Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Seeking Public Input Regarding Animal Control Ordinances

The Board of Health is collecting public comment before they begin drafting a new animal control ordinance that will address the overpopulation of unwanted pets. Any stakeholder involved with the plight of unwanted animals or any resident interested in future City of Columbia or Boone County ordinances is invited to leave comments.

Click here to read minutes from previous Board of Health meetings.
Click here to current City of Columbia and Boone County Animal Control ordinances.

Thank you for your comments and your interest in public health. Please be advised that inappropriate comments and/or those containing foul language will be removed by the blog administrator.

101 comments:

  1. I like the idea of the County-wide spay/neuter requirement with heavy fines for violators, unless you have a breeder license, but also think that a low-cost spay/neuter would have to go along with it. Having a pet sterilized can be costly, and with no incentive to have it done, and no penalty for not having it done, many families w/ limited income may not make it a priority. Have we looked at other cities' ordinances and requirements for ideas on what other places have found that works and what doesn't?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think there should be an optional fee for owners of intact animals, for example, if someone wants to keep his pet intact to one day breed him. The fee should be high enough to discourage most people from keeping their animals intact, say, $500 or $250 per pet: a Pigovian tax.

    If someone don't want to pay this fee, s/he must get his animal spayed or neutered, or be fined, and additionally ordered to spay/neuter/pay the $250 fee (with the fine money going to trap-fix-'n-release programs like SNAP).

    This way, people legitimately interested in breeding their animals have a way around the ordinance, but the general public will be strongly financially motivated to make sure their animals are spayed or neutered.

    I also think that breeders should be required by law, under a new ordinance, to guarantee that their customers will either pay the $250-or-whatever "intact fee," or alternatively, spay/neuter the bred animals, *before* the new owner can take possession. This will help with enforcement. The law should also say that if a breeder is unable to find a buyer for an animal, s/he is still responsible for ensuring that the animal is either spayed/neutered or that the "intact fee" is paid, say, before the animal is 1 year old (for cats & dogs).

    By the way, the Central Missouri Humane Society already offers low-cost spaying & neutering surgeries, based on the owners' income.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Please keep the comments within the prescribed time limits at the next public meeting. For everyone, even people with high public profiles.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I just wanted to clarify on my last post:

    "I think there should be an optional fee for owners of intact animals, for example, if someone wants to keep his pet intact to one day breed him."

    By "optional," I of course meant that the only legal alternative would be spaying/neutering said animals.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Also, currently, Columbia ordinances require that dogs & cats be licensed and vaccinated for rabies: Tags are issued by vets (by law) to owners to put on the animals' collars, but the law does not say that an owner must actually get a collar for the animal and put the tag on it!

    http://gocolumbiamo.com/Finance/Services/blanimal.php

    I think we could really cut down on the number of owned-but-stray animals that end up at the shelter (which take up the shelter's time, resources, and kennel space, and often are put down if the owner cannot be identified) if we required that dogs & cats WEAR tags, not just that their owners receive them. It seems like such a simple step: Get a collar and put a tag on it with your phone number. You can get such tags made while-you-wait for $7 at self-service kiosks at places like Wal-Mart and Petco.

    We should enact a law that says animal owners must not only receive a tag from their vets that proves the animal is vaccinated for rabies, but follow through to put these tags on the animals' collars AND tags with the owners' phone numbers on the collars and on the animals.

    As I understand it, there is also no city-wide database of registered animals. The last time I got my animals registered, I was simply asked to fill out a paper card, which I saw placed into a plastic file-box with hundreds of others. My info was not entered into a computer database and therefore no city-wide "We found your animal and looked up his license number to contact you" program is possible. Why are these license numbers and contact data not online and accessible to Animal Control, all vets, rescues, and shelters in the area? This seems incredible deficient to me.

    Require that all owned animals wear ID tags and require that all owned animals *wear* their rabies tags, not just that vets must provide them to owners. They don't do any good if the owners don't follow through by putting the tags on the animals' collars.

    Along with this, we should require that all animals get microchipped, as they are at the Humane Society. Any vet can check a chip in seconds with a simple hand-held scanner. The downsides of microchips (unlike tags) is that 1) you have to have a scanner for them to be useful and 2) I don't think there's a national or even a regional, open-access database of those 15-digit-or-whatever codes to match up with owner contact info. If an animal was adopted from CMHS, they keep the codes on file and can look it up, but if the chip was inserted from somewhere else (like another vet in town), it doesn't do a lot of good. Tags are faster and easier; the only downside is that (rarely) collars get caught on trees and the animal wriggles himself loose, losing his tags in the process.

    The best policy would be to require both that all owned animals wear tags and are also microchipped & spayed/neutered.

    If we enact this law requiring all animals to be spayed or neutered except in cases where the owner pays a fee to allow his animal to remain intact, it becomes even more important that all animals have tags, because it would be a terrible shame if someone paid the fee to allow his animal to remain intact, and then the animal was picked up by a program like SNAP and neutered anyway. Tags/microchips would eliminate that possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with Dave.

    People will balk and say, 'but that's too expensive for a pet!'.

    Is it? Shouldn't the costs that go into a pet be something people should be able to shoulder BEFORE they bring a living, feeling creature under their care?

    Enforcement of spay/neuter and preventing people unlicensed/regulated appropriately to breed should occur.

    There are far too many animals being treated with the same disposability as a worn household object instead of providing them with the respect of a living creature.

    Animals are often offered up free on web-sites like craigslist or dumped in the country by people who figure they'll 'fend for themselves'. There are far too many puppy mills and breeders treating animals like merchandise, thinking they can allow for some 'damaged stock' so long as they still turn their profit.

    Too many obtain a pet on a whim, thinking their children truly will uphold their promise of feeding, walking, and cleaning up after it every day. If they had to think about the cost involved first, they would be more resistant. Soon the animal is tired of and either neglected or disposed of with no more thought than went into it's acquirement.

    Neglecting the basic duty of spay/neutering often leads to people to continuing the cycle of having excess animals going into homes without a second thought.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Please keep public comments at the next meeting within the prescribed time limits.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I live just outside Columbia City limits. Several dogs in my neighborhood roam freely, and are extremely aggressive to anyone they don't recognize. It would be nice if there was an ordinance that stated that even outside city limits, if you have a pet in a neighborhood, it should be fenced in or on a leash. It would also be nice if people calling to report loose pets being aggressive to neighborhood children didn't get the run around.
    I agree that all pets should be spayed/neutered. The overflow of animals should be put to sleep (I don't feel this is any crueler than neglection). Anyone with a pet that isn't spayed or neutered should have that pet removed and receive a fine. If they can't afford the service, they can't afford a pet.
    It's getting ridiculous when I can't let my son ride his bike down the block because of large dogs chasing and growling at him.

    ReplyDelete
  10. SUMMARY: Enacting more stringent pet laws does not reduce excess animals. Want real ideas about how to reduce our stray population? Ask an animal control officer! Ask the person who confronts the wiley taxpayer and their backyard breeding programs what tools (and rules) they need to work themselves out of a job. That is the REAL goal behind this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Other communities that have embraced TNR (trap, neuter and return) simply have their existing ordinances clarified by defining feral cats and exempting legitimate TNR practitioners from ownership ordinances. Why can't Columbia do this?? It is not fair to penalize feral cat colony caretakers who are trying to help remedy a problem that society created.

    ReplyDelete
  12. People should have right to have their pet reproduce.

    That right can be taken away if they let their pet run free. Their should be a different price to pick up a pet depending on whether or not the pet is licensed and there should be an additional charge if the pet is not neutered. The increased cost for not neutered should pay for a neuter program, first offense the owner can decide whether or not to neuter, but they pay for a neuter subsidy if they choose not to neuter. Second offense they pay for two. Third offense they pay for two and their pet gets neutered.

    The cost of the license should be kept minimal and same regardless of neuter. It should require note from vet that attest animal is up on all required vaccines. Any pet without this note should be required to be vaccinated before owner pick up and should be charged a higher fee to help with low income people getting their pet vaccinated.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I live in the county and find it frustrating to have the neighbors dogs acting aggressively toward us whenever we are outside. One of my old barn cats was killed by these dogs and the "Animal Control Officers" told us that they would not help us as the county dogs had all rights to roam freely, as they do not know boundries. We have had to carry shovels to defend ourselves. All of our complaints to the Animal Control was "supposedly" written up and taken to court to see if a judge would declare the dogs a nuisance. They were not declared a nuisance; thus, they are still allowed to roam freely. These dogs also chase cars and several have been killed. Something needs to be done in the county regarding animal control.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I very rarly see pets running "at large" in the city of Columbia. I think that if the pet is altered or not is really not an issue when the owner takes care to not let the animal run loose. It is wonderful to see so many folks out walking their dogs and taking advantage of the dog parks in town.
    Perhaps better control of rural "road dogs and cats" might be in order.
    The current Rabis law should be updated to fall in line with current vet recomendations.
    Offering low cost spay, neuter, and rabies clinics might be helpful for folks without the meens to alter their pet.
    An educational program funded by the community would be most welcome.
    Time spent in schools and other community venues could be a huge answer for future and current pet owners to avoid problems that occur.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I believe spaying and neutering should be required. If you want to own an animal you should do so responsibly. The feral cat colonies are produced by irresponsible humans. Those colonies should be protected. They should be trapped, neutered and returned and protected. The research shows that managed colonies do not reproduce and the numbers decrease. The city of Columbia should be like many cities across the nation and should pass an ordinance protecting the feral colonies in this city. It is the common sense and humane approach to caring for the ferals. The laws should protective. There needs to be heavy fines for those who dump animals. Spay and neuter laws would vastly decrease the number of unwanted animals in the city.

    ReplyDelete
  16. There is a large portion of the community that participate in performance events with dogs. Some of these events occur within the city limits and bring revenue to the city and county. Most of the governing bodies require that the animals be intact. A required alteration will curtail these events.
    These are not the people or pets that pose a problem for the community.
    Please do not pass a blanket regulation.

    ReplyDelete
  17. We have performance dogs. We used to live in Boone county, but now are frequent visitors. Our dogs have had 0 unplanned litters. Our dogs do not roam the neighborhood. The one planned litter we had all had carefully selected homes. Our dogs are vaccinated and well cared for. Do not penalize me and others like me with mandantory spay/neuter because a few people have a problem keeping track of their pets. Mandatory spay/neuter is unlikely to magically make those people responsible pet owners.

    ReplyDelete
  18. As I was saying, I think we should include in the mandatory spay/neuter laws exemptions for people who have a legitimate reason for keeping an animal intact (breeders, people who show dogs, etc). There needs to be a fee for this, preferably a pretty pricey one, to discourage people from taking advantage of it, although definitely less than the cost of an ovariohysterectomy/orchitectomy + the cost of the fine for not having an animal spayed/neutered under the law (otherwise, people will just ignore the law until they get caught, and then pay the fine and have the operation done).

    Part of the reason for this law is to make owning an animal more expensive, so that only responsible people can afford to have pets. Right now, owning pets is an example of a market failure. It is so cheap and easy that lots of people do it who should not be doing it because they aren't responsible enough. There are expensive negative consequences to irresponsible people owning intact pets that and that costs of addressing those consequences are not borne by the offenders. This is unfair to taxpayers and even worse, unfair to the animals who must be euthanized as a result of overpopulation.

    By making pet ownership more expensive, we (the taxpayers, who ultimately pay the consequences) make it harder for people to afford intact pets, which is the point—it discourages that behavior where the free market fails to.

    This could also be accomplished by having a tax on pets in general. We sort-of do that now with license fees, but $5 for cats and $15 for dogs is not nearly enough, and worse, this is not enforced (because it's just not worth going after $5 for an unlicensed cat). How many people even know that you have to re-license your animal every year? Not many, I'd bet.

