[PyrNet-L] Re: Chat: Proposed county regulations

[Shirley McGreal <spm@awod.com>]

The article below appeared in the Charleston newspaper and public hearings
will be coming up next week. While I am not opposed to reasonable
regulation and am aware of serious animal abuse in our area, I am concerned
about the vagueness of definitions (what is "excessive" whining or
cackling, for example?), possible retroactivity to county residents with
many animals (be they dogs, horses, or whatever) and giving animal control
officers police power to enter private property and execute seizures. 

Dorchester is a primarily unzoned rural county and many people have animals
(a dog no kill shelter round the corner has 150 animals and has been here
for two decades). I would appreciate any suggestions _by private e-mail_
from anyone who has been involved in evaluating similar ordinances and
about whether word-tinkering could remove problems or whether it would be
best to have the ordinance rejected in toto. I have no idea of the genesis
of the proposed ordinance. 

SUMMERVILLE - Dorchester County animal control officers would be allowed to
go onto private property to seize animals under a proposed ordinance before
County Council's Public Safety Committee...
                       Also, under a proposed littering ordinance,
violators could have their names published in newspapers and be forced to
wear an orange vest bearing the words "I am a litterbug" while picking up
trash from roadsides.
                       Both ordinances include hefty fines for violators.
                       County residents can give their views on the
proposals at public hearings scheduled for 5:30 p.m. Monday in council
chambers in the County Human Services Building in Summerville.
                       The animal control proposal would require
vaccination against rabies and licensing for all dogs and cats over 4
months old. Animal control officers would be able to seize and impound
strays; animals at large (any animal other than a cat which is not under
control of an owner or other responsible person); dangerous animals;
animals creating a nuisance; any unlicensed animal; any animal suspected of
carrying rabies or other contagious diseases; and any sick or injured
animal for which the owner cannot be found or for which the owner is unable
or unwilling to provide care.
                       It would be illegal to allow any diseased animal,
including a cat, to run at large.
                       A dangerous animal is one that has shown the
propensity to attack a person or another dog, has attacked without
provocation or has been trained to attack on command.
                       A dangerous animal must be registered, and its owner
must show proof of liability insurance or surety bond of at least $50,000.
It must be kept in a totally enclosed area, which must be designed to
prevent the animal from escaping or the public from entering.
                       Officers would be allowed to seize an animal
declared to be a nuisance.
                       Owners could be cited for:
                       •  Maintaining their animals in unsanitary
conditions which result in offensive odor or in danger to the public's
health or safety.
                       •  Maintaining property that is offensive, annoying
or dangerous because of the number, type, variety, density or location of
animals on the property.
                       • Allowing an animal to bark, whine, howl, crow or
cackle in an excessive, continuous or untimely fashion.

                       •  Maintaining an animal that habitually chases,
snaps at, attacks or barks at pedestrians, joggers, dogs on a leash with
owners, bicycles or motor vehicles.
                       •  Failing to confine a female dog or cat when it is
in heat.