Travis County Commissioners Court
February 22, 2005
Item 4
Now, number 4.
>> thank you, joe.
>> a public hearing to receive comments regarding proposed regulations of Travis County governing animal control and related matters.
>> move to open the public hearing.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Good morning.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, sherri flemming executive manager for health and human services. As you know, this was the time set that the court scheduled for a public hearing. I wanted to say for the record that the committee had made substantial changes since the last time this document was before the court. And there was a -- a one-page or a one page and a little more list what was those changes were that I believe was also provided with the -- with the copy of -- that was posted on the website and sent out to folks. So I just wanted to make notice of the list of changes that had been made.
>> from the e-mail that's I received, the following issues have surfaced: one is whether we should cover cats. My question would be what does our current ordinance provide, what does the the city ordinance provide, why should we or shouldn't be. 2 our definition of dangerous wild animals, we did get a few other recommended definitions. 3, our strategy for educating the public. 4 is the notion of a lifetime registration that we discuss briefly at -- at a previous hearing and I guess the question is why not. And this says that basically why wouldn't you grant a lifetime registration tied to the microchip identification and sterilization.
>> well, some of these I feel like I can be responsive to. Some I can't.
>> not necessarily -- I知 laying these out so those who give comments if they can address these or if staff would, these are issues that I think that it would help in the court maybe got out issues that -- that have surfaced based on e-mail that's we have gotten from different constituents. The other question that I have, what is the purpose of the animal advisory commission. I know Travis County has -- has an -- at least one appointee on that commission. And maybe more. But -- but because one e-mail indicated that y'all have not come to the animal advisory commission and that would be a good idea and you are rushing into this matter. So what's your purpose and I guess whether it would be a good strategy for us to -- to meet -- do they meet once a month.
>> they meet once a month.
>> or as often as meeting.
>> they meet once a month, they can call a special meeting if they need to do that.
>> my recommendation is if they are serious about wanting to meet with the appropriate persons to discuss this, why wouldn't we accommodate them?
>> they scheduled a special meeting for tonight to consider just this. We have reviewed it on their agenda in two previous meetings, so it hasn't been scheduled for an action item for them to send a recommendation -- well, actually they did send a recommendation to the court --
>> this member says two things. One is at the last meeting they did not have a copy of what we were looking at until the very last minute. And apparently since that meeting they have had a chance to review what we distributed, was it Tuesday or Wednesday?
>> last Tuesday.
>> Tuesday. But I do think it's a good idea. If they are having a meeting tonight, somebody ought to go and offer explanations, get their input, et cetera.
>> yes, i'll be there at tonight's meeting. Anyone else from the subcommittee that would like to attend too join us. The meeting is at 6:30 at city hall.
>> okay.
>> okay. The other question was why are you covering coyotes all of a sudden? Then do you really need to cover livestock, domestic animals, and there's another one that we cover, right? I thought this was a dangerous dog remedy, why are the rest of these -- then of course the question of are you covering -- why are you covering wild animals, which we I guess chatted about very, very briefly last time. Let's hear -- I think we ought to hear the reasons for those as we hear comments this morning. Anything else from the court? The purpose of the public hearing is for us to receive input basically. So by laying these out I知 not saying just limit your comments to these, I知 saying these are the ones that I知 interested getting comments on because of the issues raise understand different e-mails. If you are bringing your comments, and sent an e-mail it would be on my list anyway.
>> would you like to hear the comments on these now from --
>> if there are brief comments to be given, I would be happy to get them. Anything else from the court, though? Any other issues?
>> no, that's fine.
>> no thanks, judge.
>> going down the list in the order that you did them, we are not addressing cats in anything other than the pet registration. That is the same way the city's ordinance is now. There's not a specific restraint requirement for cats or any other requirements for cats. And so -- so this is replicating that. I think that the thinking on that was probably that we should stay focused on the problem that we were trying to solve with dogs and not introduce the bigger debates that we get into when you start talking about restraining cats, some of those issues.
>> so at the city now, cats must be registered.
>> cats must be registered sneefer --
>> annually, dogs and cats. That's the same way this is written to be now for the dismoot isn't there another basic reason, though, to pick up dog registration, we have to pick up cat registration.
>> right. The statute says each dog and each cat. The leash, restraint law says dog or cat.
>> but registration both are needed.
>> needed.
>> okay.
>> see how helpful these public hearings can be.
>> the dangerous wild animal question, I知 not sure what the question was there.
>> the definition basically. I think part of the definition that I saw e-mailed referred to was that we included actions against livestock, domestic animals --
>> for the dangerous dog definition.
>> and another one.
>> the dangerous dog definition does include actions against livestock, domestic an millions or fowel. The reason for that we heard a lot of testimony and a lot of concerns about dogs attacking animals and frequently when dogs attack other animals, that leads to people being injured as well. We heard a lot of examples of that, someone trying to protect their pet. The other thing I think when you think about attacks on animals versus attacks on people, is that remedies you want are the same thing. You want the animal to be -- the dog that did the attacking to be kept enclose understand a secure enclosure so they won't attack those animals again. And you want that dog to be -- that owner to be accountable for the cost that associated with the attack on the pet or the other animal. Likewise, you would want the owner to be accountable for the costs associated with the attack on a person. So that's where the $100,000 in liability insurance comes in for either kind of attack. You still have costs associated with that because of the attack on the animal. So I don't think it's unreasonable to include those together in the definition because the remedies that you want out of it, whether it's an attack on a person or an attack on an animal are basically the same thing.
>> is there a problem with dogs attacking livestock?
>> yes, we get complaints about that as well as attacks -- the two big ones are attacks on livestock and other domestic pets, other dogs and cats. We get some complaints about attacks on fowel, not as many as livestock and other dogs.
>> does the city of Austin definition cover livestock and fowl.
>> it does cover attacks on other animals.
>> we don't specify it in those three terms, pets, domestic pets, wildlife and fowl, but we cover attacks on other animals.
>> so we think the definition of animals in the city ordinance is broad enough to cover these three categories?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. By the way, I did get a couple of e-mails indicating if a dog is declared dangerous, then getting a -- a $100,000 insurance would be virtually impossible and/or incredibly costly. Do you have any experience on that, at the city?
>> I have dangerous dogs in both the city and the county that are meeting that requirement. I don't know what it costs them to be able to meet the requirement, but they have been able to meet the requirement because under the state law that requirement is already there. So we have required people to do it and they have been able to do it. I don't know how easy it was for them or how costly it was for them. I think the point that people are getting to when they say that it may be announcing a death sentence on the animal. A possibility for some owners achieving all of the requirements for a dangerous dog may not be something that's doable and they may choose to euthanize the animal, that could be the cost of the fence for providing a secure enclosure or the liability insurance. But some people do make that choice. I think that's the point that people are getting to with the insurance that essentially you are saying that the animal is going to be euthanized because it's so difficult to get the insurance.
