HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda -11-06-2008 - 6aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 6, 2008
Action Agenda
Item No. (p - q
_SUBJECT: Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment Restricting the Tetherin of Do s
DEPARTMENT: Animal Services PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Previous Abstracts and Supporting
Documents (Under Separate Cover)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bob Marotto, Director, Animal Services
968-2287
PURPOSE: To adopt the proposed amendment to the Orange County Animal Ordinance
restricting the tethering of dogs.
BACKGROUND: The BOCC has received considerable information about the tethering
amendment proposed by the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB) based upon the research
and report of the Tethering Committee. The Committee's recommendations and the proposed
amendment include the following restrictions on tethering and alternative containment 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 permissible for allowed tethering
• A requirement for minimum kennel sizes
• An exemption for certain organized and lawful animal functions and circumstances
The proposed amendment is formulated so there is an 18-month implementation period to
ensure effective public outreach and encourage voluntary compliance. An initial twelve-month
period will consist of public outreach activities aimed at promoting awareness of the new
restrictions on tethering and requirements of alternative containment. In addition, the
amendment stipulates only warnings would be issued for lack of compliance with the tethering
restrictions during the six-month period following the date the ordinance actually becomes
effective.
The BOCC considered an ordinance amendment at its Work Session on September 22, 2008,
at its meeting on June 3, 2008, at the public hearing on May 20, 2008, and at an earlier Work
Session on November 13, 2007. All meeting and session abstracts with their supporting
documents are attached. All supporting documents are also available in hard copy at the
Clerk's Office or at the Animal Services website (http://www.co.orange.nc.us/animalservices).
These include a staff summary of concerns expressed by individuals who spoke for and against
tethering at the May 20th and June 3~d BOCC meetings, as well as the Tethering Committee's
2
Final Report and Recommendations; an Animal Services Staff Memorandum Recommending
Minimum Kennel Size Requirement; Tethering Committee Meeting Summaries; and ASAB
Minutes from Meetings with Discussion on Tethering.
At the September 22"d Work Session, the BOCC identified a number of concerns and issues.
These included:
• Enforcement procedures that would be used for such an ordinance amendment
• The rationale for recommended kennel size requirements
• Whether zoning variations had been factored into the amendment
• The extent of problems related to tethering in Orange County
Staff has identified possible enforcement procedures and indicated a preference for the direct
involvement of Animal Control Officers using posted notices in response to complaints or other
notifications that a dog has been tethered more than the maximum time allowed. Staff also
reviewed the existing ordinance requirement for "adequate shelter" and indicated that this
requirement was important in formulating the minimum kennel size recommendations.
With respect to zoning, staff indicated that the intent was to apply the ordinance amendment
throughout the County's jurisdiction and thus no distinctions were made between individual
zoning districts within the County. In addition, the County's authority to regulate the tethering of
dogs within Orange County contained within this amendment is based on the welfare of the
animal and not upon land use considerations. Therefore, it is not possible to develop different
regulations based on the zoning district in which the dog is located.
As requested, staff reviewed animal cruelty complaint data for FY2007-08 to identify which
cases involved a restraint (or tether) that was not in compliance with the existing ordinance.
Staff found that there were 391 animal cruelty complaints out of a total of 6,186 complaints. Of
the 391 complaints, thirty-seven were tethering-related complaints.
Eleven of those complaints originated about restraint and twenty-six originated as cruelty
complaints but upon investigation were found to involve a violation of the restraint standards of
the existing ordinance. Of the thirty-seven tethering-related complaints received in 2007, two
were unfounded and the remaining thirty-five were found to be in violation of the existing animal
ordinance. The outcomes of those thirty-five, after investigation and notice of violation, included
compliance in nineteen cases, animal surrenders in ten cases, and animal seizures in three
cases.
Staff would underscore that this data is extremely limited for several reasons. First, it only
includes cases where a complaint was made about tethering or where a tether itself did not
meet the requirements of the existing ordinance. Thus it excludes cases where lawfully tethered
animals had other substandard levels of care. For instance, complaints and violations
concerning food, water and shelter could have involved tethered animals but are not included in
the available data (as the general form used in cruelty investigations does not contain
information about how a dog is kept).
