Posts
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. -- A state lawmaker's push to outlaw gas chambers to euthanize animals across the state has the backing of about a dozen Illinois animal-rescue shelters that consider the method cruel.
The measure sponsored by state Rep. John Fritchey, D-Chicago, would bar the use of carbon monoxide and tighten restrictions on who is allowed to do the killing.
Chicago Bulldog Rescue Inc., the bill's lead supporter, says Maryland, New Jersey and New Mexico already ban gas chambers. Illinois and Missouri allow that euthanasia method but have stipulations on the type of gas and chamber used.
"We don't put criminals in gas chambers because it's inhumane," said Randy Grim from Stray Rescue of St. Louis, hoping the ban passes in Illinois and catches on in Missouri. "It's not the animal's fault that it was abandoned."
Animal rights advocates and public officials across the region say it's impossible to know how many animals are gassed because county shelters are only required to report the number of deaths, not the manner in which the animal was destroyed.
Another issue is so-called "puppy mills," high-volume but substandard dog breeders that often produce more animals than they can sell. Commercial operations don't have to follow the same gas chamber restrictions imposed on shelters, nor are they held to the same reporting standards.
The proposed Illinois ban on gas chambers would apply to commercial breeders and shelters.
Some shelters in the region have already switched to lethal injection from gas after coming under fire from animal rights groups.
"(With gas), they don't die immediately, and being in an enclosure like that causes them stress and panic," said Jackie Spiker, co-founder of Hope Rescues, a "no-kill" shelter in Edwardsville.
But at some shelters, using the gas chamber is a matter of convenience.
In Mount Vernon, most cats and dogs that are not adopted at Jefferson County's animal control agency are put down by lethal injection, a standard practice at government-operated shelters across the region. But when a dog is deemed aggressive or when the site gets too crowded and must destroy large groups of animals, the gas chamber gets put to use.
"We get a great deal of animals," said Ruth Hughes, the site's supervisor. "Sometimes it's easier to use gas. It doesn't tie up my people."
St. Clair County, just east of St. Louis, stopped gassing stray cats and dogs in 1997 after the public learned that cats used to be placed in a 55-gallon drum and dogs in a cement block structure before a tractor's engine exhaust was pumped into the chambers.
Some animal advocates say it would be harder to ban the gas chamber in Missouri because lethal injections cost more than in Illinois. A veterinarian must administer or supervise the shot in Missouri; a trained euthanasia technician is permitted to do so in Illinois.
Fritchey's bill also would bar anyone convicted of animal abuse felonies, bestiality or drug crimes from administering lethal injections.
It would mandate a euthanasia technician get continuing education every five years, instead of the existing once-in-a-lifetime requirement. Any violations would be referred to local law enforcement or the Illinois State Police, as well as the local prosecutor or Illinois attorney general's office.
Showing posts with label city council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label city council. Show all posts
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
City Council to vote on feral cat care
A woman in Pigtown looks forward to her regular visitors: alley cats that come for their daily fix of food.
A couple in Northwest Baltimore feed a stray they've named "old gray and white cat" and six to nine others.
And a woman in Canton expects the six stray cats that meander into her backyard every afternoon, all of which she's trapped, spayed and neutered this year, along with 44 other stray cats within a five-block radius of her house.
All stand to benefit from pending legislation, to be voted on by the City Council today, that would make it legal and easier for them to care for feral cats.
"There are hundreds of cats running the streets, I had no idea," said Rachel Strobel, 29, of Canton. "If you don't fix them, then you're going to have hundreds of thousands that will be born, and eventually they will die.
"If you're going to feed them, you have to fix them, and once they're fixed then it would be inhumane not to take care of them and to manage the colony," she added.
An estimated 185,000 stray cats lurk in back alleys and streets across Baltimore, many dependent on an informal network of caregivers who leave them food. Some caregivers even go a step further, trapping the cats and then vaccinating and neutering them before releasing them back to the streets.
But many do so at their peril, fearful of fines that make it illegal to "abandon" animals after they've been cared for and even more fearful of having to leave the cats in a shelter where they could end up euthanized.
Now, the city Health Department is proposing a program that would allow residents to become "feral cat caregivers," enabling them to trap, alter, vaccinate and mark cats before releasing them and continuing to feed them.
The city legislation appears to have the necessary support. The bill would also amend the city code to enable caregivers to continue to feed feral cats after releasing them, without being penalized for abandoning an animal.
