Animal deaths spark push for county action
Haywood County is considering changes to its animal ordinance after public concern over enforcement.
File photo
The stories came in waves, each more graphic than the last, until the room itself seemed to tighten under the weight of them — a dog so badly abused she could not walk, a horse found dead in a dry creek bed, another starving animal that did not survive despite last-ditch rescue efforts. By the time public comment ended March 16, Haywood County commissioners were left facing a stark question residents had repeated in different ways all night: how had so many warnings gone unanswered?
More than a dozen speakers used their allotted three minutes to speak about potential changes to the county’s animal ordinance, arguing that gaps in enforcement, recordkeeping and authority had allowed neglect and abuse to persist for years without meaningful intervention.
Holly Greenwald opened the flood of testimony by noting that a proposed animal control ordinance had been sent to each commissioner around Feb. 23, asking for stronger definitions, clearer standards and better enforcement tools.
“Stronger ordinances are not about punishment, they are about prevention,” Greenwald said.
She backed up the ordinance’s necessity with a detailed account of a dog named Zoe, whose case became one of the focal points of the meeting.
Greenwald said animal control had been called to a Canton property several times between 2019 and 2025 — calls that only ended when a private citizen paid $500 to remove the dog from the property. Once freed, Zoe presented “as a bait animal” and had to be euthanized weeks later.
Related Items
‘Conversations with Storytellers’ series
Donald Davis to spin yarns
Free sports physicals for student athletes
Haywood property tax increase: 54% for jail, 21% for education
“Zoe did not get a second chance,” she said. “The dogs still living on the chains in this county deserve better.”
Speaker after speaker built on that narrative, describing what they said was a pattern of delayed responses, insufficient authority and missed opportunities to intervene before animals suffered irreversible harm. Jeffrey Jensen, a longtime animal owner and business operator, framed the issue as both moral and administrative.
“Animals are not simply objects or property,” Jensen said. “They are sentient beings.”
Citing concerns about record-keeping practices, Jensen alleged that some animals were not properly documented upon intake by Haywood County Animal Services.
“Any animal taken into public custody should be documented,” he said. “Transparency and accountability are basic expectations of any publicly funded agency.”
He also pointed to cases of neglect involving a donkey and two horses in the Beaver Dam area between 2023 and 2025, where he said repeated complaints failed to trigger timely action and resulted in no charges for the owner.
Karen Owens, who submitted the proposed ordinance, said she had personally reviewed animal control reports and offered a timeline of calls and responses related to the same herd. She recounted follow-ups spaced days and weeks apart, culminating in the discovery of a dead horse and another animal in critical condition. Owens said those deaths could have been prevented. Her conclusion drew a direct line between those outcomes and the need for leadership changes.
Other speakers echoed concerns about enforcement and accountability, while broadening the issue to systemic failures. Laurel Smith framed the responsibility in bleak terms.
“Like children, animals don’t ask to be born or owned,” Smith said. “It’s the responsibility of society, of humankind, to protect them.”
Vicki Nordozi questioned whether the problem lay in the ordinance itself or in its implementation.
“I know we have an ordinance in Haywood County that is intended to protect these animals … It is either insufficient in its current status or the people tasked with enacting [enforcing] it are not doing what they need to do to enforce that ordinance,” Nordozi said.
Not all speakers supported changes to the ordinance. Several residents, particularly those who keep working dogs, argued that current practices such as tethering and barrel housing are not inherently cruel and should not be restricted. Blake Mathis rejected the premise of new regulations outright and finished with a plea to commissioners.
“I don’t see no reason whatsoever that we should be changing anything,” said Mathis, who noted he’d raised chained, barrel-housed hounds in Haywood County his whole life. “I’ve never seen one freeze to death. I’ve never seen one overheat. They’re fed daily. They’re watered daily. There is no reason to change anything in the community. Leave it the way it is. I wish y’all would stand with us.”
