The City of Borger, Texas, population under 20,000, is proposing drastic changes to its existing animal ordinance. The current ordinance consists of only 5 Articles, while the new proposed ordinance consists of 11 Articles.

City Manager Eddie Edwards told Pro7 News "One of the big things in our current ordinance is multiple pets. The new ordinance is actually a little less restrictive. It also, like I say, it addresses animal cruelty issues. This ordinance would allow us to take some action on the animal's behalf."

While Mr. Edwards may feel the new proposed ordinance is "less restrictive", many disagree with him. Some of the problems foreseen with the proposed ordinance are unclear and confusing definitions, the use of "other duly designated personnel" in the authority and enforcement of the ordinance, and limit laws that are suppressive to small business.

To read the full text of the proposed Ordinance, click here: Proposed Animal Control Ordinance.pdf

Let's look at some of the issues with the proposed ordinance:

• Definition of animal-Exclude hominids (ape family), so what is the council trying to say here?

• Definition of commercial purpose-This should include "adoption fees or spay/neuter fees" from shelters, rescues and local humane societies, as this would constitute an "other transfer of possession or ownership." They should be included in all animal regulation if it truly about the care of the animals.

• Definition of currently vaccinated- Why would this not include the triennial vaccine, as accepted by Texas state statute? Same question for vaccinated.

• Definition of dangerous animal-the wording "not listed but hereafter determined" leaves too much variable and wide open interpretation. This will lead to breed specific legislation.

• Definition of domestic animal- Object to "but is not limited to-must be precisely defined in the Ordinance. Conflicts with the disallowance of livestock in city limits.

• Definition of Harbor-would the citizens of Borger be considered to be harboring if a stray hangs around their property-or assists a neighbor by caring for their animal, which may put them over the proposed allowed limit temporarily, in the event the neighbor is called away on a family emergency?

• Definition of Kennel or Cattery- Use of and/or is confusing-needs to be one or the other. Do you have to own 6 animals and be in the business of breeding or boarding? Need to define "engage in the business of". Would one litter per year be "engaging in the business of?" Does this one litter per year constitute the necessity to be licensed as a kennel and would the sale of the litter make them a pet shop? Does this apply to owners of six (6) or more animals with multiple pet permits?

• Us of "other duly designated personnel throughout the proposed ordinance- This is an invitation to AR people to enforce animal laws. What would the qualifications of "other personnel" be? This needs to be clearly defined from the onset by the City Council.

• Definition of neglect- If you are not the owner, does this mean the city wants you to feed and/or water a stray animal that is hanging around/on your property? If you do not, will you be charged with neglect? If you do, will you be charged with harboring that animal should it put you over the proposed allowed maximum?

• Definition of provocation- Should this not allow the animal to protect not only its offspring, but other animals of the same household? This is a natural instinct for the animals.

• Definition of Unprovoked Provocation- Should not be limited to nursing offspring. Should allow for other animals of the same household.

• Sec. 2.02.001 Authority (d)- "any such other persons as may be duly designated"-No; what are the qualifications of this "other persons?" This allows the possibility of animal rights groups to be in authority of enforcement.

• Part (e) "hereby authorized to issue citations for violations of this ordinance"- Must be official law enforcement personnel only that are allowed to issue a citation that can be prosecuted and defended in a court of law.

• Part (f) "other personnel duly designated by the Chief of Police shall have the authority to impound animals as provided in this ordinance. (No-what recourse would the owner have if it is not an official law enforcement officer? How does this conflict with state statute on animals as personal property? This is conflict with the state statute on seizure procedures.

• Part (j) "the Chief of Police for the City of Borger shall be authorized to adopt administrative policies..."- This should be done by the City Council by a vote in open meeting, not by one individual.

• Sec. 2.02.002 General offenses; strict liability; presumption of ownership-If they do not come with a warrant, you have the right to protect your personal property. Where is the requirement for the "officer" to obtain a warrant and show proper credentials? This is too wide open for animal rights groups to simply say they have the authority without having obtained the required paperwork.

• Sec. 2.02.003 Fees- If the City Council is changing the ordinance now, why are they not proposing the stated fees now? This is too wide open to unreasonable fees and excessive changes in fee schedules.

