Post by blueridge on Jul 13, 2008 21:41:31 GMT -5
FYI -News article from the The Pilot, Southern Pines. Proposed animal control ordinance to ban trapping opportunites in Moore County.
dh
Panel Still Fine-Tuning Animal Control Ordinance
BY FLORENCE GILKESON: STAFF WRITER
Fine-tuning final sections of an animal control ordinance revision, a county committee suffered a case of jitters at a Tuesday night meeting and voiced the need to hold at least one more meeting before the draft ordinance goes to the Moore County Board of Commissioners.
County Commissioner Jimmy Melton, county liaison with the committee, said he wants the committee to remain in place to consider future amendments and possible changes recommended by his board.
"This has been a real eye-opener for all of us," said Mary Jo Morris, who chairs the committee that has been meeting twice monthly since February.
Once the ordinance is adopted, it is expected that most municipalities will adopt its provisions "by reference," meaning that the revised ordinance would be in force in municipal jurisdictions as well as in the county. A few municipalities have no animal control ordinances of their own.
Mandatory sterilization, the
definition of a critically injured animal and restrictions on keeping exotic or nondomestic animals were among the contentious issues debated during the Tuesday meeting.
Corky O'Connor, the member representing the Moore Humane Society, questioned the language in the section requiring spay/neuter procedures for animals offered for adoption in Moore County.
Admitting that she initially recommended this inclusion, O'Connor said that, in hindsight, she wondered if the ordinance would be hypocritical by singling out animal welfare organizations. She pointed out that the language used in the revision could be interpreted as not applying to certain groups that give away dogs and cats at retail businesses.
The Humane Society, Animal Advocates and most other animal welfare groups, as well as the county animal shelter, already require spay/neuter before any animal is adopted by the public. O'Connor said this would not be a problem with the Humane Society, but she wondered about the fairness of requiring this expense for one specific group while ignoring other groups that do not have the same ethical standards.
"It's an ethical question," O'Connor said.
"It's an enforcement issue," said Dr. Tom Daniel, a veterinarian member of the committee.
Voucher Proposal Dropped
Daniel said numerous groups come into the county to distribute unaltered animals, which just add to the county's economic and public health issues.
Spaying/neutering is not carried out on animals under the age of six months, and the ordinance had been revised to require issuance of vouchers to assure that adopted kittens and puppies will be altered when they reach six months.
The vouchers were to be sufficient to cover sterilization costs, and the ordinance had been revised to require the new owner to provide proof of sterilization within 30 days after the animal reaches age six months.
"We're just trying to plug the leak here," Daniel said.
O'Connor pointed out that it's less expensive to give away an animal than to care for it. She cited a recent case in which an out-of-county group came into Moore County and distributed a large number of non-sterilized dogs and cats.
Al Carter, county animal control director, said the provision should be enforceable under state law, in response to a question from Daniel.
"We're trying to cut down on the number of animals euthanized in the county," said Morris, as a reminder of the committee's purpose in revising the ordinance.
The committee finally agreed to delete the provision requiring vouchers for people adopting pets under the age of six months.
Maureen Burke-Horansky, representing Animal Advocates, said that her nonprofit does not issue vouchers, because the humans "just lose them." Instead, Animal Advocates makes an appointment for the new owner to have the animal spayed or neutered.
Liz Garner, an adoption officer with county Animal Control, said the county makes appointments and does not issue vouchers to people adopting younger dogs and cats.
The mandatory spay/neuter provision remains in the ordinance. It applies to any group, organization or entity offering animals for adoption in Moore County, whether or not the entity is based in Moore County.
O'Connor also asked if the language of one provision is inconsistent with state law, which requires that any animal picked up by Animal Control or other agencies be held at least 72 hours before it is made available for adoption or is euthanized. Her question referred to the treatment of an ill or wounded animal that may be euthanized at the discretion of county or organization officials.
Carter said that this provision had been part of the county ordinance for 20 years and had never been challenged.
