Summary from February 27th, 2007: Motion was made Jean
Connerat Austin to approve Meeting Summary and seconded by Suzanne Roy.
VOTE: Unanimous
Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and accepted.
General Public Comments: Amanda Arrington with Coalition to Unchain Dogs spoke
regarding the importance of banning the tethering of dogs in Orange County. She talked
about a recent incident of a child being attacked by one of the family's dogs that was
chained in the backyard in Durham.
Obtaining Public Input: There was a discussion on how to get public input to allow
people to comment on the tethering issue. It was decided staff would create a simple
survey to hand out at the next rabies clinics regarding if they are for or against tethering
and informing residents of the public input meeting. Getting information on Animal
Services Website with a brief introduction and links to ordinances with tethering bans
and tethering limitations. Sending out media advisories, and advertising on forums and
blogs soliciting public input.
Review of Various Tethering Regulations: There was a review of three different
categories of tethering ordinances.
Prohibition of tethering
Time limited tethering
Tethering with attached conditions (proper collar, length and kind of tether)
~f~
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 7tn, 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 'a two-week warning notice in general, but animal control uses discretion
and will give some situations more time if the dog is in good condition. Violation
results in a civil citation and $100 fine. They do have the power to impound dogs
and feel this has been an important tool.
""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 LAW: Catawba does not have a ban, just requirements on conditions for
tethering.
ENFORCMENT: They do not receive complaints very often. When they do, it is
because of length of chain. They educate people as to why they have the
requirements, and will write citations for violators. Eyeballing the situation
assesses the ten percent of body weight requirement: Some officers feel
comfortable and some do not with having to make judgments on the situations.
No citations have been challenged
RESULTS OF LAW: More chaining occurs in the rural area. Approximately 90 -
95% of people are compliant. They have not seen an increase in animals being
surrendered. More animals are surrendered under the nuisance ordinance than
the tethering ordinance.
~~
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Wednesday April 23ra, 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.
~j
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
Monday May 7th, 6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Meeting Summary
Location: Conference Center, John Link Government Services Center, 200
South Cameron Center, Hillsborough.
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand,
Mary Dow, Michael Nelson, Suzanne Roy, Kelly Strowd, and Office Assistant
Lisa Smith.
OCTC Members and Staff Absent: Margie Huggins, Animal Services Director
Robert Marotto.
Agenda Review: The proposed Agenda for this meeting was reviewed and
accepted.
Public Comment Period: It was agreed to change this meeting into a second
public input meeting due to the amount of citizens wanting to speak. There were
20+ citizens and many of whom spoke were the president and some if their
members of the Eno River Coon Club and Cane Creek Farms. Kris Bergstrand
gave a brief history regarding how and why the ASAB board and the tethering
subcommittee was created. The concerns people had were why were people
from other counties attending and speaking at these meetings, why does Animal
Control come to residences with out having received a complaint. Other concerns
were why people are not able to get onto the tethering committee when there are
openings, how do they get onto the ASAB and how that is advertised when there
are openings. The hunters feel like they are and have always been
signaled out regarding animal laws. There are people who are not able to afford
fences and pens and do not have time to go to dog parks. We need to enforce
the laws we already have and not make more.
Approval of Meeting Summaries from April 11tH and Apri123ra 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~~'
u-~
,_ t~
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`h, 2007, meeting summary and May 7`h 2007, meeting
summary were reviewed and approved.
Discussion: Committee members discussed the information that had been gathered throughout
the committee meetings. The purpose of this discussion was to .provide a preliminary set of
recommendations and framework for the final report and recommendation of the Tethering
Committee. It was understood that staff would prepare a draft report on. the basis of this
discussion.
Committee members recalled the interviews with North Carolina Animal Control authorities in
counties with more restrictive tethering ordinances. From those interviews, staff learned that
tethering ordinances seemed to work well; they did not appear to have any extra-added cost; and
negative or unanticipated outcomes were few and far between. They also learned that any such
change should be phased in over a long period of time in which there was considerable
education, and that it must be an enforceable change.
