HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance Considerations
Pa
g
e
1
Unified Animal Ordinance Considerations
Orange County Animal Services
March 14, 2018
Below is a current listing of considerations for amendments to the Unified Animal Ordinance.
The first two sections are based upon the experience of the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool.
The next two sections are based upon concerns residents have raised with the Animal Services
Advisory Board as well as county staff. The final section is based upon further legal review of
the Unified Animal Ordinance.
Hearing Based Language Clarification
1. Sec.4-42. (b) (3)
a. Language: “Without provocation has injured, maimed or killed a pet or domestic
livestock, except where such animal has bitten or killed a pet or domestic
livestock that is on the land of another without permission or is defending a
person” (italics added).
b. Issue one: The exception appears to provide a significant gap. One animal may
kill another animal when both animals are off the property of their owner, and if
the victimized animal is in the yard of a third person without permission, no
declaration may be made of the aggressor dog.
c. Issue two: “Injured” as a term may not cover the impact of one dog on another
dog in an encounter. In one case, a large breed dog left its property and pinned
another dog to the ground but the latter dog had no apparent injuries. (My
personal opinion is that this is a very exceptional situation and it may not be
possible or desirable to craft language that applies to this situation.)
General Policy Issue Based upon Hearings
Several issues have arisen from the hearing experience about whether the ordinance needs to
be more flexible with respect to the declaration of an animal as dangerous. An ongoing
concern for some members of the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool is that “one size fits all,”
that is, that all dogs should be declared a danger on the basis of a single incident and also that a
dog should not necessarily be subject to strict restrictions based upon a single “oops.”
The following possibilities are identified for the purpose of facilitating further discussion of this
multifaceted issue:
1. Offense citation: Instead of proceeding directly to a declaration, a citation may be
issued for the first offense under the ordinance. Accordingly, a second offense would
Pa
g
e
2
result in a declaration with associated restrictions. A more refined version of this
approach might allow the declaration for serious first offenses (e.g., severe injury for a
person or a pet).
2. Propensity rather than incident based declaration: One suggestion for addressing the
“oops” incident is to seek to establish a definition based on the dog’s propensity to be
dangerous. The idea is that a dog may act aggressively because of an isolated instance
in which an owner does not have effective control (e.g., the fence gate was left open
and the dog got out and chased after a pack of bicyclists) ; or a dog may have ended up
in a situation prompting it for the very first time to be reactive toward others pets or
people and the owner learns from the experience how to manage the dog to avoid such
situations. My own opinion is that it will be hard to have an satisfactory definition of
propensity that is not based upon actual (reported) incidents (which is why there are
regulations that provide notice on the basis of the first incident and impose
requirements based on a subsequent incident). However, others appear to hold a
different opinion and there is thus a need for discussion.
3. Rescinding a dangerous dog declaration: A process could be incorporated into the
ordinance to allow for a declaration to be reviewed and lifted under very specific
conditions. The absence of such is now a significant concern for pet owners who are
generally responsible but have an unfortunate incident in which their dog does
something leading to a dangerous animal declaration. An example is provided by
Minnesota’s dangerous dog regulations, specifically, 347. 51 Subd 3a
“Dangerous dog designation review. Beginning six months after a dog is declared a
dangerous dog, an owner may request annually that the animal control authority review
the designation. The owner must provide evidence that the dog's behavior has changed
due to the dog's age, neutering, environment, completion of obedience training that
includes modification of aggressive behavior, or other factors. If the animal control
authority finds sufficient evidence that the dog's behavior has changed, the authority
may rescind the dangerous dog designation.”
Amendment of Public Nuisance Provisions for Cats
1. Sec.4-45. (8) v
a. Language: “Seriously interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment by
neighboring residents of their property because of its howling, whining, crying,
or other noise making.”
b. Alternatives
i. “Seriously interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment by
neighboring residents of their property.”
Pa
g
e
3
ii. “Seriously interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment by
neighboring residents of their property including but not limited to
howling, whining, crying, or other noise making.”
c. Issue: That neighbors may be impacted significantly by cats in ways other than
vocalization and that these should be addressed by the ordinance, e.g., habitual
presence on a neighbor’s property, causing misbehavior of a resident cat while
on another’s property, etc.
d. Context: Two residents of a Hillsborough HOA have met with staff and the
Animal Services Advisory Board to express their concern about a cat that roams
the residencies within the HOA and that on one occasion caused one of the
resident’s cats to bite her. They would like the ordinance to address this issue
but it does not because the roaming cat is owned and microchipped (see (8) viii).
The ASAB and staff thinks that one of the aforementioned alternatives is the best
way to address their legitimate concerns.
Dangerous Animal Restraint
The issue of whether Sec. 4-42 needs to be amended to establish a different form of restraint
for animals deemed dangerous is currently under discussion. The issue has been posed by a
HOA officer based upon concerns with a declared dog in one of the residencies within the HOA.
The issue has been addressed to the County Attorney as well as Animal Services staff and the
Animal Services Advisory Board. The ASAB will be discussing the concerns at their upcoming
(March) meeting.
Appeal Scope
Animal Services staff and staff within the County Attorney’s Office are planning to propose an
amendment to Sec. 4-53.-appeals that more specifically defines what parts of the Unified
Animal Ordinance may be appealed under this section. The original intent was to delimit
appeals to matters for which no other process of appeal was available but the actual language
is broader. (Specifically, (a) says a “person…may appeal the final decision made by the Animal
Services Direct or to the appeal board…” This was not actually intended and it is simply not
feasible given the administrative burden that would be placed upon Animal Services. In
addition, members of the Animal Services Appeal Panel Pool have not been recruited to review
civil citations, warnings and the like and there are serious questions as to whether the pool
could be managed and sustained with that kind of work load.
Prepared by Robert A. Marotto,
Animal Services Director