County toughens its puppy mill law : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis

GREENSBORO — New laws aimed at puppy mills and irresponsible breeders passed at Thursday’s meeting of the Guilford County Board of Commissioners, but not everyone was on board.

The changes to the county’s animal control ordinance have been debated for months. Some animal advocates said tighter regulation of breeders is necessary to crack down on animal cruelty. But a number of legitimate breeders said they felt the new laws would make it harder for them to operate.

Some of those changes include the requirement of a permit for breeders whose animals breed more than six litters a year or for high-volume retailers that sell more than 50 dogs a year.

State law required that two votes be held to change the existing ordinance unless the first vote was unanimous. That was a hurdle the commissioners couldn’t clear at their Oct. 7 meeting, when three commissioners said they had concerns about the law and couldn’t vote “yes.”

On Thursday, the changes passed 8-2 with Commissioners Billy Yow and Paul Gibson voting “no” and Chairman Melvin “Skip” Alston absent.

Yow said his chief concern was that the county hadn’t done its due diligence and wasn’t considering what the changes would mean for the understaffed animal control workers who would have to enforce the rules.

“Are you ready to vote to give them some more people to do these inspections?” Yow asked his fellow commissioners. “Are you ready to buy more vehicles? Are you ready to take on all of the challenges that we have to take on once you’ve passed this ordinance?”

Commissioner Linda Shaw , who led the committee to rewrite the ordinance, strongly disagreed.

“To sit there and say we haven’t given due diligence to this is just ludicrous,” Shaw said.

“We have been working for three and a half months on this, and I mean meeting almost every week. My members of that committee have worked very hard and very diligently.”

Shaw said her committee had worked to address the concerns of everyone from hunters to breeders to the owners of exotic pets.

The latter were worried about having to register with the county under the new rules.

She said she was satisfied that the group had reached as close to a consensus as was likely.

“Let’s move forward with this ordinance, and let’s stop the abuse of these animals,” Shaw said .

Commissioner Kay Cashion changed her vote this time around, saying attending one of the committee’s last meetings changed her mind.

“I did not vote to support this at our previous meeting, but I did make the statement that I thought some more discussion should occur,” Cashion said.

“I was very impressed with the effort both sides were making to come to an agreement.”

Among the concessions made to pass the new laws: High-volume breeders now will have to register with the county, but no fee will be charged.

Shaw’s committee will next tackle laws on animal tethering, which promises to be even more controversial.

Contact Joe Killian at 373-7023 or joe.killian@news-record.com

adoptashelterpet

October 22, 2010 - 6:05 am EDT

Now lets move to vote to remove Billy Yow from the Board of the Animal Shelter since his concern is so lax for animals, remember his concern when he decides to run for re-election for the County and certainly when he is on his band wagon for Senator. And maybe we should consider revoking his hunting license also. He has lots of hunting dogs, I hope his "kennel" is one of the first to be inspected.

dawglvr

October 22, 2010 - 9:43 am EDT

I agree, get Billy Yow out! He is of no use to the animal shelter and does not have their best interest at hand.
This is why the animal shelter is filled with animals because of people not being responsible including these back yard breeders! They are not needed! Get your animals from the shelter!

BYTHEBOOK

October 22, 2010 - 9:58 am EDT

Billy Yow is on the board of United Animal Coalition???(Shelter) I find it hard to believe that Marilyn Green would have such a strong enemy of fair treatment for animals on her board! Has she lost her touch? Get Yow outta there! Marilym with friends like Yow, who needs enemies?!

Joe Killian

October 22, 2010 - 8:37 am EDT

Yow is actually looking for a Congressional seat -- Howard Coble's.

October 22, 2010 - 9:01 am EDT

OMG! Running for a Congressional seat? Sheesh, just when NC was finally beginning to "heal"from the Jesse Helms years!

Panacea

October 22, 2010 - 9:23 am EDT

Well, normally Billy Yow is a loudmouth who can't work and play well with others.

But he does raise a legit point re Animal Control, one I've raised here myself: enforcement.

The County now needs to hire more AC officers, provide equipment, and let them do their jobs instead of just being the county dog catcher (when they do that). That's going to cost money . . . but it is needed.

Wonder why Skip Alston bailed on this vote?

October 22, 2010 - 9:45 am EDT

and enlist the help of volunteers that look out for animals in their neighborhood! I would do that! Animal Control can't do everything and they need more people to help them with every aspect!

October 22, 2010 - 11:05 am EDT

I've made multiple calls to Animal Control about the vicious and barking dogs (pit bulls) in my neighborhood. Nothing was done.

October 22, 2010 - 1:29 pm EDT

Barking dogs???? ALL dogs bark! That's like calling out the Police Dept about loud music! Sheesh....we all have more important things to do! Spend my tax money catching & fineing animal breeders....Make them pay taxes for all the dogs they breed...then we'll have county $$ to do alot of things! AKC claims they bring in $3 mil a year bringing their fancy dog show to Guilford county...well, that about what the budget is for our animal control/shelter combined! Let the AKC go somewhere else with their "merchandising tool" they call a "show"! What a farce they are!

October 22, 2010 - 7:44 pm EDT

And it is against County ordinances. I'm talking talking about an occasional bark. I'm talking about barking that goes on non-stop for HOURS, often in the middle of the night.

