Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges board to reverse tethering ordinance amendment, questions vote and duration limits
Summary
James Cocotillo told the board he opposes the recent amendment to Henry County's tethering ordinance (HC Code 25-013-49), urged a return to prior language, described animal-welfare concerns and sought clarification about the adopted maximum tether duration (board confirmed a 4‑hour limit).
James Cocotillo, a resident and volunteer with a local rescue, used his public comment time to ask the board to reconsider a recent amendment to the county's tethering ordinance (referenced in the meeting as HC Code 25-013-49).
"So with that, I hope you all can reconsider your vote," Cocotillo told commissioners, summarizing his concerns that tethering can place dogs at risk (predators, insufficient protection) and saying he preferred the prior ordinance language. He recounted the ordinance's history (original change in 2021 passed unanimously) and said he was surprised by several votes on the recent amendment.
Board members and staff clarified points of confusion about the adopted duration limit: several participants confirmed the version the board passed sets a maximum tether duration of four hours, and the county manager said the web posting had been updated to reflect that. Commissioners acknowledged the differing perspectives and thanked Cocotillo for his comments; no further action was taken at the meeting to change the ordinance.
