Showing posts with label Local ordinance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Local ordinance. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Gloucester, VA Animal Control Breaking and Entering? What About "YOUR" Rights? (Part 2)


On Sunday, August 24th, 2014 we did a story about how Animal Control Deputy Laura Dickie was about ready to break a window on a vehicle to remove an animal from a car because the animal was left in the car by itself and without air conditioning and would have been removed to an animal control truck for transportation, without air conditioning.  Well, that story by itself is horrific, however, can anyone actually blame the Animal Control officer for doing a job she has been told she must do?  Who is actually to blame?  What if she had actually broken in the window and was seriously hurt by doing so or maimed by the dog in the vehicle?  Who would have been at fault?

  Again, in our view, the local ordinance, 3-18 is itself highly illegal.  The above poster highly misleading and posted in the following locations, Wal Mart front doors, Tractor Supply, and Dollar Tree.  Who approved these posters?  Ted Wilmot is the county attorney who wrote this law or at least finalized approval for the Board of Supervisors to vote on and approve.  That was done in February, 2013.  4 present Board members approved that and now we have 3 new board members who had nothing to do with this.

  So that would mean the Ted Wilmot and 4 present Board of Supervisors would then be responsible for any harm that comes to any Animal Control deputy who follows this insane ordinance and gets hurt or even killed in the process?  There is also a great deal of responsibility by the County Administrator and Assistant Administrator for allowing this crazy ordinance to be on the books.

  Again, here is a recap of that ordinance;

 Sec. 3-18. Animals in enclosed vehicles

(a) It shall be unlawful to leave any animal in a vehicle without the benefit of air conditioning when the outside temperature reaches eighty (80) degrees fahrenheit or greater.

(b) Any person who confines an animal in an unattended vehicle so as to cause the animal to suffer from heat stress, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The animal control officer or other officer shall have the authority to remove any animal found in an enclosed vehicle that appears to be suffering from heat stress. The animal shall be provided immediate veterinary care. The animal owner or custodian shall be responsible for all expenses incurred during the removal of the animal or its subsequent treatment and impoundment.

(c) In the event that the person responsible for the violation cannot be ascertained, the registered owner of the vehicle, as required by Chapter 6 of Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia, shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that such registered owner was the person who committed the violation.

(Ord. of 7-1-2008(1), § (2); Ord. of 2-5-2013(1))

There is also a certain degree of fault by each animal control officer as each one is required to know state code and they should also know that if a local ordinance is out of compliance with state code, then the local ordinance is not legal according to the Dillon Rule.  Virginia is considered a Dillon Rule state.  It seems rather clear that the county has no issues with maintaining this ordinance and will continue to prosecute anyone and everyone they can with such until someone gets seriously hurt, sued, or even worse, killed.  Why?  Because the county thinks they can milk this for some serious money in our view.  The safety of employees?  Well, they can be replaced.  


By:  This Ad Not Yet Paid For

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Virginia's Dirty Secret That Allows Localities To Create Corrupt Ordinances

English: Attorney General of Virginia Ken Cucc...
English: Attorney General of Virginia Ken Cuccinelli (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
§ 2.2-505. Official opinions of Attorney General.

A. The Attorney General shall give his advice and render official advisory opinions in writing only when requested in writing so to do by one of the following: the Governor; a member of the General Assembly; a judge of a court of record or a judge of a court not of record; the State Corporation Commission; an attorney for the Commonwealth; a county, city or town attorney in those localities in which such office has been created; a clerk of a court of record; a city or county sheriff; a city or county treasurer or similar officer; a commissioner of the revenue or similar officer; a chairman or secretary of an electoral board; or the head of a state department, division, bureau, institution or board.

B. Except in cases where an opinion is requested by the Governor or a member of the General Assembly, the Attorney General shall have no authority to render an official opinion unless the question dealt with is directly related to the discharge of the duties of the official requesting the opinion. Any opinion request to the Attorney General by an attorney for the Commonwealth or county, city or town attorney shall itself be in the form of an opinion embodying a precise statement of all facts together with such attorney's legal conclusions.

