Council Sends Revised Ordinance Back to Committee
WINNSBORO – When a proposed revision to the Fairfield County Animal Ordinance was included in the agenda packet for second reading at the Sept. 23 council meeting, the American Kennel Club (AKC) learned about it and stirred the pot by releasing a statement opposing the ordinance.
“A second and enacting vote is likely to be held Monday, September 23, 2024, on a proposed Fairfield County ordinance that seeks to establish problematic requirements and numerous new fees for dog and cat owners, exhibitors, breeders, and sportsmen,” the statement read.
“What you can do: Concerned dog owners are urged to immediately contact county council members to express concerns and ask them to “vote NO on proposed animal ordinance 838.” Please scroll down for contact information.”
[The second vote is not the enacting vote for county council. The third vote is the enacting vote.]
The AKC spokesperson went on to list the ‘troubling’ issues, the first one being that, ‘Owners of “show” and “hunting” dogs would be required to register their dogs with the county, paying a $50 fee per dog, per year and be subject to additional requirements.
But that statement was not actually in the revision the Public Service and Development committee sent to the county attorney for review.
Those who worked on the final version of the amendment that was submitted to the attorney say their proposal contained the following language: “an annual registration fee of $50 would be charged per kennel” [which could include a large number of dogs] or per owner [who might have multiple dogs.] – but not “per dog, per year.”
In an interview with The Voice, Hoof and Paw president Kathy Faulk suggested the registration fee should be a lifetime fee not an annual fee.
The conundrum began when Fairfield County Council voted 7-0 on Sept. 9 to pass first reading of a long-awaited amendment to the county’s animal ordinance, The vote was by title only …meaning that council leadership did not provide the public or council members with a copy of the ordinance to read prior to the vote – a stipulation of council’s bylaws. After the county attorney’s final polish of the submitted revision, it was not released to the public, council, or the committee until the week prior to the Sept. 23 meeting.
At that point, some noticed that some of the revisions on the county’s website for second reading on Sept. 23, did not match the document that had been sent to the county attorney for review.
When he learned about the revisions on the website last week, the chair of the committee, Councilman Dan Ruff, decided to recommend at the Sept. 23 meeting that the amendment be sent back to committee for additional revisions. But before that could happen, The American Kennel Club learned about the ordinance that had been posted and issued a statement on Facebook’s Winnsboro SC’s Discussion Group and other sites urging Fairfield citizens to rise up against the amended ordinance.
A large group of citizens came to the council meeting Monday night armed with concerns that ranged from Christopher Chavez’s accusation that the county was “using the animal ordinance to get money from the people,” to Bob Harkins’ and other speakers’ claim that it is just a small fraction of animal owners who have no respect for animal welfare,” and that the majority of pet owners should not be punished for the transgressions of a few.
“You can’t give us police protection, but you want money for such Mickey Mouse things as animal control stuff,” Chavez stated during public comment.
“They have caused this controversy,” Harkins said, referring to problematic pet owners.
Dana Hoffman, who owns Gypsy Wind Farm with her husband, said they depend on two or three large-breed dogs to guard their animal herds from coyotes. She had two concerns – the spay/neuter requirement for outdoor animals and the requirement to obtain a kennel license for anyone who has more than five dogs.
“We have been advised not to spay/neuter our dogs until they are two years old,” she said. “And we may eventually need more than five dogs to protect our herd. That puts us in the gray area.”
But a close reading of the ordinance states that “Any person living within a closely populated area in the unincorporated area of the county shall not own or harbor or have the care or the custody of more than five dogs that are over the age of one year.”
Gypsy Wind Farm is located in a rural area and, according to the amendment, would be exempt from the five-dog rule as well as the requirement to obtain a kennel license.
Dr. Roger Gaddy, who owns and competes Boykin Spaniels in field trials, said he, too, disagrees with limiting dog ownership to five dogs.
“The yearly kennel cost of $150 is way out of line,” Gaddy said, “and your $50 fee [per dog, per year] is ridiculous.”
Gaddy, like other speakers, called on the county to enforce the animal control laws it now has on the books before it enacts additional laws.
Professional pet sitter Laura Thomas said the ordinance should specifically place the burden on those who are the problem.
“Pit Bull breeders, irresponsible back yard breeders, owners of nuisance animals and dogs running at large should be the target of this ordinance,” Thomas said. “Enacting a spay/neuter ordinance for mixed breeds and pit bulls that are not recognized by the American Kennel Club (AKC) is the solution.”
However, Councilman Tim Roseborough said during the meeting that he opposes the arbitrary spaying/neutering of roaming dogs when picked up by animal control.
He said the owners sometimes just say they no long want their animals if the county has spayed/neutered them.
“They’ll say, ‘Just keep it.’” He said that contributes to the overcrowding of the shelter.
“There are a lot of good things in this ordinance,” said Fairfield resident Donita Harris, “but there are a lot of things in it that aren’t so great.” Without giving specific examples, Harris said there are unconstitutional issues with the ordinance and possible legal ramifications.
Councilman Dan Ruff, chair of the Public Services and Development Committee that oversaw the revision of the animal ordinance, pointed out that some of the controversial elements that ended up in the amendment were not in the final document the committee submitted to the county attorney for review.
“We [the committee] met and discussed a lot of things over several meetings and had input from the animal shelter employees and volunteers and others [knowledgeable in animal care],” Ruff said. “But some of the things we submitted got misinterpreted and put in this ordinance.”
As an example, he said, “The $50 registration fee per dog, per day …we didn’t put that in the ordinance we submitted. And there were other things that I think were either misunderstood or misinterpreted or something,” Ruff said.
“The point of registration,” Faulk told The Voice, “is to have accountability so the county can get animals home safely and quickly when they are picked up. The shelter is full of Pit Bulls, but we’ve seen a growing influx of hounds and beagles that visitors to the shelter don’t necessarily see because it’s usually easier to get them out and back home.
“We are seeing more hunting dogs at the shelter,” she said, “and when hunting season is over, some of them are abandoned by their owners.”
Council voted unanimously to send the amendment back to council for necessary revisions.
“We want to get it right,” Ruff said, and thanked those who expressed their concerns to council.
