ORD-2008-102a - Animal Control Ordinance - Tethering of Dogs

Browse Search

Tethering Committee Report Pabfic Safely issues July 30a', 2007 * Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to the community. They can and do become highly tearnorial and aggressive and present a signiScant risk of miury 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 annuals). Community Concerns • Tethered dogs arc 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 r pirememt 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 enactme t of an ordinance to prohibit or restrict tethering; at least 50 U.S. jurisdictions, inchuding 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? • Ordinances that restrict or prohibit tethering have proved to be both enfiomeable and ei%ctive in reducing animal cruelty complaints and incidents of dog bites. 3 See Appendu M North C�zoUnz Co mtics and Townships Vd& Te&aiag ohrdmsaees. 7 128 t5