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

Browse Search

M "a dog where the injury inflicted by the dog was sustained by a person who, at the time of injury was: a. On the owner or keeper property that has been posted with placards or signs noting the presence of such animal or "No Trespassing" in a manner reasonablv likelv to come to the attention of an intruder' b. Committing a willful trespass or other tort as provided in N.C. Gen. Stat. Chapter 14, Article 2213; (Language in red was deleted.) c. Tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or has attempting to torment, abuse, or assault the dog; or d. Committing or attempting to commit a crime. §4- 42(e)(4) The only new language included in this section is the words: "as provided in N.C. Gen. Stat. Chapter 14, Article 22B." We have removed that language from the Ordinance so that the exception now almost mirrors that found in the State Statute and Carrboro Ordinance. d. Watch dog removed from Ordinance. The current Ordinance defines the term "watch dog" as "[A] dog that barks and threatens to bite any intruder that has not been specially trained or conditioned for that purpose." Watch dogs that meet the definition are exempt from vicious dog designation because they are considered "security dogs." The other two types of security dogs in the County Ordinance require either registration or training; no registration or training is required for a watch dog. The County Ordinance currently does 6 not protected a dog that bites an intruder on its owner's or keeper's property from being — declared "vicious "; because once having bit a person it would not meet the definition of a watch dog. Staff believes the Mr. Johnson's concern is unfounded. A dog on its owner's or keeper's property that only approaches an intruder and barks or threatens to bite the intruder is neither vicious nor dangerous. The definition of "vicious," "dangerous" or "potentially dangerous" in the Ordinance and the North Carolina General Statutes does not provide for a designation of "vicious" or "dangerous" to a dog that was on its owner's or keeper's property and barked or threatened to bite an intruder. The term "watch dog" doesn't provide property owners any greater or fewer rights, doesn't require registration or training and causes undue confusion. For these reasons the language is superfluous, and was removed. e. Rural vs. urban distinction. The Unified Ordinance contemplates the distinct differences between not only rural and urban areas of the County but also differences that may exist amongst the County and Towns as well as the Towns themselves. For example, the Unified Ordinance in §4 -45(b) would deem a rooster crowing as prima facie evidence of a public nuisance only in the towns and not in the County. Another example found in Carrboro's Animal Control Ordinance provides for the permitting of chicken coops. That section of the Carrboro Ordinance was not included in the Unified Ordinance because it is unique to Carrboro.