No Bull, No Fluff, No Smudges
Your news source for
Flagler, Florida and Beyond

Regulations Will Put Dog and Other Animal Owners on a Tighter Leash in Palm Coast

| July 7, 2010

Enjoy it while you can. (© Franco Ferri Mala)

Since Palm Coast incorporated as a city in 2000, its animal control ordinance has been little different than the county ordinance it incorporated at the time, which has limited regulations and fees. Tuesday evening, the Palm Coast City Council took the first step toward adopting a more stringent animal control ordinance whose regulations would apply mostly to dog owners through steeper fees, licensing requirements, noise, waste and leash rules.

Some key changes:

The city’s animal control officers, who are part of the city’s code enforcement department, will have full authority to capture any animal not leashed and not on its owner’s property, or any dangerous, abandoned or neglected animal. Those animals will either be returned to their owners, potentially for a fee, or taken to a Humane Society shelter. A first-time transport fee would be $40, increasing to $75 on subsequent trips.

Dogs, including off-duty police dogs, may no longer be walked without a leash. In other words, word commands alone are no longer permissible to keep a dog under control when the dog is off its owner’s property, and leashes must be no longer than 8 feet. Even in the open bed of a truck, dogs may no longer be left untethered. They must be either caged or tethered. Animals on their owners’ property don’t have to be enclosed or tethered as long as they know their boundaries.

Code enforcement officers will also have more authority to cite owners of noisy dogs, but the threshold is relatively high. For example, a dog must bark continuously for 20 minutes or more to trigger an issue. But it’s not just barking or dogs. If the dog — or animal — “cries, howls, screeches, squawks, screams, whines  or makes other prolonged or disturbing noises,” it’s an issue. A mere complaint from a neighbor won’t do it, but repeated complaints will lead to a code enforcement officer visiting the area, listening in and, if necessary, intervening by issuing a warning, and then a citation that would go before the code enforcement board. Barbara Grossman, the city’s code enforcement manager, said her inspectors will, in fact, go to a property’s surroundings and sit there, observing and listening for at least 20 minutes, to corroborate complaints.

Owners whose animals are found without a collar, a tag or a muzzle, when required, may also be cited.

Violation costs are broken down into two categories. Class I violations include failures to license or vaccinate an animal, an excessively barking dog, a dog running at large, leaving waste behind or a dog creating a nuisance, such as an animal found at large more than two times, an unsanitary animal or even a smelly animal whose smell bothers neighbors. Those violations would increase from the current $50 (which applies regardless of the number of times the same violation is recorded) to $75 for a first offense, $100 for a second offense, and $200 for a third and every additional offense after that.

Class II violations include the failure to restrain an animal on a truck bed, failure to confine an animal in heat or to register a dangerous animal, and cruelty to animals. (The definition of each violation is in the ordinance.) First-time violations in that class will cost you $100, $200 for a second offense, and $300 for each offense after that. It’s a change from the current $100 fine on the books now, no matter how many times an offense is committed.

And if your cat or dog is in heat, watch out: “It is prohibited and unlawful for the owner of any female dog or cat in season to fail to confine said animal,” the proposed ordinance reads, “either willfully or through failure to exercise due care and control, in such a manner so as to make said animal inaccessible to any male dog or cat except for breeding purposes.” In this as in many other instances—and as some members of the city council pointed out—the ordinance’s legal language can be more confusing than clarifying. A council member asked that the ordinance be re-written with lay readers in mind.

The proposal also bans catching or holding “swans, ducks, geese, bract, coots, gallinules or any other kind of waterfowl” within city limits.

Licensing fees are unchanged from the current ordinance: it’s $5 for a cat or dog that’s been spayed or neutered, $10 for animals that haven’t been. But a duplicate tag for either animal would cost $1 (as opposed to nothing right now). And licensing a dog classified as dangerous, which carries no cost at the moment, will cost $150.

“The money isn’t the important thing to us right now as much as we need to have that database out in the field,” City Manager Jim Landon said.  That database would compile the name, address and phone number of every licensed animal owner, including dangerous animals. The database would also detail the animal’s description and health history, such as rabies vaccination history, and include a veterinarian contact.

“With our computer technology and the vehicles,” Landon said, “if we have that tag or that chip reader that tells us where that animal belongs, instead of taking it to the shelter, we can take it directly to the home, which is a great service because it’s a whole lot more convenient. Also it allows us to do some enforcement of people who don’t take care of their animals correctly. I am amazed in getting in this business of how many cruelty cases we have, where people are not taking care of their animals properly or using them for inappropriate means.”

Petting zoos, fairs or zoos going through town and owners with animals visiting for 30 days or less would be exempt from some of the licensing rules though not, for example, the leash requirement.

Council members and their staff aside, surprisingly few—about half a dozen—people addressed the proposed ordinance in a meeting on Monday, and only to address peripheral issues. The substance of the ordinance itself was never in question. Two people, however, raised the matter of neighborhood fireworks that traumatize animals, dogs in particular.

“I consider it cruelty to animals for any person to throw a firecracker at a dog,” Charlie Erickson said. “I’ve had two or three that have been permanently disabled from a firecracker landing too close. Now I live a mile and a half from Town Center. I turned the TV up, I turned the radio on, I made all kinds of diversified attempts to keep the dogs’ attention away, including the TV on cartoons etc., but people need to understand that firecrackers are cruelty to animals. They hear a lot farther and a lot more keener than we do.”

