Travis County Commissioners Court
March 8, 2005
Item 25
Number 25 is consider and take appropriate action on proposed regulations of Travis County governing animal control and related matters. Now, we did get all the e-mails and comments from residents. And we got a lot of recommendations. [inaudible] myself and the comments that we received, it seems to me to make sense, and let me throw this out here to see if we can get some direction, for us to be the [inaudible], and one of those is to focus on the restraint or control provisions. Two ways to take a look at the dangerous dog definition, make sure that we cover persons and dogs. 3 is to give specific directions to come up with a public education program. And the ordinance that we are left with after the changes. And 4 is to come up with a specific strategy for enforcement. And this strategy is basic designed to enable the commission, the city of Austin and other interested residents to work on this matter further over the next few months. My thinking is we may as well try to do the same thing as city of Austin does since we're using the same enforcement personnel, it's kind of hard to get around that. I don't know that it makes sense to have to ordinance in place and expect one set of enforcement folk to enforce those consistently and effectively. And I think we will do our ourselves a world of good if we were to try to make clear under which circumstances the responding officers would take action. And if residents know that, hopefully they will take steps to prevent the need to take action, but 2, to the extent that enforcement action acts as a deterrent to future violations, then we can be most effective that way. And my intention is not to delay the comprehensive [inaudible], but it is to put us on roughly the same time schedule as the animal control seems to be and hopefully -- I think we got city representatives to tell us they will be looking at this issue in the future, right? David lowery and others did participate in some of the early meetings that we had on this.
>> I知 dalinda with animal control. We would like the city of Austin to take a look at the city ordinance and think it up in areas where it needs to be synced up with what we are looking to do in Travis County. That was our intention is if we pass something here, then to go back and look at the city regulations and see if there is anything that we need to tweak to make them more consistent. We can do that in either order. We can look at them both or pass this now and then go back and look at the city ordinance. I would say, though, that at this point there are not a lot of inconsistencies already with them. The only area where I think the city ordinance will need to be looked at is expanding the dangerous dog language in the city ordinance to some degree. Not a lot.
>> [inaudible] registration?
>> registration we already have in the city. Pet registration we already have in the city. The county registration, it's been proposed would be the same as the city. So --
>> is the city looking at the permanent registration? The permanent registration is new idea, right?
>> the animal advisory commission has been discussing the idea of a lifetime registration, but they have not made a recommendation to council so it hasn't been considered at this time by city council.
>> judge, can I ask a procedural question?
>> certainly.
>> I wasn't here last week, I was up in d.c., so can somebody in a nutshell tell me what we did or did not do last week because I thought we were going to have a draft ordinance out there and I need to just get clarification where we are on the process and whether there was a draft approved last week or not, and if we're talking about get again at draft ordinance change to get out there for public comment?
>> we did not approve another draft last week. We discussed another one. And to be honest that is correct draft generated about as much comments as previous drafts. The one problem that I知 having is that we're getting a whole lot of public comments and they really are different. And if you have not been working in this area historically, and I fall into this category, you have a hard time figuring out, based on the facts, what should be done and what should not. All that comes across to me as being reasonable. I think we got two comments that were kind of consistent, and one was that you have bitten off a real big piece. And we got into this because of the dog attack on the little girl. Followed by news of other dog attacks on other persons including two little girls in northeast, and then we were told by residents that a lot of small dogs were being seriously injured and jailed, and so the question was what if anything would the county do. But when we looked at that, then the notion of registration, then permanent registration, enforcement or the lack thereof, there were a whole lot of other issues that came into play. On top of that the question of whether the two or three people that the county now funds are sufficient or whether we ought to supplement that number. In my view, we really ought to have some experience with effective enforcement. It's one thing to go out and talk with the residents, it's another thick to pick up the dog and taillight to the animal shelter and have a hearing and have things to happen after that. I think we ought to commit to move on the personnel, you know, staffing issue as appropriate based on the facts. I don't know that I would augment the current staff, though, in anticipation of certain facts. And so if we got the restraint control provision in place and then enforce that, it seems to me that we will have made great progress. For one thing, we want to make clear that the dog attacks that have come to our attention over the last year will not be tolerated and we will take steps necessary to enforce that. The other thing is that hopefully we will impart to owners the notion that in Travis County we're serious about the owners' responsibility to control the dog. In many cases that's keeping your dog on your property, and if the dog is not on your property, then the dog ought to be under your control. And if neither of these two is followed, then that means some sort of enforcement action will be taken. In answer to your question, we had another discussion, and I was not real confused, but I don't know that I was any clearer on where we are today. Basically what we said was to extend the comment period to Friday. And we did get a lot of e-mails, you know, and some of this it's the question should we defer to the commission, and I do think that we ought to give them an opportunity to respond fully. And if they do that, we ought to give the city of Austin an opportunity also. Our goal at to be to end up with one ordinance that says pretty much the same thing in the city and out of the city, in my view. The other thing is that if I were a resident who had trouble with a certain dog, I mean I wouldment to think that -- would want to think that under some circumstances effective enforcement action would be taken, and my first question would be what are those circumstances. If our ordinance clarifies that and if we may feel that we plan to take action under certain circumstances and in fact did that, then I think we're way down the road. Now, the other thing based on conversations and some comments, I知 not sure some residents know exactly what they are expected to do. With their dog. That's where the public education clarifying restraint, control come in.