>> okay. In the ordinance, seemed like for the first time in 0-point [indiscernible] we introduced coyotes, dogs and could I yots.
>> that's been a -- coyotes. That's been a part of the statute the whole time. It wasn't mentioned in ours. We tried to reference each section of 822 and 826. Whether we referenced it or not, it's still part of the statute.
>> under current county ordinance, we cover dogs and coyotes,.
>> we didn't reference it, but it was part of the state statute.
>> whether it's in -- whether it's expressly stated --
>> that law is still there.
>> the state law covers it.
>> okay. Xt is the education strategy. We will have a big push on education to try to get the word out to get as much voluntary compliance as we can during the implementation phase. We will do that utilizing the media, of course we will get a lot of media coverage from the actions that we're taking. We utilize neighborhood associations, neighborhood newsletters, churches, includes, groups like that that we'll be able to locate out in the community that will help us get the word out. We'll try to put together volunteer teams to put out fliers, that sort of things, areas that are pretty condensed population so that a flier kind of thing can work. We will utilize the health clinics, libraries, other public gathering places to put up notices, fliers, posters, that kind of things to really try to push to get the word out. As we discussed last time, we will issue warning citations for a part before we -- warnings rather than citations for a period of time so that we're not eting people until they've had a chance to -- ticketing people until they've had a chance to understand the law and get into voluntarily compliance.
>> a form lateral, systematic program.
>> if it is the will of court, we will have our own media services here at Travis County, we have a television station as does the city of Austin. And if it were so deemed by the court to desire it, it is possible for media services to put together some kind of an informational something that could run on one or both of our stations. Forever in --
>> and I知 already scheduled to meet with the manager over that area to talk about what they can do to help us get the word out and put together something for that. I知 meeting with them in next day or two.
>> why don't we simply put our program together, the powers that be will make sure that they run. Seems to me your time would be better spent helping us put the program together. Once we have that, then I guess on channel 17 we basically program it in.
>> right. Exactly.
>> all right.
>> the other question that you had was lifetime pet rengation. I believe -- registration. I believe lifetime pet registration is a good option if it's coupled with a microchip. A microchip gives you a more permanent identification of the animal and I think that's a good leveraging to get more microchips out into the community. The only concern that I have about lifetime pet registration or any pet registration options that are different from the city's is trying to manage two programs that have different components will make our veterinarians that do most of the registering of pets unhappy with us. And so I知 not sure --
>> two being one at the county, one at the city. If both of us do itronix would make a lot more sense.
>> right. Like right now I have -- of the 21 vets in the county, 13 are already selling city pet registration tags to their clients. So I only have 8 more to bring on board so get everybody on board. If I --
>> would that be a good issue to raise tonight with the animal control --
>> i've been discussing it with them. The consensus I think is that they would like to see a lifetime pet registration component, I agree I think that's a good idea. I would just like to see us get there in a way that I haven't in both programs. So that -- that I have it in both programs. So that I知 not trying to run it in both programs that make the veterinarians unhappy with us when they are serving both clientele.
>> the recommendation was tied not only to the chip microchip identification, but also sterilization.
>> yes, sir.
>> this microchip identification is fairly easy to get done?
>> yes, sir. It's an injection. A large bore needle that inject a little microchip about the size of a grain of rice, very easy to get done, lots and lots of veterinarian clinics offer that. I offered it at the shelter for animals that have been impounded as well. There's a lot of options for getting that done.
>> the other concern on, that the updating of information, that was our other concern, people don't keep the address, contact information updated on a lifetime, you may have a dog that's identified but the information is not updated, finding the owner will be difficult. That was the only other concern.
>> that is -- that is on the -- that is the reasoning for having an annual registration requirement is to have a way to force people to update their information. When people move they always get their utilities changed because they want to have electricity and water. But they tend to forget about getting their pet registration changed, then we have a phone number to try to get the animal back home that -- that isn't any good. So that's the reasoning behind us wanting to keep an annual pet registration program. However, I see the motivation for lifetime pet registrations if you are promoting sterilizations, if you are proposing microchips. If you promote both of those things, then that may counter balance the -- the getting the information annually.
>> if you keep your animal on your property, the registration sort of becomes irrelevant. And change of address.
>> if you keep them on your property so they don't get lost and end up at the shelter, we really don't need to go back to that.
>> does the registration tag have the owner's phone number?
>> the tag has the phone number that goes back to the shelter and then we have the information in our data base.
>> judge, another way to get around there --
>> if you find a pet with a pet registration tag on it, you don't want to bring it down to the shelter, call us, we will access the information in the data base, get in contact with the owner, make arrangements to get the pet picked up or we'll come pick it up and get it back to the owner.
>> another strategy is that dorinda is going to have to take back and get changes made in the city piece of all of this, it could be that we just defer on anything related to the lifetime registration until the city takes it up and if indeed they decide to go forward with it, we can always add it at some later date. I am sensitive to the fact of having two different kinds of things going. We can always defer see what they wind up doing. If they do it, put it back in. Uh-huh.
>> and the other thing that their annual registration is a double check on rabies vaccination. Because you can't register without that being current.
>> right. The pet registration programs are designed to reinforce the rabies vacation nation requirement. Since the rabies vaccination requirement has gone to a more complicated schedule, for rabies now you can have a three year vaccine done or you can have a one year vaccine done. For some people there are vaccines maybe due annually, others maybe every three years. The pet registration now encourages people to go talk to their veterinarian about vaccinations, make sure that they are getting the right thing done. It also encourages wellness, when we send out a notice we encourage them to go see their veterinarian, have a wellness visit and all of that sort of thing. In addition to getting the pet registration done.
>> uh-huh.
>> what I知 hearing also, if I heard agents -- I i heard a little piece of something this morning as far as this particular ordinance is concerned don't rush into that type of scenario. I know that this ordinance that's being put together is a heck of a lot better than what we first started looking at this. I think we are attempting to put our best foot forward. However, there are going to be things that are going to be left out. Not intentionally, but I think as we go through this process there are going to be things that may need to be added later by the city of Austin, also by Travis County. However, I would like to ask marietta, if you can possibly give me a legal answer as far as the county adopting an ordinance, this particular leash law ordinance, when will this particular ordinance have a chance to be modified with those kind of concerns that may be getting left out? Because --
>> any time that the court wants to look at and amend, consider amendments, changes, additions to this, that is the court's prerogative to do that at any point. So I think again some of the concerns of what's not in here or what -- you know, what somebody else would like to include might be something to look at on a long-range basis. Get a basic program in place, basic policy in place and then at any time that the court wants to look at changing or adding, that's the court's choice to do that at any time. There's no limit on that.
