Union County residents press commissioners to update 1997 animal ordinances, expand shelter and staff

Dozens of residents, rescue volunteers and nonprofit leaders told the Union County Board of Commissioners during informal comments Aug. 11 that the county’s animal ordinances and shelter capacity are outdated and leaving animals and residents at risk.

Speakers from the advocacy group Change for Union County and the Humane Society urged the board to open a formal dialogue about ordinance changes, shared data on rising shelter intake and called for more animal-control officers and a larger shelter building.

“More than 2,000 residents from all corners of the county have signed our petition asking for improvements in animal welfare,” said Katie Ryan, organizer for Change for Union County and a resident of Indian Trail. “Animal ordinances haven’t been updated since 1997, while the population and our needs have grown dramatically.”

Residents and rescue volunteers recounted repeated incidents of roaming dogs attacking livestock and companion animals and said animal-control staffing has not increased despite a rising caseload. Several speakers cited county shelter statistics: impounds up about 52 percent compared with 2020, owner surrenders up roughly 113–114 percent, and the shelter’s intake-driven euthanasia rates for cats and dogs at levels residents described as alarming. The current shelter has 47 kennels, speakers said; volunteers reported days with dozens of new impounds.

Deborah Zappa, a former Humane Society board chair who said she met regularly with shelter command staff, described overcrowding’s impacts on animals and staff: increased anxiety, behavioral decline and higher illness risk. Laura Sir, executive director of the Humane Society of Union County, told commissioners the nonprofit is on track to alter more than 6,000 animals this year but still faces an eight- to 10-week appointment backlog for surgical services.

Speakers proposed a range of next steps for the county: commission-led task force meetings that include animal-control, shelter staff and nonprofit partners; a review and rewrite of county animal ordinances to clarify definitions of cruelty and containment; expanded spay/neuter programs and school-based public education campaigns; and evaluation of shelter renovation or replacement options, including grant or public–private funding to offset capital costs.

Several speakers urged ordinance changes specifically to address roaming animals and containment requirements, and to expand the county’s animal-control hours and on-call response to evenings and weekends. “There is no leash law in the county and that must change,” said Jacqueline Clark, a resident who volunteers with rescues. Advocates also asked the board to consider longer stray-hold periods and programs that reduce surrenders, such as temporary foster support and short-term financial aid for struggling pet owners.

Commissioners did not announce formal action on the matter at the Aug. 11 meeting. Several attendees asked the board to commit to forming a county-led task force; speakers left written material with the clerk and said they expected follow-up from staff.

Residents who spoke included volunteers, nonprofit leaders and a range of community members; an 8-year-old student also addressed the board, urging elected officials to expand shelter space so more animals could be saved.

The issue has been raised at prior meetings and garnered community organizing this summer: speakers said Change for Union County has gathered signatures and partnered with local rescues. Advocates asked commissioners to coordinate with municipal partners and county departments, including health services and animal control, to develop ordinance language and a funding plan for facilities or program expansions.

For now, speakers asked the board to begin a public, commissioner-led dialogue and to direct staff to return with options, estimates and potential funding sources so the county can move beyond repeated appeals and “start the conversation” on concrete reforms.

Ending: The topic will likely return to the board’s agenda as residents requested staff follow-up; commissioners did not offer a timetable at the meeting.