'Being Humane'
O'Connor expressed concern that in dealing with ailing animals, the provision is too subjective and the policy in such situations is not clear, leaving it up to the judgment of individuals who are not veterinarians. She said a vet should first decide whether the animal is so seriously ill that it should be euthanized.
But that led to debate about times in which such a delay could leave an animal suffering unnecessarily while authorities comply with the law.
"It's a matter of being humane," Horansky said. "I think a vet should look at these animals."
Daniel said veterinarians are legally as well as ethically required to stop unnecessary suffering in animals but that euthanasia is needed only in extreme cases. In some extreme situations, he said, an ailing animal could suffer an agonizing death while on the way to the veterinarian's office.
O'Connor suggested that the ordinance should include a definition of injury or illness so extreme that death is a certainty, a provision that would clarify the policy to persons in a position to administer service in such situations.
Brenda White, the deputy county attorney advising the committee, said she would research the matter and determine if there is a conflict with state law. Melton asked O'Connor to work with White in resolving the matter.
"I think we can come up with language that will solve this issue," Melton said.
Keeping Exotic Animals
Other questions arose when the committee discussed the section pertaining to the keeping and exhibition of exotic animals. The revision has been written to prohibit the possession or harboring of any nondomestic animal "that is dangerous to persons or property or which has the potential of being dangerous to persons or property."
But the section went on to exclude "bona fide circuses, petting zoos, and other traveling commercial exhibitions of limited duration."
Members wanted to know about regulation of traveling shows that feature exotic animals such as lions, tigers and poisonous snakes that could be dangerous to the public. Concern was expressed about public safety and treatment of the animals and about licensing of such shows.
Horansky distributed pictures of a liger, a hybrid of a lion and tiger, that was recently exhibited in Fayetteville. She said that the owners would be liable for the behavior of such animals if they injured a visitor or escaped from enclosures.
The committee decided to delete the sentence excluding such groups from the ordinance.
"Some things will have to be omitted because they're un-enforceable," Melton said.
Debate continued when the committee reached the subject of handling situations involving injury of animals struck accidentally by vehicles.
Both Carter and Melton said the language in this section was changed because the older version made it illegal not to report such accidents and because the older version was not enforceable.
As revised, this provision calls for drivers to notify the owner of an animal when a dog or cat is killed or, if the owner is not readily available, requires drivers to notify local law enforcement or Animal Control. It does not make it a legal requirement.
Melton said he suggested the change because many of these accidents happen at night and in locations where it is difficult to determine the ownership of an animal and to notify authorities.
Angela Zumwalt, the member representing the Citizens' Pet Responsibility Committee, said communication is the key in such a situation. She said that the average person does not know who to call or how to handle such accidents and is usually upset.
But O'Connor called the provision "pointless as it's worded."
"I think it's a valuable thing to have in there," Morris said. "We can't put something in there that's unenforceable. Then the ordinance would lose its credibility."
Melton said the provision could be omitted altogether, but when Morris called for a show of hands, no one voted to take the notification provision out of the ordinance.
Consensus Reached
The committee reached consensus on everything else under discussion at the Tuesday meeting. That included treatment of feral cats, definition of a nuisance, trapping and puppy mills.
As revised, the ordinance would make it unlawful to set such traps as leg hold, soft leg hold, offset leg hold, ConiBear and spring wire traps within a residential community or within 1,000 feet of a rural residence where domestic animals might run loose without permission of the owner. The owner of the trap would be required to affix name and contact information to the trap.
The ordinance would also make it illegal to set a trap for the sole purpose of trapping domestic animals, with the exception of live, humane traps, such as those used in holding feral cats until they can be vaccinated and spayed or neutered before release.
Once the ordinance is adopted by the county commissioners, the committee, or a sub-committee, will be asked to help to publicize the new policies and regulations.