>> I just want to make sure that the public got a clear understanding of that because -- because in the -- every week we are hearing some new -- new information and then some of it is not new. However I think when they wrap this up and get it to some type of a -- of a process whereby there will be an ordinance on the books where folks will have to abide by the law. But of course we are not at that particular point as of yet. But I知 just want being to throw that out to anybody that -- wanting to throw that out that anybody may have concerns that your concerns may not be included at a later date, that was the purpose of the question. All right, thank you.
>> anything further before we go to residents?
>> no, sir.
>> might be a good idea if one of you sit at this end here, just in case there are responses to give to questions that are asked. If you are here to give comments on this public hearing, during this public hearing, please come forward, there are four seats available. If you give us your name, we will be happy to get your comments. Two come in, two more chairs. If you would like to give comments today. Now is the time to come forward, two more, please.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, I知 cindy [indiscernible], director of Austin zoo, also chair of the animal advisory commission, feel free to ask me any questions regarding either of those positions. To get started, the current ordinance that you have on the books is not enforced. It's still not enforced. For example, right after the richie girl was attacked, one of the tv stations did a remote from that area and was surrounded by a pack of dogs. Nothing was done then. Nothing is still done. We need more data. We don't know the number of calls or complaints that have gone in from that area or any area in the unincorporated areas of the county. We don't know how many bites. We've been told by ms. Pull yam that there is no data on that, they can't break it down in the areas. We need to know this information before we go forward in making policy that may not be needed to be changed. The draft policy actually weakens the current ordinance by limiting dangerous animals to dogs. For example, Austin zoo has received via town lake animal center and the county a quati. It's a relative of the racoon. This animal was found wandering through anderson mill area loose. It's not a native animal. It was obviously someone's pet. It was not tagged. It was not microchipped. It had been declawed, which was why we knew it wasn't a native animal. This animal is subject to rabies. And if the current ordinance stands and the new policy was to go in place, this animal can still run loose and in fact if you own a pet quati, you can let him outside to do his business unrestrained, no vaccinations required, no registration required, he can attack whatever and there's really no penalties. There's no data if this animal has ever bitten anybody, et cetera. The -- the -- if we are going to go so far as to change this policy, I would recommend that we -- you know, continue to keep it broad and even within the dangerous wild animal code, the state law, expand on that list of animals. For example, even within the city of Austin, oh, in the -- the quatis are cool in the city of Austin, too. They sell them at pet stores in the city of Austin which are not regulated by anyone other than the usda who just says you can sell them. The city itself does not oversee the selling of exotic wild animals to the public. Austin zoo receives many of these animals because people either a get in over their head or they are bitten, there's a whole variety of reasons why people shouldn't have these animals. There's no regulation for pet stores or the ownership of such. Including venemous reptiles. You can have a gaboom viper in the city of Austin and in Travis County, these animals, these reptiles are snakes, have two inch fangs. They are the largest venemous reptile out there as far as fangs go, if you are bitten by one, you have 15 minutes to get anti-venom or you are gone. They sell these on the internet for about $250. I guarantee you they are in the city and the county being kept at pets. Our public safety people e.m.s., Fire, police and sheriff, if they are called to a domestic disturbance perhaps at a house or a fire, they don't know these animals are in the house. And there's no anti-venom at brack. They only have it for rattle snakes and corral snakes at the pop of about a thousand dollars a dose, you need two doses minimum, with a gaboon visually impaired, you are out of luck. There's no concern over non-human primates in either the city or county ordinances. Recently in southwest Travis County animal control was called out on three loose unrestrained mccacks, animal control went out there. One of them, in order to get -- it was restrained because it jumped on the animal -- huh? Non-human primates are monkeys, I知 sorry. A mccack is a type of a species of monkey. The way they caught one, it leapt up on the an monthly control officer. They restrained it, took it down to the shelter and in the meantime it had cut itself and was bleeding and the veterinarians at town lake had to sew it up. At in point in time did animal control or town lake ask to see the viral status of this primate. Mccacks, species have an 80% likelihood of carrying herpes b virus, in transferred to humans is 90% fatal. In atlanta in a controlled lab situation, a work was splashed in the eye with urine and three weeks she was dead. These animals were returned to the owner and their whereabouts are unknown at this time. Austin zoo will not take mccacks because of this disease possibility. But they are legal for private owners to have in the city of Austin and Travis County. So I suggest if we are going to marry ordinances, that we look at all of these issues. The current process also has left animal advisory commission out of the loop. In fact we are having an emergency meeting tonight to gather more public input. We did not receive the draft until forced to get a copy to us at I think we were right on the agenda, I think it was about 7:30? It was. The purpose of the animal advisory commission, sense you asked and didn't receive an answer, is to advise the city council and the county Commissioners on animal issues. Had this been a problem it should have been brought to our attention and an emergency meeting called prior to our regularly scheduled meetings. We have been scrambling to try to get draft proposals and policies and we are kind of like the -- the red headed stepchild in this issue and others. The registration program that they are talking about is -- is actually redone nt and I consider a tax. We already have a rabies vaccination program in place. And neither one with the city of Austin is really enforced. The registration program in the city of Austin can only be enforced if an animal is impounded. There are not police that go door to door and look in back yards to see in an -- if an animal is registered. I know people who have lived in this city for years, decades, if you will, who have never registered their pet. They take their animal regularly to the vet. They've never been told to register. The vets that I speak with don't -- they just see that why are we supposed to be doing the city policy, we are already doing the state, which is rabies. The city ordinance, if you are already in the loop, of being registered, thinking that you are being the good owner, and if you forget, the city has to send out reminders so this is another cost put upon the city to enforce a program that is redundant and is already taking care of with the rabies vaccination program. So I ask if you look at the county, takes on a pet reblgation program, be it lifetime or otherwise, that you look at the fiscal impact of the county having to -- to pick up this extra tax load and burden, more people entering data, more mailings, et cetera. And again it's just something that's not going to be enforced unless an animal is impounded. We have already ascertained that the current ordinance in the county isn't enforced, how are we going to feel --
>> you don't need a public education program --
>> there's been talk of public education forever in the city pet reasonation program and other spay neuter program, it's -- it's not done. There's nothing in the city electric bills, you know like a little reminder. You can't, it's not easy to get your animal registered. A lot of the vets won't do it. -- why should they go to the trouble, no kick back off of this, there's just a can of worms in the pet registration program. Let's see if I left anything out. The pet registration adds another level of bureaucracy. You will have less people being compliant, because they are afraid the government is going to get another list of their names. I know that to be a concern because work with rescue programs who have been told in order to rescue animals and foster them out of town lake animal center, that they must give up the names of who they have adopted to so that town lake can create and use them in the pet registration program, they are concerned that it's big brother looking at addresses, is that public information. We have been told that that won't happen, but I know names leak out through other various ways, people are concerned that it's more big brother --
>> does the animal advisory have a -- commission have a recommendation on registration?
