11/12/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. , ~ Mr. Bradley moved second by Mr. Hamel to include other animals in e the section dealing with rabies inoculation requirements. Motion carried unanimously. Councilwoman Beal inquired about dogs killing livestock, what the penalties were. Mr. Jordan said that state law allows such dogs to be killed, however by ordinance, firing guns within city limits is prohibited. Mr. Martin added that the owner can gain compensation for losses of livestock through a county board established for that purpose. Councilman Bradley again expressed concern about entry onto private land in order to impound a dog. Mr. Long responded that provisions in this ordinance did not change state law as it now exists. Also, that the example given by Mr. Bradley of the possibility of the occupant being an II-year old child was a constitutional question. Councilman Williams referred to the section covering definitions and asked about the penalty for owners of biting dogs not known to be inoculated for rabies, whether they would be subject to severe damages if a person had to undergo rabies injections. Mr. Long didn't think so. Mr. Martin said there were no incarceration penalties. Mrs. Shirey asked if anything was being done about cats. The Mayor thought it would probably be on the agenda:some time in view of Springfield's recent action in that regard. . Mr. Martin said that until an effective dog control program was in opera- tion, trying to deal with cats would be very difficult. C~)Uncilman Murray asked if a breach of this ordinance would be interpreted as a e breach of contract. Mr. Long said the possibility hadn't occurred to him, that no contract with anyone was subject to being breached. There were no further Councilor staff comments, and the Chair recognized Everett McVicker, director of Lane Humane Society. Mr. McVicker said the contract between the Humane Society and Lane Count~which will expire December 31, 1975, spells out provisions for holding dogs. If this ordinance under discussion was adopted and enforced, he said, that would be a breach of contract. He continued that the Society's contract with Springfield has a year to run. Therefore, negotiations would be more difficult for continuing the services after January I under the present con- tract with the county. With regard to the percentage of unclaimed dogs, Mr. McVicker said the Society had been experiencing in excess of one-third being returned to the owners. Mr. Jordan commented that Springfield had adopted the fee structure only, and anticipated adopting the ordinance by sections rather than all at once. Councilman Murray asked for comment about the claimed "breach of contract." Mr. Long said he didn't think it possible to respond to the statement, that he didn't under- stand what breach would be avoided by changing the ordinance. At Mr. Bradley's suggestion that the contract terms for holding dogs could be expanded beyond the ordinance time stipulations, Mr. Long said that was possible, but that it would be a matter of administration. Setting up a schedule for destruction of dogs dif- ference from terms of the ordinance could bring claims because of violations. Mr. Martin added that one reason permissive language was used in the ordinance with regard to destruct in of dogs was because of the three-day weekends, etc. He said staff would endeavor to stay as close to the 72-hour provision as possible. There was some discussion with regard to working out uniform terms with Springfield, . with Mr. Bradley suggesting tabling of the section having to do with the time period for impoundment before destruction. However, it was decided staff position would be much stronger in negotiations with Springfield if a specific regulation was adopted. 11/12/75 - 4 1:,10