HOW WE SEE IT Limits On Dogs Outside Cities Just Don’t Hunt

Rick Cochran is barking up the wrong tree.

That’s a problem for a man who wants to stop Washington County residents’ dogs from barking.

Actually, we’re not convinced that’s really what Cochran wants to do. From his description, what he really wants is to be able to look his neighbors in the eyes and say he tried.

“I live right on the edge of the Fayetteville city limits, and I have barking dogs that are in the county,” Cochran said. “The city can’t do anything, and the county won’t do anything. My neighbor is closer, and said,‘what can you do?’ I said I’ll pull some stuft together for us to discuss, and we’ll see what we can do.”

The “us” in that statement is the Washington County Quorum Court, which is made up of Republican Cochran and 14 other elected members from across the county who, in our view, seem unlikely to cozy up to new dog restrictions.

Among the possible changes Cochran suggested for discussion: a requirement that owners keep dogs from running loose and placing bark collars or other devices on dogs found to be a nuisance.

Bark collars gives dogs electronic or aromatic discouragement from being noisy. There is no known equivalent to prevent politicians from making noise about regulations that get folks riled up but ultimately have no chance of becoming law.

Cochran’s situation is certainly a dilemma.

He and an untold number of other Fayetteville residents live on the city’s edge, but just because that political boundary is a stone’s throw away, it doesn’t mean city-like conditions suddenly disappear. Plenty of county residents’ homes butt right up against city limits. Cities have more regulations setting minimum standards for how neighbors are supposed to treat one another.

Those county areas are far less regulated, and county leaders are often reminded that’s the whole point of living outside cities. A clash of urban versus rural ideology is bound to happen at the city limits.

But the county’s Quorum Court cannot legislate new limits on dogs without also applying them to all the unincorporated areas. That means a leash law would demand a family whose neighbor lives a half-mile away start keeping their dogs restrained.

Maybe Cochran has something figured out that escapes us. Perhaps he has a clear vision for how he’s going to convince his fellow justices of the peace to take on this issue. But anyone concerned with how agitated and aggressive unleashed dogs can get should also realize the same can be said about unleashed dog owners who believe government is going to mess with their dogs.

Feelings about property rights run strong in rural areas. Most of the time, their concerns focus on being left alone to do what they want with their land. Dogs are their property, too. When county government starts trying to tell them what they can and can’t do with their hounds, it’s not a far piece to an outright takeover of private property.

Chuckle if you will, but it’s a political reality.

Ultimately, there’s nothing enforceable about what Cochran has asked the Quorum Court to review, at least not without adding signifi cant personnel to patrol and respond to complaints. It seems unlikely Quorum Court members will be ready to chase that ball.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 08/16/2013

Upcoming Events