Thanks so much for your input. The charge is violating 10-56. This as already gone to court where the Prosecutor rejected my petition to dismiss. Believe it or not but the prosecutor used the argument that a backyard fence is the same as a cattle fence (keep dog in and child out) and that part time on leash qualifies a dog for NOT AT LARGE. These in support of his own arguments. So this is the kind of attitude/brain power I'm dealing with. My argument revolves around no collar no leash. Looking at 10-24 one can conclude that's all about the tag but...why not say simply "without a tag" or "without a tag attached to collar. An why does the County call this situation "NOT at large? And why does the prosecutor even addresses the leash by discussing the not at large argument? AT LARGE (10-19) has nothing to do with a tag. Love to hear from you. RobertOk Here is my take.
I agree the wording of this ordinance is weak. I would look at your summons and make sure your being charged with a violation of sec 10.24. if you are i think you have a reasonable defense. You do not need to hire an attorney as this is a kin to a traffic ticket and most people dont hire an attorney they just tell their story and the judge makes a decision. The animal control officer presents his own prosecution not an assistant district Attorney.
The spirit of the law is about dog licensing and showing the public that the animal is properly licensed, so the fact that your dogs are properly licensed I think your going to be ok. Now, in your original post you mention about training off leash, if this is a park that is posted no off leash in my opinion 10-24 would not apply and the park could prohibit the training because it is designated no off leash animals. There would have to be an ordinance to cover this that is why I asked if your summons lists the ordinance your are being accused of being in violation. Maybe they could try and charge under sec 10-56 running a large, but even then you have a good defense because of the wording of recklessly or negligently. They only way i see is if they charged 10-56-c and they can show you did not have a 6 foot or shorter leash in your possession you could be considered in violation of the ordinance.
you might try reaching out to the Rio Salado Vizsla Club (http://www.rsvc.net/) and see if they have some advice for you. Good luck, I hope it all works out.