ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE -- DISPUTED SECTIONS ONLY

    SECTION 1:   SHORT TITLE
    SECTION 2:   PURPOSE
    SECTION 4:   DEFINITIONS
    SECTION 5:   ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY
    SECTION 6:   DOGS AT LARGE PROHIBITED; EXCEPTIONS; PENALTIES
    SECTION 7:   COMPLAINTS OF CATS AT LARGE; PENALTIES; COLONY CARE GIVER PROGRAM
    SECTION 8:   BARKING OR HOWLING DOGS; PENALTIES
    SECTION 9:   HARBORING OF VICIOUS OR DESTRUCTIVE ANIMALS; PENALTIES; PROCEDURE; DEFENSES
    SECTION 10:  CRUELTY TO AND NEGLECT OF ANIMALS
    SECTION 11:  AUTHORITY TO IMPOUND "AT LARGE" ANIMAL
    SECTION 12:  AUTHORITY TO REMOVE AN ANIMAL FROM A HOME'S CURTILAGE AND IMPOUND ANIMAL
    SECTION 13:  AUTHORITY TO REMOVE AN ANIMAL FROM A DWELLING AND IMPOUND; PROCEDURE FOR EX PARTE ORDER TO SEIZE AND IMPOUND
    SECTION 14:  RABIES MANAGEMENT; VACCINATION REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS
    SECTION 15:  LICENSE REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS
    SECTION 16:  KENNEL PERMIT REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS
    SECTION 17:  ANIMAL CONTROL ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY AND ALLOCATION OF PROCEEDS FROM FINES


SECTION 1:  SHORT TITLE

1.1    The provisions of this ordinance may be cited as the Cochise County Animal Control Ordinance (CCACO).
       COMMENT, Why the changes at all?  Has there been an outcry about inadequate animal control ordinances?  Has the County nothing better to do than work on bright ideas about trivial problems?  Or is this just another gasp by Sierra Vista's "let's regulate the country" crowd?


SECTION 2:  PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY

2.2    This ordinance is enacted pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-1001 et. seq., § 11-251.47, and § 11-251.05.
       COMMENT, the County persists in citing 11-251(47) incorrectly.  Why?


SECTION 4:  DEFINITIONS

4.1    "Abandonment" means either leaving an animal unattended for more than 24 hours, or releasing the animal upon public highways or public or private lands, or failing to provide proper or adequate food, water, exercise, shelter or medical care.
       COMMENT, "failing to provide proper or adequate food, water and exercise, shelter or medical care is defined under neglect and should be removed from this definition.  neglect and abandonment are two different things."
       COMMENT, "that definition might be interpreted, by an overzealous animal control officer, to include someone who elects to visit his relatives, and who leaves his dog(s) in a kennel, or a fenced yard, or a house with a doggie door and a 40 lb. sack of kibble in an automatic feeder and an automatic dog waterer.  According to 4.1 those persons are potentially guilty of "abandonment" at the 25th hour."
       COMMENT, There is a good deal of disagreement about what's "proper or adequate food, water, exercise and shelter".  PETA, at one extreme, says "Millions of dogs are left chained outside ... slowly going insane for years, with only a metal barrel or a tree to protect them from the elements during storms."  Yet a genuine dog-lover and PETA despiser says a dog on a chain with a shade tree and a metal barrel will get along quite nicely:  "ever since there have BEEN metal drums, houndsmen have been cutting a half-moon out of one end of a 55-gallon drum, laying it on it's side and berming it over with dirt to provide insulation, putting a rectangular board in there to provide a flat surface, tossing a couple of flakes of straw in there for bedding and additional insulation, and calling it good, and countless hounds (and other breeds) have been whelped, raised, grown old, and died in those precise circumstances, and while it may be a lower level of affluence than Marge Schott's St. Bernard enjoyed it sure seemed adequate to all those old boys for all of those years, not to mention the dogs themselves."  Conclusion:  don't use words like "proper" without defining them, and don't define them without regard for reality.

4.2    "Animal" means any animal of a species that is susceptible to rabies, except man.
       COMMENT, Birds don't get rabies, so aren't animals under this definition, but birds are on the list of pet animals, in 4.23 below.  If they're not animals, how are they pet animals?

4.5    "At large" means off the premises of the owner and not under the control of the owner, or other person acting for the owner, whether by leash, chain, cord, rope or other physical device.
       COMMENT, ARS 11-1001.2 says "in this article, unless the context otherwise requires ... 'At large' means being neither confined by an enclosure nor physically restrained by a leash."
       COMMENT, "What about dog parks and play grounds?"

4.8    "Colony caregiver" means anyone feeding, medicating, recording or otherwise maintaining a feral or free-roaming cat colony operated by or under the Humane Society.
       COMMENT, It may not be wise to "outsource" key parts of laws to the Humane Society or any other organization.  The phrases "colony caregiver" or "colony care giver" are hard to research on the internet.  Googling on either of those phrases, and the word cochise, gets nothing.  However, here's a page from Sacramento CA that is probably representative of the program:
              http://www.sspca.org/FeralCat.html
For Cochise County, the Humane Society page at
              http://www.cochisecountyhumanesociety.org/about-us.html
states "Expand the Free Roaming Cat program.  We have several excellent, knowledgeable volunteers working with free roaming cat caregivers.  We are applying for fund specific money to assist with the spay/neuter of these cats.  Limiting reproduction means the cats have a stable colony, less disease, the caregiver can afford to maintain the colony, but it does not increase in size.  We are working with colonies as large as 30 and as small as 3," and lists "Yvonne Mayer, Membership Chairman & Free Roaming Cat Coordinator."  The "colony caregiver" program is given special treatment in the proposed ordinance.  In Definition 4.22 below, "Owner" is defined to "not include Colony Caregivers."  And in Section 7.7, cats under "colony caregiver" protection are exempted from the regulations governing all other free-roaming cats.

4.11   "County Enforcement Agent" means the Sheriff of Cochise County or any other person whom the Board of Supervisors may designate as County Enforcement Agent and any deputies designated by the County Enforcement Agent.  Deputies specifically handling animal control issues, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, are also known as "Animal Control Officers."
       COMMENT, "I don't like this portion of the sentence as it leaves the possibility that someone with no law enforcement background could be designated.  'or any other person whom the Board of Supervisors may designate as County Enforcement Agent'."