The bill cleared a subcommittee vote last week after a two-hour hearing last month in which more than 20 people from across the state spoke in favor of the legislation. There were no opponents.
Feral cats are defined as cats that are unsocialized to humans and have a temperament of "extreme fear and resistance to contact with humans."
While a number of groups exist that help people trap and train cats, this would allow such groups to work in cooperation with the city's animal shelters.
Supporters say TNR (trap-neuter-release) programs are a simple, humane solution to stabilizing feral cat populations and ensuring that the cats that roam outside - and the people they may come in contact with - remain healthy. They also note the benefit of rat control.
Numerous other jurisdictions have similar programs - including Illinois, Brevard County, Fla., and Cape May, N.J. - according to Alley Cat Allies, a Bethesda-based nonprofit organization that focuses on feral cat issues.
"These cats are out there and they're unowned," said Becky Robinson, president of the group. "Baltimore is recognizing and acknowledging these cats, and that's a good first step. They're acknowledging the caregivers who are caring for these cats and feeding them and saying they can get them neutered and vaccinated without being defined as an owner."
Still, Robinson said, the city needs to follow up with the money and manpower to make the program work.
Bob Anderson, director of animal control, said there are 185,000 domestic cats in Baltimore and he estimates an equal number of feral cats.
Anderson said his department received 1,892 calls to trap cats in fiscal year 2007, with an average of 3.5 cats per request.
Jennifer Mead, director of the Baltimore Animal Rescue and Care Shelter, called the bill "extremely important."
In the past nine months the shelter has received 5,000 cats, she said. About half find homes; the other half are euthanized.
"Without this being legal, the only option for Baltimore City now is euthanasia," said Mead. "Here's another option, here's a more humane way.
"If we get involved with this feral cat program we'll be able to save a lot more," she added.
For caregivers, the legislation will allow them to continue what they've been doing, without the threat of fines.
Animal control can fine city residents $100 for keeping a wild animal as a pet without a permit and $100 to prevent an animal under someone's care from becoming a public nuisance, said Olivia Farrow, assistant commissioner for environmental health.
"If you're exercising care and control over a cat and you're dumping it back out on the street, it's unrestrained and technically a nuisance," said Farrow.
But animal control workers do not target people taking care of feral cats, and levy fines only if they receive a complaint, said Farrow.
Still, many caregivers say they've either received fines or worry about getting one.
In Pigtown, Janice Boring said there are lots of feral cats and a number of caregivers, some of whom have received fines. "They don't look at us like a resource, they look at us like we're felons," said Boring. "A small bowl of food is a small price to pay to prevent rats."
At the Oct. 30 hearing, Melinda Smith told city officials about her feral cat colony, and the hundreds of dollars in citations she's received.
"I would like legislation that will protect me from prosecution and will protect my cats from execution," said Smith.
"I do live in fear," she added.
Dawn Strecker of Hamilton said she feeds and has trapped and neutered numerous cats, some of which she's found homes for.
"This TNR bill allows us to legally care for these cats," said Strecker. "I mean, I've done it at risk of citation. Passing this legislation would relieve that worry."
Other caregivers pointed out that in a city where violence is commonplace, showing children acts of compassion by feeding a helpless living creature teaches them to value life more.
"These cats, they bring hope to my neighborhood," said Dorathea Blackwell.
sumathi.reddy@baltsun.com
Copyright © 2008, The Baltimore Sun
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Support bill that prevents communities from discriminating against any breed of dog in Missouri! No breed specific legislation!
From KC Dog Advocates:
URGENT! A vote may be coming soon! Please contact the members of the Senate Economic Development, Tourism and Local Government committee and urge them to support SB 886 in its ORIGINAL form! SB 886 prohibits laws that target dogs based on looks alone and will force cities to target only truly dangerous dogs. Phone calls are best! Don't worry about making a speech, all you need to do is call and say, "I support SB 886 in it's original form." Then, follow up with a fax or email with more information if you choose - please include your address. Missouri residents' opinions carry the most weight but BSL effects people traveling to the state as well. Please be courteous, succinct and truthful.
