ORD-2008-069 - Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dogs

Browse Search

Z 11 • It is the responsibility of the County to act responsibly for its pets • The majority of your residents are counting on you to do the right thing, despite the very vocal minority Soren Group of 9 Support • Prolonged tethering deprives dogs of necessary exercise Windram, County and socialization DVM Veterinarians • Tethered dogs can and do contribute to various Kay Bishop, community nuisance issues such as barking and pet DVM overpopulation Ken • Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to public safety and Redmont, heap because they may become aggressive and are not DVM confined behind a barrier Kathy • Tethered dogs are subjected to a variety of physical Crabtree, dangers, including trachea damage, embedded collars and DVM injuries from attacks Pat Pagel, • Thy are many alternatives to chaining DVM Michelle Droke, DVM Deborah Stein, DVM Megan Harris, DVM Marjorie Lindeke, DVM Suzanne ASAB and Support • Neglected animals can be anywhere but there are special Roy Tethering circumstances that make tethering an issue that should be Committee a policy issue Member • Lack of a barrier and lack of protection for people are among main differences between tethering and other forms of confinement • Tethered dogs are a lure for children and children constitute a large portion of attacks by chained dogs • Tethering Committee did consider all sides.and recommended an 18 -month phase in period specifically for those people who would have to make changes if this were passed • Many of the opponents speaking are out -of- county paid lobbyist or pit bull breeders • One of the opponent speakers has animal cruelty charges against her in another state — others have moved due to citations for breaking anti- tethering laws elsewhere • Tethering Committee did hold two public hearings and 11