Agenda - 04-08-2014 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 1. Trespass: The issue of trespass is how to define trespass since a dog that bites a person who enters the dog owner's property may not be declared a vicious animal under the proposed ordinance if the bitten person is "trespassing". 2. Watchdog. There are additional exceptions to application of a vicious animal declaration for a dog that bites a person on the dog owner's property in the circumstance where a dog is acting in a security capacity. The formulation of one of those exceptions — if the dog is being a "watch dog" — concerns the need to recognize a necessary and lawful role for a dog watching over its owner's property. 3. Administrative appeal: Some procedural issues, such as whether there should be sworn testimony, are in need of clarification; and more generally, there is the question of the best format for appeals in the absence of an established standard. 4. Livestock and Public Nuisance: The issue of whether there should be a special provision for livestock in the public nuisance provision of the ordinance is included among these issues because historically it has needed clarification. Each of these issues is addressed in more detail in separate work sheets (attached) which may serve to structure Board discussion. Each sheet includes background information, the pertinent portion of the proposed ordinance, and specific recommendations for Board consideration. A "Summary of Recommendations" including specific recommendations for each issue is also provided for convenience and ease of review. Staff and the ASAB have worked closely in developing the recommendations being presented to the Board. The recommendations have been presented to the ASAB on two different occasions since the October 4, 2013, BOCC meeting and the ASAB unanimously voted in favor of the recommendations both times. At another meeting, the ASAB developed a list of scenarios involving "my dog" to help clarify issues and guide further discussion of the trespass and watch dog issues. It was believed that doing so would inform a policy discussion that should balance the rights of property and pet owners and the health and safety of the public. In addition, this effort helped create the basis for a request for assistance from Aimee Wall, JD, Associate Professor, School of Government, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. As others pointed out in the various discussions of the proposed ordinance, Professor Wall is a recognized authority on animal control regulations (and the author of A North Carolina Guide to Animal Control Law). Professor Wall and her associate, Christopher Tyner, analyzed the complex and critical issue of trespass in law and in the course of their analysis considered whether there might be a different approach to the watch dog issue. Based on their analysis they developed a flow diagram to help staff decide whether or not a trespass has occurred in a particular case (attachment). Professor Wall and Mr. Tyner also interviewed expert colleagues at the School of Government about the issue of administrative appeal and provided not only some procedural recommendations, but an overall word of caution. Professor Wall and Mr. Tyner met with Animal Services staff and ASAB officers to discuss their analysis of trespass in the proposed ordinance, and the issues of watch dogs and administrative appeal. On this basis, they also revised and broadened their written analysis of trespass (attachment) to include children whose relation to negligence and hence trespass differs from adults. This is a welcomed addition since children are disproportionately represented among dog bite victims, and there is justified concern with how children are treated under the proposed ordinance.