Please do not confuse us with facts!

It is much better to just get people from all over the country to sign an online pettition - because we want mob rule in the USA now.

As a member of the ACAB and as a representative of the BOC and the people of Douglas county in that capacity, I believe that clarity needs to be presented to the public, concerning the proposed ordinance changes to the Georgia Responsible Dog Owners Act (GRDOA) that was adopted by the BOC on December 18th 2012 as county ordinance.

The BOC adopted the (GRDOA) into county ordinance, so that county animal control officers could enforce the law. A law that they could not otherwise enforce, as they are not state mandated or certified law enforcement officers. DCAC officers are constables of the magistrate court, empowered to enforce only county ordinances. Thus it was the recommendation of the county attorney to adopt state law into county ordinance in order to provide the authority for DCAC officers to enforce the (GRDOA).

The county ordinance that is referred to as vague and inconsistent in language, is in actuality the (GRDOA) as passed by the Georgia state legislature and signed into law by Gov. Deal last May. The (GRDOA) as adopted by the BOC is the ordinance that Dir. Smith has proposed to be substantially altered and amended to include language that specifically says that "barking, growling, or showing of teeth by a dog (or charging) (or nipping or scratching and bites not puncturing the skin) shall be sufficient cause to classify a dog as dangerous or vicious under the proposed ordinance revisions he has submitted to the ACAB thus far. These criteria are specifically spelled out exclusions for assessing a dog either dangerous or vicious under the (GRDOA)as Georgia law.

There are also recommendations in Dir. Smith's proposed ordinance revisions that limit the due process requisite time frames of citizens appeals of actions taken by DCAC. There are provisions in the (GRDOA) that specifically assign appellate review and determination of euthanasia orders to the superior court, that the current ordinance revisions seek to limit and reassign to the authority of the county magistrate court.

Previously submitted revisions to the ordinance sought to both establish the Animal Services Director as the sole level of appeal for all DCAC actions concerning dangerous and vicious dog declarations and the previously submitted revisions struck out the the Ga. Judicial Review (O.C.G.A. 50-13-19) clause incorporated by the state legislature.

After citizen outcry over these proposed revisions, utilization of the ACAB as the citizen appellate process was incorporated into the latest revision by Dir. Smith, along with the re-establishment of the judicial review clause (O.C.G.A. 50-13-19) as originally intended by the Ga. legislature.

The Georgia Responsible Dog Owners Act is a law that was carefully crafted by numerous Georgia legislators and legal experts in the field of animal welfare and animal cruelty over a four year period. It is comprehensive and establishes significant requisites of performance, penalty and sanction on the owners of dogs declared dangerous or vicious under the (GRDOA).

As a member of the ACAB, I want to assure the citizens of Douglas county, that a thorough examination and vetting of all proposed changes to the ordinance adopted by the BOC on December 18th will be considered by the ACAB prior to ACAB recommendations to the BOC to change county ordinance.

I encourage all citizens of Douglas county to become familiar with the (GRDOA) and the revisions to county ordinance being proposed by the animal services director. The (GRDOA) is accessible on line at: http://www.animallaw.info/articles/aruswilkinsc2012.htm and copies of Dir. Smith's previously proposed and currently proposed revisions can be obtained directly through open records requests of the county records officer, Ms. Becky Hebert at: bhebert@co.douglas.ga.us

I also encourage all citizens and interested parties to attend the monthly meetings of the ACAB in order to keep themselves informed of these and other issues affecting animal welfare, animal control and pet ownership rights in Douglas County.

Carl Pyrdum Jr.
ACAB member

Thank you for the clarification, Carl, as the information in this article and the Douglas County Happenings Face Book page is incorrect. Not sure what they read or who gave them their information, but at least you have the correct information here. People do need to get involved as this county has come along way with their shelter and it is now in a down hill slide with the loss of an employee who is a caring and long time animal advocate who helped to turn the Paulding county shelter around. Now there are even fewer who work there with any regard for the animals. IMHO, this law needs to be left as it stands.

I was present at the Animal Control Advisory Board (ACAB) January meeting, and I recall that Rick Smith amended appeals process to reference shelter director as the authority, not the board. I also recall the chairman of the ACAB asking the board members who would want to serve on such a board...with the exception of one board member, NO ONE (including the chairman) wanted to serve on this board. Now, I understand that due to public outcry, the latest amendment submitted at special called meeting this week has amended the amendment, but I have not had a chance to review the revision. Assuming that change has been addressed, who is the board that will hear the matters?

He also proposed amendments that altered the state language by taking basic dog behaviors and as per my one-on-one meeting with him labeling them as "potentially dangerous." Potentially dangerous? Ponder that for a moment...that means the dog has done no harm to anyone! You may be a potential bank robber, but you have not robbed a bank!

