Print
Comment
Rate
Shar Porier /Wick communications
Though it looked like the ordinance would be tabled for more discussion at one point, the Cochise County Board of Supervisors approved revisions to the animal control ordinance after making a few changes of their own.
Supervisor Richard Searle was wary of the tone of the ordinance, in which it seemed "every violation leads to impoundment. If I have a barking dog, it will be impounded. I have concerns with the impressions left with the ordinance."
Searle was referring to the articles of Section 8 that deal with barking dogs. The ordinance states in 8.1: "It will be unlawful for any person owning or having charge, care, custody or control of any dog to permit said dog to bark, howl or otherwise make noises so as to disturb the peace and quiet of any person or persons at any hour of the day or night." 8.2 states: "An Animal Control Officer who believes that any animal within county limits is barking or howling or otherwise making disturbing noises, and that noise will continue, may impound the animal." Section 8.3 sets a fine of $30 per instance in addition to impound fees.
Residents have voiced dissatisfaction and pointed out that people in rural areas want their dogs to bark and howl for their protection, and that of their livestock.
Linda May Guerin of Hereford said, "Dogs were made to bark. They're here to protect us in rural areas."
His suggestion to strike the "bark, howl or otherwise make noises," and change it to follow the state statute of "excessive and unrestrained barking" was OK'd.
Supervisor Ann English pointed out that most of the complaints as provided by county Deputy Chief Rod Rothrock were from the Sierra Vista area. The Sierra Vista unincorporated area gets 1,575 complaints annually that make up 42 percent of officers' workload.
"They're urbanized and want control of what their neighbors do. People don't call in the rural areas," English added. Rothrock said 3,744 complaints are responded to by five animal control officers, costing more than $500,000 a year, which was a choker for English, who said, "I can't believe we're spending $500,000 a year on this. It's outrageous. What is the county's responsibility for barking dogs? It's not a health or safety issue."
Searle and Supervisor Pat Call disagreed and believed the county needed the authority to deal with noise complaints of animals.
Another change recommended by Searle was in Section 4.1, the definition of abandonment. "Abandonment means either leaving an animal unattended for more than 24 hours or releasing the animal upon public highways, or public or private lands, or failing to provide proper or adequate food, water, exercise, shelter or medical care." He did not agree with the setting the time limit at 24 hours as some people go away for a weekend and leave plenty of food and water for animals. "That's hardly abandonment."
English and Supervisor Pat Call agreed.
In other business at the Feb. 23 meeting of the Cochise County supervisors:
Approved an intergovernmental agreement between Cochise County and Sierra Vista designating the city as the fiscal agency to continue with financial matters for the Upper San Pedro Partnership through February 22, 2013.
Approved an amendment to an intergovernmental agreement bet-ween the county health department and the Arizona Department of Health for an HIV prevention program in the amount of $18,666.
Approved the acquisition of a 1.93-acre portion of Coffman Road at a cost of $3,000 per acre.
Tabled a request for a time extension on Bachman Springs Phase 1 subdivision until March 23.
Approved the abandonment of a portion of the east side of San Fernando Avenue from Ramsey Road north to Sagebrush Road.
(Shar Poirer is a reporter at the Sierra Vista Herald/Bisbee Daily Review.)
Supervisor Richard Searle was wary of the tone of the ordinance, in which it seemed "every violation leads to impoundment. If I have a barking dog, it will be impounded. I have concerns with the impressions left with the ordinance."
Searle was referring to the articles of Section 8 that deal with barking dogs. The ordinance states in 8.1: "It will be unlawful for any person owning or having charge, care, custody or control of any dog to permit said dog to bark, howl or otherwise make noises so as to disturb the peace and quiet of any person or persons at any hour of the day or night." 8.2 states: "An Animal Control Officer who believes that any animal within county limits is barking or howling or otherwise making disturbing noises, and that noise will continue, may impound the animal." Section 8.3 sets a fine of $30 per instance in addition to impound fees.
Residents have voiced dissatisfaction and pointed out that people in rural areas want their dogs to bark and howl for their protection, and that of their livestock.
Linda May Guerin of Hereford said, "Dogs were made to bark. They're here to protect us in rural areas."
His suggestion to strike the "bark, howl or otherwise make noises," and change it to follow the state statute of "excessive and unrestrained barking" was OK'd.
Supervisor Ann English pointed out that most of the complaints as provided by county Deputy Chief Rod Rothrock were from the Sierra Vista area. The Sierra Vista unincorporated area gets 1,575 complaints annually that make up 42 percent of officers' workload.
"They're urbanized and want control of what their neighbors do. People don't call in the rural areas," English added. Rothrock said 3,744 complaints are responded to by five animal control officers, costing more than $500,000 a year, which was a choker for English, who said, "I can't believe we're spending $500,000 a year on this. It's outrageous. What is the county's responsibility for barking dogs? It's not a health or safety issue."
Searle and Supervisor Pat Call disagreed and believed the county needed the authority to deal with noise complaints of animals.
Another change recommended by Searle was in Section 4.1, the definition of abandonment. "Abandonment means either leaving an animal unattended for more than 24 hours or releasing the animal upon public highways, or public or private lands, or failing to provide proper or adequate food, water, exercise, shelter or medical care." He did not agree with the setting the time limit at 24 hours as some people go away for a weekend and leave plenty of food and water for animals. "That's hardly abandonment."
English and Supervisor Pat Call agreed.
In other business at the Feb. 23 meeting of the Cochise County supervisors:
(Shar Poirer is a reporter at the Sierra Vista Herald/Bisbee Daily Review.)
 |
 |
|
| Traffic stop results in pot find, man's arrest | Revision made to county animal control ordinance |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of bensonnews-sun.com.