John Griesheimer, 26th, Chair
State Capitol Building
Room 227
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
(573) 751-3678
FAX: (573) 526-2609
Tom Dempsey, 23rd, Vice Chair
State Capitol Building
Room 433
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
(573) 751-1141
FAX: (573) 522-3383
E-Mail: tom.dempsey@senate.mo.gov
Jason Crowell, 27th
State Capitol Building
Room 323
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
(573) 751-2459
FAX: (573) 522-9289
Kevin Engler, 3rd
State Capitol Building
Room 428
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
(573) 751-3455
FAX: (573) 522-9318
Jack Goodman, 29th
State Capitol Building
Room 331A
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
(573) 751-2234
Fax: (573) 526-9808
Carl Vogel, 6th
State Capitol Building
Room 321
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
(573) 751-2076
FAX: (573) 751-2582
Victor Callahan, 11th
State Capitol Building
Room 334
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
(573) 751-3074
FAX: (573) 751-4551
Harry Kennedy, 1st
State Capitol Building
Room 226
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
(573) 751-2126
FAX: (573) 522-2465
Chris Koster, 31st
State Capitol Building
Room 225
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
(573) 751-1430
FAX: (573) 751-9751
Ryan McKenna, 22nd
State Capitol Building
Room 421
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
(573) 751-1492
Wes Shoemyer, 18th
State Capitol Building
Room 434
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
(573) 751-7852
Missouri: SB 886 Regulates the Dog, Not the Breed
Sponsor(s): Senator Jolie Justus
ASPCA Position: Support
Action Needed: Please email our letter to your state senator and members of the Missouri State Senate Economic Development, Tourism and Local Government Committee to express your support for this bill.
Sponsored by Senator Jolie Justus, SB 886 would allow any Missouri village, town or city to adopt regulations to control vicious or dangerous dogs—but importantly, the bill prevents communities from discriminating against any breed of dog.
Dogs are individuals: any dog can bite. Citizens should be protected from vicious and dangerous dogs of all breeds or mixes. Discriminating against certain breeds of dogs fails to protect the public and penalizes responsible dog owners.
Your letter will be sent to:
* Senator John E. Griesheimer
* Senator Jason G. Crowell
* Senator Kevin Engler
* Senator Wes Shoemyer
* Senator Victor Callahan
* Senator Carl M. Vogel
* Senator Michael R. Gibbons
* Senator Jack Goodman
* Senator Ryan Glennon McKenna
* Senator Harry Kennedy
* Senator Luann Ridgeway
To read the full text of the bill click here.
Go to the ASPCA site to send email and letter you can copy and paste to send a snail mail letter.
This is sooo important for us to respond to! This is our chance to end this terrible legislation for our dogs in Missouri!
Please send a snail mail letter. Actual, physical letters sitting on a desk or in a basket can pile up and show the amount of people who care. Emails are erased and even if they "pile up", who would notice? Letters cannot be ignored as much as an email!
The dogs all over the state will thank you!! :)
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
City Bans Tethering, Chaining Dogs
FORT WORTH — The Fort Worth City Council today approved an ordinance banning dog tethering. The new ordinance, which becomes effective this week, makes it illegal to use a chain, rope, tether, leash, cable or other device to attach an unattended dog to a stationary object or trolley system. A dog still must be confined within a secure enclosure at all times.
This new ordinance is partly due to a new state law passed in 2007, which allows tethering during certain time frames, under certain circumstances and using certain types of restraints.
“There is evidence that tethering dogs makes them more dangerous,” said Assistant Public Health Director Scott Hanlan. “Unfortunately, our animal control officers encounter on a daily basis tethered dogs that are neglected and left without food, water or shelter.”
One study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that animals that are kept roped or chained are 2.8 times more likely to bite people than dogs not kept roped or chained. In addition, the American Veterinary Medical Association recommends never tethering or chaining a dog, because it can contribute to aggressive behavior. Anti-tethering campaigns are also endorsed by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Humane Society of the United States.
Under the new ordinance, the tethering of dogs will still be allowed under limited circumstances when the owner is present. The exceptions include a lawful animal event, city dog park, veterinary treatment, grooming, training or law enforcement activity.
Those who violate the new ordinance could face a fine as high as $2,000. However, Animal Care and Control staff emphasize that they will work with residents to educate them on this new law. Staff members also will provide residents with information on low-cost, more humane ways to restrain dogs before issuing citations for violations that don’t pose immediate threats to people or animals.