>> yes.
>> yes. If it's taken up we want live time pet reg -- lifetime pet registration for people who spayed and neutered their animals as a reward if you will for helping not creating the problem of too many pets. If there's going to be one, we would recommend a lifetime pet registration program for both county and the city, if there's one to be done.
>> if we do the lifetime registration, how do we deal with the ratings issue. The need for the -- for the rabies shot? Annually or just every three years? We will just leave it as it is. [multiple voices]
>> required by state law?
>> sure.
>> the rabies shot?
>> another check on --
>> okay.
>> cindy, how do -- how many members are there of the animal advisory commission.
>> nine.
>> nine.
>> how many of those were appointed by the Austin city council? Versus the Travis County Commissioners court.
>> eight.
>> how many?
>> eight.
>> eight.
>> and is there a requirement of the eight that were appointed by the Austin city council that they live within the city of Austin?
>> no.
>> how many of them live within the city of Austin?
>> [indiscernible] one that lives outside the county.
>> we are only aware of one that lives outside the county of those eight.
>> are you all taking a perspective as you go through your deliberations of -- of what is appropriate for folks who live outside of the city of Austin versus what rules you may or may not want to see within the city of Austin city limits? I知 worried about the input coming in from folks who don't live within the city who have legitimate perspectives about all of these issues that are -- might be quite different than folks who live within the city in terms of the issues that they are facing out in the unincorporated parts of Travis County.
>> well, the rabies vaccination program encompasses the state, so there's no delineation between the city and the county.
>> that's not really the issues. That's just one of many issues in terms of problems -- I知 just more worried about who is bringing the perspective to the animal advisory commission of folks who do not live --
>> I lived in, I work in the county. A lot of our -- visitors, I get input being on the animal advisory commission from both city and county residents. And yes there is -- there needs to be a delineation -- I mean, the city is growing and starting to annex and get bigger and will eventually take up all of Travis County. It's conducive that there be a community approach to that. To the animal issues. And so that people are not -- because there's places in Travis County on one side of the street, the city of Austin, the other side of the street is Travis County. The people on the right side of the street don't have to register the people on the left side of the street do. If you even took pet registration off the board, which I don't know that you are going to do in the city, there's not any continuity, I will agree to that.
>> could I snow that, also. Until about -- until about 1999, maybe 2000, I知 not exactly sure which of those two years, the animal advisory commission was made up of one appointee from each of the city council members and one appointee or nominee, basically your no, nee became the appointee from each of the kansas Commissioners. We had a 13 member animal advisory commission, every single city or county representative had someone that you selected to be on the animal advisory commission. In --
>> that is no longer the case.
>> that is no longer the case, it has been changed. It has been my issue for a long time that we should go back to how it used to be. I don't think, you know, given the suburbanization and the growth in Travis County, I don't think that you are adequately represented. However, in light of the fact that we haven't had your appointees, I believe we still have tried to represent the interests of the entire county. We hear from loot of people who come from through -- we hear from a lot of people who come from throughout the county.
>> what where do you all meet?
>> town lake animal center in the davenport building.
>> how would people find out about your meetings out in Pflugerville area or out --
>> posted on the boards and commissions hearings and a lot of animal rescue groups put it on their e list.
>> so the city of Austin? Why would somebody from Pflugerville be cruising the city of Austin website, looking -- [multiple voices]
>> I don't know why it's not on the county website.
>> we would --
>> my concern -- [multiple voices]
>> we have a group [multiple voices]
>> any more comments, your name, any more comments from you? I think we need to move on.
>> real quick, I -- taking what ms. Sonleitner says, I would request that a task force be appointed that includes citizens, organizations, people representing the different areas of the county to get together to discuss what's going to impact them and the animals, thank you.
>> thank you.
>> in the middle you have given some comments, anymore, your name, please.
>> i'll speak when it's my turn.
>> your turn right now to finish.
>> my turn?
>> yeah.
>> okay. My name is pat valees-tres, I am also a member of the animal advisory commission with cindy, however, at this particular moment I知 not representing the animal advisory commission. I'll just mention why real briefly. We met last week as a commission. And in the amount of time we had the draft, which was about 15 minutes to read it, we were not able to work all of the way through a 19-page document and bring you recommendations today. We decided to schedule another meeting for this evening in the hope that you would take our recommendations after we complete the process of going all the way through it. We hope to be diligent tonight and get back to you as soon as possible. With our on recommendations as a commission. Right now, I am speaking on behalf of myself, and eight other people who met Sunday as individuals to come together and give you some -- some recommendations. Having worked through the draft. In about four hours. I will be passing this out later, but let me start with our first recommendation. As a group of individuals that are concerned about this situation, we recommend -- we urge the Travis County Commissioners court to adopt the dog restraint provision in 51005 of your proposed draft only and poern adopting -- and postpone adopting everything else until great scrutiny is given to it and we've had a chance to review it. From the discussions that you've been hearing today, you realize that these things are very complicated. I think there is a strong consensus on the part of the community that a restraint ordinance is warranted. What you have in 52005. I believe the rest of it --
>> let me ask you something real quick. Are you saying waiting until later scrutiny can be put forth as far as the rest of the ordinance is concerned, and remember when I commented earlier I stated that we having persons that are saying let's hold up, let's wait, blah blah blah blah, and scrutinize just as you said the ordinance more. But then on the other hand, I知 hearing from folks that are saying let's move forward with an ordinance so we'll have something on the books whereby we can go forward with some of the problems that we are having out here as far as this type of control. So I guess is there a middle ground here.
>> yes, sir, that's the middle ground.
>> there's a middle ground. What that time frame is for, what you are saying I don't know what that middle ground is. I keep hearing these comments, then again that's why I asked legal the question earlier. That if you were to go forward, can things still be modified. Of course we can do that at any time. It's at the disincrease of the Commissioners court. So part of the flavor -- at the disdiscretion of the Commissioners court. The middle ground would be what time would you like to see this thing go forward?
>> in other words you have a meeting scheduled for March 8th where you noon vote.
>> exactly. Where you plan to vote. What I was saying go ahead and vote on 52005. The restraint ordinance only.
>> for March 8th that's your suggestion.
