Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
193 <br />Tethering Committee Report <br />Pablie Safety llssnea <br />July 30ffi, 2007 <br />• Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to the co~.y. They can and do become highly <br />teaitorial acct aggressive and pmesent a sigmficaat risk of iaju,~ y to the public through. dog . . <br />bites and . <br />• Tethered dogs are also a risk with regard to aggressive incidents or actual bites because there . <br />is not a physical barrier between a dog and a child or other commxmify member. By <br />contrast, fences and kennels do create such barriers, thereby *n~'*+i*~i~+nR the risk a dog can <br />pose to neighbors or passersby (while at the same time protecting that dog from attacks by <br />other anima]s). <br />Community Concerns <br />• Tethered dogs are at risk of unplanned and unwanted br+eediag, and thus they can contribute <br />to the significant problem of pet overpopulation. They may have litters of unwa~ed puppies, <br />and also create problems'by attracting cad excit2ng other dogs (despite the r of <br />County ordinance that an animal that is "in season" be'suitably contained and not kept - <br />ouiside). <br />• Tethered dogs- can negatively impact community life through nuisance barking. <br />Precedent <br />• There is ample precedent for the enactment of an ordinance to prom'bit or res4dct be4heribg; <br />at least 50 U.S. jurisdictions, including cities, counties and several sues, have passed such <br />laws. <br />• Several North Carolina jurisdictions-including Catawba, New Hanover, and Scotland <br />Counties, along with several North Carolina townslups•-wave some level of tethezing <br />limitation cuuently in place s ' <br />• Ordinances that resEdct or prohibit tethering have proved to be both enforceable ate. <br />effective in reducing animal cruelty complaints and incidents of dog bites. <br />a See Appenduc IL• North (:aroIma Counties end Townships with Tethering Ordinances. <br />7 <br />