Erickson was referring to the weekend’s 13-minute, organized display of fireworks at Town Center. He wasn’t suggesting that such displays should be ended, but that animals should not be forgotten—especially when more localized, less sanctioned firecrackers are set off in neighborhoods every July 4th, a concern another resident raised in hopes of having those explosions better controlled.

Best line of the evening: City Council member Holsey Moorman raising the issue of police dogs: “I have a neighbor that’s a K-9 officer, and he brings the dog home with him. But when he walks the dog, he doesn’t have it on a leash. He says the dog is under verbal command. And the leash is a bone in the dog’s mouth. But nothing keeps that dog from dropping the bone and going for my bone.”

He was assured that off-duty police dogs are required to be leashed like any other.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

9 Responses for “Regulations Will Put Dog and Other Animal Owners on a Tighter Leash in Palm Coast”

  1. Donna says:

    This is the best picture ever!

  2. Rick G says:

    Love the photo as well.
    However, let’s remember that the humans are the ones responsbile for their pets and they should take all precautions not to put them in hamrs way. That includes having their dogs ride in the back of a pick up truck. One only needs to stop quickly to have the poor animal tossed about and perhaps seriously injured. Remember your dog relies on its owner for protection, food, water and companionship. Treat your pet as you would want someone to treat you!

  3. Robin says:

    This is good news for the animals and people that live in Palm Coast. Congratulations to the Palm Coast City Council for addressing animal needs as well as concerns from the community regarding safety and cruelty issues. Notably, the ordinance prohibits dogs left loose in pick up truck beds, great! Unfortunately, though, the ordinance does not include a mandatory spay / neuter requirement. Mandatory spay and neuter provisions are critical in addressing the issue of dog over-population, and the resulting shelter needs and subsequent euthanasia. I would urge the City Council to address this issue in the immediate future.

  4. childrens beds says:

    This is a very good blog all of you got going. Everyone loves the mixture of excellent and correct information in addition to some intellectual views. It is good to at last find excellent discussions where I believe I can rely on the text as well as respect those who that publish it. With all the online crap these days I always love uncovering some real presences on the net. Thank you blogging and continue the good work, please!!

  5. John Liccardo says:

    All well & good for Palm Coast, especially riding in truck beds. I always was concerned when following one with children or pets. I am taking this opportunity to mention another situation that exists in Flagler Beach that needs reviewing namely, allowing dogs on the beach. This issue was discussed several years ago and shelved for various reasons. I have owned dogs over the years and love most animals, but am not sure now if I had one, just how I would feel about allowing dogs on a PUBLIC beach. Since Flagler Beach allows this privelege, many residents from other communities including Palm Coast and Ormond drive to our beach because Flagler Beach exclusively allows this activity 24/7. The County Health Department opposes allowing dogs on the beach primarily because of the potential for spreading disease from owners not picking up but simply covering up their pets’ defecation. It is so convenient to look away and not to be concerned as to who next might sit on the sand there. The Health Dep’t has refused to act probably believing that the City Legislature should determine the course of action. It is a Herculean problem with the answer lying somwhere between public opinion and health issues with the solution perhaps being somwhere in the middle of the road.

    • Amy says:

      I’m a flagler beach resident and I am glad that dogs are allowed on certain parts of Flagler beach. Dog owners can enjoy one part of the beach and people who would rather not be around dogs can enjoy another part of the beach without conflict.
      Its very upsetting that people assume that dog owners would let their dog defecate on the beach and not clean up after it. The type of person who cares enough to bring their dog to the beach to enjoy the day is NOT the type of dog owner who is going to leave their dog’s fecal matter behind.
      In retrospect, I have seen some people use regular diapers on children instead of swimming diapers and those children are in the water and get a messy diaper where the matter is not confined. Should we ban children from beaches as well? Let’s live and let live and not be so snobby and judgemental.

  6. Dog Lover says:

    Just another way for the communist city of palm coast to control owners/tax payers and the local business. Ok I agree with most of the ordinance with the exception of the fee’s, and to limit the leash length to six feet is now dictating what our local business can sell, another attempt of the dumb council members running out business and the tax base, and guess what it’s dumped back on the home owners to carry their dumb mistakes. I thought this was the USA, but I feel like we’re in a communist country, I hate this place.

  7. I really enjoy visiting your site. I continually find it helpful.

  8. Lawrence Hunt says:

    Thank you for the code inforcement .I have a new couple that moved in with two big dogs that bark all the time that they are out and one that acks as if he would rip me apart if he could get out of his back yard I have spoken to them about this several times now and they say they just bark only when they hear something which is all the time I am only going to put up with the constant barking a little while longer as they are new but if that dog jumps out of the fence and attacks me then I will hire a lawyer for sure. What else can we do to lessen the barking issue. Thanks Larry

Leave a Reply

FlaglerLive's forum, as noted in our comment policy, is for debate and conversation that adds light and perspective to articles. Please be courteous, don't attack fellow-commenters or make personal attacks against individuals in stories, and try to stick to the subject. All comments are moderated.

Read FlaglerLive's Comment Policy | Subscribe to the Comment Feed rss flaglerlive comment feed rss

More stories on FlaglerLive

FlaglerLive Email Alerts

Enter your email address to get alerts.


support flaglerlive palm coast flagler county news pierre tristam
news service of florida

Recent Comments

FlaglerLive is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization | P.O. Box 254263, Palm Coast, FL 32135 | Contact the Editor by email | (386) 586-0257 | Sitemap | Log in