Proposed County Animal Control Ordinance
Commissioners have requested comments and opinions on the proposed ordinance.
Proposed County Animal Ordinance
Presently there is a Bainbridge City Ordinance
February 15, 2006
• • •
28 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Sounds good on paper, but I have little faith that it’ll make much difference in reality. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see…..
Comment by Jennifer — February 15, 2006 @ 6:26 amSigh, I have to break my vow of silence on this one. Looks like it was written by non-pet owners.
Does not address fenceless containment systems. As written, a dog wearing a collar with sensor and in the electrified field would be considered unrestrained and illegal. (sec. 10.1 and Article III)
My dog spends a good deal of the day on the back porch. We have no fence. She’s unrestrained and therefore illegal. Dumb. (sec 10.1 and Article III)
You must have a fence or a leash to put your dog out to go to the bathroom. I just open the back door and send her out. Again, would be illegal. (sec 10.1 and Article III)
You will tie up a full time person rounding up unrestrained cats. We have one outdoor cat. I have never seen her leave the property but she is unrestrained and therefore illegal. The neighbor’s cat comes over to our house to eat. I suppose if I got tired of that I could call animal control and they could haul both away. Feral cats should be a separate issue. (sec 10.1 and Article III)
I don’t clean up after the dog on my property relying on mother nature and I certainly don’t for the cat and the neighbor’s cat. Again would be illegal. Dumb.(Article V sec. 10-92)
I am pretty sure that in Michigan our vet gave a rabies vaccination every 3 years and we annually applied applied for a rabies tag. The law should not stipulate an annual rabies vaccination if that is not the current method or could possibly change with future advancements in drug development. (Article V sec. 10-94)
Comment by Iron Man — February 15, 2006 @ 7:38 amI am highly upset by the proposed animal ordinance. I live in the county, so that I can have my animals, among other reasons. I AM NOT in favor of this ordinance. I realize that there are problems with some animals and their owners, but to punish every one because of a few, is unfair. My animals know their boundries as we have approximately 20 acres and they (one dog and 2 cats) are allowed to roam the total of that. I have never seen my dog or cats on anyone else’s property, that is not saying that they have never strayed but I really don’t think they have.
I have one question for whomever came up with this? How do you confine a cat? Other than declawing (Not a very humane thing to do) and making a house cat out of them. I do have other animals and they are not a problem, unless the fence on the property line is closer than the propsed allowance to another dwelling, but we are separated by a county road.
The county should deal with the problems they already have at hand and quit causing others. I could go on and on about this, but, I think you get my point.
Comment by highlyopinionated — February 15, 2006 @ 10:45 amI am so glad to see that Decatur County is considering the animal ordinances. I live in the county, and we are pet owners and we practice this type of ordinance with our pets all the time. We believe in having RESPECT for our neighbors as far as control of the pets. It is aggrivating when you try to take your pets out to use the restrooom, and a neighbors dog is running around on your property aggrivating your pets. For instance, we had a neighbor’s dog to die on our property about 2 or 3 weeks ago, we had to remove it ourselves. This would not had happened if this type of ordinance was in place. GO Decatur County, Please vote this ordinance in.
Comment by storyfamily — February 15, 2006 @ 12:08 pmAlso, I have three indoor cats. They have NEVER been outside. Why should they be required to have a rabies vaccination? It is unnecessary given the level of risk. Under this proposal, that would be illegal. That is just a waste of my money. How are they going to enforce that one?
Comment by Iron Man — February 15, 2006 @ 3:37 pmIs this county ordinance in addition to the one the city already has in place for the city residents? I have 3 cats that are all up to date on their rabies vaccines, but WILL NOT STAY IN MY YARD ALL THE TIME! I live in the city and worry constantly that they are going to be picked up. They do stay within a one house radius of my yard and don’t seem to bother my neighbors, but they totally ignore the 6 foot fence that surronds my backyard. The fence acts more like a fun toy to climb for them than a deterant even the declawed one shimmies right up it. Cats are not going to stay in the yard and they don’t keep their collars on very well either. I don’t have the answers to the cat problem, but it is quite difficult to keep them in the yard.
Comment by pistolero — February 15, 2006 @ 4:58 pmI moved from a fairly large city(compared to this one!) which had an animal ordinance and kept it enforced. I wish that this ordinance would be passed. We live in the city limits and have countless numbers of dogs running around. I have a 4 yr. old and I worry about her being outside even though we are always with her. Most of the dogs I will admit have never once barked at her, but there is one in particular that my husband has to constantly chase out of our yard.I even saw an elderly woman walking and that same dog started barking & running after her. She was throwing pinecones at it to make it stop. What if that one dog has not been caught up on it’s vaccinations? The city I lived in had numerous dog attacks on small children before the leash law was put into effect. I was apalled when I heard there was no leash law here. The person who said it is a waste of your money to vaccinate your house animals is wrong. What would happen if just one time your “house cat” escaped? Wouldn’t you be worried about the other animals it might come in contact with? What if you yourself came in contact with a neighbors’ dog who had not been vaccinated or were biten by an unknown dog? These are things you all need to think about. If not yourself think of the children!