Committee members also discussed the possibility of having hunting dogs, dogs that are difficult
to confine and dogs participating in sporting events exempted from any proposed tethering
restrictions. Each of these potential exemptions was discussed in detail and it was agreed that
their exemption should be part of the draft report and recommendations.
~~
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.
D~
,_,~`~ ~ J
,rt
,.
.,;
~.b t.~.~:.a
Orange County Animal Services
501 W. Franklin St, Suite 106, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 (919) 968-2287
Animal Control Robert A. Marotto, Animal Shelter
PO Box 8181 Director 1081 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
304 Revere Rd Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Hillsborough, NC 27278 (919) 967-7383
(919)245-2075
Animal Services Tethering Committee Meeting
July 11`h, 2007 6:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m.
Unapproved Meeting Summary
Location: Meeting Room (A-014), Whitted Building, 300 Tryon Street, Hillsborough.
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand, Mary Dow,
Margie Huggins, Commissioner Mike Nelson, Kelly Strowd, Animal Services Director
Robert Marotto, Office Assistant Lisa Smith.
Agenda Review: Review and adoption of meeting agenda
Discussion: The Committee reviewed the draft report and recommendations that staff
prepared on the basis of .general discussion at its last meeting. Numerous votes were initiated
and taken to decide various issues.
There was considerable discussion on changes in exemptions for individual dogs that are
hard to keep confined, as well as the exemption of hunting dogs. It was agreed to change the
exceptions to only allow tethering at training and performance (or sporting) events for dogs,
including but not limited to field and obedience trails. It was argued that was the only fair
approach and that the Committee should concern itself with what the best policies regarding
tethering were.
Also, it was agreed to add to the limitation and requirements that a tethered dog must have
access to food, water and shelter, and that any and all other legal requirements for animal
care be met. It was further agreed that the weight of the tether and collar must not exceed ten
percent of the dog's total body weight.
The committee again discussed whether a minimum kennel size should be set insofar as more
dogs would be expected to be kenneled and there should be some assurance that they were
kept in a humane manner. It was agreed that a minimum pen size for outdoor enclosures for
dogs should be established but the specification of this pen size was left to the Animal
Services Advisory Board with Animal Services Staff.
~~
Tethering Committee Meeting
July ll`~`, 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`x', 2007) was subrriitted to the Animal Services Advisory Board and
subsequently .approved.
r.,~ ~ V
o`'~ `
r ~" J
:~sr b l...~.es
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.m.
Unapproved Meeting Summary
Location: Conference Room, Economic Development Building, 110 East King Street, Hillsborough
OCTC Members and Staff Present: Jean Connerat Austin, Kristine Bergstrand, Suzanne Roy, Animal
Services Director Robert Marotto, and Office Assistant Lisa Smith
OCTC Members Absent: Mary Dow, Commissioner Mike Nelson, and Kelly Stowd
Agenda Review: The proposed agenda for this meeting was reviewed and accepted
Discussion: Staff organized this meeting at the request of the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB).
At the last ASAB meeting on March 19`h, 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 committee members who were
present decided that the language for the proposed ordinance amendment should be, "not more than a
total of three hours in 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
Apri116`", 2008 meeting.
5~~
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Approved Minutes for August 15, 2007 Meeting
Present ASAB Members: Daniel Textoris, Kristine Bergstrand, Ross Oglesbee, Pat Sanford, Susan
Elmore, Jean Connerat Austin, Tracy Carroll, James Kramer, Carolina Green and Dewana Anderson
Absent ASAB Members: Bonnie Norwood and Moses Carey.
Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Control Manager Irene Paul and
Administrative Assistants Paula Ragan and Andi Morgan.
Public Members Present: Margie Huggins and Suzanne Roy
Welcome and Opening Comments-Chair of the ASAB Committee, Kristine Bergstrand
Motion was made by Ross Oglesbee and seconded by Jean Connerat Austin to approve the Agenda dated
Az~gust 15, 2007. VOTE: Unanimous
Motion was made by Jean Connerat Austin and seconded by Daniel Textoris to approve the Minutes
dated Jzrly 18, 2007. VOTE: Unanimous
General Public Cornrnent None
Unfrnished 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 Inaugzrral World Rabies Day.
