INC NEWS - [pac2] Re: Animal control issues
Bailey, Cindy
cbailey at co.durham.nc.us
Mon Jul 24 10:28:03 EDT 2006
Hi everyone,
I thought I would take this opportunity to bring you up to date on the
three addresses mentioned by Barry in his email. An officer was out
last week and these are his actions per address:
1623 Avondale: met with owner, found no cruelty, dogs have access to
finished basement. The chains are over 20 feet long and the dogs could
not get tangled. He did issue notice to have the dogs vaccinated and
licensed. However, he did tell the officer that he was moving in a few
weeks.
1705 Avondale: met with family and they immediate corrected the
tethering issues. The dogs had a carport for shade but they were issued
notice to get dog houses in addition to the carport. They will receive
a follow up visit on 7-25.
1707 Avondale: owner not home. Found no cruelty violations, 2 dogs
have ample water and were in a pen approximately 10x10 with a dog house.
The largest dog was a Min Pincher and 1 puppy approximately 8 weeks old.
The officer will follow up with the owner regarding adding more space
when the puppy grows.
I hope this at least answers what is happening at these addresses. If
not please feel free to contact me.
Cindy Bailey
Durham County Animal Control
-----Original Message-----
From: pac2 at yahoogroups.com [mailto:pac2 at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
bragin at nc.rr.com
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 9:53 AM
To: TheOcean1 at aol.com
Cc: marlene_hankins at yahoo.com; americanlabor at nc.rr.com;
ray.gronberg at gmail.com; jmccann at heraldsun.com; mike at mikewoodard.com;
PBaker8667 at aol.com; crc8 at duke.edu; djhicks2790 at earthlink.net; Reckhow,
Ellen1; rlandfried at heraldsun.com; Scjdurham at aol.com;
inc-list at durhaminc.org; joshparker at nc.rr.com; harrisdl2003 at yahoo.com;
mmr121570 at yahoo.com; Sheri.farmer at newsobserver.com;
jross at newsobserver.com; pats1717 at hotmail.com; randy at 27beverly.com;
DSIC at googlegroups.com; ken.gasch at hldproductions.com;
pac2 at yahoogroups.com; Heron, Becky
Subject: [pac2] Re: Animal control issues
i had responded earlier to Marlene and Bill, and i've been asked to post
this info to everyone on the original distribution list.
Here's the deal.
Marlene's issue is already addressed by existing county ordinance.
Chapter 4 Article III of the county code references animal abuse.
Section 4-62 specifies numerous prohibited acts. Paragraph 6 of that
section reads:
(6) Chaining or tethering an animal to a stationary object for a
period of time or under conditions that an animal control officer or
animal cruelty investigator deems harmful or potentially harmful to the
animal. Examples of improper chaining or tethering include, but are not
limited to the following:
a. Using a length or weight of a chain or tether that is not
appropriate for the size, weight and age of the animal. Guidelines for
the proper weight and length of chains or tethers can be obtained from
the animal shelter or animal control.
b. Using a chain or tether made of rope, twine, cord or similar
material.
c. Using a chain or tether that is less than ten feet in length and/or
does not have swivels on both ends. All chains or tethers must be
attached to the animal by means of a properly fitting harness or collar
of not less than one inch in width.
d. Using a chain or tether than exceeds ten percent of the animal's
body weight.
e. Allowing an animal to be chained or tethered such that the animal
is not confined to the owner's property or such that the chain or tether
can become entangled and prevent the animal from moving about freely,
lying down comfortably or having access to adequate food, water and
shelter.
f. Using a chain as a primary collar. All collars used for the purpose
of chaining or tethering an animal must be made of nylon or leather.
=================================
Specifically, clause "e" prohibits tethering or chaining an animal in
such a way that the animal is not confined to the owner's property.
If Marlene's neighbor's dog is chained such that it can reach her
property, or if it is within 15 feet of a public right of way (see
section 4-138 of Article VI - Animal Nuisance) this is a pretty clear
cut violation of existing county code.
Neither Marlene, nor any other citizen of Durham, should find themselves
having to attend INC meetings or any other kinds of meetings in order to
figure out a way to have these clearly defined codes enforced. A simple
phone call to the Animal Control department should be sufficient.
You can view the Durham County Code of Ordinances here:
http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=12650&sid=33
Chapter 4 deals with animals. There is a pane on the left side of the
page with clickable links to each of the Chapters.
Now, many of you know that INC is discussing the issue of seeking an
amendment to the ordinance which would ban the practice of dog chaining
in Durham County completely. Other concerned citizens in both Durham and
Orange County are meeting to seek similar ends in both counties.
Personally, while i support these efforts, i am concerned that Durham
County's seeming inability to enforce it's current ordinances does not
bode well for the enactment of a more restrictive ordinance.
