By Michael Ryan
PRATTSVILLE - It is again the season for organizing local government which seems like the right time to also ponder the possibility of promulgating new dog control regulations in Prattsville.
Town board members, at a meeting on Tuesday night, attended to all the designations and appointments needed to keep the administrative ship sailing smoothly, an annual obligation.
Town clerk Theresa Whitworth was the busiest official on the slate, being chosen to also take care of Vital Statistics and Records Management as well as providing office staff assistance.
Whitworth, too, will serve as Water District Clerk, the secretary for community cemeteries, Inventory Clerk and Fair Housing officer.
In similarly rarified air is Jim Dymond who will continue as planning board chairman, Water District superintendent and Conine Road Water Issue superintendent, having handled the responsibilities for many years.
Longtime town councilwoman Joyce Peckham returns as deputy town supervisor, filling in for town supervisor Greg Cross if and when the necessity arises.
Many familiar names were returned to their posts, a clear demonstration of satisfaction with their efforts including Donald Schoenborn (building inspector) and Deb Dymond (planning board secretary).
Bill Sutton, who recently retired as highway superintendent, will still be available as deputy superintendent, stepping in, if need be, for newly elected roads chief Dewitt Olmstead.
The deputy town clerk will again be Carole Cangelosi (who also works for the town as tax collector) and the dog control officer is Sandy Martin.
Martin is very much part of the conversation about revising the dog rules as is Whitworth, collating the language from existing papers in other towns.
There is legislation on the books here but the wording refers to the town of Stuyvesant rather than Prattsville, indicating the Columbia County municipality was used as a model in drafting the local law.
It further points out that the regulations have probably not been looked at very often, collecting considerable dust since their passage.
Nothing is definite related to enacting changes and if they do come, “this would be months away from being adopted,” Cross says, requiring much discussion by the town board and public hearings.
Meanwhile, a very preliminary, nine-page draft document has been written titled, “licensing, regulating and controlling the activities of dogs.”
In addition, it defines the “Position of Dog Control Officer,” stating, “the purpose of the law shall be to preserve public peace and good order in the Town of Prattsville and to promote the public health, safety and welfare of its people by enforcing regulations and restrictions on the activities of dogs that are consistent with the rights and privileges of dog owners and the rights and privileges of other citizens of the Town of Prattsville.
“Further it is necessary to enact a local law to address the licensing of dogs in lieu of the State of New York's mandate that dog licensing become a local government function on January 1", 2011,” the draft states.
“All dogs within the Town of Prattsville four (4) months of age or older, unless otherwise exempted, shall be licensed,” the draft states.
“Each license application shall be accompanied by proof that the dog has been vaccinated against rabies or a statement from a licensed veterinarian that such vaccination would endanger the dog's life in which case vaccination shall not be required,” the draft states.
There is a long list of prohibitions, with the draft stating, in part, that it is unlawful for any animal owner to allow that animal to:
—Become a Dangerous Dog as that term is defined in the NYS Agriculture and Markets Law $123;
—Engage in habitually loud howling, barking, crying, whining or making such noise or conduct itself in such a manner so as to unreasonably and habitually disturb the comfort or repose of any person other than the owner of such animal;
—Uproot, dig, or otherwise damage any vegetables, lawns, flowers, garden beds, or other property not belonging to the owner of such animal.
—Run at large, chase, jump upon/at or otherwise harass any person in such a manner as to reasonably cause intimidation or fear or to put such person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm or injury.
—Habitually chase, rung alongside of or bark at motor vehicles while on a public street or highway or upon public or private property other than property of the owner or harborer of said animal.
—Create a nuisance by defecating, urinating, or digging on public property or private property other than of said owner.
—Destroy, kill or damage any dog, cat, poultry, livestock or domestic pets not belonging to the owner, or wild game unless engaged in legal hunting with the owner.
Dogs used for the sport of hunting shall be allowed to run at large while engaged in the sport of hunting provided said dogs are under the control of their owner or other responsible person and further provided said dogs are on property with the knowledge and consent of the owner of said property.
—Be at large in the hamlet or at recreational areas, town park or on town sidewalks unless said dog is adequately restrained by a leash except in areas that shall be designated by the Town Board of the Town of Prattsville by resolution.
The draft document concludes, “No person shall hinder, resist or oppose the animal control officer and/or peace officer when acting pursuant to his or her special duties, police officer or dog control officer employed by or under contract to the Town or other person(s) authorized to administer or enforce the provisions of the Local Law or in the performance of the officers or other persons duties under this Local Law.
“Any person hindering, resisting or opposing the animal control officer, peace officer when acting pursuant to his or her special duties, police officer or dog control officer employed by or under contract to the Town shall be guilty of a violation of and prosecuted pursuant to Penal Law § 195.05, Obstructing governmental Administration in the second degree,” the draft document states.
A sequence of fines would be established for judged violations, the draft document states, ”not less than fifty ($50) dollars nor more than two hundred and fifty ($250) dollars, except that:
“When the person was found to have violated any part of this section within the preceding five (5) years, the fine may be not less than one hundred ($100) dollars nor more than two hundred and fifty ($250) dollars,” the draft document states.
“Where the person was found to have committed two or more such violations of any part of this section within the preceding five (5) years, the fine may be not less than one hundred and fifty ($150) dollars no more than four hundred ($400) dollars,” the draft document states.
0 comments:
Post a Comment