• Sec. 2.02.005 Permits- City must state what the reasons are and not state "but not limited to". This is an open ended interpretation invitation.

• Sec. 2.02.006 Registration- Unannounced inspections-No, no, no-what happened to the citizen's right to privacy? Burdensome for the owner/breeder to be expected to pay for unnecessary and unannounced inspections. This is overbearing legislation.

• Section 2.03.001 Running at Large-Are electronic or invisible fences not to be considered as viable means of confinement? If the dog is on the owner's property, why would it be considered to be a threat? What about larger lots or parcels of land that may not be fenced?

• Section 2.03.003 – Maximum number of pets; multiple pet permits-Discourages small business enterprise-hobby/show breeders; the troublesome regulation of allowing interviews of occupants of adjacent properties is an invasion of privacy and can be considered here say (what if the neighbor is a person who does not like pets of any kind?); Limit laws do nothing to address irresponsible pet ownership and are difficult to enforce. Could potentially reduce licensing due to costs foreseen by irresponsible owners. Owners may try to hide the number of pets, causing fewer visits to the veterinarian and vaccinations. Forcing owners to give up excess number of pets will cause a rise in the numbers at the shelters, creating additional financial costs to the city. Limit laws target all pet owners, and this would include responsible pet owners who use discretion in choosing the number of pets they feel they can responsibly care for; The City is punishing before any crime is committed.

• Section 2.06.008 Noise Violations- Too vague-must set an objective standard, such as 15 consecutive minutes in an hour. Need to make it a clear measurement of time to all parties involved. Does the city expect the owner of the animal to leave a small child in the bath alone to stop a dog from barking for 3-5 minutes? Persons who do not like dogs will complain if a dog barks just one time or for less than a minute. This clearly written section of the ordinance could potentially eliminate the need for limited number of pets or the need for a multiple pet permit.

• Section 2.06.010 Animal Nuisances-Is the dog not allowed to protect its offspring or other animal on the owner's property? Does the city not allow for the owner to clean up after their pet? Is this really a reason to consider a dog a nuisance animal? Some people, who do not like animals or more specifically dogs, will complain about one pile of feces. This does not constitute a nuisance animal?

• Sec. 2.06.011 Animals held pending complaint- If the accused is cleared of charges, they should not be responsible to pay the impoundment fee. The proposed Ordinance does allow for this.

• 2.08.006 Requirements for restraint of dangerous animal-needs a more clear definition. Is the owner required to restrain on a leash while inside of the home or in a locked kennel crate?

• 2.08.007 Requirements for notification by owner of dangerous animal-Part B-if the animal has been sold or given away, how can the city expect to enforce this portion as it is no longer in their jurisdiction?

• 2.09.003 Impoundment periods- not clearly defined as to whether these five (5) full days' are business days or is it to include weekend days and holidays.

• 2.09.005 Redemption of impounded animal-Mandatory spay/neuter is troubling. What are the circumstances of the animal being impounded or declared a dangerous animal?

• 2.10.008 Disposition of estray- Define "disposition" and is this to include euthanization? What are the criteria used to determine the disposition? Will all strays be euthanized or will they be re-homed?

• 2.10.016 Enforcement-No-this allows any animal control officer or police officer to enter into a private residence without any probable cause to verify whether or not rabies vaccination has been obtained. Were there previous incidents with animal control? Licensing should have this record annually, alleviating the need for this troublesome invasion of privacy.

• 2.11.001 Definition- This is saying that any kennel [with 6 or more animals as defined earlier] is a "Commercial Animal Enterprise." This will limit the ability of hobby breeders to responsibly breed their animals and make it impossible for owners of even one animal to breed in a private home. What are the effects on foster homes-are they to be allowed in a residential area? Why are governmental shelters not subject to this standard? This should apply to them as well if this is really about the care of the animal.

• Sec. 2.11.006 Inspections- Define "reasonable times". This is a violation of privacy. Given the definition of "animal control authority", this would allow animal rights people to "enter and inspect at all reasonable times."

I am sure there are some I may have missed that you will pick up on going through the proposed Ordinance. My appreciation to Sarah of the American Kennel Club (AKC) for her assistance and comments. I hope that this is of assistance to the people of Borger in your "discussions" with the Borger City Council.

Researched and Written by Debi R***