Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
19 <br />f. Appeal of dangerous and vicious dog declaration. Mr. Johnson cited a case in Northern <br />Orange where a dog was declared both vicious and dangerous, and in the appeal process <br />the dangerous dog declaration was overturned. The dangerous dog declaration was <br />overturned; however, because the current County Ordinance does not have an appeal <br />process, the Animal Services Director rescinded the vicious dog declaration based on <br />evidence heard at the appeal hearing. Under the Unified Ordinance, this would not occur <br />because the owner would have the right to appeal both the dangerous declaration under <br />the State statute and the vicious dog declaration under the County Ordinance. <br />3. Bonnie Hauser. Ms. Hauser's concern seemed to be that there was no citizen input into the <br />Unified Ordinance nor was Aimee Wall from the UNC School of Government brought in to advise <br />the County on changes they should make in the Ordinance. <br />Response: While the drafting of the Unified Ordinance was a staff driven project, the Animal Services <br />Advisory Board which is comprised of residents of Orange County appointed by the Board, were asked <br />to review changes to the Ordinance on multiple occasions. Additionally on May 9, 2013, Dr. Marotto <br />contacted residents who had communicated their interest or concerns with the Ordinance to inform <br />them of recommended changes to the Ordinance. As a result of that contact, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Meade <br />and Ms. Hauser were on hand to speak at the advisory board meeting. See agenda abstract for Dr. <br />Elmore's response to not asking Ms. Wall to come to advisory committee meeting. <br />4. Anne Meade. Ms. Meade's concern was that the Unified Ordinance contained internal <br />inconsistencies and was poorly written. We disagree with Ms. Meade's assessment. The <br />changes made to the Ordinance were consistent with the rules of statutory interpretation. 7 <br />5. Bob Epting. Mr. Epting said that a trespasser is a person who comes on the property of <br />another without civil intent. He felt staff should use guided discretion in their deliberation <br />of trespass. He also was concerned that there is no appeal process in the Ordinance, <br />wanted to maintain the distinction between rural and urban, and objected to the removal of <br />the term "watch dog" from the Ordinance. <br />Response: See response 2 above. <br />6. Don O'Leary. Mr. O'Leary was concerned that the RFID microchip caused cancer. <br />Response: We reviewed the FDA data on RFID microchips, and found no concrete data that <br />RFID microchips cause cancer in animals. <br />7. Patrick Mulkey - Mr. Mulkey indicated he believed that lethal action could be taken if a <br />trespasser came onto his property in the rural area. He said that he uses his dogs to protect <br />his daughters. He was concerned about the "watch dog" provision being removed. <br />Response: See Response 2 <br />FA <br />