Changes and Concerns Regarding Proposed Ordinance

Browse Search

WORKING DOCUMENT 2 enforcement or other actions taken under the authority provided by the ordinance. Thus, there is a definite need for the general appeal process being proposed as part of the ordinance. In addition to the general provision for appeal, there are specific guarantees of an appeal process for the following: i. A vicious animal declaration ii. Revocation of a kennel permit iii. Public nuisance citation and/or an order to remove a nuisance animal from the county 3. Designating animal control staff (and only them) as cruelty investigators pursuant to North Carolina General Statute. Doing so assures that county animal control officers have the rights and powers of cruelty investigators. It also simplifies and expedites the use of civil injunctive processes to take effective custody and real possession of animals suffering from neglect or cruelty in its different forms. 4. Authority for assuring humane treatment of animals and humane euthanasia when warranted. Absent from the existing ordinance is the express authority to humanely euthanizing an animal suffering in exigent circumstances and to hold an animal if there is no reasonable assurance of proper care. Each of these deficiencies is remedied in the proposed ordinance. 5. Incorporating prohibitions for the keeping of wild animals and regulation for the display of wild animals and vesting regulatory authority in Animal Services. As these respective ordinances were originally written when Animal Control was a section of the county Health Department, authority was vested in the Health Director (or designee). 6. Establishing the power to revoke kennel permits for failure to comply with permit requirements themselves or with other parts of the county animal ordinance, and establishing an appeal process for such revocation. Heretofore there has been no specific authority for Animal Services to revoke permits for compliance failures. To assure that there are proper checks and balances, an appeal process is established for the permit holder to challenge any revocation. 7. Establishing authority sufficient to effectively regulate vicious and dangerous dogs and thereby ensure public safety. A number of gaps in the existing ordinance have been identified through the test of experience. These are being closed by creating explicit public authority: i. Required microchipping for identification ii. Clearly defined enclosure requirements iii. Enclosure requirements for animals declared under local as well as state law iv. Bites and aggression on owner’s property v. Impoundment authority as needed to assure public safety vi. Appeal process of declarations made under local law 8. More specific identification of public nuisances created by cats. Cats are potentially covered as a public nuisance under the existing county ordinance but they are not dealt with as a specific species. This is a notable oversight in the existing ordinance considering the number and impacts of cats in all of our communities and it is remedied in the proposed ordinance