Blogs

newsobserver.com blogs

Bull's Eye

Bull's Eye

The Durham staff of The News & Observer works the Bull City to dig up the news and tell its stories. Read here about insider stuff that fills their notebooks but doesn't always make the paper.

Commissioners pass ban on dog tethering

Bookmark and Share

(This blog entry replaces an earlier version.)

County commissioners passed a ban on dog tethering tonight with a 4-to-1 vote. (Visit the county's Web site to see the ordinance.)

The decision came after months of heated debate and a two-hour public hearing earlier this month. Commissioner Lewis Cheek was the only dissenter on the five-member board (see the concerns he voiced last week).

Durham now joins the town of Clayton to become the second Triangle jurisdiction to ban dog-tethering. Orange county leaders also have considered a similar ban, but have not yet adopted a new ordinance.

The law in Durham will go into effect Jan. 1, 2010, and will require dog owners who use chains, ropes or other tethers to find other means of keeping their dogs at home, such as fences or large pens.

In the first six months of the new law, animal control officers will issue warnings. After July 1, 2010, violators will be subject to fines.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Other options

For the people who are upset about this ban, they need to know there are better ways of keeping dogs in the right place. They'll want to specifically consider things like a PetSafe electric dog fence as an alternative. I think most people would admit it's probably at least as humane as tethering.

not quite...

The proposal on the Durham county website is NOT the proposal that was voted on tonight-It has been rewritten twice since this posted version.

The final rewrite was just prior to the meeting tonight...Is that legal???

Good question, one I will ask about

As noted by hounddawg, there is a draft of the proposed ordinance on the county Web site.

It is NOT the copy that was distributed by Assistant County  Attorney Marie Inserra, which added some additional wording.

One audience member, Michelle Lennon, spoke at the hearing about the fact that the final version of the ordinance was only passed out right as it was being considered.

Is that inconvenient? Yes.

Is it illegal? That's another question, one that the county attorney likely will have to answer in the morning.

Thanks for your input.

Cars View All
Find a Car
Go
Jobs View All
Find a Job
Go
Homes View All
Find a Home
Go

Want to post a comment?

In order to join the conversation, you must be a member of newsobserver.com. Click here to register or to log in.
Advertisements