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
37 <br />the Chapel Hill News that brought up the tethering issue again. I was astonished that <br />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 <br />dog, and a pro-tethering group, composed mainly of hunters and dog breeders who say <br />that tethering is humane and that neglect by people is the real problem. It seemed like <br />one major group — I would think they can be best called the silent majority — are families <br />who have one or two dogs that are humanely tethered and are played with in their <br />backyards. I was concerned enough that this group was not being represented that I <br />stand here tonight. <br />I read about how restrictions on tethering in other jurisdictions decreased dog <br />bites, reduced unwanted litters, and reduced cruelty due to improper tethering. Well, our <br />dog lives in our backyard, so even if she did have a mind to bit someone, which she <br />hasn't had a mind to yet, the person would have to be in our backyard. She has been <br />spayed, so puppies are not an issue. With regards to cruelty, Lily is a member of our <br />family. Her tether has been installed properly and she always has food, water, shade, <br />and room to run and dig. On this note, let's do some math. <br />She is on a trolley line 60 feet long and she can go 19 feet each way from the <br />center of the line. How many square feet can Lily play? <br />The answer is 2280 square feet. Our house is only around 1500 square feet! <br />This seems more humane than 100 -200 square feet in a kennel or a 10- square foot <br />crate. Attached to my talk is a picture of Lily's domain, where she can run, dig, and play <br />— either with us or by herself — sleep.... whatever she wants to do. By the way, we <br />certainly interact with her 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 <br />takes care and interacts with an animal. Key words — pet owner responsibility. I'm all for <br />it. I once found a dog .... in a side yard .... on a chain .... with a collar that had grown into <br />the dog's neck. I knocked on the owner's door, and they said that there wasn't a <br />problem and that they were applying some sort of lotion to the neck .... and then to get <br />lost .... or something like that. I called animal control ASAP and the dog was removed. <br />The chain was not the problem — neglect was. 1 strongly support the laws against animal <br />cruelty. <br />This whole issue reminds me of gun control — some are adamantly against all <br />guns and others start quoting the 2"d Amendment to have as many guns as they want. <br />Neither side 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 <br />taking care of our dog. I take responsibility for her care and safety: If any of you <br />Commissioners wish to come over and visit Lily, just let me know." <br />S. Henri McClees said that she is the proud lobbyist of the North Carolina <br />Sporting Dog Association. She said that her clients are great guys and they love their <br />dogs. She said that the issue is really will the County Commissioners forbid her clients <br />to own their dogs and to care for them as they see fit. Based on this issue, she asked <br />the County Commissioners to reject this ordinance. She said that this proposal <br />demands that all dog owners comply with the demands of the small majority. This would <br />pit the citizens against each other in a needless battle that sets the stage for constant <br />conflict. She said that this is about the rights of the people. She said that the citizens <br />have the right to be protected from any tyranny that would be imposed upon them by a <br />small majority. She said that "the few' want to order all citizens to comply essentially <br />with their philosophy and they do not distinguish between animals that are abused or not <br />W <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.