08/11/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F.Animal Control - Copies of memo addressed to La Je COunty Commissioners, and Spring- field and Eugene Council members were previousl '1 distributed to l,lunci]. The memo set out the problems facing administration of the dog contTul IJro:!l'am, goals and objectives established at the staff level in a neeting of administrative people of affected agencies, and recommendations and alternatives. Manager noted the sub- - stantial amount of money involved in the dog control program. Al.s~o , the suggested date of August 20 for a meeting with Springfield Counc.i1 members and County Commis- sioners to discuss budgets for the various alttrnatives proposed. Assistant Manager added that the memo represented a consensus at the staff level on the direction of the dog control program, and staff was request~ng Council agreement with the stated goals or modification before the suggested meeting with other agencies. The same proposals were being presented to those jurisdictions in an identical memo. Direction .was being requested on the level of subsidy for the program if a totally self- supporting program was not desired. Mayor And~rson suggested that staff be directed to proceed along the lines recom- mended, unless there were real philosophical questions, because of the tendenc,y to get "bogged down in the little things"in discussions of this type legislation. Councilman Murray asked what the advantages would be in Item F of the memo which called for uniform agency practices within the metropolitan area on licensing pro- cesses (not necessarily fees), dog population control programs, dog quarantine practices, pound services and disposal, adjudication processes (including penalties for similar violations), and in enforcement personnel, fees, and ordinance language. Assistant Manager answered that uniform enforcement practices would be desirable but need not be mandatory. However, it was felt uniform licensing should be manda- tory because of the intermingling of addresses and dogs in all three jurisdictions and problems involved in trying to separate costs of enforcement. The year-round licensing program proposed was for the purpose of stabilizing the work flow over the entire year thereby avoiding employment of temporary help during a two- or three- month heavy workload period. If the agencies were not following the same practices, an improved program in one jurisdiction would not have much impact because dogs e would still be running loose in and from other jurisdictions. Councilman Bradley asked why dog licenses were required and wondered if licensing 32,000 to 40,000 dogs was a realistic goal. Assistant Manager answered that licens- ing was a metho~of control, it was the most effective way of identifying owners and hOlding them accountable for property and livestock losses. He said an aggressive enforcement program could reasonably expect licensing of the greatest number of dogs. Manager added that the problem was becoming national in scope, particularly in larger cities because of the substantial increase in dog population. He said that tradi- tionally in other areas dogs running at large were automatically confined. Captain Larion, Eugene police department, gave statistics on results of the recent waiver of late fee payment in licensing dogs which showed a 53% response and resulted in Ii censing of 112 dog not already licensed for this year. Ernie Drapela, assistant parks director, noted the increasing number of complaints about dogs in the city's parks was creating a really serious problem for that department. Councilman Keller questioned that so many people would not license their dogs just because of lack of enforcement. He thought rather people were just not aware that the licens~ was required. Assistant Manager said the laxity was occurring in the "licensing program, not in the enforcement. The recent attempt was the first time there was an attempt to follow up on licensin~. Also, he said, the enforcement pro- cedure had been lenient with the dog owners. Only when the owners were not im- mediately available were the dogs taken to the pound. Even then, dog owners used devious ways of avoiding payment of the impoundment fee, he said; and the three dog control officers were unable to achieve effective control given those types of actions. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Hamel to accept the goals and objectives -- as listed in the August 4, 1975 memo addressed to Lane County, Spring- Comm' ,.- field, and Eugene officials with the understanding a meeting of the 8/6/75 three groups would be held August 20, 1975 in place of the usual noon Approve committee-of-the-whole meeting at the Oakway King's Table. Motion carried unanimously. 8/11/75 - 20 4-57 , .