    I agree that mandatory spay/neuter will not magically make people more responsible pet owners. What it will do, though, is cut down the population of "free" animals so that these irresponsible people don't end up with pets they can't afford in the first place. As I said, we need exemptions for show animals, etc, but there has to be some kind of safeguard (most likely a fee) to prevent people from falsely claiming that their animals are show animals or breeding stock, just to avoid the fines.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the animal control ordinances. I would like to request that the city implement an equal response on the part of Animal Control for cats as for dogs reported to be at large. A domestic cat in our neighborhood regularly defecates in the yards of his caretaker's neighbors, and has killed or maimed at least six wild birds that I know of, including migratory birds that are protected by law from molestation by a human being. Since the cat was left here ("temporarily") by the caretaker's daughter almost a year ago, we have spent hundreds of dollars on different brands of cat repellent, an ultrasonic cat alarm, and temporary fencing materials, all unsuccessful in keeping the cat out of our yard. When the caretaker was approached, early on, to ask for her help in keeping the cat from coming into our yard and killing birds, her response was "He's a cat, what do you expect? The city can just give me a ticket, I'll pay it." But this is not an option, as I found when I called Animal Control. Though it is unlawful, as I understand it, for the owner of any animal to let it go onto others' property without the others' consent, Animal Control will not come out on a cat-related complaint; enforcement in the case of cats is left in the hands of citizens. I was told I can get a live trap, catch the cat, take him to the Humane Society (but only on a day when they are open to the public), and pay a fee for them to take him in. When I told the caregiver that this was the advice I had received from Animal Control, she said she would sue me if anything happened to the cat. I respectfully urge the city to empower Animal Control to enforce the animal-at-large regulations in cases of cats allowed by their caretakers to go onto others' property without their consent. Other cities, such as Aurora, Colorado, recognize the problems caused by domestic cats permitted to be at large, and have enacted laws to protect their citizens and wildlife: http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/materials/aurora_law.pdf. The Animal Control staffer with whom I spoke (who was courteous, sympathetic, and informative) told me, when I asked, that the way to strengthen enforcement is to work for a change in the ordinance. I am glad that the issues of pet overpopulation and feral cats are now under public discussion, and I hope that stray domestic cats will also be brought under stronger legal control.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A mandatory Spay/Neuter law is simply bad law. It will be ineffective. It will not work. It is quite possibly unconstitutional, and is an unreasonable intrusion on personal rights. That's why it has been defeated everywhere it has been tried.

    Who is going to police the law, and who will pay for it? Unless Columbia is planning to send a police or animal control officer from door to door for every home in Columbia and try to inspect spay scars (which disappear within a year or so) there is no way to do it. The costs would be astronomical. Trying to mandate that vets deal with it is putting unnecessary burden on vets *and* simply ensures pets are not taken to the vet.

    You cannot legislate morality or intelligence. The idiots on my street who are letting their dogs have litters every six months are NOT going to respond to a law.

    Asking for a draconian fee to keep an intact pet penalizes the very people who DO breed responsibly, because only the responsible people will report. And responsible breeders do NOT breed to make money, they breed to improve the breed as a whole.

    Columbia hosts several conformation, obedience, and agility trials per year. Those events contribute millions to the local economy and a mandatory S/N will end that money coming in.

    Most dogs coming into the shelter *had* homes. Sure, they get litters, but a huge number of the dogs they get are being dumped from existing homes. Overpopulation is just a small part of the real problem, which is careless, irresponsible owners.

    Here's what will work far better:

    1. Raise ALL licensing fees by a small amount, and use them to fund FREE spay/neuter clinics given several times a year. We have a vet school, work with them.

    2. Fund programs for training. Trained dogs are less likely to be dumped than untrained dogs. Work with centers like the Columbia Canine Sports Center to see what solutions can be found to help more owners be willing to spend a bit of money.

    3. Continue to catch, alter and release feral cats.

    4. Instead of alienating and pushing away responsible owners and breeders, work WITH them. We are just as interested in solving this issue as you are. The last time CMHS made the Columbia Kennel Club their enemy they ended up losing thousands of dollars a year in donations. That's not the right direction to go.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I agree with Robin's most on may 3, at 1:15 pm . I am not personally a breeder but don't penalize the folks that ARE responsible breeders. And don't make it even MORE expense for me to buy a dog from a responsible breeder.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Robin brings up many good points.

    I agree with her and would like to point out a few more problems with a mandatory S/N law.

    One of my dogs is a rescue and is indeed neutered. My other two dogs are my performance dogs. One has his championship and both have several agility, herding, and working titles and also herd on a working sheep farm. My intact male does therapy every week with special ed kids at one of the local schools. None of them run loose , aggressing neighborhood animals or children.

    Many of my friends are also members of the dog community. These are not the people who let their dogs run loose terrorizing the community. But.. Robin is absolutely correct in her assessment that it is these responsible people who will be the only ones reporting that their animals are intact and the only ones paying the fees.

    The type of people whom this law is intended to penalize are not going to report their intact animals. If their animal is picked up and they are told to pay a fine or get the animal spayed or neutered, what is to prevent them from claiming non-ownership of that animal?

    Work with the responsible dog community and make it easier for low cost S/N and training.

    I notice that the comment was made that there should be a "pretty pricey" fee imposed on those wanting to keep intact animals.

    Why should responsible people in this community be the only ones responsible for shouldering the burden of the deadbeats who will not own up to the fact that they have intact animals running loose?

    The bottom line is that mandatory S/N does not work, but with a dedicated dog community other solutions can be found.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I live in rural Boone County and would like to point out that a I see dogs running loose constantly. About twice a year, you also see the pregnant females running along the roads and highways. The owners of these dogs, are not going to be the ones to care whether there is a mandatory spay/neuter or not. First of all, it’s easy enough to take the dog to a vet in neighboring counties for vaccinations, if the dogs are even vaccinated at all. Secondly, I think you will just find a growing number of rural people who won’t vaccinate (including rabies), and therefore, won’t report intact dogs.

    I also show dogs and do many performance events, and as others have already pointed out, the only people who will paying the fees/fines are the people who are already responsible enough not to have their dogs running loose in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Greetings -

    Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN) laws have been passed in other states only to fail dismally. An interesting, well-documented fact (based upon data gathered) is that the number of strays actually increased rather than decreased.

    This hub-bub has come about due to the high profile of CMHS's plight and the constant barrage of needing more money. What we hear is that they accept thousands of animals a year.

    I guess I'd like to have a demographic of that first. Segregating the dog population from the species, how many were either adults or litters of puppies with or w/out a mother? That is, who is old enough to "used to have a home" versus those who were still in the litter? I think it's also important to know how many dogs are returned after being adopted...aka what is the "sticking" numbers of adoptees? That will tell us alot, too.

    MSN laws address overpopulation. They do not address irresponsible (which we probably need to define, too) ownership. The former is defined by litters. The latter is defined by relinquishments and/or picked up strays.

    What will be interesting is how CMHS's ED and BOD will feel about having questions asked of them. My attempts to provide (free) assistance by providing ideas and services (again, they were free services) to have adoptions "stick" were completely ignored. I lay, right at the ED's feet, a significant degree of responsibility for those dogs who bounce and are ultimately euthanized.

    I'm all for reducing the numbers of animals who find themselves homeless. I detest on every level, any degree of animal suffering. But, I'm also smart enough to realize that removing their reproductive organs won't do the trick.

    Clearly, the city and CMHS has gotten the attention of a large, highly dog-savvy group of performance dog people. This group will ask a lot of questions, just to make sure that the exact problem(s) have been identified and then work to a reasonable solution. I trust that the city and CMHS will, in the spirit of problem-solving, be open to candid conversations and sharing of information and real-world solutions.

    Kindest Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I find it interesting that the dog and cat community reached out to help the Human Society through ZooToo -- only to have them get greedy about wanting more money and more control over the animals in my life. I live in VERY rural Boone County. There aren't strays in our area very often.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anon, I don't think CMHS is getting greedy. I think they, and the Board of Health, want to actively address the issue of the numbers of dogs and cats that end up in the shelter. Unfortunately they are going about it the wrong way. A mandatory S/N law will be totally ineffective. A friend sent me this link to the ASPA's well-researched position on mandatory spay/neuter laws and it's definitely worth a read.

    http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-positions/mandatory-spay-neuter-laws.html

    ReplyDelete
  27. A mandatory spay/neuter law will not significantly help the overpopulation problem of dogs and cats because the only people affected will be the responsible people that already care about and follow the laws. There is no way that such a law can be adequately enforced so that it actually does what it is intended to do-the City can't/won't pay the number of people it would take to monitor such a law. Public Education is still the best long-term, long-lasting tool.
    Penalizing breeders with a high "tax" for keeping an intact animal is also, in general, only going to further hurt the responsible owners who already spend thousands of dollars on proper care, genetic health tests, training and showing of their dogs before they produce a litter of puppies. Believe me, responsible breeders DON'T make money by selling puppies. And they have a spay/neuter clause in their sales contracts when they sell a puppy as a pet.
    The backyard breeders or puppy mills do make money because they don't do that testing to see if their animals should be reproducing, but they are also very likely to never declare they have an intact pet and that pet may never see a vet so how are you going to know it exists, much less isn't vaccinated or spayed/neutered??
    Many people do own purebred dogs to show and, in Conformation, they must be intact to be shown even though many people do not ever breed that animal. Keeping a dog in condition and entry fees for shows is very expensive already and if you add more fines on top of that many people will be forced to give up showing and may either not have an animal at all or may move away to somewhere that they can enjoy their hobby without so much hassle.
    I don't breed my dogs but I show in many different events like Agility and Obedience and it has been proven that it is physically and socially detrimental to spay/neuter a dog too early before they have completely developed. Therefore when I get a new dog I won't spay/neuter until they are 15-20 months old unless there is some medical reason to so so. I would REALLY resent having to pay a huge fee for keeping my animal intact FOR ITS OWN GOOD after paying $1,000 for the puppy itself and hundreds of dollars on its health and food and toys.
    Please be very careful in wording and content of any legislature so that it is not the responsible pet owners that suffer rather than the irresponsible ones that have caused the problem. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hey Dave -
    Alcohol poses a health hazard to those who are on the same roads as those who drink. Musicians are known for being at bars. How about we infringe on the rights of all musicians because there are a few bad apples?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Here's the Tribune article

    http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/mar/15/humane-society-city-reach-accord-on-new-contract/

    where the Health Department and the Humane Society came to their new contract after the Humane Society went public with their lack of funds. So now the Health Department is having to pay more and they are just going to pass their new fees on to the responsible pet owners who chose not to alter their animals. It sure would be interesting to know how many "puppy mills" from Boone County have been shut down. Here's an article from the Maneater saying NONE!

    http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2009/4/9/boone-county-officials-investigate-puppy-mills/

    so that argument doesn't really fly.

    ReplyDelete
  30. WRT puppy mills, here's the startling fact. Puppy mills do not produce the majority of puppies bred in the U.S. The last AKC stats I saw indicated that large scale breeders produce about 20% of all dogs born in the U.S. Responsible hobby breeders 10-15%. The rest, the huge majority, are produced by one-time breeders, what we call "back yard breeders." You know, the people who just don't bother to get the dog fixed, who let their dogs wander, who want the kids to see the "miracle of birth" or think they can "make a little money." The people who think just one litter can't hurt, and gee, they just LOVE little Poopsie and want puppies out of her.

    It's easy to point fingers at puppy mills instead of putting the blame where it really belongs; everyday people who justify breeding their dog "just once" for reasons that don't hold up in the light of day. Columbia citizens need to start examining their own practices dealing with their own dogs and clean up their act instead of blaming everybody else.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Robin- Your May 4 8:55 post is right on.

    ReplyDelete
  32. These gals...whoever they are...Robin and Andrea...they ought to be consulted by the city. They've given us more information in a few posts than Forrister said all night long during the public forum. While most people love dogs, these two seem to know the business of dogs.

    Good job, ladies! Keep it coming!

    ReplyDelete
  33. I believe that we need to some how curtail the unwanted animals some how. But this is putting a unwarranted burden on those that show their dogs in performance competition, were it is a requirement that the dogs be intact. Many of these people will only have one very planned litter, or none at all.

    We need to get the cost of the spay neuter down to an affordable level, so that the cost of spaying or neutering an animal will not deter people from this avenue. The humane society does have a low income spay neuter, but if this spay neuter becomes mandatory it will put a great strain on this facility.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I would like to personally thank everyone that has shared information on this blog. I think it is a good time to share with you what is )and is not) going on with the Board of Health.

    Currently, we are compiling information obtained during the public hearing, follow-up conversations with participants of the hearing and comments obtained via the blog. Members will present oral or written reports at the upcomming Board of Health meeting May 14 for discussion. Following discussion, the animal control sub-committee will begin the work on a possible new ordinance. Any proposed changes will go the regular process and nothing will be finalized by the Board of Health-we will simply offer a recommendation. The ordinances are approved or rejected by the elected officials on the City Council or County Commission.

