Agenda - 02-15-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

-6- 2. Installing a limited regulatory capacity would, on the other hand, require new County expenditure to an annual amount estimated at $17,000. This would pay mileage, training materials and part-time Salaries for an animal control officer to do licensing and inspect animal conditions; a building inspector to make sure cages are wilt as required; clerical support for processing permits; recep- ionist time for handling requests for information and complaints; and some administrative time for policy generation, coordination and making sure standards are enforced. B. Cost Recovery 1. Abasic principle of North Carolina Law, though not tested in the case of wild animal enforcement, is that a jurisdiction may charge Fees for the costs incurred for permits, licenses, and possibly the initial inspection. According to David Lawrence of the Institute Of Government it would stretching that principle to expect that licensing and inspection fees could be on a level to recover full operating costs. 2. Mere the special use permit process used, bonding and some of the el level of liability insurance could be made a condition of approval structure to ensure safe operation. 3. General Statutes permit civil and criminal penalties and even injunctive relief for violation of a regulatory ordinance. V. IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING,THE MAJOR QUESTION TO BE DECIDED IS WHAT THE COUNTY ROLE SHOULD BE--WHETHER TO BAN OR REGULATE THE KEEPING OF WILD AND DANGEROUS ANIMALS A. Ban Approach Advantages 1. Risk to the public of animals escaping and doing human injury would be all but eliminated. In a highly populated County like Orange such concern for public safety has to be higher than would be 4tarranted in counties where population is more dispersed. 2. A ban would prevent the spread of the animals through pet prolif- eration or uncontrolled breeding practice. 3. It would avoid having to develop a regulatory capacity which would be both time-consuming, complex and costly. The expenditure of funds for strengthening existing animal control ordinances would seem a more legitimate use of public funds than supporting a program t,hich would allow a fairly limited segment of the population to benefit by keeping these animals. 4. ,4 ban is easier to administer as there is greater public understand- ing of what constitutes a violation. 5. Representatives from knowledgeable agencies (N. C. Wildlife, NSDA, N. C. Zoo, Museum of Life and Science, local and national humane ociety) all recommended that the County institute a ban rather than try to develop added regulatory capacity. From literature references it is known others are against wild animal being kept as pets. These include the American Veterinary Medical Association, Ehe U. S. Center for Disease Control , and the American Association tor Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Disadvantages 1. To ban would be to restrict what some pet owners count as private privilege and a public benefit. It`s private in the sense of the satisfaction that is derived and a public good in fact that breeding Permits offspring to be produced.