If you ever question the legality of local ordinances in the State of Virginia, and you can not find a proper corresponding state code that would seem to go along with the ordinance in your locality, what do you do?  You start asking a lot of questions and perform a good deal of research.  Virginia is a Dillon Rule state.  What that means is that localities can not create their own laws that are not in accordance with state law.  So what happens when you have a locality that has a great deal of ordinances on it's books that are not in accordance with state law?

  Well you follow the chain of command to see about getting them fixed.  What happens when that chain of command does not work?  Well you would think you would go straight to the top.  Report your findings to the state attorney general.  Right?  Wrong.  What you get kicked back at you is the above legal jargon.  The attorney general does not get involved in local matters and even though you may be requesting an investigation you are told that you are seeking an opinion from the attorney general who can not, by state law, get involved.

  Is anyone's BS meter running high?  Ours has been as we have several emails from the state attorney's office showing us the above code and telling us we were seeking an opinion.  No, we were seeking an investigation.  Guess Cuccinelli was to busy running his failed campaign to bother to know this.  The chain of command throughout the state is broken and it needs to be fixed.  Very soon we are going to be calling for new state laws seeking audits of localities for compliance of their ordinances meeting the Dillon Rule, hence, being in compliance with the state as they are required to.  Any locality that fails an audit can have a number of issues occur.  The loss of state funding is one option, criminal charges against the attorney of the locality and board of supervisors is another possibility based on who and how the illegal ordinance(s) may have been voted on and passed.  Audits of the court system and the judges who may uphold the illegal ordinances along with potential criminal charges against any judge who goes along with said illegal ordinances.

  Further audits that require the investigation into anyone who may have been charged under the illegal ordinances and restitution made to anyone found harmed by the illegal ordinances and paid for by those responsible for the creation of the illegal ordinances.  This must be put into place at the state level and very strictly adhered to in order to protect the people of the state.  Otherwise, localities can run all over their local populations or certain sections of it with impunity.  We all know that there is no such thing as equal access to the legal system anymore, even though that is what our founding fathers built with the Federal and State Constitutions.


  We have created a petition on Change.org calling for our new governor to seriously look at this and see what it will take to enact such laws and get the office started.  Please sign the petition so that we can get this moving forward.  If localities are required to go through financial audits on a regular ongoing basis to ensure the people are not being robbed, why should audits of our laws be any different?  It still has the very real potential to rob us all.  This is how we insure our future against any potential unjust local government.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Gloucester, VA Officials Violate Anti Trust Laws In Illegal Gun Fraud Scam?

Since when has it become legal to backdate laws?  What state code gives any locality in the state of Virginia the ability to backdate when a new ordinance update takes effect?  What state law exists in Virginia that allows any locality the ability to violate the Dillon Rule when Virginia is clearly a Dillon Rule state?

  Since when has it become law for county officials who are not law enforcement officers to sell guns without a license to do so in violation of state laws and antitrust laws?   These are some very tough questions we want to see answered.  Why?  Because it seems that our county Board of Supervisors, county attorney and county administrator have just broken a nice large list of laws that would all seem to qualify as felony charges against each one of them.

  Let's take a look at this mess.  Tuesday night, December 3rd, 2013 the Board of Supervisors voted to pass option 3 of county ordinance 22-20, Purchase of Handguns By Retired Officers.  The main objective?  To sell an already retired animal control officer a handgun for a buck.  Let's look at the entire list of options as it came off of the Gloucester County Virginia Government website.



Gloucester, VA Code 22-20 Purchase of Handguns from Chuck Thompson

Look at the very bottom of page 12.  It is retroactive as of July, 2013.  Wait, they just passed this vote Tuesday night, December 3rd, 2013.  How can they backdate this?  There was no public hearing prior to that date to argue either for or against the ordinance.  In fact, it did not even become an issue until September, 2013.  How can they backdate the new updated ordinance to July, 2013?  Isn't that fraud?  It was done to allow Carl Shipley, retired animal control officer, the ability to buy his handgun that he carried for years, for one dollar.

