During the last meeting of Grayson City Council, the city’s elected officials discussed the possibility of implementing a new leash law.
The city, along with their neighbors in Olive Hill, have had a quarrel with the county over how to handle animal control for several years now. As part of their previous agreement with the county, the cities claim, they rescinded the leash laws they had on the books. This, they say, was done at the request of the county – so the county animal warden could enforce the county’s animal control statutes within city limits.
However, despite this agreement, the county will not pick up stray animals within city limits.
According to the county they are not required to do so. As fiscal court explains the situation, the county is only required by statute to provide access to the animal shelter and accept animals that the cities pick up, if city employees, such as police officers, transport the animals to the shelter.
The county has said they will pick up animals within city limits, but only if the city governments contribute financially towards the upkeep and running of the animal shelter.
This contribution has been a sticking point for the mayors and city council of both municipalities. As they see it city residents are also county residents, and pay county taxes. Therefore, residents who live within city limits are entitled to the same services as other county residents. The cities contributing more funds to help run the county shelter amounts to what they see as “double taxation” for those who reside inside city limits.
This is where the issue has stalled for too many years to count at this point.
In the meantime, Olive Hill has been plagued by what they describe as “packs” of semi-feral dogs who enter the city limits, from the county, in the evenings to tear into garbage and run roughshod over the community. While, in Grayson, attacks from stray or otherwise unleashed animals have resulted in the deaths of several family pets, including cats and other small dogs.
Grayson Mayor Troy Combs, for his part, has been attentive to concerns and proactive in addressing the issue. Combs has invited pet lovers to speak at council meetings and shared with council, and the public, the content of videos sent to him that demonstrate the scope of the problem.
Combs has also been open to working with county officials in terms of payment – though his council is less inclined to do so – because of what he rightly sees as the serious nature of the problem. In the interim he’s worked with council to authorize more city employees, including street department employees, to respond to problem animal calls. The street department have even set up a temporary animal shelter in one of their buildings. They’ve also taken to posting photos of the abandoned animals in their care to social media, seeking fosters or new forever homes.
In these ways, and others, some municipal employees are already acting as de facto dog wardens for the city. But, because the city doesn’t have current leash laws, they are limited in when and how they can respond. They can currently only be reactive – showing up only when there is already a problem reported.
If council passes something like the leash law they’ve recently discussed, then police, street department, and code enforcement employees could be more proactive in addressing issues with problem animals before they escalate. Fines generated from violations of the leash law could also be used to help supplement the cost of housing the dogs (though it will undoubtedly fall short of the actual costs).
We not only support such a move, but would urge council to consider taking it a step further and require tags and licenses for pets. This would help keep owners accountable for their animals, would provide a database for returning tagged pets to their owners if they do get loose, and create a small revenue stream to support the work the city is already undertaking.
At this point it’s unlikely the dispute between the county and the cities is going to be resolved any time soon. The city has already acknowledged this by taking actions to address the issue on their own. If the county isn’t going to uphold their end of the deal, there isn’t any reason for the cities to continue to abide by the agreement to rescind their leash laws.
It’s time for them to be brought back.