Agenda - 09-05-2013 - 5a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

21 1 animal to be declared vicious if a trespasser is declared dangerous and if the animal is acting as a 2 watchdog. He said the latest version of the ordinance has no category for watchdog and the category of 3 trespass now puts the burden on the land owner to prove the trespasser had criminal intent. He feels these 4 changes are significant and require more public debate and input. He feels that most rural residents 5 regard their dogs as watchdogs and this provision should be saved. He said the ordinance should allow for 6 differences between town and country' and the question should be asked regarding why there are 7 categories for both dangerous and vicious dogs. 8 Bonnie Hauser is speaking for Orange County Voice. She has dogs, and has come to know many 9 of the people on the ASAB. She said her dealings with animal control have been positive and professional. 10 She said she was very surprised and uncomfortable watching the county attorney lead a discussion of the 11 new unified ordinance without any legal framing of the issues or their implications. She said the attorney 12 did her job well but did not explain that her role is to represent the County's interests, and this may not be 13 the same as the citizens' rights or interests. She said that the Animal Services Advisory Board is a group of 14 committed and impassioned animal services professionals who need more than a one sided briefing on 15 these issues. She said the workgroup had no citizen representation. She said that she met with a 16 professor who specializes in animal control law at the UNC School of Government. The professor 17 expressed concern with overlapping and contradictory language, lack of due process and missed 18 opportunities to distinguish urban and rural issues. The professor offered to advise the ASAB, but this offer 19 was rejected. She said the draft ordinance takes away important protections and property rights from 20 citizens. She urged the Board not to endorse the ordinance, but to thank the ASAB and Annette Moore for 21 their work, while acknowledging there is more input and more protection for citizens needed. 22 Ann Meade said she reviewed the ordinance. She said that it contains numerous internal 23 inconsistencies; is poorly worded; has ambiguous statements and severe organizational problems. She 24 gave several examples of this, including the use of the definitions of vicious animals and its placement in 25 the ordinance. She also noted section 4, page 16 regarding dangerous animals and the appeal process 26 that allows an animal to remain classed as vicious while no longer being classed as dangerous. 27 Bob Epting is an Orange County resident and has two dogs. He read from the following statement: 28 My name is Bob Epting, and I am an Orange County resident. I keep two wonderful Labrador 29 retrievers as company. They are a very real part of my family. They protect me, my home, and my 30 property from intruders. I am here to urge to you protect them, and the watchful animals of others in 31 Orange County, from being arbitrarily designated as vicious animals. 32 When I am staying in town, I expect visitors to come and go across my front porch. The way my 33 house is located along the street, with a sidewalk leading up to my front porch, invites guests, postmen, 34 and neighbors, even unknown ghost and goblins at Halloween to visit. They may expect not to be bitten by 35 my dogs. On the other hand, persons roaming around inside my fenced-in back yard, without invitation, 36 especially at night, are trespassers and should expect to be chased, barked at, and even bitten if they do 37 not flee. 38 When I am out in the country, I expect my dogs to know the boundaries of my 40 acres, and to bark 39 to alert me of persons who come there unexpectedly. Here is nothing about that rural tract that invites any 40 passerby to come onto my land, and they should do so at their own risk. My dogs know to protect me and 41 my home in the country and are given free run of the farm to do so. 42 At either place, they are watchdoqs and their attention, barking, and physical threats protect me, my 43 family and friends, not to mention my property. 44 Trespassers who enter my property without civil intent should expect to be barked at, even bitten, to 45 prevent harm to me or my property. And they should not be protected, as this draft ordinance would do, 46 unless I am able to prove they were there to commit a specific crime. 47 I mention watchdogs and trespassers, because this draft ordinance turns these expectations on 48 their head, and instead gives Animal Services officers the power to declare my dogs vicious animals if they 49 bite a trespasser, even once, unless I can prove the intruder's intent was to commit a crime. 50 Understand, it is clear as a bell, that the existing ordinance recognizes that the Animal Services 51 officers may not declare watchdogs that bite in protection of their property to be vicious dogs. 52 It is also clear in the existing ordinance that dogs who bite trespassers may not be declare vicious 53 animals.