MANSFIELD, Ohio — Mansfield City Council rejected the proposed animal cruelty ordinances (Ordinance 15-087 and Ordinance 15-088) during their regular meeting Tuesday night.
Ordinance 15-087 would have added language to the city’s existing ordinance that was established in 1997 to increase protections to companion animals.
According to the ordinance, it would be unlawful to transport a dog in the trunk of a car or unsecured in the open bed of a truck.
It also previously stated that if a companion animal were to be confined outdoors, it must be provided with bedding that is dry and elevated at least two inches from the ground and must have a shelter that has four walls, a roof, insulation and a pliable material entrance way. Further, such outdoor shelter could not be within 10 feet of an area where water typically, historically, or is found to pool in inclement weather.
Council, however, approved a motion made by At-large Councilman Don Bryant to strike those regulations from the proposed ordinance before they cast their final votes on the legislation.
Bryant’s attempt to satisfy concerns about this particular section of the ordinance were ultimately for naught, as council rejected the ordinance on a 4-3 vote. Those who voted against the ordinance included Council President Phil Scott, Second Ward Councilman Jeff Rock, Fifth Ward Councilman Jason Lawrence and At-large Councilman Cliff Mears.
Ordinance 15-088, also known as “Fido’s Law,” failed to pass, after council rejected the legislation on a 5-2 vote. Those who voted against the ordinance included Third Ward Councilman Jon Van Harlingen, Lawrence, Mears, Rock and Scott.
Fido’s Law would have prohibited people from leaving dogs tethered outdoors from midnight to 6 a.m., unless an exemption had been obtained through the Humane Society of Richland County.
Under this legislation, dogs also could not be tethered if a heat or cold advisory were issued, if the tether was less than 20 feet in length, or if the tether did not allow the companion animal to easily stand, sit, lie, turn around and make all other normal body movements in a comfortable and normal position.
Before submitting their votes, some of those who opposed the anti-tethering ordinance provided an explanation for their decision.
Mears said he heard from a number of residents who opposed the ordinance, noting, “If I understand my role as councilman, it’s to represent the voice of the people…so I can’t support this legislation.”
He said one concerned citizen said that he keeps his dog outdoors and doesn’t have air conditioning in his home. “Their point was, isn’t it more cruel to bring a dog into a confined area in heated conditions, rather than leave him outside,” Mears said.
Van Harlingen said that while he doesn’t completely oppose the bill, “My main concern is putting the burden on the Mansfield Police Department at this time [with regard to enforcement].”
Bryant said in response to his fellow councilpersons’ concerns, “I hope that we can come back to the table to continue to work on this issue this year.”
During the caucus that prefaced the council meeting, several people approached council, asking for their approval with regard to the two animal ordinances.
Missy Houghton, director of the Humane Society of Richland County, noted how important it is that the anti-tethering ordinance passes. She said her office receives about 1,500 complaints a year from Mansfield residents who are concerned about dogs in the area. “This is something that is important to the voters of this area,” she said.
Mansfield resident Linda Swisher commented, “Statistics show over and over again that a tethered dog is three times more likely to bite. They need socialized.”
She added, “We’re not after the responsible pet owners. We’re simply standing up for the animals that are tethered 24-7 that are often neglected.”
Mansfield Police Chief Ken Coontz said he received numerous phone calls from councilpersons who wanted to know the police department’s position on the ordinances.
He declined to state their position; however, he said that the ordinances pose a complex issue when it comes to enforcement.
Along those lines, Safety-Service Director Lori Cope said the police department does not currently have adequate staffing levels to enforce the ordinances. “As the safety director, it’s my sincere belief, and request to the humane society, asking that they help us to educate the public on best practices for animal care. I’m not in favor of heavy-handed enforcement. While this piece of legislation is well-intended, the timeliness may not be ideal,” she said.
Law Director John Spon contributed to the conversation as well, sharing, “The bottom line from my standpoint is that for city council to do nothing, and I mean to do nothing on this issue is not something I think we should do. I think we should do something.”
“While this piece of legislation is well-intended, the timeliness may not be ideal,” Safety Director Lori Cope said.