Public Relations Plan for Proposed Fine Updates---Bob Marotto reminded everyone that the
BOCC did not adopt fine increases for violations of select animal ordinances as part of the
budget process. Rather, the BOCC asked that staff return to it with a public relations plan that
would make people aware of those fine increases in advance of their implementation and provide
justification for the increases. A staff work group was formed which developed elements of the
plan that was distributed for discussion. Andi Morgan gave an overview to the committee of the
"Working Document ". A motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by James Kramer that the
Animal Services Advisory Board feels this is a very strong document that should be used and
recommended to the BOCC with a few minor modifications that staff agreed to make.. VOTE:
Unanimous
Report and Proposal for Orange County's Tethering Committee Ordinance Amendment ----The
committee reviewed and discussed the doczmzent prepared by the Tethering Committee. Among other
issues, discussion included the pzzblic input process of the Tethering Committee, the enforcement of the
recommended ordinance changes, and how the recommended changes related to other state and local
regzrlations. 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 Minrrtes-
Arrgr~st IStlz, 2007
Page 2
consideration witTz the addition of a specific section of the kenneling spaces/sizes for kennels. Staff will
bring back some recommendations regarding kennel /sizes to the September 19`x', 2007 ASAB meeting for
discarssion, 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.
G"C
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Approved Minutes for September 19, 2007 Meeting
Present ASAB Members: Daniel Textoris, Ross Oglesbee, Pat Sanford, Susan Elmore, Jean Connerat
Austin, James Kramer, Carolina Green, Dewana Anderson Bonnie Norwood and Moses Carey.
Absent ASAB Members: Kristine Bergstrand and Tracy Carroll
Others in Attendance: Animal Services Director Bob Marotto, Animal Control Manager Irene Paul,
Animal Shelter Manager Jessica Allison and Administrative Assistant Paula Ragan.
Public Members Present: Suzanne Roy
Welcome and Opening Comments ASAB Vice-Chair, Ross Oglesbee
Motion was made by Susan Elmore and seconded by James Kraemer to approve the Agenda dated
September 19, 2007. VOTE: Unanimous
Motion was made by Bonnie Norwood and seconded by Susan Elmore to approve the Minutes dated
August IS, 2007. VOTE: Unanimous
General Public Comment None
Unfinished Business
Final Report: ASAB Keeping of Wild Animal Ordinance Amendment Task Force Ross Oglesbee
presented the "Final Report ", dated August 29, 200. She reported that the Task Force had met for a total
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'x', 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 IAth, 2007
~0
Page 2
Members for review. Caroline asks that if anyone has any suggestions or comments to please send those
to her or Pat Sanford.
Animal 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 Coininittee Progress Report- Jessica Allison reported that the committee met on
August 10`f', 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 alreadyprovides.
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 ident~ing 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 ofASAB Nominations Subcommittee- Caroline Green, Daniel Textoris and Tracy Carroll have
agreed to be on this committee and will come back to the October 17`x', 2007, ASAB meeting with a
proposed slate of of icers and at a subsequent meeting in November the vote will take place.
Required Annual Review of ASAB Committee Structure-Bob Marotto gave an overview of the
requirements of our charter and the two committees that we currently have are the Potentially Dangerous
Dog Committee and the Adoption Appeals Committee. Motion was made by Pat Sanford and seconded by
Jean Connerat Austin to maintain the two standing committees. VOTE: Unanimous
Motion was made by Jean Connerat Austin and seconded by Pat Sanford to adjourn the meeting at 7:45
p. m. VOTE: Unanimous.
Next ASAB Meeting: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 6: 30 p. m. in the Southern Human Services Center
Conference Room, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill.
~r
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Approved Minutes for February 20, 2008 Meeting
Present ASAB Members: Ross Oglesbee, Daniel Textoris, Pat Sanford, Susan Elmo°e, Jean Aa~stin,
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.
Pr~blic Members Present: None
Welcome and Opening Cofnments ASAB Chair, Ross Oglesbee, called the meeting to order.
Motion was made by Bonnie Norwood and seconded by Susan Elmore to approve the Agenda dated
February 20, 2008 with two changes in the order of items. VOTE: Unanimous.