Another reason that this data is extremely limited is that humane care is only one of the reasons
to consider an ordinance amendment in regard to tethering. As the report of the Tethering
Committee documented, other important reasons include the assurance of public safety and
health, livability, and the reduction of unplanned reproduction. Yet data is not gathered on the
number of tethered dogs involved in animal bites and aggressive incidents, nuisance barking or
unplanned reproduction.
At the September 22"d Work Session, the BOCC also asked about the rationale and benefits of
the proposed tethering ordinance given the requirements of the County's existing animal control
ordinance. Staff stressed the unique benefits of a tethering ordinance on the basis of the
successful experiences of other jurisdictions with similar restrictions. More specifically, they
indicated that the restriction of tethering had significant and numerous community benefits, e.g.,
added public safety and enhanced public health, a reduction in animal nuisances such as
nuisance barking, and a reduction of unwanted pet reproduction. Staff indicated that these
community benefits were in addition to stronger legal standards for keeping and caring for
canine companions.
At the September 22"d Work Session, the BOCC also made several requests for the revision of
the proposed ordinance. These included
Clear size requirements for multiple dogs in the same enclosure
An exemption for tethered dogs with people in camping and recreational areas
An exemption for tethered dogs that are accompanied by and in the visual field of a
responsible person
All of these recommended revisions have been made in the attached version of the proposed
amendment (where they are highlighted). In addition, the timetable for implementation has been
adjusted to begin twelve months from adoption, with effective enforcement starting eighteen
months from adoption.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The costs of administering and enforcing the new tethering provisions, if
enacted, are believed to be readily absorbed within the Animal Services departmental budget
and staffing complement. This expectation is based upon discussions with animal control
authorities in other jurisdictions with similar tethering regulations and the belief that effective
public relations and outreach can facilitate a transition in standards of animal care. Costs will be
incurred during the twelve-month period of public education and outreach. Staff expects that the
total costs will not exceed $1,500, and these monies will largely be used for display
advertisements.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board adopt the proposed ordinance
amendment on the tethering of dogs.
4
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
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 °~ on a swivel designed to prevent the animal
from choking or strangling itself, ~-~ ~~ ~ ~'~~~~ ~~„ The restraint of unattended do sg by a
fence, kennel. outdoor enclosure. chain, leash or similar restraint is further reeulated
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;
r'~''""""~" ~~~ ~ d~ .,f ~~~tra~~as set eut forth in Section VII(22) above.- and Sections
XI(Kl and XI(Ll below.
F. ...
G. ...
H. ...
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
1. No person shall tether fasten chain tie or restrain a doe or cause
such restraining of a dog to a tree fence Host dog house or other stationary ob'eci t for
more than a total of 3 hours in a 24-hour period Durin periods of tethering that are not
unlawful under this subsection anv tethering device used shall be at least 10 feet in
length and attached in such manner as to prevent strangulation or other iniurv to the dog
and entanglement with obiects. In no event shall the time limitations established by this
subsection 1 and subsection 2 below be added together to allow for tethering fastening
chaining. tying. or restrainine to either a stationary obiect or to a cable trolley system for
more than a total of 3 hours in a 24-hour period
2 No person shall tether fasten chain tie or restrain a doe or cause
such restraining of a dog. to a cable trolley system that allows movement of the
restraining device. for more than a total of 3 hours in a 24-hour period During periods of
tethering that are not unlawful under this subsection the length of the cable along which
the tethering device can move must be at least 10 feet. and the tethering device must be of
such length that the dog is able to move 10 feet away from the cable peroendicularly and
attached in such manner as to prevent strangulation or other iniurv to the dog and
entanglement with ob'ei cts
3 No person shall tether a dog with a chain or wire or other device
to or cause such attachment to. any collar other than a buckle type collar or body
harness.
