After hearing overwhelming support County approves dog-protection code

After hearing from 13 of 14 speakers in favor of the proposed code, County Board Chair Linda Glavis asked for a show of hands of those who supported it – ‘One hand per person,’ Glavis joked of some enthusiastic reactions. (note: the green and orange-shirted gentlemen in foreground are VDOT officials with other things on their mind.) Photos/Roger Bianchini

After hearing 13 of 14 public hearing speakers urge action on a proposed dog tethering code Tuesday night, the Warren County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the new ordinance.  Approval puts the ball back in the Town of Front Royal’s court.  Warren County Sheriff’s Office Animal Control officers have asked for matching ordinances of both sides of the town-county line to facilitate equal enforcement countywide.

Town Council has been reluctant to act before the County.  Vice-Mayor Eugene Tewalt worried that the town police could find themselves with enforcement responsibility if no county code was in place first.  Several councilmen, most prominently Jacob Meza, have also expressed concern such a code could be used by vindictive neighbors to harass dog owners with frivolous complaints.

However, vindictive frivolity was far from the mood in a Warren County Government Center meeting room packed with supporters of stricter laws in place to protect the county’s canine population from neglectful abuse.

Carol Vorous has been lobbying for strengthened dog protection codes since early February – Tuesday evening the County put such a code in place – outside the town limits. Below, Vorous board illustrates the conditions some dogs are allowed to be kept in indefinitely under current codes – ‘When I look at it, it makes me ashamed,’ she said.

Several supporters, citing past work in animal rescue, fought back tears as they urged the county government to take a first step in strengthening county law enforcement’s hand in responding to reports of abuse of pet dogs.  One of those speakers lost that fight with her tears as she recounted having to put down a dog she had become attached to at a shelter after it was adopted out to what turned out to be an abusive owner.

Carol Vorous first called for a stronger animal cruelty code at a February 7 supervisors work session.  She was supported in the effort from the start by county animal control.  Deputy Junior Darr cited vaguaries in state codes and supported a countywide local code to give teeth (snarling ones hopefully) to animal cruelty enforcement.

At Tuesday’s public hearing Vorous presented a poster board of photos of tethering and shelter situations she has encountered as part of her work with her “All Dogs Matter” advocacy group.  She commented that people “don’t want to see this” that it “makes them uncomfortable” and noted that she has been told she should focus more on “feel good” situations.  But it is not the feel good situations that are at issue, she said, it is the uncomfortable ones of neglect and abuse.

Of the situations portrayed on her poster board currently allowed to exist as “adequate” in the county, Vorous said emotionally, “When I look at these it makes me ashamed.”

The only speaker against the proposed ordinance questioned whether the existing state code wasn’t enough.  Alberto Medina also worried that time and temperature outdoor tethering restrictions included in the proposal could be incorrectly applied to dogs like his Husky.  Medina noted that his dog, bred for work in northern climes, preferred to stay outside for extended periods in weather than could be considered too cold for other breeds.

During the board’s pre-vote discussion, County Administrator Doug Stanley pointed out that options presented in the proposal, coupled with a little common sense applied to enforcement should address Medina’s concerns.  He noted that with the “adequate shelter” noted in state codes necessary for extended tethering, dogs like Siberian Huskies could remain outside in the cold as long as they had the shelter to retreat to if they wanted.

Alberto Medina cast the lone dissenting voice, worrying that dogs like his Husky would be prevented from staying out in the cold weather they revel in.

Fork District Supervisor Archie Fox asked County Attorney Dan Whitten, who crafted the ordinance, if Medina’s assertion the proposal was not legal in a Dillon Rule state as authorizing restrictions no included or enabled by the state code.  Whitten replied that a number of communities have similar codes that have been in place for years without a successful legal challenge of convictions.

Several supporters of the ordinance proposal said they had not planned to speak, but decided to in reaction to Medina’s comments in opposition.  One, Susan Fisher, pointed out the code was not aimed at people like Medina, whom she observed probably loves and cares for his dog.  Rather, she said, “It is aimed at the people who aren’t here” – people who think it is fine to abuse and neglect their animals.

One person with work in animal rescue noted that often such people as described by Fisher were dealing with their own mental problems.  Another supporter observed that the potential of $500 fines would discourage people who keep dogs to act out their own personal issues, be it sadism, arrogant dominion over God’s lesser creatures, or a simple lack of compassion or empathy, from getting or keeping them.

The night’s first speaker, Melody Thornburg, asked for exceptions for working livestock-guarding dogs like she keeps.  She explained those dogs needed to be tethered out for long periods of time as “adolescents” (8 months to 2 years) in order to bond with the herd they would grow to protect.  However, she did not express opposition to the ordinance, just that it make a distinction between “pets” and “working dogs” like hers being kept out as part of their training and bonding with the livestock they will protect from predators like coyotes and whatever else threatens livestock in Warren County.

County staff indicated the proposal’s wording allowed for some flexibility that could be used to accommodate working dog situations as described by Thornburg.

One pro-ordinance speaker, Joe Coates, suggested 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 legally would help. – “Maybe ordinances are being interpreted incorrectly,” Coates said.

Joe Coates suggested law enforcement, prosecutors and local officials all get on the same page about what both state and local codes authorize in the way of enforcement of animal protection.

State guidelines

And a check with the state code on “adequate shelter” suggests that such a meeting of the legal minds on enforcement of animal neglect or cruelty statutes could be helpful.  While that state code has been called too vague or open to interpretation during the seven-plus months this code has been discussed, is it really?

It 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 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.

Now I’m not an animal control officer, but that guideline coupled with the new local code’s prohibitions against tethering dogs under four months of age; dogs in heat; and any dog directly in extremes of heat or cold without adequate shelter or shade seems like a pretty good base from which to begin offering Warren County’s canine population the kind of aggressive enforcement both animal advocates and animal control officers would like to see.

There are other requirements as to the length, weight, type and time of outdoor tethering in the new county code.  Violations are a Class 3 misdemeanor with fines up to $500 on each count.

Luda the dog is happy there is finally substantive movement to protect his fellow ca-nines from neglect and abuse – he has his eye (and his leg) on the town council to complete the process in timely fashion.

Now all that is needed is for the Front Royal Town Council to officially endorse the county code as the law within the town limits.