Animal Response Team Advisory Committee

Hampton Animal Control Advisory Committee Special Meeting Meeting Minutes – March 28, 2017 Present: Jim Thornton, Andy Anderson, Betty Bates, Melanie Paul, Dan Winters, Henry McKelvin, Steve Bond, Angie Taylor; (Staff) Annette Oakley [City Manager’s Office], Kim Karle [City Attorney’s Office]; (Guests) LaVerne Johnson [Interpreter], Jim Harris [Guest] Call to Order & Welcome Chairman Thornton called the Special Meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. He welcomed everyone and asked guests and members to introduce themselves. Review Agenda Chairman Thornton gave a brief background and summary of past discussions regarding the leash law and limiting the number of animals, which included; research by staff, locality comparisons and committee recommendations. Mr. Bond added that the City Council wanted to get more input from the public, therefore a survey was crafted and conducted, and the results were shared with the committee at the last meeting. He stated, in light of this survey, this committee would need to determine if it wants the same recommendation or wants to tweak their recommendation, then present to the City Council. Chairman Thornton inquired if there was anything from the survey that would have baring on the committee’s previous position. There were no comments. Leash Law Chairman Thornton asked if there was a motion regarding the leash law. Ms. Bates stated she would make a motion to accept the leash law as written, but would still like to include language regarding shock collars. Chairman Thornton read part of the current code for the leash law, ‘at large shall mean roaming, running or self-hunting off property of its owner or custodian, and not under its owner’s or custodian’s immediate control, except a dog shall not be considered at-large if it’s on a bona fide hunt in the city and in the company of the hunter.’ Chairman Thornton stated the proposal from Ms. Bates’ motion reads as follows, ‘at large shall mean roaming, running, or self-hunting, off the property of its owner or custodian and not under its owner’s or custodian’s immediate control by leash, rope or chain to a commercial pet collar or harness, or contained within a pet carrier, crate or enclosed pet stroller. Shock collars are prohibited on city of Hampton property. A dog shall not be considered at-large if it is on a bona fide hunt in the company of the hunter or is off-leash in an officially designated bark park’. He inquired if there was a second on this motion. Henry McKelvin seconded the motion. Chairman Thornton called for discussion: Mr. Anderson disagrees with the shock collars being prohibited; saying it restricts the owner. Mr. Bond stated he is not a voting member, but mentioned ‘shock collar’ may be too vague of a term to enforce something like this and he would be hesitant to include in the language. Ms. Karle agreed, stating this may not be the appropriate place and code to do it. She gave the example if a shock collar is attached to a leash, then it’s not running at-large; it would need to be addressed in a different type of proposal. Mr. Winters inquired about the exception for hunting dogs; why would a dog out hunting, off a leash, be less of a danger than a dog under vocal control. Ms. Paul stated shock collars have different electronics and some are used as negative discipline. Mr. Anderson stated an invisible fence shock is not pleasant and could be miscommunicated that it is a shock collar. Chairman Thornton reminded the committee to keep in mind that we will need to have rationale or justification on why we make a recommendation to City Council. Ms. Bates stated she is not hard over on shock collars, but inquired about taking out language regarding hunting dogs being on a leash. Mr. McKelvin stated he is not in favor of shock collars and it would be difficult for dogs to hunt without running. He has no problem with hunting if the dog is under owner’s control. Mr. Anderson inquired of Ms. Taylor if Animal Control ever run across a dog that was being used for hunting in the city. Ms. Taylor stated they have picked up hunting dogs that were abandoned, but never had any issues with an open run or hunting. She added, in the city of Hampton, you cannot discharge a firearm, so an animal cannot be shot if/when someone is hunting. Ms. Taylor also mentioned there are collars that appear to be shock collars, but they just let out noises or spray. Mr. Bond, again stated, this language can create a problem when trying to enforce. Chairman Thornton did a straw poll on keeping the shock collar language in the code: In favor: Bates, Paul, McKelvin Not in favor: Anderson (Bates, McKelvin) Abstain: Thornton, Winters Absent: Sheffield After further discussion, Ms. Bates and Dr. McKelvin are not in favor of adding the language regarding shock collars. Chairman Thornton did a straw poll vote on retaining the hunting language (while hunting, the dog can run without physical constraint) as is. Mr. Winters stated if we let hunting dogs free, then any individual with a well-trained dog, should do so; he would like to see the leash law, but impose it as a secondary offense. Ms. Bates stated a difference is when hunting, you are not around other people, so there were no risks. Mr. Bond stated when this was done, it was originally consistent, as you could have trained dog under voice control and hunting dogs under voice control. When Animal Control produced documents about incidents, there was one incident that fit under this law in the entire city, therefore, it wasn’t a problem that needed to be rectified. Ms. Paul mentioned herding, during training, for example. Chairman Thornton responded that would probably be a special case. Chairman Thornton again inquired how many would like to retain the language, as it exist, relative to hunting: In favor: Bates, Paul, McKelvin, Anderson Not in favor: None Abstain: Thornton, Winters Absent: Sheffield Chairman Thornton inquired of Ms. Karle her opinion on this. Ms. Karle stated any type of herding activity would probably take place on private property and therefore does not fall under the auspices of this requirement. Chairman