[MissoulaGov] MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 35, Issue 3

[Sutton Stokes]

Hear, hear, Derek. Why can cats wander into my yard when dogs are prevented?
How much more cat poop do I have to run over with my lawn mower?
--
Sutton R. Stokes

443.540.7076
sutton.stokes at gmail.com
www.SuttonStokes.com


On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM, <missoulagov-request at cmslists.com> wrote:


> Send MissoulaGov mailing list submissions to

>        missoulagov at cmslists.com

>

> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

>        http://www.cmslists.com/mailman/listinfo/missoulagov

> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

>        missoulagov-request at cmslists.com

>

> You can reach the person managing the list at

>        missoulagov-owner at cmslists.com

>

> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific

> than "Re: Contents of MissoulaGov digest..."

>

>

> Today's Topics:

>

>   1. Re: Highlights for Monday's public hearings (Derek Goldman)

>   2. Re: Highlights for Monday's public hearings (Rod Austin)

>   3. Re: Highlights for Monday's public hearings (Westridge Creative)

>

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Message: 1

> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:54:52 -0700

> From: Derek Goldman <derekmgold at hotmail.com>

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Highlights for Monday's public hearings

> To: <bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>, <missoulagov at cmslists.com>

> Message-ID: <COL104-W16BBA37DCDCF0C76591AB3DFDB0 at phx.gbl>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

>

>

> thanks for the heads up, Bob. Re the cat ordinance:

> I'm not sure why the ammendment proposes to change the definition of a

> bothersome cat from "nuisance" to "unnattended." I looked up the dog

> ordinance, and bothersome DOGS are indeed referred to as "nuisance." So why

> not cats? We should be consistent so as not to send a message that dogs can

> be bothersome, but cats cannot be.

> I would also recommend one additional change to close a loophole in the cat

> ordinance:In the definition of a nuisance/unattended cat, please strike the

> last 4 words of the sentence that requires a cat to be unaltered in order to

> fit the definition.  If a cat is off it's owner's property, then it may be

> causing problems with its neighbors irrespective of its reproductive

> status.Excessive cat breeding is indeed a problem, but it is only one

> problem caused by loose cats. Urination and defecation in private and

> community gardens, flower beds, compost piles, and under decks, as well as

> harassment of native wildlife and other pets also present problems. But as

> the ordinance is currently writen, a cat can legally do all these things as

> long as it is neutered or spayed. That seems odd (and also inconsistent with

> dog ordinance, which lists "defecation..." as one of the many activities

> that define a nuisance dog). Please send this back for reconsideration.

> Thanks, Derek Goldman

>

>

>

> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 10:53:32 -0700From: BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.usTo:

> missoulagov at cmslists.comSubject: [MissoulaGov] Highlights for Monday's

> public hearings

>

>

>

> We have five public hearings scheduled for tomorrow.

> Here are some highlights in case anyone wants to come and comment (you can

> also comment by sending mail to council at ci.missoula.mt.us).

>

> Cats:

>

> ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdinanceAmendment%5B1%5D.pdf

>

> There are a few changes to the ordinance being proposed.

> ?Nuisance cat? is replaced by ?unattended cat?. An unattended cat is an

> unaltered cat off of its owner?s property. To be the owner of an unattended

> cat is illegal.

> A breeding cat is an unaltered cat 4 months old. It used to be six months.

>

> It is unlawful to own a pair of unaltered cats of the opposite sex without

> a breeders license.

> It is unlawful to own more than five cats without a breeders license (this

> appears to be the controversial one)

>

> A breeders license costs $50 and requires an inspection.

>

> Dogs:

> Pet Day Care Centers are defined.

> Leashes are required within 200 feet of trailheads.

> If an unaltered dog is picked up three times in its life it gets

> sterilized. There used to be an option to pay $250 to avoid sterilization.

> The following paragraph is included in the unlawful section:

>

> For a dog owner to cause, allow, permit, either willfully or by failure to

> exercise due care, to allow a dog to be a nuisance barking dog. EXCEPT:

> that such sounds made at animal shelters, commercial kennels, pet daycare

> centers and veterinary hospitals which meet the proper zoning requirements

> 2. shall be exempt

>

> The ?Pet Daycare centers? were included in the exemption when it was

> originally presented to us. I asked that this be removed. I am hoping to

> hear from people on this prior to making a final decision.  These businesses

> can have a very high impact on their neighbors.