The committee decided to hold at least one more meeting before taking official action on the ordinance. Among the issues yet to be addressed is the treatment of animals in times of disaster or other situations in which pets are abandoned when families suffer foreclosure of their homes.
dh
Panel Still Fine-Tuning Animal Control Ordinance
BY FLORENCE GILKESON: STAFF WRITER
Fine-tuning final sections of an animal control ordinance revision, a county committee suffered a case of jitters at a Tuesday night meeting and voiced the need to hold at least one more meeting before the draft ordinance goes to the Moore County Board of Commissioners.
County Commissioner Jimmy Melton, county liaison with the committee, said he wants the committee to remain in place to consider future amendments and possible changes recommended by his board.
"This has been a real eye-opener for all of us," said Mary Jo Morris, who chairs the committee that has been meeting twice monthly since February.
Once the ordinance is adopted, it is expected that most municipalities will adopt its provisions "by reference," meaning that the revised ordinance would be in force in municipal jurisdictions as well as in the county. A few municipalities have no animal control ordinances of their own.
Mandatory sterilization, the
definition of a critically injured animal and restrictions on keeping exotic or nondomestic animals were among the contentious issues debated during the Tuesday meeting.
Corky O'Connor, the member representing the Moore Humane Society, questioned the language in the section requiring spay/neuter procedures for animals offered for adoption in Moore County.
Admitting that she initially recommended this inclusion, O'Connor said that, in hindsight, she wondered if the ordinance would be hypocritical by singling out animal welfare organizations. She pointed out that the language used in the revision could be interpreted as not applying to certain groups that give away dogs and cats at retail businesses.
The Humane Society, Animal Advocates and most other animal welfare groups, as well as the county animal shelter, already require spay/neuter before any animal is adopted by the public. O'Connor said this would not be a problem with the Humane Society, but she wondered about the fairness of requiring this expense for one specific group while ignoring other groups that do not have the same ethical standards.
"It's an ethical question," O'Connor said.
"It's an enforcement issue," said Dr. Tom Daniel, a veterinarian member of the committee.
Voucher Proposal Dropped
Daniel said numerous groups come into the county to distribute unaltered animals, which just add to the county's economic and public health issues.
Spaying/neutering is not carried out on animals under the age of six months, and the ordinance had been revised to require issuance of vouchers to assure that adopted kittens and puppies will be altered when they reach six months.
The vouchers were to be sufficient to cover sterilization costs, and the ordinance had been revised to require the new owner to provide proof of sterilization within 30 days after the animal reaches age six months.
"We're just trying to plug the leak here," Daniel said.
O'Connor pointed out that it's less expensive to give away an animal than to care for it. She cited a recent case in which an out-of-county group came into Moore County and distributed a large number of non-sterilized dogs and cats.
Al Carter, county animal control director, said the provision should be enforceable under state law, in response to a question from Daniel.
"We're trying to cut down on the number of animals euthanized in the county," said Morris, as a reminder of the committee's purpose in revising the ordinance.
The committee finally agreed to delete the provision requiring vouchers for people adopting pets under the age of six months.
Maureen Burke-Horansky, representing Animal Advocates, said that her nonprofit does not issue vouchers, because the humans "just lose them." Instead, Animal Advocates makes an appointment for the new owner to have the animal spayed or neutered.
Liz Garner, an adoption officer with county Animal Control, said the county makes appointments and does not issue vouchers to people adopting younger dogs and cats.
The mandatory spay/neuter provision remains in the ordinance. It applies to any group, organization or entity offering animals for adoption in Moore County, whether or not the entity is based in Moore County.
O'Connor also asked if the language of one provision is inconsistent with state law, which requires that any animal picked up by Animal Control or other agencies be held at least 72 hours before it is made available for adoption or is euthanized. Her question referred to the treatment of an ill or wounded animal that may be euthanized at the discretion of county or organization officials.
Carter said that this provision had been part of the county ordinance for 20 years and had never been challenged.
