County residents respond to animal control ordinance

By Dawn Treglown

CENTRE — Pet owners turned out in droves at a series of public meetings last week, mostly to voice their displeasure with some aspect or other of the County Commission's proposed new animal control ordinance.

Probate Judge Melvyn Salter scheduled three public meetings Sept. 4. An overflow crowd at the 10 a.m. meeting in the administrative building resulted in a short exodus to the sanctuary at First Baptist Church. The 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. meetings were also held at the church.

READ FULL TEXT OF ORIGINAL ORDINANCE PROPOSAL

Salter opened the morning session with a greeting to the 75 or so citizens in attendance. Speaking through a microphone with commissioners Kimball Parker, Lori Owens, Carlton Teague and Elbert St. Clair seated behind him, Salter explained that whatever ordinance eventually passes will only affect the unincorporated areas of the county.

“This will not apply to residents of the five towns in the county unless their town councils choose to adopt it after the county passes it,” he said.

Voters in Cherokee County last fall gave approval for the Commission to exercise certain health and safety powers -- including animal control -- granted by the state Legislature in the Alabama Limited Self-Governance Act of 2005.

“We have complaints every day about stray animals and this proposed ordinance is our first attempt to do something about it,” Salter said. “That's why we want the input of the citizens, so we can come up with something that we can all live with.”

County Administrator Tim Burgess, who headed the committee that drafted the ordinance, told the crowd that at least two sections of the 13-page ordinance have already been deleted.

“Section 6 which pertains to fees for registering dogs, and Section 16, which lays out restrictions on the number of animals citizens can own, will not be in the final draft,” Burgess said. “Several people have already raised objections about those two, so we're going to drop them.”

Free copies of the first draft of the ordinance have been available at the County Commission offices since mid-August and several residents had their note-scribbled copies with them Tuesday morning.

At least two residents who spoke at the morning session felt the ordinance could compromise their personal security. Robert Hite, who lives on County Road 255, said he didn't like the idea of allowing residents to complain about barking dogs.

“My dog is my alarm,” Hite said. “There's one sheriff's deputy on patrol on third shift and if there's something going on in my yard after dark that shouldn't be, my dog barking is the only way I'm going to know that.”

Bill Watson, who lives on County Road 711, said he and others in his neighborhood watch were concerned that the county planned to force them to fence or chain their guard dogs.

“Where we live, our dogs are the only security system we have,” Watson said.
Burgess assured the crowd that the county has no intention of forcing restrictions on animal owners that are not the subject of complaints. He said no pet owner would be required to fence an animal unless it was deemed dangerous.

After absorbing suggestions from dozens of citizens in the morning session, Burgess announced during the 2 p.m. meeting that the definition of “animals at large” would also be reworked.

“We want to specify and define what this means,” Burgess said. “If an animal is running on your property, that's fine. If it goes elsewhere, that's fine, as long as there is no complaint.”

During the morning session, at least one resident said he feared his free-roaming animals would be picked up on his own property. Several other people seemed confused about the intent of the ordinance, and voiced concerns that an agent of the county would be able to come onto their property and confiscate animals.

Several times, Salter and Burgess reassured audiences that the ordinance is designed to meet the provisions of the Limited Self-Governance Act by providing the county with a system for handling the dozens of animal-related complaints that come in every month.

“We want to do this on a complaint basis,” Burgess said.

The ordinance also calls for the county to appoint an animal control officer, and requires that the county have a county animal shelter before enforcement of the ordinance can begin. The facility may be located in Cherokee County, but that is not a requirement.

Asked if he would consider changing the ordinance to make it enforceable only upon completion of certain criteria, including the shelter, Salter said the Commission would consider that and all other suggestions. He said the Commission would review all the public comments they received Tuesday and re-draft the ordinance within the next two months.

“When we have one ready, we will present it to the public again before we consider passing it,” Salter said.

Other Post staff writers contributed to this report.