>> where I want to guarantee that we continue going is this. I want us to continue making forward progress and I don't want us to wait on the city of Austin. With all due respect, I think the effort to try and get these ordinances reviewed and updated over at the city of Austin is going to be a long process, not a shot process. And if it's based tphoeug what our experience was on 1445 or the southwest dialogue, good intentions are one thing, but reality is something else. So I want to make sure that we're moving forward with what we need to do, and the city will catch up on a process, but I don't want to wait for them because, quite frankly, I don't think it's high on the radar screen in terms of the other important work they've got on their plate right now. I will also tell you that in terms of the e-mails that i've largely gotten have been from city of Austin residents whose dogs are not impacted by this because they live in the city of Austin. And there are already rules about -- commenting about rules that will go in place in neighborhoods they don't live in. I will also tell you that a lot of e-mails I got were from county residents who when they talked about the large problems that they had, the problems were enforcement issues when they went to city of Austin parks. Which was quite entertaining. So again, that was not on point and I got them to get with city people to talk about the enforcement of those rules. But the other thing that concerns me is that there were some things in our ordinances, embed understand the ordinance related to the determination of a dog being dangerous that we had some issues up in the wells branch area and others that the procedure was allowing dogs to be returned to their owners [inaudible] the process could work its way through, and we were going to look at a legislative fix if we did not update this ordinance. So I just want to make sure that we keep the four things that we want to get accomplished and we make those happen, and if there are other things that we need to take care of later with the city, great. But I don't want to wait on them. And I want us to keep making forward progress and not get bogged down into what is a very political situation with the animal advisory commission. I think they've got some concerns, which I respect, but I don't want to get that caught up in what we need to do about the very serious issues that are going on in our rural areas and our suburban, urban areas that are specifically impacted by all of this.
>> the other issue that needs to be addressed that I heard about was what about folks, indigents who may not be able to afford the chip or -- especially the chip is the one that I heard about. How do -- how do we propose to deal with that issue?
>> the way the ordinance is drafted now, the microchip would only be required for dogs that have been declared dangerous. So if an indigent individual is walking around with their pet that they are restraining properly, that would never become an issue for them. And I believe we put in the language that we would provide -- if a dog is declared dangerous, that we would provide the microchip.
>> okay.
>> and currently we already work with indigent individuals with their pet issues.
>> okay.
>> we offer payment plans, we offer community service. If we have homeless folks whose dogs get impounded, we let them come in and do some community service for us. So --
>> is that done in the county?
>> we do it without regard to where the individual lives. So if you come in to reclaim your pet now and you don't have the money, we will talk to you about payment plans or community service or something. We don't want to euthanize any pet because of money. We don't want money to be a barrier to getting pets back to their home. They could live in dallas and be homeless and pick up their pet in Austin and we're going to work something out with them.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... If our Travis County sheriffs, don't particularly like the calls because they're not trained to deal with those things, if they know when they get called, they call y'all or they let the neighbors know that here is how you do this, then they're -- they're ready to go, but I mean I guess next week before I make the motion if we have to come up with that language this week, I mean folks, I mean we can get this every week.
>> I think you get directions today.
>> absolutely.
>> we need a motion equipped to direct in which direction we will go, I agree with you the dog attack was in October/november?