'Being Humane'
O'Connor expressed concern that in dealing with ailing animals, the provision is too subjective and the policy in such situations is not clear, leaving it up to the judgment of individuals who are not veterinarians. She said a vet should first decide whether the animal is so seriously ill that it should be euthanized.
But that led to debate about times in which such a delay could leave an animal suffering unnecessarily while authorities comply with the law.
"It's a matter of being humane," Horansky said. "I think a vet should look at these animals."
Daniel said veterinarians are legally as well as ethically required to stop unnecessary suffering in animals but that euthanasia is needed only in extreme cases. In some extreme situations, he said, an ailing animal could suffer an agonizing death while on the way to the veterinarian's office.
O'Connor suggested that the ordinance should include a definition of injury or illness so extreme that death is a certainty, a provision that would clarify the policy to persons in a position to administer service in such situations.
Brenda White, the deputy county attorney advising the committee, said she would research the matter and determine if there is a conflict with state law. Melton asked O'Connor to work with White in resolving the matter.
"I think we can come up with language that will solve this issue," Melton said.
Keeping Exotic Animals
Other questions arose when the committee discussed the section pertaining to the keeping and exhibition of exotic animals. The revision has been written to prohibit the possession or harboring of any nondomestic animal "that is dangerous to persons or property or which has the potential of being dangerous to persons or property."
But the section went on to exclude "bona fide circuses, petting zoos, and other traveling commercial exhibitions of limited duration."
Members wanted to know about regulation of traveling shows that feature exotic animals such as lions, tigers and poisonous snakes that could be dangerous to the public. Concern was expressed about public safety and treatment of the animals and about licensing of such shows.
Horansky distributed pictures of a liger, a hybrid of a lion and tiger, that was recently exhibited in Fayetteville. She said that the owners would be liable for the behavior of such animals if they injured a visitor or escaped from enclosures.
The committee decided to delete the sentence excluding such groups from the ordinance.
"Some things will have to be omitted because they're un-enforceable," Melton said.
Debate continued when the committee reached the subject of handling situations involving injury of animals struck accidentally by vehicles.
Both Carter and Melton said the language in this section was changed because the older version made it illegal not to report such accidents and because the older version was not enforceable.
As revised, this provision calls for drivers to notify the owner of an animal when a dog or cat is killed or, if the owner is not readily available, requires drivers to notify local law enforcement or Animal Control. It does not make it a legal requirement.
Melton said he suggested the change because many of these accidents happen at night and in locations where it is difficult to determine the ownership of an animal and to notify authorities.
Angela Zumwalt, the member representing the Citizens' Pet Responsibility Committee, said communication is the key in such a situation. She said that the average person does not know who to call or how to handle such accidents and is usually upset.
But O'Connor called the provision "pointless as it's worded."
"I think it's a valuable thing to have in there," Morris said. "We can't put something in there that's unenforceable. Then the ordinance would lose its credibility."
Melton said the provision could be omitted altogether, but when Morris called for a show of hands, no one voted to take the notification provision out of the ordinance.
Consensus Reached
The committee reached consensus on everything else under discussion at the Tuesday meeting. That included treatment of feral cats, definition of a nuisance, trapping and puppy mills.
As revised, the ordinance would make it unlawful to set such traps as leg hold, soft leg hold, offset leg hold, ConiBear and spring wire traps within a residential community or within 1,000 feet of a rural residence where domestic animals might run loose without permission of the owner. The owner of the trap would be required to affix name and contact information to the trap.
The ordinance would also make it illegal to set a trap for the sole purpose of trapping domestic animals, with the exception of live, humane traps, such as those used in holding feral cats until they can be vaccinated and spayed or neutered before release.
Once the ordinance is adopted by the county commissioners, the committee, or a sub-committee, will be asked to help to publicize the new policies and regulations.
The committee decided to hold at least one more meeting before taking official action on the ordinance. Among the issues yet to be addressed is the treatment of animals in times of disaster or other situations in which pets are abandoned when families suffer foreclosure of their homes.