Agenda - 09-22-2008 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~3~ rabbit or squirrel on the table. He said that he feels like he was losing his right to teach his children about having dogs. He has small dogs now. He does not see how smaller dogs need the same size pen as larger dogs. He does not think that more laws are needed, because there are laws now for people that mistreat dogs. He challenged the Board to come out to NC 54 and the Quail Farm Beagle Club. He said that revenues come in to the County through the field trials that the beagle club coordinates. He said that he has had dogs all of his life and he loves his dogs. He thinks that he is being penalized. David Aman said that he is speaking in favor of the tethering ordinance amendment. He said that passage of this amendment would give the Animal Protection officials an additional tool with which to come to the aid of a distressed and neglected dog that has been chained for an inordinately long period of time. He said that this ordinance amendment is based on a genuine expressed interest driven by citizens who live within the boundaries of this County. To his knowledge, there is no ordinance amendment supporter who receives money from anyone within or outside of the County to professionally organize or lobby for the passage of this type of local issue. He said that this process has been going on for one year, and this is the fourth public hearing. Robin Harrison said that she has been a resident for 20 years. She said that her dog is tethered now, and she would be breaking this ordinance by just attending this meeting. She said that if she left her dogs loose, they would dig under, climb over, or high jump her fence. She said that this amendment does not make sense and she is opposed to it. Elaine Modlin read a prepared letter to the County Commissioners. She is an Animal Control Officer from Laurinburg, NC. "Dear Commissioners: The City of Laurinburg passed its first tethering ordinance in November, 1997 with an effective date of December 1998. The first ordinance allowed dog owners to tether their dogs for up to 8 hours within a 24-hour period. This proved to be too time- consuming to enforce, so in 2000 we amended the ordinance to one hour within a 24- hour period. We passed our tethering ordinance for two main reasons (1) the safety of our citizens and (2) for the humane treatment of animals. On the issue of safety, our records indicated that fifty-one percent of our dog bites were from dogs that were confined on chains or had been chained and had broken loose. This is compared to only 19 percent of bites from dogs that were confined in a fence. On the issue of inhumane treatment of animals, we were constantly receiving calls in reference to chained dogs. They were usually tangled up and unable to get to shelter or water. Many of these cases had been like this for long periods of time. Attempts to correct or eliminate these situations were futile and time-consuming. Passing this ordinance has definitely improved our records for protecting our citizens from dangerous dogs. It has helped eliminate residences with multiple dogs chained out, reducing such complaints as nuisance barking and odor. Our cruelty cases are significantly reduced as well as our dog bites from chained or loose dogs and complaints about dogs running loose. We have also seen a dramatic reduction in litters of puppies, partly because of the tethering ordinance, but also because of the state spay/neuter law. Although enforcing this ordinance had brought on extra work and time in the beginning, after almost 10 years our impoundments have been reduced by half. And most of these are strays, not owned by our citizens. It has been very rewarding seeing the addition of fenced in backyards and the dogs happily running around. Owners have 22