Vicki
Administrator
Crowd turns out for dog debate
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Lorri Sughroue
The City Council Chambers was packed Monday night with pet owners, angry over certain sections in a proposed animal control ordinance that the McCook City Council is considering.
After about two hours, during which citizens voiced their concerns, the council revised two sections of the ordinance, one that amended the number of pets allowed per household at three dogs with no limit on cats. The council also re-worked language in another section relating to the capture of dogs-at-large.
The council then approved the animal control ordinance on its second reading 4-1, with Councilman Lonnie Anderson voting against it. The ordinance has one more reading before it can go into effect.
The ordinance that the council passed Monday night still includes licensing fees for dogs and cats, with a proposed resolution assessing $15 for altered and $45 per unaltered dog and $10 for altered and $30 per unaltered cat. But the council will determine at the next council meeting what the exact amount will be, Fritsch said.
The vocal crowd expressed concerns on a number of issues on the ordinance, including limiting the number of dogs and cats allowed per residence, if current pets could be grandfathered in if they were above the limit, the costs of licensing fees, impounding dogs at large, mandatory collaring of dogs and cats and taking care feral cats in neighborhoods.
City Manager Kurt Fritsch noted at the beginning of the meeting that the proposed ordinance will limit the number of dogs and cats per residence to three each. The city has allowed three dogs per residence since 1981 and the proposed ordinance would keep that number, but include limiting cats as well.
More than three dogs above the age of 6 months is considered to be a kennel, which is allowed only outside city limits.
But many citizens attending the meeting were not happy with that. One woman with four cats and one dog told the council that limiting the number of cats would mean "getting rid one of my children," a concern many citizens expressed.
Another said she has had six dogs for nine years, and "now you're telling me to rid of (some)."
One woman said she was told by the city that four dogs were allowed, and not three.
A man who said he lives on the edge of town with 10 cats and said he spends $1,000 annually on vet bills, said the city didn't have the right to tell him what he could or could not do with his pets and said provisions in the ordinance violated his constitutional rights. He wanted to know if there would be a vote on this or if the council would "just Obama this into us?"
McCook Police Chief Ike Brown also weighed in, and said the police receive about 800 calls per year on animal control issues. The city is looking at 13 sites about feral cats, but since there are no city laws on feral cats, the police have no authority to enforce it, unless it becomes a health issue and at that point, "it's too little, too late," he said.
During council discussion, Councilman Lonnie Anderson said he wanted to eliminate limiting the number of cats but added that he did want the issue of feral cats to be addressed.
Councilman Aaron Kircher said the purpose of limiting cats was to control those who own an excessive number and to address health risks. But he was against setting a certain number, as he felt some people can handle more cats while others could not.
Council member Colleen Grant noted that citations are given on a complaint basis and that pet owners can still own more than three if there are no complaints. There is a difference between a valid complaint and a irritated neighbor, she pointed out.
City Attorney Nate Schneider advised the council that without a set number, any challenge in court would be hard to defend.
Mayor Berry also stated his preference for a certain number of cats allowed, with Council member Colleen Grant agreeing that a such a number was needed.
But members of the audience disagreed and some called out that "cats should be left alone." Limiting cats was not necessary if they were well taken care of, another said.
The motion to limit the number of pets per household at three dogs and three cats, including hybrid animals, was defeated 2-3, with council members Colleen Grant and Jack Rogers voting for it and Mayor Dennis Berry, along with Councilmen Anderson and Kircher, voting against it.
Councilman Kircher reiterated his preference not to set a number and Schneider recommended to either pick a certain number of cats allowed or to not address cats at all. Fritsch added that feral cats could still be addressed in another section of the ordinance.
Mayor Berry made the motion to allow three dogs or hybrid dogs per residence, and not to limit the number of cats, which Councilman Kircher seconded.
After more input from the audience, that included one citizen commenting that although he sees "dog at large" tickets in the paper but never "cat at large" tickets, the motion passed unanimously.
Another section the council amended was section 118, which originally read that the police or another officer designated by the city manager will have the authority to kill any animals showing vicious tendencies, characteristics of rabies, or which are impossible to capture. Several in the audience felt that this language would give officers the right to kill their dogs if the animals were found outside their property and were unable to be captured. The revised language adds that the animals must show an imminent threat to officers and present a threat to the public.
