Loading...
1990-14583-Minutes for Meeting May 02,1990 Recorded 5/21/199090- 14S~3 10 1 - 019 0 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE 90-019 MICR©FIIME DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JUL 10 19' 0 May 2, 1990 Acting,_,C)Tair Lois Bristow Prante opened the public hearing at 7 p.m..c°", B,"' rd members in attendance were Dick Maudlin and Lois Bristow,.-P.rante. Also present was Bruce White, Assistant Legal Coun 1, Bruce White introduced Dan Early, Chairman of the task force which came up with the recommended changes to the Animal Control Ordinance. Dan Early, Director of the Humane Society, said that in October, 1989, the humane society approached the County Commissioners with concerns about dogs running at large in Deschutes County. The Commissioners decided to address the matter by forming a task force to look at animal control concerns in general. The members of the task force were: Sheriff Darrell Davidson; Animal Control Officer Cynthia Komurka; Bruce White, Lorrie Nickerson, obedience trainer and AKC breeder; Howard Cross, AKC judge and field dog trainer in Bend; Charlene Pond, a dog breeder from Sisters; Dr. Martin Warbington, veterinarian from Tumalo and sheep rancher; Michele Airs, veterinary technician at LaPine Animal Hospital; and Dr. Keith Sides, veterinarian from Redmond. He said the task force also consulated with Officer Vance Lawrence of the City of Bend Police Department for input on the City's experience, and surveyed eight other Oregon counties to determine what services each county offered in the area of animal control. The task force met a total of six times over five months to identify animal control problems and to propose solutions through changes in the County's Animal Control Ordinance. The recommendations of the task force were contained in a report that was delivered to the County Commission on February 26, 1990. The Animal Control Ordinance that was before the Board of Commissioners was a product of their work. Commissioner Prante thanked Dan Early and the task force for doing an outstanding job. Bruce White highlighted the proposed changes and improvements recommended by the task force to the existing animal control code. The first recommendation was to provide a provision in the County ordinance to cite dogs that were "at large." The second major change was making it a violation for livestock to be at large in livestock districts. He posted maps that indicated where the livestock districts were located. The third major area was defining what constituted "dangerous dogs." The fourth area described "animal cruelty standards" and made it a violati . He said there were other miscellaneous changes i.e. providing the PAGE 1 MINUTES: 5-2-90 1(x`1. - 019. County with authority to deal with dogs of inmates, and a requirement that dogs wear their license tags. Bruce White went through the ordinance page-by-page and pointed out where changes had been made. Section 6.04.010. clarified that kennel licensed dogs were exempt from licensing requirements, and required that all dogs wear tags when at large. He said that did not apply when the dog was hunting under the supervision of its owner. Section 6.04.050 prescribed that dogs which qualified for a "kennel license" could be licensed at a fee of $5 per dog. Kennel license were allowed if: (1) dogs were housed primarily in a kennel, (2) owner had five or more dogs, (3) owner hadn't been convicted of animal abuse, and (4) dogs have never been convicted of being at large. Section 6.04.030 affirmed that in order to qualify for the reduced spayed or neutered rate, the owner had to show proof the dog was spayed or neutered. He said the figures seemed to indicate that there might be over reporting of dogs for the reduced rate. Section 6.08.010 A. defined a dog "at large" to mean he was off the owner's premises and not under the complete control of the owner or a capable person. Owners of dogs "at large" could be cited. He said the current code did not allow for the effective control of dogs at large. He said this provision added an additional tool for the dog control officer to help deal with problem animals. He said they tried to be flexible and not require a leash. He said Deschutes County had an open range law unless you were within a livestock district. This section made it a violation for livestock to be at large in livestock districts. Section 6.08.040 provided that it would be a violation for the owner of a "dangerous dogs" to permit his dog to go unconfined on his premises or for the dog to be off his premises without being muzzled and securely leashed. "Dangerous dogs" were defined to be those that had previously been cited for either biting or menacing a person. Section 6.08.020 added two conditions under which an animal would be considered nuisance. #9 defined menacing recognizing that property owners often have dogs to protect their property. He said it would not be a violation for a dog to challenge someone who came on his owner's property. He said if a dog bit someone who came onto his owner's property, there would be less of a defense unless the person was a trespasser. Section 6.16.040 was a new section