>> on March 8th, when you are scheduled to vote on this entire thing, very long, complicated, has a myriad of provisions that we don't really understand what they do, go ahead and only adopt a restraint ordinance in -- as in -- as in what you have in 52005, which will basically bring you in line with what the city of Austin has and what surrounding counties have, it's not that complicated to do a restraint ordinance, do a really good one. And then limit what you do on March 8th to that. Going forward from March 8th, giving -- give yourselves two, perhaps three months to do all of the other things that you said that you would do. For example, in the conversation earlier on lifetime pet registration, you were talking about going ahead and doing something now and then later on coming back if the city changes it and changing it. That doesn't make sense. You know, talk about confusing the veterinarians. Asking a -- asking veterinarians to implement something for a few months and then changing it, that simply doesn't make sense. Why don't you hold off on implementing pet registration period until you have come to an agreement with the city on what you want the city and county pet registration program to look like. The dangerous dog provision, chill get into, since that was a major focus of our concern, is just full of flaws, full of concerns, full of issues. If you move forward on that on March 8th,, you know, I just think that you are going to be working backwards trying to undo and recreate some things. Why don't you just simply speak to the issue that was brought before you. Sar of the tragedy, you don't have a restraint ordinance, adopt a restraint ordinance and give yourself more time to work on everything else.
>> that's point one. Point two.
>> point two is if you don't agree with that and you do go ahead and adopt some other provisions, we would like you to do the following: a, is use the provision that's are in state law to do dangerous dogs. In other words, don't at this time go beyond what is in state law concerning dangerous dogs. A big concern that we have in what you are doing in the -- in the county ordinance is that you are adding animals, attacks on animals, attacks on livestock and attacks on fowl to the dangerous dog provision. That is not in state law. I think that it creates a huge issue when you add those and we request that you do not make this change at this time. If you believe that it is necessary to adopt the county policy that the -- that declares dogs dangerous for attacks on animals, we have certain exempt -- exceptions that we would like you to consider. For example, please require that at least an attack must actually take place. Right now the way that you have the ordinance written, my dog can be declared dangerous for chasing a cat up into a tree and some citizen see that's and believes that an attack could take place, and that that will result in injury to a cat. That could declare my dog dangerous, I think that's ludicrous. I think 98% of the dogs in Travis County will potentially be dangerous because simply having someone reasonably believe that a cat could cause injury to an animal will result in that cat having to go for a dangerous dog hearing. That just doesn't make -- take doesn't make sense. Also, if you believe you must do this, if a dog attacking an animal could be considered, a dog attacking a county could be considered a dangerous dog, if you choose to go forward on that, at least create a separate classification system, a separate system for that than what you have right now for a dog injuring or causing serious bodily injury on or death to a person. Going back to what I said about state law, state law has very stringent, very, you know, strong provisions if a dog causes serious bodily injury or death to a person. You are adding lots to it by included other animals, fowl and livestock to it. If you insist on doing that, which we are asking you not to, we would ask you to at least create a separate classification system for that, separate consequences, not as onerous as what you have in the -- in the draft right now. We would like you to find in create thank separate classification -- in creating that separate classification, we don't want you to but if you are knees are provisions that we would like to you conclude f. A dog is protecting the person in the middle person from an attack or assault, do not declare that dog dangerous, also an exception if at any time the person who was attacked was committing a crime or offense upon the property of the owner. Or custodian of the dog. We would also like to you have an exception if the person who was attacked was teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog or in the past teased, tore meanted or abused or assaulted that same dog. We would also like you to have an exception if the dog was attacked or menaced by the domestic appear mall that it tack -- animal that it attacked or it's on the property of the dog or custodian of the dog. If the dog is responding to pain or injury, its kennel or offsprings. If the person or domestic animal was disturbing the dog's natural function such asleeping or eating. Last but not least, neither growling nor barking nor both shall alone constitute grounds to find the dog dangerous. In other words if you do go ahead and choose to have a county ordinance please have these exceptions. We would like to you remove scratches from the definition of serious bodily injury. We would request that you remove the provisions that cats should wear the tags evidencing that registration went off the property of the owner. Right now you have changed the provision of cats having to wear tags to say should. We don't exactly know what that means. How it will be enforced. We don't understand why a should is in an ordinance. We would prefer that you take that out and just let's leave it up to the education campaign that people should do something about identifying their cats. We also feel that there's a problem with the definition of owner. First of all, you -- you define owner to only speak to dogs. It doesn't speak to cats. But then when you go to the provision on -- on registration, that provision seems to imply that an owner of a cat is supposed to have that animal registered whereas the definition of owner didn't include cats. Assume this was an oversight, assuming if you do choose to move forward with this you will fix it. What we are asking is that you -- is that you define owner in such a way that a person feeding or harboring a spayed or neutered notched ear feral county should not be considered an owner for the purpose of the registration requirement. In other words, we would prefer that you hold off on this entirely for a while, but if you are going to go through with it and if you are going to have cat owners having to register their animals, we would request an exemption for people who are feral county colony managers.
>> you plan to leave us a copy of those comments, right.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> we also recommend that the rengation fee for spayed or neutered animal be set at no more than $5 for the lifetime of registration for the animal. This is the lifetime pet provision registration we have discussed. Up until now I believe that I have communicated with all of you about that recommendation because it was a recommendation of the animal advisory commission at our January meeting. We again ratified that and in fact strengthened it at our meeting last week and now this group of 8 individuals has a new twist to it that I would like to bring forward to you. That is this: if you have done everything right by spaying and neutering your animals, we want you to only have to pay $5 for the lifetime of the animal. However, there has been a concern raised about what happens when people move and change their address. As long as you don't change your address, your $5 lifetime registration what you at the right address, you are fine. Suppose you do move. Then it's incumbent upon you to file a change of address. And here's where the -- where the kick comes in if you want to have one. If you would like to impose a penalty on people who don't change their address, go ahead and set a penalty of let's say $20. For not filing a change of address. But if I have done everything correctly, if I have spayed or neutered my animals, I have either lived in the same house for 20 years or informed you every time that i've moved, don't penalize me, I知 not making a problem for you. If I move, require me to change my address. If I don't change my address, then penalize me. Okay. We recommend when the dog is impounded that the owner be able to choose that the dog be I am pounded at a licensed veterinarian or a kennel approved by the county.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners],
>>
>> ...the definition of dangerous dog to ensure dogs declared to be dangerous truly are, we then recommend that a dog determined to be dangerous be required to be leashed, muzzled and wear a fluorescent yellow color when a dog is taken to the dog park. I believe right now you have only a leash requirement. Then the last one is we recommend that dangerous dog hearings be conducted by a three-member panel consisting of a veterinarian, a warrant offer and a member of a 5013-c animal welfare organization. The people that signed onto it [inaudible] tony lagoria, cheryl server, myself, pat [inaudible], beverly williams, tracy whitley.
>> how many of those are members of the commission? How many of those individuals are members of the commission?
>> I am the only member of the annual mall advisory commission. And did I mispronounce your name?