Ben Green, who said he travels extensively with his dogs, defended common practices among hunters.
“Dogs are tough as their owners,” Green said, describing routine care of his dogs. “We spend fortunes on dogs to keep them up and running. They put food on our table. We take very good care of our dogs. I can’t speak for everybody. Some people, the starving to death ones, I don’t agree with that no more than anybody else does.”
Savannah Rayburn, a veterinary technician with experience in Buncombe County, called for a balanced approach.
“Yes, there should be better treatment of animals in this county. There are definitely instances like you’ve heard with Zoe and with the horses, there are reasons to be taken into consideration, but there needs to be some middle ground of what people are looking for,” Rayburn said. “There are definitely instances of neglect in this county, but there needs to be a fine line between the condition of working dogs and what’s truly neglect.”
Danny Heatherly struck that middle tone.
“I don’t believe in any animal cruelty under any circumstance, and that’s not acceptable at all,” Heatherly said. “It needs to be addressed whether if the person’s on drugs and the neighbor’s scared to call, the drugs need to be addressed. Whatever the problem is, it does need to be addressed.”
He also cautioned against broad assumptions about dog owners, especially bear hunters.
“There’s not a greater group of men sitting right over here that cares for their dogs than bear hunters,” he said. “They love their dogs, the feed them, they take care of them and when one gets hurt, he’s headed straight to the vet. They’ll carry them out of the woods. They sleep with them. They stay out all night to get them. So I don’t want any animosity towards bear hunters because these bear hunters are doing a great job of taking care of them.”
After more nearly an hour of public comment, commissioners responded with a mix of concern, caution and commitment to further review. Commissioner Tommy Long suggested the issue reflected broader human behavior rather than regulatory gaps.
“I’m sure there will be a whole lot of things to unpack from all the comments that were said, but to me, this is kind of a people thing,” Long said. “It sounds like a people issue … The righteous people, they take care of their stuff. Cruel and wicked people at heart, they don’t.”
Long acknowledged the need for potential improvements.
“I don’t know how we police this,” he said. “I’m sure we can tighten some things up, from what I’ve heard, but good people take care of their animals — that’s a theme we’ve heard here tonight. So if we can do better as a county, we should.”
Commissioner Jennifer Best said the volume and specificity of comments warranted a closer look.
“You have raised enough of a concern tonight that certainly we need to maybe go back with a different eye and just look at things one more time,” Best said, adding that her husband is a bear hunter and that she recognizes the standard of care afforded hunting dogs.
“In public policy, there is a place where we can all come together and you have my word that I will look at that again,” she said.
Agreeing with Long, Commissioner Brandon Rogers expressed support for revisiting certain aspects of enforcement but also opined that bear hunters don’t spend thousands of dollars on dogs to mistreat them.
“When you got pay $10,000 for a dog — and I may be off, they may be more now — but I can promise you they’re not going to abuse them or not feed them or not take care of them, because when they want them dogs to perform, they want them to do what they can,” he said.
Speaking on the county’s 2010 animal tethering ordinance, Rogers said he was firm on leaving it as-is; however, he pledged to look more closely at equine abuse and the performance of Haywood County’s Animal Services department.
Commissioner Terry Ramey, who was investigated for neglect of five horses on his property in 2024, said he thought a reexamination of priorities was warranted. After a vet checked them, she said Ramey’s horses had Henneke body condition scores ranging from 2.5 to 4, and that three of the horses showed “prominent ribs.” The Henneke BCS scale notes that horses with a score of 3 or less are underweight, and that horses generally be maintained between 4 and 6. Although the vet’s report noted that “there could always be underlying health conditions causing weight loss or failure to thrive,” such situations are “unlikely in a group of five horses.” No charges were ever brought against Ramey.
Chairman Kevin Ensley said he wanted more information about how Animal Control determines when to seize an animal and how records at Haywood Animal Control are maintained.
No item related to the ordinance appeared on the agenda, and no immediate action was taken.
