How to Deal with Animal Abuse? Inyo Supervisors Struggle with a Solution

How to Deal with Animal Abuse? Inyo Supervisors Struggle with a Solution

New residents moving from urban areas to the Eastern Sierra may have bucolic images of farm animals as pets and multiple dogs and cats as treasured companions. That was not the issue presented at the June 24th Inyo County Board of Supervisors’ meeting. The issues were blatant abuse and neglect.

This requires some complex land use designations that define animal numbers and types but not necessarily conditions under which those animals are expected to live. Planning Department head Cathreen Richards and Animal Control officer Katie Bird had to tag team on the agenda item.

First, the land use designation of Open Space covering Charleston View could be viewed as the “wild, wild west,” but is defined as land in its natural state with multiple uses such as resource extraction, grazing or mining.

Rural Residential usually has larger lots than simple Residential zoning and may allow small-scale agriculture and the keeping of domestic animals. There are also considerations for youth organizations, such as 4-H and FFA, on less than one-half acre lots in support of those organizations.

The photographic evidence presented by Bird could best be described as appalling.

• Multiple goats crammed into a pen with no separation by gender or age
• An empty fenced area once occupied by dogs with bags of feces lining the fence line
• A pen and lean-tos, one of which included a peacock, with a multitude of guinea pigs, chickens and other farm animals crammed together

As Animal Services Supervisor Katie Bird explained, there were no “stepping stones” in the Department’s procedures before the conditions went to “really bad.” “There’s no middle ground,” she told the Board. “We need the tools to get ahead of a situation.” The Planning Commission’s meeting, last year, was reluctant to put a limit on the number of animals.

Animal Control staff went back to the Planning Commission last month and secured approval to correct the abusive conditions. The Commission approved the five-foot set-back from property lines as well as a confusing restriction on set-backs from streams, though livestock grazing leases have access to water usually provided by off-shoots from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power canal system. The Commission restricted the height of structures to 15 feet and made an attempt to define nuisance coming up with unsanitary conditions defined as the existence of odors and flies.

District Two Supervisor Jeff Griffiths got straight to the point, identifying the proposed Conditional Use Permit as a “clunky tool” as well as an expensive one, at $1,400, to provide adequate shelter for small animals and chickens. Another important difference: the requirement of a license doesn’t go with the land but would address changes made by a new owner. He also used the example of a dog sled team where a Conditional Use Permit would not be appropriate. Another source of confusion was limiting the number of small domestic animals, dogs and cats, to five. Was the intent to end up with five dogs and five cats or simply five total domestic animals?

The one take-away from the grim presentation: it’s difficult to anticipate and legislate against the cruelty and stupidity of human beings.

Deb Murphy