>> December.
>> December is.
>> yeah. December, and we started out really trying to make sure that we take proactively whatever steps we could take to discourage, prevent similar incidents. So I feel a lot more urgent, I think, about the restraint control part. The other thing is while people have different notions about the dangerous dog definition, so to the extent that we can clarify that, I think we ought to, and that is important too for the responding enforcement officer as well as deputy sheriff, and whoever conducts the hearing, administrative hearing. We have the animal control people. We have the deputy sheriffs, we have state law that comes into play and then we have the Travis County Commissioner's court and I知 thinking that we may not be able to control all of that, but at least we can control what the Commissioner's court does and to me to clarify and simplify at this point is looking at the restraint, control language making sure that it says what we want it to say, looking at the dangerous dog definition, making sure it says what we want it to say, but those two don't make a whole lot of sense in my view unless we beef up the education and enforcement expectation and delivery, and that's why I said specific strategies, specifics about the education, and do them, I mean we have at our access some three facilities that we can use if we choose to do so but the question is what message do we put on them? And the registration, universal registration and the permanent registration and the chip and the rest of this stuff, when you listen to it for the first time is sort of novel, you know, the more you hear it, the more you get used to it, but I知 thinking that at least on registration we ought to try to do the same thing that we end up doing in the city of Austin. Yes, sir?
>> I agree with you on that. I really feel that we need to go ahead an move forward. Let me ask you this question. Let's say that the Commissioner's court give a certain direction today as far as looking toward an action, and we go forward with it, I heart you say earlier that what we have , the city of Austin has similar language in their ordinance. If we go ahead an move in the direction where I think we're going to go with this particular ordinance that we have, would you guesstimate ballpark how long it would probably take the city of Austin to file a suit on what we're doing here today? Just guesstimate because we really need to hear from our counterparts and I think the reason I asked that question because here we have jurisdictions, city, and also county, and since most of the complaints -- a lot of complaints are coming from in the city but there are a lot of them that do come out of the county and of course I知 ready to move forward, would you basically just guesstimate and I hope I知 not putting you on the spot but...
>> it's hard for me to guesstimate how they.
>> we are wr they're discussing it, the city.
>> we can certainly move it forward very quickly for council consideration.
>> okay.
>> now, whether counsel is going to consider this to be something that we're ready to deal with, that I can't really guesstimate for you but let me say that if what I知 hearing, and I think -- and I could be confused, is that you want to focus on the restraint and the dangerous dog definitions, the direction that you're going this is already consistent enough that I can do enforcement and build it into one program. So that doesn't interfere -- the direction you're going would not enter fer with my my ability to deploy to do the enforcement, if you want to set aside the pet registration issue to consider whatever the city does whenever they do that, I think that is okay, and then -- the only reason they propose that you consider a pet registration program is just for the one fact that if we're going to start picking up stray animals, having them registered benefits the animal to get them back home, I do think if we're going start doing things where we picking up more, we need to start doing things that would be helpful to the animals that are picked up, but not having the pet registration program in place, we would still do everything that we can to research and try to find owners for those animals just like we already do now. So I don't think that --
>> what if our requirement is that if not registered and doesn't have a registration tag, we treat that animal as an unregistered animal.
>> that's what would happen. We would consider whether they have --
>> we have to give that definition, that enforcement action under those circumstances news to pet owners.
>> well, if you don't have registration program, the idea of registered or unregistered becomes not an issue. It wouldn't matter. If you want to set that aside and work on that in conjunction with the city, the registration would just not be an issue. The only issue the would have then of enenforcement would be at large f. They're off of their property, if we put the restriction then we would be enforcing for animals that are off of their property and vaccinations because that is already required by state law, there wouldn't be that third piece which would be pet registration.
>> a pack of dogs is running through the neighborhood as we heard, a resident would be able to call and complain. Upon arrival the first question would be do these dogs have tags so I can find the own the own and let them know we have violated the restraipt provision, assuming the restraint provision is as I thought it ought to be. And if there is no tag, then that is a violation so we treat that dog as a stray dog. If enforcement action would be impounding that dog, under the provision now, the owner would have a certain number of days to come and find the dog.
>> right ask.
