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
213 <br />Tethering Committee Report • July 30a', 2007 <br />APPENDIXI'T~• . <br />Notes from Interviews with .North Cruolina Jurisdictions with TetJteri~eg <br />Ord: Conducted by the Tethering Committee <br />The following is a su~rancn y of comments from Animal Services o,~cials from New Hanover Corany, <br />the City ofLaurinb~a~g and Catawba County, made in telephone interviews The Tethering <br />Commi#tee conducted these interviews on April Il ~; 2007 as a part of its information gathering. <br />Dr. Jean McNe~7. Animal Control Services Manaeer <br />New Hanover ConntY . <br />THE LAw: Prohibits tethering. Recently amended to add "attended" to the law so that dogs can. be <br />tethcred if their owner is present. They enacted a ben as opposed to time limits on tethering because <br />time Limits are dif6icult to enforce because they would have to rely on a neighbor's testimony. <br />WHY ENACTED: County felt that tag 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 />ENFORCElV1ET`1'r: V olation of tt~e law results in a civil fn1e. V'iolatoxs have 60 days to comet the <br />violation, if they do, the fine is cancelled. If the fine is not paid, it is sent to the county Iega1 <br />depeartment for collection. As a govenmaent agency, the county can garnish a person's wages. New <br />Hanover does not have the power of impouadmeat They do not tape people to court; the <br />enforcement ishandled in.-horse by the 1e~1 departmet<t. <br />PHASE IN: New Hanover had atwo-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 snaendored. Neglect <br />calls have decreased. They get about 30 tetlteang-related complaints a month. Some dogs pz+obably <br />have rue loose but those are the people who have no desire to be responsible pet owners. <br />PUBLIC REACTION: Support within the county. Majority of apposition has come fiom <br />elsewhere. <br />Elaine Modlin. Animal Control Officer <br />City of Lanrinbnre Animal Control Department. Scotland Comity <br />T~ LAW: In 1988, Laininbiag 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 enforceme~ much easier. The <br />27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.