Motion was made by Daniel Textoris and seconded by Bonnie Norwood to approve the minzrtes dated
January 16, 2008. VOTE: Unanimous
General Public Comment-None
Annor~ncements-
Spay Day Resolution- Ross Oglesbee announced that the Board of Coarnty Commissioners adopted the
Spay Day Resolution at their January 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 variozrs 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 resources available for them. Ms Oglesbee would like to be informed as a board what kinds of
request are being made for staff in this year's budget in order to meet the objectives and variozrs
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
G~
Page 2
Unfinished Business-
Tethering Ordinance Update- There was a lengthy and detailed discussion of the tethering amendment
drafted by the Cozznty Attorney in consultation with Animal Services staff on the basis ofpr•ior woi°k by
the ASAB and the Cozznty's Tethering Committee. Various motions were considered until one received
majority support and these are recorded below.
• A motion was made by Daniel Textoris and seconded by Susan Elmore to accept the Tethering
Amendment as is. There was no second and more discussion was held on the document. Motion
did not carry.
• A motion was made again by Daniel Textoris and seconded by Susan Elmore to accept the
Tethering Amendment and to exclude the class 1 and class 2 licensed kennels for the meantime,
with the understanding they would be addressed in the 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.
• 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.
• 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 regzzirements 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 d~erent
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 Cozznty Manager place it before the BOCC for its deliberation.
FAQ Working Docr«vent--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 pzzblic health risk and the amount of tax dollars spent to address this issue. Once changes
are made an abstract and amendment to move forward will by completed by the March meeting.
New Business-
Chaff- Ross Oglesbee mentioned that a member of the public has made a regzzest to speak with the board
at the March meeting to address the adoption of pit bzzll and pit bzzll mixes from the shelter. She asked
that ASAB members prepare for a discussion of this topic at its March meeting.
Approved ASAB Minutes
February 20"', 2008
(D
Page 3
Motion was made by Susan Elmore and seconded by Jean Azzstin to adjourn tl~e meeting at 8:10 p. nz.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Next ASAB Meeting: Wednesday, March 19, 2008, at 6: 30 p. m. in the Sozithern Human Services
Conference Room, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill.
(~ `~"
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 Paztla Ragan.
Priblic Members Present: Elliott Cramer
Welcome and Opening Comments ASAB Co-Chair, Stzsan 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 disczrss the Carolina North chemical remediation.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Motion was made by Daniel Textoris and seconded by Kristine Bergstrand to approve the minzztes dated
February 20, 2008 with one change to add "It was understood that the permit requirement and ordinance
wozzld be revisited at a later date" to bzzllet four on page 2. VOTE: Unanimous
General Pr~blic Comment 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 occurring now in Wake County and the issue in
that litigation is the issue of notice. The County Attorney thought it would be best to incorporate those
changes at the same time.
In addition, a member of the board indicated that there was an inconsistency in the restrictive language
of the proposed Tethering Document. After considerable discussion, a motion was made by Kristine
Bergstrand and seconded by Moses Cary that the Tethering Committee wozrld reconvene as a matter of
procedure to decide on a consistent language and make a recommendation to the ASAB. VOTE:
Unanimous
Bob Marotto reported that at the commissioner's work session it was suggested that we go forward with
the amendment and as we proceed there should be some period of time designated for the proposed
preliminary Amendment and FAQ to be available for the commzrnity to review on ozrr website and in
media advisories. This wozrld be a prelzrde to the schedazling of the item on the BOCC Agenda.
