[MissoulaGov] Highlights for Monday's public hearings

[Robert Struckman]

And to take that view a step further. Give me a break. Cats don't bite
people, and, while cat's in the flower bed are a pain in the butt, it's
dogs, not cats, that defile every available bit of green space with poop,
which I then step into and track around. Cats kill songbirds. It's a
problem. But dogs? Dogs are exponentially more complicated in a community
than cats. The two can't be treated the same.
And a Happy New Year to you all. Thanks, Bob, for this excellent service.
Keep pushing for more bike lanes, Phil. And wow, Jim, whoever shot your cat
is a psycho.

Bob



On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Phil Smith <PSmith at ci.missoula.mt.us>wrote:


>  And for a different view, I don't have a cat but I rather enjoy those

> which belong to various neighbors and which wander in and out of my yard

> from time to time.

>

>

>

> Phil Smith

>

>

>

> *From:* missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com [mailto:

> missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] *On Behalf Of *Derek Goldman

> *Sent:* Monday, January 12, 2009 3:12 PM

> *To:* jim parker; Bob Jaffe; missoulagov at cmslists.com

>

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

>

>

>

> Jim, sorry about your cat--that's horrible!

> Maybe I was't clear, though. I don't think cats and dogs need to have ALL

> the same rules, but they certainly share at least SOME potentially annoying

> behaviors (eg: biting, defecating, harassing wildlife) wouldn't you say? So,

> some of those dog rules are still applicable.

> Yes, of course, they are different species, however, the community problems

> a cat can cause -- like a problem dog -- do not necessarily have anything to

> do with its capacity to reproduce. Yet, as the law currently reads, lack of

> sterility is the ONLY problem for which there is a legal recourse for

> neighbors. That was my main point.

> That being said, I agree that just being at-large does not

> necessarily imply the cat (or dog, for that matter) is causing a problem.

> It's what happens while the animal is at large. Maybe there is some

> compromise language we can find here...

> Thanks, Derek

>

>

>

>

>

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

>

> From: westridge at montana.com

> To: derekmgold at hotmail.com; bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us;

> missoulagov at cmslists.com

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

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

>

> 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/2008/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdinanceAmendment%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. See how it works.<http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009>

>

>

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

>

> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.<http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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.

>




-- 
Robert Struckman
(406) 241-6576
robert at newwest.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090112/548386f7/attachment.htm>