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

Browse Search

216 Regrrir+ed Kennel Space September 70°', 2007 Pegs 2 The raBonale for These recommendations has several components. One is that they ensure strFfident space for dogs that are kept and/or put outside. These are space requirements that uwukl apply if a dog is outside and not tethered in acxordanoe with the recommendations made in the Tethering Committee's Report and Propos®1 f+~r Ordinance Amendment k is understiood that a traditional fence or electronic fendng would meet the same minimum requirements set for kennels. Another rationale is relative ease and simpi'idty of enforcement Generally speaking, it is possible to measure the dimensions of a kennel (or fence), and the weight of a dog may be determined in a variety of ways (including from veterinary records). Background Information Our recommendations are based upon our review of regulations from other jurisdictions that have set minimum space requirements for kenneled dogs. Examples of such progressive regulations have been complied in the Appendix to this memorandum. They are also based upon our review of information avaifabie from the Humane Soclety of the United Stales (HSU5). Of the three pertinent national organizations we researched ~nciuding American Humane and the National Animal Control Association), only HSUS offend speclfic guidelines on this issue. " As can be seen from sample regulations, most, but not a(1, jurisdictions draw a distinction between dogs of different sizes, as is the case in our recommendation. However, there is considerable variation in the min~num kennel space required per dog by these sample regulations (with some as low as 48 square feet and others as high as 150 square feet). In this regard, we have formulaUed our cum recommendations " between these extremes, and in recognition of what might be descn'bed as reasonable standards. " As can also be seen from the sample regulations, it is often the case that more space is requin~d for additional dogs in the same kennel. Our recommendation mirrors this model; using a standard of half the size of the largest dog in a shared kennel.. This standarcl is higher than many but seems reasonable given the need for additional dog .houses and proper drainage in acxoniance with other requirements of Orange County's Animal Ordinances. While electronic containment devices and traditional fences are not typically referenced, finally, uve have included them among to provide as much clarity as possible with regard to legal requinments. Our approach is very practical in that these enclosures wouk! need to meet the same space requirements as a kennel if they are used as a means of enclosure. Questions about their effectiveness are not germane to this discussion since, if they were ineffiective in a particular situation, any resulting issues would be addressed through Orange County's animal nuisance ordinance.