June 24, 2009
Non-Tethering Ordinance Has First Reading
Council Members Pass and Turn Down Numerous Amendments; Enforceability Questioned
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – How many times has a Huntington resident complained about the non-enforcement of a law on the books?
The so-called tethering or non-tethering dog ordinance could be destined for enforcement dilemmas due to ambiguity, among other issues.
During a tethering committee meeting, work session and during the First Reading of the ordinance before Huntington City Council, Anita Asbury, director of the Huntington Cabell Huntington Animal Control Shelter, on more than one occasion expressed “it’s going to be tough” to enforce or similar statements.
Ordinance sponsor Jim Ritter took a something is better than nothing approach. “What’s council’s pleasure,” he asked during the work session? “We do not have [sufficient] animal control officers to do this properly,” he added.
When the matter came before the full council, the will of the body appeared divided.
The ordinance as printed stated an allowance of ten hours tethering; however, based on discussion at the work session, that appeared to be either a possible typographic error or a decision made by city attorney Scott McClure following discussion at a previous tethering committee meeting.
Ritter preferred that the ten remain and asked that it be amended to ten hours. Although animal rights activist Jacqueline Muth called both eight and ten hours “absurd” and “uncivilized” treatment of dogs, the ten hour limit passed by a 5-3 margin (Frances Jackson, Jim Ritter and Rebecca Thacker voted no.)
Councilman Scott Caserta spoke against an amendment that would have enforced the ordinance only between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. While this would be easier for look see enforcement, Caserta objected that the time frame favored those working one shift. “I’m concerned about those folks who work different shifts.”
Ritter inquired whether humane officers and dog wardens would be available outside those hours. He was told that they are available in an on call capacity. This amendment went down to defeat soundly by a 6-2 margin (Thacker and Ritter voted in favor).
Councilman Nate Randolph then addressed the acceptable temperature requirements, which were listed as not less than 32 nor more than 90 degrees.
Randolph inquired what about dogs that have access to both warmer or cooler locations within their confined space, such as a heated garage or a cool area under the house.
Ms. Muth added that the temperatures did not consider that some dogs have a heavy coat of fur or might be obese causing them to be less able to tolerate extremes in weather.
Councilwoman Rebecca Thacker noted that she had seen a Chihuahua tied to a boat. “Little animals can’t take that much” [temperature variation] as larger ones.
Asbury addressed the temperature factor --- whether the dog stayed in a nearby location or fully outside --- by explaining that “I do not think we can carry thermometers. This is a common sense thing,” adding that one could observe the animal’s panting to determine if it was showing signs of heat stroke.
Earlier, Asbury told the work session, that most animal cruelty cases had been tossed out of court. She told of a Wayne County incident where despite pictures and the testimony of a witness and a veterinarian, a judge “knew” the individual accused and “threw” the case out. In Cabell County, most cases have resulted in the owner losing custody of the dog.
“We have to access whether there’s immediate danger,” in which case the police would be called. Otherwise, Asbury stated a notice would be posted for the owner to bring the animal’s condition’s into compliance within a 48-72 hour period.
The amendment to utilize temperature within the animals habitat failed 5-3 (Randolph, Caserta and Insco voted in favor).
Two amendments passed on the temperature issues. The summer temperature maximum has been set at 85 degrees. It passed 7-2 (Caserta, Insco voted against). In addition, 35 degrees was set as the acceptable lower temperature. Again, it passed, 7-2 (Caserta, Insco against).
Observing the difficulties of the ordinance as amended and presented, councilwoman Frances Jackson stated, “I don’t think it’s ready for a vote.” She proposed that it be sent back to the committee for additional work and that additional members be added to the committee. “We’re the voice for animals , we have to speak for them,” Ms. Jackson stressed.
However, her motion failed when the vote tied at 4-4. Ms. Jackson, Ms. Thacker, , Ms. Clements and Mr. Houck voted for more work at the committee level.
Sponsor Jim Ritter told council, “I just want to get my foot in the door,” noting that when he took a nap this afternoon his four dogs climbed in bed with him. On the enforcement, as written, he noted, “neighbors are just dying to tell on one another.”
Following the council meeting, HNN asked City Attorney Scott McClure about the procedural posture of the proposed ordinance.
He indicated that citizens in favor or against “can show up at the next meeting and protest or object. Those are the normal avenues available to people who want to comment on a piece of legislation.”
However, the first meeting in July might not be the vote culmination for the ordinance. McClure explained that under parliamentary procedures, “they could [vote again] and refer it to committee, table it, postpone or something like that.” For that matter, “it could be amended [at the next meeting].” If that happens, then, there would be a third reading of the ordinance.
In other words, the proposals that failed at Monday’s meeting can go back on the table. Since three council members were not in attendance at this meeting, the decision on the ordinance could still undergo alterations.
And, in Ritter’s words, “If it passes, it passes; if it doesn’t , it doesn’t.”
Caserta, who has a cat in a temperature controlled house, added, “I wish we had [this much] time to consider all ordinances.”