Comment by newcomer — February 15, 2006 @ 5:35 pmI worry that my two cats will get picked up also. They stay within a one house radius. No one complains. I feed my neighbors cats when they come over also. I don’t think the law should be the same for cats due to the fact that they do not pose a threat as a dog does. I will still be shocked if this law is enforced, because I recently had a Sheriff’s Deputy living directly across the street from me…He would let his dog out every day. This dog was a large dog and he knew when my cats were going to be feed. He would come over a eat their food and take the bowls to their yard. If I tried to stopped him, he would growl and bark at me, my 9 year old son, or my wife. This is more of a threat. That neighbor has moved, but since he was a officer, I guess my other neighbor thinks that it’s OK to do this. Now he lets his dog and puppy roam all over my yard all times of the day.
Also, there’s this other guy that walks his dog daily and stops in our yard to let his dog take care of business in our pinestraw. I couldn’t do this if I was a dog owner. I just don’t get it! I’ll put my cats inside. Just pass the law.
Comment by Mortal Treason — February 15, 2006 @ 9:07 pmI feel there are other more important issues that need adressing before tax monies are spent on new vehicles and new saleried employees to ride all over the county.I can start the list with paving muddy roads.There are hundreds of animals all over this county and it would take a pretty good sized department to handle such a job.I recommend giving the deputies already employed such duties and give them an extra bullet or two.
Comment by metlsmith — February 15, 2006 @ 10:28 pmThere are some irresponsible pet owners that do not properly care for their animals. There should be an ordinance put in place to do something about it, but it should be very seriously planned out.
The deputies have plenty of job duties as it is, dog catcher does not need to be added.
Where will all the strays go; the new shelter is already full.
We can’t afford to give our Sheriff Department enough money in their budget to purchase all the necessary equipment to make our officers safe, but the county can find money to create new positions.
The county needs to deal with the problems they already have rather than search for new ones to divert attention!
Comment by easily_overlooked — February 16, 2006 @ 9:28 amObviously, the past two statements were made by people with no kids. I think that something does need to be done with the dogs running around all over town.
I have a kid and I would like to think that he and my wife could go in the yard without being confronted
by an angry dog. I don’t mind the law being made. I will take my cats inside with no problem.
To say “give them an extra bullet or two” is just uncaring. The dogs don’t deserve to die. The owners should just abide the law and keep there dogs on a chain or in a pen. If
Comment by Mortal Treason — February 16, 2006 @ 10:05 pmthis law was enforced, we wouldn’t need a “new” animal law.
I live in the city. I have three cats and three dogs that “belong” to my family. They all have been neutered and spayed (this is what keeps pets “at home” and keeps the population under control). My dogs don’t roam because I contain them. My cats stay home as best as I can tell, except when I walk my dogs on the leash. They follow…
We also have a big grey Tom Cat that visits on cold nights, eats my other cat’s foods and shares the heat lamp that I provide for “Precious”. This is the name that my 8 year old daughter picked for the ugliest cat in the world. Yes, Tom is a malingerer but I never know he’s there for the most part. I worry about disease but that hasn’t happened. Apparently, he hasn’t been neutered.
About 85% of what we worry about as people never happens…
I also have a variety of “possums” that come up on my front porch at night, eat the cat’s food, make a little noise and ramble off. “Harry” is the ugliest “possum” I have ever seen but he is punctual and he and Precious get along fine. She just sits in her chair beside the heat lamp and watches him eat the left overs.
The City Ordinance is good. The County Ordinance would be good. The problem will be enforcement and then dealing with the euthanasia that will inevitably sky rocket. I think the law should be that every animal found “roaming” that is not spayed, neutered, or has been aggressive should be picked up and taken to the pound…the others will go home….
Comment by Rev. Newton Cranford — February 17, 2006 @ 7:39 ami don’t know but it seems to me if mr. mosely had worked on a proposal to lock up the two men that went before the grand jury with the dope, instead of working so hard on trying to lock up animals then his time would have been better served. but then i am not an attorney. so if i am wrong i apologize.
