[MissoulaGov] Highlights for Monday's public hearings

[Jodi Allison-Bunnell]

My, we haven't seen discussion like this for a while!

Our cat Bela roamed the neighborhood and introduced us to many nice  
people over his 13 years. When he died last summer of an apparent  
heart attack, we received a stack of cards and beautiful letters from  
his many friends, most of whom we do not know. Clearly, the  
neighborhood was the richer for his presence. Several years ago, we  
considered moving to a development in another city that mandated that  
all cats must live indoors at all times. We chose not to for many  
reasons, but one of them was that we couldn't think of keeping him  
inside and depriving him of his friends.

The ordinance is fine as is.

Best, Jodi

On Jan 12, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Phil Smith 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.

>

> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.

> _______________________________________________

> 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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090112/64b4214d/attachment.htm>