Also, in my meeting with him, he described that one only needs to "feel" threatened. I expressed my concern then about the proposed revision because I felt what he was describing places every dog in the county in danger because someone "feels" like a dog was a "potential" threat! I suggested to him that this was extremely subjective...case in point, I love dogs, so my reaction to an approaching dog is going to be quite different then someone who dislikes or generally has a fear of dogs.

I will also add that no animal control officer has formal training in such matters, which Rick Smith acknowledged to be true when he and I met. As I recall, the 2013 budget had $0 dedicated to training. Perhaps the county will reforecast...?

Do not take a summary as all the information you need to protect yourself and your dogs, but seek out your own information and draw your own conclusions. You can request from Becky Hebert. Her email address is bhebert@co.douglas.ga.us

There is no compelling reason for the county to pursue the amendments, as the recent state law adopted by the county is adequate. Acting in haste is very likely to have unintended consequences.

In closing, the county needs to set this issue aside and return it's attention to addressing the concerns outlined in the assessment completed by LifeLine in 2012. There is a bounty of issues there that need attention to avoid going backwards in progress made to save the innocent lives of the animals, who find themselves at this kill shelter for no fault of their own.

Absolutely, do not take your "friends" word for it ! That is how false information gets around! Read it and make your own conclusions. Remember, these are proposed changes. The law reads:" it is the intention of this chapter to establish a state law MINIMUM STANDARDS for the control and regulation of dogs and to establish state crimes for the violations of such minimum standards, However this chapeter shall not prohibit local governments from enforcing ordanances or resolutions which provide for a more restrictive control and regulations of dogs than the MINIMUM STANDARDS provided for in this chapter. " In my oppinion there is nothing wrong with wanting to fit this minimum standard law to our community. Thank you Rick for your proposal if nothing else it has made our community more aware of the laws on Responsable Dog Ownership!

Lisa I said do not take your friends word for it. We all know the game where someone tells a person and that person tells someone els and what comes out at the end is nothing like the actual information. Therefore everyone should read the proposal for themselves!

In reference to your reference, Rick made a proposal to do what he felt would be a benefit to the community and animals. If you were at the last meeting many acab members made some good points and the proposal is a work in progress now in the hands of the ACAB. Your comments about Rick have a tone that suggests its personal with you as opposed to focusing on the actual proposal. Rick made a suggestion if you have concerns talk to your acab representative so they can address it.

I think that it is clear that neither Mr. Smith nor the ACAB can make or change laws.

The question I think many people are asking is why is their a need for the current state law to be revised or amended? Especially since it was only signed into law By Gov Deal May 2012, and adopted by Douglas County Board of Commissioners Dec 18, 2012. The adoption of the state law to be part of the Douglas County ordiance has not even been tried and tested. So why is there a "rush" to make the county ordinance more restrictive. Many are asking why? And at whose directions? Is it the Board of Commissioner requesting this revision or is it Mr. Smith's opinion that it needs to be revised ..and if so why?

Cyd, I recently communicated to Commission Chairman Tom Worthan that Rick Smith should be given a chance, but it is a 2-way street and he needs to give concerned citizens a chance too. Further, I gave Rick Smith credit for changing his position on two shelter dogs that were wrongfully being labeled as dangerous. However, since then he has made little effort to reach out to concerned citizens to build trust and relationships, and I also communicated that to the Chairman. This is important to me because I care about the people in this community who have given their blood, sweat, tears, time, and treasure to aid the innocent animals in this kill shelter.

With all due respect, when you reference the ACAB, I am aware of how to communicate with my elected officials and their representatives, but I appreciate your input. Thank you!

I'm sorry that you feel the way you do. Since Rick has been the Director he has had to focus on many administrative areas at the shelter and many other issues in his short time here in GA. There is a volunteer group now working with the DCAC called HOPE (Helping Orphan Pets Everywhere) in Douglas County. Volunteer applications have been updated and an orientation program for new volunteers. I personally believe we all want to help the shelter animals and we can all work together. It may take a little longer for everything to come together, but it can happen.

On the other questions about why the changes to the law and why is it Rick that's proposing them. During the special Acab meeting those same questions were asked and discussed and from what I could hear ( it was hard to hear everything being said at the meeting) many of those questions were answered. Again I know it is difficult to trust a person you don't know. I believe we all care about the animals and if we give Rick some more time it will be evident that he does care. It's a proposal one made with good intentions, it's ok if the citizens don't agree. If it is discussed and decided nothing should be done then that is the way it will be. I trust the acab to handle the proposal carefully.

