Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 23, 1994 TAG: 9403230089
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JAN VERTEFEUILLE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
All five board members appear to want different things in the ordinance. A public hearing Tuesday night brought more suggestions the supervisors want to look at.
Possibly indicating the emotion the issue raises, seven people turned out to speak on the cat ordinance, compared with a lone speaker who showed up for last month's hearing on the county's tax rate.
Just when the meeting was almost over, someone noticed that the provision banning "running at large" had been removed. Wasn't that the whole point of the ordinance, Supervisor Harry Nickens asked.
So running at large was back in - at least in this draft. The staff will try to meld all the conflicting recommendations into another draft for the board to examine April 12.
"I think we can bring something back to you in three weeks," County Administrator Elmer Hodge said.
Besides forbidding running at large, the ordinance as it's being drafted would create a list of what constitutes an "animal nuisance" to allow animal control officers to crack down on bothersome pets, feline or canine. It also would require cats to be licensed as dogs are and limit the number of cats to six per household, only two of which could be fertile.
While counties do not have the authority to require that pets be spayed or neutered, Roanoke County is trying to slip the requirement in by using the "fertile" language.
"We're trying to do by indirection what we cannot do directly," County Attorney Paul Mahoney said.
But Board Chairman Lee Eddy wants to look at making the six-cat limit applicable only in residential zones, exempting agricultural areas.
Although licensing has been a main focus of the ordinance, Ken Hogan, the chief animal control officer, said running at large is the main problem. Now, if a resident calls about an irritating or destructive cat, there's nothing Hogan's department can do.
The board heard opinions from:
People who support the animal nuisance and running-at-large sections, which would give the county power to act when cats or dogs make excessive noise, "noxious odors" or relieve themselves on neighbors' lawns.
Two residents of Campbell Hills Drive complained about a neighbor who, they claim, has more than 25 cats that run loose. Without an animal nuisance law on the books, the neighbors' only recourse is to take the cat owner to court as a private nuisance.
"It's not easy to do that when you're living with a neighbor on a daily basis," said Millie Butler. "These are not stray animals; they just stray onto my property, and I have no recourse."
People who wanted a more comprehensive ordinance. Lela Spitz, a former Humane Society president and animal-rights advocate, said the county's 20-year-old dog ordinance is "woefully inadequate." Rather than just amending it to include cats, she suggested adding standards of humane care, inspection of breeders' facilities and a definition of cruelty to animals. Eddy said he liked that idea.
"Do we have the responsibility to see that these animals are treated humanely?" he asked.
People who believe licensing is not going to help. Judy Pyska, president of the Roanoke Valley Animal Foundation, said mandatory, low-cost spaying and neutering are needed.
"The licensing of cats does not prevent pregnancy, and we have to deal with that," she said.
Supervisor Harry Nickens said that instead of an ordinance he believes is unenforceable, he'd rather fund a neutering program in the county.
People who object to the cost and see it as ineffective. "You can't regulate cats, and I'm sort of tired of being regulated anyway - my smoking, my guns," resident Neal Angle said. "If you pass this, you're going to make me a criminal."
Referring to the costs of adding animal-control officers and equipment to enforce the ordinance, Supervisor Fuzzy Minnix said, "I'm a little shaky spending half a million dollars to do something that we may not be able to [enforce]."
Supervisor Bob Johnson, who supports an ordinance, said instead of increased funding, he'd like to see animal-control officers stop responding to wild-animal calls - unless they're emergencies - and spend that time on cat complaints.
"Quiet enjoyment of your property should be sacrosanct," he said.
Hogan guessed that maybe 10 percent to 15 percent of his department's time is spent each year on nondomesticated-animal control: deer, bears, snakes, etc. But there is only one game warden for the entire Roanoke Valley.
People who want cats to have to wear license tags. But Eddy said counties cannot require that, which makes license enforcement difficult if cats don't have to wear proof.
Also Tuesday, in Blacksburg, the town attorney advised Town Council members of their legal options if they decide to draw up a cat-control ordinance. Like Roanoke County, the town has no laws that apply specifically to cats and their owners. The town relies on Montgomery County animal-control efforts.
Some council members said residents have complained about cats running loose. No action was taken during the work session, although the council generally agreed that the problem needs to be studied, as do the results of other localities' cat-control ordinances.
"Proliferation of the population seems to be a major source of the trouble," said Mayor Roger Hedgepeth.
Staff writer Stephen Foster contributed information to this story.
by CNB