Laserfiche WebLink
<br />South Bend Animal Care and Control Special Committee <br />Regular Meeting <br /> <br />Thursday,May 30,2013 <br />5:30 p.m. <br />Presiding: ValerieSchey, Chairperson <br />Members present: Valerie Schey, Becky Kaiser,KellyPickell, Pam Comer, Dr. Mariah Covey, Linda <br />Candler, and Aaron Blight <br /> <br />Others present: Anne Reel, Ann-Carol Nash, John Voorde, Linda Zach, Kelly Adelsperger, William Sykes, <br />Patricia Trinka and Tony Trinka <br />Summary: <br />This was the second meeting of the SBAC3 committee. The mission of this committee is to conduct a <br />thorough review of Chapter 5 of South Bends Municipal Code. In doing so, the committee will prepare <br />a summary of advisory recommendations for the Health&Public Safety committee for revisions and <br />updates to Chapter 5. <br /> <br />Chapter 5 as it exists today was enacted in 1985. In the past 27 <br />changed significantly. Likewise, animal sheltering has also made significant strid <br />dog pound catch and kill method of animal control. <br /> <br />We are using a recently amended Fort Wayne Chapter as a foundation to work fromWewill also be <br />examining Indianapolis and Bloomingtons chapters in order to consider best practices from other <br />cities. We are using Indiana cities to ensure that our policies will be a supplement toexisting state <br />law. <br /> <br />In our meeting on 5/16/13 we began with Section 91.001 and ended at the definition of Department <br />of Animal Control or Department. <br /> <br />The definitions covered in our last meeting that required additidiscussion <br />were: <br />Animal Fighting Paraphernalia  we will discuss animal fighting and laws governing this in Secti <br />91.023 & 91.999. All laws will be supplemental to state law. S <br />tate laws regulate criminal animal <br />cruelty/fighting. <br /> <br />At LargeThere was a question of whether the definition of "At Large" that had been p <br />addition to the new ordinance would include the use of electric <br />words "not confined" and then continues by limiting "not confined" to additionally require a "pen, <br />corral, yard, cage, house, vehicle, or other secure enclosure." For the reasons stated below, I believe an <br />invisible fence would not satisfy the "confined" requirement, ev <br />a dog could be sufficiently "confined" by an invisible fence. <br />The court (on page 4) explains that where a definition is not cl <br />are to be given their plain, ordinary, and usual meaning" and th <br />language dictionaries as well as consider the relationship with other words and ph <br />Webster's defines "enclosure" as: <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br />