Council still working on anti-chaining ordinance

BY DENICE THIBODEAU

(434) 791-7985

Danville City Council held a second public hearing during its regular meeting Tuesday on a proposed ordinance that will sharply curtail the time animals can be chained in yards.

Several rows in City Council chambers were filled with supporters of the proposal, which will make it a Class 4 misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $250 if pets are left chained for more than three hours in any 24-hour period.

Four people spoke out in favor of the ordinance, including Danville Area Humane Society’s attorney, a local veterinarian, a Pittsylvania County resident who wanted to show support and a 17-year-old student who said she wanted to show that young people who respect laws also support the chain restrictions.

Councilman Dr. Gary Miller asked what difference it would make to animals to be kept in a small, 8-foot by 10-foot dog lot as opposed to being chained.

Dr. Laura Sobacki, of Animal Medical Center, told him food and water can be better secured in a pen, making it more difficult for animals to knock them over, and that the pens eliminate the threat of strangling or choking on a chain. She admitted that animals that are penned or chained tend to be much less socialized than pets that live with their human families, but said that overall pens are better for animals than chains.

Councilman Buddy Rawley said he is “all for” the ordinance, but he has heard from people concerned about not being able to erect fences in the Historic District. Rawley suggested tabling the issue until another work session could be held to answer that and some other questions he has received from residents.

Rawley said he realizes there is time before the ordinance would go into effect on July 1 to make amendments, but said he would prefer to have the ordinance worded correctly from the beginning.

Councilman Fred Shanks seconded the idea of tabling the issue, noting that he had also had some calls from people concerned about the kinds of fences allowed in the Historic District.

Shanks said the ordinance as written could create a hardship “I think we can fix” in that district, and would like to resolve that problem before voting on the ordinance.

Councilman Adam Tomer said he disagreed, stating that there had been two public hearings on the issue without anyone appearing to speak against the ordinance. Tomer agreed that he would prefer not to have to amend the ordinance, “but if something comes up, we have time to fix it. I hate to table it after two public hearings.”

Tomer and Councilman David Luther were the only members who voted to move forward on the ordinance, and members will discuss the remaining issues during a work session.

Thibodeau is a staff writer for the Danville Register & Bee.