Nevada County Picayune and Gurdon Times Newspaper Archive

Animal Control Law Tricky

Gurdon's proposed animal control ordinance could cause problems.

The ordinance had been slightly amended and had to be placed on its first reading again. The ordinance was first read at the April meeting getting full approval of the Gurdon City Council.

It was placed on the first reading for the second time, along with the second reading, at Monday night's meeting of the Gurdon City Council.

The change came under section one, dealing with the definition of what an at-large animal will be. Under the ordinance, an animal is at large if it is off the premises of the owner, not controlled by the owner, the immediate family or another person designated by the owner by leash, cord, chain or other device suitable for controlling said animal.

There is also a stiff penalty for violating the provisions of the ordinance. A fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500 can be levied, and each day the animal is allowed to run at large constitutes a separate offense and is punishable as such.

All dogs, under the terms of the ordinance, must be vaccinated annually for rabies. The vaccination must be done by a qualified person, such as a veterinarian.

After being vaccinated, the dog must be marked with a tag attached to a collar around its neck as evidence of the shot being administered. This must be done at the owner's expense.

The city's animal control officer will be responsible for picking up the animals deemed being at large.

On the first offense, if the animal has had its vaccination and has an identification tag, it will be picked up and returned to its owner. The owner will be given a warning citation.

The officer will make every attempt to locate an animal's owner, but it they can't be found the dog will be impounded at the Arkadelphia animal shelter.

Following the first offense, the animals picked up, if wearing the proper tags, will be impounded and the owner will be given a ticket to appear in municipal court. The owner will be responsible for paying all related costs of the animal's upkeep at the shelter, as well as any fine the municipal judge may impose.

Those animals running at large without collars and identification will be immediately impounded and the owner will be subject to a fine, along with the other costs of the animal's upkeep at the shelter.

The payment of fees to the shelter, however, does not get the owner out of paying any fine imposed.

Dogs impounded will be held for five days. After such time the animal, if not picked up by the owner, may be sold, adopted, disposed of or otherwise destroyed.

Once an animal is picked up by the animal control officer, they will take its picture and display it at city hall. From there, the owner must come, check the board, identify their dog and go to the shelter.

For those owners whose dogs haven't been vaccinated with the animal being impounded, they may pick it up by making a deposit of $25 with the impound officer. They will then have 24 hours to get the dog its shots and provide the city written proof of vaccination.

Owners are also responsible for getting their dogs back home from the shelter.

Councilman Glen Hughes said he's had a lot of feedback from people concerning this ordinance and want to know how soon it will go into effect after passage.

Mickey Jones, also on the council and the proposer of the ordinance, said it would be effective immediately, though some have said the fine is too high. However, she pointed out, if the fine was not what it is, people wouldn't take the ordinance seriously and would ignore it.

Gurdon Mayor Rick Smith said the ordinance must be read and approved once more. Should it pass on the third reading, it would not go into effect until 30 days unless the council also adopts the emergency clause. Should the emergency clause be adopted, it would go into effect immediately.

Jones said the people of Gurdon do know about the ordinance, and steps do need to be taken to control these animals.

Smith reminded the council a survey was done concerning animal control and 80 percent of those who responded favored such an ordinance.

It was pointed out by a member of the audience, the poll was based on only 300 responses.

However, Smith said, this is about all the people who regularly vote in the city, and this is how laws are passed by majority rule.

Hughes said he understands getting the ordinance operational will take time and suggested the animal control officer concentrate on the stray dogs in town first and leave the "neighborhood" animals alone.

"Dogs have been running loose around here for years," he said, "I'm afraid this (ordinance) will cause a lot of problems."

The council, Smith said, is responsible for representing the people of the town, and most said they wanted dogs controlled. "There are vicious dogs running loose," he said. "This ordinance is to get rid of strays first, but all animals picked up must be held to see if they have rabies."

"This is Gurdon," Hughes responded. "People have been doing things a certain way all their lives. It's hard to change. I agree something needs to be done, but people have suggested picking up the strays and leaving neighborhood dogs alone."

Such actions are not possible, Smith pointed out, as they constitute favoritism. Most dogs running loose, he said, don't have collars or tags.

Several children, he continued, have been bitten by stray dogs and these animals also maul and attack other dogs.

The animal control officer, he added, will use their discretion on picking up dogs and issuing citations.