Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Animals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tazewell supervisors revise 'dogs running at large' ordinance language to improve enforceability
Summary
The board amended local ordinance language to clarify the term 'permit' so sheriffs and courts can better address repeat dog-running complaints; the change keeps the statutory framework but defines how the county will interpret 'permit' for enforcement.
The Tazewell County Board of Supervisors on June 27 approved an amendment to the county’s dogs-running-at-large ordinance aimed at reducing dismissed summonses and aiding enforcement of repeat violations.
County Attorney Chase Collins and law‑enforcement officials told the board the existing ordinance language — which uses the term "permit" consistent with the Code of Virginia — had been creating an enforcement gap. First Sergeant Davis, representing the sheriff’s office, said deputies frequently respond to repeated complaints and that many summonses have been dismissed because of how the court reads the existing verbiage.
"We're going after the folks where it's their third, fourth, and fifth time, and they keep going to court and saying, I didn't let him run out," First Sergeant Davis said, describing the enforcement challenge. "These dogs are sometimes killing people's livestock, chasing their cats, tearing up their yards, tearing up their property, and also they're going after children or adults."
County Attorney Collins recommended retaining the Code of Virginia terminology (to avoid invalidating the ordinance) while adding a local definition that narrows how the county will interpret the term in practice. Collins read the proposed definition into the record: "For purposes of this section, ‘permit’ shall mean: (a) owning or possessing any dog roaming or running outside the real property of the owner or custodian of the dogs and not under the owner or custodian's immediate control; and (b) where the Tazewell County Sheriff's Office has received at least one prior citizen complaint concerning said dogs." Collins said the definition is intended to target repeat offenders while avoiding penalizing isolated incidents such as an elderly owner whose dog briefly escaped.
The board discussed exclusions and scope; a supervisor asked for explicit clarification that hunting dogs are excluded. Collins confirmed that hunting dogs maintained under the Code of Virginia’s exemptions are not subject to the local nuisance enforcement as amended.
The board voted to adopt the revised language and instructed staff to publish the ordinance through the county’s codification service (Municode) so it can be used in prosecutions. Supervisors asked staff to return in six months with an implementation update so the board can assess whether the change reduced repeat complaints and summons dismissals.
Ending: County officials said the amendment is a targeted, technical revision designed to improve court-level enforceability without expanding the county’s statutory authority.