  But wait, we already argued that he is not eligible to buy his handgun as we are not able to see any state law that allows anyone in animal control to qualify under the state law as it presently exists.  County officials have not been able to show evidence of this either.

  Hold on now, it gets worse.  Let's look at the sale of firearms in the state of Virginia.

Chapter 11.1 - Firearms

§ 59.1-148.4. Sale of firearms by law-enforcement agencies prohibited; exception.
A law-enforcement agency of this Commonwealth shall not sell or trade any firearm owned and used or otherwise lawfully in its possession except (i) to another law-enforcement agency of the Commonwealth, (ii) to a licensed firearms dealer, (iii) to the persons as provided in § 59.1-148.3 or (iv) as authorized by a court in accordance with § 19.2-386.29.

Brenda Garton is the county administrator, not law enforcement, so exactly how is it that she can be authorized to sell handguns to retired animal control?

§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.

A. No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by §15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authorization.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting workplace rules relating to terms and conditions of employment of the workforce. However, no locality shall adopt any workplace rule, other than for the purposes of a community services board or behavioral health authority as defined in § 37.2-100, that prevents an employee of that locality from storing at that locality's workplace a lawfully possessed firearm and ammunition in a locked private motor vehicle. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, from acting within the scope of his duties.
The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority or to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail, juvenile detention facility, or state-governed entity, department, or agency.
B. Any local ordinance, resolution or motion adopted prior to the effective date of this act governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, other than those expressly authorized by statute, is invalid.
C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs to any person, group, or entity that prevails in an action challenging (i) an ordinance, resolution, or motion as being in conflict with this section or (ii) an administrative action taken in bad faith as being in conflict with this section.
D. For purposes of this section, "workplace" means "workplace of the locality."

From what we are reading above, county officials can not create the ordinance 22-20, option 3 as listed above in the container.

§ 15.2-1426. Form of ordinances.

The object of every ordinance, except an ordinance approving a budget, an annual appropriation ordinance or an ordinance which codifies ordinances, shall be clearly expressed in its title. All ordinances which repeal or amend existing ordinances shall identify by title the section to be repealed or amended.

Where is backdating added into the above?

§ 15.2-1427. Adoption of ordinances and resolutions generally; amending or repealing ordinances.

A. Unless otherwise specifically provided for by the Constitution or by other general or special law, an ordinance may be adopted by majority vote of those present and voting at any lawful meeting.

B. On final vote on any ordinance or resolution, the name of each member of the governing body voting and how he voted shall be recorded; however, votes on all ordinances and resolutions adopted prior to February 27, 1998, in which an unanimous vote of the governing body was recorded, shall be deemed to have been validly recorded. The governing body may adopt an ordinance or resolution by a recorded voice vote unless otherwise provided by law, or any member calls for a roll call vote. An ordinance shall become effective upon adoption or upon a date fixed by the governing body.

C. All ordinances or resolutions heretofore adopted by a governing body shall be deemed to have been validly adopted, unless some provision of the Constitution of Virginia or the Constitution of the United States has been violated in such adoption.

D. An ordinance may be amended or repealed in the same manner, or by the same procedure, in which, or by which, ordinances are adopted.

E. An amendment or repeal of an ordinance shall be in the form of an ordinance which shall become effective upon adoption or upon a date fixed by the governing body, but, if no effective date is specified, then such ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.

F. In counties, except as otherwise authorized by law, no ordinance shall be passed until after descriptive notice of an intention to propose the ordinance for passage has been published once a week for two successive weeks prior to its passage in a newspaper having a general circulation in the county. The second publication shall not be sooner than one calendar week after the first publication. The publication shall include a statement either that the publication contains the full text of the ordinance or that a copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the clerk's office of the circuit court of the county or in the office of the county administrator; or in the case of any county organized under the form of government set out in Chapter 5, 7 or 8 of this title, a statement that a copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the clerk of the county board. Even if the publication contains the full text of the ordinance, a complete copy shall be available for public inspection in the offices named herein.
In counties, emergency ordinances may be adopted without prior notice; however, no such ordinance shall be enforced for more than sixty days unless readopted in conformity with the provisions of this Code.

