Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Animal Welfare topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bertie County commissioners send tethering ordinance to voters after lengthy public comment

Bertie County Board of Commissioners · February 16, 2026
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

After more than an hour of public comment from animal-welfare advocates, hunters and residents, the Bertie County Board of Commissioners voted Feb. 16 to place a proposed animal tethering ordinance on the county ballot and to discuss advisory-board details at a later work session.

The Bertie County Board of Commissioners voted Feb. 16 to refer a proposed standards-of-care tethering ordinance to a countywide referendum after an extended public-comment period that included appeals from PETA, local rescuers and hunting groups.

Rachel, speaking for PETA and its North Carolina supporters, told commissioners that the organization has documented chained dogs who died of starvation and animals with severely embedded collars and urged the board to "protect the dogs and people by banning tethering and implementing animal care standards that advance welfare and public safety." Michelle Disney, a long-time volunteer who has built fences for chained dogs, asked the board to "please pass a comprehensive ordinance that bans chains," citing studies linking prolonged tethering to aggression and injury risks for children.

Opponents including hunting-association representatives said a blanket ban would harm hunters and trainers and argued that targeted enforcement of existing cruelty laws and education would be preferable. Bobby Harris, who said he represents the Almar Hayman Association, told commissioners that "some dogs you can't keep in pens" and urged enforcement of current statutes instead of new rules.

Faced with sharply divided testimony, the board approved a motion to place the measure on the ballot and to fold advisory-board planning into an upcoming work session so voters would have implementation details before casting ballots. The motion to refer the ordinance was made and seconded on the floor and carried by voice vote; commissioners did not specify a precise tally during the meeting.

What’s next: the board directed staff to prepare ballot language and to convene advisory-board details at the work session. No ordinance will take effect without voter approval and the additional procedural steps the board outlined.