>> [inaudible].
>> thank you very much. If you would leave us a copy of that we would appreciate it judge aleshire.
>> judge Biscoe.
>> who would like to give testimony during this public hearing? We have two seats available. Please come forward. If you would like to give testimony during this public hearing, we have only one more person. We have two more, three more. Okay. Yes, sir.
>> judge Biscoe, members of the Commissioners court, my name is bill aleshire. Our [inaudible] to assist you, we had delivered earlier this morning a package to you and copies to the county attorney and the enforcement staff. I知 not going to address the issues of the [inaudible]. I want you to consider this helpful, I hope, and suggestions, it may appear to be criticisms. I don't want anyone who sees this doctor to consider it to be -- document to consider this to be criticism. There are problems with published proposed and I think it's best to talk about what we perceive as those problems very frankly. In the spirit of trying to assist you in arriving at a good place. First of all, the issue that was brought to you which spawned this recent change was dog bites. But it would be a mistake to change the policy that was an animal control policy to just being a dog bite policy. It is -- you are dealing in a very messy area of state legislation, but an area that the legislature has in the last few years tried to address. It's one of the few years in which they've tried to be helpful to county Commissioners courts and things have changed in the last few years and it's a good time to visit what new authority and change in the authority you have. But the state law is a mess in this regard. It is piecemeal. You have areas where it's very clear, strong authority to do things to dogs. You have certain authority to do things to dogs and cats. You have authority to do things about rabies, for example, any animal that might get rabies who have restrictions on dangerous wild animals and provide you the list of the dangerous wild animals they want you to regulate, but the broadest provision is in the local government code that says that you can regulate or prohibit wild animals, and wild animals is defined as any non-domestic animal you consider to be dangerous. And that's changed. That's a very broad area now of authority just in the last few years. We suggest that the issue you've now gotten involved in is broader than the dog issue and the west way to address it is what we've recommended as a community collaborative approach. It would make sense to end up somehow with one policy that is consistent within every square foot of Travis County inside the various cities as well as outside if you can get there. Now, I realize, having been in your place, that there's a lot of pressure to do something now if you perceive that there are omissions in your current policy that must be addressed. And I would agree based on the analysis i've done on both the current policy and what you've proposed that the best improvement in the proposed rules is the definition of an animal that is stray. If it's off its property and it's not restrained, then it's subject to be impounded and contrary to some of the other speakers before that your definition of dangerous dog, if you are just going to look at the dogs, is better than the old policy was. But I think it's important to highlight to you what you already have. And i'll go to the list of issue, judge, that you drawsed as well and raise those issues with you. In 52.008 right now you have the vicious animals, not just dogs. You have a county policy that says it shall be an offense in control of any vicious animal to keep or permit the same in a public house, street or alley. To be a vicious animal they have to maul somebody three times. That's all we've heard discussion about the current policy. You also have a policy that says any pack of dogs, which is three dogs or more, in the county, which in the opinion of the Travis County rabies control offer posts a threat of harm to personss property or other animals may be impounded. Now, that's pretty drawed language right now. It's not real clear and it could be better policy, but that's in your policy right now. And I doubt it's being enforced. We know of examples where it's not being enforced. There's some in del valle right now that if the animal control officer agreed that having three or more dogs running around in del valle posts a threat, they could pick those dogs up. You don't need your new ordinance to do that. And then 52010, dangerous animals in your current policy. Not just dangerous dogs. Any animal determined to be a dangerous animal by the Travis County -- by Travis County or its designee shall be impounded. So the -- then let's look at registration. You already have a registration program in Travis County. It may not be being enforced like it ought to, but it's in 52.014 and 012 upped rabies vaccinations for dogs and kafpltsz you require and state law requires that every dog and cat be vaccinated for rabies. Now, I want to first point out to you that dogs and cats are not the only animals that can give people rabies. And I encourage you to address as much as you can the rest of those situations. Cindy talked about willed animals -- wild animals, other animals that can distribute rabies. Right now 52.014 of current policy says it is an offense for the owner to fail to have the dog wear the vaccine nation tag at all title when the animal is in public places. Right now have you the vet issued the tag to collar a way to identify the dog and you don't need a government database of everybody who owns a pet in this town in order to trace that back. I encourage you to bring the veteranarians into the process more formally than they have been. They are the ones on the front lines and have a relationship with the pet owners that can be assistance in the fundamentals. Let's make sure the animals can be identified, but they are also vaccinated from rabies. You don't have to set up a very expensive, coupler some, perhaps difficult to enforce registration system if you just continue to require the same policy you've got right now. Enforce it. Require dogs and cats be vaccinated and to wear the tag. If you want to incorporate microchip, this was written in 1984, you want to encourage mike ship, sure, maybe there's a way to work that in there too. So what we have given you is a document that was intended to give you general comments, some detailed responses to the proposed order, like for example right now the only owners that are covered by the proposed policy are dog owners. We've given you resource. I encourage to you look at behind tab 3 which is a community approach to dog bite prevention. And it was a paper put out by the american veterinary medical association, and the task force chaired by dr. Bonnie beaver, a veterinarian and head of the veterinary school at Texas a&m. She's available, I just talked to her and she's a very good resource and somebody that's available to you as well. I went on the national association of county's site, found two county ordinances list odd there in the area of animal control. Provided those to you behind tab 4. Tab 5 has the american vet medical association's report on dangerous about diseases, not just rabies that involve things like pet stores and petting zoos and these animal swap meets and all that stuff which is another potential source of rabies and other disease in the community. 6 is the current compendium from the usda or the cdc on rabies vaccine. 7 is a special report from nevada to give you an idea what one location did about gathering data on bites. One of the things that's missing in this process so far is gathering information about -- as cindy said, gathering information about what's going on in the community. What complaints are being given to the staff or to the sheriff's off or anyone else that -- they are not feeling like they are being able to respond to them. How many people got bit in 787349. Commissioner, we should know that.
>> 77.
