Beaufort County considering restricting animals with regulations against their owners | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    It's been said before: "pick your battles to fight. Think twice about fighting battles you can't win." And getting involved in neighborhood dog dispute is almost always a battle you can't win. Disputes are seldom resolved, just adjudicated and when adjudicated one side wins and the other side loses. Chances are, the one trying to resolve the dispute ends up not being liked by either side.

    But Beaufort County is headed toward trying to resolve neighborhood dog disputes.

    A public hearing will be held August 5 at 7:00 p.m. during the regular monthly Board of Commissioners meeting on a proposed Animal Control Ordinance. You can read an earlier draft of the ordinance by click here.

    You will note that the draft deals with a number of different issues. For example, it makes it against the law to abandon animals (Section 4). Section 5 deas with keeping dogs tethered (tied up - you can still do it, but you have to do it their way or face a fine). Section 12 provides essentially that you can't take in a stray without getting them vaccinated for rabies within 72 hours. It also deals with the procedures for destroying unwanted animals.

    But it is Section 13 that has attracted the most attention. It's a new provision for regulating "animal nuisance(s)".

    Among other things, this section would provide for the regulation of a private rescue operation.

    Section 17 deals with "dangerous dogs."

    Finally, the ordinance provides for the enforcement of the regulations, mostly by the imposition of "civil fines or penalties." You can read the "citable offenses and fines" beginning on page 13 of the document.

    At their July meeting the Commission asked the Animal Control Committee to amend the proposal to include a detailed enforcement procedure that would provide for how complaints are handled, including a review and appeal procedure based on due process standards. Those revisions have not yet been released for public review.

    Residents wishing to comment on the proposal should contact the County Manager's Office to sign up before the meeting to speak during the public hearing.

    Here are our comments

    We note with some concern, that the proposal does not address the problem of one neighbor's dog going into another neighbor's yard and reliving themselves of their bodily functions. We think is a resident identifies the canine or feline using the resident's property for a bathroom and the neighbor has asked the owner to put a stop to it and the owner of the animal fails to do so then we think that should be treated as a "nuisance" under the ordinance.

    We do think the suggestion that the enforcement include a due process procedures is a good one. That procedure should include:

    • The complaint should contain the evidence of the violation.

    • An investigation should be conducted that establishes whether the evidence is true and sufficient. If so the enforcement officer should issue the citation. We do think the first citation should be a warning without penalty.

    • Any citation should be appealable. First it should be reviewed by the Animal Control Committee (Dangerous Dog Committee now). The standard of review should be: "does the substantial weight of the evidence support the conclusion that the ordinance has been violated?" If question decided by the Committee should be "yes or no." Bargaining on the fines should not be permitted. The review Committee should issue its decision via a record of Findings of Fact and Findings of Law.

    • The person against whom the complaint is lodged should have appeal to the County Manager. The standard of review by the County Manager should be: "did the Enforcement Officer and review Committee follow the prescribed procedures?" The Manager should not substitute his judgment for that of the officer or committee but rather to insure that the procedures were followed properly.

    • Appeal should then be to Board of Commissioners. The standard of review by the Commission should be both that of a review applicability of law and a review of the facts as applied to the pertinent law.

    • The accused should then have appeal to District Court on the record both as to the applicability of law and the application of the facts to conclusion reached by the Board of Commissioners.

    As a matter of principle, we don't think restrictive government regulation is a good thing. But in this case it may be necessary because a legitimate function of government is to help resolve disputes between individuals where they are unable to do so themselves. That is essentially why we have civil courts.

    But care should be taken. For that reason we think it essential that the county monitor the implementation of this ordinance and collect solid data that can be used to assess the implementation of the ordinance.

    It is the implementation of such regulations that we think is where the problem will typically come. For that reason it is essential that implementation be consistent and uniform, with discretion and exceptions made by a review panel and not by a single individual.

    For example, we suspect there will be problems in the application of the nuisance provision. What is a nuisance to one person is not to another, and what might be a nuisance in one situation would not be in another. Care must be taken to protect property rights. For that reason we believe it would be wise for the county to exempt those properties that are included in a homeowners' association. HOA's are essentially neighborhood compacts that have been devised and/or agreed to by the property owners. County-wide ordinances should not displace such compacts. Property owners don't need multiple layers of regulation and enforcement.