    There have been no proposed changes to the ordinances at this time. I encourage everyone to visit the city and county websites and read the current ordinances as they stand. There has been some erroneous information shared on the blog that can be easily clarified via the links listed below:

    http://www.showmeboone.com/COMMISSION/
    http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/Council/Code_of_Ordinances_PDF/chapter_5.pdf

    I hope members of the public will continue using this forum to offer ideas that will help us to reduce the number of unwanted animals. I feel it is important that we keep in mind the fact we are all in this together. This forum was not created to pit one group against another, and the only way we will make a positive change is through the combined efforts of all those involved in the plight of the unwanted pet.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Nathan -

    Thanks for sharing the links. In order to gain a historical perspective (how did we get here from there?) I read all of the Board of Health meeting minutes dating back to January, 2008.

    Gnerally speaking, it does appear that there is some confusion when it comes to identification of the issue to be dealt with.

    Is it overpopulation? Or, is it unwanted pets?

    Clarifying that would be an enormous benefit and a big step in crafting solutions.

    Kindest Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Good afternoon everyone,

    I'm a very soon to be third year veterinary medical student at the University of Missouri. I currently own 4 dogs plus a foster dog from the Central Missouri Humane Society. I'm a behavior consultant and I am the head trainer for PALS, the therapy dog club at the vet school. Although my time is more limited now with vet school, I've trained in a wide variety of events with my dogs and I'm a big advocate for rescue and shelter dogs, having fostered dozens of them for the CMHS.

    I believe that PET animals should be altered once they reach an appropriate age (which is dependent on age and breed, not just a magical cut off number, see Spain et al. JAVMA 2004;224:380-387 for more information). Pet owners need to budget for this if they wish to be pet owners, just like they need to budget for food, medical care, and so on. Performance, show, and working dogs are often kept intact for a variety of reasons, even if they are not going to be bred (which is often the case). I don't have an issue with dogs and cats adopted from a shelter/rescue situation being altered before leaving, as shelter medicine is in some ways more like herd health than individually owned animals. But individually owned animals should be treated as individuals. Just as breed specific legislation doesn't work, neither will the enormous logistical strain enforcing such laws on mandatory spay/neuter.

    As a future veterinary doctor, I want to educate clients about why they should spay or neuter their pet dogs and practice a high quality of medicine, not have to be part of the tail lifting police. Putting money towards low/no cost spay & neuter clinics and educating the public with community outreach will provide more bang for the buck than blanket legislation that is difficult if not impossible to enforce.

    -Maren Bell Jones, MA BA
    meb3dd@mizzou.edu
    Class of 2011
    University of Missouri College of Veterinary Medicine

    ReplyDelete
  37. Good Afternoon,
    I have been a responsible pet owner my entire life and have always been the voice for the voiceless. I am now the Regional Coordinator and Local Representative for Dogs Deserve Better, a national organization whose mission is to educate the public on the dangers and abuse that chaining and penning creates in dogs. Our goal, to bring the dogs back into the home with the family where they belong. Education is key and responsible pet ownership seems to be the real issue at hand. If people spayed and neutered their pets responsibly, there would not be litters of puppies dropped off at the shelter time and time again by the same individual. If people did not let their pets roam at large, the animal control runs would not be filled with pets that have no proof of ownership, or anyone caring enough to claim them. If people did not abandoned and abolish their pets to the back yard on a chain or in a small pen without proper shelter, vet care (to include spay/neuter) socialization and stimulation, there would not be as many bite cases, or abuse cases which increase the number of animals confiscated by the AC's which again fill the shelter runs. Responsible pet ownership has to be legislated because so many members of the community cannot seem to "do the right thing", to prevent unwanted pets and then think that is the County's problem. Therefore, required education is necessary, in our schools and even by the County if a pet is confiscated or reported for neglect or abuse. I feel we need to be more articulate with the laws already on the books to include more detail of "good health" in a dog, have anti-chaining and tethering limitations, require spay/neuter when deemed appropriate to control a situation because "mandatory" is simply not realistic, require liscensing for all dogs including the City AND the County, require dogs to be UTD on all shots, and have County and State programs to make all of these services readily available and affordable. There are more rescue groups and more advocation and awareness of animal abuse than ever before in our history, but, the numbers of unwanted pets continue to increase. We are definately doing something wrong, and things need to change. People have to responsible for their actions and reactions. The option....legislate

    ReplyDelete
  38. Mike, I think in theory your ideas are really good ones. I too am very much against tethering. However, I feel that an anti-tethering ordinance would, unfortunately, backfire (and I'm not sure that's what you are proposing, just sort of throwing this out there). If tethering becomes illegal, I can tell you exactly what will happen with the 8 or so Pit Bulls kept tethered out in front yards along my street; their owners will simply not tether them and allow them to run loose throughout the neighborhood. And then I'll be on the phone to Animal Control several times a day, every day, to ask them to deal with it.

    The key to this whole thing is trying to educate people non-punitively and non-confrontationally while finding a way to help people who do want to be compliant to be able to afford it. Thumping around with a big stick will not help our purpose, we must find a carrot. And it's not going to be easy. Again, not saying you're advocating that, just talking in general.

    Reality also says that many of the ideas put forth here are really unenforceable, especially given the very scant funds we have. I learned tonight (and please do correct me if I'm wrong) that current City pet licensing fees go into the general operating fund. If that's true, I think perhaps the first step is to rewrite our laws so that pet licensing fees already in existence go directly toward pet care and animal control/CMHS. Then perhaps a phase two where those licensing fees are expanded county wide. But they must be very modest, or people simply will not pay them. A large aggregate of people paying a $5 fee will far outweigh a small number of people paying a $50 fee...

    Oh, and finally, I absolutely agree that the laws already on the books must be enforced first. We have a leash law in the City. We can't even enforce that. Columbia actually has some pretty good laws, but with no money, there's simply no way for the few AC officers we have to be able to keep up with the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  39. A couple of things since funding and budgets have been brought up. The following links are to the current city budget. The first one gives the amount of money brought into the city via animal license fees. If you scroll down to page 9 of the revenue summary you will see that only $34,345 in license fees were collected in 2007. If the average fee is $10 per year (altered animals $5/yr, unaltered animals $15/yr), you would see that there are only 3,434 licensed pets in Columbia (current human population approximately 99,000). That translates to 1 licensed pet for every 28.8 people. I don’t know about you, but I can’t make a list of 30 friends that don’t have a pet. I would say compliance is very low which ultimately has a negative impact on the services provided by animal control.

    The second link is the 2009 Columbia budget expenditures. On page 12 you will see the animal control budget is $487,570. The city spends over 14 times more than license revenue generates. I believe the license fees are somehow incorporated into the animal control budget, it is just not very clear how. I will try to firm up the details and post the answer when I get it.

    Also in the second link, take a look at pages 8-12 for a good description of Columbia animal control and comparisons to similar cities.

    Thanks again to everyone posting. I am reading and will continue to read your posts!

    Please keep in mind that the primary role of an animal control ordinance is to protect public health. The reason rabies vaccinations are required for pets (as opposed to other important vaccines) is that rabies is zoonotic (can be transmitted from animal to human) and is always fatal. Vaccinating pets against rabies creates a barrier between humans and the wild animal reservoirs that commonly transmit rabies.

    http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/Finance/Services/Financial_Reports/FY2009_Budget/documents/4_revenue_summaries.pdf

    http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/Finance/Services/Financial_Reports/FY2009_Budget/documents/9_health_and_environment.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  40. There absolutely needs to be a tethering ordinance. These pitties and other dogs that are chained and tethered 24/7 are proposing a dangerous threat to the community. There are too many statistics to mention that prove that confining a dog creates aggression. If there was a tethering ordinance, letting the animals run at large would not be an option, because that is a local ordinance for that as well! Bringing them into the home and making them part of the family is the only option that makes sense for a dog that is considered a "pet". If this is not the case, then something else is going on that needs to be monitored and quesioned. Are they breeding dogs (which I believe should require liscensing), are they fighting dogs? (which needs to be outlawed, with a no tolerance provisiton). I am not referring to the fact that you can "never" tether your pet, but a limititation is necessary. Again, being a responsible pet owner, keeping the animals safe and healthy in body and spirit and protecting the general public from menaces is most important, then of course there is the dollar factor which all work into the equation and those who are not responsible should be the ones that pay the most.
    Respectively,

    ReplyDelete
  41. Mike, wrt your demand for a tethering ordinance and your statement that "letting animals run at large would not be an option," how exactly would you propose that be controlled given our current budget and number of animal control officers?

    I agree that tethering is a very poor idea and second your comments about what can happen when animals are tethered all the time. I simply don't think the city has the means to enforce a tethering law. And a law with no teeth and no means or financing for enforcement is a useless law.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Nathan, some friends and I were talking about the license fees and noncompliance a couple of days ago. This is just speculation, but one thing we've noticed is that veterinarians do not require the purchase of a license with the rabies tag. Some will ask if you live in the city, some will not. Some will ask if you want a license, some will not. It seems quite voluntary.

    I'm not sure it's a great idea to ask vets to be license police; I'm sure many see it as not their job. No real solution to suggest, just relaying my experience in dealing with several vets through the years. Haven't had one yet that demanded I purchase a license.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Robin, you are exactly correct. The budget numbers prove compliance from both owners and veterinarians is very low. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the animal owner to be in compliance with the ordinance, but veterinarians could be more proactive in educating clients of the need for a license. In fact, I was emailed by a veterinarian after the public hearing that said he has a real problem with tacking on $45 to the vet bill for a 3-year intact city dog license.

    Many of the participants in both the public hearing and this forum have suggested extending licensing requirements county-wide. I am interested in hearing the opinion of people that live in the county. With compliance so low in the city, is extension of the license requirement county-wide going to make any real difference in revenue dollars for animal control? What would the public think about changing the license requirements altogether?

    Since unwanted animal population control is all of our responsibility, would the public support a sales tax with revenues reserved for animal control, low-cost spay/neuter/rabies vaccinations and shelter operations? This is just a trial balloon I am floating, but what better forum to float it? Please let me know what you think.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Regarding expanding licensing of animals county wide: It is my understanding AC will not pick up animals outside the city limits of Columbia. So is this a proposal for county residents to pay for services they will not receive?

    ReplyDelete
  45. I would also like to echo Andrea's request to see actual numbers citing a need for this funding from AC. Has there been an increase in population at the shelter? Why? The economy has caused increased shelter populations around the country. This is not due to anyone producing more animals but, rather, people deciding they can no longer afford a pet and dumping it. Penalizing breeders won't stop this. In Columbia, it has been routine to see shelter populations soar at the end of the school year when departing college students decide to dump pets that they got at the beginning of the year. Is that statistic justification for penalizing residents? Does the shelter accept pets from outside Boone County? Are Boone County pet owners responsible for the overpopulation problems of the entire Central Missouri area? I, too, would like to see more justification for any new ordinance instead of vague claims of "increasing overpopulation".

    ReplyDelete
  46. Great questions, KT. I will take a stab at answering them.

    Animal control will pick up animals outside Columbia city limits if they are in violation of the county code (See Chapter II Animal Control-http://www.showmeboone.com/COMMISSION/CodifiedHealthOrdinances.pdf). Since the laws are different in incorporated vs. unincorporated portions of Boone county, there are things animal control will not pick up an animal for in the county, such as wondering off the owners property, as long as the animal is not being a nuisance or acting vicious.

    As for the numbers, here is what Patty Forister shared during the recent public hearing concerning submissions to the Central Missouri Humane Society-which has a dual role with as a contracted animal control municipal shelter, and as a non-for-profit humane animal shelter.

    The CMHS took in 7500 animals last year. There is an even split between dogs and cats, and an even split between animals that have identified owners and strays. 3500 of the animals were identified as being from Boone county. The remaining 3000 animals come from 20 other mid-Missouri counties. These numbers have been on the rise for the last several years.

    Your question concerning the responsibility of Boone county pet owners, and Boone county taxpayers in general, is a valid one and at the heart of the debate between the Health Department and the CMHS budget requests. The decision to take out of county animal submissions is part of the vision and mission of the CMHS (see their website: http://cmhspets.com/about/), and is outside the scope of the animal control ordinance.

    Both the shelter and animal control run at or above capacity. This alone would indicate there is an unwanted animal problem. From Ms. Forister’s comments, there appears to be an equal number of strays and owner submissions contributing to the unwanted animal population. In fact, I believe the unwanted animal population is a common denominator in the struggles of both organizations.

