I found the following ordinances regarding these issues in the borough codes book:
§ 82-10. Restraint of dogs required.
[Amended 10-10-1983 by Ord. No. 581] All dogs shall be kept under restraint, either by a leash or by being kept in an enclosure. An animal shall be deemed to be under restraint if on the premises of its owner or if on a leash and accompanied by a responsible person and under that person's control.
A. It shall be unlawful for any owner to fail to exercise proper care and control of his animals to prevent them from becoming a public nuisance. Excessive, continuous or untimely barking or noise making, smell, mischief, molesting of passersby, chasing of vehicles, habitual attacks on other domestic animals or trespassing upon private property in such manner as to damage property shall be deemed a nuisance.
B. It shall be unlawful for any owner, keeper or custodian to fail to provide animals with sufficient good and wholesome food and water, proper shelter and protection from the weather, and veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering and to fail to provide them with humane care and treatment. It shall be unlawful for any owner, keeper or custodian to beat, cruelly ill-treat, torment, overload, overwork or otherwise abuse any animal or to cause or permit any dogfight, cockfight or other combat between animals or between animals and humans.
[Amended 8-9-2004 by Ord. No. 737]
A. It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any owner, keeper or custodian of any dog or cat to permit his or her dog or cat to discharge such animal's excreta upon any public or private property, other than the property of the owner of such dog or cat, within the Borough if such owner, keeper or custodian does not immediately thereafter remove and clean up such animal's excreta from the public or private property.
B. It shall be unlawful for any owner, keeper or custodian to have under his or her control or custody any dog or cat while on any public or private sidewalk, parkway, walkway, street, public park, public way, public grassy area or any other public areas, or upon private premises owned by any person, firm, or corporation other than the owner, keeper or custodian of such dog or cat, without having on his or her person a device which would be capable of removing any offal, feces or excreta of such dog or cat, which device shall not include the hands or feet of the owner, keeper or custodian.
A. Each day of violation of any of the provisions of this article shall be a separate violation hereof. Any person violating any of the provisions of this article shall be subject to a fine or penalty of not more than $600 for each offense, plus costs of prosecution, to be collected as fines or penalties are recoverable by law, and, in default of payment of such fine and costs, to imprisonment for not more than 30 days.
B. In addition to any other remedies provided in this article, such violation shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the Borough by seeking appropriate equitable relief from a court of competent jurisdiction.
For more information, go to the codes book HERE, and search for "dog."
thank you! i have some reading to do :)
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome. Good luck.
DeleteThe borough has many ordinances/policies/codes, whatever you want to call them. Most are rarely enforced. Take the large piles of dog feces at the "new" river park. I do mean LARGE.
ReplyDeleteActually, I'd rather not take them, but I get your point. Some owners apparently don't have any concept of cleaning up after their dog. Either that, or they just don't care.
DeleteOwning a dog or any other pet is like being a parent. A huge amount of physical and financial responsibility. Some people should not have kids OR pets.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
Deletei agree too! and also about the Boro and all the ordinances they have...and don't use. it's a freakin joke....what does codes do ..what a waste of taxpayer money...it can't be cheap to create an ordinance...solicitor fees too...
ReplyDeleteWe need more enforcement of existing codes.
Deleteyes. definitely!
ReplyDeleteThis article provided the kick in the butt that I needed to renew my dogs licenses! Personally I think that the dog issue is small potatoes compared to the cat problem in the borough! On any given day I see 15 stray cats, most of which are on my neighbor's front porch. While complaints that I made to the borough were investigated (and I did talk with George, one of the code enforcers who I thought was very nice and thorough!) it's a losing battle! Our neighbor now just puts the bowls and cat carriers away during the day and brings them back out again at night when she knows they won't be coming out to enforce the law!
ReplyDeleteWhat we need is enforcement of the existing codes. With as high as our taxes are maybe they should funnel some of that money away from the joke-worthy beautification programs like riverfront park and the tree project and start cleaning up the animals. Enforce the codes and start setting traps and euthanizing the stray cats!!!
I agree. Enforcement is the key.
Deleteagree AND FIX THE STREETS
ReplyDeleteYes, some are really bad - the 600 block of Plane Street, for example.