4.12   "Destructive Animal" means any animal that has a propensity to destroy or damage, or causes damage to the property of a person other than the animal's owner.
       COMMENT, "This needs a little more clarification of damage, I may think the cat peeing in my planter is destroying or damaging my plants"
       COMMENT, "Property damage should be a civil matter between 2 parties and not an ordinance"
       COMMENT, "what is the minimum destruction an animal can do to, who would make this decision - if this description is being used to describe an animal that kills or attacks livestock that should be how the description is worded, not causes damage, example I could say your cat jumped on my car and scratched it, this has happened to me, then your cat would be deemed a destructive animal, makes no sense to me"

4.17   "Kennel" has the meaning as defined in A.R.S. § 11-1001, which as of the enactment of this Ordinance is defined as an enclosed, controlled area, inaccessible to other animals, in which a person keeps, harbors or maintains five or more dogs under controlled conditions.
       COMMENT, At the June 23, 2009, meeting, Supervisor Searle clarified that if a person owns 5 or more dogs, but they are individually licensed, then that is not a kennel."
       COMMENT, "One ordinary litter of pups takes a household's number of dogs to over five.  Since 'kennel' is defined as 'an enclosed, controlled area, inaccessible to other animals, in which a person keeps, harbors or maintains five or more dogs under controlled conditions,' and since deputy county attorney Carl stated that that language had not been litigated in a court case, wouldn't it be prudent to include language clarifying that a household would not get involved in 'kennel' laws just because a litter of pups was born?"
       COMMENT, This definition of "kennel" hasn't been tested in court yet.  Obvious risky areas are the meaning of "controlled conditions" and "inaccessible to other animals," and that nothing in the definition mentions the age of an animal, or whether the animal has been given shots --  so is a "kennel" created when a dog has a litter?  This definition positively invites litigation.
       COMMENT, "a mouse is an animal, so that fence had better be tighter mesh than chain-link, and there had better be concrete on the floor of the enclosure, or better yet steel, because various burrowing animals could always dig in.  And I suppose we'd better take measures to exclude insects.  What the ordinance pretty much says is that the dogs must be in a hermetically sealed enclosure that really IS 'inaccessible to other animals'."
       COMMENT, must ranch operations now need to be a "kennel" to avoid the expense and effort of licensing; and, "Due to the expanse of county required to run cattle in the northern part of the county, a rancher says 'Dogs need to rest just like horses and are often rotated for that reason.  This can easily mean 6 or 8 grown dogs plus young dogs being trained to replace older dogs.  These dogs seldom if ever leave the ranch and pose no problem whatsoever to the public'."  So why not write this definition more closely?
       COMMENT, Would this create "a 'ripple effect' -- a need for special permits, kennel license, added criteria to be met, etc., related to subdivision regulations and zoning requirements?"
       COMMENT, Adding a definition of "kennel" looks like part of a campaign to regulate the number of dogs in rural areas.
              While head of the Planning Department, James Vlahovich (now Deputy County Administrator) wanted to limit the number of dogs private individuals could have.  He set up meetings with animal control officers, the health department, veterinarians, kennel owners, dog breeders, and all three Boards Of Adjustment.  THEY UNIVERSALLY REJECTED HIS IDEA.  So he unilaterally set a Department "policy" (up to 7 dogs on up to 2 acres, up to 10 dogs on 2 or more acres).  Vlahovich set his policy in a 3-page memo dated May 24, 2005, in which page 2, posted online at
                     http://littlebigdog.net/VlahovichMemoPage2.jpg
has three striking passages:
              First, "The Planning Department is concerned that there is a disparity in the treatment of domestic dogs as an accessory use in that [one] dog owner was able to keep his 13 dogs in an urban area and [other] dog owners were limited to 10 in a rural area."  Imagine anyone getting worked up over that.
              Second, "Deputy County Attorney, Britt Hanson ... stated that absent a specific provision in the County Zoning Regulations, [the Planning Department head] has the authority to determine 'how many' of 'something' a property owner or occupant can have on his property as part of his ability to interpret whether that use is reasonably accessory to a permitted principal use."  That is, according to Hanson, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR CAN SAY WHAT'S REASONABLE FOR YOU TO DO -- FOR ANY ACTIVITY -- IN YOUR OWN HOME.
              Third, "Due to the strong opposition to codifying in the Zoning Regulations specific limitations on the maximum number of dogs deemed reasonably accessory to the principal use, I will continue to make a determination on a case-by-case basis, using, as a guideline, the maximum number of seven (7) dogs on a lot of less than two (2) acres in size, and the maximum number of ten (10) dogs on a lot equal to, or greater than, two (2) acres in size.  I will require that a dog owner who wishes to keep a number of dogs exceeding these numbers shall seek and justify a use permit or a Special Use Permit for animal husbandry."
              Welcome to the Soviet Of Cochise, where a county employee can implement his personal requirements.
              On August 14, 2006, the Department issued a document at
                     http://littlebigdog.net/VlahovichDogNumber.jpg
which says animal husbandry includes keeping dogs "beyond the number number found to be reasonably accessory" in the memo of May 24, 2005.  Then the Department pursued people who didn't follow that document.  That was expensive for the people pursued:  they must either pay $300 for a Special Use permit, or spend lots of time and pay $150 to appeal.
              In early 2008, two families fought back.  Charged by the Department with animal husbandry, they argued that caring for old dogs until they die -- just caring for them, not breeding or raising them -- didn't violate any Regulation.  The Department wouldn't discuss that issue before the hearing -- and at the hearing, the Department, in a craven act, still completely evaded it!  The Department lost both appeals, and a Board Of Adjustment explicitly said no Regulation had been violated.
              After those embarrassments, citizens insisted on meeting with Judy Anderson (who had replaced Vlahovich as Department head) about possible changes to zoning regulations.  The meetings lasted for days, and covered the regulations in great detail.  Anderson promised to include citizen suggestions in her report, but she didn't quite follow through.  In fact, her report made a suggestion which didn't come from any citizen, and which the citizens who had met with Anderson opposed vehemently.  There was such public resistance that Anderson's proposals were "withdrawn" for re-working.  Yet Vlahovich's dream of dogs marching in formation remains -- and this definition of "kennel," with its limit of five dogs unless special, and expensive, permits are obtained, appears to be a continuance of that dream.  It should be rejected, just like every other previous attempt to advance that dream.  There is no legal requirement for the state to pass such an ordinance.

4.20   "Owner" means any person owning, keeping, possessing, harboring, or maintaining (e.g. feeding over the course of six or more days) an animal within Cochise County, including any authorized agent of that person.  "Owner" shall include every person who resides at the same address and permits an animal to remain on the premises in which that person resides, if that person is of legal age and capacity.  "Owner" shall not include Colony Caregivers.
       COMMENT, The County's definition would cause problems.  Many humans welcome daily visits from dogs or cats who travel around mooching from several households, before returning to one human's residence to sleep.  Why make human "moochees" into owners?  The "real" owner might be very unhappy to see his dog seized and euthanized because the County served papers on a "moochee."  Also, humans who walk for exercise every day have been known to take treats for animals they consistently meet on the road, and the County's definition would make these humans into "owners."
       COMMENT, If any competent adult occupant at a residence is presumed to be just as culpable as the true "owner," then even if an occupant had nothing to do with the animals at issue, this DRAFT could cause anguish for people whose occupations require a clean legal record -- nurses, for instance.  Does the county want to create "guilt by association"?
       COMMENT, The exception of "colony caregiver" from the definition of owner would create a special class of privileged citizens.  "Colony caregivers," who would be sanctioned by the county Humane Society, could feed feral cats without being considered owners, or being subject to the legal risks of ownership; individuals who choose not to belong to the Cochise County Humane Society could not feed feral cats without being considered owners, and made subject to the legal risks of ownership.  Of course, a human's membership or not in the Cochise County Humane Society makes no difference to a roaming cat.  In effect, this part of the ordinance is simply a measure to boost ownership in the Society.  It's not clear that that is a proper goal for government.
       COMMENT, To the extent that the County would define an owner differently than the state, the County should think hard.