G. In towns, no tax shall be imposed except by a two-thirds vote of the council members.

The highlighted section above does not allow for backdating.  Just dating.  Let's continue to look at the laws.

§ 15.2-1433. Codification and recodification of ordinances.

Any locality may codify or recodify any or all of its ordinances, in permanently bound or loose-leaf form. Such ordinances may be changed, altered or amended by the governing body, and ordinances or portions thereof may be deleted and new material may be added by the governing body. Such changes, alterations, amendments or deletions and such new material shall become effective on the effective date of the codification or recodification.

Ordinances relating to zoning and the subdivision of land may be included in any codification or recodification of ordinances; however, no change, alteration, amendment, deletion or addition of a substantive nature shall be made and no new material of a substantive nature shall be added to such ordinances unless, prior to the date of adoption of such codification or recodification, notice of such proposed changes, alterations, amendments, deletions or additions shall be published as required by the Code of Virginia and public hearings held thereon as provided by the Code of Virginia for adoption and amendment of zoning and subdivision ordinances. Renumbering or rearranging of sections, articles or other divisions of any such ordinance shall not be deemed to be a change, alteration or amendment of a substantive nature.

Any such codification or recodification may be adopted by reference by a single ordinance, without further publication of such codification or recodification or any portions thereof. The ordinance adopting such codification or recodification shall comply with all laws of the Commonwealth and any provision of any city or town charter requiring posting or publication of ordinances or notice of intent to adopt ordinances. At least one copy of such codification or recodification or a complete set of printer's proofs of the text thereof shall be made available for public inspection in the office of the clerk of the governing body in which such codification or recodification is proposed to be adopted.

No ordinance levying or increasing taxes shall be enacted as new material in any such codification or recodification or amended in substance therein unless advertised in accordance with general law.

Supplements for such codifications or recodifications may be prepared from time to time at the direction of the governing body of the locality, either as units or on a replacement page basis; however, where replacement pages are prepared, a distinguishing mark or notation shall be placed on each replacement page to distinguish it from original pages and pages of other supplements. No further adoption procedure shall be required for supplements or replacement pages in which no substantive change is made in ordinances previously and validly adopted by the governing body of the locality. If changes, alterations, amendments, deletions or additions of a substantive nature are made in any such supplement, then such supplement shall be adopted by the governing body in the same manner provided by general or special law.

At least one copy of any codification or recodification adopted hereunder and at least one copy of every supplement thereto shall be kept in the office of the clerk of the governing body and shall there be available for public inspection during normal business hours.

Any codification or recodification adopted hereunder shall be admitted in evidence in all courts without further proof.

From what this state code reads, backdating is not an option.  Also, we looked at the October meeting where this was first introduced.  Effective backdating was not listed as a potential option and the public was not made aware that this change to the local ordinance would be backdated.  So again, we ask how is this legal?  See below for the full documentation.


Now in all fairness, I can argue a case for the backdating based on the way the state code reads, however, it would have to be advertised and also included in previous documents to take legal effect, which the backdating of the new ordinance in question does not have attached to it.  Therefore, I could not reasonably argue the backdating the way it has been done.  Therefore, it is viewed as fraud in our opinion.

Let's also look at the legal definition of Animal Control.

§ 3.2-6555. Position of animal control officer created.

The governing body of each county or city shall, or each town may, employ an officer to be known as the animal control officer who shall have the power to enforce this chapter, all ordinances enacted pursuant to this chapter and all laws for the protection of domestic animals. The governing body may also employ one or more deputy animal control officers to assist the animal control officer in the performance of his duties. Animal control officers and deputy animal control officers shall have knowledge of the animal control and protection laws of the Commonwealth that they are required to enforce. When in uniform or upon displaying a badge or other credentials of office, animal control officers and deputy animal control officers shall have the power to issue a summons or obtain a felony warrant as necessary, providing the execution of such warrant shall be carried out by any law-enforcement officer as defined in § 9.1-101, to any person found in the act of violating any such law or any ordinance enacted pursuant to such law of the locality where the animal control officer or deputy animal control officer is employed.