>> two, we would take the enforcement action and the resident that complained about nothing being done, maybe her not calling in, she would know, you call in on these dogs, under the coin's new enforcement strategy, first they would try to figure out if they're -- if the owner's name is on the tag, so the owner can be identified, and the dog can be taken home and the owner can be cited because control provision has been violated or another enforcement action would be taken. That is the kind of clarity that we heard we did not have under our current ordinance and enforcement practice. And I知 just saying part of this is clarifying the language and when I look at restraint and damage dog definition, we cover those. The other part is exactly what do you do and under what circumstances? And if I知 a dog owner, I would want to know if the county is changing that, and what I have in mind is us changing that really beefing up the enforcement part, then i'll know how I should conduct myself. But if I don't, enforcement action will be taken and i've got to deal with those consequences which is picking my dog up at the shelter, being cited and paying whatever I owe the shelter at the time of pickup, so it's kind of doing that, I guess, and if we do that 90 days and we know, hey, county, you need two or more people if you're serious about this, I think we have two or three months of facts to work with.
>> you just lost me again. If we're talking about seamless rules between the city and the county, the city has pet registration, period.
>> and my review, constraint and control, focus on that, if you're off of your property, xyz dog, off xyz property, roaming through the neighborhood, somebody can call and say xyz dog is out here roaming through the neighborhood. The enforcement officer is out there, if that dog is registered, we try to find xyz, your dog is off of your property. If a tag is not on the dog, we impound the dog. That is not a part of registration. If we say to simplify registration, I知 fine with that too if we keep it simple. Then if the city and the commission decide to do something different and we think it's reasonable, then we simply amend ours at that point.
>> the registration as it's proposed right now is simply register them, they're required to be registered. Now, procedural the shelter offers some benefits from them being registered, which is a longer hold time, a phone call to try to get them back home without taking them to the shelter and instead issuing a citation or -- but the -- the -- the regulation requires very simple thing, all dogs and cats must be registered.
>> that's the county?
>> that's what is proposed right now.
>> then we wouldn't change that.
>> no, that is not what is in place, that is what is in the draft proposal, is just a straightforward they must be registered. There's no --
>> if it's necessary for that to stay in to effectively enforce whatever we end up with, I have no problem.
>> yeah.
>> but that is not the same as the chip -- the registration.
>> no.
>> and that is fine with me.
>> that's fine. But to me the registration is an important piece of this, because again the idea is to try and identify who that animal is, and have consistency between the city and the county regulation, registration is part of the city of Austin regulation, period. We ought to have the same thing.
>> so effective restraint control enforcement depends on simple registration.
>> simple registration.
>> the registration provides us an opportunity to identify who the animal belongs to.
>> is the answer to my question yes or no?
>> yes.
>> then I have no problem with it.
>> similar fly, I think.
>> discussions that can occur on lifetime registration, whether it's a good idea or bad, tie it to sterilization, or not, whatever, that can be for another day, but I think we ought to have registration just like the city of Austin. Period.
>> and the point that I think the young lady made earlier as far as having the ability to enforce in the city and also in the county is the thing that is selling me more than anything. Enforcement leg of all of this, because without the enforcement leg it just written on a piece of paper as far as I知 concerned. You have to have some power.
>> early in our discussions we talked about the enforcement issue.
>> right. Right.
>> I知 committed to making a unified force.
>> exactly.
>> we're already doing those things, we've already done the redistricting, we've got a different patch ordered so that employees will be identifiable as enforcing both sets of regulation, so we are ready to go with a unified approach to enforcement.
>> but the owner wants to know john doe enforcement officer, when you arrive on the premises in response to my complaint what will you do? All the stuff that takes place up before arrival except education and clarifying, but what will you do? And it seems to me not as part of openers, but as part of our strategy, we ought to outline the actions that we would take in what circumstances and we ought to do it. Otherwise it's impossible for us to decide whether we have enough staff now too much or right amount, do you see what I知 saying? But I知 hearing people say basically, you've got to enforce, no matter what you have, and the implication is you've got to do a better job than you have done historically.
>> yes, sir.
>> if the reason for that is insufficient personnel, then we have to face up to that and deal with it.
>> yes, sir.
>> right now I think that we don't know and if in fact, though, we want to clarify and simplify and put ourselves in a better position to be better enforcers, then we ought to commit to making the number match the need and as long as the facts dictate the number, I can deal with it.
