Agenda - 10-03-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3 cnnonisnione, Walker questioned why create a separate Counoil, as opposed to having the Social Service Board have the added responsibility. os. Josephine Barbour stated that the purpose was to try and integrate service. She noted that now it looks as if the Board is creating additional Boards and additional people to go with what already existo. E-3 ol _DzslioancP (see pages for a copy of this ordinance) In response to Commissioner Lloyd's concern for when a dog is considered e vicious, Attorney Gledhill stated that when an animal is off the owner's premises and attacks when unprovoked, it is considered viuiovs, In reference to Commissioner Lloyd's question regarding liability, Attorney Gledhill noted that to the extent that someone is negligent or willful, or does an intentional act which injures someone, then it probably is contrary to public policy and is not enforceable. However, there are instances where the act of the Animal Control Ordinance could be either negligent or willful, and would have some application.in that case it . ooe cannot be excused legislatively from negligent or intentional acts. Commissioner Lloyd questioned the term "canvass" in Section E-6. Attorney Gledhill noted that this related to search of pcpmiaes in an effort to control rabies or other serious health problems; due process and other provisions provide that no search can be made without a warrant; questioned about the meaning of Section VIII, Attorney Gledhill stated that this section relates to any state law pertaining to the hunting of dogs and would not be affected by the ocdioauce. Commissioner Whitted stated that this Ordinance allows an agent to have the authority to take action when complaints are registered against animals and is triggered by someone registering a complaint. Attorney Gledhill also noted that there is authority in the Ordinance for Animal Contro] Officers to take action if the violation occurs in their presence. Mr. Ward noted that he had met with the Attorney General's office and the Assistant District Attorney, and it was agreed that this was a good Ordinance, but they had some concerns which he described. The Ordinance should be spelled out clearly, so that there is a common understanding of its provisions, especially as it relates to hunting dogs. Dr. Robert Greenberg reiterated the fact that the Ordinance protects the rights of owners to have security dogs on the premises, even without restraint. A display of vicious behavior by a security dog is not a violation of the Ordinance. Similarly, the Ordinance says that a hunter may use a hunting dog off premises as long as that dog is not creating a nuisance or endangering public health or safety. He noted that there is nothing that would define responsible ownership of a hunting dog to include the right of that dog while hunting, to be creating nuisances or endangering public health or safety. ss. Barbour asked that the Board consider defining hunting dogs, and placing general statute citations in the Ordinance for reference; that in the completed document the pages be numbered. She questioned if there will be search warrants, or if a clerk will "canvass" neighborhoods. When you have fifty acres or more, pinning a dog down seems rather restrictive. Commissioner Willhoit moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall to adopt the Ordinance with the proposed changes as presented. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Noes, 0. Commissioner Whitted moved, seconded by Commissioner Walker that the Animal Control Ordinance be effective January 1, 1984. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Noes, 0.