In Frank Reddy’s article on Friday, April 10, “Dog tethering rules up for discussion”, he leaves out a key point of discussion in the commissioners’ work session.
After [county attorney] Ken Jarrard read some of the language in the proposed ordinance, [Commissioner] Patrick Bell brought up an objection to the sentence that required someone to physically be with a dog that was tied up temporarily to go to the bathroom and asked that it be stricken from the ordinance.
The key to this ordinance was its flexibility, and that it is complaint based.
Which is another question I have for Ken Jarrard. Why is a complaint based call for a dog that is tethered any different than a complaint based call to animal control for a dog that is off its owner’s property? They both need an animal control officer to go out and make a judgment call on whether there is a violation. Jarrard said that if we make this complaint based, there is too much ambiguity.
Steve Greenfield
Cumming
After [county attorney] Ken Jarrard read some of the language in the proposed ordinance, [Commissioner] Patrick Bell brought up an objection to the sentence that required someone to physically be with a dog that was tied up temporarily to go to the bathroom and asked that it be stricken from the ordinance.
The key to this ordinance was its flexibility, and that it is complaint based.
Which is another question I have for Ken Jarrard. Why is a complaint based call for a dog that is tethered any different than a complaint based call to animal control for a dog that is off its owner’s property? They both need an animal control officer to go out and make a judgment call on whether there is a violation. Jarrard said that if we make this complaint based, there is too much ambiguity.
Steve Greenfield
Cumming