>> I can give you an enforcement strategy and I can give you response times, and that's probably our best measure of are we satisfying the citizens is are we getting there and getting the job done.
>> right.
>> outline, public education, what I have in mind, bullets are an outline that we actually can do and I have in mind having this for us next week. We have gotten a whole lot of comments. I think it's a matter of us going through there, clarifying, simplifying, focusing on these areas of three if you put education and enforcement together and doing them, and if we want to take more time to do some other stuff, then that frees us up to spend whatever time is required to keep working on them. If we keep working on these other things, then what I would do is come up with a task force or a committee to work on it with a three or four month deadline and I would have some of the interested residents who have a little time and interest to work on this do that, but I think we ought to have in place at least something that we think enables us to deal with the situations as they come up between now and then.
>> judge.
>> yes, sir?
>> in response to that also, i've been asked this question and I may need to get an answer. When -- if we end up, well, with the information that you bring back next weekend, say next week we decide to give a direction a day and we decide to adopt what we have next week, how long would that be in place where people will understand that Travis County has an ordinance and we've adopted an ordinance and it will go into effect, enforcement and all of these other kind of things will be a part of this ordinance, how long will they have to get the act together or their educational piece and all of that coming together, how long would that actually be left out there? And I know we're going to be doing some modifying as far as we go down the road, but right at the offset, there are some things that we can enforce off the offset, and may be the case off the off jet, it seems to me there has to be a time frame where those things that we know we're going to do get available to...
>> before you respond to that, if we vote on it next Tuesday, Wednesday it starts, when people find out about it, I mean, we don't have a million dollars to go out and to say, "this is what we are doing new." when miss rigsby calls and says the dog left the ground and came over and attacked my poodle, well, you know what, they find out on Wednesday if that happens on Wednesday, but the law goes into effect. What we're trying to do. I mean the best way to let the word out is to pass it and say this is what it is. We're going to do everything including putting it on our screen and everywhere we can that is cost effective, Commissioner, but put it into effect --
>> I have no objection with what you just said, I知 for it, but I want to hear what legal has to say, would it be in effect the very next. I want to know what legal opinion is.
>> when the court passes it, they can make a determination at that point.
>> at that point.
>> the next day or the adopted the next week or whatever.
>> I think there's been some discussion that perhaps they would hold off on some of the citations as far as giving people warnings, or whatever, but again that is up to the court's discretion as to how and when they want to make the rules effective after they've agreed to what the rules are going to be.
>> okay. I need to know that from legal, because i've heard different answers and I want to make sure that legal and the public heard the county attorney give those opinions, so, again, I知 really wanting to move forward with this, there's been a lot of stuff laid out here, and because there are some things we can do now and no doubt about it, and I think we need to move forward as rapidly as possible with those things that we can do and those things are still in the category, I think we need to flush out these things that can deal with, that is clear, straightforward, I think we need to move forward.
>> I with jerrell, we have four television cameras, the Austin american stailts man here, I知 sure the chronicle is going to do something on this. We need to move forward, I知 absolutely convinced that unanimous consent is not going to happen, so we need to take the best of all things and move forward, but it's not going to happen in terms of everybody being unanimous on this issue. Nor are we going to have unanimous consent on coyotes. I've got people e-mailing saying how dear you kill my coyotes, you know, I知 not going to get that. It's like we need to move on and attack the problems that was laid out here and stop -- we're talking this to death. We need to get the pieces that make sense in place and move on, I知 happy to have our subcommittee come up with a motion's list for next week and say motion, whatever.
>> speaking of moving forward.
>> all right, let's go.
>> I move that we request that the Commissioner's court subcommittee and staff try to meet between now and next Tuesday to come up with a draft ordinance that deals with the following four areas. One would be a provision covering restraint and/or control. And we have received a whole lot of comment on that so it should be pretty easy for us to come up with that. Two would be the dangerous dog definition that covers persons and other domestic pets or animals. Three would be the -- a written outline or bullet summary of an effective enforcement strategy. And four would be written outline or summary of an effective public education program using first of all, all three available facilities, avenues, et cetera. Now, I -- we really need this draft ordinance available for public review. I would say by four or five o'clock Friday. That would give residents an opportunity to look at it over the weekend and Monday and hopefully us an opportunity to act on it on Tuesday.
>> Tuesday.