 Commercial dog breeding locations shall be subject to inspection by animal control at least twice annually and additionally upon receipt of a complaint or their own motion to ensure compliance with state animal care laws and regulations. The animal control officer and the deputy animal control officers shall be paid as the governing body of each locality shall prescribe.
Any locality where an animal control officer or deputy animal control officers have been employed may contract with one or more additional localities for enforcement of animal protection and control laws by the animal control officers or deputy animal control officers. Any such contract may provide that the locality employing the animal control officer or deputy animal control officers shall be reimbursed a portion of the salary and expenses of the animal control officer or deputy animal control officers.

Every locality employing an animal control officer shall submit to the State Veterinarian, on a form provided by him, information concerning the employment and training status of the animal control officers employed by the locality. The State Veterinarian may require that the locality notify him of any change in such information.

The above does not show Animal Control officers as qualifying under state code; § 59.1-148.3. Purchase of handguns of certain officers.  So what we have here is a county ordinance that appears to violate the Dillon rule on multiple levels, is backdated and contains the sale of guns by a person not authorized by the state to sell handguns?  All written by a county attorney and approved in a 5 to 1 to 1 vote by the Board of Supervisors?  And these people patted themselves on the back for all of this and more?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Gloucester Officials Fix Animal Control Laws After Complaints Filed

A win for the citizens of Gloucester County. 

 After numerous complaints we filed and other complaints sent to us about this mess, Gloucester County officials have put the Animal Control ordinance, 3-15 into it's proper compliance.

  We showed how Animal Control Ordinance 3-15 was out of compliance on the county's own website, with the title reading, "Failure to perform duties of ownership. penalty", but was supposed to read, Care of Companion Animals.  

Care of Companion Animals is what the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors voted on and approved back in February of this year.  3-15 was also out of compliance with state law up until that time and a favorite ordinance of Gloucester Animal Control abuses in our view.



This is what the Animal Control ordinance section of the Gloucester County website looked like up until today.  We turned that section of the site into a PDF.  At the moment that section of the site has been taken down and now if you go to view the Animal Control ordinances, you are taken to the Gloucester Municode site.  There, the animal control ordinances reflect state laws more accurately.

  
Virginia Animal Control ammendments 1 2013" target="_blank">Gloucester County Virginia Animal Control ammendments 1 2013 from Chuck Thompson


Above is what the Gloucester County Board of Supervisors had passed for the new Animal Control Ordinances back in February, 2013.  A serious blow to the folks over at Animal Control as 3-15 is the ordinance that they use the most or in our own opinion, abuse the most, because of the way the title was written.

  Failure to perform duties of ownership is an easy ordinance to abuse, but Care of companion animals is much harder to apply to animal owners.  We argued the ordinance last year as it was being highly abused by Animal Control officers then in our view and as we were able to show through numerous posts on here.

  The ordinance was out of sync with state laws and even though Twitching Ted, (I'm not an attorney) Wilmot, County Attorney, was well aware that the ordinance was out of sync, hence not valid, it did not stop him from prosecuting cases under the invalid ordinance in the local courts at the same time he was working on changing the ordinance to comply with state laws.  (And the local judges allowed him to on top of it all.)

  It's pretty amazing how the local Gloucester/Mathews Gazette Journal managed to miss all of this.  

 We received an email today informing us it has been corrected.  A win for the citizens of this county that own animals and all other animal lovers in Gloucester, Virginia.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Ware Neck resident wins case in circuit court ruling - Ted Wilmot Seeks Revenge?



1:45 p.m. EDTJune 18, 2013

GLOUCESTER — Ware Neck resident Judith Doyel won a small victory in Gloucester County Circuit Court on Tuesday when a judge granted her request to divide a single property with two homes on it over the objections of county officials.
But her victory was tempered when County Attorney Ted Wilmot said he would appeal the case to the Virginia Supreme Court, a move that will cost Doyel thousands more in legal fees and an unknown amount of time waiting out the legal process.
Doyel and her attorney, Bob Hicks, had successfully convinced visiting Judge Walter J. Ford to grant the request to divide equally 7.4 acres on Marshfield Road in Ware Neck. Doyel has been trying to sell the property with two homes on it since December 2011.