Thornton re-read the code: ‘At large shall mean roaming, running or self-hunting off the property of its owner or custodian and not under its owner’s or custodian’s immediate control by leash, rope or chain attached to a commercial pet collar or harness or contained within a pet carrier, crate or enclosed pet stroller’. He asked for a straw poll vote in favor of this language inserted: In favor: Anderson, Bates, McKelvin, Paul, Winters Not in favor: None Abstain: Thornton Absent: Sheffield Chairman Thornton called for a motion to adopt the current proposed language, which included shock collars. All opposed, motion failed. Chairman Thornton then called for another motion. Ms. Bates made a motion to adopt the proposed ordinance, removing the term ‘shock collars are prohibited on city of Hampton property’. Chairman Thornton re-read the code: ‘At large shall mean roaming, running or self-hunting off the property of its owner or custodian and not under its owner’s or custodian’s immediate control by leash, rope or chain attached to a commercial pet collar or harness or contained within a pet carrier, crate or enclosed pet stroller’ A dog shall not be considered at-large if it is on a bona fide hunt in the city, in the company of the hunter or is off leash in an officially designated bark park’. Dr. McKelvin seconded. A vote was taken, which resulted as follows: In favor: Anderson, Bates, McKelvin, Paul, Thornton Not in favor: Winters Abstain: None Absent: Sheffield Limiting the Number of Animals Chairman Thornton read notes from the September 2016 minutes regarding limiting the number of animals, including the proposed ordinance; ‘All animals, including household pets, shall be kept or maintained so as not to constitute a public nuisance by concentration or number, causing production of insects, excessive odors, dust, noise or other conditions detrimental to the community health and welfare’. He stated a vote showed the majority wanted no limit of animals, but strong enforcement. He gave a summary of the issue and asked if the survey revealed any information that would be pertinent on the discussion of the number of animals. Mr. Winters commented on the results of the survey, stating the small number of households that responded make it irrelevant. He stated he asked the Animal Control staff their opinions and comments regarding the limit issue. He suggested, if possible, the proposed language should be one that helps Animal Control with enforcement, judgement and efficiency. ACTION: Betty Bates made a motion to accept the language (read previously and adopted in September 2016). Dan Winters seconded. Chairman Thornton asked for any discussion: Mr. Bond stated a concern is the language is vague and very subjective and it would be hard to enforce. It doesn’t add to the ordinance already on the books. Ms. Karle agreed, stating there are already laws that cover this issue. Chairman Thornton asked Ms. Taylor her opinion on stated language. Ms. Taylor stated this may put Animal Control in civil disputes and feels it will be hard to enforce. Ms. Bates stated when originally discussed, this issue was more under environmental code enforcement. Her other concern is Animal Control doesn’t have enough staff to enforce this. If there is a violation of an existing code, it can be addressed. Mr. Winters stated if an issue is already covered; such as nuisance, for example, we don’t need to add more laws. Ms. Paul commented that she is concerned with the word ‘appears’ in regards to the condition of an animal(s). Ms. Taylor commented Animal Control are only required to make sure dogs are vaccinated for rabies and licensed within the City. However, they can most certainly look into other issues and contact the vet and verify if animals are getting proper care. Mr. Anderson stated he does not see a need for a limit of animals. Dr. McKelvin commented if a person has fifty animals and can properly take care of them, so be it. Mr. Winters commented he has fourteen cats and one dog that he cares for; somehow the number has to fit the person. A number doesn’t work, but rather a subjective judgement. ACTION: Chairman Thornton called for the vote on adoption of the proposed language, which resulted as follows: In favor: Bates Not in favor: Anderson, McKelvin, Winters Abstain: Paul, Thornton Absent: Sheffield Motion failed. ACTION: Dan Winters made a motion to revisit the proposal at the next meeting and review how well it’s covered by the existing laws. There being no second, motion failed. Chairman Thornton stated a motion is really not necessary to bring an item back to the meeting for discussion. Ms. Bates mentioned Animal Control staff feels they are covered by existing laws and they are the best ones to tell whether the existing regulations are working. Mr. Bond stated he feels the language that was ‘proposed’ didn’t add much to the existing statute, however, a specific number or other language may be different. He stated City Council will look at the committee’s recommendation and the survey and make a decision. There is nothing wrong with tabling it, but he is not sure City Council will hold off on making a decision. Chairman Thornton stated from what he is hearing from the discussion, the statute that exists gives Animal Control the authority they need to enforce the issue. He asked for consensus on this from the committee. There was a consensus. Ms. Paul reiterated her concern about the word ‘appear’ being it’s too vague. Ms. Taylor shared that Animal Control officers do an assessment form on each individual animal, if there is a cruelty complaint. Public Comment No comments. Next Meeting The next meeting will be Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. Chairman Thornton stated he will wait to hear when the City Council meeting will be held and may ask committee members for comments, as well as send a note out regarding the meeting date. Mr. Bond reminded members if they send comments to Chairman Thornton, there should not be email discussions back and forth. Adjournment Chairman Thornton called for a motion to adjourn. Dan Winters made the motion and Andy Anderson seconded. Motion passes. /mao