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
Non-Tethering Ordinance Has First Reading
Council Members Pass and Turn Down Numerous Amendments; Enforceability Questioned
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – How many times has a Huntington resident complained about the non-enforcement of a law on the books?
The so-called tethering or non-tethering dog ordinance could be destined for enforcement dilemmas due to ambiguity, among other issues.
During a tethering committee meeting, work session and during the First Reading of the ordinance before Huntington City Council, Anita Asbury, director of the Huntington Cabell Huntington Animal Control Shelter, on more than one occasion expressed “it’s going to be tough” to enforce or similar statements.
Ordinance sponsor Jim Ritter took a something is better than nothing approach. “What’s council’s pleasure,” he asked during the work session? “We do not have [sufficient] animal control officers to do this properly,” he added.
When the matter came before the full council, the will of the body appeared divided.
The ordinance as printed stated an allowance of ten hours tethering; however, based on discussion at the work session, that appeared to be either a possible typographic error or a decision made by city attorney Scott McClure following discussion at a previous tethering committee meeting.
Ritter preferred that the ten remain and asked that it be amended to ten hours. Although animal rights activist Jacqueline Muth called both eight and ten hours “absurd” and “uncivilized” treatment of dogs, the ten hour limit passed by a 5-3 margin (Frances Jackson, Jim Ritter and Rebecca Thacker voted no.)
Councilman Scott Caserta spoke against an amendment that would have enforced the ordinance only between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. While this would be easier for look see enforcement, Caserta objected that the time frame favored those working one shift. “I’m concerned about those folks who work different shifts.”
Ritter inquired whether humane officers and dog wardens would be available outside those hours. He was told that they are available in an on call capacity. This amendment went down to defeat soundly by a 6-2 margin (Thacker and Ritter voted in favor).
Councilman Nate Randolph then addressed the acceptable temperature requirements, which were listed as not less than 32 nor more than 90 degrees.
Randolph inquired what about dogs that have access to both warmer or cooler locations within their confined space, such as a heated garage or a cool area under the house.
Ms. Muth added that the temperatures did not consider that some dogs have a heavy coat of fur or might be obese causing them to be less able to tolerate extremes in weather.
Councilwoman Rebecca Thacker noted that she had seen a Chihuahua tied to a boat. “Little animals can’t take that much” [temperature variation] as larger ones.
Asbury addressed the temperature factor --- whether the dog stayed in a nearby location or fully outside --- by explaining that “I do not think we can carry thermometers. This is a common sense thing,” adding that one could observe the animal’s panting to determine if it was showing signs of heat stroke.
Earlier, Asbury told the work session, that most animal cruelty cases had been tossed out of court. She told of a Wayne County incident where despite pictures and the testimony of a witness and a veterinarian, a judge “knew” the individual accused and “threw” the case out. In Cabell County, most cases have resulted in the owner losing custody of the dog.
“We have to access whether there’s immediate danger,” in which case the police would be called. Otherwise, Asbury stated a notice would be posted for the owner to bring the animal’s condition’s into compliance within a 48-72 hour period.
The amendment to utilize temperature within the animals habitat failed 5-3 (Randolph, Caserta and Insco voted in favor).
Two amendments passed on the temperature issues. The summer temperature maximum has been set at 85 degrees. It passed 7-2 (Caserta, Insco voted against). In addition, 35 degrees was set as the acceptable lower temperature. Again, it passed, 7-2 (Caserta, Insco against).
Observing the difficulties of the ordinance as amended and presented, councilwoman Frances Jackson stated, “I don’t think it’s ready for a vote.” She proposed that it be sent back to the committee for additional work and that additional members be added to the committee. “We’re the voice for animals , we have to speak for them,” Ms. Jackson stressed.
However, her motion failed when the vote tied at 4-4. Ms. Jackson, Ms. Thacker, , Ms. Clements and Mr. Houck voted for more work at the committee level.
Sponsor Jim Ritter told council, “I just want to get my foot in the door,” noting that when he took a nap this afternoon his four dogs climbed in bed with him. On the enforcement, as written, he noted, “neighbors are just dying to tell on one another.”
Following the council meeting, HNN asked City Attorney Scott McClure about the procedural posture of the proposed ordinance.
He indicated that citizens in favor or against “can show up at the next meeting and protest or object. Those are the normal avenues available to people who want to comment on a piece of legislation.”
However, the first meeting in July might not be the vote culmination for the ordinance. McClure explained that under parliamentary procedures, “they could [vote again] and refer it to committee, table it, postpone or something like that.” For that matter, “it could be amended [at the next meeting].” If that happens, then, there would be a third reading of the ordinance.
In other words, the proposals that failed at Monday’s meeting can go back on the table. Since three council members were not in attendance at this meeting, the decision on the ordinance could still undergo alterations.
And, in Ritter’s words, “If it passes, it passes; if it doesn’t , it doesn’t.”
Caserta, who has a cat in a temperature controlled house, added, “I wish we had [this much] time to consider all ordinances.”
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