A contract on the property a year ago was nullified, however, because an appraiser couldn't find any comparable properties to arrive at a value and no mortgage companies would lend the purchaser money to finance the sale, according to court testimony.
Doyel applied to subdivide the property and filed an application with the county last year, but it was denied by Planning Director Anne Ducey-Ortiz. In court, Ducey-Ortiz testified that as much as she wants to help Doyel, she is supposed to enforce county ordinances.
In Doyel's case, those zoning ordinances in her area prohibit lots of less than five acres with homes on them and bars private roads such as Marshfield serving more than 3 lots; the road serves five.
A farmhouse and a manufactured home were on the property prior to the enactment of the county's zoning and planning ordinances in 1998.
Hicks told Ford that Doyel isn't asking to put anything new on the property. The homes have separate driveways, septic systems, wells and even addresses and keeping them has become a financial hardship for her.
In his ruling, Ford said that Doyel has been deprived of her right to sell her property and "that's a hardship."
Wilmot's move to appeal the case caught Doyel and Hicks by surprise.
"It makes no sense," Doyel said.


This is typical of Gloucester County government.  This article lacks detail in regards to the ordinance in question.  We have shown numerous times on this site that Gloucester County has little to no regard for state law when making local ordinances and have made a number of local ordinances in violation of state law. Could this be another area where the county has done just that?  

  Maybe someone should sue Ted Wilmot for the hardships he is creating here.  This is also part of the reason Louise Theberge was voted out recently.  The people of Gloucester County are tired of these kinds of cruel politics and have made it well known that we are not going to take it anymore.  It would seem to us that there is a grandfather clause in this case seeing as the homes existed on the property prior to the 1998 zoning ordinance.  Is Judith Doyel just being milked here?

This is your county tax dollars working against a citizen of Gloucester.  Send Ted Wilmot an email letting him know not to waste your tax dollars like this.  His email address is ewilmot@gloucesterva.info
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Gloucester, VA - Proposed Re Write Of County Animal Control Ordinance Section 3-15

We have been going through the new proposed ordinance codes for Animal Control of Gloucester County and we are proposing several re writes already.  Specifically to section 3-15.  Our re writes put the code into state compliance where the present writing seems to cause a technical problem that could legally through the code out in a court of law if argued correctly.

  We removed the title at the top of the code, which presently reads as follows; "Failure To Perform Duties of Ownership".  The reason we removed this section is that it potentially opens the ordinance to malicious and or abusive charges and or prosecutions.  With that potential existing, it becomes a very serious threat to the public trust and in contradiction to how the state code 3.2-6503 and or 3.2-6503.1 are meant to be used which is what Gloucester County ordinance 3-15 is supposed to be mimicking.

  We added in after each statement Virginia law definitions from 3.2-6500 so that people are easily able to understand the ordinance and are not confused by the present way that the code reads and without having to search all over the place to find the meaning.  We also changed the way 3-15 ends with "The provisions of this section shall also apply to every an owner or custodian
of any animal, fowl, or reptile, including every private owner, animal shelter or
other releasing agency, and every foster care provider, pound, dealer, pet
shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer, and boarding establishment. This section
shall not require that animals used as food for other animals be euthanized."

We changed this back to follow state law and be in full compliance with state law.  We put it as follows;

"The provisions of this section shall also apply to every pound, animal shelter, or other
releasing agency, and every foster care provider, dealer, pet shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer,
and boarding establishment. This section shall not require that animals used as food for other
animals be euthanized."

Present proposed ordinance 3-15 is written more broadly than state law 3.2-6503 which on a technical level, could just invalidate the ordinance as the terminology places agricultural animals, fowl and reptiles in the same category as domestic animals changing the meaning of the law altogether.  Hence a violation of state law and illegal causing it to be null and void in our view.

