Front Royal joins Warren County in dog tethering, neglect code

With the pro-code 3-vote contingent (Gillispie, Sealock, Tewalt) holding strong to his right and one absence on the other side, Mayor Tharpe didn’t have to cast a second tie-breaking vote. Photos/Roger Bianchini

On Monday evening, November 27, one local animal rights activist’s nearly 11-month journey to increase legal protections for the community’s canine population came to a successful conclusion.  By a 3-2 vote, Jacob Meza and Chris Morrison dissenting, the Front Royal Town Council approved the second reading of a dog tethering ordinance mirroring one passed on September 19 by Warren County.

John Connolly, who voted with Meza and Morrison against the proposal at the November 13 first reading, was absent Monday night.  That absence and council’s initial tie vote forcing Mayor Hollis Tharpe to cast the tiebreaking vote for the ordinance, led Meza to attempt to have the second reading removed from Monday’s agenda.  However that effort failed by the same 3-2 margin the code was eventually passed by, as Vice-Mayor Tewalt and Councilmen Sealock and Gillislee voted against removal of the agenda item.

“All Dogs Matter” Community Outreach Coordinator Carol Vorous first brought the tethering code proposal to the county government on February 8.  From the outset, the Warren County Sheriff’s Office Animal Control Department, responsible for enforcement on both sides of the town-county line, supported establishment of the local ordinance.  The stated reason was to take what are considered vagaries out of existing codes that leave too much wiggle room for interpretation as to what is “cruel”.

The new code will allow for uniform enforcement of the new standards throughout Warren County.  As a Class 3 misdemeanor, violations can carry up to a $500 fine on each count owners are convicted of.  The code sets specific criteria for the age and condition, how long, and in what weather extremes dogs may be kept tethered outside unattended.

Now prohibited throughout Warren County are the tethering of dogs less than four months of age; of female dogs in heat; as well as specifying extremes of heat (90 degrees) and cold (32 degrees) dogs may be left out in “unless the dog is provided adequate shelter under Virginia Code 3.2-6500.” (see state definition below).  Dogs on cable runs may not be left out longer than 12 hours in 24-hour period; and no longer than four hours per 24 hours on fixed tethers.

On Nov. 13 ‘All Dogs Matter’ Community Coordinator Carol Vorous made her case for all of Warren County’s canines to the Front Royal Town Council.

There are other requirements as to the length and weight of tethers related to the dog’s size.  Tethers may not be more than 10-percent of the dog’s weight; must be at least three times the dog’s length; and must be attached so as not to injure the dog or become entangled or used at height so that the dog could become strangled.

Prior to the decisive second reading vote, Meza called the local code unnecessary due to existing state codes he feels adequately define and prohibit animal cruelty.  He also wondered at the need for additional enforcement, pointing to what he said was a “point 7-percent (.7%)” complaint rate (40 cases annually) of cruelty to dogs based on the number of canines registered in the county.  Meza said he felt the Town was being too intrusive in dictating such detail on how people keep their pets, which he later pointed out are defined as “personal property” by state law.

William Sealock took issue with Meza’s reasoning.  He wondered if the low prosecution or complaint numbers Meza cited weren’t impacted by the lack of enforcement teeth the state code presented.  Sealock also reasoned that adding strength to state guidelines will do more good for the county’s canine population, than harm to its human population’s sense of self determination in the conduct their lives.

“The problem … is that we have some people who do not honor the lives of their pets – and I see a lot of that myself – and we need to be in line with the County, and that’s what we’re doing.  This is not costing the taxpayer here in the town any dollars. All we’re doing is following the code for enforcement by the County, so keep that in mind.”

Discussing the vote after the meeting Meza worried that the ordinance approved by council does not take into account variations in different breed’s ability to withstand weather variables.  During the public hearing before the county board of supervisors at which 14 people, 13 in favor, spoke, similar concerns were expressed.

However County staff indicated the new code’s wording allowed for some flexibility that could be used to accommodate working dog situations, as in shepherding and protecting sheep and cattle herds against predators.  The county discussion also expressed a belief that common sense applied to breed, temperature and “adequate shelter” standards could and would be applied when necessary.

Discussing the code and vote with this reporter, Meza worried whether “common sense” could be successfully legislated.  He also said he was not sure the code approved by council was a precise mirror of the one the county approved or that his colleagues supporting it were precisely aware of the parameters of what they had passed.

Meza again made it clear he does support anti-animal cruelty statutes but believes those written at the state level should be adequate to ensure protections.  A similar point was made during the county public hearing.

One pro-ordinance speaker told county officials on September 19 that perhaps additional training for animal control officers on exactly what both the existing state code and the proposed local code allows to be cited as legal violations could be helpful.

The ‘adequate shelter’ variable

As to the state definition of “adequate shelter” applying to temperature extremes dogs may be left out in, the state code definition of “adequate shelter” reads, “Adequate shelter means provision of and access to shelter that is suitable for the species, age, condition, size, and type of each animal; provides adequate space for each animal; is safe and protects each animal from injury, rain, sleet, snow, hail, direct sunlight, the adverse effects of heat or cold, physical suffering, and impairment of health; is properly lighted; is properly cleaned; enables each animal to be clean and dry, except when detrimental to the species; and for dogs and cats, provides a solid surface , resting platform, pad, floor-mat, or similar device that is large enough for the animal to lie on in a normal manner and can be maintained in a sanitary manner.”

The state definition of what is ‘adequate shelter’ and what constitutes cruelty by neglect now has some added TEETH throughout Warren County; below, Luda was smiling at Monday’s vote – at least 3/5’s of it.

The state code goes on to describe wire, grid or slat floors that could injure the animals feet as “inadequate” and further bans floors that sag under the animals weight.

And that sounds like the groundwork upon which the new local code with its additional specifics can be successfully enforced without being obtrusive.

Other business

Prior to Monday’s public hearings the Chriskindlemart ‘Silent Monks’ warmed council up for the coming holiday season.

Among other actions on Monday, Council approved the second reading of an ordinance that will see the Town and County create a Joint Towing Board; amended its “Weeds & Debris” ordinance facilitating year-round enforcement of high grass and trash removal standards; and appointed Andrea White to the Board of Architectural Review.