The issue of chained-up dogs is one element in the larger problem of irresponsible pet ownership faced not only by Fort Worth but by communities across the United States. Fort Worth animal control officers impounded 25,500 animals last year. Unfortunately, about 70 percent of those animals never made it out of the shelter alive.
For more information, call the Animal Care and Control Division at 817-392-3737.
###
Media Contact:
Susan Whittenberger
Public Education Coordinator
Public Health Department
817-871-6658 (office)
817-999-8493 (cell)
susan.whittenberger@fortworthgov.org
This new ordinance is partly due to a new state law passed in 2007, which allows tethering during certain time frames, under certain circumstances and using certain types of restraints.
“There is evidence that tethering dogs makes them more dangerous,” said Assistant Public Health Director Scott Hanlan. “Unfortunately, our animal control officers encounter on a daily basis tethered dogs that are neglected and left without food, water or shelter.”
One study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that animals that are kept roped or chained are 2.8 times more likely to bite people than dogs not kept roped or chained. In addition, the American Veterinary Medical Association recommends never tethering or chaining a dog, because it can contribute to aggressive behavior. Anti-tethering campaigns are also endorsed by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Humane Society of the United States.
Under the new ordinance, the tethering of dogs will still be allowed under limited circumstances when the owner is present. The exceptions include a lawful animal event, city dog park, veterinary treatment, grooming, training or law enforcement activity.
Those who violate the new ordinance could face a fine as high as $2,000. However, Animal Care and Control staff emphasize that they will work with residents to educate them on this new law. Staff members also will provide residents with information on low-cost, more humane ways to restrain dogs before issuing citations for violations that don’t pose immediate threats to people or animals.
The issue of chained-up dogs is one element in the larger problem of irresponsible pet ownership faced not only by Fort Worth but by communities across the United States. Fort Worth animal control officers impounded 25,500 animals last year. Unfortunately, about 70 percent of those animals never made it out of the shelter alive.
For more information, call the Animal Care and Control Division at 817-392-3737.
###
Media Contact:
Susan Whittenberger
Public Education Coordinator
Public Health Department
817-871-6658 (office)
817-999-8493 (cell)
susan.whittenberger@fortworthgov.org
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Tethered-dog photos disturbing to Texas council
Posted on Wed, Jan. 16, 2008
By MIKE LEE
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
FORT WORTH -- The pictures were upsetting: a slit-eyed dog chained to a tree in a bare dirt yard with no way to get to food or water. Another dog kept on a chain so short it could barely move.
And those were the ones that the city animal control department felt it could show in public.
"Our animal cruelty officers encounter many examples of dog tethering that are far worse," said Scott Hanlan, assistant public health director.
It could soon be illegal to chain or tether a dog in Fort Worth, except in limited circumstances. City Council members, who were visibly angered by the pictures, could vote on a change in the ordinance next week, including a $2,000 fine.
Hanlon said there's evidence that chaining dogs makes them more dangerous. One study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that animals that are kept roped or chained are 2.8 times more likely to bite people than other dogs.
"I find the photographs you just showed us disturbing to say the least," Mayor Mike Moncrief said. "I guess perhaps in my own mind the most appropriate punishment for those who choose to treat animals that way is to tether those owners themselves for a period of time."
Enforcement
If the council approves the ordinance next week, it would be illegal to keep a dog on a chain or rope unless the owner is present. Hanlan said animal control officers plan to start educating owners about their options, including inexpensive ones. It can cost as little as $200 to build a dog run out of chain-link fence, and dog runs are much more humane than chains or ropes, Hanlan said.
City ordinance already requires dogs to be kept in fenced yards or some other type of secure enclosure.
Other cities, including Austin and Irving, have passed similar ordinances. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has endorsed so-called anti-tethering laws as a more sensible alternative to laws that focus on one breed of dog, such as pit bulls. The Humane Society of the United States publishes a pamphlet telling activists how to get similar laws passed in their community.
Street culture
City animal control officials say part of the problem is the street culture, whose members value dogs as a status symbol. Dogfighters sometimes use heavy chains to strengthen a dog or make it more aggressive.
Suzette Watkins, who owns a kennel in the Riverside neighborhood, has taken pictures of chained animals around Fort Worth and sent them to council members and the news media.
"You look tough if you've got a chained, mean dog by the side of you," she said. "It's like a loaded gun; they don't realize what that dog is capable of."
