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
0 <br />Tethering Committee Report <br />APPENDIX IV: <br />July 3e, 2007 <br />Notes from Interviews with North Carolina Jurisdictions with Tethering <br />Ordinances: Conducted by the Tethering Committee <br />The following is a summary of comments from Animal Services officials from New Hanover County, <br />the City of Laurinburg and Catawba County, made in telephone interviews. The Tethering <br />Committee conducted these interviews on April 11 `", 2007 as apart of its information gathering. <br />Dr. Jean McNeil Animal Control Services Manager <br />New Hanover County <br />THE LAW: Prohibits tethering. Recently amended to add "attended" to the law so that dogs can be <br />tethered if their owner is present. They enacted a ban as opposed to time limits on tethering because <br />time limits are difficult to enforce because they would have to rely on a neighbor's testimony. <br />WHY ENACTED: County felt that tax dollars were being wasted responding to chaining <br />complaints. Also enacted because of the cruelty issues Dr. McNeil and her officers were seeing. <br />The county also wanted to promote a higher standard of pet ownership. <br />ENFORCEMENT: Violation of the law results in a civil fine. Violators have 60 days to correct the <br />violation, if they do, the fine is cancelled. If the fine is not paid, it is sent to the county legal <br />department for collection. As a government agency, the county can garnish a person's wages. New. <br />Hanover does not have the power of impoundment. They do not take people to court; the <br />enforcement is handled in -house by the legal department. <br />PHASE IN: New Hanover had a two -year education period during which only warning notices <br />were given. Dr. McNeil felt that two years was too long. <br />RESULTS OF ORDINANCE: The law has resulted in very few dogs being surrendered. Neglect <br />calls have decreased. They get about 30 tethering- related complaints a month. Some dogs probably <br />have run loose but those are the people who have no desire to be responsible pet owners. <br />PUBLIC REACTION: Support within the county. Majority of opposition has come from <br />elsewhere. <br />Elaine Modlin Animal Control Officer <br />City of Laurinburg Animal Control Department Scotland County <br />THE LAW: In 1988, Laurinburg passed a law limiting tethering to 8 hours a day. It was difficult to <br />enforce. In 2000, they changed it to one -hour and the change made enforcement much easier. The <br />27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.