4.21   "Performance event" means any event that is officially sanctioned by a 501(c)(3) or (7) local or national kennel club, wherein judges familiar with specific dog breeds and their capabilities evaluate dogs' performances in specific events.
       COMMENT, A deputy county attorney stated "I wasn't able to find a definition for 'performance event,' and found that the term was used in a variety of ways online.  Therefore, I made up a definition for it ... that'll set it apart from a potential loophole.  Also, I'm unsure if official kennel clubs are considered non-profit.  If they are not, I'd like to know how they are designated under tax law, so that we can separate 'official' kennel clubs from made-up on the spot kennel clubs."  The point of giving special status to "official" kennel clubs is unclear; however, County Supervisor Patrick Call, at a work session, gave special thanks to kennel owners for their contributions to the draft.  It's not clear why kennel clubs deserve special solicitude.
       COMMENT, "some kennel clubs are 501(c)(4) both are non profit organizations 501(c)(3) can not be political and (4) can be political."
       COMMENT, "Perhaps Mr. Call is solicitous of kennel clubs because he owns a pet shop in Sierra Vista."  Question, is Call's relationship to the pet shop still ownership?--because if it is, then he appears to have a pecuniary interest in catering to local organized groups like kennel clubs, and his voting on the draft ordinance might run afoul of ARS 11-222, "A supervisor shall not vote upon any measure in which he, any member of his family or his partner, is pecuniarily interested," or ARS 38-503(B), "Any public officer or employee who has, or whose relative has, a substantial interest in any decision of a public agency shall make known such interest in the official records of such public agency and shall refrain from participating in any manner as an officer or employee in such decision."

4.23   "Pet" means an animal that has traditionally, through a long association with humans, lived in a state of dependence upon humans or has been traditionally kept as a household pet, including but not limited to dogs, cats, hamsters, gerbils, ferrets, mice, rabbits, parakeets, parrots, cockatiels, cockatoos, canaries, love birds, finches and tropical fish.  The term excludes any exotic or wild animal.
       COMMENT, What about guinea pigs, or a pet chicken?  Not to mention that birds don't get rabies so aren't "animals" as animals are defined, yet this proposal would classify non-animals as domestic companion animals.  Not well thought out.

4.24   "Provoke" means any behavior toward an animal or its owner which is likely to cause a defensive reaction by the animal.
       COMMENT, Guard dogs are trained to take the offensive, not wait for a master to issue a command.  The definition of "provoke" does not blend well with modern training practices.


SECTION 5:  ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY

5.1    Animal Control Officers are hereby empowered to issue citations for violations of the provisions of this Ordinance and A.R.S. § 11-1001 et. seq., § 11-251.47 and § 11-251.05 in the manner provided herein.
       COMMENT, once again, 11-251(47) is cited incorrectly


SECTION 6:  DOGS AT LARGE PROHIBITED; EXCEPTIONS; PENALTIES

6.1    A dog owner shall at all times keep such animal on his or her own premises, unless such animal is restrained by a pet carrier, leash, chain, rope, or cord of sufficient length and  strength to control the action of said dog.  In no event shall the length be so long that the dog can make contact with another animal under the control of its owner without that owner's permission, or a person without permission from that person or his or her agent.  This Section is not intended to prohibit the keeping of dogs within enclosed areas that are within the owner's jurisdiction when such enclosure will control the conduct of said dog.  For example, a dog shall be deemed to be on the owner's premises when the dog is within the owner's car or other vehicle.
       COMMENT, At a public meeting, a citizen noted that even a very short lead allows two dogs being walked to reach each other; but at that point, Chairman English had the meeting move on, and the problem remains unresolved.
       COMMENT, A statement of intent is fine for a preamble to an ordinance, but not for an ordinance itself.
       COMMENT, If an example is needed to make an ordinance clear, then the ordinance needs to be rewritten.

6.3    Dogs may be at large while participating in field trials, obedience classes, kennel club performance events and conformation shows; or while assisting their owner in legal hunting or in herding livestock; or while in a licensed dog park; or while assisting a peace officer engaged in law enforcement duties.  Guide dogs under direct and effective voice control of disabled individuals who insure that they do not violate any other provision of law are also exempted.
       COMMENT, "Are dogs and owners not allowed to take pleasure walks together, in open fields?"
       COMMENT, "the rural parts of the county are full of areas where people take their dogs to run free, but which are not "licensed."  Why attack this long-standing custom?"
       COMMENT, "How will allowing a dog to run temporarily in an open field, wash, etc. where there are no animals, livestock or people be viewed -- or a dog accompanying a mounted owner, riding in the back of a ranch vehicle unleashed, etc.?  Shouldn't posing a threat, or being a nuisance be an element of consideration before even a citation is issued?"
       COMMENT, "When I walk my dogs, they are on leash until we get to a less-traveled dirt road, where I turn them loose to run and sniff and do what dogs do.  It's fun and good exercise for them, and they learn the area around where they live.  Why live in the country if I have to treat my dogs like city dogs?  Once again, the county is attempting to impose city rules on everybody."
       COMMENT, "What about the doggies parks all over the county, did we forget that dogs go there to be taken off their leash!  Why not just use the ARS statute?"
       COMMENT, there is no clear public mandate for the county to favor kennel clubs over other groups.

6.4    An Animal Control Officer who believes that any dog within the county limits is at large, may impound the animal as provided in Section 11.
       COMMENT, "If an ACO tries to pick up my dogs when I'm out walking with them, he better have room for me in the vehicle, too."
       COMMENT, "no requirement at all that the officer's belief be reasonable?  An Animal Control Officer can just take any dog she sees off a lead, even if there's nobody else within a mile?  That's a lot of authority to give an Animal Control Officer, considering how they abused their authority in the Ratliff case."
       COMMENT, the ordinance is going in circles.  Section 6.4 says an ACO may impound a dog as provided in Section 11; Section 11.1 says an ACO may impound a dog in accordance with Section 6.  This is ridiculous.

6.5    A person found to have violated this Section shall pay a civil fine of thirty dollars ($30.00) per violation plus any costs of impoundment.
       COMMMENT, The extra fine, for the arbitrary "costs of impoundment," gives the County an incentive to charge people for letting their [dogs] wander.  Another example of the County picking our pockets however it can.

