[ SHOWGSD-L ] Watauga County NC BSL Language in ordinance proposal
- From: "Ginger Cleary" <cleary1414@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Showgsd-L@Freelists. Org" <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 13:03:29 -0500
Ginger Cleary, Rome, GA
Never underestimate the ability of the hypocritical to hoodwink the
sanctimonious. www.rihadin.com
-----Original Message-----
From the Watauga Democrat.
Visit www.ncraoa.com/alerts.html for county contact information.
Susan Wolf
NCRAOA
http://www.wataugademocrat.com/2006/1106web/animalordinancehearing.php3
Animal ordinance hearing scheduled
By Scott Nicholson
nicholson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Local pet owners will get a chance to guide the drafting of a revised animal
control ordinance.
The Watauga County board of commissioners scheduled a public hearing for Nov.
21, seeking input as the next stage in a process that has been underway for
about a year. The latest draft of the ordinance revision is posted on the
countyâ??s Web site at www.wataugacounty.org.
The proposed ordinance would shift the regulation of nuisance animal
complaints from the Sheriffâ??s Office to the Department of Animal Control.
Such a nuisance animal would be defined as â??Any animal that damages private
or public property; interferes with or attacks a person or other animal;
chases, snaps at, or harasses pedestrians, livestock, bicyclists or vehicles or
by virtue of number is offensive or dangerous to public health, safety and/or
welfare, or is diseased.â??
As proposed in a work session on the ordinance, the draft contains an option
that allows pet owners to place an identifying microchip in the pet instead of
having a collar and identification. The goal of the section is to allow animal
control staff to locate the owner if a pet is lost or injured.
The draft also contains a provision that would allow the animal control staff
to impound any animal that doesnâ??t have proper identification. Anyone
bringing a dog or cat into the county will be required to provide certification
proving the animal has received a rabies vaccination.
The ordinance also would toughen standards for animal cruelty, including
trapping an animal in a car when temperatures can be dangerous. Abandonment of
a pet would carry a misdemeanor charge and up to a $500 fine. Cruelty charges
could result in civil or criminal charges, or both.
The section on â??Animal Managementâ?? would allow the county to take
protective measures if a pet is deemed a threat. Factors include the presence
of a potentially vulnerable victim, prior attack-dog or aggression training,
prior history of harm to humans, and an additional clause citing breeds of
â??known vicious tendenciesâ?? such as pit bulls, Rottweilers, Doberman
pinschers, bulldogs and bull terriers.
The breed-specific legislation could be controversial and has already rallied
opposition from animal rights advocates across the country. The commissioners
have received at least 10 emails on the issue, all from outside the state.
Three people emailed to defend breeds such as Dobermans and pit bulls, saying
they owned those breeds and they were friendly toward children. Some called for
stricter enforcement of other ordinance provisions first, such as leash laws.
Several members of Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States sent notes
opposing breed-specific legislation on both legal and moral grounds, saying the
pet owners are responsible for protecting the public. Members of the
organization sent position papers and legal interpretations which they say are
evidence that such ordinances are illegal.
Such legislation creates a false sense of security, punishes law-abiding dog
owners, and fails to properly identify such dogs because there are up to 75
species that can be called â??pit bulls.â?? The group also claims animals could
be condemned simply because of their appearance. The group also claims such
legislation has been judged unconstitutional in a number of courts â??on
grounds ranging from vagueness, to an infringement of property rights, to equal
treatment, equal protection.â?? The group says breed-specific legislation
violates the Bill of Rights and â??creates a new class of criminal, the dog
owner.â??
The organization also opposes a mandatory spay and neuter requirement, though
such language isnâ??t in the current draft. However, the commissioners plan to
address the issue separately, probably after the end of the year. Some animal
advocates, including members of the Watauga Humane Society, have said such an
ordinance would reduce the number of unwanted pets and make regulation of pets
simpler. Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States, in emails to the county,
said such a requirement usurps ownership rights and that â??the United States
is not a communist collective in which all people and their goods are property
of the state.â?? The group says there are health risks to the pet and that
â??the animals internal and external genetalia (sic) belong to the owner of the
animal.â??
As proposed, the ordinance describes a dangerous dog as one that has killed
or severely injured a person or is harbored primarily for dog fighting. A
â??potentially dangerous dogâ?? is one that has inflicted a severe bite, has
killed or injured a domestic animal when not on the ownerâ??s property or has
approached a person in a vicious or threatening manner â??in an apparent
attitude of attack.â?? Dogs determined to be potentially dangerous would have
to be enclosed in approved and inspected fences. Such dogs would have to wear
muzzles when off the ownerâ??s property and if such dogs are transferred to a
new owner, the county must be notified. The county would have the authority to
appoint an appeals board to hear dangerous dog claims.
The ordinance draft describes â??nuisance dogsâ?? as those in an unsanitary
environment, diseased, harassing or threatening to the public. Two written
complaints are required to trigger a nuisance investigation.
The draft would also give animal control officers the right to consider
euthanizing any animal that cannot â??be seized by reasonable means,â?? is
diseased or badly wounded, or has been impounded up to 72 hours and remain
unclaimed. Owners may reclaim impounded or lost animals by showing any required
identification, proof of rabies vaccination and the paying of any applicable
fees or fines.
The commissioners donâ??t expect an immediate vote on the ordinance after the
hearing, instead asking the public to help guide the ordinance before it is
adopted.
.
__,_._,___
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2006. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - URL temporarily deleted due to AOL issues
============================================================================
Other related posts:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] Watauga County NC BSL Language in ordinance proposal
