Agenda - 10-01-2013 - 7a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

16 with the Animal Services Advisory Board ( "ASAB ") to request a review by the Ordinance and either exempt farm animals from the Ordinance or remove as a public nuisance farm animals found off their owner's property. In May 2010, the Animal Services Advisory Board issued a report that concluded Animal Control Officers had the discretion whether to cite an owner for an animal on or off property depending on circumstances and they would not recommend an amendment to the Ordinance. In making their decision, they cite concerns of public safety, deterrence, owner's responsibility and farmland protection. They also reviewed data from the Sheriff's Office on calls reporting animals in the roadway. The Board shared the report with the Agricultural Preservation Boards. The ASAB met with and discussed its findings with the officers of the Agricultural Preservation board and DEAPR senior staff. Animal Control Officers inherently have the authority to cite someone for a violation depending on the circumstances. However, additional language has been added to clarify that the Animal Services Director has the discretion to determine whether to cite a person whose domestic livestock is off the premises of the owner or keeper. The new language was sent to the Agriculture Preservation Board. The new language to the Unified Ordinance is: (6) At large off the premises of the owner or Keeper, except in the case of domestic livestock the Animal Services Director shall have the discretion to determine a violation." (Language in red was added.) 2. Ed Johnson — At the June 4th meeting Mr. Johnson expressed the following concerns about the Unified Ordinance: 4 • The dangerous dog declaration had an appeal process but the vicious animal declaration — did not; • That there is both a vicious and dangerous dog designation; • That the definition of "trespass" "was modified to put the onus on the land owner to prove that the trespasser came on the property with criminal intent;" • The definition of "watch dog" was removed from the Ordinance; • The Ordinance should allow for differentiate between the Towns and the County; and • In an appeal process under §4 -42 if a dog were declared both dangerous and vicious, would a person have to appeal the dangerous and vicious dog declarations separately? Response: On January 31St, a person filed a report indicating he came onto Mr. Johnson property to ask permission to photograph a waterfall and was bitten by Mr. Johnson's two dogs. After an investigation the dogs were declared "vicious." Mr. Johnson alleged his dogs were "watch dogs" and that the person coming onto his property was a trespasser; therefore, his dogs were exempt from the vicious dog designation. The Animal Services Director, in consultation with legal counsel, reviewed the facts of the case and determined that under the Ordinance the person, regardless of their reason for being on the property, was not invited and therefore was a trespasser. Once it was determined the bite victim was a trespasser, the vicious dog declaration was rescinded. The declaration was rescinded based on the determination that the bite victim was a trespasser and because of the claim they were watch dogs. a. Appeal. The Dangerous Dog declaration is a state statute and requires an appeal process; the County Ordinance does not have an appeal process. We do not dispute that there 4