Browse
Search
Minutes - 19830405
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
1980's
>
1983
>
Minutes - 19830405
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/24/2017 9:53:06 AM
Creation date
8/13/2008 12:37:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/5/1983
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Document Relationships
Agenda - 04-05-1983
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\1980's\1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
4 <br /> . 1. <br /> 3 4. <br /> 3• <br /> 40 7. WILD ANIMALS--SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE <br /> 5, The Board members suggested amendments to the ordi, <br /> 6, rewritten pursuant to their motion on March 28, 1983. <br /> 7, Drs. Vickers Burdette and Paul Modrich protested the lump,.._ <br /> g, of servals in the same category as large cats (i .e. tigers, etc. ) . <br /> 9, 17hey explained that their serval was not a dangerous cat and servals <br /> l0. in general were not known for digging. Drs. Burdette and Modrich said <br /> ll,that they would not be able to keep their cat if the 1OO1 setback <br /> 12,was required. Board members said. that was not the intent of the ordinance. <br /> 13, Various members of the audience addressed the Board regarding <br /> 3.4,their individual concerns over the ordinancelcaging requirements/ <br /> 15,fees. These included but are not limited to: Mr. Lance Richardson, <br /> 16.Dr. Mike Bleyman, Mr. Tim Greene, representative of the APS and other <br /> �7,unidentified persons. <br /> 18. Board members told the audience that they, the Board of Com- <br /> 19,missioners, were petitioned by Orange County citizens who were concerned <br /> 20.about their safety and the safety of their families. This Ordinance <br /> 21,is a response to those concerns; it is a compromise that enables those <br /> 22,who owned animals and had registered those animals as of March 28, 1983, <br /> �3,to keep those animals. It also tries, through the caging requirements, <br /> 24,to address the safety issue raised by the original petitioners. The <br /> �5,ordinance tries also to address the issue of the humane treatment <br /> 26.and safety of the animals being kept. <br /> 27, In response to a question - raised by Ms. Lorie Stephenson, <br /> 2$,Mr. Gledhill said a permit can be issued only for those animals <br /> 29,physically in Orange County; no permit can be issued for an animal <br /> 30,not in Orange County. <br /> 31, Mr. Greene opposed the inspection fees as proposed; he also <br /> 32,opposed the breeding ban, saying that he had hoped to "recoup" his <br /> 33.expenses through breeding the animals for alternative markets (other <br /> 34,than zoos) . The APS representative produced a letter from the American <br /> 35 Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums which said the numbers <br /> 36 of lions and tigers were sufficiently large in zoos so that private <br /> 37 breeding to maintain the species was "folly. " The APS representative <br /> 38. <br /> 39. <br /> 40. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.