    I agree there is an element of irresponsibility on the part of animal owners who treat their pets like disposable diapers. Education will have to be a part of the solution to that problem. I further agree that "penalizing" responsible pet owners is not equitable. Both of the current ordinances have penalties for owners who do not comply with the law-they do not appear to be working very well-or maybe they are working as well as they possibly can under the current circumstances.

    As a citizen of Boone county, we are all responsible for paying for the services necessary for making our city and county a safe and desirable place to live. Animal control plays a very important role, even if it doesn't commonly make the news. If we can significantly reduce half of the problem via expanding the implementation of a low cost spay/neuter/rabies program, I think it will benefit the community.

    Again, there has been nothing set in stone. I am very interested in continuing this dialog and gaining insight from the community.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Nathan, Thank you for your comments. Perhaps part of the confusion is the mix of governmental and not for profit entities. Not that it hasn't worked well for a long time! But by using CMHS numbers--nearly half of which are not Boone County animals---to justify new restrictions and fees on Boone County residents is a bit of a stretch. I have no problem with CMHS's mission, but to infer that this is suddenly a Boone County problem which is the responsibility of Boone County pet owners to solve is rather misleading. CMHS accepts animals from all over the state by their own mission and choice. I don't think their financial solvency is a taxpayer obligation. Taxpayer funding for AC usage of their facility is certainly appropriate (perhaps it's time for the city/county to operate their own facility?). Maybe a breakdown of only AC acquired animals is what we should be looking at. Do these animals come only from Boone County? Only from within Columbia city limits? Are they owner surrenders? The problem needs better definition before an appropriate solution can be found...keeping in mind that irresponsible people will always exist and there is no solution which will ever put CMHS and AC out of business.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The purpose of my post is to support a proposed exemption to the current pet limit ordinance for caretakers of feral cats. One of the caretakers was cited by Animal Control for having more than the 4 pets allowed in Columbia because she was feeding and fixing cats in her area. People will be discouraged to volunteer for the spay, neuter and protect (SNAP) program if they are penalized by this pet limit ordinance.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I would like to personally Thank Nathan for not only setting up this Blog, but for taking the time to read each and every one, and responding with statistics and links so we, too, can educate ourselves and collectively come up with solutions to the problems that we are facing in our community.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Regarding the issue of liscensing, I DO live outside City limits and have all 3 of my own dogs liscensed. Every foster dog that I take in has one as well. I have been told by Animal Control and my Vet that it is not necessary because I'm outside the City limits, and I respond with "I'd like one anyway" and they act like I'm throwing my money away! I feel the liscense is a great form of identification and verification that the dog is vaccinated. Yes, enforcing it would take a little doing, but, only when there is a report, complaint or concern for the well-being of an animal or person from this animal. Responsible pet owners outside City limits will not have a problem with this, they take their dogs/cats to the vet on a regular basis, etc. It is again, only irresponsible pet owners that will have a problem with it. Just like taxes, some of us have to make up for others that are less fortunate or irresponsible. Like the proposed mandatory spay & neuter, I feel that adding "chaining" and "tethering" restriction ordinances and liscensing requirements can raise revenue for education, low-cost spay & neuter, and budget increases. It will also force people to become more responsible for their pets. The only time these laws would be strictly enforced is when there is a complaint, a concern, a report, etc. I also feel that the "adequate care" and "adequate control" definitions under 578.005 can use some revising to be more specific.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I have two issues. The first is the number of animals that a household can have. At the meeting, the board was stuck on how big your land is or how big your house is. It seems to me that as an animal owner, "I" should have the right to decide how many animals I can take care of properly. By properly, I mean that the animals will be spayed or neutered and have yearly vaccinations and rabies, and that they will be microchipped, supervised, loved, and fed. Sure there are lousy pet owners, and animal control is probably never going to be out of job because of it. So, there will still be complaints. But there are also some great pet owners who should not be punished for having more than 4 animals. Many other cities do not even have a limit on the number of animals.

    The second issue is the barking dog ordinance which violates my right as a pet owner. It is also unconstitutionally vague because it doesn’t define “unreasonably loud or disturbing.” It is not realistic to expect that a dog is just NEVER going to bark. AC would have dogs wear a bark collar, which would be a short-term fix, since the dog is not actually LEARNING anything except to be fearful. Dogs can be trained, but it takes time and in the meantime, the dog is going to bark at some point. In addition, dogs generally bark for a reason, like to warn their owner of trespassers or when they are provoked or teased. Is it reasonable to squelch their voice just because some neighbor is unconcerned with their welfare? What about taking into consideration the comments from other neighbors as well who are not bothered by the dog? Other cities have a noise ordinance, but not all specifically have a barking dog ordinance. The noise ordinance in Santa Rosa County in Florida (where we had lived) says that noises cannot be after 9 PM to 7 AM. This seems much more reasonable and protects the dog owner from just plain being harassed by a neighbor. Another ordinance could be written such that the dog could bark for up to 60 minutes a couple times a day 7am-9pm and 5 minutes from 9:01pm to 6:59am. If the dog is being properly cared for, the dog owner should have rights, too.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Mike,

    I think it's admirable that you license your dogs while living in the county. You are, indeed, a great example for others.

    I'm opposed to mandatory spay/neuter. This isn't like posting a speed limit...this is government mandating what one does with one's personal property. Plus, MSN doesn't work...it doesn't reduce the numbers in shelters (numbers increase) and there isn't any "extra" money to go to anything. Check out ASPCA's well-researched postion paper. Check out the statistics in San Mateo...they repealed the law after less than 12 months.

    Education is the key and providing real, factual, effective help for people who are having "dog problems" will make a difference.

    I also believe that no-cost spay neuter will have an impact. I know that to many of us, $25 (or whatever the shelter charges) isn't too much...that is half the cost of a bag of dog food for me. But, we need to come up with solutions for everyone...for the people who really want a dog...and love their dog, but consider the cost of spay/neuter a luxury item. I don't say I agree, I'm just suggesting that we have to be sensitive to all stakeholders here...and not make broad-brushstroke statements and ordinances.

    Lastly, I think that there are numerous opportunities for the shelter to increase revenues and/or decrease costs and euthanasia rates. That's what I'm working on...thinking outside of the box in a creataive way that builds relationships and where the dogs don't suffer.

    I've not given a though to tethering. I do know that hunting dog people and herding dog people often tether their dogs. The photos depicted on the website of which you represent are pretty horrific...but, given the photographic conditions of the dogs, something should have been done under the "general welfare" laws, long before tethering was considered.

    Just my two cents. Your mileage may vary.

    Kindest Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Just to clarify, I am not in favor of supporting mandatory spay & neuter, BUT.... if this is something that is implemented, it is a law that can be inforced to keep multiple litters from being dropped off at the shelter by the same owner again, and again and also a repurcussion from an owner allowing their pet to run at large and becoming a menace and impregnating females who again end up at the shelter. This is a great concern and problem at the shelter and for animal control around the country. They have passed such a mandatory spay & neuter law in Collier County, Florida and they use it as almost a "tool" when needed to be inforced. They do not go door to door looking for scars and testicles, they do not punish the liscensed breeders and show dogs, but if an owner is acting irresponsibly, they can fall back on this ordinance to try to solve misbavior issues. Male intact dogs who are not supervised will run to find a dog in heat miles away. I agree, it has been proven "not to work", if given the expected result is "literally" mandatory spay & neuter. I also agree that general "good health" of the dogs should be enforced, but time and time again, if the laws are not specific, the dogs fall under the written word of the law, and there is nothing that can be done according to the authorities. There is no where in our local law that states that it is unhealthy or a danger to chain, teather, or pen a dog for long periods of time. What is "maintained good health", as stated in 578.005? This has to change to prevent aggressive dogs at large and bitecases from dogs that are chained. If you call AC to report a chained dog, they will state "If the animal has adequate food, water, and shelter, there is nothing we can do". Unfortunately we have to legislate peoples behavior for them to keep themselves and others safe...helmet, seatbelt, carseat laws, spoke alarms, etc., is some a few examples of laws that are meant to keep ourselves and others safe.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Have the increased animal numbers been compared to the increase in population in Columbia/Boone County? That alone will account for much of this increase and is certainly no reason to start making more laws when current ones are not adequately enforced. As for legislating behavior---has never worked and never will. Life is full of risk, choices and consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I believe that dog overpopulation is a problem. I believe that irresponsible pet ownership is a problem. I believe that dogs should be spayed/neutered when owned by people who are not licensed, responsible breeders. I believe that people should alter their dogs if they aren’t intending to ever breed them responsibly. That being said, I do not believe that people should be forced to spay/neuter their pets. That, even with the idea of being able to pay a fee to keep your dog unaltered, is fine and attractive in theory, but like Jennifer and Robin have said, all it will do is penalize and alienate those people that aren’t the problem. This type of law will not stop the people that don’t pay attention to their dogs or who let their dogs run loose from having more dogs. It might, however, deter tax payers from living within city limits so as to avoid it. Or, as they do now, just simply ignore it (like the pet licensing fee). It seems, too, that all it will do is force an increase of work for people not getting paid for their labor (vet practices) – because how else will you regulate this, practically.

    As someone who volunteers my time helping out an animal rescue organization, I can tell you that a majority of the dogs that are part of the overpopulation problem, who end up in shelters, ARE NOT PUPPIES. They are not the result of animals that should have been spayed/neutered. They are not the result of strays being animals. They are adult dogs that people have gotten rid of because “they were moving,” “they are allergic,” “they had a new baby,” “the dog has behavioral problems,” “they didn’t realize how much work a dog was,” “they didn’t realize how much a dog would cost,” “they don’t have time for it,” “the dog is 12 and it’s started going the bathroom in the house,” “the dog doesn’t get along with my new boy/girlfriend/new puppy.”

    So spay/neuter program will not stop these dogs showing up at a shelter. Nor will a spay/neuter program stop these dogs from existing in the first place. Instead of stopping the problem, it seems that enacting something like a mandatory s/n law will only create another law on the books which is not properly enforced because of a lack of funds and personnel.

    ReplyDelete
  56. This type of legisation is designed to eliminate pet ownnership! I show Bulldogs, and they can not be shown if they are spayed or neutered. So everyone thinks it is a good idea for me to pay $500 per year in addition to the $3000 + per year I spend to show my dogs? I breed a litter a year and have a waiting list. In 30 years NOT ONE of my puppies HAS EVER been in a shelter or rescue!!!!

    What about the HUNDREDS of puppy mills in the state of Missouri? They will be exempt from any of these laws. They are the source of most of the shelter dogs and irresponsible people are the source of the rest of them.

    This type of law will mean that YOU will not be able to buy a well-bred, properly raised pet for your family, because the breeders like me have been demonized and taxed out of the dog fancy.

    Just something to think about.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Matt, the problem with a law that is passed is that it becomes law. You and I don't get to decide when it's time to enforce it. If a mandatory S/N law is passed, then that's the law that exists on the books and anyone who does not abide by the law is in violation. It's just not workable to say "oh, we'll only use it as a tool and only against people we feel like need to have it used." That's not the way law works. Even if it did, who gets to decide who needs to have the law invoked and who doesn't? It's a slippery slope just ripe for corruption.

    And I ditto the thanks to Nathan for setting up the blog and letting us discuss these issues. I think it's fair to say that all of us writing on the blog, both breeders and rescuers, have a deep, abiding love of animals. If we didn't, we wouldn't be spending so much of our time trying to find solutions to the problems.

    I think sometimes breeders, ALL breeders, get labeled as "bad guys." There is a mindset of a few that says that any breeding is bad breeding. It's simply untrue. Responsible breeders do so much more than just produce healthy, sound dogs that make great companions. We show our dogs, we help with rescue, we fund canine health research. We teach, we train, we mentor. We are more than willing to ally with CMHS or any other entity to help try to find a solution to these issues. We are not, however, willing to support legislation that is unfair, punitive, and ineffective. Mandatory S/N is that type of legislation.

    Rescue/shelter folks and responsible breeders have far more commonalities than differences. We should not be opponents in this work to help people be better owners.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Hello to each of you,

    Mike made a statement re: enforcement of MSN that I think is a slippery-slope. Please re-read his post above, then read my response...it may help you follow my reasoning...

