Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Animal Control has now presented you with a new draft that presumably makes no <br /> substantive changes from what already exists. Presumably, substantive changes will <br /> be added later. <br /> On page 2 of the Agenda Abstract, Animal Control says that rather than presenting <br /> the ordinance for an up or down vote, the Board is given a "menu of choices" where <br /> they can say yea or nay on each of seven issues. This is a quote: For example, it is <br /> possible to adopt the ordinance while preserving watchdogs as a category of security <br /> dog." The "menu" is on page 14. It does not contain the promised watchdog issue. <br /> People in the country have dogs for two reasons: As pets and as guardians. I rely on my <br /> dog's bark to alert me that someone is approaching. This is part of her job. So I would <br /> like to see the category of watchdog retained. I'd even be willing to have her officially <br /> registered with Animal Control as a watchdog. <br /> In the new ordinance, my dog would be off the hook for biting a trespasser if my property <br /> had placards "noting the presence of such animal." What does this mean? What should <br /> the sign say? And in regards to placards, I'd like to say two things: 1. Do we really want <br /> to clutter the countryside with the thousands of signs necessary to protect dog owners <br /> from having their dog called vicious. And, 2, any competent lawyer will tell you that by <br /> posting a "beware of dog" sign, you are admitting that you regard your dog as dangerous <br /> and opening yourself up to legal liability. <br /> I could say a lot more with extra time but I want to close with an amazing example of why <br /> the draft ordinance needs more work. Take at look at the definition section on pages 69 <br /> and 70. Imagine you are bitten by a dog. Would you rather have an "injury" or a "severe <br /> injury?" In the definition section a severe injury entails broken bones and lacerations. But <br /> an iniury requires "immediate medical attention to prevent death." <br /> OTHER POINTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE <br /> 1. Why does Animal Control want to retain both categories, "vicious animal" and <br /> "dangerous dog??" The County's designation "vicious animal" is only slightly different from <br /> the State's designation of "dangerous dog. The double designation leads to cases such as I <br /> cited at the June BOCC meeting where a single event led to an animal's being called both <br /> "vicious" and "dangerous." This caused the dog's owner a lot of unnecessary grief and <br /> caused Animal Control to have to spend a whole lot of additional time on the case. <br /> 2. The proposed ordinance is filled with dozens of instances where the public is at the <br /> mercy of the judgment or discretion of an Animal Control officer or of the Animal Services <br /> Director. In my own case from last winter, my wife and I fell victim to this discretion issue <br /> when we opted to keep our dog at home for the required 10-day quarantine after she bit a <br /> trespasser. I had no argument with the quarantine. But I did have to leave the county for a <br /> short trip and asked if Animal Control could keep the dog overnight and then return her to <br /> my custody.They said yes but when I went to pick her up, they said no. After a heated <br /> discussion,they said yes again.Then they said no once more and finally after a face-to-face <br /> meeting said yes again.Five changes of mind is four too many. Certainly there must be <br /> some provision for experts to exercise professional judgment. But it would help the <br /> ordinance if some of these discretionary points were fleshed out so as to let the public <br /> know what to expect. <br />