[ad_1]
The city council does not need to change its animal ordinance to deal with recent problems caused by roosters, chickens and rabbits, as the nuisance component of the current ordinance, coupled with the state’s humanitarian laws , is sufficient to deal with these problems, the members decided on Monday. .
A potential new ordinance would have specified the types of animals causing the problems, while adding specific corrective regulations, but it would have been unnecessarily restrictive, according to councilors Dave Butterbaugh and Joe Carper.
Moreover, it would not have corrected the main cause of animal law enforcement difficulties anyway – the frequent reluctance of complainants to let their names be used and to testify in court, in order to avoid upsetting. neighbors, officials said.
In about 90 percent of cases, pet owners with complaints follow his suggestions for resolving issues, said animal control officer Mike Daversa.
The idea at the outset is always to achieve compliance, said Police Chief Joe Merrill.
A rooster owner got rid of the roosters, Daversa said.
Conversely, the owner of chickens who regularly roam the neighboring property in Juniata did not keep these chickens on his own property, he said.
Likewise, the owner of indoor rabbits kept outside near the street in the heat transgressed after an intervention, he said.
The proposed ordinance included specific requirements for the square footage of co-ops and the yards in which they are located, varying depending on the number of birds, as well as specific requirements for the distance between co-ops and lot lines.
It’s way too complicated, Butterbaugh said.
It’s also unnecessary, as the existing nuisance provision would apply well to chickens roaming neighboring properties and roosters annoying neighbors, according to council members.
For poorly cared for animals, like rabbits, police from the Central Pennsylvania Humane Society may be called in, Merrill said.
Some were concerned that the current order would not provide enough enforcement leverage, but lawyer Tom Finn put that aside by explaining that it provided for a fine of $ 100 for the first offense and $ 500 for the offenses. subsequent.
The animal ordinance problem surfaced last year, and at the time, due to staff turnover, no one could find a copy of the existing ordinance.
Now that that has been found, it appears to be adequate, Butterbaugh said.
A board member asked Daversa if he was okay with the status quo.
“I’m cool with this,” he said.
Mirror staff writer William Kibler is at 814-949-7038.
[ad_2]
Source link