4. No person shall tether with a chain or wire or other device to or
cause such attachment to. a head harness. choke-type collar or pronged collar to a dog.
5. No person shall tether with a chain. wire or other device to a dog
where the weight of the tethering device and the collar combined exceeds ten (10) percent
of the dog's body weight.
6. No person shall tether with a chain or wire or other device a dog in
such manner that does not allow the dog access to adequate food water and shelter
7. Notwithstandin the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this
subsection. a person may, subiect to the provisions of subsections (31-(61 of this Section
XI(Kl. and subiect to the requirement that any stationary tethering devise used shall be at
least 10 feet in length, and subiect to the requirement that for any cable trolley system
used the length of the cable along which the tethering device can move must be at least
10 feet. and the tethering device must be of such length that the dog is able to move 10
feet away from the. cable peroendicularly:
(i) Tether and restrain a doe while actively engaged in:
a. Use of the dog in shepherding or herding livestock or
b. Use of the do in the business of cultivatine aericultural
products if the restrainine is reasonably necessary for the
safety of the doe or
c. Use of the doe in lawful huntine activities if the restraint is
reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog or
d Use of the doh at doe trainine or performance events
including but not limited to field trials and obedience trials
where tetherine does not occur for a period exceedine
(iil After takine possession of a doe that appears to be a stray doe and
after havine advised animal control authorities of the capture of the
do ,tether and restrain the doe in accordance with the provisions
of Section XI(Kl for a period•not to exceed seven (71 days as the
person havine taken possession of the doe is seekine the identity of
the owner of the doe.
(iiil Walk a doe with_a handheld leash.
L. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep a doe outdoors in an enclosure
includine a pen. run, kennel. fence, or electronically controlled containment device or
other outdoor enclosure in violation of this subsection.
1. Outdoor enclosures containine dogs must meet or exceed the
followine dimensional requirements:
Size of Doe Required Minimum Enclosure Area
1-35 Pounds 80 Square Feet
36-75 Pounds 100 Sauare Feet
76 Pounds and ereater 120 Sauare Feet
All outdoor enclosures must be of sufficient heieht so that the tallest doe contained
within the enclosure is able to walk naturally without its head reaching the roof or ton of
said enclosure. however the heieht of any such enclosure shall not be included for the
purposes of determinin the required minimum enclosure area The provisions of this
Section XI(Ll shall not apply to any Person who held a valid permit to operate a Class I
Kennel or Class II Kennel from Oranee County on or before January 1.2008 for so lone
as such permit remains in full force and effect without lapse or revocation All Persons
Subsections XI(Kl and XI(Ll become effective one year fnllnw;,,a rhP ar~nr,r;r~r~ ..f *~,;~
-_ _ ____ ~~ . 11U
amendment (the "effective date"l. Anv person whn vinlatPC Pith Pr nfthacP cnheP~tinn~
V J
after the effective date but prior to the expiration of the eighteenth month following the
date this amendment was adopted shall be issued a written warning giving the violator
notice of the provisions of this amendment Anv person who violates subsection XI(Kl
and XI(Ll after the expiration of the eighteenth month following the date of adoption of
this amendment 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(Kl and XI(Ll 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 doa will not be subiect to restraint in violation of this ordinance The Animal ontrol
Director shall post a notice at the place of the illegal restraint or at such other location
that is designed to reasonably apprise the Owner or Keeper of the dog the place date and
time the dog was seized along with the location where the doa was taken Such notice
shall clearly state that the doa may be returned to the Owner or Keeper upon providing
reasonable assurances to the Animal ontrol Director that the dog will not be subiect to
restraint in violation of this ordinance
Upon motion of Commissioner
Commissioner
Ordinance amendments were adopted this the
2008 and shall become effective as of the
seconded by
the foregoing Animal Control
day of
day of
200
Donna Baker, Clerk, Orange County Commissioners
applvine for a new Class I or Class II Kennel Permit after January 1 2008 shall comply
with this Section XI(Ll prior to the issuance of any such permit