Minutes 11-01-2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7 1. New paragraph 4-38(c) has been added to the section titled “Animal control program” in order to clarify under what conditions Animal Control Officers may enter onto private property. This language states in writing what Animal Control Officers currently do in practice, by granting them the authority under the Ordinance to enter onto and inspect private property to investigate, impound, and/or issue citations for violations of the Ordinance upon consent, pursuant to an administrative search warrant, or as otherwise authorized for law (for example, pursuant to a criminal search warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances). a. UPDATE following discussion at October 16, 2018 BOCC Meeting: Based on the Board’s request, language has been added to this section expressly stating that an animal may be in imminent danger due to any of the act described in section 4-41(a)-(k) of the Ordinance (which addresses “mistreatment of animals”), including acts related to animal fighting or baiting. 2. In Section 4-42, Control of dangerous animals; security dogs: a. References to the defined term “restraint” have been removed and substituted with variations of “control” or “confined in accordance with the requirements of this section.” The definition of “Restraint” in section 4-37(bb) is applicable to animals in the County generally, while animals that have been declared “dangerous” were intended to be subject to the higher levels of restraint as detailed in section 4- 42(d). Changing the word “restraint” in section 4-42 is intended to alleviate conflation of “restraint” generally and the stronger control required for animals declared dangerous, and clarify the requirements for how dangerous animals must be controlled and confined under the Ordinance. b. The Animal Services Advisory Board and Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool members determined the language of Section 4-42(b)(3) to be confusing when applied in appeal hearings for dangerous animal declarations. The proposed language clarifies that sentence by moving “defending a person” to another part of the Ordinance (see f. below) and by limiting the provision to apply to animals attacked while “on the land of the attacking animal’s owner or keeper without permission” as opposed to “on the land of another without permission.” This amendment would alleviate confusion raised in matters where an animal attacks another animal on land open to the public but where no express permission has been given for that animal to be there (for example, an attack occurring in Duke Forest). c. In 4-42(d), the phrase “controlled by means of a leash, chain, or other like device” has been simplified to “controlled by means of a leash.” While “leash” is not defined in the Ordinance, the dictionary definition of “leash” (“a line for leading or restraining an animal”) encompasses all means by which a dangerous animal may be controlled under the Ordinance, without including means by which the Ordinance did not intend for dangerous animals to be controlled, specifically electronic fences. d. Section 4-42(d)(2) has been split into two sections, clarifying how a dangerous animal shall be controlled going to and from a secure enclosure or permitted location when on the owner’s property, and when off the owner’s property. This amendment is in response to questions from owners of dangerous animals asking how the animal should be taken to a secure enclosure on the owner’s property. The