>

> Park Fees:

> General incremental increase in the parks fees. There may be some open

> issues on the rate set for the 50 meter pool. There was an expectation that

> it would be rented out at full cost this year but I believe the proposal

> still has a general fund subsidy.

>

> Other Public Hearings:

> We also have a couple of annexations including the large Linda Vista

> Estates subdivision.

>

> Bob Jaffe

> Missoula City Council, Ward 3

> bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

>               406-728-1052

> _________________________________________________________________

> Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync.

>

> http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009

> -------------- next part --------------

> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> URL:

> http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090111/21be858a/attachment-0001.htm

>

> ------------------------------

>

> Message: 2

> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 08:28:07 -0700

> From: "Rod Austin" <raustin at missouladowntownbid.org>

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Highlights for Monday's public hearings

> To: "'Derek Goldman'" <derekmgold at hotmail.com>,

>        <bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>,     <missoulagov at cmslists.com>

> Message-ID: <004b01c974ca$5f9b7850$1ed268f0$@org>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>

> I think Derek has hit the nail on the head. My sister in law is a small

> animal vet north of Philly and in that area all pets are treated the same.

> Leash law and all, they make no difference. There is a responsibility to

> your neighbors as well as your pets. Take care of them and keep them under

> your control. Is it healthy or responsible for your cat to be attacked by

> dogs and other wild animals?

>

>

>

> I have cats urinating all over my patio set, bbq, under my porch,  under my

> shed and in my garage when they can get in. I finally started catching them

> in a live trap and taking them to the animal shelter. Keep the fines high

> for any loose animal.

>

>

>

> How do you think we will ever get a handle on the feral cat problems we

> have. They are a prominent carrier of rabies. Any cat (or dog)caught should

> have the requirement of being altered prior to going back to the owner.

>

>

>

> Believe it or not I am an animal lover. That is why when I owned a pet I

> kept under my control at all times!

>

>

>

> Thanks for the work you do!

>

>

>

> Rod Austin

>

>

>

> From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com

> [mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Derek Goldman

> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 12:55 PM

> To: bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us; missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Highlights for Monday's public hearings

>

>

>

> thanks for the heads up, Bob. Re the cat ordinance:

>

> I'm not sure why the ammendment proposes to change the definition of a

> bothersome cat from "nuisance" to "unnattended." I looked up the dog

> ordinance, and bothersome DOGS are indeed referred to as "nuisance." So why

> not cats? We should be consistent so as not to send a message that dogs can

> be bothersome, but cats cannot be.

>

> I would also recommend one additional change to close a loophole in the cat

> ordinance:

> In the definition of a nuisance/unattended cat, please strike the last 4

> words of the sentence that requires a cat to be unaltered in order to fit

> the definition.  If a cat is off it's owner's property, then it may be

> causing problems with its neighbors irrespective of its reproductive

> status.

> Excessive cat breeding is indeed a problem, but it is only one problem

> caused by loose cats. Urination and defecation in private and community

> gardens, flower beds, compost piles, and under decks, as well as harassment

> of native wildlife and other pets also present problems. But as the

> ordinance is currently writen, a cat can legally do all these things as

> long

> as it is neutered or spayed. That seems odd (and also inconsistent with dog

> ordinance, which lists "defecation..." as one of the many activities that

> define a nuisance dog). Please send this back for reconsideration.

> Thanks, Derek Goldman

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>  _____

>

> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 10:53:32 -0700

> From: BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

> To: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: [MissoulaGov] Highlights for Monday's public hearings

>

> We have five public hearings scheduled for tomorrow.

>

> Here are some highlights in case anyone wants to come and comment (you can

> also comment by sending mail to council at ci.missoula.mt.us).

>

>

>

> Cats:

>

>

> ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdinance

> Amendment%5B1%5D.pdf<ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdinanceAmendment%5B1%5D.pdf>

> <

> ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdinanc

> eAmendment[1<ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdinanceAmendment%5B1>

> ].pdf>

>

>

>

> There are a few changes to the ordinance being proposed.

