Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Understand, it is clear as a bell, that the existing ordinance recognizes that the Animal Services <br /> officers may not declare watchdogs that bite in protection of their property to be vicious dogs. <br /> It is also clear in the existing ordinance that dogs who bite trespassers may not be declare vicious <br /> animals. <br /> The "Unified Ordinance" does away with both of these provisions, though the narrative <br /> accompanying this agenda item fails to mention to you either of these very major changes. <br /> He urged the County not to adopt this Ordinance tonight but to allow the opportunity for citizens to <br /> give public comment and suggestions for changes to make it better. <br /> Time expired. More written comments are included in the statement attached to this abstract item. <br /> Don O'Leary said he also lives in a rural area and he has a large black lab who is friendly, but a <br /> good watchdog. He said that if his dog were to bite someone, it would be in defense. He referenced a Dr. <br /> Albright, and the RFID chipping practice. He said this chip causes cancer and he would like the Board to <br /> do research on this issue before moving forward. <br /> Susan Elmore, Chair of ASAB, said the board did meet on occasion and did review this potential <br /> ordinance very carefully before giving input. She said the board did consider inviting Professor Wall, but <br /> did not, because it did not seem necessary. She said the board does have an attorney who facilitated a <br /> discussion and review of the ordinance and the vicious dog issue among others. The board gave feedback <br /> to staff and unanimously approved the ordinance. She said the board did consider potential exemption for <br /> livestock that were loose, but the board felt that these animals are a potential human health hazard, <br /> especially near the road where there may be contact with a car. She said that the ASAB understood that if <br /> it is the case of an act of God, it would be up to the discretion of the Animal Control Officer whether to <br /> issue a citation. <br /> Patrick Mulkay is a resident of Bingham Township. He referenced the definition of a trespasser <br /> and said that in the rural part of the county you can take lethal action against a trespasser if you are in fear <br /> of your life. He said that this is not so in the towns, where the trespasser has to be in your house. He <br /> wonders how this affects the lay enforcement community. He said he has two watchdogs that help protect <br /> his family. He said that he hears people talking about farm animals and he remembers helping his family <br /> gather cows when they escaped the fence. He said this is discussion of city folks making a determination <br /> of what farm animals are thinking. He feels the Board needs to put this ordinance off and seek more input <br /> in to this ordinance. <br /> Michelle Walker is the vice chair of the ASAB. She said the board did hold a specific meeting that <br /> deals with vicious and dangerous dogs' and there was ample opportunity for public participation. She said <br /> that there was no clear definition or standard for what is a watchdog, and the proposed ordinance does <br /> maintain an exemption for sentry dogs that have been trained and registered with the county. She said <br /> that she is also a licensed attorney in North Carolina and she knows that the word trespass is fraught with <br /> legal issues. She said that there are concerns with the kind of civil litigation that the County could be <br /> involved in, and the new ordinance seeks to address that. She said that the designation between <br /> dangerous and vicious dogs is done to give the Animal Control more ability to impound certain animals in <br /> the county than the state allows. <br /> Commissioner McKee said it was his understanding that it was a compilation of ordinances only <br /> and not an expansion, but he sees an expansion of the scope. He referenced the changes made, against <br /> the objections of many citizens, to county tethering laws in the past and asked if tethering still applies to <br /> Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He asked how a unified document could not be unified across the County. <br /> Annette Moore said there are certain parts of the ordinance that could be controversial in certain <br /> jurisdictions, and thus those areas were exempted out of this process. She said the same is true of issues <br /> like chicken coops in Carrboro. <br /> Bob Marotto said Chapel Hill and Carrboro both have a tethering ordinance that is more prohibitive <br /> than Orange County's ordinance. He said there are some significant gaps in the ordinance and these <br /> gaps can be filled in by Animal Control with consultation from the advisory board and colleagues. He said <br /> there are efforts being made to identify those gaps. <br /> Commissioner McKee said that rather than fight a difficult fight on tethering again, it seems that this <br /> unified document has picked soft targets like the vicious dog issue. He said he has a real problem with <br /> making regulatory changes while creating a unified document. He said he is seeing many things that have <br /> been taken out and others that have been added in. He is concerned with the decision not to take advice <br />