6.6    Injury to any person or damage to any property by a dog at large shall be the full responsibility of the animal owner or persons responsible for the animal when such damages were inflicted.
       COMMENT, "what if the owner says he was not responsible for the dog at that time?  Then who is responsible?  This should be a civil matter and not a county ordinance."]
       COMMENT, The DRAFT ordinance both contains many protections for the county, and contemplates enforcing rights without any use of civil actions, even in what are basically civil matters.  It's as if citizens are children, who have no protection but what the parent-state provides.


SECTION 7:  COMPLAINTS OF CATS AT LARGE; PENALTIES; COLONY CARE GIVER PROGRAM
       COMMENT, "I started wondering if the P&Z will soon be going after those of us who feed wild birds.  Will they try to pass a 'policy' to require a special use permit to feed wild birds?  Will they try to regulate how many and what kinds of feeders we can hang in our yards - color, size, design, seed types, capacity? ....  Hey, maybe they could make money requiring a 'tag' (like on a bicycle) be placed on each feeder - you know, just in case someone steals your feeder!"
       COMMENT, "Ordinances that control cats would be more realistic in incorporated areas ...."
       COMMENT, "How about the need to regulate dogs and cats to the point of overkill?"
       COMMENT, "Just a glance tells me some of it is a bit 'loopy'.  I've never heard of anyplace trying to restrain/regulate all cats.  I certainly wouldn't have expected it in a rural county like Cochise where 'barn cats' probably still keep the rats/mice in check on some people's property."

7.1    An Animal Control Officer shall only pick up a cat when the Animal Control Officer suspects that the cat-at-large is feral; or when a County resident makes a specific complaint about a cat-at-large; and as time permits.
       COMMENT, This limitation on picking up an "at large" cat, only if it is feral or meets other tests, conflicts with the permission in 7.4 to pick up any "at large" cat.

7.2    When a cat owner can be identified, the owner will be counseled for a first offense and may be cited for subsequent offenses for failing to control his or her pet.  Animal Control Officers cannot remove a cat from the property of its owner without the owner's permission unless the health and safety of the animal or others are at risk.
       COMMENT, "How about the same consideration for DOGS and their owners?"

7.3    When a specific complaint has been made against a cat and the cat has not yet for the purposes of this complaint been captured, the complaining County resident may, by personal check, pay a $25 refundable deposit to the County for a humane capture trap.  Complainant must place the trap in the shade on his or her own premises, place food and water in the trap and immediately telephone the Animal Control Officer once a cat has been captured.  Animal Control Officers may not be available on holidays and weekends, so residents shall close the doors of empty traps on those days and as directed by the Animal Control Officer.  As time permits, Animal Control Officers will assist complainants to capture a cat-at-large if the complainant(s) require assistance due to advanced age or disability.
       COMMENT, this makes "about as much sense as a drunk person!  Cat at Large Ha!  notice the as time allows and the owner if they can find them will be counseled!...  No wonder we are the butt of AZ...."
       COMMENT, "Obviously the Planning and Zoning department doesn't have enough to do if it keeps digging around in the regulations and rewriting them to make them more restrictive and more punitive.  They reached a new low with the idea of entrapment of cats.  In case no one at the county offices has noticed, Cochise County has a huge population of rodents.  Cats eat rodents.  If cats aren't allowed to eat rodents, the mouse and rat population will only increase.  Rats and mice are food for snakes and coyotes.  More rodents equals more snakes and coyotes.  Is that what the county officials want?   Who is going to capture the snakes and coyotes roaming around without permission?"
       COMMENT, "More cats also equals more coyotes; house cats are a favorite food of coyotes, and they catch and eat them at every opportunity.  Not only that, but free-ranging cats are tremendously destructive to wildlife; a dog pales in comparison to a cat when it comes to sheer predatory nature, and most studies have concluded that 'barn cats' and the like are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of songbirds and small animals each year.  If the County feels that it has to become involved with the personal property of its residents in the form of the animals that they own, the house cat is where they ought to concentrate their efforts; dogs don't create a fraction of the problems that cats do, and the very fact that the County apparently sees fit to largely ignore house cats and concentrate on domestic dogs betrays just how ignorant they are."
    COMMENT, This section "should require complainant to document in detail the description of the cat, its destructive/dangerous behaviors, as well as attempts to reduce the environmental incentives before a trap is provided."

7.4    An Animal Control Officer who believes that any cat within the county limits is at large, may impound the animal as provided in Section 11.
       COMMENT, This permission to pick up any "at large" cat conflicts with the limitation in 7.1, to pick up an "at large" cat only if it is feral or meets other tests.
       COMMENT, In light of 7.1, 7.2, and 7.4, when can a cat be impounded, and when can it not?

7.5    A person found to have violated this Section shall pay a civil fine of thirty dollars ($30.00) per violation plus any costs of impoundment.
       COMMMENT, The extra fine, for the arbitrary "costs of impoundment," gives the County an incentive to charge people for letting their cats wander.  Another example of the County picking our pockets however it can.

7.6    Injury to any person or damage to any property by an animal at large shall be the full responsibility of the animal owner or persons responsible for the animal when such damages were inflicted.
       COMMENT, Note that this proposal talks about any animal at large, not just cats.  It should talk only about cats.
       COMMENT, The DRAFT ordinance both contains many protections for the county, and contemplates enforcing rights without any use of civil actions, even in what are basically civil matters.  It's as if citizens are children, who have no protection but what the parent-state provides.
       COMMENT, "what if the owner says he was not responsible for the dog at that time?  Then who is responsible?  This should be a civil matter and not a county ordinance."]
       COMMENT, At the June 23 work session, county attorney Anne Carl and Chief Deputy Rod Rothrock had a dialog in which they both expressed worries about the county being sued in some circumstances.  The county apparently expects that citizens will not sue an obnoxious neighbor, but will sue the county at the drop of a hat.

7.7    Notwithstanding the foregoing, Feral and Free-roaming Cats that are part of a Colony Care Giver program operated by or under the Humane Society will be treated as follows:
       a.     The Colony Care Giver program is aimed at humanely treating Feral and Free-roaming cats while reducing the feral cat population by spaying and neutering them.  Cats in this program are fed by Colony Care Givers.  Cats in the program are identified by notching an ear.
       b.     If a complaint is lodged against a cat in this program, the County Enforcement Agent will contact the Humane Society.  Together, they will work to resolve the issue that led to the complaint to the benefit of the complaining party.
       COMMENT, Since when does the County let the Humane Society determine what the contents of the law will be?]
       COMMENT, "There are other organizations including the SPCA that have feral cat programs.  A Colony Caregiver should be required to participate in TNR Trap, Neuter and Release to have a Colony Caregiver Designation."
       COMMENT, Under section B, the County will work to resolve issues "to the benefit of the complaining party."  Is it proper for the County to determine, as a matter of written law and public policy, that a complaining person is to be favored?  Whatever happened to requiring evidence before taking a position?


