HomeNewsDurham County  }

Durham Commissioners pass tethering ordinance

8 SEP 2008  •  by Lisa Sorg, lsorg (at) indyweek (dot) com

By a 4-1 vote, Durham County Commissioners Monday night passed several amendments to a local ordinance that outlaws the unattended tethering of dogs, effective Jan. 1, 2010.

Commissioner Lewis Cheek was the sole no vote, stating, "I still haven't heard anything that makes this ordinance necessary."

For two years, the county's Animal Control Advisory Board has weighed and honed the amendments, which redefine "tethering" and "secure enclosure" and establish an educational campaign and grace period for county residents to comply with the new law. Only warnings will be issued from Jan. 1 to June 1, 2010.

Tethering is defined as tying out or fastening a dog outdoors on a rope, chain or other kind of line; it does not include putting a dog on an attended leash. The amendments also cover physical space requirements for outdoor enclosures, such as pens: Dogs less than 20 pounds must have no less than 100 square feet of unobstructed space per animal, not including a dog house; dogs more than 20 pounds must have no less than 200 square feet.

At an emotional public hearing Aug. 25, nearly 75 citizens spoke, the overwhelming majority in favor of the ordinance.

More than 15 people spoke at Monday's public hearing, including several opponents who contended the ordinance would result in people who cannot afford fences or pens setting their dogs loose.

"It's a pitiful world when other people determine your lifestyle," said a former Durham resident who now lives in Orange County, where a similar ordinance has languished in the face of public opposition.

Durham County Animal Control Director Cindy Bailey said the majority of animal cruelty cases she has seen resulted from tethering. She told the commission of a recent case in which six dogs were removed from their owners, who were subsequently convicted on animal cruelty charges. "They were all chained," she said of the dogs. "And they had injuries consistent with being chained. The problem has not gone away. No matter how much we work with individuals before we prosecute. We educate until it's absurd and people aren't working with us at all. We have to have different rules to play by."

The Commission has also asked local nonprofit animal groups to raise funds to help purchase fences for animals whose owners who cannot afford them. The Coalition to Unchain Dogs already has built fences for more than 100 animals.

In other business, the campaign to pass the public referendum on the 1 percent prepared foods tax has begun. Dubbed "The Taste for Durham's Future," the public relations effort is supported by many elected officials, including the Commission and Durham Mayor Bill Bell.

This fall, Durham voters will decide whether to approve a 1 percent tax on prepared meals and beverages. The additional revenue is expected to generate millions of dollars for cultural amenities, including a Minor League Baseball museum. Several citizens groups, including the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People, are opposing the hike, saying it will hurt low-income residents, many of whom can't afford the increase or the cultural amenities the hike will subsidize.

A 37-member steering committee has set a goal of $45,000 to conduct the campaign, which will include mailers sent to 120,000 Durham County voters.

A kickoff to drum up support for the ballot measure is scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 16, from 2-3:30 p.m. at the Hayti Heritage Center, 804 Old Fayetteville St.

6 COMMENTS

Despite one actual expert calling this law "excessive" and another saying he is "against such laws" and even one of their own main proponents for gaining more gestapo power for herself, the AC director, admitted that the six dogs she referred to in a recent cruelty case (where the dogs happened to be tethered) were all confiscated and the owners cited under existing law this kangaroo commission acted on behalf of their own extremist agenda.

As a lifelong Democrat I am appalled that some of my party's leaders on this Commission have sought to legislate against the legitimate and peaceful actions of their constituents against the advice of true experts. I want everyone who reads this to take note that every member of the commission is a Democrat. I wish I could ask that you OUST EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM (except Lewis Cheek, who showed some integrity in voting for what was right and not what was politically expedient) from their illicitly used seats this November, even if it means electing Republicans. However there are only five nominees for the five seats, including three who have already abused their positions.

Additionally, since they managed to pass this kangaroo law I wish I could hope that the next Commissioners would seek to rescind it immediately during the "grace period" and run with that as part of their platform. However, upon viewing a sample ballot I see only these two older, wealthy, out-of-touch women, Mr. Page and a couple newcomers, not even Mr. Cheek, the one sole holdout to their fascist agenda. So, it will have to be 2012 before they can be ousted. I would urge someone like Steve Hamlett to run for one of the seats and perhaps organize others from his club. Not only will I support him/them but I will rally as many as I can to do so as well.