    I'm not worried about MSN, I'm practical and I respect the basis and purpose of our legal system. I respect the law and the Constitution. Hummans have rights, and in this country, they are protected by our Constitutional system of laws.

    Just because a law (ordinance) is passed does not mean it is legal or constitutional.

    If any law is passed, I expected it to have a valid purpose, and I expect it to be carried out fairly, evenly and in all events. The only way a MSN ordinance (insert tethering...insert licensing...insert mandatory microchipping, et. al. ad nauseum) is by selective enforcement. Selective enforcement is not appropriate or constitutional. Selective enforcement is a vehicle and a tool of harassment and oppression by one group against another. It is never acceptable under our system of justice.

    Our animal ordinances, as they presently exist already give power to AC to stop most, if not all, animal abuse. If AC cannot carry out its existing legal mandate, then put pressure on the city to enforce...or incrase the budget for this purpose. Adding more burdensome laws on top of already unenforced laws is not the solution.

    If a law is being considered, and it is clear at the outset that the proposed law cannot be carried out fairly, evenly and in all events, then why pass it? It is not acceptable to say that because it cannot be enforced it should pass.

    Would you also say it is acceptable for the government to outlaw being Jewish, or Catholic, or Republican or Libertarian or Communist? Or, to require them to all "register" and allow warrantless "inspections of their homes" to be sure they aren't engaging in "illegal practices"?

    You could argue that those laws would never be carried out eiyher. Would you support their passage simply because you belong to a group that disapproved of their practices? I hope not.

    Remember the old saying, "be careful what you ask for -- you just might get it". The government has no business regulating every aspect of our lives. MSN (or tethering, or monetary punishment of hobby breeders...or mandatory microchipping) is unnecessary, overbroad and overburdensome and will not accomplish what its proponents clam it is needed for.

    If we believe that we have a compelling need for more intrusion by government into our lives, then they need to start from scratch to first identify (specifically...not just "overpopulation") and then address, the claimed "wrong."

    Making sure that animals are cared for (ie animal welfare...animals don't have rights) is a valid use of government. Permitting the government and its agents to intrude into our homes, and dictate if I can have intact, non-chipped, tethered dogs is not a valid legislative purpose...there is no evidence of a crime.

    "The world" isn't perfect, "Nature" isn't perfect. "People" aren't perfect. "Animals" aren't perfect. Our "legal system" isn't perfect, but it is what we have to operate with. That is reality. Our legal system isn't meant to make things perfect. It is meant to enable us to live together in a civilized way. In order to do that, everyone has to concede certain things so that society can operate in a relatively functional manner.

    That includes animals rights fanatics who want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. They can't have it all their way, nor should they. Having ordinances mandating such things as I've listed above is not going to enable us to live together in a civilized way. It will only serve to allow one group of people force their ideals on another group. Fortunately, or unfortuantely, depending on your viewpoint, force never really accomplishes its intended end. Those who are forced to comply will inevitably find another way to carry on. Human history is clear on that point.

    Now, before someone says that I love the concept of puppy-mills, uncaring about the plight of homeless dogs, (many of whom are euthanized for no reason), generating puppies on every heat cycle (from tethered dogs) who are uncerimoniously dumped at the shelter, let me assure you I'm not.

    I have dedicated over half (25 years!) of my life to pursuing excellence in all things dog. I'm a certified trainer through the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, have a pending judges application with the AKC, have co-chaired a national purebred rescue group for nearly 15 years and have produced one (yes, that's ONE) litter in my 25 years of competing in purebred dog sports. One of the two puppies of that litter went on to become the breed's first yo earn a Breed Championship, an Obedience Trial Championship and a Masters Agility Championship. My own multi Best-in-Show, High in Trial dogs sleep on my bed, are never tethered (except during herding) and sleep wherever they want...in my house, of course. I spend more caring for and campaigning my dogs in a year than most people make. I'm immersed in dogs, in dog people and what are workable solutions to "dog problems"...and what's punitive.

    Is MSN in Boone County going to hurt me? No, I'll move to another county. I have options. However, I'm trying to be the voice of experienced reason here...not so much for Dr. Voris's benefit...he's "got" it. But for those dear readers who may not comprehend the enormous damage that "beefed up" dog laws will do.

    As always, this is just my two cents. Your mileage may vary.

    Kindest Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Hello everyone, sorry to have been so quiet over the weekend and beginning of the week. I have a couple of meeting lined up for this afternoon and might have a few more answers to the great questions that have been posted.

    In the interest of directing praise to the appropriate party, it is Genalee Alexander at the Health Department who should be thanked for having the idea and setting up the blog in order to extend public comment on this very important topic. My hat is off to her!

    It seems we are getting some great information and concerns. The public hearing (and this blog) was intended "To collect the public’s input before the Board of Health begins drafting a new animal control ordinance that will address the overpopulation of pets, and to obtain public input concerning stakeholder involvement in the care and prevention of unwanted animals." The second part is what I think many feel is of greater importance-the things we as a community can do outside of an ordinance change to decrease the number of unwanted pets. However, I have read very few suggestions on how to get this done. I would very much appreciate some ideas for cooperative efforts in educating future and current pet owners.

    Again, thank you for participating! I will continue reading, researching and taking notes!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Have an educational program that visits grade schools county-wide. Teach children how to care for pets in a responsible manner. Give children information they will carry it with them for life.
    Vistit senior centers and do educational programs.
    Develop resources within the county to have very low cost spay, neuter, rabies clinics. Make these opportunities available to anyone willing to alter and vaccinate their animal.
    Education is the key to reducing some of the unwanted pet population.
    Contact the media for short PSA's with educational material.
    Offer short, free training sessions for people who have pets.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Here is a link to the AVMA's position on mandatory spay/neuter.

    http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/may09/090515j.asp

    Unfortunately it does not have suggestions on how to deal with the problems we're dealing with of owner discards of dogs. I do think there are two different issues: dogs and cats should be approached separately. I am not an expert on the cat issues, so I won't address them directly. But I think the solution will be multi-factored.

    First, I think we need incentives (carrots) not punishments (sticks). Perhaps the city could enlist with various training centers around town, and a dog licence could be good for a $5 discount on a training class at participating Centers. Or give a free leash with the purchase of a license, or a discount on food, or a combination of those things.

    As I stated above, we have a University Veterinary Teaching hospital full of young veterinarians that need surgical experience. Work with MUVTH to establish free or very inexpensive (maybe a volunteer donation) spay/neuter clinics several times of year. If I recall correctly MUVTH has a mobile spay/neuter clinic which would be perfect for this.

    Institute the license fees county-wide, but make them reasonable, both for owners of intact and non-intact pets. Getting more participation system-wide is far more important than raising fees.

    Authorize AC folks to be able to give out incentive coupons to people who are seen with dogs on leash, and publicize same.

    Can't think of anything more at the moment, but that's a start.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Nathan, is the "overpopulation" problem a CMHS problem or an animal control problem? Is Boone County government responsible for CMHS intake of animals? If so, I strongly object to being asked to fund with license fees a group with a mission statement which says animals from outside Boone County will be accepted at no charge to the outside county (unless I am mistaken about this?). Taxpayers (and these fees ARE taxes) should not be responsible for funding a private group when taxpayers have no say in that private group's policies.

    I would still like to know if this "overpopulation" is just a natural increase tied to a growing population in the county/city or a true growth over and above that increase.

    Solutions---why is there no talk of increasing fines on those who violate the current laws? Does CMHS keep track of surrenders? Do they refuse to adopt animals to those who surrender an animal? I realize it would discourage surrenders to impose a fee but when those who violate the law or are causing problems are never penalized, how do you expect to discourage their poor behavior? If fees for surrenders are out of the question, what about requiring just those who bring a litter to dump to also bring the female for mandatory sterilization at the same time? (rather than require ALL dogs to be spayed/neutered) In 30+ years in dogs myself and having bred 3 litters in all those years, not one of my puppies has been sold or placed in Boone County. People like me are hardly the problem but we will be the target of an ordinance like this.

    The news reported CMHS is accepting suggestions for uses of the money they received from ZooToo. May I suggest security cameras to identify those who dump animals after hours? And if the drop off is a litter, a visit from AC the next day to take the female for spay?

    Solution---I would like to see current laws enforced with a little more enthusiasm before any new ones are written. Let's see if the problem is reduced when current laws are enforced for awhile. Why enact more and more laws on responsible people when current laws which DO address the irresponsible are not enforced? When all animals in Boone County are spayed/neutered, will that stop intact animals from coming in or being brought in? Will CMHS reduce their intake from outside Boone County in order to better serve those in this area who support them? Maybe a little encouragement of other counties to start their own shelters and take care of their own problems is in order? CMHS could certainly serve as an experienced advisor to other counties in starting shelters of their own.

    The shotgun approach of writing an ordinance to address a perceived "overpopulation" problem will never work until the true cause of the problem is identified. If dog breeders, trainers, etc. are driven out and the problem persists, then what? Alienating the very community of animal owners and lovers who provide support to CMHS and responsible pet owners will only increase the problem, not solve it.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I'd like to see Columbia adopt a reasonable urban chicken ordinance. Dozens if not hundreds of other cities in the United States have urban chicken ordinances, it is not unreasonable for Columbia to have one. Theses cities include but are not limited to Colorado Springs and Denver, CO, Los Angeles and San Jose, CA, Ann Arbor, MI, Minneapolis, MN, Portland, OR, Fort Worth, Chicago, IL San Antonio and Houston, TX, Madison, WI, New York City, NY and St. Louis, Springfield and Kansas City, MO. Regulations vary widely, but generally include a clause on making sure the chickens are kept healthy and safe, one banning roosters (which in my opinion make less noise in a 24hr period than any one of the 11 dogs in the houses that surround mine), another that states that the owner notify all residents within X ft and that 50% or more of residents so notified must not object within X number of days of notification, and about half or so of the ones I've read include a maximum number of chickens allowed. Some cities, such as Cambridge, MA and New York City, NY, considered chickens pets under the Health Code thus as long as there is no problem they do not need to be regulated. This sounds like the optimal situation for any city, let alone CoMO, considering an urban chicken regulation.

    Debra Smith comments "Chickens suffer from a PR problem. People think chickens are dirty, noisy and smelly. The truth? A few cared-for hens are cleaner and quieter than one big dog or the three neighbor cats that poop in the flower beds. Plus you get eggs." (http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080821/LIVING03/59405618 )Keeping chickens for eggs is no different than keeping other pets, be they rabbits, parrots, dogs or cats except that they are useful-they provide us with multiple services. Chickens provide entertainment, fertilizer, eggs, use food scraps, and reduce pest insects. Like all pets they need to be well cared for and healthy. For those with children it is a way to show them that not all food must come from the grocery store and to give them some responsibility just like any other pet. Hens kept in a secure enclosure after dark pose no increased predator problem. Small backyard flocks pose no threat to humans or other pets.

    ReplyDelete
  64. There are a lot of irresponsible and ignorant people out there period. Not just in the area of pet ownership. The people who tether their dogs 24/7, and let their pets breed irresponsibly are the same ones who throw trash out the car window and breed irresponsibly themselves. Do you think creating an ordinance is going to reach these people? Education is the key but it is no quick fix. While we are waiting for people to wise up and take individual responsibility, SUPPORT those who are trying to do the right thing, don't penalize them!

    ReplyDelete
  65. KT, my apologies for not responding to your previous post questions; the delay is both due to my busy schedule at work and my attempt to find good answers to your questions.

    Let’s start with the CMHS and Boone County. Your most recent post asking if the unwanted pet population problem is the responsibility of Boone County, my answer is YES!

    Additionally, there IS an overpopulation of unwanted pets in Boone County. Animal Control delivered 401 city animals and 353 county animals to CMHS last year. In the city, finder surrendered animals (an owner could not be identified) outnumbered owner surrendered animals over 5 to 1 (1405 finder surrender, to 258 owner surrender). When overall Boone County numbers are tallied, the ratio is even (1561 to 1604). These and other national statistics I have researched, indicate there is both a component of owner relinquishment and stray animals that make up the unwanted pet population-Boone County is not unique.

    I agree that it is not the taxpayer’s responsibility to maintain the financial health of CMHS, except where CMHS is contractually providing services for the city and county. CMHS provides space and care for animals brought in by animal control (animals from City of Columbia and Boone County), and these services are the only financial obligations paid by Boone County taxpayers to CMHS.