Nate Schneider also explained to citizens that a section dealing with impounding animals only concerns vicious dogs.
http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1559583.html
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Lorri Sughroue
The City Council Chambers was packed Monday night with pet owners, angry over certain sections in a proposed animal control ordinance that the McCook City Council is considering.
After about two hours, during which citizens voiced their concerns, the council revised two sections of the ordinance, one that amended the number of pets allowed per household at three dogs with no limit on cats. The council also re-worked language in another section relating to the capture of dogs-at-large.
The council then approved the animal control ordinance on its second reading 4-1, with Councilman Lonnie Anderson voting against it. The ordinance has one more reading before it can go into effect.
The ordinance that the council passed Monday night still includes licensing fees for dogs and cats, with a proposed resolution assessing $15 for altered and $45 per unaltered dog and $10 for altered and $30 per unaltered cat. But the council will determine at the next council meeting what the exact amount will be, Fritsch said.
The vocal crowd expressed concerns on a number of issues on the ordinance, including limiting the number of dogs and cats allowed per residence, if current pets could be grandfathered in if they were above the limit, the costs of licensing fees, impounding dogs at large, mandatory collaring of dogs and cats and taking care feral cats in neighborhoods.
City Manager Kurt Fritsch noted at the beginning of the meeting that the proposed ordinance will limit the number of dogs and cats per residence to three each. The city has allowed three dogs per residence since 1981 and the proposed ordinance would keep that number, but include limiting cats as well.
More than three dogs above the age of 6 months is considered to be a kennel, which is allowed only outside city limits.
But many citizens attending the meeting were not happy with that. One woman with four cats and one dog told the council that limiting the number of cats would mean "getting rid one of my children," a concern many citizens expressed.
Another said she has had six dogs for nine years, and "now you're telling me to rid of (some)."
One woman said she was told by the city that four dogs were allowed, and not three.
A man who said he lives on the edge of town with 10 cats and said he spends $1,000 annually on vet bills, said the city didn't have the right to tell him what he could or could not do with his pets and said provisions in the ordinance violated his constitutional rights. He wanted to know if there would be a vote on this or if the council would "just Obama this into us?"
McCook Police Chief Ike Brown also weighed in, and said the police receive about 800 calls per year on animal control issues. The city is looking at 13 sites about feral cats, but since there are no city laws on feral cats, the police have no authority to enforce it, unless it becomes a health issue and at that point, "it's too little, too late," he said.
During council discussion, Councilman Lonnie Anderson said he wanted to eliminate limiting the number of cats but added that he did want the issue of feral cats to be addressed.
Councilman Aaron Kircher said the purpose of limiting cats was to control those who own an excessive number and to address health risks. But he was against setting a certain number, as he felt some people can handle more cats while others could not.
Council member Colleen Grant noted that citations are given on a complaint basis and that pet owners can still own more than three if there are no complaints. There is a difference between a valid complaint and a irritated neighbor, she pointed out.
City Attorney Nate Schneider advised the council that without a set number, any challenge in court would be hard to defend.
Mayor Berry also stated his preference for a certain number of cats allowed, with Council member Colleen Grant agreeing that a such a number was needed.
But members of the audience disagreed and some called out that "cats should be left alone." Limiting cats was not necessary if they were well taken care of, another said.
The motion to limit the number of pets per household at three dogs and three cats, including hybrid animals, was defeated 2-3, with council members Colleen Grant and Jack Rogers voting for it and Mayor Dennis Berry, along with Councilmen Anderson and Kircher, voting against it.
Councilman Kircher reiterated his preference not to set a number and Schneider recommended to either pick a certain number of cats allowed or to not address cats at all. Fritsch added that feral cats could still be addressed in another section of the ordinance.
Mayor Berry made the motion to allow three dogs or hybrid dogs per residence, and not to limit the number of cats, which Councilman Kircher seconded.
After more input from the audience, that included one citizen commenting that although he sees "dog at large" tickets in the paper but never "cat at large" tickets, the motion passed unanimously.
Another section the council amended was section 118, which originally read that the police or another officer designated by the city manager will have the authority to kill any animals showing vicious tendencies, characteristics of rabies, or which are impossible to capture. Several in the audience felt that this language would give officers the right to kill their dogs if the animals were found outside their property and were unable to be captured. The revised language adds that the animals must show an imminent threat to officers and present a threat to the public.
Nate Schneider also explained to citizens that a section dealing with impounding animals only concerns vicious dogs.
http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1559583.html