Where is Rick Smith, and why is he not defending HIMSELF? Why is there a new volunteer program being instituted and new volunteer applications when a core group of volunteers have worked at this shelter for years busting their butts and bringing down euthanasia rates at a remarkable pace? Why come in and turn it upside down and push everyone out who has put their blood sweat and tears into this shelter and these animals? Its obvious Rick Smith is not willing to work with any of these amazing individuals who have been pushing and working to make this a progressive shelter,.

Cyd or do you prefer Cynthia, in the interest of full disclosure, I think it is appropriate to disclose your relationship to Rick Smith. Since you have not, I understand it is Mrs. Rick Smith. I think it is important for anyone reading this thread to know this. Thank you!

I have not hidden my relationship to Rick. I just prefer to use internet safety pre-cautions. You have met me, I have disclosed to you who I am. I came out to meet you at the shelter you were not there that day. I tried to say hi to Carl and introduce myself that didnt work out either. I am Mrs Rick Smith and I am proud to be so! I I actually was trying to reach out to this "Core Group" of volunteers all post that I have made on this site are public. Making positive changes at the shelter is going to take a community effort. As you all know in the shelter evaluation that Susan Feingold completed she stated, "The issues at the shelter have been long standing" even before she began the evaluation. The long standing issues did not happen overnight and the issues wont be fixed overnight. Rick and I are very aware of all the work the core group of volunteers have done, we both have said so numerous times. It is my hope that we all work together for the common good of the shelter animals. The volunteer program was in desperate need of some consistant organization.

Rick and I are very aware of the work the "Core group" of volunteers have done. We both have acknowledge and thanked them many times. In fact I have acknowledge the volunteers in previous post on this site.

Yes, I am aware of who you are because I introduced myself to you after the last ACAB meeting. As for not making your acquaintance at the shelter, I explained to you that I was sick. Other than that, I work full time and it is common knowledge that I walk dogs, socialize animals in Puppy Room, and mentor potentional adopters while volunteering my time on Sunday. Perhaps we can chat this afternoon when I am there?

Cyd (Mrs. Smith) I am glad to see that your Identity has been revealed, so that everyone is aware and apprised of your specific interest in Douglas County Animal Control, the shelter and its new animal services director.

For the record, we have met and we have been formally introduced. Your husband introduced us shortly after his arrival, one day when you accompanied him to the shelter last November. Since that time, I have been at the shelter on a number of occasions weekly when you have been present. Most recently last Thursday afternoon when I specifically asked to be signed in on the new volunteer sign in book and you were present at the desk while Mr. Pope located the book and signed me in. That would have been an ideal time to engage me in conversation I would think. Before that, last Tuesday I was at the shelter for almost four hours, along with two other volunteers, taking photos and walking dogs as I do three times a week. Again you never made any attempt to "reach out" to me or engage me in conversation on any issue concerning volunteering or otherwise. During neither of these occasions have you made any attempt to engage me in conversation on any level. However, I will be at the shelter this afternoon and I will make a point of re-introducing myself to you.

As it concerns the core group of volunteers that you reference, I would certainly hope to see you reaching out to those volunteers in your new capacity as volunteer and rescue coordinator. You might also find it interesting to know that not everyone who volunteers their time, efforts and money on behalf of Douglas county shelter animals, comes to the facility directly. Many hours are spent by others networking these animals on social media and with rescues and other organizations around the nation. In addition, many sponsors across the state and the nation have contributed their money to the sponsorship of Douglas County shelter animals.

I look forward to seeing you this afternoon.

I guess Cynd and Rick may be figuring out they are not in "Kansas" (Missouri) anymore. The metro-Atlanta rescue/animal welfare community is not one to be taken lightly.

Why is this Rick Smith even in charge,I have been in there many times with my daughter to take newspapers and snacks for the animals,the times I have seen him hes never got up out of his chair not a smile,can I help you or anything.Wow,do we really want this Douglasville,when we had Tracy and Mike who actually loved animals.If we dont stand up against this situation we are all guilty..Concerned Citizen Who Actually Loves Animals

You all have a very strange way of "reaching out " to the core group of volunteers. Not allowing them to walk dogs unless they become part of your non- profit group, HOPE. Telling them they are no longer welcome at the shelter. Telling rescues groups they are no longer welcome at Douglas County Animal Control. And withholding the weekly "In Danger" list until an open records request was filed by several volunteers requesting the information. Maybe you can explain how that is for the "common good of the animals". If this is really about the animals and their welfare, if so why would you deny those who have worked so hard access to the animals? People in the rescue and advocate community are never going to agree 100% with the shelter staff. But working together is a two way street , and the impression that has been given to this point is the you all have no intention of exploring that option.

