Browse
Search
ORD-2008-069 - Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dogs
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Ordinances
>
Ordinance 2000-2009
>
2008
>
ORD-2008-069 - Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dogs
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2013 11:17:17 AM
Creation date
3/11/2010 3:20:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/20/2008
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Ordinance
Agenda Item
5b
Document Relationships
Agenda - 05-20-2008-5b
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2008\Agenda - 05-20-2008
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
205
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Tethering Committee, and he asked that the Board please appreciate his commitment to his <br />dogs for over 50 years. He said that a law is out there now — the leash law — that is not being <br />enforced now. <br />Brian F. Fee read a prepared handout: <br />"Dear Sirs: <br />My name is Brian Fee and I live in Chapel Hill with my wife and three children. After <br />many years of renting homes and apartments, we bought a home in Chapel Hill — one with a <br />big yard for plants and animals. Last summer we were told about three puppies that were <br />dropped off and abandoned at a minister's house. We adopted the puppy, which is part <br />Labrador, part German Shepard.....but mostly mutt. Her name is Lily and the kids painted <br />rainbows and lilies on her doghouse that I built. The agreement with my wife was that the dog <br />would remain outside during the day on a line (a cable- trolley system) but remain inside in the <br />evening and in a crate at night. Everything was working out fine....even as she has grown to <br />60 Ibs... until I saw Dave Hart's editorial in the Chapel Hill News that brought up the tethering <br />issue again. I was astonished that the issue of tethering was still being debated. <br />Mr. Hart wrote that basically there were two distinct camps of thought — the anti - <br />tethering group that says that tethering can cause physical or psychological damage to a dog, <br />and a pro- tethering group, composed mainly of hunters and dog breeders who say that <br />tethering is humane and that neglect by people is the real problem. It seemed like one major <br />group — I would think they can be best called the silent majority — are families who have one or <br />two dogs that are humanely tethered and are played with in their backyards. I was concerned <br />enough that this group was not being represented that I stand here tonight. <br />I read about how restrictions on tethering in other jurisdictions decreased dog bites, <br />reduced unwanted litters, and reduced cruelty due to improper tethering. Well, our dog lives in <br />our backyard, so even if she did have a mind to bit someone, which she hasn't had a mind to <br />yet, the person would have to be in our backyard. She has been spayed, so puppies are not <br />an issue. With regards to cruelty, Lily is a member of our family. Her tether has been installed <br />properly and she always has food, water, shade, and room to run and dig. On this note, let's <br />do some math. <br />She is on a trolley line 60 feet long and she can go 19 feet each way from the center of <br />the line. How many square feet can Lily play? <br />The answer is 2280 square feet. Our house is only around 1500 square feet! This <br />seems more humane than 100 -200 square feet in a kennel or a 10- square foot crate. <br />Attached to my talk is a picture of Lily's domain, where she can run, dig, and play — either with <br />us or by herself — sleep....whatever she wants to do. By the way, we certainly interact with her <br />much more on a line than we would with her stuck in a kennel. <br />I believe the main issue is not how a dog is confined, but how well a pet owner takes <br />care and interacts with an animal. Key words — pet owner responsibility. I'm all for it. I once <br />found a dog....in a side yard....on a chain....with a collar that had grown into the dog's neck. I <br />knocked on the owner's door, and they said that there wasn't a problem and that they were <br />applying some sort of lotion to the neck....and then to get lost....or something like that. I called <br />animal control ASAP and the dog was removed. The chain was not the problem — neglect <br />was. I strongly support the laws against animal cruelty. <br />This whole issue reminds me of gun control — some are adamantly against all guns and <br />others start quoting the 2nd Amendment to have as many guns as they want. Neither side <br />promotes gun -owner responsibility to solve the problem. <br />Bottom line — our dog Lily is one of the vast majorities of dogs that are humanely <br />tethered and cared for. I resent the fact that this proposed bill assumes that we are not taking <br />care of our dog. I take responsibility for her care and safety. If any of you Commissioners <br />wish to come over and visit Lily, just let me know." <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.