DeleteWalnut St from 500 block the whole way up...should be No 1 !!!!
ReplyDelete100 bk South 8th St
ya know you drive on em everyday...so it's too many to mention.
You're right. There are a lot.
DeleteThe cat problem here in Columbia is a different monster altogether. Cats are different. They are not walked on a leash and they are not licensed. They generally hunt food unlike most dogs. It's hard to solve, but some people have attempted to do something instead of nothing. The results however are disappointing and leads to a sense of why bother.
ReplyDeleteCats rarely attack people, usually only if they're cornered. They generally run the other way.
DeleteStray cats can have rabies and frequently have fleas and worms, which can be transmitted to the domestic animals that may be on a law abiding citizen's property. Additionally, cat feces can have toxins that can cause miscarriage pregnant women. Cat's don't have to attack to pose a danger.
DeleteValid points.
DeleteAnd don't forget this dandy from our zoning ordinance.
ReplyDelete§220-31(D)(9)(c). Additional requirements for specific principal uses.
(c) A maximum of three total dogs and/or cats, which shall not include more than two dogs, may be permitted to be kept by residents of each dwelling unit,
Interesting. Thanks for the info.
DeleteI was recently told that the ordinance was changed to 3 dogs, which is too many for one home if you ask me. It should be based on square foot since a renter in a 400 s.f. apartment could actually have 3 dogs!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe renters who have NO GRASS YARD SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED OR PERMITTED TO HAVE ANY DOGS-ZERO....personally I can't imagine why any landlord would allow any pets....cats or dogs...theres an extreme amount of stray cats tons of people let food and shelter out for too...you see signs of it when you take a walk!
ReplyDeleteI used to live a few houses away from a guy who kept a large (and loud) dog in a small, elevated, fenced-in, concrete "yard." The dog would shit in the "yard," and when the piles got too numerous, the owner would sweep them under the fence and down onto a narrow strip of grass running along the sidewalk next to his property.
DeleteSome renters take in a kitten and when the landlord finds out then out goes the cat. Most are never spayed or neutered. Then guess what MORE cats.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. There are several cats that hang around the neighborhood that don't seem to belong to anyone. We caught them and had them spayed/neutered. Of course, that doesn't solve the other problems associated with cats. However, they have been keeping the neighborhood relatively vermin-free, judging from the number of dead mice, moles, and voles they leave as offerings.
Deletethe Boro should take a bigger stance. Write the ordinance so that the violators CAN & will & MUST BE PROSECUTED.......spell it out completely so there's no "between the lines, etc"
ReplyDeleteThat would be ideal, but I don't think they would do it.
DeleteBoro likes to waste taxpayer money. that's for sure....and codes is the biggest joke in this town.
ReplyDeletecourse not-that would make sense.council mtg is monday jan 14 at 7 !!!!!
ReplyDeleteBoro council needs to step it up and represent the MAJORITY of taxpayers NOT the minority. THE TAXPAYERS IN THIS BORO HAVE NO, I REPEAT NO MONEY TO SPEND ON THIS BS....river park, trails, cameras that don't do what we were told they'd do (at a cost of 1/2 million $$$$$...grants for this and that-MOST have to be matched at 50 % - and they ALWAYS fail to tell you that...where do you think that money comes from ???? YES THE TAXPAYERS. IT'S TOTALLY RIDICULOUS, for a small town, they sure like to spend, spend, spend...and will NOT realize that EVERY DAY there are people losing their homes, their jobs...their way of life..it's SO sad.
ReplyDeleteExactly right.
Deletewe ALL really need to attend mtgs and let them know, we are there, we are watching, we are listening....(for those who do not want to talk)..unless of course, it's a very serious issue, then I think, no , i would hope that someone would speak out on our behalf!
ReplyDeletei really have aproblem wrapping my head around the fact that stray and feral cats are not being addressed in the same ordinance..or contract..or whatever...it's a serious issue..i have a stray that comes to my home in the wee hours every day to spray on outside covered grill. i can NOT stand the odor. it's enough to make you vomit.
ReplyDeleteYeah I have a neighbor who lets her dog out and all it does is bark and bark for hours I have to shut the windows even can't even sit out my yard and enjoy the weather
ReplyDelete