SECTION 8:  BARKING OR HOWLING DOGS; PENALTIES
       COMMENT, "What an interventionist mess.  How do you enforce Section 8?"
       COMMENT, This Barking/Howling section definitely needs refining.  The way it is written invites major confrontations between neighbors.  Who will determine that a problem exists?  Does the Sheriff or Animal control officer have to be present to verify barking at 3 am or do they just go by the neighbor's complaints?  One or two barks signals that a dog is doing his job of alerting the resident of what may be impending danger.  How do I make my dogs stop howling when the local Coyotes sound off each morning at 4:30 am?  Should the Coyotes be impounded by Animal Control first.  What about the open-range cows that scream in the night and set local dogs off?  Who controls the hunters with their shooting and dogs running free?  How do I stop my dogs from barking because they know they are being fed or are just happy?  Those of us who live out in the unincorporated areas face different problems as mentioned above.  Those of us that have more than one dog chose to do so to help the unwanted animals who would otherwise be roaming the countryside.  How does this ordinance affect people who have had multiple dogs or cats for years (grandfathered)?"

8.1    It shall be unlawful for any person owning or having charge, care, custody or control of any dog to permit said dog to bark, howl or otherwise make noises so as to disturb the peace and quiet of any person or persons at any hour of the day or night.
       COMMENT, ARS 11-1005.A.5 lets a BOS "regulate, restrain and prohibit the excessive and unrestrained barking of dogs."  This regulates far more than that.  It's a far cry from regulating "excessive and unrestrained barking of dogs" to prohibiting one bark.
       COMMENT, "Dogs barking is ok as they tell us when they see people near our homes, that is good.  I know neighbors that have other animals and I can not see where that would be a problem to anyone, they have never bothered us in the years we have lived here.  Did they start this mess just so they could charge us more for license etc., at least that's what I think."
       COMMENT, "This needs more refining -- excessive and unrestrained barking needs to be reincorporated into language.  As rural property owners, we are dog owners not only for their companionship, but also for their protective 'alarm system' when something is not right on the property."
       COMMENT, "This dog barking issue is outrageous, a Gestopo method, if you ask me.  With all the crime, home invasions, etc, why do they think people have dogs.  They are better than an alarm system.  At least you have a fighting chance if someone invades your property or house.  They let you know immediately.  I am just furious over this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
       COMMENT, "Where do some of these people think we all live?  This isn't 'the big city'.  Also, WHY do they think we need this ordinance?  (I can hope they're all animal lovers trying to stop cruelty, but I'm too cynical to actually believe that.  It's gotta be something more, maybe $$$$ ???)"
       COMMENT:  "This ordinance is for the unincorporated parts of the county, where most people have dogs for protecting their property and warning them when someone may possibly be trespassing on their personal property.  This part needs a little more refining, because as stated here my dog barking at illegals walking down my fence line may be impound by an Animal Control Officer if he believes he will bark at illegals again when they pass my property."
       COMMENT, "this ordinance makes my blood boil.  Residents who live out in the unincorporated areas of this county have illegals trespassing on their property night and day.  Owning at least one dog is essential to keep these foreign criminals from breaking and entering and stealing, damaging property or harming honest, hardworking, taxpaying US citizens.  The ability of a dog to chase a perpetrator off the premises is essential to security.  The Border Patrol receives many calls from residents whose dogs are barking at illegals.  If dogs have to be containerized and muzzled, the illegals will have carte blanche to TERRORIZE the residents of Cochise County.  Is this what the county officials want?  If we are not going to be allowed to let our dogs patrol our property, if we are not going to be allowed (if/when the anti-gunners get their way) to own guns to protect ourselves, then who and what is going to defend us against this invasion of foreign criminals?  Are the animal control officers going to capture the humans running loose and defecating without permission on our lands?"
       COMMENT, "We have some issues in the county with dogs that guard our property, they will bark when illegals are passing by at night, that is there job!"
       COMMENT, Does it count if a neighbor is bothered by loud whimpering, or tail thumping?
       COMMENT, Should not just say "noise will continue," should define a time frame on the barking.
       COMMENT, As the ordinance is written, a burglar or trespasser could complain about the dog barking that warned the homeowners.

8.2    An Animal Control Officer who believes that any animal within the county limits is barking or howling or otherwise making disturbing noises, and that the noise will continue, may impound the animal as provided in Section 12 or Section 13.
       COMMENT, this "appears to give Animal Control Officers greater authority to bypass the Citation process and impound if he simply believes that a violation will continue.  Subsequent fees for impoundment, etc., until a complaint is processed are not insignificant."
       COMMENT, Neither Section 12 nor 13 specifically mentions barking, howling, or noisy dogs, but those sections allow impoundment if an Animal Control Officer claims to believe that the dog's well-being was at risk, etc., so there is no doubt that a barking, howling, or noisy dog could be impounded if an ACO were willing to exaggerate her beliefs a little to justify what she wanted to do.  In light of the Ratliff scandal, is there any doubt that an ACO will do that?  We should be limiting the power of ACOs, not expanding it.
       COMMENT, Should just talk about barking or howling, not "otherwise making disturbing noises."  What might they be?
       COMMENT, "what about kennels, most of the dog barking in our community comes from a kennel 1/2 a mile away.  If I complain will the Animal Control Officer come out and impound all those dogs?  This is crazy!"
       COMMENT, "This whole ordinance seems to be based on giving law enforcement the right to enter your property and impound your animals without any due process of law.  Here is what Pima County has on Animal Noise Complaints, this is a much more civilized program then just allowing anyone in law enforcement to enter my property and seize my dog for barking.  Nowhere in Section 11 or Section 12 does the ordinance reference barking dogs as a condition of seizure!
              "Pima County Animal Noise Complaint Process
              "Excessive Noise from Animals
              "1  Register a complaint with Animal Care ....
              "2  Letters are sent by Animal Care to complainant and to animal owner – letter notifies parties of possible problem and asks them to resolve within 7-10 days. If not resolved, complainant is instructed to call Community Mediation Program to attempt mediation.  If problem resolved, process is completed.
              "3  If problem is not resolved within 7-10 days of receipt of letter, complainant calls Community Mediation Program to attempt mediation.  The Community Mediation Program then contacts both parties to arrange for mediation.  If mediation is successful, process is completed.  If animal owner refuses to mediate, animal owner does not respond, or mediation fails the complainant can then move onto animal noise log.  If complainant refuses to attempt mediation, Animal Care can not pursue the complaint with enforcement action.
              "4  If mediation is attempted but unsuccessful, the complainant may call Animal Care to request the Animal Noise Log.  The forms require a verification of mediation attempt and a log of nuisance animal noise.  The dates and duration (with start and finish times) of the noise will be required on the log.  Once completed and returned, the paperwork is reviewed by a supervisor and sent to the field for citations.
              "5  Citations are issued to animal owner.  Animal owner pleads responsible or not responsible.
              "6  Hearing is held to determine if animal owner is responsible or not responsible and the sanctions."]
       COMMENT, During the work session on June 23, Supervisor Searle noted that he had seen the Pima County ordinance, and he said Pima's was a "kinder, gentler" approach.  Here's a link to Pima County's ordinance:  http://www.awasa.org/pca_code.html
       COMMENT, "Filing of an excessive noise complaint should be the maximum action allowed [an Animal Control Officer] in this situation -- , not to enter private property and seize an animal that is not in danger or posing a safety threat.  Adopting a similar process as practiced by Pima County would be far more reasonable and responsible.  Such a process encourages communication between parties, provides a mediation process, and requires detailed documentation of the nuisance before a citation is issued.  Impoundment is not only an economic but an emotional burden that should be avoided when an animal is on private property except for life threatening or dangerous conditions and circumstance[s]."