>> and what I知 hoping we are doing is taking all of the information we receive and pulling out the parts that cover these four issues and basically trying to come up with a simple clear document that indicates not only standards but also our anticipated responses to various situations. In my view, the importance of the written outline and the bullet summary would be for us to educate as well as indicate what our agreement is as to what actions we will take.
>> just...
>> is there a second for that?
>> second.
>> second by Commissioner Gomez.
>> we had talked about in terms of the registration is a part of an enforcement strategy of being able to identify these dogs. Simple registration, not getting into the other stuff about chip.
>> that's friendly.
>> thank you.
>> I want to make sure it's for the subcommittee work.
>> this motion will be posted for action next week, is that correct?
>> this motion is posted for action at 10:25 on March 8th. I.
>> I知 talking about within your ordinance.
>> for action.
>> so everybody understand this is action next week.
>> right.
>> now, we have heard y'all loud and clear those who came down on this item. In writing in letters, e-mail, telephone, et cetera, and here in court and we'll have another opportunity for comments next week, but if you get a chance to see these on Friday, and over the weekend, between Friday and Tuesday, hopefully comments will be limited to specific wording in the ordinance under our consideration next Tuesday. It's got to be kind of global, we're trying to narrow it to the extent we can.
>> ready to move forward.
>> any additional, any new comments that we have not heard before, come forward, and if you give us your name, we will be happy to get you comments. We have five chairs available. Please come forward. This is a direction. Good morning, your honor, good morning Commissioners of the court. I知 president of the heart of Texas american people terrier club, also representative for the endangered breed association and representative for the responsible dog owners of Texas. For the record we support leash laws, we support responsible dog ownership, we feel on behalf of the american pit bull terrier, we feel they're targeted by sensationalism by the media and also false accounts given to, you know, respondents in cases that you see on the news frequently. Time and time again we ask ourselves are those dogs registered, identify the dog, et cetera, but moving forward, your definition of dangerous dog is something that is of particular concern to us because back in the late 80s, the american canine foundation, the akc, the eba, et cetera, fought very hard to have Texas health and safety code chapter 822.0487 inserted into that law to prohibit breed-specific language and that's my concern, is that I remind the court, the Commissioners --
>> we will not have breed-specific language in our ordinance.
>> okay.
>> state law prohibits that.
>> I realize that you're aware of, that i've read the past agenda meeting minutes and there are -- there were often times when public comment would target the american pit bull terrier specifically in reference to the -- the attack in December, those dogs were not american pit bull terriers, et cetera, but I just want to say that I commend you on enforcement. I think the deter rens is the key. Education, responsible dog ownership, any way we can get out there and inform the american canine foundation, an together with the kennel club, we try very hard to be a part of the solution, our specific club is all about responsible dog ownership and fighting specific breed legislation, we try to educate people. We give to shelter, blue dog animal trustees of Austin, we try to be part of the solution, but more than that, I just want to say deterrence is the key. You have to hold these people accountable, if their dogs are off leash and they harm another animal or person, I was appalled to hear that that last mauling at the elementary school did, the man that owned the dog, nothing happened to that man, that is not deterrence for irresponsibility dog ownership, that is not going to get it done to have to be held accountable. That said I appreciate your time. Thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> you're welcome.
>> my name is rachel stroud, I live out in -- I mean a fairly rural area of Travis County, out on Lake Travis and we picked our area because of the ability to have dogs. I live on a dead end street, so they're not subjected to traffic, but they all runaround and none of us have fences. Y'all were talking today about an effective date. If it becomes immediately what are we supposed to do. We have trees, you put a rope on them or a chain, you're going to end up having them strangled on a tree, if we don't have time to get a fence in, a containment area, I can't keep him in the house, what are we supposed to do? If everybody in Travis County who doesn't have a fence all of a sudden now needs to get a fence, there's not even enough manpower to get it done with the fence companies out there. The one fence I did have, it wouldn't hold him in any time. He'll dig out from underneath it or jump over it, my dog is tagged, shot, he is microchipped, he's sterilized but they're used to running around and having a great time, they're not dangerous, our neighbor -- there's five dogs in our neighborhood, we live on a dead end street, we love our dog, so this is going to come as a great shock to all of us to have to now put in fences and do this other stuff and you're talking about adopting it on Tuesday making it effective on Wednesday.
>> how much time do you need?
