YOURNAME(s)

ADDRESS

Charlottesville, VA ZIPCODE

434-PHONE-NUMBER

EMAIL ADDRESS

29 May 2008

Albemarle County Board of Supervisors

YOUR REP, YOUR REP’S DISTRICT

Dear. Name,

There are two ordinances proposed for Albemarle County that are of concern to us as a residents of Albemarle County in your district.

My wife and I have been residents of the S Miller district for 20 years and almost all of that time we have enjoyed the companionship of one or more dogs.

We are quite concerned by the proposed noise and dog limit ordinances for Albemarle County.

The current wording of these ordinances is a result of one or two particular incidences. Unfortunate as these circumstance may have been, good laws should be based on broad principles, not as corrections to an single situation. We believe the broad rule should be to encourage responsible pet owners, restrict or educate irresponsible pet owners, and above all, penalize the owner not the pet.

The first is the Animal Noise ordinance. If animal control laws in Albemarle County are to succeed, they need the backing of responsible pet owners, and pet owners need to see the clear benefit for doing so. While we are sympathetic to the problem of nuisance animals, the proposed ordinance has numerous problems—it punishes the dog rather than the irresponsible owner, it only involves only one complaintant, and it puts an undue burden on our local animal shelter.

Abatement of nuisances caused by pets, including but not limited to barking, is essential for neighborhood harmony in our County. It is a dog’s nature to bark at strangers and other dogs and a dog owner’s responsibility to minimize the impact this noise has on the neighborhood.

Albemarle County’s animal control should investigate each complaint and issue a warning letter to the dog owner on the first offence. A citation may be issued on subsequent offences, based on more than one complaintant.

Penalties may include fines or court-ordered owner attendance at a responsible dog ownership session or attend a dog obedience school at the owner’s expense. The fines could be waved upon completion of the requirements.

Dog owners who repeatedly violate nuisance laws would be subject to increased fines and to requirements that they provide secure confinement for their pet. In this way it becomes an ownership issue and does not punish the dog for an irresponsible owner.

The second ordinance deals with regulating the number of dogs in residential zoning districts. This proposed ordinance attempts to avoid problems by broadly defining or restricting the conditions under which people can own or keep pets. Ordinances that are loaded with unenforceable provisions actually threaten an owner’s sense of security and drive them underground for fear of being found in violation of the law. Dog limits in residentially zoned districts do not address, for example, the responsible dog owner with perhaps 10 dogs (double the proposed limit) that has never had a complaint, versus the irresponsible owner with two dogs that are a nuisance (constant barking).

Ordinances in our county must distinguish between responsible and irresponsible pet owners. They must offer support and incentives to encourage and reward responsible pet ownership.

Number limits on the other hand:

* Cause animal control agencies to lose potential license fees because pet owners with multiple pets avoid licensing altogether for fear of being found in noncompliance,

* Are difficult to enforce,

* Create bureaucratic snarls between governmental agencies when animal control officers are required to enforce zoning laws,

* Are vulnerable to court challenge (pet number limits are not only unenforceable and destructive, they were also ruled unconstitutional when challenged in Pennsylvania),

* Are used to harass neighbors,

* Ignore the ability of responsible owners to keep more than X-number of pets without causing a nuisance—the number of dogs is unrelated to nuisance issues such as barking,

* Increase the number of pets in shelters by prohibiting families from adding a pet they can easily care for,

* Lead to disrespect of the law and a willingness to violate it.

A model Albemarle County ordinance would distinguish between responsible and irresponsible owners by providing incentives to reward responsible owners, use penalties to bring irresponsible owners into compliance, and create a program to increase the number of licensed pets. That is effective pet ordinances should focus on rewarding responsible pet owners, punish irresponsible owners, and protect the pets from harm.

In addition, I ask you to consider creating an animal control advisory board made up of representatives from pet related business, an animal welfare group such as the SPCA, dog and cat clubs, and a non-pet owner. This advisory group could present alternatives that would penalize the irresponsible owner of nuisance animals and reward the majority of animal owners in our county that are responsible. It would also focus on laws that citizens would obey and support animal control efforts by the county

Sincerely,

Your Names