Comment by infohungry — February 17, 2006 @ 8:02 amI agree the proposed ordinance has some flaws, but it’s a start. I live in a well populated neighborhood barely outside of the city limits. It seems that everybody there has at least two dogs and they all run wild. You can’t even drive down the street without fear of running over a dog. This is not the worst part. I went for about 3 weeks without any sleep because all the dogs did was bark. This is very annoying to someone who has to get up extremely early and has a high-stress job. So I think this ordinance is great.
However, if someone lives 15 miles out in the country and doesn’t have any immediate neighbors, this would be unfair. If you have adequate land for animals to run on, fenced off or not, go for it. Just make sure they don’t inconvenience the rest of the neighborhood.
Comment by bearingchick — February 17, 2006 @ 8:53 amI have 3 elementary school aged children. They have each been taught that no matter how cute and cuddly to stay away from “unknown” animals.
Comment by easily_overlooked — February 17, 2006 @ 9:38 amYes, something does need to be done about strays roaming all over the county. My biggest problem is the people who take the animals way out into the county (where I live) and dump them off.
Maybe?? they wouldn’t if we could take them to humane society and not get charged. Two beautiful beagle mixes were dropped near my home and when my husband took them to the humane society they charged him for the animals. I know it was only $5 each, but they weren’t even my animals. I know everyone can say they are not my animals. But these really weren’t mine.
The proposed ordinance for county-wide domestic animal “control” will be un-enforcable, even if the majority of citizens were for this excercise in futility; which I believe they are NOT. It is HIGH TIME that those in power quit getting paid for doing NOTHING (of a productive nature) and if they can’t focus on THAT; it’s time for them to get the he__ out of town.
Comment by Adjudicator — February 18, 2006 @ 7:58 pmInteresting that the general consensus here is that a poorly written ordinance is better than no ordinance. I wonder how many people have actually read the proposal in its entirety.
There are some serious issues with the dangerous dog section, a section that seems to be at the heart of many people’s concerns.
For starters, section 10-87a isn’t even a grammatically correct English sentence. I’m not sure why we would confiscate an animal control officer. I guess not everyone was taught to proof read before they turned in their final report.
In essence, if a dog bites someone, not much happens. Pay a fine, get some insurance and a sign and you get your dog back. How many times can a dog bite? I know from personal experience in past cities I have lived in, if your dog bites someone AND they press charges, your dog is destroyed. That is not a provision in the proposal. Maybe it happens, maybe not. (sec 10-87c)
If you know your dog is a biter and you move here, you would have to register. How is this enforced?
But the real kicker, 10-88c “No owner of a dangerous dog shall be held criminally liable under this article for injuries inflicted by such owner’s dog to any human being while on the owner’s property.” Kind of negates most of the ordinance, don’t you think?
I am sure that this is just a rough draft proposal. There are supposed to be at least two public hearings. My hope is that some of these issues will be addressed to make this a strong and working ordinance. It is needed. It is good. But it needs a lot of work.
Comment by Iron Man — February 18, 2006 @ 10:11 pmThere is a
Comment by Larry — February 19, 2006 @ 1:23 amCity of Bainbridge Animal Control Ordinance
If we don’t support an ordinance then we need to donate some more money to the Animal Shelter…
I wonder how many of you have attended a “euthanasia day” at the Animal Shelter? I have seen when this was done, not here but at another very professional shelter, in Charleston, SC.
If you have a heart, you won’t sleep for weeks and then you will go get your cats and dogs spayed and neutered so we don’t continue contributing to the population of “roaming” animals. Dogs and cats that are neutered and spayed stay home in most cases…this would help with the general problem - too many cats and dogs roaming the streets…
Comment by Rev. Newton Cranford — February 19, 2006 @ 9:04 am“If you have a heart, you won’t sleep for weeks and then you will go get your cats and dogs spayed and neutered so we don’t continue contributing to the population of “roaming” animals. Dogs and cats that are neutered and spayed stay home in most cases…this would help with the general problem - too many cats and dogs roaming the streets…”
YES & Amen. One would (hopefully) not let their children run rampant on the streets. So… let those only who are responsible and mature (enough) have the privledge of pet ownership. Let’s start fining (heavily) the owners of said pets who let same run wild. Let’s start enforcing animal cruelty laws. Not planning on breeding your pet?… Manditory spay/neuter laws. Those who breed pets should have approved facilities & be sanctioned through appropriate organizations (AKC, CFA, etc.) and also local/county government. My pets ARE MY CHILDREN. Let’s start punishing incompetent and thoughtless pet owners whose pets have the misfortune of being “owned” by THEM! And by ALL means, support YOUR local animal shelter!!!!