Loud noises impair the quality of life for others. You sound like the kind of guy who doesn't care about the welfare of your neighbors.

nhalleycat

October 22, 2010 - 7:45 pm EDT

Yeah., barking dogs are extreamly annoying. You people who let your dogs bark are ignorant hillbillys. You stay in your house and are so used to your tied up dogs barking for food, water or attenchion you ignore it.It's like a crying kid in a resturant. Take them home to bed or out of the resturant. Don't rain on other people's parade. You are nothing but a stupied hillbilly who doesn't have any decency to take care of your dogs. You ignore their needs so they bark. It is people like you who are the bad ones , NOT the dogs. You fool.

October 22, 2010 - 9:50 am EDT

Skip Alston is in Bermuda on holiday.

Ah. Makes sense.

Susan10

October 22, 2010 - 1:18 pm EDT

It would be nice to report the ordinance accurately. As currently written, high volume breeder is defined as anyone owning 7 intact females whether or not they are bred. No litters or puppies are mentioned. The ordinance has ridiculous definitions and terminology in it that cannot possibly be enforced. For example, how will animal control determine if a dog is able to reach a full running stride in its environment? How will animal control determine the appropriate number of staff an owner must hire to take care of these *seven intact female dogs*? Before you celebrate, perhaps the actual wording should be read with some effort of understanding. The ordinance is a bad joke. If animal control could not figure out how to use the existing ordinance to stop abuse, how will they use this new improved and not-easy-to-understand version? A couple of definitions were included in this new version about maintaining sanitary conditions and providing adequate shelter; these were good and nothing else was really needed. Oh, but I forget, those commenting here have already said nobody needs to own that many dogs.

October 22, 2010 - 1:34 pm EDT

Madam, don't you have a "communist behind every tree" to find? Just get a license and pay your fair share and let the experts worry about the other stuff. We'll take care of it...don't you worry.

October 22, 2010 - 1:42 pm EDT

Dear By the Book,
The commissioners removed the fee. Obviously you missed that fact in the article. The fee was not an issue to begin with; the over-bearing regulations were the problem. The new regulations can only be enforced arbitrarily. Selective enforcement is an abuse of power, because it violates rule of law, allowing men to apply justice only when they choose.

October 22, 2010 - 7:47 pm EDT

"Oh, but I forget, those commenting here have already said nobody needs to own that many dogs."

I never said that.

But that number of dogs do have an impact on residential communities in terms of noise, smells, and spread of disease.

I have read the ordinance, and I did not find it at all hard to understand.

buzzman

This ordinance is nothing more than political posturing! It will be the same as the texting ban - it cannot be enforced. County is not going to provide the personnel and equipment needed and rightfully they should not.
Susan10 makes a lot of sense and so does Billy Yow. The rest of you................

Blue Rose

October 22, 2010 - 2:02 pm EDT

Billy Yow is absolutely correct and I support and respect his vote.

The County will need to hire more AC officers, provide equipment, and let them do their jobs instead of just being the county dog catcher (when they do that). Currently they can not even respond to an emergency....
This ordnance will not put a dent in the problem, the problem is not the responsible dog breeders, it is the every day Joe who breeds one little, has no idea how to place the puppies in proper homes. The county has no idea how many large volume breeders are out there, the "bad" breeders are not going to register and there you go, back to the same issues you had before, this will cost lots of money. Get ready, hire the additional staff.

By the way, if Billy runs for a higher office, he has my vote, he looks at the large picture, understands there is a simpler way to manage the problems without inflating costs.

October 22, 2010 - 8:51 pm EDT

Greensboro for sure needs to put a limit on the number of dogs ianybody can have inside the city! Who wants to live next door to a yard full of snapping, snarling dogs? Especially a bunch of females that are not fixed! Only two reasons fir that..either you're breeding dogs or your a pervert that likes to watch them breed. Sicko. Get yawls dogs fixed and take them in at night...oh yeah, and don't them up in the yard. Get a healthy mixed dog, not a sickly deformed, man-made shell of what they are suppose to be. While your at it, get a job like regular people and quit making your losy $$off the backs of animals. Wish I had all yours ssnumbers so's to turn you in to irs.

katlewis

October 24, 2010 - 1:31 pm EDT

I understand the need to compromise in order to get the ordinance passed, however charging at least a token registration fee would help defray some of the cost of enforcement.

October 25, 2010 - 12:29 pm EDT

the county ought to make those breeders report whatever income they get from selling those socalled registered dogs too, Look how much they charge? anywhere from $100 all the way up; to $2000 and more. I look at the pets for sale in the paper every day and to say they're not making any money on them is insane. They need to get a business licese like any other place that sells stuff and pay some of guilford countys high taxes. Hunters have to get licensed, fishermen, etc. A lady in my church sells homemade cakes for $35 each & they make her pay $50 every year and get inspected. & licensed. Dog breeders have always gotten a free ride. Thats why you can go to the coliseum when the akc has a show and look at all those big fancy RV's they set up in the parking lot.Not making $$$?? who r they tryng to kid? Are the county commissioners really as dumb as they come across?

news-record.com

NEWS