>> you got it. Good. We should all know that. Finally, from the latest report I can find on the web from the usda, they had a special section on Texas and the problem with wildlife rabies and particularly about coyotes, so i'll give that to you. Under your current policy on cats and dogs, you can require either to be quarantined, you can require -- you do require right now that bites be reported, but i'll be darned if I know where to get that information. It certainly hasn't been laid out and made easy to see. And it is correct that certain laws, if you use those laws, require you to register -- if you are going to register dogs, then you have to register cats. But that's not true on the option. There's also a provision in there that allows just a hundred registered voters to bring you a petition, require you to hold an election on just registering dogs. And that also has limits on the registration fee. Now, I don't recommend that necessarily, but that is an option, if you just want to register dogs, that's one way to do it. And then on the public education, the big push for public education, i'll be darned if I understand why that would be done after you've already adopted aorder instead of putting -- if there's an opportunity to reach all these groups, invite them into the process sort of along the lines of what the veterinary medical association recommended is the collaborative approach. Use that big push now and get people to give you even put in an organized and formal way. And on the issue of the coyotes, coyotes are on that list of dangerous wild animals. So the fact that there's been a statute out there about dogs and coyotes that harass livestock, animals and fouls but not people, not little girls, it's been on the books. It's true it's out there. But coyotes are also listed on the list of dangerous wild animals that you've got in here that you can only have at an animal sanctuary such as the Austin zoo or others. So that part of the order is not going to help you on coyotes and seems like with the growing -- what happened is, as you know and as you've seen, the growing urbanization into the wild -- natural habitat is causing some animals that can adapt to try to adapt to the urban environment, to the neighborhood environment, and so coyotes instead of hunting rabbits in the wild are hunting cats in the neighborhoods. And you heard these complaints, but it seems like there ought to be a place in this policy to address what your goal is and what your technique is for addressing that kind of pest, if you will, in an urban area. And so that's -- that's the long and short of it. I think the fundamental point is you've got some things in the current policy that would have been very helpful in the circumstances you've heard described in this Commissioners court and prior meetings if they would been enforced. And if you don't address that, what good will it do -- even if adopt a perfect policy this time if you don't address that issue as well. Thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you, judge.
>> yes.
>> my name is kathy ol olive and I知 the Travis County represent, the lone Travis County representative and i've been a rancher in the rural part of Travis County for 25 years. I've got friends in Creedmoor who are ranchers, I have friends in manor who are ranchers and are holding the line for the ranchers on the advisory commission, and I too hold your concerns that I知 the only person on the commission who understands the concerns of the people who live in the rural part of the county as opposed to people who live in the city, and I understand we have -- there's a difference between the county and the city. But this ordinance has so many flaws in it that we need all the help that we can get with all the nine members of the commission in rewriting this, and when I came down for the first meeting and I asked you, judge Biscoe, to please pass a leash law, I meant just leash law. I did not mean all this extra train use other things on this. And I agree with pat that maybe if you want to proceed with passing something, if there was a way to pull out the leash law or the animal at large law and just pass that and give us time to work on all of the other things in this 19-page dramatic that I feel are extremely flawed, if that's what you have to do, if you have to pass something on the 8th, then pull that part out and give us time to work on all these other parts which we feel like are extremely flawed.
>> thank you. Yes.
>> my name is mel me marley, I live in the great hills subdivision. I知 a board member for [inaudible] rescue as well as have been a vet tech for three years. In your draft under requirements, the $100,000 insurance requirement for a dangerous dog, I agree with the animal advisory commission that there needs to be a difference between aggression towards livestock and aggression towards people. That there should be a definite difference there. And just because a dog is -- chases a cat or is aggressive towards a goat or a chicken or something, it should be different than aggression on a human. I think $100,000 is a bit steep for something like that. Also would it be a possibility instead of having insurance, be required to pay any of the medical fees that happens with with an attack. Also, under 52.007, provocation and location. It says here the provisions of this section 52.007 apply to any attacks by a mauling [inaudible] bodily injury regardless whether a dog was provoked. Well, if the dog was provoked and it bites somebody, that needs to be included understand there. I mean the dog that's abused or teased and bites somebody, it should be different than whether or not the dog just bites.
>> that particular section on the [inaudible] state law.
>> regardless of whether or not it was provoked? That is state law?
>> yes.
>> if somebody is teasing a dog and beating them, it's okay for them to bite them?
>> that's in the state law.
>> wow. Under general provisions, enforcement, it says the a.c.a. May enter the property to seize and/or impound a dog as required under these rules except as authorized by subpoena or court order. The a.c.a. Will not enter a private residence to -- first obtain the owner's permission. I think that needs to be added to that is property. I don't feel like an animal control officer should be able to enter your backyard without permission. And it seems they can enter your property, which might be your backyard, but they cannot enter your private residence. Is that what that means?
>> I think that would be how that would be interpreted, but i'll look into that.
>> okay. You know, I feel that dog owners need to be protected from, you know, pit bull hating fanatics and other people like that and just because somebody makes a complaint like that, dog catchers shouldn't be able to to just come on your property, which includes your backyard. So I would request that you add property into that, not just private residence. And that's all I have.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> my name is jim vanwolski. I've atandied all the hearings. Five or six weeks ago we had no law, now we have big law. On the first hearing seems like it was Commissioners' intent we were going to have a leash law and let's get this done. I think we need to hold off on the consideration. There's only been two people who -- of all the public testimony who have said we need a leash law. The lady in purple was speaking on her own behalf and not part of the animal advisory board when she was speaking on that portion. And lastly there was a [inaudible]. Other people have not asked that and it's like putting everybody in jail just because we have a problem and we'll sort them all out later. We're going into lockdown mode here. I don't think that's right. The hearings up until at least now have delayed sort of a ratification process or a draft, but as you see there's many problems and the best ideas is where the citizens' input and appoint delegates and each of you people so you do get a true cross-section. The city of Austin, about two and a half weeks ago, raoert right before or right after the last hearing, there was another dog attack in north Austin. No one what caused it or whatever, but they have this pretty strong law. And going back to they have only 12 dangerous dogs this this city. You know, that's not true. It's ludicrous to think that. There has to be a division of the threat level as it is with people and this certainly should be with animals in general. I don't think that whatever program you install, you shouldn't have this approach that we're going to have an immediate care system for dogs as the city dogs where they will patch up a dog that gets hit by a car and then just turn it over to the owner at no charge and it's all right to patch up the dogs in a fight or hit by a car, but if the owner wants the dog, they have to pay the bill because why should we pay -- why should we who control our dogs pay for people who can't control dogs. So the dog got hit by a car, but you either get smart or get dead if you are a dog and stay off the road. The first semblance of visible identification i've seen on a dangerous dog is the muzzle and yellow collar, but that only applies in the public parks. But as I said last time, how is anybody going down the street, kids playing on their bicycle, going through the neighborhood, going to be able to identify a dog that's been chipped and computer identified as a dangerous dog, but there's no visible signs on the dog. And I suggested that measure to notch his ear. I said that in written response to the commission. First offense, notch one ear, second offense the other, third offense give them a needle. I also made the point that seems pretty harsh, but I would rather have a dog with notched ears than a child with [inaudible]. They continue to coddle a dog's rights when in fact it's the people we're concerned with and the general public good. I gather the citizen input in general was not for a leash. It's a problem here and the last point is rabies seems to be the umbrella that a lot of this is being put under, put rabies is not the fatal disease that it used to be. In fact, rabies used to require a series of very painful shots into the stomach and now they are much -- they are usually fatal if they didn't catch it early, but I don't think that's the statistic us. Certainly rabies needs to be checked and controlled. They have oral vaccines for coyotes, et cetera, but don't wrap up everything under the rabies umbrella when that scene has changed. Thank you.