Comment by Adjudicator — February 19, 2006 @ 11:22 amIronically, I had to call the Sheriff’s Department just this weekend about an aggressive pit bull. It charged full force at the neighbor’s boy. She had to grab her son, and the neglectful owners heard him scream so they grabbed the dog. This is not the first time that this particular dog has done this. It is a shame that we have to arm ourselves to be protected against bad owners and aggressive dogs. However, I have a feeling that the dog owners now understand that Little Miss Annie Oakley will pull a “Dick Cheney” if their dog does this again. Should I say attempts to do it again.
Comment by opinionated1 — February 20, 2006 @ 7:27 amWe have a lab that is very aggressive. She is in a fenced yard with a Beware of Dog sign. I think the aggressive animal part can be a good thing, if written correctly. Anyone that lets their dogs run wild and trespass…they are risking their dogs safety and well being in most cases. I do not see that public funds and time will fix this.
Opinionated: I think your child is in danger around YOUR dog and the neighbor’s…aggressive dogs see little kids as competition for their “position” in the “pack”…they are wired to “take them out or take their position”…
Comment by Rev. Newton Cranford — February 21, 2006 @ 7:32 amRev. I never said I had a child…that is odd that you assumed I did.
Actually, my dog is territorial to the yard…our fenced back yard. It is locked back yard too. She has proven to be protective to us, my family. She has been aggressive to those that enter the yard through the side gate without my husband or myself present. Perhaps I should have clarified it better on my previous post. She is also well trained. She knows commands in english and in german courtesy of my husband. She interacts beautifully with children in our family-as long as they come out the back door with us. We never allow children unsupervised in our yard, dog or not. Also, she gets along good with our little Shih Tzu that will irritate even an angel dog.
I fully understand the “alpha dog” concept. I am fairly educated on the breed and my husband has a BA in Biology. That is why we only have one lab and handle things as we do. As responsible parents, we feel that it is imperative that children be supervised around dogs anyhow. My niece took a treat from a dog while her dad went to the kitchen for a minute-she got nipped. It is part of being a responsible pet owner and parent in my case.
The neighbor’s dogs are transients and troublemakers. They are unsupervised, as are many dogs in our neighborhood. I fully understand your post and felt I needed to clarify my position.
You said “dogs see little kids as competition for their “position” in the “pack”…they are wired to “take them out or take their position”… ” I agree. However, a shotgun is such a great equalizer when life and limb are threatened and I feel that this is how most in Decatur County will handle it.
Comment by opinionated1 — February 21, 2006 @ 5:20 pmOpinionated1,
Sorry. I accept your correction. I misread your comment about the “neighbor’s boy”.
Comment by Rev. Newton Cranford — February 24, 2006 @ 7:01 amThat’s understandable. I got rolling on that issue because it really bothers me. I do have a child though.
Comment by opinionated1 — February 28, 2006 @ 8:02 amThere was three puppies left on my property and one of them was run over and killed by a car.
Comment by revdaneeidson — March 11, 2006 @ 12:21 amWe need a tough ordinance. We should put a bite in the punishment for violating this ordinance. I wish we had an ordinance that would mean a hefty fine for the persons leaving their unwanted puppies on some one else’s property and/or public lands such as streets, county and city property, or even let loose to run freely in a neighborhood. There needs to be a law that would make it a felony to allow a pet to roam free unsupervised in the city and county that bites and injures a person. We would also need for our officials to enforce such a law.
I live in the Black Jack area East of Bainbridge. I can not walk around my own neighborhood because of people who do not see the need or even care to keep their dogs behind a fence or on a leash. It is tireesome to have dogs charge a person just because they are walking on a public street.
One poor dog has been seen trying to turn over trash cans to get something to eat in the recent past here in Black Jack. It was very skinny and you could see the impression of its ribs on its side. It had a collar on its neck. So that tells me there is yet another person nearby who does not care about their dog or neighbors.
Maybe the violaters of such law could be sentenced to cleaning up the messes his or her pet created on the properties of citizens and that of the city and the county. If their dog bit someone they could wear a sign on their front and back saying, “I did not care for my pet and I let them bite someone.”
I realize pets do escape and get out once in awhile. My issue is with those who are continual repeat offenders.
I thank this would be great since we have just been visited by a stray and after I told the animal shelter that this stray was attacking my personal dogs and jumping on my cars I was told there was nothing to do since I lived in the county!!!!!
Comment by gapeach78 — March 13, 2006 @ 7:52 pmI have asked for a animal ordinace for yars. Please pass one. The people that don’t want one may start washing off my new car any morning they want too.Because my neighbor cat get on it every night. I will even let them pay for a new paint job.
Comment by James — November 16, 2006 @ 6:38 amM.A.S.H.