SECTION 9:  HARBORING OF VICIOUS OR DESTRUCTIVE ANIMALS; PENALTIES; PROCEDURE; DEFENSES

9.5    An Animal Control Officer who believes that any animal within the county limits is an immediate danger to the safety of any person or other animal, or that an animal may continue to damage or destroy the property belonging to a person other than its owner, may impound the animal as provided in Section 11, 12 or 13.
       COMMENT, eliminates the existing requirement to find that an animal is vicious; a little ominous
       COMMENT, especially ominous in view of the ongoing scandal

9.6    Beyond other criminal proceedings that may already be in effect under this Section, the Cochise County Attorney's Office may petition the Cochise County Justice Court to declare an animal vicious or destructive.  The Justice Court, for good cause shown in the petition, shall order that a hearing be held, which may or may not coincide with other criminal proceedings involving the animal under this Section.  At the hearing, the owner shall appear and show cause why the animal should not be declared vicious or destructive with sanctions ordered pursuant to this Section.
       COMMENT, "What time frame is set for this hearing, I assume the animals will still be held while awaiting a hearing?"
       COMMENT, "Why is the burden of proof on the owner?"  That is, why not leave the burden of proof on the state?
       COMMENT, "A time frame should be set, since the owner pays for the animal's food and shelter while it is under county control."


SECTION 10:  CRUELTY TO AND NEGLECT OF ANIMALS

10.2   For purposes of enforcing this statute, the following guidelines shall apply in providing necessary food, water or shelter:
       a.     That the animal receives daily food that is free from contamination and is of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain the animal in good health; and
       b.     That potable water is accessible to the animal at all times, either free-flowing or in a clean receptacle; and
       c.     That, except for livestock, all animals have convenient access to natural or artificial shelter throughout the year.  Any such artificial shelter shall be structurally sound and maintained in good repair to protect the animal from injury  and from the elements, and of sufficient size to permit the animal to enter, stand, turn around and lie down in a natural manner.  Any shelter which does not protect the animal from temperature extremes or precipitation, or which does not provide adequate ventilation or drainage, is in violation of this ordinance.  Any shelter, all bedding and any spaces accessible to the animal shall be maintained in a manner which minimizes the risk of the animal contracting disease, being injured, or becoming infested with parasites; and
       d.     That the animal receives care and medical treatment for debilitating injuries, parasites and diseases, sufficient to maintain the animal in good health and minimize suffering; and
       e.     That the animal is given adequate exercise space either:
              i.     Within an enclosure that shall be constructed of material, and in a manner to minimize the risk of injury to the animal, and shall encompass sufficient usable space to keep the animal in good condition; or
              ii.    On a tie out, consisting of a chain, leash, wire cable or similar restraint attached to a swivel or pulley.  A tie out shall be so located as to keep the animal exclusively on the secured premises.  Tie outs shall be so located that they cannot become entangled with other objects.  Collars used to attach an animal to a tie out shall not be of a choke type.  No tie out shall employ a restraint which is less than ten (10) feet in length; and
       f.     That the animal has access to adequate ventilation and is protected from temperature extremes at all times.  It is unlawful for any person to keep any animal in a vehicle or other enclosed space in which the temperature is either so high or so low, or the ventilation is so inadequate, as to endanger the animal's life or health.  An Animal Control Officer is authorized to use whatever force is reasonable and necessary to remove any animal from vehicle or other enclosed space whenever it appears that the animal's life or health is endangered by extreme temperatures or lack of ventilation within the vehicle or other enclosed space.  No Animal Control Officer shall be liable for damages to property caused by the use of reasonable force to remove an animal from such a vehicle or other enclosed space under such circumstances.
       COMMENT, "So every cattleman in Cochise County who is presently watering his cattle (and horses and goats and burros and sheep and any other 'animal' that he cares for, custodies, or controls) in a dirt tank is guilty of a Misdemeanor II ... because I can promise you that a hole in the ground is not a 'clean receptacle,' and the last time that water was 'free-flowing' was when it ran into that hole."

10.3   An Animal Control Officer who believes that any animal within the county limits has been or is being subject to cruelty or neglect as defined in A.R.S. § 13-2910, or that an animal is not being cared for as prescribed in Subsection 10.2, may impound the animal as provided in Sections 11, 12 or 13 of this ordinance.
       COMMENT, "In rural areas, we have had a spoken agreement with the Sheriff's Office that if a stray animal was attacking livestock, etc. on private property, that the property owner could kill the stray if law enforcement could not arrive quickly.  Will [10.3] prevent the property owner from taking this action to protect his animals?"

10.4   Upon a finding that an animal has been the victim of cruelty or neglect, the Justice of the Peace may order one or both of the following:
       a.     That the animal be forfeited to the Cochise County Animal Control Division.
       b.     That the owner not be permitted to own or control an animal within the unincorporated areas of Cochise County for a period not to exceed three years.
       COMMENT, "If a J.P. found a rancher guilty of neglect of one animal, the J.P. could forbid the rancher from owning or controlling any animal on the ranch for three years -- goldfish, cats, dogs, and 1000 head of stock.  Needless to say, THIS ain't gonna make [a rancher] happy, and IT'S CURRENT LAW under the current Ordinances."


SECTION 11:  AUTHORITY TO CAPTURE AND IMPOUND "AT LARGE" ANIMAL
       COMMENT from SV Herald article, 8/26/08:
              "Searle was concerned about the liability the county would have as decisions of the animals' health and well-being would be assessed by county employees, especially in the case of euthanizing someone’s pet that was picked up.
              "Animal control officer Lori Nichols-Wright told him that if an animal is picked up and has parvo, it will be euthanized since such diseased animals cannot be taken into a shelter where the disease could spread.  She indicated the veterinarian contracted with the county to perform the euthanasia would be making the decision.
              "But Ortega noted that such decisions are made by staff on a daily basis and the county could rely on their judgement."