    As you know, CMHS is a private, non-profit organization. The function of non-profit is to provide programs and services that are a benefit to the public-not to replace vital governmental obligations (i.e., public health as related to overpopulation and animal control). Again, any unwanted animal population problem within Boone County-and the associated risk to public health such overpopulations create-is the responsibility of Boone County.

    CMHS is not animal control-therefore their vision, mission and policies are outside our ordinance discussion. If you have suggestions for CMHS, I would suggest you contact them. I do not have a formal affiliation with CMHS-other than my adopting 2 lab mix puppies from them nearly 9 years ago. I am not trying to deceive anyone by using CMHS numbers; they are the catch-all when it comes to unwanted animals in this city and county.

    As for a drop-off charge, you are indeed mistaken. CMHS started charging a $20 fee for animal submissions several years ago (http://www.cmhspets.org). Fees are charged for all animal submissions-inside or outside of Boone County. I posted the CMHS link last week so that everyone could see their intake coverage area and the services offered by CMHS.

    The entire county, including the City of Columbia, is serviced by 6 animal control officers. Measuring unwanted animal trends based on the work of 6 individuals will not give you an adequate measure of what is really going on. These 6 individuals are working around the clock and still have to prioritize the calls they are able to service. A breakdown of animal control’s performance measures can be found at the bottom of page 6- (http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/Finance/Services/Financial_Reports/FY2009_Budget/documents/9_health_and_environment.pdf), another of the links I posted last week.

    I am not sure what your point is concerning population growth and the increasing problem of unwanted animals. Do you feel there is an acceptable number of unwanted animals that should be ignored given a certain rate of population growth? Of course there will be more unwanted animals as the population grows, but this just increases the need for adequate measures to get a handle on the problem before it becomes a threat to public health.

    This blog was created to field opinions and find solutions-both from an ordinance standpoint and from outside of an ordinance standpoint. Again, there is nothing on paper at this time. I have taken note that you support increasing the fines on those who violate the current laws. Unfortunately, there is very little in the current ordinance that speaks to reducing the overpopulation of unwanted pets. I am intrigued by your insinuation that current ordinances are not being enforced. Can you please share which ordinances are not being enforced?

    ReplyDelete
  66. One: I think that the current limit of 4 pets per household is arbitrary and indefensible. On what do you base this number? Why not 3 pets or 5 pets? The new ordinance must justify whatever regulation it imposes.

    Two: The new ordinance MUST include an exception for feral cat colony caretakers. Feral cats are neither pets nor wildlife and the people who take it upon themselves to get these discarded animals spay or neutered, who make sure they get fed every day, and who ask NOTHING from the city except to be left alone, should be supported. It's a disgrace the way the city has persecuted Kathy Cobble. The woman is a saint, and all the city does is fine her. They should be giving her a medal!

    Columbia should be HELPING the people who are trying to manage the feral colonies in our community instead of prosecuting them. It's not easy or cheap to care for a feral colony. It takes money for spays and neuters, it takes money for rabies vaccinations, it takes money to buy food.

    ReplyDelete
  67. One of the things I like about many of the posts is that they are focusing on being realistic about what will actually WORK. Mandatory s/n ordinances are not likely to work for folks who don't really pay attention to the ordinances anyway. If they break the ordinance that they never paid attention to, enacting a stiff penalty just means that they will abandon the animal to animal control rather than coming to pick it up. Studies in communities who enact s/n ordinances with fines show that the rate of unwanted animals being euthanized in shelters increases-- the exact opposite of what we want! Other communities have greatly reduced the number of unwanted animals at shelters by making s/n services convenient, cheap or free (some even pay a small amount for you to bring your animal in), and putting out amusing public messages that target some of the reasons why people do/don't neuter their pets (less spraying and marking of territories, less humping of people's legs, etc). They use eye catching slogans like "Real Men Neuter Their Friends." All that kind of public education stuff is out there and easily obtained. We could target low-income neighborhoods and have a handful of volunteers go out door to door signing up folks to have pets neutered-- offer a van for pick up and delivery and/or a medical van that parks in the neighborhood school lot on a weekend and does the surgeries right there.

    How to pay for it? There are a lot of grants out there. We have a vet school that could surely help. We also have pet license fees that are not rigorously collected and are not earmarked for animal welfare activities. Some communities use licensing fees successfully to pay for all sorts of shelter renovations, programming, etc.

    Microchipping needs to be part of s/n. Chips can be purchased for less than $10 and inserted just like a pet is getting a shot. Chips are nationally registered and are a much more reliable method than tags.

    My second thought concerns feral cats. Again, we need ordinances that WORK. Like it or not, there are lots of pet lovers in Columbia who will feed stray cats they come across. We can't legislate that away-- punitive laws will only push it underground and create a backlash of hard feelings. Instead, I think we need to do away entirely with any regulations about the number of animals someone can have. Any number we come up with is arbitrary. And people's circumstances vary so considerably that trying to set a specific number is just not reasonable. I have a 3800 sq foot home with two dogs and three cats. I am able to care well for them. If I was in a 1000 sq foot apartment, this would be too many pets. Who cares how many pets people have, as long as they are not negligent? I'm assuming that the 4-pet rule was intended originally to prevent hoarding. But really, the problem with hoarding is that there are more animals than the person can care for-- and they are often horrifically neglected. That is the problem, not the number. Similarly, if someone is feeding feral cats and caring for them by neutering, etc. then it seems like they are being responsible. I do realize that neighbors may not be happy having feral cats around-- even ones that are being managed-- but I don't think an ordinance about number of pets can reasonably solve that conflict.

    I'm impressed with how thoughtful this community is about these issues! This blog is a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  68. It is time for Columbia/Boone County to address the issue of feral/stray cats and the status of the caregivers who feed various feral cat colonies and practice trap, neuter, and release (TNR). Many cities across the USA have successfully adopted "no kill" policies and protected the public, caregivers, and the cats. TNR programs have proven to be an effective and humane way to control feral/stray cat populations thereby stopping these cats from being public nuisances. As food and water sources are made available to the cats, they are no longer inclined to raid garbage dumpsters and forage for food. By trapping and neutering the cats, the population of these colonies is stabilized. There are fewer kittens every six months and fewer aggressive tomcats attacking other males, marking territory, and making more kittens. The supply of fertile female cats is also diminished. A cared for and stable colony does not allow other cats to move into the area. Trapping and euthanizing feral/stray cats does not solve the problem. Other cats move into the vacated area where they can find food and water. TNR is a cheaper way to address the issue of abandoned, stray, and feral cats (a serious problem in Boone County and the City of Columbia). I strongly urge the city and county officials to consider amending the existing animal control laws in the following manner.
    1. The four animal limit within the city should only apply to dogs and other large animals. Cats do not take up much space and should be exempt from this limit.
    2. Licensing and vaccination of pet dogs and cats should be mandatory and made affordable through the Central Missouri Humane Society and other participating veterinarians. The monies collected from the fees should be used to underwrite the cost of the practice of altering and vaccinating.
    3. TNR should become the official position of the state and county and codified into civic laws. Neutering and basic vaccinations should be required of the trapped and neutered cats.
    4. Caregivers of feral cats colonies should be officially recognized (by the Board of Health) as unpaid volunteers who are permitted to care for feral/stray cat colonies and be exempt from pet limits, harboring charges, and legal responsibilities and liabilities, i.e. good Samaritan status.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Please update the age of rabies vaccine to reflect current practice prescribed by local vets.
    Abolish the four-pet limit in the city limits.
    Use a sales tax to raise funds for animal control enforcement.
    Use the sales tax addition to fund low-cost rabies, and spay neuter clinics.
    Use the additional sales tax to fund local educational and advertising campaigns.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I totally agree with the comments made May 13, 2009 at 8:46. Very well thought out, logical and cost effective response. I pray the city officials look at the local public support in response to recent CMHS events. This community has an extensive interest and concern in animal welfare -- and we vote....

    ReplyDelete
  71. Hi Nathan
    Thank you for the additional information. To address some of your points:

    1. What is an acceptable number of unwanted animals for Boone County? How will you arrive at that number? Please don't say zero as we all know that is an unrealistic goal. I ask this question back to you, not because I think there is a certain amount of animal overpopulation that should be ignored in relation to human population, but because a certain amount is going to exist no matter what you do.

    2. At what point did you define Boone County to have an "overpopulation" problem? It seems to me even one unwanted animal is an "overpopulation" but if we weren't overpopulated with animals at some point in the past and now we are, please define that point. I ask this question because no ordinance was deemed necessary for mandatory spay/neuter in the past but now there is.

    3. Previous comments to this blog indicate that leash laws in the county are not being enforced (dogs running loose threatening children in neighborhoods, etc.) That is what I was referring to regarding unenforced laws. Coincidentally, confined animals tend not to reproduce--even tethered animals if all others are confined/tethered.

    4. As the county and city grow in human population, more animals will be living in Columbia and Boone County. Which translates to a proportional increase in the unwanted animals which show up at CMHS and AC. A facility which was built to serve a population of 50,000 people will naturally not be adequate to serve a population of 100,000 or a million or any other larger population. That's just life. This applies to CMHS's facility, Animal Control's facility, Faurot Field, the Boone County Fairgrounds, the ARC and anything else you wish to name. As the number of people using it grows, sooner or later the facility will not be able to accommodate the numbers. This doesn't mean the problem is really any worse, just that you are seeing the consequences of growth. Yes, I understand that the numbers go up but as a percentage of the population, they may be staying the same or even declining.

    An ordinance which eliminates a segment of the population (responsible people who will comply with the law) without addressing the segment which is causing the problem will not eliminate the need for a larger facility and more officers to enforce the law. Sooner or later a bigger facility and more officers will be necessary--even if you do pass the ordinance and stop all breeding by responsible people in the city & county.

    I am not trying to deny that a problem exists, but I do agree with other bloggers that it is a multi-factored problem. The proposed ordinance doesn't seem to address any of the actual problems--lack of education, lack of funding, etc. The MU Vet School has been mentioned a number of times as a source of help, why not include all vets in the city & county? I agree they should not be used as a police force but they likely have some understanding of some of the problems in the area, too.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Meow Everybody!
    The caretakers who spay/neuter feral cats are doing our community a solid. Consider the alternative: It would rain CATS and KITTENS in our town! Please make an exception for the caretakers of feral cat colonies. Thanks! Y'all have a great day meow!

    ReplyDelete
  73. A quick overview of chicken ordinances:
    Madison, Wisconsin - Code of Ordinances
    http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=50000&sid=49
    type chickens in the search box, then click on the Zoning Code, you want Sec. 28.08(2)(b)8.j. [page 118/319]
    4 chickens
    no roosters
    no slaughter
    25 ft from any residential structure on an adjacent lot
    obtain license and notify all residents within 200 ft of lot
    not more than 50% of residents so notified object within 14 days of notification

    Kansas City, MO
    http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=10156&sid=25
    Capter 14 Animals, Sec. 14-15. Keeping of small animals and fowl in pens.
    100 ft from nearest bldg, except owner
    25 ft from prop line
    15 chickens >4 months
    50 chicks <4 months

    Springfield, MO
    http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=11598&sid=25
    Chapter 18 Animals, Sec. 18-24. Keeping of fowl.
    12 square ft per bird


    St Louis, MO (I couldn't find the ordinance in a reasonable amount of time)
    4 chickens without permit

    NYC
    considered pets under health code
    unlimited # of hens
    no roosters
    area must be kept clean otherwise neighbors report

    Good unofficial list of chicken laws:
    http://home.centurytel.net/thecitychicken/chickenlaws.html [check out the youtube link at the top!]—as you can see the regulations vary widely and some that profess to allow urban hens have such stringent or ridiculous laws that it is actually impossible to do it inside the city limits legally, such as the 100, 200, or even 300 ft from property lines or residential buildings.

    As you can see it will take a little thought to come up with a reasonable ordinance should Columbia want to consider chickens under the livestock/fowl laws. More easily passed would be to consider them as pets and use the existing nuisance/noise/health code laws to deal with any complaints or violations.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I remember having hens as pets when I was a child in Southern California. Looking back, I realize what an awesome educational experience it was. I would love for my kids to have that same opportunity here. From previous posts it appears that many other cities have worked through the details. Enacting a reasonable ordinance should be pretty easy for a city as progressive as Columbia. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  75. As a Columbia resident who is a local business owner, homeowner, and parent I think the rules should be changed to allow people to keep some chickens in Columbia.