I am from Rabun county. HOPE and Douglas county will be in the news in a very bad way, I predict. I've watched this before, where a nonprofit set up, no care for animals, and a dictatorship with secrecy. If you recall Rabun county was news around the world. IRS and GBI still bringing charges. Not many hard laws around the animals, but there is around the money. WATCH THE MONEY!!!! THAT IS WHERE THE IRS AND GBI AND FEDS WILL GET INVOLVED. Nonprofits have rules governing them. Next election get rid of the people who do not respect what you have to say.

County ordinance cannot supercede state law HOWEVER, I just got word today that the infamous AKC affiliated dog breeder lobbyist is attempting to get HB 409 passed.... which intends to remove mandatory spay and neuter for shelter animals. As well HB 409 intends to strip ALL animal contros of their authority.
GOOGLE GEORGIA HB 409 and read it for yourselves.

The true humane animal community best wake up and boot these dog breeder friendly no kill front groups OUT of their shelters and animal controls.
They are attempting a coup nationwide, folks.

Google the no kill main spokesman's name along with the word petpac and/or the acronym NAIA.
You will see that their main leader spoke at a petpac conference along with NAIA's director. t was in 2008.These no kill front groups are duping the true humane animal advocates.

I AM BETTING SMITH IS A TRUE HUMANE AC DIRECTOR THEREFORE THE NO KILLERS WILL TRY To get him outta there so they can better move their breeder agenda in.
These no kill agendists have a very, very breeder friendly agenda. It's not just Douglas County ... it is nationwide.

HB 409 can be found at this link

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20132014/131470.pdf

No county, municipality, or local authority shall, except to the extent authorized by state
13
or federal law, adopt any ordinance, resolution, or local law:
14
(1) Requiring the spaying or neutering of any animal;
15
(2) Requiring a higher license, registration, or ownership fee or tax for animals which
16
are not spayed or neutered;
17
(3) Preventing the ownership, breeding, transfer, sale, purchase, tethering, training, or
18
transportation of dogs used for the lawful pursuit of game, field trials, shows, or disability
19
services; or
20
(4) Banning the sale or ownership of any specific breed of domestic dog or cat."

For those unable to ascertain the intent of meaning of the proposed law, see the following.

At the State Dept of Agriculture site.

http://agr.georgia.gov/animal-control.aspx

Under Sterilization Act

§ 4-14-3. Procedure for sterilization; exception; costs
(a) Any public or private animal shelter, animal control agency operated by a political subdivision of this state, humane society, or public or private animal refuge shall make provisions for the sterilization of all dogs or cats acquired from such shelter, agency, society, or refuge by:
(1) Providing sterilization by a licensed veterinarian before relinquishing custody of the animal; or
(2) Entering into a written agreement with the person acquiring such animal guaranteeing that sterilization will be performed by a licensed veterinarian within 30 days after acquisition of such animal in the case of an adult animal or within 30 days of the sexual maturity of the animal in the case of an immature animal;
provided, however, that the requirements of this Code section shall not apply to any privately owned animal which any such shelter, agency, society, or refuge may have in its possession for any reason if the owner of such animal claims or presents evidence that such animal is the property of such person.

Which simply means. Section 4-14-3 clearly defines the mandate that all shelter animals be spayed or neutered prior to adoption, or that a contract of no more than 30 days be signed and allowed of adopters to provide for spay neutering after adoption from a shelter.

HB 409 does not change 4-14-3. What HB 409 does do, is prevent local governments from over stepping their authority to intrude upon individual property rights of people and their existing animals. Specifically, it seeks to prevent local ordinances requiring individual pet owners from being required to spay or neuter their existing animals. It also prevents any requirement of spay or neuter or to require individuals to be forced to spay neuter their animal if is is picked up by animal control as part of any sanction of leash law violation.

As it concerns true humane shelter directors. None that I am familiar with are supportive of HSUS as a shield organization for PETA and their animal activist agenda. What is presently at issue in this county concerning animal control, has absolutely nothing to do with breeders. It has to do with animal welfare and the true humane treatment of animals.

Oh poo poo ..... don't try to shovel your no kill garbage down my throat - i am well aware of who and what are behind this breeder backed and supported NK agenda. And the good thing is that more and more TRUE animal advocates are realizing it as well. So please save the propaganda for the many FB pages out there where you can control the opposition.

Oh poo poo? You're right on that point, you are not going to allow anyone to dispute your prejudice with the truth. As there is obviously no need in comparing your propagandized HSUS/PETA spiel to the actual Ga. laws in discussion. We certainly shouldn't allow others to see those laws and read them for themselves. Right? NK agenda? I am more than happy to allow the public to look at the facts and the law and make their own determination as to who has an agenda and who plays fast and loose with the truth. Good day Madam......