Laserfiche WebLink
2. The amended ordinance prohibits specified behavior to and by such <br /> animals as defined therein, but the bulk of the fines and fees will be <br /> borne by dog owners. As proposed, the dog licensing fee reflects a <br /> 400 percent increase over the current rate. Most hunters maintain <br /> more than one dog in their kennels. Whether by design or not, the <br /> proposed ordinance places an inordinate cost burden on individuals <br /> who are the least likely to contribute to problems attributable to <br /> irresponsible dog owners. Hunting dogs have value, and do not run <br /> free. We have suggested a reduced fee structure for "working dogs", <br /> which would include ranch and farm dogs. The reduced fee could <br /> require a means of permanent identification such as an implanted <br /> microchip, which seemingly should reduce the cost of ordinance <br /> enforcement by having readily available dog ownership information. <br /> 3. Section 4-1 of the proposed ordinance amendment specifies the term <br /> "dog" throughout, whereas the term "animal" is more appropriate. It is <br /> suggested that subsections (e), (g), (o), (r), and (v) be reworded with <br /> the term "animal" to be more inclusive. <br /> 4. In Section 4-20, in two instances under seizure of dogs, it states that <br /> "every officer shall seize" (unlicensed and stray dogs). This wording <br /> would imply that this is a priority action for all police officers and <br /> other enforcement officers. It is suggested that the wording <br /> "enforcement officers may seize" be substituted. <br /> 5. In Section 4-25, it is stated that a judge may order the owner of a <br /> noisy dog to attend obedience school, presumably to curtail that <br /> behavior. There is no "obedience school" that we are aware of that <br /> can cure a barking dog. The accepted remedial action is to fit the dog <br /> with avoice-activated electronic collar. <br /> 6. The magnitude of the fine levied under Section 4-27 for injuring or <br /> poisoning dogs is grossly inadequate. It is difficult to imagine a more <br /> premeditated, cruel, and despicable action than intentionally <br /> poisoning a dog. Anyone who does so should be severely punished. <br /> 7. Section 4-31 specifies dog identification by "microchip". That is one <br /> of the current means of permanent identification for animals. <br /> Tattooing is another method. It is suggested that generic wording, <br /> such as "permanent identification, such as implanted microchip" be <br /> employed, so as to accommodate current and future identification <br /> technology. <br /> <br /> We thank you for the opportunity to express our views at this hearing. <br /> 2 <br /> <br />