11/10/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Manager explained that the amendment would permit co-ordination of activities of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County with regard to dog control. The principal feature, he said, was increasing the license fee to $9.50 with certain provisions for lesser charges for spayed dogs. Assistant Manager added that Springfield had agreed to the proposed ~ changes. In addition to the fee adjustment, he said, consideration needed to be given to disposal of impounded dogs, length of time before disposal of unlicensed dogs as com- pared to licensed dogs - 48 hours vs 120 hours. The program presented, he said, was part of a joint management recommendation from the three jurisdictions to include in- vestment in a pound facility, an aggressive licensing program including door-to-door contact for public education and solicitation so all dog owners will share in the cost of licensing. Everett McVicker, executive director of Lane Humane Society, said the ordinance was based solely on the provision of a dog shelter without consideration for any other animals. He read a letter addressed to Lane County by the Society's attorneys re- questing extension of the Society's contract until July 1976 to give time to work out a long-term contract for providing pound services to the triagency authority proposed. He objected to the proposed 48-hour limit on keeping unlicensed dogs becuase of weekend hours when staff would not be available. And he felt the increased fee would deter licensing. He also expressed concern about lack of consideration of the financial hardship caused elderly people on fixed incomes with pets. He noted ordinances drafted in the past that were concerned with all animals and impoundment facilities which, he said, had been ignored. Cats would have to be destroyed immediately after being brought to the pound under the proposed amendment, he said, because the regulations covered ' dogs only. Mr. McVicker continued, expressing concern about an inoculation program and wondering about the cost of that service and who would do it. He doubted that the proposed program would be self-supporting from licensing fees and fines, that monies would have to be taken from the general fund to augment those revenues if the program was to be successful. He urged an overall look at the animal control program. 4It Ed Deardorff, 675 Lorane Highway; Marla Hanlon, 1520 West 11th Avenue; and Steve Barnes, 1370 East 25th Avenue, objected to the proposed amendment as written. They thought the proposed fee unreasonable and that a low-cost spaying program should be made available. Also, that an "animal" control program should be considered rather than only "dog" control. Mr. Barnes questioned abi Ii ty to enforce the term "at large" as used in the ordinance as well as the definition of "barking dog." He also thought there should be specific quarantine requirements for biting dogs. He anticipated problems with the term "entering onto private property" by dog control officers and thought reduction of the impoundment period for unlicensed dogs inhumane. There was right of appeal provided in the ordinance, he said, but no mention of procedure or time. He was not sure what was meant with regard to killing or impoundment of a dog if it injures fowl, poultry, or fur bearing animals. Mr. Barnes further questioned exclusions from the ordinance. The problem of animals as compared to dog control - there is no comprehensive animal control program estab- lished; neither are dog owners required to keep rabies inoculations current during the licensing period. There are no infractions pertaining to killing livestock, he said, although it is prohibited; there is nothing in terms of penalty for injuring fowl or fur bearing animals. There are no probhitions with regard to harrassment of animals, that is when a person teases an animal, there is no protection for the animal. Mr. Barnes noted some positive aspects of the proposed regulations - the concerted approach to dog control as well as the attempt to make the program self-sustaining and to provide low- cost spaying and vaccination programs. However, in a poll he had undertaken, he said the majority of people contacted said they were opposed to the increased licensing fee, which would mean the possibility of the program's being self-sustaining was no realistic. 4It And there was no provision in the ordinance for backup of the program through use of general funds. He suggested that with adoption of the proposed amendment there would continue to be a deficit in the dog control program, that Eugene would continue to make 11/10/75 - 29 "0+