>> I知 going to have to go find out how much a fence is, what I can afford, what are the option, those are things that you guys need to consider because I知 certainly not the only one.
>> rachel, don't -- don't blow -- don't get overly excited about this deal. This is not a deal where you take dogs that want to leave their ground and lick people's -- I mean children, this is not set up for that. This is set up for a dog that is dangerous, you probably will never -- if somebody just dislikes you, because we've had those examples, well, this neighbor just doesn't like rachel, and -- and get rachel through the dog, the animal control or the sheriff's office comes out and says, well, this dog just happened on to my grounds, well, you know, that's the reason that you do have a committee that says, okay, the dog came on to your grass, what did they do? I mean did they attack another animal? Did they scare your child so that your child couldn't go outside? There is some reasonable to this. We couldn't put something in that -- that curbs ridiculousness. Oh my gosh, we're fixing to do something where I have to build a fence, I don't think you're going to have to put your dog on a rope and tie it to a tree. I don't think that is the intent here, the intent here is to be able to take an animal that is aggressive to either a human being or animal, and would want something done about this dog. We get thing and people blow all of this stuff out of proportion. That's not what we're after. Trust me, I have no intention of coming out and forcing you into thousands of dollars for you to have your -- you're right. I知 sure there are examples whereas we've heard, people want to attack the pit bull, but statistics, I mean somebody tells there's more dog, more goldens or something like that that have bitten people, I mean that's hard to imagine, but, you know, statistics are what they are. So don't -- don't get overly excited about this deal because this is not the intent of what we are doing with this thing, we are really trying to take charge of animals that people own that you and I both know that are aggressive to other animals, to other pet animals and to -- and -- and themselves, so, you know, I just -- I mean I assume these things come up, I think i've got a legitimate concern if that's what you're saying, Commissioner, the fact that my dog leaves the grounds when you leave out in the country or out in the county, that's not what we're interested in, obviously if your dog gets overly excite and gets with a pack, yeah, that happens with dogs -- I mean my brother is an animal surgeon and I have talked councilman -- exhaustively to him about this. One of the dogs that attacked the 8-year-old little girl is a dalmatian, but you put them in a pack and you get dogs before you know it, they don't know they're fighting themselves or whether they're mauling something and when that happens, they're animal, so that might be something where you would find yourself, you know, in a spot, we need to protect this community, and if protecting this community is taking an animal and saying your dog is part of it, you may have to respond to those things.
>> we'll consider that.
>> do we have your e-mail address?
>> no.
>> okay. There's a citizens communication form over there, you leave your name and contact information on Friday we'll send you a copy of the ordinance we're considering next week.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thanks for your comments, though. And by the way, any body else to comment today? Something new and different. Please come forward, please come forward at this time. These will be our last speakers on this item today. Something new and different.
>> i've been involved in this thing from the get-go and I知 glad to see there's new clarity on this thing and measured approach rather than trying to have a universal law. Chuck miller and I went down to the Austin animal advisory committee meeting and I felt that was not good because you took the responsibility an threw it over the fence to hip in hope -- in hopes of guy dance, the consensus that chuck and I got, five or six ladies, and they're all animal lover, one of them said something to the effect those dogs don't belong outside running around anyway, and we both spoke on the other side of the coin and she looked at us like you men are obviously from mars, you don't know what you're talking about, anyway, I agree the sheriff's office should be first responder, the sooner -- the city looks at dogs differently, it would be nice if we have the same laws, we don't have the same shoe sizes, don't have the same lifestyles, we shouldn't be under the same umbrella rules, so I think it's heading in the right direction, I do have the same objection she does too and this is sort of news to me, mr. Daughter, about having some peer review commission, I didn't get that impression up to this point, but what you spoke to is exactly my concerns, but I think there has to be a peer review committee maybe of the neighbors or something that can be fashioned so that we don't have a problem of universal impound, and then they throw in all their welfare programs in on top of the fees so at any great county should have oversight capability on how the city is handling, if the city becomes a containment impound, thank you.
>> thank you.
>> yes?