added to deal with dogs who were in the possession of a person who was picked up by the County Sheriff and placed in jail. He said there had been situations PAGE 2 MINUTES: 5-2-90 0192 where the inmate would refuse to take responsibility for the dog. This section would allow the County to ask the inmate to release the dog so that it could be adopted, or if he refused to make any arrangements, it would give the County authority to euthanize the dog, like any other dog which was picked up and not retrieved by the owner or adopted within five days. Chapter 6.20 - Animal Cruelty was a new chapter. He said in the past when animal cruelty violations were noted, the District Attorney's office often didn't have the time or resources to prosecute. This chapter would change it so that it wouldn't have to go through the District Attorney's office. Acting Chair Prante asked those who were in favor of the ordinance to come forward and testify. Mike Mitchell, 52775 Huntington Rd. in LaPine, testified that it was a good ordinance but had an objection to Section 6.16.040 regarding disposition of dogs of inmates. He said he didn't think this was the best way to solve the problem. He didn't feel that five days was enough time for an inmate to be convicted, and it would result in innocent people's dogs being killed. He said it singled out people for punishment who were poor and friendless because if you had money, you could call a kennel to pick up the dog and if you had friends, they could pick up the dog. This punishment had nothing to do with the crime they were charged with. He suggested that when a person was incarcerated and their dog was placed in custody, the inmate be given five days to either have a friend come and get the dog or promise to repay the County in writing for any fees incurred for taking care of his dog if he's convicted. Those charges could be made part of his restitution. Joan Miller, 60645 Riverbend Dr., Bend, testified that she had been attacked by dogs on public roads and was in favor of the ordinance. She said Officer Komurka came and was a big help. JoAnn Dewey, 22085 Neff Road, Bend, testified that llamas needed to be added to Section 6.20.010(c) definition of livestock. Sandy Weisberg, 60906 Alpine Dr., Bend, testified that she was a renter and that the owner of the rental property also lived on the property. The owner had a pit bull who was dangerous and broke loose and attached here dog. The pit bull owner wouldn't help pay the veterinary bill because the dogs were on her property. Small claims court told her she didn't have a case since the dog was on its owner's property. Monna Lyon, 3017 NE Purcell, Bend, testified that she was the manager of the shelter of the humane society. She was very much in favor of the ordinance. She said 25% of the calls coming into the shelter were dealing with animals at large. About 15% of those calls were referred to Deschutes County Animal Control. She said PAGE 3 MINUTES: 5-2-90 101 0193 with the growth in Deschutes County, the problem was only going to get worse. Regarding the concern about animals who were impounded when their owners were in jail, she mentioned a situation where a dog was at the shelter for three months because they could not come to any terms with owner of the dog, and they didn't feel they could destroy the dog. The dog was not adoptable because he was nasty and had to be in a kennel by himself. For every day this dog was in a kennel by himself, another dog, which might have been more adoptable, had to be killed for lack of space. Victoria Coulston-Parks, 60065 Pawnee, Bend, testified they were a family of bikers and were often chased by dogs. She said there were a number of seniors and children in her area who were harassed by the dogs. She worked for the Deschutes County Sheriffs Department and was very frustrated by the calls about dogs when there wasn't anything that could be done. This ordinance would give the officers some power to help keep the dangerous dogs from repeating their offenses. Doug Farmon, 16837 Brenda Dr., Oregon Water Wonderland, said he was very supportive of the ordinance, especially in dealing with the dogs-at-large problem. He encountered problem dogs when he went for walks in his neighborhood. His only concern with the ordinance was about what would happen to inmates' dogs. He felt there needed to be an amendment to give the inmate an option to pay for support of the animal during his incarceration. However, if the inmate were belligerent and uncooperative, the County should be able to deal with it through the five-day rule. Don Lantz, 66947 Paradise Alley, Bend, said he could see a need for the ordinance, but didn't like the definition of at-large dogs. He didn't understand what it meant to be "under the complete control of a capable person." He felt the only way a dog could be under "complete control" was to put him in a cage. He also felt everyone would have a different definition of what a "capable person" was. He said these areas were ambiguous and should be spelled out more clearly. He was concerned that there was no provision for unusual circumstance, i.e. children letting the dogs out. In that case, would