Minutes 06-04-2013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

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