Coweta approves new provisions on animal control

There were a number of changes to the Coweta County Animal Control Ordinance approved by county commissioners Tuesday night. Those changes included certain provisions for impoundment, humane treatment, tethering animals, transporting them and an additional requirement for commercial animal establishments.

The ordinance amendment pertaining to impoundment now gives the county ownership of impounded animals after three days as opposed to the previous seven day time period. County Public Information Officer Patricia Palmer on Thursday said the change from seven days to three days allows for earlier adoptions.

A new provision to the ordinance involves humane treatment. The ordinance section states that proper shelter for an animal includes a structure appropriately sized for the animal and consisting of four sides, a roof, floor and an opening for ingress and egress. The structure must also be adequate for protecting the animal from harsh weather.

Perhaps as controversial to some as any of the new amendments to the ordinance is one that essentially prohibits tethering animals on property. Animals cannot be tethered to a tree, fence, dog house or other stationary object unless the tether is on a trolly system of at least 10 feet in length.

Additionally, even if those requirements are met the animal cannot be tethered to a trolly system for more than four hours a day nor can the animal be tethered between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. The ordinance also states that the owner or keeper must be on the premises during the time that the animal is tethered.

“Animal control will work with people to allow them time to make the changes they need to make, as long as the animal is healthy,” Palmer said.

Another new provision to the ordinance that will present a significant change to some animal owners states that no person driving a motor vehicle shall transport any animal in the open back of a vehicle unless the space is cross-tethered to secure the animal, unless the space has been enclosed or is protected by a secured container that will prevent the animal from being thrown, falling or jumping out of the vehicle.

Also included in the amendment was a provision that humane societies and rescue groups obtain a business license. Palmer said there will be no charge for the business license if the organization is a non-profit.

Coming in the near future will be the consideration by commissioners to adopt a spay/neuter provision that will require that an adopted animal go through the procedure, at a cost to the owner, prior to the adoption.

ginga1414
ginga1414's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/01/2008
IIISay

You are absolutely right. My closest and dearest friend is a black and white Cocker Spaniel named Danny Boy. He is afraid of thunder and lightning. I would never chain or tether him. He is a member of my family. I know there are a lot of folks out there who can't understand my way of thinking when it comes to a furry four-legged companion. I don't understand their way of thinking.

They are living, breathing, thinking, and feeling beings who live to please us. They need love and attention as much as any human.

IllSay
IllSay's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/31/2010
Pups on Chains

A Pup on a chain is not a pet, it is a prisoner.

bladderq
bladderq's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2005
Teabaggers & Pets

The Teabaggers will have a field day w/ this 1. You can't take their rights away so easily. 1st they have to buy health insurance & now this. What next the O man is going to make 'em sleep in the same bed w/ their dogs. What is this county (country) coming to? Some semblamce of sanity?

Git Real
Git Real's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/17/2006
HUH?

Bladder let me help you with something. Oh never mind.....

lettinguno
lettinguno's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/17/2010
Chaining your pet??

Why would you even own one? It's just plain cruel to tether an animal.
Get off your lazy butt and build a fence or take the animal for a walk.

CombatCorrespondent
CombatCorrespondent's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
Coweta County Animal Control Ordinance-Not Thinking

"Animals cannot be tethered to a tree, fence, dog house or other stationary object unless the tether is on a trolly system of at least 10 feet in length."

Good job guys!!

Another knee jerk vote to appease the animal rights people?

So, NOW, if a handicapped/disabled person must tether their service dog to their vehicle while they exit their vehicle, they are technically in violation of this ordinance.

Is there a provision for this simple act by the handicapped/disabled who use service animals every day?

I know, everyone says, "This would never happen to a handicapped person in Coweta County. We would never arrest a handicapped individual for doing that!"

Without that provision in your new ordinance, it very well could happen. You need to fix it now.

RKS
RKS's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/23/2009
Hey Combat

I have not read the final version of the new laws...but I fully support banning perpetual tethering of a dog. A service dog tied to a vehicle while someone exits their car is not the same thing as a dog tied up 24/7 to a dog house on a 6 foot tow chain, buddy. Hooray for the dogs and any animal rights people who helped get this passed. I hope it happens in Fayette County as well.

CombatCorrespondent
CombatCorrespondent's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
Coweta County Animal Control Ordinance-Not Thinking
RKS wrote:

...but I fully support banning perpetual tethering of a dog. A service dog tied to a vehicle while someone exits their car is not the same thing as a dog tied up 24/7 to a dog house on a 6 foot tow chain, buddy. Hooray for the dogs and any animal rights people who helped get this passed. I hope it happens in Fayette County as well.

I agree that it is not the same, but guess what? It IS tethering and therefore ILLEGAL unless there is a special provision in the ordinance allowing it. Some jerk could come along, see a handicapped persons' dog tethered to their vehicle and they could be cited.

We went through the same thing last year here in Fayette County and managed to stop it because the animal rights people from outside Fayette County tried to guilt and force our commissioners into passing an ordinance like the one the Coweta Commissioners passed. They used photos and examples from other counties of poor dogs that were neglected.

Even our animal control director could not show a single instance of an animal in Fayette County being abused/neglected like this. I am not saying we don't have dogs in Fayette County neglected at the end of a chin like this. And I have no problem with banning long term tethering as long as it is done in a sensible manner and not as a knee-jerk reaction to OUTSIDE pressure from the animal rights whackos!!

JJs Mom
JJs Mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/05/2010
Dogs Living on Chains in Fayette County

I say any dog living on a chain 24/7 is poor and neglected and there are dogs on chains in Fayette County. Fulton County and Coweta County among others have made this a law and it's a matter of time before Fayette does also. There are many in Fayette who were not aware it was before the commissioners. We won't need others coming in to show examples, we have them right here in our county. I happen to agree with service animals being excluded from this-anyone who would be giving a ticket in this instance would be the whacko.

CombatCorrespondent
CombatCorrespondent's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/12/2009
Dogs Living on Chains in Fayette County
JJs Mom wrote:

I say any dog living on a chain 24/7 is poor and neglected and there are dogs on chains in Fayette County.

I agree. It needs to be dealt with.

JJs Mom wrote:

Fulton County and Coweta County among others have made this a law and it's a matter of time before Fayette does also.

Probably so. But it needs to be done responsibly, using common sense and logic.

JJs Mom wrote:

There are many in Fayette who were not aware it was before the commissioners. We won't need others coming in to show examples, we have them right here in our county.

Others coming into the county threatening our commissioners is exactly what happened. I don't need, nor do I want, someone from Athens or wherever, coming in and DEMANDING that we make changes to our code because THEY don't like it.

JJs Mom wrote:

I happen to agree with service animals being excluded from this-anyone who would be giving a ticket in this instance would be the whacko.

I agree. But, there are some that will be happy only with a TOTAL ban on tethering and NO exceptions for any reason.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
I agree, a dog on a chain 24/7 is neglected..

I see no reason for it.