The following are our proposals for re writing the code to meet the needs of the county that would ensure and maintain the public trust.

Proposed Re Write of local ordinance 3-15
January 15th, 2013

Sec. 3-15.  Care of companion animals by owner; penalty. Based on VA Law 3.2-
6503

(a) Each owner or custodian of an animal shall provide for each of his
companion animals all the following as defined in section 3.2-6500 of

(1) Adequate feed;

Definition from VA law 3.2-6500:  “Adequate feed” means access to and the provision of food that is of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain each animal in good health; is accessible to each animal; is prepared so as to permit ease of consumption for the age, species, condition, size and type of each animal; is provided in a clean and sanitary manner; is placed so as to minimize contamination by excrement and pests; and is provided at suitable intervals for the species, age, and condition of the animal, but at least once daily, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species.

(2) Adequate water;

Definition From VA Law 3.2-6500: “Adequate water” means provision of and access to clean, fresh, potable water of a drinkable temperature that is provided in a suitable manner, in sufficient volume, and at suitable intervals appropriate for the weather and temperature, to maintain normal hydration for the age, species, condition, size and type of each animal, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species; and is provided in clean, durable receptacles that are accessible to each animal and are placed so as to minimize contamination of the water by excrement and pests or an alternative source of hydration consistent with generally accepted husbandry practices.

(3) Adequate shelter that is properly cleaned and sanitized;

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500: “Adequate shelter” means provision of and access to shelter that is suitable for the species, age, condition, size, and type of each animal; provides adequate space for each animal; is safe and protects each animal from injury, rain, sleet, snow, hail, direct sunlight, the adverse effects of heat or cold, physical suffering, and impairment of health; is properly lighted; is properly cleaned; enables each animal to be clean and dry, except when detrimental to the species; and, for dogs and cats, provides a solid surface, resting platform, pad, floor mat, or similar device that is large enough for the animal to lie on in a normal manner and can be maintained in a sanitary manner. Under this chapter, shelters whose wire, grid, or slat floors: (i) permit the animals’ feet to pass through the openings; (ii) sag under the animals’ weight; or (iii) otherwise do not protect the animals’ feet or toes from injury are not adequate shelter.

“Properly cleaned” means that carcasses, debris, food waste, and excrement are removed from the primary
enclosure with sufficient frequency to minimize the animals’ contact with the above-mentioned contaminants;
the primary enclosure is sanitized with sufficient frequency to minimize odors and the hazards of disease; and
the primary enclosure is cleaned so as to prevent the animals confined therein from being directly or indirectly
sprayed with the stream of water, or directly or indirectly exposed to hazardous chemicals or disinfectants,“Sanitize” means to make physically clean and to remove and destroy, to a practical minimum, agents injurious to health.

“Enclosure” means a structure used to house or restrict animals from running at large.

(4) Adequate space in the primary enclosure for the particular type of animal depending upon its age, size, species, and weight;

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500: “Adequate space” means sufficient space to allow each animal to: (i) easily stand, sit, lie, turn about, and make all other normal body movements in a comfortable, normal position for the animal; and (ii) interact safely with other animals in the enclosure. When an animal is tethered, 

“adequate space” means a tether that permits the above actions and is appropriate to the age and size of the animal; is attached to the animal by a properly applied collar, halter, or harness configured so as to protect the animal from injury and prevent the animal or tether from becoming entangled with other objects or animals, or from extending over an object or edge that could result in the strangulation or injury of the animal; and is at least three times the length of the animal, as measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail, except when the animal is being walked on a leash or is attached by a tether to a lead line. When freedom of movement would endanger the animal, temporarily and appropriately restricting movement of the animal according to professionally accepted standards for the species is considered provision of adequate space.

(5) Adequate exercise;

Definition of VA Law 3.2-6500:  “Adequate exercise” or “exercise” means the opportunity for the animal to move sufficiently to maintain normal muscle tone and mass for the age, species, size, and condition of the animal.

