Browse
Search
ORD-2008-102a - Animal Control Ordinance - Tethering of Dogs
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Ordinances
>
Ordinance 2000-2009
>
2008
>
ORD-2008-102a - Animal Control Ordinance - Tethering of Dogs
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2013 10:52:19 AM
Creation date
4/29/2010 9:17:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/18/2008
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Ordinance
Agenda Item
6b
Document Relationships
Agenda - 11-18-2008 - 6b
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2000's\2008\Agenda - 11-18-2008
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.
/
252
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
148 <br />Te&nieg Committee Report July 30a; 2007 <br />APPENDIX IV.• <br />Notes from Ixterviews w#h North Carolina hQis&doxs wish Tethering <br />Ordifiww,a: Conduced by the Tethering Committee <br />The f,ollowmg is a summary of eommenb from Ananal Sery M d ichis from New Hanover County, <br />Me City of Laurinbwg and Catawba Courdy, made in telephone i dwWews. The Tedrering <br />Committee conducted these wom►iews. on April 11 ° ; 2007 as apart of its information gathering- <br />Dr. Jean McNeil. Animal Control Services NLn_�er <br />NOW 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 enf me because they would have t i 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 off cers were seeing. <br />The county also wanted to promote a higher standard of pet ownership. <br />ENFOKCEMEN'T: 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 in the county legal <br />department fur 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 talm 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. Somt 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 Modfin Animal Control Ufficer <br />City of 1LaurinbuM Animal Control Department, Scotland County <br />THE LAW: k 1988, Laurinburg passed a law limiting tethering to 8 hours a day. It was difficult to <br />eafDrce. 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.