>> hello, my name is peggy jennings, and I am past president of the Texas australian cattle dog club and i've been involved in rescue, most particularly for the last ten years, and I do a great deal of work right now with people over the phone and e-mail and in person, counseling them on their dog's management issues, how they can -- what they can do to help them retain their dog in their home and also with -- with dogs that are running loose and how to help people with that. And I also have a website where I for free let people contact each other about the rehoming dogs. I -- I have a great deal of concern about the dangerous dog language that I知 seeing. I understand people are shock and stricken when their domestic animals or pets are attack and killed. All dogs of all breeds come into this world with the ability to bite, jump, chase, and bark, and these are things that responsible owners work with their pet to socialize them or to train them to become companion or working animals. As you were talking about the pact mentality that happens when dogs get together, and I feel that the dangerous dog language that has been considered essentially criminalizes dogs for dog behavior, behavior that is natural to them, and I think that many of these complaints and situations would dissolve with effective enforcement of dog containment I think that there's a great deal that can be done with public education on managing your animals so they are not a nuisance for your neighbors, and I hope that you will consider backing off of including livestock and pets in your dangerous dogs. I知 totally for protecting those animals, and if there are increased fines or actions against owners who allow their dogs to do these kinds of things, I think that would be a very good idea. It all goes back to is the own a responsible person? Or does the dog have an owner? So I -- I feel that effective enforcement is our number one public safety priority and I hope that you will rethink how these situations came about and if effective enforcement couldn't have prevented the situation. Thank you.
>> if you have good public education bullets that you would like to share with us, between now and tomorrow at noon, I知 assuming the committee won't meet before then, if you would get those, I know i've gotten a couple of e-mails from you, if you would send those we would get those to the committee, if we put those bullets together we would incorporate them.
>> I would like to do anything I could.
>> did share with us what they think the dangerous dog definition will be. This may well be the last opportunity, if you haven't done it already, if you wish to do that, it will be good also.
>> by e-mail.
>> right.
>> yes, sir.
>> yes.
>> my name is bobby wright and I live in Austin lake estates, and I have a question, because I don't seem to be able to find the answer. In the state health and safety code, there is section 822.012 and it says certain dogs and coyotes are prohibited from running at large. It's a criminal penalty, the owner, keeper or person in control of a dog or coyote that the owner, keeper or person knows is accustomed to run, worry or kill livestock, domestic animals may not permit the dog or coyote to run at large. This was adopted September 1, 2003. My question is who enforces this? Who do I call? You know, if I see a dog that's running at large worrying my animals?
>> is this on the state books just...
>> [inaudible]
>> I mean...
>> you would call the county sheriff or the animal control officer, but the question if you're familiar with that and enforcing it, you could get some assistance, my guess is to the extent that they're unfamiliar probably nothing will get done, but that seems to say if the owner knows that his dog has these tendencies then it's a violation, so my guess is if I were the responding officer I would consider that to be fairly subjective as -- do you see what I知 saying?
>> and --
>> the second or third time...
>> a final or penalty? I don't think that's ever been enforced, has it? Has anybody --
>> ever enforced that state law.
>> where is the money if we had.
>> you would be rich from our neighborhood.
>> we have not been enforcing that one, that is one of the things that we were trying to accomplish with this work on the county regulations was to bring them up to date with what the state regulations are so that all of the officer, whether they're sheriff's officers or animal control officers are aware of what they should be enforcing, and the county regulations overall haven't been kept up to date as things have changed at the state level and that has been part of the confusion and the problems we've had related to enforcement and that is another issue that we tried to address with this rewrite is to get them up to date and then we can get our officers trained on what they should be enforcing.
>> we'll incorporate that into our thinking.
>> thank you.
>> and see what if anything we can do.
>> okay.
>> the word is worry.
>> we'll try to be worried...
>> so between now and next time.
>> can I call somebody?
>> we know how to get in touch with you?
>> yes, I知 one of the first ones on your list.
>> okay, then we'll get you a copy.
>> this is what happened to my cat just recently. This is a wound, a bite.
>> okay.
>> this is since all of this has been going on. And i've been in contact.
>> check your e-mail late Friday evening.
>> I will.
>> we really appreciate your input on this. I do think we're making -- moving in the right direction, and believe it or not making progress, and I think the Commissioner's court next Tuesday will vote on a specific ordinance, will indicate the effective date and we will try to can clarify, simplify, et cetera, we appreciate your input and have this item back on next week. Thanks for coming down.
>> are you going to vote on that? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much.
>> we're trying to get the subcommittee on Thursday afternoon since we don't have a work session.
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, March 9, 2005 11:02 AM