As an example, the house at 1623 Avondale Drive was the home of two dogs
tethered on chains in a small area in the back yard for the past 5
years. Numerous complaints are on file with the Coounty regarding
violations of the nuisance animal ordinance prohibiting barking dogs. I
myself filed nearly a dozen of them, including letters signed by other
neighbors and documentary evidence. On no occasion did anyone from the
county bring up the fact that the nature of the dogs' chaining was a
violation of existing ordinances all by itself. It's only recently, as
I've been dealing with yet another neighbor at 1705 Avondale Drive who
keeps his two chows confined on chains without shelter in his back yard
that i've discovered what the legal limits of chaining are in Durham. An
animal control officer who visited my house on Friday, July 21 to
investigate yet another violation at 1707 Avondale Drive, where someone
is keeping 3 puppies and a small chihuahua in a 10 foot square enclosure
in
the back yard of a house in which no one is currently living,
immediately determined that the tethering of the dogs at 1705 Avondale
was a violation of several ordinances. Whether he is able to do anything
about it remains an open question.
It seems very clear to me that enforcement of existing county codes
regarding treatment of animals and animal niuisances is a huge problem.
Hopefully, the attention being raised by the movement to ban dog
chaining, as well as other recent discussions that have surfaced
regarding animal control issues over the past few weeks, will lead to a
solution of this problem.
Barry Ragin
1706 Shawnee St
----- Original Message -----
From: TheOcean1 at aol.com
>
>
>
> Marlene
>
> You asked this question off line, because it concerned your
> particular
> problem. But your question and problem are so central I'll reply in
> the public
> forum. Members of the media monitor these lists, this should well
> alert them
> there is a hot story brewing. The Herald Sun reporters are lucky
> the INC meets
> in their building, thanks to a kind offer from Bob Ashley long ago.
>
> You asked if you could come if you weren't a member. First, the
> public is
> always invited.
> Second, Inter-Neighborhood Council is comprised of member
> neighborhoods, I
> think you live in the Northgate Park neighborhood, so you've been a
> member for
> many years.
> Much of Durham has.
>
> As to your personal problem with a dog who's grown vicious due to
> being
> chained continuously, you don't seem to be alone. This seems to be
> a problem
> city-wide, months ago was voted the number one issue in the minds
> of the
> neighbors at the priorities setting session of INC.
>
> Chained dogs become antisocial, bark, and generally disturb the
> peace, but
> the more important point might be mandating humane treatment for
> the family
> pet. Two active groups from Orange and Durham County have been
> pursuing, and
> recently combined their efforts, to reform our laws.
>
> VERY IMPORTANT to note that INC had determined this to be a
> priority and
> had begun addressing it, long before Kim Willis had expressed
> strong concerns
> about other issues at Animal Control. INC simply provides a public
> forum.
> Unfortunately, INC and Animal Control meet at the same time, on
> the fourth
> Tuesday of each month. Had we known such other issues would arise,
> we might
> have tried to move one of the scheduled meetings. Should you
> expect these
> other issues to be brought up at INC's Tuesday meeting? I
> personally hope so.
> When a very long term staffer is trying to blow the whistle, I
> think it's worth
> hearing the message.
>
> INC just provides the public forum, we don't predict the future
> and know
> what events are about to make them even more relevant.
>
> Appreciate that long term frustration can lead to a rather rabid
> exploration on any topic, but INC can stand the heat, we've been
> running the kitchen
> for a couple of decades.
>
> See you this Tuesday night, 7pm, Herald Sun Building. No such
> thing as an
> "outsider" where Inter-Neighborhood Council meets.
>
> Bill Anderson
> Immediate Past President INC
>
> Marlene wrote:
>
> Bill:
>
> If a person is not a member of INC, can they still attend a
> meeting? I'm
> very interested in this topic for many reasons but one is really
> hitting home
> for us. Our neighbor, which seems to hit all cylinders when it
> comes to
> making the neighborhood angry, has a Rottweiler chained long enough
> to reach our
> property line. The older this animal gets the more aggressive
> she's becoming
> because of being chained up. It's very scary, to the point where
> we can't
> walk down our drive without being scared to death that the dog will
> break the
> leather collar (again).
>
> Please let me know if an 'outsider' may attend.
>
> Thanks!
> Marlene Hankins
>
> TheOcean1 at aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> FYI
>
> Inter-Neighborhood Council will be looking at animal control
> issues at the
> Tues July 25 meeting, Herald Sun building at 7pm
>
> A resolution to stop the chaining of dogs in Durham is first up on
> the
> agenda, and other issues follow.
> Should be interesting, and as always, the public is invited
>
> Bill Anderson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/aRSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
***
The opinions expressed herein represent the views of the individual and
do not necessarily represent the views of Partners Against Crime -
District II (PAC2) or any other organization. Any use of the material on
this listserv other than for the purpose of discussion on this listserv
is strictly prohibited without the knowledge and consent of the person
responsible for such opinion.
***
For more information: http://www.pac2durham.com
to post message: pac2 at yahoogroups.com;
to subscribe: pac2-subscribe at yahoogroups.com; to unsubscribe:
pac2-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
*** Neighbors and friends: in order to keep traffic on this list focused
on crime prevention, please do not post virus warnings or personal
replies to this list. Thanks! ***
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pac2/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
pac2-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
More information about the INC-list
mailing list