YOURNAME(s)
ADDRESS
Charlottesville, VA ZIPCODE
434-PHONE-NUMBER
EMAIL ADDRESS
12 February 2016
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