10/12/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 90 PAGE 753 O C I 12 16'4,1' CONCERN: Ms. Wagner states that "All veterinarians in Indian River County should be required by law to release a list of all their `patients' with address and phone numbers to Animal Control so that these owners of pets can be billed for a county dog or cat tag. Another option would be for veterinarians in this county to sell county tags and not be permitted to treat an Indian River County cat or dog that did not have a county tag. " RESPONSE: The County Attorney's Office advised that the County has no legal authority to compel veterinarians to release a list of all their patients with address and phone numbers to Animal Control. Ms. Wagner's comment relating to veterinarians in the county selling animal licenses has already been implemented. On May 12, 1992, the Board approved a staff recommendation to authorize the Humane Society and local veterinarians to sell animal licenses. STAFF CONCLUSION AND ION: The Animal Control Ordinance is constantly undergoing scrutiny in terms of how it might be improved and comments, both positive and negative, such as Ms. Wagner's are welcome and appreciated. Staff is considering issues such as a mechanism for citation on the basis of complaint affidavits, licensing of pet shops and boarding kennels, enhanced regulation regarding nuisance caused by animals, and others. It should be noted that staff meets quarterly with all veterinarians and the Humane Society in Indian River County. These meetings have provided for a much improved working relationship and resulted in some good suggestions for improvement in the Animal Control Ordinance. Daily contacts with the Humane Society are the norm and staff attends various meetings at the Humane Society regarding animal related problems. Staff recommends the Board retain the current Animal Control Ordinance until issues under review are discussed in meetings with veterinarians, the Humane Society, interested citizens, and the County Attorney's Office. At that time the proposed changes will be submitted to the Board for formal consideration and direction. Commissioner Macht agreed with staff's construction, interpretation and observations, but he pointed out that all those explanations are immaterial when a dog bites a person. He asked whether harsher penalties would be practical or desirable. Director Wright recounted that the Board adopted higher fees as a harsher penalty for animals that were not neutered, but that was ignored by pet owners, so he would not recommend that action. We have three categories of offenses and the second and third offenses get expensive, so we do have this mechanism and we record the history of dog bites. We cannot declare a dog vicious without a history. We have had two appeals of declaration of a vicious dog. In one case the decision was in favor of the animal and in the other case the animal was destroyed. 36