>> thank you. Yes, sir.
>> I think i've got this down to under four minutes with any luck. Judge, Commissioners, chuck miller, resident of rural Travis County since 1983 and I don't want to see anybody bitten by a dog. But the premise to any legislation that restricts the citizens course of conduct is that it be just compromise between competing and public interest. The reason we don't set a 20 mile an hour speed limit on cars is because it -- it's because they are competing against public interest that make it happen. In other words, safety isn't the only consideration when we're dealing with these matters. And in homage on to that precept that is in fact what's guiding you all, I would like to ask an exception to 5205 be carved out and that exception be for dogs that are collared with the owner's contact information, registration and rabies tag. Those hopefully being methods of showing a responsible dog owner. Why would we want to do this? What are the competing public interests? First of all, if you allow that exception, you avoid some of the negatives that are going to be imposed by 52005. The first of which, of course, is you've got hundreds, perhaps thousands of dog owners that are going to have to fence their property or move their dogs inside, and fences cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's not a small thing that you are doing here. Moving a dog inside for a large dog is anywhere from inappropriate to cruel, and it may not be appropriate for smaller dogs. In any event, you are radically changing the dynamics of the family that owns that dog. Another negative of course is -- associated with just a pure blanket leash law without exception is you are altering the premise that was why most of us live in the county or many of us, I should say, live in the county anyway. We chose the location of our home, many people like me and my neighbors and neighborhood because dogs were allowed to run free. If we wanted to live in a dog-free environment in rural Travis County, we would have picked one of the hundreds of subdivisions whose deed restrictions prevent dogs from running free. We did not. With eyes wide open we chose to live area without those restriction and our dogless neighbors also made that choice to live in that area without the dog restriction. There are positives that are involved with embracing this exception. First and foremost of course is that you allow neighbors to work these things out among themselves without micromanaging the neighborhood. As long as you know the dog's owner, you can go to him as a neighbor if you've got a problem with his barking and get it solved as neighbors should. Second of all you will be allowing an efficient use of man poufrplt you are going to need enforcement to enforce this ordinance. And if the idea is to get dogs who are some sort of a danger off the streets, this ordinance allows any neighbor who either doesn't like dogs in general or doesn't like the dog's owner to [inaudible] that does nothing more than a dog who likes to get his tummy scratched when you approach it. Neighbors are going the abuse this. They are going to use your manpower to work out neighborhood disputes and do you really want to get involved in that level of neighborhood interaction. And maybe a further compromise would be if you do get a complaint to allow a 5205 exception, if an animal control officer is called out, regardless of whether the dog is tagged, if it displays aggressive tendency towards the officer. Give the officer final. Those of us who are responsible dog owners who live in an area with other responsible dog owners and chose to live there and to make the biggest investment of our lifetime, our home, I would ask to you carve out that exception and strike a reasonable and just balance between the competing public interests that we have here. And with that I wish you a lot of solace and comfort once you reach your ultimate decision. I know it will be a good one. Thank you.
>> anyway name is [inaudible] and I would like to comment -- add to your comments. Especially dogs on the -- dogs that might be playing with a [inaudible]. If that dog is [inaudible] a dangerous dog, the consequence is and it's not as likely to take as its mate the insurance coverage might be denied. And I [inaudible] insurance information institute. They put out [inaudible] and in general the insurance companies have very different restrictions on when they would -- sorry. A language problem. Whatever. And it might end up that you are not able to get an insurance. That might even be homeowner insurance or a special dog insurance. Those things need to be considered. Then the landlord-tenant issue. I believe dogs labeled dangerous dogs will not be likely to -- imagine the liability issues that are involved. So he would ask that you expel your dog from the property. I think it's not warranted for a dog that barks at a chicken and somebody thinks that should be killed. On the high end I have concern as well. If a dog, and I would label it a vicious dog, if a dog has formerly attacked a person and seriously injured that person, those people, if the dog cuts loose, should contact in reasonable time the control department so that they can come out and help find that dog. Because I don't want to encounter a loose aggressive pit ball. And I think that regulation is in there in the wild animal subsection, but it's not in there for the seriously -- wounding a person seriously dog provision. Do you understand what I知 saying? You look a little --
>> I believe I do.
>> okay. That's basically it. Everything else has been said before and regarding the legal issues of that document, I would submit the paper to that.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> you're welcome.
>> am I next? I知 [inaudible] and I live on a ranch in Travis County for many, many years. It's now part of the city. And we know the problem with loose dogs, but I want you to know that any responsible rancher or farmer never has their dog running loose. That's not what these problems are coming from and unfortunately the only way to deal with them in the past has been shooting them, and, you know, that's out in the fields where nobody ever sees it. But I do agree that -- trying to do to much at one time. And that maybe the thing to do is to do the restraint law now and work on the others some more. I also, 5:00 rancher and a farmer, know that a dog that will kill a chicken, which any dog will chase a chicken, you know, it's natural. It should not have to be insured for $100,000 and wear a muzzle in public. And you also shouldn't get three strikes. No rancher or farmer could stand that. Something will have to be done about the dog, but that should be separate. My concerns are the vagueness of these guidelines and -- wording like decisions made on a case-by-case basis. I think [inaudible] guidelines and it leads them to the mercy of people who don't have clear guidelines to make their decisions. It leaves people at the mercy of, you know, to really intimidate people that can afford legal help and also are afraid of authority. The fees shouldn't just be -- it should be the same for everybody. I don't understand why people shouldn't all be treated the same. People that go down to the shelter and as a good citizen pay their fees and get their dog out or their cat out, but somebody that has a problem with it might get their fees waived or get, you know, you see what I知 saying, I just think all need to be treated the same. I don't think that the way to solve problems is by losing a dangerous dog ordinance t way to solve the problems occurring are by the leash restraint, the pet restraint ordinance, and to enforce it. We have rabies in eastern Travis County now, and I think this should be a very big part of the decision. I don't agree that it's not a dangerous disease. And it shouldn't cause hysteria, but it does -- you know, appear, and the thing to do is deal with right now and not after, you know, after we get into a real crisis with the rabies problem. And that simply is with the pet restraint ordinance, you are able to control the movement and the interaction with -- not perfectly, but at least the exposures will be, you know, even if a dog is exposed on somebody's property, it stays on that property and it's -- and it's confined to that area. I just think that you should pass the restraint ordinance, but it also will need to be enforced, and that means funding too. Thank you very much.
>> thank you. If,.
>> thank you very much. Move this public hearing be closed.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:23 AM