11/12/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ . e Vote was taken on motion to set the fee at $4.75 for licensing dogs of owners 65 and older. Motion carried - Council members Murray, Beal, Bradley, Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Counci 1 members Williams and Hamel voting no. Councilman Bradley questioned the 24-hour period for considering a dog as having been abandoned. Also, the entry onto private property for the purpose of impound- ing a dog. He said many times a dog is not really abandoned if people leave a pet with adequate food and water. Mr. Jordan explained the purpose of the 24-hour requirement was to give enforcement people authority to deal with a dog left alone and barking continuously. He said -it was one of the thing that most quickly can cause a neighborhood uprising. Councilman Murray suggested 72 hours was a more reasonable period for keeping im- pounded unlicensed dogs before they are destroyed because of weekend vacations, etc. Mr. Bradley suggested 120 hours as now in the code for licensed dogs would be even more appropriate. Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Hamel to provide for a 72-hour period before destroying an unclaimed, unlicensed, impounded dog. Mr. Martin noted the attempt at uniformity in regulations adopted by the three agencies and said he would approach Springfield and Lane County to see if they would be agreeable to the proposed 72-hour period. Mrs. Shirey was in favor of the longer period. She expressed concerns about costs involved. Mr. Jordan explained that adding a day would add no significant cost. And what costs are involved, he said, are reclaimed if the owner can be found. Mr. Martin added, in further response to e Mrs. Shirey, that the present practice is to return dogs to their owners if they can be identified when a dog is picked up, making it difficult to determine the number of dogs actually picked up. Manager said that according to National Humane Society figures, only 9/15% of animals picked up are actually reclaimed, which would indicate great irresponsibility on the part of animal owners. Councilman Haws asked why the 48-hour period was chosen. Mr. Jordan responded that it was to provide incentive to people to keep their dogs confined. Mr. Bradley moved second by Mrs. Shirey to amend the motion to provide for a 96-hour period before an unlicensed impounded dog is destroyed. Motion defeated - Council members Bradley and Shirey voting aye; Council members Murray, Williams, Hamel, and Haws voting no; Council- woman Beal abstaining. Vote was taken on the main motion to provide a 72-hour period before an unlicensed impounded dog is destroyed. Motion carried unanimously. The section of the proposed ordinance concerning dogs chasing livestock was next discussed. Mr. Martin explained that the language was modified from an earlier draft of the ordinance and did not eliminate the regulations in that respect. In response to Councilman Bradley, Mr. Long said it would be illegal to kill a dog chasing livestock. Mr. Jordan added that this section deals more often with situa- tions occurring under county jurisdiction. But Mr. Bradley asked for report of county regulations, expressing concern that the county code might provide for destruction of a dog chasing livestock rather than just a $25.00 fine to the owner of the dog, and it might be desirable to have uniformity in that regard. e With regard to the proposed regulation governing biting and rabid dogs, Mr. Bradley suggested using the word "animal" because of the possibility of other than dogs carrying rabies. Mr. Long explained that the task force was not charged with deal- ing with animals other than dogs. However, they noted that by being so charged; other animals would be excluded from the rabies program. ~O~ 11/12/75 - 3