~~
Animal Services Advisory Board Meeting
Approved Minr~tes
March 19, 2008
Page 2
Animal Noise Ordinance-b~ene Phipps gave an z~pdate on an item that was discussed at the November
2007 ASAB meeting regarding a z°egzzest from an Orange Cozznty citizen (David Sykes) to review the
current Animal Ordinance as it relates to the noise dishzrbance associated with roosters. Presently the
County's ordinance only addresses nzzisance barking and does not allow any type of resolution for other
animal noises. In 2007, the Animal Control Division of Animal Services received only three complaints in
different locations regarding roosters and specifically the noise that they make. Research was conducted
on Municode to determine which 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 regarding potential civil relief. VOTE:
Unanimous
Pet Overpopr~lation Committee-Pat Sanford reported that they gathered a lot of information at the last
meeting and Beth Livingston of Animal Kind reported that at the present time they are spaying and
neutering about 100 animals a year in Orange County without any funds from Orange Cozznty 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 actzzal list was 31 animals but dzze to the exact compliment of
males/females and cats/dogs, we were only able to process 20 that particular day. We plan ongoing back
to the veterinarian with a supplemental contract to capture the other eleven animals. The plan is to use
remaining inoney in this account in the last quarter for a variety ofprograms, 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/Placernent Committee Bob Marotto would like to get support from the ASAB for the
agreement and the guideline documents that have been developed by the committee. The idea is to be in a
position to finalize the documents in the near future, and that wozzld require review and approval by the
Board of County Commissioners
• A motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to add "appropriate
socialization "after the word veterinary care of item 2 on page 2 of the document. VOTE:
Unanimous
• A motion was made by Jean Azzstin and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to remove the word "nzay"
and replace it with the word "mzzst" in item 10 ofpage 4. VOTE: Unanimous
• A motion was made by Moses Cary and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to strike the last sentence of
item 10 ofpage 4. VOTE: Unanimous
~~
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 resolvedyet 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 wozzld 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 broztght back to the board for fizrther discussion.
Foster Program Report Jess Allison reported that a meeting was held on January 31, 2008, and it was
decided to provide the activity reports to the Animal Services Advisory Board committee on a six-month
basis rather than one-month basis. Staff and committee members discz~ssed 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 hzzman resources and we should take the time that we do have
available and invest it in the relationships with placement partners and rescue groups and to work
towards building bridges with the community. A motion was made by Jean Ausitn and seconded by Kris
Bergstrand to adopt and accept the amendments in both Foster Home Policy and Procedures of
Enclosures A c~ C. VOTE: Unanimous
Ms. Allison gave an overview of the Janzzary and February 2008 statistical summaries. It was pointed out
that February adoptions were lower than January and it appears that March's will also below. This is a
concern and there was a brief discussion that mentioned factors such as the price of gas and economy.
New Business Bob Marotto reported that the appearance of the current Animal Shelter and
access to it would change as a result of a remediation project being conducted by UNC. He
stressed that it would be very important to keep the public informed that the Animal Shelter was
continuing to operate on its normal schedule, and asked that the ASAB help to communicate to
members of the public is open and operating with normal hours of business.
2008-2009 Btcdget Update Bob Marotto reported that he has been asked to prepare a
continuation budget, which amounts to approximately a $1.6 million dollar operating budget for
the fiscal year. He further noted that Animal Services has requested five new full time positions
(some of which are conversions of temporary funds). He also noted that a significant concern is
the compliance of animal control vehicles with the "transportation standards" set out in the
Animal Welfare Act of the State of North Carolina. (which indicates that compartment
temperature must be between 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
Marc/t 19, 2008
Page 4
Adoption of Pitt Bulls from Orange County's Anirnal 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.
Annor~ncements-Moses Cary announced that he will be leaving the ASAB at the end of this year and
also there will be three new Board of County Commissioners elected in November He encouraged the
ASAB to be proactive and to get to know the new commissioners. The Animal Services Advisory Board
may make a recommendation to the commissioners but the commissioners do not have to agree and will
have the final decision.
Motion was made by Jean Austin and seconded by Kris Bergstrand to adjourn the meeting at 8: 20 p. m.
VOTE: Unanimous.
Next ASAB Meeting: Wednesday, April 16, 2008, at 6: 30 p. m. in the Government Services Center
Conference Room, 200 S. Cameron Street, Hillsborough.
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 Cofnments 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 Corn~nent 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 Summary-Ms. Jess Allison gave an overview of the March 2008 statistical
summaries. It was pointed out that the March adoptions were low, as she had predicted they would be at
the March Z0, 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 d~culties 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 Off ce 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.
~o
"Draft" Page 3
Animal Services Advisory Board
Meeting Minutes April I6°i, 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 d~erent 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.