    City chickens are kept primarily for two reasons: For eggs, and as pets. There has been a very noticeable shift towards local food and home gardening - keeping a few chickens for eggs is a natural extension of that desire for healthy local food.

    Unfortunately, the only exposure most people have had to chickens has been the huge confined chicken farms out in the country. Packing 200,000 chickens into a few big closed sheds creates huge problems of smell and disease. But city chickens are nothing like that. Six hens in a open-air coop in somebody's backyard are happy healthy birds. No smell, no disease.

    Compared to the average dog they will make less noise, less poop, and be much more useful at breakfast time. But they can't fetch the newspaper...

    The current ordinance only allows one chicken per acre, so it effectively prevents the average homeowner from having chickens. I would like to see the ordinance changed to allow hens only (no noisy roosters) and a maximum somewhere between 6 to 12 birds. I think this would be a good simple ordinance like those that have been successful across the country in a variety of different sized cities. Even New York City...

    Thanks!

    Greg Baka
    314 West Blvd N
    Columbia, MO 65203

    ReplyDelete
  76. I would also like to see the City of Columbia change their rules to allow for chickens within the City limits of Columbia.

    As much as this City as a whole seems to embrace the idea of sustainable living, going green, reuse-reduce-recycle, local and organic farming, etc... I find it baffling that this has not been addressed and changed already.

    As a child grew up with chickens and adored them as pets and the wonderful source of fresh eggs in the mornings, they are also hours upon hours of entertainment.

    As Mr. Baka mentioned in his post, the current City Ordinance is set to allow for one chicken per acre. As a homeowner who spent a considerable time trudging through various properties all over town before finally choosing a home four years ago, I can tell you there are VERY few properties within the city limits (in my price range anyway) that have anywhere close to one acre. Let’s say that you do have the one acre, who wants one lonely chicken? What a disservice that would be to such a wonderfully social creature. This leads me to believe one of two things... either the ordinance is incredibly archaic and was crafted when parcels of land were much larger (doubtful), OR this is simply another ordinance crafted to seemingly allow for something when in fact it's sole purpose it to make it legally impossible.

    I find the ordinance so ridiculous in fact that I have thought many times of simply ignoring it... but at what cost? I've heard many stories of court fees, outrageously expensive tickets & fines not to mention the removal of the chicken(s) from the property by Animal Control Officers. I do not have that kind of expendable income to throw away, even for such an awesome pet, source of eggs, nitrogen rich fertilizer, and entertainment, not to mention education and pest abatement.

    I find it horrendous that a City so seemingly supportive of sustainable living, going green, reuse-reduce-recycle, local and organic farming and the such, would actually punish it's residents for helping to live that healthy, sustainable, educational and community enriching lifestyle that the city seems to embrace throughout.

    Chickens are beneficial in many ways outside of the obvious (GREAT pets and fresh eggs):

    -Chickens produce a rich fertilizer by-product, high in nitrogen, eliminating the need for petrochemical fertilizers.

    -Chickens eat bugs, including ticks, reducing our backyard pest population (and in my neighborhood there are PLENTY of backyard pests), and allowing for reduced use of pesticides.

    -Backyard hens provide an educational opportunity to teach children where our food comes from and demonstrate responsible pet ownership.

    -Fresh, naturally raised eggs have an improved nutrient profile compared to conventional eggs.

    -Chickens eat table scrapes, reducing municipal solid waste (of course I would probably compost it instead anyway, but, still).

    -A properly cleaned and maintained chicken coop poses NO sanitation risks or hazards to the community.

    -With proper training they can fetch the newspaper (ok... I may have made that one up)

    Please, do not allow for the punishment of the residents of the City of Columbia for trying to live a happier, healthier, more sustainable and enriching life... I implore the powers that be to change this archaic ordinance and allow us all to help this city to further its enrichment and embrace of sustainable living.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Nicholas Totten - Columbia ResidentMay 14, 2009 at 11:27 AM

    I would like to voice my support for the allowance of the humane and sanitary keeping of laying hens (chickens) within the limits of the city of Columbia. Many other cities in the USA of already implemented such a plan, and the people who eat fresh eggs are thankful for that sense of stability and security in their food consumption. As I can see above and thus not repeat, there are many benefits to chickens besides their egg production solely. I urge you to learn more about the issue and support legislation that allows for Columbians to raise chickens, so that we may continue to bolster our local community. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  78. As regards the idea of allowing chickens within city limits, it is more about changing the existing ordinance than in writing a new one. Chickens are considered livestock under our ordinance: "Livestock shall include cattle, horses, mules, goats, sheep, hogs and chickens, ducks, geese, turkeys, lamas, emu, ostriches, camels or any other domestic fowl or domestic beast."
    Chapter 5 ANIMALS AND FOWL
    ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
    Sec. 5-2. Animal habitats to be clean, sanitary; inspections authorized.
    Sec. 5-4. Animals running at large--Unlawful for owner to allow; impoundment authorized.
    Sec. 5-5. Redemption; payment of fees; disposition of unredeemed animals.
    Sec. 5-6. Animal abuse; unlawful impoundment; unlawful confinement.
    Sec. 5-16. Penalties for chapter violations.

    ARTICLE IV. LIVESTOCK
    Sec. 5-81. Keeping within city restricted.
    Sec. 5-82. Confinement--Required.
    Sec. 5-83. Same--Requirement and maintenance of fences, corrals, etc.
    Sec. 5-84. Same--Impoundment of unconfined livestock; costs.

    These sections of chapter five seem to cover all the necessary regulations for having urban chickens (or even goats) in Columbia; sanitation, safety, confinement, penalties, and maintenance. The problem comes with Sec 5-81 or conversely with the definition of livestock. Sec 5-81 (a) No person shall keep livestock in an outdoor enclosure, outbuilding or pasture, the exterior boundary of which is within one hundred (100) feet of the dwelling house of another, (b) No person shall keep livestock in an outdoor enclosure, outbuilding or pasture, unless such enclosure, outbuilding or pasture shall have an area of one-half acre for each of such animals and fowl. This basically negates the ability to have chickens on most property within the city limits, or at least in my area of Columbia. Most commercial chicken houses are required to provide an average of 300-350 square cm per chicken in the United States; it's slightly higher in Canada and even higher in Europe. The difference between that and a half and acre per bird is tremendous. Especially considering a person can have 4 large dogs on less land than one chicken!
    If either Sec 5-81 were changed as regard chickens (and maybe goats as well, which have been proven viable urban pets in small quantities) or if chickens were taken out of the definition of livestock (and as has been posted previously put into the pet category) then it would be possible to have small backyard flocks of say 6-12 without having to write an entire ordinance just for urban chickens.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I have very mixed feelings on the issue of feeding stray cats or managing stray cat colonies. There are a number of questions I have for proponents:

    What responsibility does a stray cat caretaker have to their neighbors?

    Do neighbors have the right to call animal control if the stray cats are destroying their property? There is a law against animals at-large (Sec. 5-4) that gives animal control authority to pick up stray animals. In my opinion, this would apply equally to dogs and cats within the city limits.

    Why should someone who feeds a colony of cats, traps and pays for sterilization (thus establishing ownership under state law MoRS 578-005(6)&(8)) not be held responsible for the cat’s actions just as the owner of a nuisance dog is held responsible? If I am not mistaken, the case that was cited in a previous post was the result of repeated destruction of a neighbor’s property and many warning visits by animal control prior to a citation being issued.

    Does the TNR program facilitated through Columbia Second Chance require the trapped cats be vaccinated against rabies? Are vaccinations required to be kept current under the program’s protocol and financial support? What about a deworming program? At the public hearing, the ladies who spoke in support of stray cat colony caretakers said rabies vaccination was not mandatory within the Second Chance TNR program due to the added expense. If this is true, it is at odds with national organizations who promote TNR and out of compliance with state, county and city laws that require all dogs, cats and ferrets over the age of 3 months be immunized against rabies. Additionally, this omission is very irresponsible domestic animal management with regard to public health.

    The “Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control” (http://www.cdc.gov/mmWR/PDF/rr/rr5702.pdf) is a document written by the CDC that is used by nearly every city, county and state with an animal control ordinance. If you look at the paragraph labeled “4. Domestic Animals” on page 1, you will find there were 3.5 times (247 cats, 71 dogs) more cats than dogs found positive for rabies in 2006. Additionally, you will find on page 3 that it is recommended that stray animals (dogs, cats and ferrets) should be removed from the community for prevention and control of rabies. Finally, you will find on page 7 that the earliest you can safely vaccinate a dog, cat or ferret is 2-3 months, which is the age the ordinance requires vaccination (over 3 months of age).

    What are the environmental impacts of stray cat colonies on local wildlife? There are coastal locations where the United States Fish and Wildlife Service are rounding up stray cat colonies due to their predation on endangered birds. We have similar shorebirds (least tern and piping plover) on the Missouri River that are protected under the Endangered Species Act.

    If there were an exception for stray cat colony caretakers, what would stop every cat owner from claiming they are a colony caretaker and exempt from responsibility for their pet?

    I agree caretakers of domestic stray animals are doing a service to the community if their efforts do not put at risk the property rights of their neighbors, the viability of local ecosystems and the health of the community. Unfortunately, the caretakers will tell you they cannot catch every stray cat and ones they do catch, neuter and release will not likely be caught a second time. It is for this reason I am concerned that maintaining groups of animals in the wild is a threat to neighboring property, the ecosystem and public health. If the captured cats were released into an enclosure that protected neighbors, the ecosystem and the public, I would fully support the TNR program, but as it currently stands, exempting colony caretakers from animal control ordinances would be ignoring too many disease control experts for my comfort.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Thanks to all for the chicken facts and links to other city ordinances, and especially a thanks to Shane for the laugh (newspaper fetching chickens-Ha!).

    How many chickens should be allowed given the reasons cited requesting a change to the ordinance. How many eggs (hens) does the average family need on a daily basis? If this is truly for sustainable living, and continued neighborhood harmony is desired, I would think 12 chickens would be way too many for an averaged sized city backyard.

    The current discussion is on the overpopulation of unwanted pets. It appears that the BOH might need to schedule a second public hearing to air out the positives and negatives concerning chicken ownership in the city. I find it curious that there are no city residents posting their opposition to this proposal....

    ReplyDelete
  81. Tonight 5:30 pm at the Health Department, corner of Worley and West Blvd. North, there is a meeting of the health department. Some of these issues will be discussed. The public may attend, I was informed.

    ReplyDelete
  82. If it were legal to have many chickens within city limits, we would be dramatically cutting down on transportation costs of eggs while increasing public welfare through exposure to some of the kindest, most forthcoming animals on earth. When I say many, I mean at least 10 per quarter acre. Let's let the neighborhoods decide for themselves if the presence of chickens is a nuisance. If there are no objections from the neighbors, a city ordinance restricting chicken density is outdated and hinders steps toward a more sustainable future.

    ReplyDelete
  83. What peoople seem to be missing in the TNR debate is that there are already 1000's of feral and stray cats in this area and very little has been done about it. It would probably cost more than the entire budget of the Health Department to try to round up and euthanize every single cat and it takes just one pregnant female to start the problem up again. TNR has been proven to be the most cost effective way to control the feral cat population and you can get volunteers to do this for FREE! In the case Nathan cited, there were not multiple complaints to Animal Control, just a simple refusal on the part of a caretaker to stop feeding the cats she cares about thus letting them starve and become even greater nuisances in the meantime. The family that complained has not lived there very long and so they were not able to see the success that this managed colony represents. There used to be dozens of unaltered cats running around in this area, fighting, mating, and marking territory. People have to be realistic. The feral and stray cat problem in that area has been severe enough that three other colonies exist near there as well.

    As far as the rabies threat, it is true that SNAP did not require these vaccinations when they were getting started as a new group but, in line with recommendations from national feral cat groups, SNAP is now requiring rabies vaccines. It is much easier to ensure that a cat from a managed colony is re-vaccinated than it would ever be to catch and euthanize or vaccinate every outside cat.
    See SNAP's website for more info www.snap-cats.org.

    As far as what WOULD be feasible for our city and couty: I would suggest changing the ordinances to protect these cats and their caretakers in the following ways:

    1) exempt managed feral colonies and caretakers from the pet limit ordinance

    2) exempt feral cat caretakers from ordinances that apply to pet owners, such as licensing requirements.

    3) exempt caretakers from ordinances against leaving food outside or stray nuisance laws.