he still be guilty of having his dogs "at large?" Rita-Jean Browne, 532 NW Ogden Avenue, Bend, felt the ordinance was well thought out. She also had a concern over the section on "inmates' dogs." She felt more options should be spelled out. She was also concerned about the language concerning animal abandonment. She had worked for a veterinarian where non-owners would bring in injured animals. She didn't feel good samaritans should be penalized. Ruth Hagen, 60101 Hope Rd., Deschutes River Woods, testified in support of the ordinance. She was concerned about how information on the new ordinance would be given to the public. Commissioner PAGE 4 MINUTES: 5-2-90 101 0194 Prante said the County couldn't afford to place advertisements in the newspaper, but the Bulletin would probably run a story on the finalized ordinance, since it was of interest to the general public. She felt that fining offenders would make a difference. Bill Kennedy, 1422 NW First, Bend, testified in favor of the ordinance. He felt there was a problem with dogs running at large. He said the County could encourage people to be responsible about the number of dogs they had by requiring proof that the dogs were spayed or neutered. He suggested sending out an informational notice to everyone in Deschutes County like the Country Treasurer had done a couple of years ago regarding the need to license all dogs. He asked what the fines would be for having a dog at large. Bruce White said that by State law the maximum fine was $100. Mr. Kennedy suggested that the fines be progressive with the number of infractions. Commissioner Maudlin mentioned that the County Treasurer had estimated that it would cost more to catch the people who were incorrectly paying the reduced fees for spayed or neutered dogs than would be brought in by the correct fees being paid. Veronica Zecchini, 59805 Medicine Hat Lane, Bend, said she was on the Humane Society Board, and that she lived where people let their dogs run wild. She said that even normally "nice dogs" who would become very ugly when running with a pack of dogs. She was in favor of the ordinance. She suggested making up a brochure and asking utility companies if they could be sent out with the electric bills. Naomi Jackson, 61955 Dobbin Rd., Bend, said she was on the Humane Society Board and could see the need for this ordinance. She said walkers and joggers were often in danger. She felt that since the veterinarians had to give proof of rabies inoculation, they could also verify whether the dog had been spayed or neutered at that same time. She said it was the dog owners who needed to be educated. Cynthia Komurka, 1533 NW 8th, Bend, said she was an animal control officer with Deschutes County and was in favor of the ordinance, especially the livestock at large section. Concerning the issues of inmates dogs, she said they did everything they could to give the inmate an opportunity to make arrangements for their dogs. She said she had taken dogs home for people or even kept them with her until they were released from custody. She said the shelter was also very willing to work with inmates about their circumstances. She said if dogs were at large accidentally, she would find that out through discussions with the owners. She said her dogs had accidentally gotten out before, however if dogs were repeatedly at large, then this ordinance would give them a tool to improve the situation. She said they used the media to educate the public, and the next licensing program would include information from this PAGE 5 MINUTES: 5-2-90 101 - 0195 ordinance. Acting Chair Prante asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in opposition to the ordinance. Christopher Dent, 20997 West View Dr., Bend, was concerned about dogs at large who were not "dangerous" coming under this ordinance. He said everyone was concerned about dangerous dogs, but he didn't feel that friendly, neighborhood dogs should fall under this ordinance. He said everyone in his neighborhood knew his dog and liked him. He had never had any complaints. He also expressed concern over the wording "places a person in reasonable fear of eminent physical injury." He felt there needed to be a better definition. Commissioner Prante said that dog owners had come before the Board of Commissioner before when their dogs had been picked up for chasing livestock. She said they often would report that the dogs were marvelous pets. Commissioner Maudlin said if the dog was not a nuisance in the neighborhood, the County would not be called in the first place. Mr. Dent said that someone could call animal control just out of spite even if the animal was not creating a nuisance. He felt that a dog should be innocent until proven guilty, and it was better to have the guilty go free than punish to the innocent. Acting Chair Prante said that modifications would be made to the proposed ordinance based upon the testimony received. The modified proposal would then be submitted to the Board of Commissioners for their consideration. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Lois Bristow "PrAnte, Commissioner Tom Throop, Chair Dic 4Ma &1Cmmissioner BOCC:alb PAGE 6 MINUTES: 5-2-90