(6) Adequate care, treatment and transportation; 

Definition of VA Law 3.2-6500:  “Treatment” or “adequate treatment” means the responsible handling or
transportation of animals in the person’s ownership, custody or charge, appropriate for the age, species,
condition, size and type of the animal.

“Veterinary treatment” means treatment by or on the order of a duly licensed veterinarian.

(7) Veterinary care when needed for disease control or to
prevent suffering or disease transmission.

Definition of VA Law 3.2-6500:  “Adequate care” or “care” means the responsible practice of good animal
husbandry, handling, production, management, confinement, feeding, watering, protection, shelter,
transportation, treatment, and, when necessary, euthanasia, appropriate for the age, species, condition, size and type of the animal and the provision of veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering or impairment of health.

“Emergency veterinary treatment” means veterinary treatment to stabilize a life-threatening condition, alleviate
suffering, prevent further disease transmission, or prevent further disease progression.

“Euthanasia” means the humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death or by a method that involves anesthesia, produced by an agent that causes painless loss of consciousness, and death during such loss of consciousness. The provisions of this section shall also apply to every pound, animal shelter, or other releasing agency, and every foster care provider, dealer, pet shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer, and boarding establishment. This section shall not require that animals used as food for other animals be euthanized.

(c) Violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor. A second or
subsequent violation of section 3-15 (a)(1), (2), (3) or (7) is a class 2
misdemeanor; and a second or subsequent violation of section 3-15
(a)(4), (5) or (6) is a class 3 misdemeanor.

Transparency in government statement:  How Animal Control Officers seek to use this law to ensure
local compliance.  (Open so that Gloucester County Animal Control can make it's statement in this
section).

Now for Section 3-15.1 this is our proposed re write of that ordinance code;

Sec. 3-15.1. Care of agricultural animals; penalty. Based on VA Law 3.2-6503.1

(a)  Each owner or custodian shall provide for each of his
agricultural animals:

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500: “Agricultural animals” means all livestock and poultry.

(1) Feed to prevent malnourishment;

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500: “Adequate feed” means access to and the provision of food that is of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain each animal in good health; is accessible to each animal; is prepared so as to permit ease of consumption for the age, species, condition, size and type of each animal; is provided in a clean and sanitary manner; is placed so as to minimize contamination by excrement and pests; and is provided at suitable intervals for the species, age, and condition of the animal, but at least once daily, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species.

(2) Water to prevent dehydration; and

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500: “Adequate water” means provision of and access to clean, fresh, potable water of a drinkable temperature that is provided in a suitable manner, in sufficient volume, and at suitable intervals appropriate for the weather and temperature, to maintain normal hydration for the age, species, condition, size and type of each animal, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species; and is provided in clean, durable receptacles that are accessible to each animal and are placed so as to minimize contamination of the water by excrement and pests or an alternative source of hydration consistent with generally accepted husbandry practices.

(3) Veterinary treatment as needed to address impairment of
health or bodily function when such impairment cannot be
otherwise addressed through animal husbandry, including
humane destruction.

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500:  “Veterinary treatment” means treatment by or on the order of a duly licensed veterinarian.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not require an owner to
provide feed or water when such is customarily withheld, restricted,
or apportioned pursuant to a farming activity or if otherwise
prescribed by a veterinarian.

(c) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that there has been
no violation of this section if an owner is unable to provide feed,
water, or veterinary treatment due to an act of God.

(d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to agricultural
animals used for bona fide medical or scientific experimentation.

(e) A violation of this section is a class 4 misdemeanor.

Transparency in government statement:  How Animal Control Officers seek to use this law to ensure
local compliance.  (Open so that Gloucester County Animal Control can make it's statement in this
section)

These are our re writings to the presently proposed ordinances and we are sending these proposals to the Board of Supervisors as well as the Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal.  We think this is a better way to present the ordinances.  We added in the transparency in government sections at the end of each ordinance so that everyone may be able to see how the county plans on using such.

St. Patricks Day Coupon Code

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.
Have a news story? Submit it above.
Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.
Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.
We cover what no one else will.
Enhanced by Zemanta