Searching for solutions (03/02/2009)

There are grey areas the county will have to clear up before enacting an animal welfare ordinance, but the process is moving forward.

The Jay County Commissioners spoke this morning with representatives from the Jay County Humane Society and sheriff's department on the progress toward an ordinance to attempt to curb animal abuse and neglect in the county.

The humane society first asked the commissioners for support in dealing with animal problems in November, at which time a working group consisting of members of the humane society, sheriff department and prosecutor's office was formed to talk through the logistics.

Chief deputy Rob Bicknell and humane society reps Carol Stocker and Cheryl Miller asked for commissioners' input this morning on the possibility of an ordinance.

Stocker told the commissioners she would like to have an ordinance that would set definitions to ensure animals are receiving proper shelter and nutrition as well as consequences for offenders such as fines or seizure of mistreated animals. The ordinance would cover abuse as well as for animals running loose.

"I think what they struggle with ... is a lot of people are repeat offenders and (the humane society) don't have a leg to stand on," said commissioner Faron Parr. "You can go out and have a little more authority. It helps the humane society to have a little teeth."

Stocker suggested that the ordinance could provide provisions for fines or allow the owner to surrender the animal without litigation. Since animals often are malnourished because the owner can't afford to feed it, such a system would allow owners to avoid fees, which they likely couldn't pay anyway, by giving up the animal.

Although the idea seems simple, several complications are set into the issue and each of the commissioners took a different stance to the proposal.

Commissioner Jim Zimmerman, who is involved in animal agriculture, expressed concern about the national humane society's moves against farmers, and was worried that while it may start with domestic animals the focus could turn against agriculture. President Milo Miller Jr. focused on who would shoulder the cost for veterinary bills and care of animals seized by the county.

Parr, a horse owner, was more understanding and supportive of the humane society's goal.

The biggest issue with an ordinance, said attorney Bill Hinkle, is making sure whatever the county decides to do is clearly defined so that it can be enforced.

"We have to set standards," said Hinkle, who stressed that the county would need some way to obtain a professional opinion in order for fines or seizures to hold up in the legal system. An ordinance should clearly set definitions of proper shelter and proper care, Hinkle said.

The issue now is that by the time irrefutable neglect is apparent, the animal has already suffered injury or starvation. The humane society is seeking ordinance support to nip the problem early before that extreme point is reached.

"There's not a whole lot to argue about. You've got a pretty good case with the pictures (of seriously neglected animals) alone," Parr said. "Unfortunately that's usually when you get the call. They're just days away from death before you get the call."

Once an animal is taken by the sheriff department through a county ordinance, the financial burden then shifts to the government, which is the area Miller was most concerned about.

"It's not going to be free," he said. "Who's going to bear the cost? ... Is it fair to put the burden on the taxpayers of the county for those people who don't take care of those animals?"

The discussion yielded several such questions and pointed out trouble areas in forming the ordinance, but gave the animal welfare group a direction and a destination to work toward in coming meetings.

Hinkle suggested looking for other ordinances throughout the state that could be looked at for ideas on how to handle a hometown law.

In other business this morning, the commissioners:

•Approved creation of a line item for fees from zoning appeals. Jay/Portland Building and Planning director Bill Milligan was looking for approval to charge a $200 fee on zoning appeals. A similar fee is charged for variances and special exceptions, but Milligan said the budget line item for appeals was removed years ago after no cases appeared.

The issue came up after a request to build a hog-washing station northwest of Portland was denied by Milligan. The request was appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals and denied. Therefore, the affected party will be charged a $200 fee for the appeal despite it being denied down by the board.

The board approved the charge 2-to-1, with Zimmerman voting against the motion. Miller, while not agreeing with charging $200 an appeal that was denied, voted to approve it.

•Created a line item for Milligan for miscellaneous expenses. The commissioners will allow $500 for the fund.

•Signed an emergency claim to pay $2,000 to the Museum of the Soldier, which is its yearly budgeted funding from the county.

•Asked Hinkle to dismiss charges against an offender who appealed a parking ticket due to wording in the current ordinance that states he should have first been issued a warning.

The commissioners told Hinkle to remove the unclear wording about warnings, which was included at first as an educational provision when the ordinance was first enacted, and to change wording to allow tickets to be paid within 10 days of receipt before being forwarded to the court.

Hinkle said he will make those changes and will return the amended ordinance to the commissioners.[[In-content Ad]]