11.3   Captured "at large" animals who exhibit any of the following symptoms may immediately be humanely euthanized:
       COMMENT, The sections should be designated a, b, c, and d, using standard outline procedure.
       o      Having any untended sickness or injury causing protracted suffering;
       o      Having obvious infection, where the infection is so well-seated that the animal's survival is doubtful;
              COMMENT, "Reasonable attempt should be made to locate owner."
       o      Having obvious and highly communicable disease;
              COMMENT, "obvious and highly communicable disease ... is the only legitimate reason for 'immediate' euthanization without the owner being notified first.  When the County enters private property and impounds private property, only extreme circumstances could possibly justify immediate euthanization of an animal without any contact or discussion with the owners."
       o      Being newborn, not weaned from its mother's milk, and being unable to consume dry food.
              COMMENT, "Whoever makes life and death decisions should be a licensed vet."
              COMMENT, "I personally feel this is cruelty to animals, to dispose of them just because it may take a little more work to keep them alive.  It's not their fault they are abandoned."
              COMMENT, "Rescue partnerships should be utilized when possible."
              COMMENT, State law, ARS 11-1013.E, says "The county enforcement agent may destroy impounded sick or injured dogs or cats if destruction is necessary to prevent the dog or cat from suffering or to prevent the spread of disease."  Whoever wrote the County's DRAFT went to a lot of trouble to talk in detail about euthanasia.  The County's focus on when euthanasia can be allowed is a little unsettling.

11.4   Unless an "at large" animal exhibits any of the symptoms set forth in Subsection 11.3 or is otherwise suffering or risks spreading disease, it must be maintained for a minimum period as required by State law, which as of the enactment of this Ordinance is a minimum of seventy-two (72) hours, except that if the animal is wearing a license in which case it must be maintained for a minimum of one hundred twenty (120) hours, unless claimed by owner.  The procedure for return or disposition of an impounded animal will be governed by the operator of the animal shelter, except that the owner of any animal removed and impounded under the provisions of this Section shall be liable for any impoundment, boarding or veterinary fees incurred in connection therewith.
       COMMENT, should be business-day hours


COMMENT TO SECTIONS 12 AND 13, "Sections 12 and 13 are an invitation to war in rural areas and the licensing scheme is yet another revenue debacle which by implication means our pets are living with us at the state's (or in this case, county's pleasure).  Good luck with enforcement on these issues."


SECTION 12:  AUTHORITY TO REMOVE AN ANIMAL FROM A HOME'S CURTILAGE AND IMPOUND ANIMAL

12.1   An Animal Control Officer is authorized to seize and remove an animal from a home's curtilage (i.e., the yard or other area around a dwelling), and impound that animal in any of the following circumstances:
       ...
       e.     If the animal has strayed from the property and returned to the property, the animal's owner is not at home and/or is not forbidding the removal, and there is not a sufficient enclosure around the curtilage to prevent the animal from escaping again.
       COMMENT, "Whoa this goes too far.  If the animal is back on the premises then it is on private property and cannot be removed without the owners permission."

12.2   The procedure for return or disposition of an impounded animal will be governed by the operator of the animal shelter, except that the owner of any animal removed and impounded under the provisions of this Section shall be liable for any impoundment, boarding or veterinary fees incurred in connection therewith.
       COMMENT, "obvious and highly communicable disease ... is the only legitimate reason for 'immediate' euthanization without the owner being notified first.  When the County enters private property and impounds private property, only extreme circumstances could possibly justify immediate euthanization of an animal without any contact or discussion with the owners."


SECTION 13:  AUTHORITY TO REMOVE AN ANIMAL FROM A DWELLING AND IMPOUND; PROCEDURE FOR EX PARTE ORDER TO SEIZE AND IMPOUND
       COMMENT, THERE IS NO REASON FOR ANY CITIZEN OF COCHISE COUNTY TO HAVE ANY TRUST OR CONFIDENCE IN A COCHISE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER.  That's the lesson from the ongoing Ratliff case, in which animals that were seized by Animal Control Officer Crystal Callahan, and kept in the legal custody of the County, were not returned to the owner after a court order, because, according to the County, all the animals died, though the County previously said they had been doing well in custody, and though we now know that all of the animals did NOT die, no matter what the County said.  Until this is cleared up, Animal Control should not expect to be trusted with any power.

13.5   Within five (5) days of the issuance of the order, the Animal Control Officer shall execute the order, while furnishing a copy of the order together with a receipt for the animal so seized, to the person from whom it was taken or in whose possession it was found; or in the absence of such person, in the place in which the animal was found.
       COMMENT, 5 days should be 5 business days

13.6   The receipt for a seized animal shall also contain notice of an owner's right to, within five (5) days of the seizure, file a Petition in Justice Court for an Order to Show Cause why the animal should not be returned pending the outcome of the complaint.
       COMMENT, 5 days should be 5 business days

13.7   If no Petition for an Order to Show Cause is filed within five (5) days or if the owner does file a Petition but fails to appear at the Order to Show Cause hearing, the Justice of the Peace shall order the animal forfeited.  The procedure for return or disposition of an impounded animal will be governed by the operator of the animal shelter, except that the owner of any animal removed and impounded under the provisions of this Section shall be liable for any impoundment, boarding or veterinary fees incurred in connection therewith.
       COMMENT, 5 days should be 5 business days
       COMMENT, "An impoundment may result in immediate killing of the animal ... and ex parte orders aren't supposed to be permanent.  It's hard to justify death by an ex parte order."
       COMMENT, At the June 23, 2009, meeting, Supervisor English appeared to believe that there would be no problem with euthanizing an animal as long as a J.P. issued an order -- that is, English didn't distinguish an ex parte proceeding, with only one side appearing in court, from a proceeding where both sides are represented.  The fact that an ex parte proceeding takes place in court doesn't mean that it's proper to kill animals based on what only one party says.


SECTION 14:  RABIES MANAGEMENT; VACCINATION REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS

14.5   Impoundment of dog found in violation:  Any dog without a valid and current rabies vaccination shall be impounded at the owner's expense for up to seventy-two (72) hours.  Any animal unclaimed at the end of seventy-two (72) hours becomes the property of the animal shelter in which the animal is impounded.
       COMMENT, "How will you determine a 'violation'?  The animal might have lost its ID, license, and rabies tags.  72 hours, and the animal becomes animal shelter property?  That's not much time for an owner to find and reclaim a lost pet."

14.8   Management of dog or cat that has potentially been exposed to rabies, and has been vaccinated against rabies in the past but is now overdue for rabies vaccines.  These cases should be handled on a case-by-case basis, upon consultation with the County Enforcement Agent or Public Health Official.  At the very least, however, owner should comply with Section 14.7.
       COMMENT, Saying "cases will be handled on a case-by-case" basis amounts to saying there is no governing law; and laws don't say "should," they say "do" or "don't."  The County should figure out what it wants to require, not pass a law that doesn't have any requirement.

14.9   Management of other animals that have potentially been exposed to rabies:  Animals other than dogs, cats, or livestock that have been bitten by or otherwise potentially exposed to a rabid or suspect rabid animal should be euthanized immediately or evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the County Enforcement Agent or Public Health Official.  If a suspect rabid animal is available for testing, an animal that was bitten by or otherwise potentially exposed to the suspect rabid animal will be isolated pending the rabies testing result on the suspect animal.  If the testing results are negative, the bitten or otherwise potentially exposed animal shall be released with the approval of the County Enforcement Agent or Public Health Official.
       COMMENT, An animal "should be euthanized immediately or evaluated on a case-by-case basis"?  That kind of language has no place in a law; it's a license for case-by-case abuse of discretion.
       COMMENT, In the last sentence, what does "released with the approval of" mean?  Does it mean "released, and approval shall be granted," or does it mean "released if the release is approved"?