Here is a link to the County Election Board's website. Nowhere do I see "criminalize reasonable, lawful action by Durham's Citizens" in the Commission's mission statements.

Please go, look, and let's take action against these leaders who have subordinated the rights of Durham's citizens to their own extremist agenda. I will now begin compiling information which I hope to present involving what is required to recall the offending commissioners. Look for more information on that in the future.

http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/elec/Durham_County_Officials/Durham_County_Officials.html http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/bocc/index.html http://www.co.durham.nc.us/departments/bocc/Rules_and_Procedures/Rules_of_Procedure_F.html
by ykw 9 Sep 2008, 8:17am Report this comment
I don't understand the argument that an anti-tethering ordinance is infringing on our rights--if you want to be tethered in your yard for hours at a time or for the rest of your life, that is your right, but there must be guidelines, rules and laws to encourage and force some people to treat their pets reasonably well.
by tracyene Durham 9 Sep 2008, 10:40am Report this comment
Someone against the tethering law was quoted in the article as saying: "It's a pitiful world when other people determine your lifestyle..."

Huh? That quote is illustrative of the mindset of people who think it is appropriate to keep a dog in chains for months or years on end. First, keeping chained dogs is not a "lifestyle," just as neglecting a child or fighting pit bulls shouuld not be considered a lifestyle choice.

And, sorry, but get over it: we already have countless laws that determine our "lifestyles." Laws tell us we should not engage in a pot-smoking lifestyle. Existing laws tell us we cannot dump trash in our yards, or fail to educate our kids, or starve our animals to death. Why is it such a stretch for our society of finally recognize that keeping a dog chained by the neck in some forgotten corner of the backyard is not a "lifestyle choice," it is an antiquated and barbaric form of canine confinement that most responsible pet owners find abhorrent.

True, some people do not chain their dogs in hideously abusive ways. But sometimes people have to give up a little something because there are so many OTHER people out there who do NOT chain in responsible ways. Allowing people to take the easiest, most negligent way out when it comes to confining their pet sets the ground work for abuse or neglect. Don't want to housetrain Fluffy? Well, just chain her to a tree and let her live our her natural life there. Too many people think this is ok. Sorry, but it is simply time for there to be laws against this practice.

Similar laws are working well in many places in the country.

by monicas (monicahayde@yahoo.com) , Belmont, CA 9 Sep 2008, 1:14pm Report this comment
These people that think it is okay to tether a dog continously sre simply ignorant. The dog gives his life for humans everyday. In labratories, in police work, and by protecting their guardians. Dog is man's closest alley in the animal world. They are intelligent, noble, and loving creatures. They share many of the same emotions with humans. They deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. Anyone who would even consider chaining their dog is simply inhuman and heartless. How would you feel if you were chained for your entire life with minimal food and water. Slowly you would be decapitated by the embedded chain. Why would you do this to a sentient creature? You obviously have no regard for animals and their cinditions.
by JFAcrey Durham 16 Sep 2008, 11:12am Report this comment
I have a next door neighbor with two, tethered, 20+ pound dogs in their backyard; one of which is very aggressive. I am so glad that my neighbor will be required to build an enclosure for the dogs or fence-in the yard. The aggressive dog has gotten loose on at least two occasions, so I know that tethering, for that animal, is ineffective and unreliable; which makes me very uncomfortable on my own property. I don't want my neighbor to pay my medical expenses if I am ever bitten...I don't want to be bitten in the first place!!!!
by Propertyowner Durham 20 Nov 2009, 3:16pm Report this comment
I think the dog and cat tax is unfair they claim they used this money for the animal pound to help wih unwanted animal but they kill more animal than any county in nc thay turn away more people who want these animals than any county in nc and if your dog or cat was missing or someone took your dog or cat from you the durham police will not look into any case to see if crimals charges can be file they will tell you any reason not to do the job by saying we dont take reports on this so why pay a tax for what if the police dept will not even take a report and to dog pound kills all the animal and not find new homes what are you paying a tax for
by zane77 Durham 18 Jan 2010, 6:26pm Report this comment
Add to the discussion
Post your comment
Add to the discussion
Post your comment
 
return to top