Huge turnout for Durham's tethering ordinance hearing | Durham County | Indy Week
Pin It

Huge turnout for Durham's tethering ordinance hearing 

Before a packed Commission chambers, more than 75 people spoke over the course of two and half hours on Durham County's proposed animal tethering ordinance Monday night, the overwhelming majority in favor of it. County Commissioners took no action on the legislation, but will likely finalize language at the Sept. 2 work session, beginning at 1 p.m. Commissioners are then expected to schedule it for a vote at a regular meeting this fall.

The ordinance, which would be more stringent than the current law, would ban continuous, unattended tethering outside except under limited circumstances, such as if the animals are actively herding livestock, engaged in hunting or sporting events, or undergoing training or medical treatment.

The ordinance would become effective 15 months after adoption and would include a year-long public outreach and education program, followed by a three-month grace period during which animal control officers would issue only warnings.

Proponents of the ordinance reiterated horror stories of dogs strangled on their tethers, necks festered and maggot-ridden from embedded chains, unwanted litters borne by female dogs who, while chained, were impregnated by passing males.

"You as a board can decrease animal suffering," said Mark Soloman of Durham, a neuropsychologist. "Dog emotions are not much different from human emotions, based on what we know. They know what it's like to be tethered."

Opponents of the proposed ordinance, including Andrea Press of Wilmington, say that tethering, when done humanely, is appropriate. They contend that poor and middle-class families cannot afford fencing and that the Coalition to Unchain Animals, which has built fences and helped de-tether 100 animals in Durham County, cannot help everyone who needs it.

Ed McBride of Durham said that an amended ordinance is unnecessary and that the county should enforce existing rules.

However, Meredith Barthelemy noted that current law is insufficient and recounted instances of dogs choking or smothering their puppies because their chains were short—but within the law. With the new law, "there is no gray area," she said. "They're chained or they're not."

In addition, New Hanover County animal control officials sent a letter to the Commission, stating their jurisdiction has a similar ordinance. "You cannot enforce what you don't have," the letter read. "De-tethering is the right step in responsible pet ownership."

Last April, several pit bull owners challenged the ordinance, but New Hanover County Commissioners upheld it.

Rodney Marshall of Durham was a pit bull breeder who met with the Coalition to Unchain Dogs so that he could get a fence for his animals instead of tethering them. "I have seen spectacular results. Slavery is over; take the chains off the dogs."

Durham resident John Hanselman told the Commission he favors the ordinance—so he can get some sleep. His neighbor's tethered dog barks during the night. "You know Son of Sam, he went around and killed people because of the barking dog," Hansel said, presumably as a joke. "Well I'm at that point."

Read a previous story on tethering, published Aug. 13.

Speaking of Anti-tethering

Comments (10)

Showing 1-10 of 10

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-10 of 10

Add a comment

INDY Week publishes all kinds of comments, but we don't publish everything.

  • Comments that are not contributing to the conversation will be removed.
  • Comments that include ad hominem attacks will also be removed.
  • Please do not copy and paste the full text of a press release.

Permitted HTML:
  • To create paragraphs in your comment, type <p> at the start of a paragraph and </p> at the end of each paragraph.
  • To create bold text, type <b>bolded text</b> (please note the closing tag, </b>).
  • To create italicized text, type <i>italicized text</i> (please note the closing tag, </i>).
  • Proper web addresses will automatically become links.

Latest in Durham County



Twitter Activity

Comments

Sounds like vigilantism to me. But at least it should take any supporter out of consideration for Steve Schewel's seat. …

by MJKopechne on Will the Felony Charges Against Defend Durham Demonstrators Be Dropped? (Durham County)

People's tribunal?

by John Trololo on Will the Felony Charges Against Defend Durham Demonstrators Be Dropped? (Durham County)

Most Recent Comments

Sounds like vigilantism to me. But at least it should take any supporter out of consideration for Steve Schewel's seat. …

by MJKopechne on Will the Felony Charges Against Defend Durham Demonstrators Be Dropped? (Durham County)

People's tribunal?

by John Trololo on Will the Felony Charges Against Defend Durham Demonstrators Be Dropped? (Durham County)

White supremacists call this progress, the klan would be proud of black families being pushed out of durham.

by lamer99 on For Two Decades, Durham’s East End Neighborhood Hosted Horseshoe Matches With No Complaints. Then the Developers Came. (Durham County)

What happens with respect to Councilwoman Cole-McFadden? Would she be able to vote, or is it the newly elected council …

by arrbeejay on What Happens to Steve Schewel’s Council Seat if He Becomes Mayor? (Durham County)

Durham and Duke need to finally follow Chapel Hill/UNC's lead and offer fare-free service for all.

by walty on With Duke University Pulling Its Funding, What’s the Future of the Bull City Connector? (Durham County)

© 2017 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation