BISBEE — In February, the county Planning and Zoning Department will present another draft of the proposed revision of the Animal Control Ordinance to the Board of Supervisors.

For more than a year, the department, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the supervisors and many residents have been haggling over things like definitions, enforcement, private property rights, cat round-ups and barking dogs.

One of the major elements of the revised ordinance is the definitions section. The current county ordinance has only three definitions — at large, county enforcement agent and owner. The revision has 28 and some of those are being questioned by residents.

For instance, the definition “abandonment” in the revision means, “either leaving an animal unattended for more than 24 hours, or releasing the animal upon public highways or public and private lands, or failing to provide proper or adequate food, water, exercise, shelter or medical care.”

But what happens if a pet owner goes away for a weekend leaving the animal with adequate food and water through automatic feeders and waterers? J6/Mescal Community Development Organization member Mary McCool said in a letter to the supervisors, “These animals could be considered abandoned.”

Another definition that could cause problems for rural dog owners is “kennel.” The ordinance states it means “an enclosed, controlled area, inaccessible to other animals in which a person keeps, harbors or maintains five or more dogs under controlled conditions.” Does that mean that ranchers who own more than five cattle dogs or people who adopt more than five strays have to have kennel permits, asks McCool.

The new definition of owner excludes “Colony Caregivers.” This is a term for anyone “feeding, medicating, recording or otherwise maintaining a feral or free-roaming cat colony operated by or under the Humane Society,” states the draft ordinance. These people have no responsibility of cat ownership requirements. They are given the chance to work with animal control to “resolve the issue that led to the complaint.”

That’s confusing since it appears the idea behind the Cats At Large section is to protect against the spread of rabies and provide an impound policy for troublesome cats that dirty flower beds, spray buildings and kill birds and small wildlife when complaints are made to the county animal control officer (ACO). Owners of cats are expected to control their felines or pay a $30 fine plus any damages that occur, though a first offense results in “counseling.”

In Section 8 of the ordinance, the ACO can fine a dog owner $30 plus impoundment fees if the dog barks, howls or makes disturbing noises that “disturbs the peace and quiet of any person or persons at any hour of the day or night” and believes that such behavior will continue.

McCool points out, “This needs more refinement. Excessive and unrestrained barking needs to be reincorporated into the language. As rural property owners, we are dog owners not only for their companionship, but also their protective alarm system when something is not right on the property.”

She continues, “The filing of an excessive noise complaint should be the maximum action allowed in this situation. Not to enter private property and seize an animal that is not a danger or poses no threat … Such a process would encourage communication between parties, provides a mediation process and requires detailed documentation of the nuisance before a citation is issued.”

The ACO also has the authority to euthanize an animal under the new ordinance. Under Section 11.3, “Captured at large animals who exhibit the following symptoms may be euthanized: having any untended sickness or injury causing protracted suffering, having obvious infection, where the infection is so well-seated that the animals’ survival is doubtful, having obvious and highly communicable disease, exhibiting behavior that is obviously feral, where in the judgement of a licensed veterinarian or if there is no licensed vet on staff, in the judgement of a shelter employee who is operating in accordance with procedures established by the state, that no reasonable period of holding would permit it to be adopted and socialized, or being new born, not weaned from mother’s milk and being able to consume dry food.”

If the animal does not exhibit these symptoms, the county is required to hold the animal for only 72 hours, unless it carries a license. In that instance, the animal has to be maintained for a minimum of 120 hours.

McCool stated, “An obvious, highly communicable disease is the only legitimate reason for ‘immediate euthanizing’ without the owner being notified first. When the county enters private property and impounds private property, only extreme circumstances could possibly justify immediate euthanizing of an animal without any contact with the owner.”

She continued, “We request extra attention be given to sections related to law enforcement and how a person may seek review of a decision. This is critical because many actions taken by law enforcement personnel are summary, in the sense that an animal is taken and impounded, and a decision may be made before an owner has the opportunity to be heard.”

McNeal resident Mike Jackson commented, “ There is no reason for any citizen of Cochise County to have any trust or confidence in a Cochise County ACO. That’s the lesson from the ongoing Ratliff case, in which animals were seized by ACO Crystal Callahan. (The dogs) were kept in the legal custody of the county and were not returned to the owner after a court order. According to the county, all the animals died, even though the county previously said the dogs had been doing well in custody. What a coincidence — the simultaneous death of over two dozen animals after the dismissal of the animal control complaint. The circumstances are so suspicious that animal control should not expect to be trusted with any power.”

The revised ordinance also requires dog owners to purchase licenses. The fees proposed are: a neutered dog license, $5 for one year and $10 for three years. For non-neutered dogs the license fee is $10 for one year and $20 for three years. The licenses can be obtained through local participating veterinarians who can sell the licenses along with the rabies shots.

Deputy Chief Rod Rothrock stated at a past work session on the new licenses fees that the county could bring in an additional $8,000 to $9,000 a year. But, that’s not the point, he said. It’s a way to get dog owners to be sure their pets are vaccinated against rabies. “There is no desire or ability to conduct an animal count or animal census. The ordinance provides the tools for the animal control officers to resolve problems.”

McCool said, “We feel that rural community input is critical to this process. We would support a citizen’s working committee or work session with citizen input as positive efforts to bring resolution to these issues.”

Ordinance online

Though the county does not have the revised ordinance on its Web site, it can be viewed at: http://littlebigdog.net/AnimalOrdProposedNov2009.htm.