    4) exempt veterinarians and caretakers who work with feral cats from criminal or civil liability.

    5) protect the cats in a managed colony from being trapped or taken by anyone other than the caretaker associated with a TNR group.


    Below is information from the Humane Society of the United States :



    1) The 16-minute video on our website http://www.hsus. org/pets/ issues_affecting _our_pets/ feral_cats/ feral_cat_ resources. html



    2) The FAQs at http://www.hsus. org/pets/ issues_affecting _our_pets/ feral_cats/



    3) Here are animal control ordinances that exempt caretakers of managed colonies from pet limits, owning, harboring and feeding. Feral cats are not considered pets since they are adoptable. www.hsus. org/pets/ issues_affecting _our_pets/ feral_cats/ feral_cat_ resources. html



    4) The testimonials from animal care and control agencies http://www.hsus. org/pets/ issues_affecting _our_pets/ feral_cats/ testimonials_ describing_ advantages_ of_tnr.html



    5) The new policy of the National Animal Control Association http://www.animal sheltering. org/resource_ library/magazine _articles/ sep_oct_2008/ broader_view_ of_cats.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  84. It is very disapointing to not hear any discussion concerning community education about responsible pet ownership by the Deparment of Health.

    ReplyDelete
  85. First of all, feral cats are not what is endangering birds. Birds are dying off because of pollution, the use of pesticides and the lack of habitat. Predation is a natural aspect of the ecosystem. Heard of survival of the fittest?? Don't blame the cats for what people have done.

    Rabies vaccinations can easily be implemented although I have never heard of a rabid cat or a rabies case linked to cats.

    Feral cats are the result of people failing to spay and neuter. You may not like cats but it is not fair to kill off (starve)these cats because you don't want to deal with the real problem. People!

    Eradicating feral cats has been proven not to work. It is more costly than spaying and neutering and it doesn't solve the problem. Education and social responsibility are the only way. There are plenty of cities that have figured this out already. I thought Columbia was supposed to be a progressive town! Get your head out of the sand.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I believe urban chickens would be a benefit to many people, and be more productive than nuisance. Please consider adding this to our city laws.

    ReplyDelete
  87. I wonder if part of the issue with the feral cat debate is that the feral cats are being put in the same category as other pets, rather than in the category of wild animals. If someone is feeding wild animals, we don't give them ownership and insist that they control the actions of those animals. There is a family on Chapel Hill Rd who obviously feed deer in their back yard. This is potentially a nuisence to neighbors and dangerous to drivers in the area. My neighbor in my previous house loved to feed birds. She must have had a dozen feeders and would throw out old bread, etc. which would bring in flocks of starlings... you know, those black birds that make a LOT of noise? I love birds but they would poop all over our deck and car and would eat everything in our garden. My current neighbor likes to feed squirrels. She has one of those goofy sqirrel feeders that spins them around. Amusing as it is, it brings dozens of hungry squirrels to our yard and they have chewed up the edges of our dog food containers and bird feeders. I spend a lot more money on bird seed now because the squirrels eat it all. And they drive our dogs wild so we have to either let them out to bark madly and run around the yard a lot, or keep them in to bark madly and run around the house a lot.

    I have never complained about any of these potentially annoying activities, partly because I think that is just what you have to put up with in a neighborhood-- we all have our own interests and pursuits and frankly, it is more annoying to me that the guy across the street warms his car up loudly at 5 am than that all sorts of critters are being lured into my surroundings by my animal-loving neighbors. But I would never make the case that these folks are feeding the wild animals and thus have to be accountable for managing their behavior. Like any other wild animals in our area, we need some plan to manage them (deer management plans are a well thought-out example). Getting rid of wild animals is often costly-- and with other species has led to unpredicted consequences.

    A distinction would need to be made between feral cats and domesticated cats-- otherwise someone could have a dozen house cats that they conveniently call feral to avoid responsibility for them. The TNR folks could probably come up with a good, measurable definition--lives outdoors all the time, not able to be petted or approached closely by people, not claimed by anyone as a pet, ear notched when neutered, etc. Descriptions similar to what could be said about other wild animals. You could even have folks register the feral colonies they care for if that would help-- maybe see if that's been done in other communities.

    Instead of legislating broadly to solve potential conflicts between neighbors who are bothered by the feral cats, instead treat the issue like one where the person is feeding birds, deer, squirrels, raccoons (yes, I know of somoeone-- luckily not a neighbor!), etc. I don't know how those disputes are resolved-- small claims court? Is animal control involved in those cases?

    Laura

    ReplyDelete
  88. Nathan, I wouldn't mind the proposed sales tax to help fund animal control, low cost spay/neuter and education programs to help get the unwanted animal population under control and to provide better enforcement of these ordinances. Alternatively, pets are considered property, right? Why not tack it on to property taxes along with the schools, fire protection, etc. I know that people without pets will say "I don't have a pet, why is it my problem". I don't have children, but I don't have a problem paying for our public schools. I say it is everyone's problem.

    Money is key to this issue and it wouldn't take much to turn things around. Obviously more money needs to be generated somehow. Extending licensing to the county won't help much. As always, the good pet owners that already have their pets fixed and are not the problem will comply, but you'll get the same non-compliance from the owners who are irresponsible. I don't think there is another good way to get bad pet owners to contribute to the problem they are causing.

    ReplyDelete
  89. re: cats, the Anon poster who asserts that cats do not impact bird populations is, unfortunately, very wrong. Cats are not wild animals, they are not native animals, and they decimate ecosystems. Just ask Australia. Here's a link to data on wild bird kills, citing a Wisconsin study which estimates that cats may kill up to 39 million birds per year. That doesn't even say anything about their impact on rodent populations. Some people think that's a plus but it unbalances the ecosystem and threatens whole species:

    http://www.fws.gov/birds/mortality-fact-sheet.pdf

    Cats certainly carry rabies, in fact Dr. Voris at the Board of Health meeting cited that cats carry much more rabies than dogs.

    Cats are not benign and harmless to our community, other animals, or people. I happen to love cats, but I agree with many others who feel this feral cat program really doesn't do anyone any favors, not even the cats.

    ReplyDelete
  90. i still can't see how Robinjn's comment would be a valid argument against a managed feral cat program. The whole point of these progams is to STOP the endless breeding of feral and stray cats in an effective and humane manner. THIS IS A WAY TO REDUCE THE # OF CATS LIVING OUTDOORS. In these programs, the cats are fixed, vaccinated and fed so their impact on the environment is greatly lessened. I'm sure starving, endlessly pregnant cats have to be harder on the bird population. Many cities have found ways to sucsessfully compromise so that feral cats that happen to be near sensitive breeding grounds are moved.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Nathan, I understand your position is to live trap all of the feral cats in Columbia to do away with the problem. Please present the number of animals in question and estimated cost per animal to achieve the ultimate goal.
    Thanks for the information.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Spaying/neutering is fine and great and a good Idea to control the population, but I believe that if you want to own a larger breed dog that you should have to PROVE that you have taken some sort of TRAINING course to be able to Own the animal, If you can not take, and afford the time to take the course, then you dont have the proper time to spend with the animal that it requires to properly train the animal in the first place for it to be safe in the community. We all want our community to be safer for all.

    ReplyDelete
  93. The story of the woman's house being broken into by a pitbull is wrong. I am her sister and the real story is nothing like this one. She heard something hitting her window and thought someone was breaking into her house, so she took her phone and locked herself into the bathroom. Her dog was in the living room barking. She called her friend who was at the police station anyway and told her what was going on. The Police came and stood outside her house while my sister was inside. The noise stopped and so she looked outside of her bathroom door. That is when she saw the dog. She went back into the bathroom and when the dogs ran upstairs, she ran out the back sliding door.
    The police told her that the dog catcher was not going to get there for another two hours and so they tried to contain the dog inside the house by shutting the broken window. The dog tried to get out in the process and snapped at the police officer. They could not contain the dog so they shot it.
    May I also add that the dog ate all of my sister's dog food and drank all of the water in the dog bowl?? And it looked very hungry. Not once was it wanting to hurt her.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I think it's humorous that there was a specific statement in the article about how there are no calls coming in unless someone is bitten...I called about my neighbor's really aggressive dog and no one cared--the even asked me if it had bitten me--otherwise, they couldn't do anything! It's terrible that I couldn't let my daughter go outside to play on her swingset in good faith. The dog was fully capable of jumping the fence and thought my yard was his territory also...At any rate, I'm glad my neighbor's dog apparently has more rights than I do.

    ReplyDelete
  95. I have not posted in a while, but I have been reading about the concerns regarding the chickens and feral cats. I went to the HD meeting a couple weeks ago and was quite enlightened by the topic of the "urban chickens". I was so impressed by the number of people passionate about this issue that actually show up! It was also interesting to hear about the topic of feral cats, but no one was there to support this issue. Personally, I am all about the dog issues but wanted to impress the fact that it is so important to stay involved, educate yourself and go to the meetings!

    ReplyDelete
  96. It would be wonderful if Animal Control would do their job. I've reported someone harboring/owning more than 4 dogs/cats in their yard, and I was treated like I was the one breaking the ordinance.

    You also have to give all of your information when filing a barking dog complaint. Shouldn't a call or email be enough? Shouldn't the control officer be able to go the the area and determine whether the complaint is valid or not? No one wants to be on their neighbor's bad side, but normal people would also like to sleep at night without their dreams being punctuated by barking, howling, whining dogs.

    I have contacted Animal Control 3 times since I've lived in Columbia, and NOT ONCE have they investigated the complaint. Not when the poor puppy was tied up without food or water outside in the sun in July all day, not when a neighbor had 15 dogs in town, and not when another neighbor's dogs were let out at 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 am to bark constantly.

    Animal Control is a JOKE, and I would appreciate it if they were held to their responsibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  97. 17 exposed to rabid kitten found in Del.

    The Associated Press
    Friday, July 10, 2009

    ASHLAND, Va. - Virginia health officials say 17 people from four states are undergoing rabies treatments after being exposed to a rabid kitten in Delaware.

    The Chickahominy Health District said Friday that those exposed include nine Hanover County residents, five people from Maryland, two from Pennsylvania and one from Delaware.

    One Hanover County resident found the stray kitten on U.S. 13 in Delaware and took it to a family gathering held July 2 in Bethany Beach, Del. The kitten became ill when the resident returned to Virginia and later tested positive for rabies.

    Dr. Brooke Rossheim, the health district's acting director, says people should keep their distance from strange animals and wildlife.

    Rossheim says there's no definite way to determine whether an animal has rabies just by observing it.

    http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/20090710_ap_17exposedtorabidkittenfoundindel.html

    ReplyDelete
  98. The feral cat colonies are becoming more than a nuisance - they are a hazard. Just spaying/neutering them as some people have suggested does not solve the problem. These cats have not had vaccinations, therefore putting humans and other animals at risk. The more they live around humans, the more comfortable they become, which means they do come quite close to homes, humans, parked vehicles, etc. Also, we had a cat that wasn't feral that tried to come into our apartment on several occasions. It became increasingly aggressive, waiting outside our door and hissing at us when we would leave. We were told that the only way animal control would come pick any animals up was if they were visibly dangerous, i.e. visibly looked as if they had rabies. We were finally able to trap the animal and take it to the humane society, where we were charged $20 to drop off an "unwanted pet", though I explained it was unwanted, but was certainly not my pet. It would be nice if there was a way to remove these animals from urban living areas so they don't continue to pose a threat to other humans and their pets.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Great job man.You have posted a best one.I think all comments will help you for better corporation.

    ReplyDelete
  100. I personally own big dogs. I train my dogs by myself and they are wonderful dogs. I have contacted alot of traning facilities where they want to TAKE my dog from me to ob train it and then give it back and charge me a butt load for it. People are completely capable of training there own dogs. Now if they do and take the time is there concern and if they dont take the time then they should not have any type of dog big or small. I have come across aggressive mean no training small dogs all the time. So making it mandatory for a big dog owner to take there dog to class and not the small dog owner to me is profiling and wrong in many ways. Spay and neuter, I believe if you have a mix of any kind, any dog that is not recognized by the akc or not in process of being recognized full blooded, should be spayed or neutered, with no fee to the owner of the full blooded dog, I show dogs and they can not be altered, so charging me more for my love for dogs and the sport. You must take all sides of a conflict so dear to heart for alot of people.

    ReplyDelete