Chaining dogs hurts them on several levels, Watkins said. It deprives them of exercise and keeps them from interacting with people or other dogs.
"By nature, dogs are social beings. For them to be tied up ... it's no life for a dog," she said.
A larger problem
The issue of chained-up dogs is one facet of a citywide problem. Fort Worth officials have been trying for years to do something about irresponsible pet owners who they say contribute to the proliferation of stray and abused animals. Thousands of animals are kept without proper vaccinations, spaying or neutering, training, city licenses or a decent environment.
City animal control officers collect about 25,500 dogs and cats a year. At one point, the city had to euthanize three-fourths of those animals. The death rate is now down to about 70 percent, despite Fort Worth's rapid population growth and an increase in the number of animals brought in. At the same time, the animal control department has been requiring people ticketed for animal violations to attend classes on proper animal care.
By MIKE LEE
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
FORT WORTH -- The pictures were upsetting: a slit-eyed dog chained to a tree in a bare dirt yard with no way to get to food or water. Another dog kept on a chain so short it could barely move.
And those were the ones that the city animal control department felt it could show in public.
"Our animal cruelty officers encounter many examples of dog tethering that are far worse," said Scott Hanlan, assistant public health director.
It could soon be illegal to chain or tether a dog in Fort Worth, except in limited circumstances. City Council members, who were visibly angered by the pictures, could vote on a change in the ordinance next week, including a $2,000 fine.
Hanlon said there's evidence that chaining dogs makes them more dangerous. One study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that animals that are kept roped or chained are 2.8 times more likely to bite people than other dogs.
"I find the photographs you just showed us disturbing to say the least," Mayor Mike Moncrief said. "I guess perhaps in my own mind the most appropriate punishment for those who choose to treat animals that way is to tether those owners themselves for a period of time."
Enforcement
If the council approves the ordinance next week, it would be illegal to keep a dog on a chain or rope unless the owner is present. Hanlan said animal control officers plan to start educating owners about their options, including inexpensive ones. It can cost as little as $200 to build a dog run out of chain-link fence, and dog runs are much more humane than chains or ropes, Hanlan said.
City ordinance already requires dogs to be kept in fenced yards or some other type of secure enclosure.
Other cities, including Austin and Irving, have passed similar ordinances. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has endorsed so-called anti-tethering laws as a more sensible alternative to laws that focus on one breed of dog, such as pit bulls. The Humane Society of the United States publishes a pamphlet telling activists how to get similar laws passed in their community.
Street culture
City animal control officials say part of the problem is the street culture, whose members value dogs as a status symbol. Dogfighters sometimes use heavy chains to strengthen a dog or make it more aggressive.
Suzette Watkins, who owns a kennel in the Riverside neighborhood, has taken pictures of chained animals around Fort Worth and sent them to council members and the news media.
"You look tough if you've got a chained, mean dog by the side of you," she said. "It's like a loaded gun; they don't realize what that dog is capable of."
Chaining dogs hurts them on several levels, Watkins said. It deprives them of exercise and keeps them from interacting with people or other dogs.
"By nature, dogs are social beings. For them to be tied up ... it's no life for a dog," she said.
A larger problem
The issue of chained-up dogs is one facet of a citywide problem. Fort Worth officials have been trying for years to do something about irresponsible pet owners who they say contribute to the proliferation of stray and abused animals. Thousands of animals are kept without proper vaccinations, spaying or neutering, training, city licenses or a decent environment.
City animal control officers collect about 25,500 dogs and cats a year. At one point, the city had to euthanize three-fourths of those animals. The death rate is now down to about 70 percent, despite Fort Worth's rapid population growth and an increase in the number of animals brought in. At the same time, the animal control department has been requiring people ticketed for animal violations to attend classes on proper animal care.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Council delays decision on dog-chaining law
By Chris Paschenko
The Daily News
Published January 10, 2008
DICKINSON — Saying law-abiding residents shouldn’t be made criminals, the Dickinson City Council decided to postpone enacting an ordinance banning the chaining of dogs, so it could review the language of the law.
Councilmen Mark Townsend and Kerry Neves said Wednesday they’ve had some dogs they’ve had to restrain during loud thunderstorms and temporary restraints were the only way to ensure the canines remained in their backyard fences.
Both councilmen said they would be against a total ban on chaining dogs.
