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

Browse Search

Tethering Committee Report Public Safety Issues July 30'', 2007 • Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to the community. They can and do become highly territorial and aggressive and present a significant risk of injury to the public through dog bites and attacks. • Tethered dogs are also a risk with regard to aggressive incidents or actual bites because there is not a physical barrier between a. dog and a child or other community member. By contrast, fences and kennels do create such barriers, thereby minimizing the risk a dog can pose to neighbors or passersby (while at the same time protecting that dog from attacks by other animals). Community Concerns • Tethered dogs are at risk of unplanned and unwanted breeding, and thus they can contribute to the significant problem of pet overpopulation. They may have litters of unwanted puppies, and also create problems by attracting and exciting other dogs (despite the requirement of County ordinance that an animal that is "in season" be suitably contained and not kept outside). • Tethered dogs can negatively impact community life through nuisance barking. Precedent • There is ample precedent for the enactment of an ordinance to prohibit or restrict tethering; at least 50 U.S. jurisdictions, including cities, counties and several states, have passed such laws. • Several North Carolina jurisdictions — including Catawba, New Hanover, and Scotland Counties, along with several North Carolina townships —have some level of tethering limitation currently in place.3 • Ordinances that restrict or prohibit tethering have proved to be both enforceable and effective in reducing animal cruelty complaints and incidents of dog bites. ' See Appendix H: North Carolina Counties and Townships with Tethering Ordinances. 7 (5