As heat, humidity soar, council plods toward neglectful dog cruelty code

Could council’s reluctance to endorse and approve a canine tethering code developed by the county at the request of animal rights activists and county animal control be nearing an end? From left on the table’s far side, Vice-Mayor Tewalt and Councilmen Meza and Morrison appeared hesitant. Photos/Roger Bianchini

Maybe it was the aftermath of the eclipse – but whatever it was, at a work session the evening of August 21 the concept of legality related to countywide enforcement of an animal cruelty code seemed elusive to much of the Front Royal Town Council.

Canine rights activist Carol Vorous and Malcolm Barr Sr. appeared frustrated at what they heard after council discussed the most recent county draft of an ordinance proposal on dog tethering.

Vorous brought a proposal to restrict the time and conditions under which dogs can be kept tethered outdoors to the county in early February – when extreme cold was at issue.  At that time Warren County Sheriff’s Office Animal Control Deputy Junior Darr expressed a desire for additional enforcement authority and noted that such enforcement countywide would require that the same ordinance be passed by BOTH the town and county governments.  That is because the Town of Front Royal is a part of Warren County and sheriff’s office animal control is the sole enforcement authority on animal cruelty issues in the county, on both sides of the town boundary.

But seven months later that concept seemed hard to grasp for several councilmen.  Chris Morrison asked if the sheriff’s office could even enforce laws inside the town limits (they can).  Vice-Mayor Eugene Tewalt asked why a town code had to be passed since the town wasn’t in the animal cruelty prevention business.

Jacob Meza said he feared such a code would be a catalyst for neighbors “tattling” on neighbors, apparently to grind personal axes.  He did not elaborate on that concern or why a dog-tethering code would be a more likely law to be reported frivolously.

Vice-Mayor Tewalt reiterated his ongoing point that the town government and its police are not the enforcement mechanism for animal cruelty issues.  And Monday he worried that if council passed an animal cruelty code and the county sheriff’s office abandoned its animal control department, the town police would be put in the position of having to enforce that code designed to protect dogs from cruel treatment by their owners.

Vice-Mayor Eugene Tewalt, left, questions Town involvement in establishing county-wide enforcement authority to protect dogs from outdoor neglect. Jacob Meza, center, and Chris Morrison, right, also expressed reservations about town approval of such a code.

Town Attorney Doug Napier pointed out that were the county government to suddenly abandon animal control and protection enforcement, the town government would have the option to repeal any existing code it did not want to take enforcement responsibility for.  Tewalt has been skeptical from the outset of the Town becoming involved in telling people how they care for their animals since it is the County that enforces animal cruelty codes.

On August 21, Tewalt suggested that rather than pass a town ordinance to allow county enforcement of a new code inside the town limits, council just approve a resolution of support of whatever the county government finally approves.  The specter of a charter change or simply approving “the same resolution” the county approves were also heard despite the fact neither action has ever been broached on the county side.

Napier repeated the legal necessity to have matching codes passed by BOTH of the county’s municipalities – the County of Warren and the Town of Front Royal – to facilitate uniformity of the law and enforcement authority in the entire County of Warren, which as previously noted the town is a part of.

At the outset of the August 21 discussion the town attorney reported a very positive reaction to the new draft from WCSO Animal Control Deputy Laura Gomez – “I think this is fantastic” Napier quoted Gomez’s response to the new County draft.

Sent previous drafts, council has returned them to the county with additional questions or suggestions for wording changes.  And seven months down the road it appeared nothing might change.  Tewalt suggested council just put the issue on “the back burner until the County approves something.”

Protections for all doggies, great and small in ALL of Warren County? Luda thinks it’s a good idea, even if some on town council remain skeptical.

However, with a nod to the seven months of ordinance volleyball that has been played between the county and town governments, John Connolly suggested more was necessary.  While agreeing the County should approve the new code first, Connolly suggested council return the newest draft code to the County with the notation from the town’s legal staff that council approved the wording of this one – “I don’t want to see it die at the county level … and I don’t want to play legislative chicken with anyone,” Connolly told his colleagues.

William Sealock agreed the new draft was a good one and that council send it back with a positive endorsement for County passage.

Mayor Hollis Tharpe queried the vice mayor as a consensus appeared to be developing to endorse the draft – “I guess so,” Tewalt replied.

Vorous appeared frustrated at what she had heard.  Contacted later she told Royal Examiner, “I would like to ask exactly what game we are playing – and what are the rules?  This has been tossed back and forth and back and forth,” Vorous observed of council’s return of several previous drafts to the County for additional comment or elaboration – “So I guess I can only say to the Board of Supervisors – Tag, you’re it.”