Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
removal, etc. Anti-tether bills, such as this one are couched in emotional appeals, and <br /> personal anecdotes, rather than being based on factual evidence. Pictures of starving puppies <br /> on logging chains are used to sell a horror story, one not representative of the norm, to <br /> sympathetic dog lovers, the majority of which keep their dogs strictly inside as house dogs. It <br /> is entirely possible to tether a dog responsibly in a manner consistent with, and even above <br /> and beyond, all existing levels of mandatory care. Whether an outdoor dog lives in a kennel or <br /> on a tether, the obligation exists to keep the dog responsibly, which is contingent upon a <br /> combination of love, and common sense — neither of which can be created through legislation. <br /> Regards, <br /> The 250+ members of the Durham Kennel Club <br /> 7318 Guess Road <br /> http://durhamkennelclub.com/ <br /> Brian Fee referred to at story in the Chapel Hill News where five people from Orange <br /> County were asked if they supported an anti-tethering ordinance. Four of the five said that the <br /> County should not have a role in this. There was no mention of abuse from the citizens. He <br /> said that Orange County citizens expect that the County Commissioners see information from <br /> all sides. He thinks that the original goal of the committee was to reduce dog abuse and <br /> neglect. However, he believes that the County Commissioners have been influenced by the <br /> Coalition to Unchain Dogs. He said that not one person on the Tethering Committee was pro- <br /> tethering. He said that the whole process is stacked against citizens that chain their dogs. He <br /> does not think that the County Commissioners have listened to the Orange County citizens. <br /> He said that he wrote a Letter to the Editor about this issue. <br /> Ellen Whitaker is a member of the Coalition to Unchain Dogs. She said that there are <br /> certain things about tethering that are not covered in the anti-cruelty laws. She said that this <br /> ordinance will be enforced by complaints only, so people who responsibly tether their dogs do <br /> not need to worry. <br /> Chair Jacobs said that he hoped that the information about tethering restrictions would <br /> accompany license renewals for animals. <br /> Bob Marotto clarified that the ordinance would apply to the unincorporated areas of <br /> Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough and would not apply in Chapel Hill, Carrboro, or <br /> Mebane. <br /> Commissioner Foushee said that she will oppose this ordinance as amended because <br /> she feels that it will impose a hardship on a large number of law-abiding citizens who very <br /> responsibly and lovingly care for their dogs. <br /> A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Carey to <br /> approve adopting on second reading the proposed amendment to the Orange County Animal <br /> Ordinance restricting the tethering of dogs. <br /> VOTE: Ayes, 4; No, 1 (Commissioner Foushee) <br /> c. Third Party Presence in the Employee Disciplinary Process <br /> The Board considered a possible amendment to the Orange County Personnel <br /> Ordinance Article IX, Section 4d(1); third party presence or representation for eligible <br /> employees at a pre-disciplinary conference involving demotion, suspension or termination. <br />