Agenda -11-06-2008 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 Final Report and Recommendations; an Animal Services Staff Memorandum Recommending Minimum Kennel Size Requirement; Tethering Committee Meeting Summaries; and ASAB Minutes from Meetings with Discussion on Tethering. At the September 22"d Work Session, the BOCC identified a number of concerns and issues. These included: • Enforcement procedures that would be used for such an ordinance amendment • The rationale for recommended kennel size requirements • Whether zoning variations had been factored into the amendment • The extent of problems related to tethering in Orange County Staff has identified possible enforcement procedures and indicated a preference for the direct involvement of Animal Control Officers using posted notices in response to complaints or other notifications that a dog has been tethered more than the maximum time allowed. Staff also reviewed the existing ordinance requirement for "adequate shelter" and indicated that this requirement was important in formulating the minimum kennel size recommendations. With respect to zoning, staff indicated that the intent was to apply the ordinance amendment throughout the County's jurisdiction and thus no distinctions were made between individual zoning districts within the County. In addition, the County's authority to regulate the tethering of dogs within Orange County contained within this amendment is based on the welfare of the animal and not upon land use considerations. Therefore, it is not possible to develop different regulations based on the zoning district in which the dog is located. As requested, staff reviewed animal cruelty complaint data for FY2007-08 to identify which cases involved a restraint (or tether) that was not in compliance with the existing ordinance. Staff found that there were 391 animal cruelty complaints out of a total of 6,186 complaints. Of the 391 complaints, thirty-seven were tethering-related complaints. Eleven of those complaints originated about restraint and twenty-six originated as cruelty complaints but upon investigation were found to involve a violation of the restraint standards of the existing ordinance. Of the thirty-seven tethering-related complaints received in 2007, two were unfounded and the remaining thirty-five were found to be in violation of the existing animal ordinance. The outcomes of those thirty-five, after investigation and notice of violation, included compliance in nineteen cases, animal surrenders in ten cases, and animal seizures in three cases. Staff would underscore that this data is extremely limited for several reasons. First, it only includes cases where a complaint was made about tethering or where a tether itself did not meet the requirements of the existing ordinance. Thus it excludes cases where lawfully tethered animals had other substandard levels of care. For instance, complaints and violations concerning food, water and shelter could have involved tethered animals but are not included in the available data (as the general form used in cruelty investigations does not contain information about how a dog is kept). Another reason that this data is extremely limited is that humane care is only one of the reasons to consider an ordinance amendment in regard to tethering. As the report of the Tethering Committee documented, other important reasons include the assurance of public safety and health, livability, and the reduction of unplanned reproduction. Yet data is not gathered on the