>

> 'Nuisance cat' is replaced by 'unattended cat'. An unattended cat is an

> unaltered cat off of its owner's property. To be the owner of an unattended

> cat is illegal.

>

> A breeding cat is an unaltered cat 4 months old. It used to be six months.

>

>

>

> It is unlawful to own a pair of unaltered cats of the opposite sex without

> a

> breeders license.

>

> It is unlawful to own more than five cats without a breeders license (this

> appears to be the controversial one)

>

>

>

> A breeders license costs $50 and requires an inspection.

>

>

>

> Dogs:

>

> Pet Day Care Centers are defined.

>

> Leashes are required within 200 feet of trailheads.

>

> If an unaltered dog is picked up three times in its life it gets

> sterilized.

> There used to be an option to pay $250 to avoid sterilization.

>

> The following paragraph is included in the unlawful section:

>

>

>

> For a dog owner to cause, allow, permit, either willfully or by failure to

>

> exercise due care, to allow a dog to be a nuisance barking dog. EXCEPT:

>

> that such sounds made at animal shelters, commercial kennels, pet daycare

>

> centers and veterinary hospitals which meet the proper zoning requirements

>

> 2. shall be exempt

>

>

>

> The "Pet Daycare centers" were included in the exemption when it was

> originally presented to us. I asked that this be removed. I am hoping to

> hear from people on this prior to making a final decision.  These

> businesses

> can have a very high impact on their neighbors.

>

>

>

> Park Fees:

>

> General incremental increase in the parks fees. There may be some open

> issues on the rate set for the 50 meter pool. There was an expectation that

> it would be rented out at full cost this year but I believe the proposal

> still has a general fund subsidy.

>

>

>

> Other Public Hearings:

>

> We also have a couple of annexations including the large Linda Vista

> Estates

> subdivision.

>

>

>

> Bob Jaffe

>

> Missoula City Council, Ward 3

>

> bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

>

>               406-728-1052

>

>

>

>  _____

>

> Windows LiveT: Keep your life in sync. See how it works.

> <

> http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012

> 009>

>

> -------------- next part --------------

> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> URL:

> http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090112/f9847459/attachment-0001.htm

>

> ------------------------------

>

> Message: 3

> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:56:14 -0700

> From: "Westridge Creative" <westridge at montana.com>

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Highlights for Monday's public hearings

> To: "'Derek Goldman'" <derekmgold at hotmail.com>,

>        <bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>,     <missoulagov at cmslists.com>

> Message-ID: <000001c974df$12de0900$0400a8c0 at ParkerDell>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>

> Derek and City Council Members:

>

> I have family in town and will not be able to come to tonight's public

> hearing on the cat ordinance changes, but here are my thoughts in regard

> to Derek Goldman's last comment.for the record.

>

> Cats are not dogs. That being said.and being a cat owner who's cat was

> shot in the eye a year ago from one of our 'neighbors' at point blank

> range, in an effort to kill the cat-even though our cat had a collar on

> with our info for contact.

>

> Here's my point.cats do not recognize fences and yard lines like dogs

> and are indeed, more commonly, wilder-as part of their genetic

> coding-than dogs-a different species and must be recognized as

> such---unless they happen to be fully domesticated inside cats.

>

> Not all domestics can be treated the same (dogs and cats; horses and

> llamas; chickens and parakeets). To legislate that a cat must behave

> 'like a dog' and not ever wander beyond its property takes the basis of

> its true nature out of the animal, which I consider unfair to the

> animal. This is not to say your interests to keep your freshly dug

> garden beds cat poop free is not an issue-it is, but within constraints

> of accepting pets as a part of society and doing what we can to support

> the genetic, true nature of many cats while respecting your rights as a

> property owner without cats.

>

> What we've done is 'talk to our neighbors', and given them our cat's

> picture and our contact number so if she causes problems, they come to

> us, not take out their anger, etc., on an animal just filling its

> nature.

>

> I believe the language you suggest changing should not be altered. We

> still must behave as citizens and be responsible, not expect to alter an

> animal's genetic codes because we want it so.

