Residents urge Cleveland County to curb backyard breeding, propose licensing, fees and spay‑neuter rules

5727164 · July 9, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Two Cherryville residents used the public‑comment period to press the board to impose licensing, registration and spay/neuter requirements on dog owners to deter backyard breeders; speakers described an unchipped dog named "Dobby" found in poor condition at a local rescue.

During the public‑comment portion of the July 8, 2025, Cleveland County Board of Commissioners meeting, two residents from Cherryville urged the board to take stronger action against backyard breeders and to require licensing, microchipping and spay‑neuter measures.

Dina Kristen of 215 Eagle Cove Drive described a dog named Dobby that entered a Good Samaritan’s kennel and later was taken in by Clifford's Army Rescue, saying the animal had worms and skin infections she believes are preventable. Kristen criticized lack of accountability for backyard breeders and called for the county to impose litter fees, unaltered fees and registration fees to deter irresponsible breeding. "I've heard it said that it's about freedom, but I call bull on that," she told commissioners.

Her husband, Stefan Kristen, also of 215 Eagle Cove Drive, said the mistreatment shown in the photographs he presented was "depraved, it's barbaric, and it has no place in civilized society," and urged commissioners to use their authority to require spaying and neutering and to restrict irresponsible breeders.

Both speakers framed their appeals as public‑safety and animal‑welfare matters, noting stray and neglected dogs can create costs and hazards. Their comments were delivered as public testimony; no board action, referral or staff assignment on animal‑control policy was recorded in the meeting transcript.

The public‑comment rules were read before testimony, including a three‑minute time limit and a requirement that comments be addressed to the board as a whole.