“I had a black lab, and the dog would go nuts,” Townsend said. “He ate up the fence, the wood on the back door. When it thunders, that’s the end.”
Neves agreed, saying his dogs couldn’t be kept in his fence during thunderstorms.
“They go absolutely crazy during thunderstorms and loud noises,” Neves said. “One digs out, and one climbs over. When I’m not home, I restrain them on the porch. They have beds and everything. If I don’t, I’m afraid they’ll become grease spots on FM 517.”
A concerned citizen went to a council meeting last year, asking for members to pass a similar measure adopted in Texas City that prevents the continuous chaining of dogs.
“I understand her point of view,” Townsend said. “But then you’ve got people like Kerry, but if it lightnings, he ain’t the only one going to be in that boat.” If the council passes a total ban, Townsend said, “I think we’ll be making criminals out of law-abiding citizens.”
Neves said the council would likely discuss the matter during a work session as soon as late February or March.
“I guess I agree with it in principle,” Neves said. “It’s just got to be handled in a better fashion. I hate to pass an ordinance that criminalizes good folks trying to do the right thing.”
Neves said paying careful attention to the wording of the ordinance would be key.
“We need verbiage to the effect that it doesn’t apply when restraint is done for the health and safety of the animal, so we don’t criminalize somebody like me,” he said.
Neves said the chaining of dogs could be banned, but animal abuse laws would better serve the public when residents report neglected animals, such as those permanently chained without food, water or shelter.
Copyright © 2008 The Galveston County Daily News
_________________________________________________________________________________
I believe this quote to be completely ridiculous! How can someone be so ignorant? "folks trying to do the right thing." Chaining a dog is not the right thing for anyone to do. Who cares so little about their dog that they allow them to be chained outside during a thunderstorm? There needs to be some serious education in this town. It is so sad when these lawmakers consider the people first and the happiness and welfare of the dogs, who actually have to live outside.
The Daily News
Published January 10, 2008
DICKINSON — Saying law-abiding residents shouldn’t be made criminals, the Dickinson City Council decided to postpone enacting an ordinance banning the chaining of dogs, so it could review the language of the law.
Councilmen Mark Townsend and Kerry Neves said Wednesday they’ve had some dogs they’ve had to restrain during loud thunderstorms and temporary restraints were the only way to ensure the canines remained in their backyard fences.
Both councilmen said they would be against a total ban on chaining dogs.
“I had a black lab, and the dog would go nuts,” Townsend said. “He ate up the fence, the wood on the back door. When it thunders, that’s the end.”
Neves agreed, saying his dogs couldn’t be kept in his fence during thunderstorms.
“They go absolutely crazy during thunderstorms and loud noises,” Neves said. “One digs out, and one climbs over. When I’m not home, I restrain them on the porch. They have beds and everything. If I don’t, I’m afraid they’ll become grease spots on FM 517.”
A concerned citizen went to a council meeting last year, asking for members to pass a similar measure adopted in Texas City that prevents the continuous chaining of dogs.
“I understand her point of view,” Townsend said. “But then you’ve got people like Kerry, but if it lightnings, he ain’t the only one going to be in that boat.” If the council passes a total ban, Townsend said, “I think we’ll be making criminals out of law-abiding citizens.”
Neves said the council would likely discuss the matter during a work session as soon as late February or March.
“I guess I agree with it in principle,” Neves said. “It’s just got to be handled in a better fashion. I hate to pass an ordinance that criminalizes good folks trying to do the right thing.”
Neves said paying careful attention to the wording of the ordinance would be key.
“We need verbiage to the effect that it doesn’t apply when restraint is done for the health and safety of the animal, so we don’t criminalize somebody like me,” he said.
Neves said the chaining of dogs could be banned, but animal abuse laws would better serve the public when residents report neglected animals, such as those permanently chained without food, water or shelter.
Copyright © 2008 The Galveston County Daily News
_________________________________________________________________________________
Neves said. “It’s just got to be handled in a better fashion. I hate to pass an ordinance that criminalizes good folks trying to do the right thing.”
I believe this quote to be completely ridiculous! How can someone be so ignorant? "folks trying to do the right thing." Chaining a dog is not the right thing for anyone to do. Who cares so little about their dog that they allow them to be chained outside during a thunderstorm? There needs to be some serious education in this town. It is so sad when these lawmakers consider the people first and the happiness and welfare of the dogs, who actually have to live outside.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