14.13  Exotic animals will be managed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the animal and what is known or presumed about that animal.
       COMMENT, "Who makes this decision on presumption?"
       COMMENT, If you don't know what to do, it's better not to pass a law saying so, or simply excluding "exotic animals" from the coverage of the law.]
       COMMENT, If you must act in the absence of fact, there are more things to consider than what is "known or presumed."  In particular, there are things that are suspected.

14.14  Rabies quarantine area:  If the County Board of Supervisors has declared a rabies quarantine area, an emergency program for the control of rabies within that area shall be in effect.  For the duration of that program, the County Enforcement Officer or Public Health Officer shall consider any at large mammal besides a human who is found within that area, a suspect rabid animal, and treat the animal accordingly, whether the animal was vaccinated or not.
       COMMENT, "found how:  'at large'?  in a yard?"


SECTION 15:  LICENSE REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS

15.2   Duties of Owner:  An owner shall make sure that his or her dog, while at large, wears a collar or harness with the current, valid and approved license securely attached (as required by Section 14.1), unless participating in a kennel club performance event, conformation show or a hunt under the control of the owner or another person.
       COMMENT, "Should add 'unless on the CURTILAGE of the immediate owners.'  I have farm dogs that roam a large parcel of property and my concern would be collars getting entangled in tree branches, brush and fences.  As long as I can provide proof of vaccination, and these animals are on my premises, why do they need a collar with tags?  ARS does not mention the need for wearing the license on my private property."

15.5   Fees for one (1) year licenses shall be $10.00 for dogs capable of procreation and $5.00 for dogs that are spayed or neutered.  Fees for three (3) year licenses shall be set at $20.00 for dogs capable of procreation; $10.00 for dogs that are spayed or neutered; and $10.00 for dogs ten (10) years or older; provided, however, that if a dog has received a three (3) year rabies vaccination and license in another county within one (1) year previous to the application for a license in Cochise County, the licensing period shall be for three (3) years from the date of rabies vaccination and the fees for a license in Cochise County shall be half of the three (3) year license.
       COMMENT, Deputy county attorney Ann Carl appears to be the source of the following note:  "Rod, you'll need to pass along the fee schedule, as I'm not remembering what it says or if it provides a 'free ride home' to dogs caught for the first time.  Not sure it should, either.  Jim's question was a good one:  How will we know whether it's the first time a dog/cat is picked up?  This'll be harder to determine as the County grows and particularly if cities join in and ask for animal coverage under this ordinance within their jurisdiction...Not sure whether we'll be able to equally enforce such a provision, nor do I think it's necessary to have it in here.  If it's an unspoken policy that you've adopted, that might help people like Lori better influence people to behave, i.e., 'I gave you a break THIS time...'"  Carl's comment invites the response, Why is a county attorney contemplating county employees enforcing "unspoken policies"?  And of course, if Carl isn't sure this provision is needed, then why not leave it out?
       COMMENT, "we have a county attorney talking about an unspoken policy that will make people behave by giving some people a break by Lori (a sworn law enforcement officer I assume) and possibly some people will not get a break.  What the heck is going on in our county government!  Richard, Pat and Ann I think you as Board of Supervisors need to get control of this type of behavior!  This sounds like the voters of Cochise County are a bunch of brainless children that need to be bribed to behave and follow.  These are sworn law enforcement people our county attorney is saying it is ok to influence people by cutting them a break on fines imposed by an ordinance.  How many other unspoken policies do the voters of Cochise County not know about!  By the way what is an unspoken policy?"

15.6   As a convenience to the public, veterinarians are authorized to issue licenses.  A veterinarian who chooses to issue licenses i) shall follow the rules and fee schedule set forth above; ii) shall be entitled to retain the fees for any  licenses issued; and iii) shall retain all information concerning licenses issued and transmit all such information to the County Enforcement Agent.  If additional procedures are necessary to implement this provision, the authority to do so is vested in the Sheriff.
       COMMENT, The last sentence appears to give the Sheriff authority to legislate additional procedures.  Giving any Sheriff authority to legislate is a bad idea, and it's doubtful that the Board Of Supervisors can legally delegate its power to make law.


SECTION 16:  KENNEL PERMIT REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS
       COMMENT, from SV Herald article, 8/26/08:
              "There was some discussion on the definition of a kennel ....
              "... a person with six or more dogs would have to go to the planning and zoning commission to get a special use permit for a kennel, whether or not animal husbandry is involved.  That has been a sticking point with many in the rural areas who have spoken out against the kennel code at planning and zoning meetings.
              "'It's not the number of dogs you have, it's the conditions in which they are kept.  It shouldn't matter how many you have,' said Searle.  'And if you have a bunch of dogs and live on the back-40, there are no problems.'
              "Searle wants the ordinance to deal with animal cruelty and neglect issues that involve law enforcement.  Other aspects, especially as to what number of animals it takes to deserve a kennel designation, belong in the planning and zoning commission purview.
              "'Just because someone has a lot of critters doesn't mean they are going to be mistreated.  A person can have a special-use permit and be abusive to animals.  We should concentrate on cruelty issues,' Searle said."
              Searle's concerns don't seem to have been addressed.

16.2   Animals leaving controlled kennel conditions shall be licensed in accordance with Section 14 of this ordinance, except if only being transported to another kennel that has a permit issued under this Section.
       COMMENT, So if animals were transported to a kennel outside Cochise County, so that the kennel would never have a permit issued under any Cochise County ordinance, then the animals would have to be licensed under Section 14?  That probably isn't the intention here, and it might violate Federal law by being a restriction on interstate commerce.

16.5   The annual fee for the kennel permit shall be the amount set forth in A.R.S. § 11-1009, which as of the date of the adoption of this Ordinance is $75.
       COMMENT, Is the idea just another way for the County to "charge citizens for breathing" -- that is, to set up a fee which pays for absolutely nothing from the county?
       COMMENT, "Wouldn't it be unique if the BOS actually represented us by, perhaps, mailing a letter about the Mexican horse slaughterhouse problem to our reps at the state and federal levels instead of harassing county citizens who rescue dogs and cats???..."


SECTION 17:  ANIMAL CONTROL ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY AND ALLOCATION OF PROCEEDS FROM FINES
       COMMENT, "I find this whole Animal Control Officer issue to be a sad attempt on the part of the county to unnecessarily interfere in yet another part of lives.  Follow the money, this is all about yet another attempt to create a revenue stream...."
       COMMENT:  How out of place, as the Ratliff scandal unfolds, showing what appears to be corruption in the entire relationship between the Animal Control system and the County Attorney's office.