>

> Respectfully,  Jim Parker

>

>

> Jim Parker, Owner

> WestRidge Creative

> PO Box 8492

> Missoula, MT  59807

> Phone: 406.327.1596

> Fax:     406.542.0513

> www.westridgecreative.com

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com

> [mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Derek Goldman

> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 12:55 PM

> To: bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us; missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Highlights for Monday's public hearings

>

> thanks for the heads up, Bob. Re the cat ordinance:

>

> I'm not sure why the ammendment proposes to change the definition of a

> bothersome cat from "nuisance" to "unnattended." I looked up the dog

> ordinance, and bothersome DOGS are indeed referred to as "nuisance." So

> why not cats? We should be consistent so as not to send a message that

> dogs can be bothersome, but cats cannot be.

>

> I would also recommend one additional change to close a loophole in the

> cat ordinance:

> In the definition of a nuisance/unattended cat, please strike the last 4

> words of the sentence that requires a cat to be unaltered in order to

> fit the definition.  If a cat is off it's owner's property, then it may

> be causing problems with its neighbors irrespective of its reproductive

> status.

> Excessive cat breeding is indeed a problem, but it is only one problem

> caused by loose cats. Urination and defecation in private and community

> gardens, flower beds, compost piles, and under decks, as well as

> harassment of native wildlife and other pets also present problems. But

> as the ordinance is currently writen, a cat can legally do all these

> things as long as it is neutered or spayed. That seems odd (and also

> inconsistent with dog ordinance, which lists "defecation..." as one of

> the many activities that define a nuisance dog). Please send this back

> for reconsideration.

> Thanks, Derek Goldman

>

>

>

>

>

>  _____

>

> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 10:53:32 -0700

> From: BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

> To: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: [MissoulaGov] Highlights for Monday's public hearings

> We have five public hearings scheduled for tomorrow.

> Here are some highlights in case anyone wants to come and comment (you

> can also comment by sending mail to council at ci.missoula.mt.us).

>

> Cats:

> ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdin

> anceAmendment%5B1%5D.pdf<ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdinanceAmendment%5B1%5D.pdf>

> <ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdi

> nanceAmendment[1<ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdinanceAmendment%5B1>

> ].pdf>

>

> There are a few changes to the ordinance being proposed.

> 'Nuisance cat' is replaced by 'unattended cat'. An unattended cat is an

> unaltered cat off of its owner's property. To be the owner of an

> unattended cat is illegal.

> A breeding cat is an unaltered cat 4 months old. It used to be six

> months.

>

> It is unlawful to own a pair of unaltered cats of the opposite sex

> without a breeders license.

> It is unlawful to own more than five cats without a breeders license

> (this appears to be the controversial one)

>

> A breeders license costs $50 and requires an inspection.

>

> Dogs:

> Pet Day Care Centers are defined.

> Leashes are required within 200 feet of trailheads.

> If an unaltered dog is picked up three times in its life it gets

> sterilized. There used to be an option to pay $250 to avoid

> sterilization.

> The following paragraph is included in the unlawful section:

>

> For a dog owner to cause, allow, permit, either willfully or by failure

> to

> exercise due care, to allow a dog to be a nuisance barking dog. EXCEPT:

> that such sounds made at animal shelters, commercial kennels, pet

> daycare

> centers and veterinary hospitals which meet the proper zoning

> requirements

> 2. shall be exempt

>

> The "Pet Daycare centers" were included in the exemption when it was

> originally presented to us. I asked that this be removed. I am hoping to

> hear from people on this prior to making a final decision.  These

> businesses can have a very high impact on their neighbors.

>

> Park Fees:

> General incremental increase in the parks fees. There may be some open

> issues on the rate set for the 50 meter pool. There was an expectation

> that it would be rented out at full cost this year but I believe the

> proposal still has a general fund subsidy.

>

> Other Public Hearings:

> We also have a couple of annexations including the large Linda Vista

> Estates subdivision.

>

> Bob Jaffe

> Missoula City Council, Ward 3

> bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

>               406-728-1052

>

>  _____

>

> Windows LiveT: Keep your life in sync. See how it works.

> <http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks

> _012009>

> -------------- next part --------------

> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> URL:

> http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090112/d75e20a1/attachment-0001.htm

>

> ------------------------------

>

> _______________________________________________

> Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But

> posts to this list may be entered into the public record.

> Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org

> List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.

>

> End of MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 35, Issue 3

> ******************************************

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090112/aaef3536/attachment.htm>