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