Calvert County reviews sweeping animal ordinance updates covering licensing, tethering, 'reckless owner' penalties

Calvert County public safety staff presented proposed, wholesale revisions to Chapter 7 (Animals) of the Calvert County Code of Ordinances at the Board of County Commissioners work session on April 8, asking the board for feedback and authority to advertise the draft for public hearing.

The changes, prepared by the Department of Public Safety’s animal control and shelter staff, would add new commercial and owner-license categories (including an “animal fancier” license for individuals owning six or more dogs, cats or rabbits), require written disaster/contact plans for licensed facilities, set containment and photo requirements for animals designated potentially dangerous or dangerous, restrict wireless/electric fences as the sole form of containment, and create a “reckless owner” designation for repeated ordinance violations that could bar someone from owning animals for up to four years.

Deputy Director April Coleman, representing the Animal Control and Shelter divisions, said the rewrite is intended to modernize language that dates to 2008, reflect the integration of shelter and control functions into the Department of Public Safety, and align county rules with contemporary animal welfare expectations. “The proposed ordinance update is about more than just policy. It’s about progress we have made as a county,” Coleman said.

Why it matters: staff told commissioners the changes are designed to reduce recurring cruelty and public-safety incidents, clarify enforcement expectations, and improve emergency response for large-scale cases. Staff cited multiple recent investigations in which animals were repeatedly impounded or found in dangerous conditions. Crystal Dowd, deputy director for public safety, confirmed the animal shelter now keeps documentation — including photos and owner/contact information — to help emergency responders and the shelter coordinate during incidents.

Key provisions and details discussed

- Licensing: New categories would add an “animal fancier” license for owners with six or more animals of a species, and require annual commercial licenses for grooming businesses and nonprofit rescues (rescue licenses would be fee-exempt). Staff said the animal-fancier license fee for six to 15 animals would be $75; county licensing for altered versus unaltered animals remains in place (one‑year altered license $7 / unaltered $20; three‑year altered $12 / unaltered $50).

- Disaster / emergency contact: commercial licensees would file a written disaster or point-of-contact plan so animal services can rapidly locate caretakers during fires, floods or evacuations. Staff emphasized the requirement is typically a contact name/phone on the license application, not a household evacuation map.

- Reckless owner: a person with three or more Chapter 7 violations within 24 months could be designated a “reckless owner” after review by the deputy director; the designation would be appealable to the Animal Matters Hearing Board and could bar ownership for four years.

- Containment and dangerous-animal rules: new containment language would require, where applicable, a six-foot perimeter fence or a secure outdoor kennel (electric/wireless systems cannot be the sole containment method). Photo identification of animals would be added to the county database used by dispatch.

- Tethering and extreme weather: the draft would limit unsupervised long-term tethering (all-day or overnight), require access to shelter, shade and water, and allow the deputy director to issue pet-safety alerts when wind chill is 32°F or below or heat index reaches 90°F.

- Impoundment and redemption: animals impounded twice within 12 months could be required to be spayed/neutered before reclaiming; repeat ordinance violators could be required to microchip prior to reclaiming.

What commissioners asked staff to clarify

Commissioners pressed staff to avoid unintentionally burdening farmers and hunting-dog owners. Commissioner Hart and others asked for clear exemptions or a farm/residential distinction (acreage, agricultural purpose) for the six-animal threshold and for clarity about animals that are normally kept outdoors (e.g., hunting dogs, barn cats). Coleman and Dowd agreed to research surrounding jurisdictions’ approaches and to return with drafting options that differentiate farm/agricultural uses from the residential/commercial categories in the draft.

Staff direction and next steps

Staff requested the board’s feedback and, if appropriate, authorization to advertise the draft for public hearing. Commissioners did not adopt the ordinance at the April 8 work session; staff said the draft will be revised to address commissioners’ concerns (farm/agriculture language; clarify commercial vs. owner categories; simplify emergency-contact requirements) and then circulated for public outreach and formal public hearings.

Quotes

“The goal is prevention through responsible ownership,” April Coleman said, explaining proposed tethering limits. “It’s not a ban on outdoor animals — it’s about preventing suffering and reducing preventable incidents.”

“We would afford people time to process what their expectations are for owning potentially dangerous or dangerous animals,” Coleman said about proposed compliance timelines.

Ending

Staff will return with edits requested by the board and publish the revised rules for public review before any formal adoption vote. The board directed staff to prepare outreach materials and to coordinate with the county attorney’s office before scheduling public hearings.