[MissoulaGov] MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 35, Issue 4

[Russ Fletcher]

*http://governor.mt.gov/docs/Infrastructure.pdf

Montana Has $3.1 Billion in Eco-Stimulus Projects on the Burner, if 
Congress Passes Plan <http://matr.net/article-32335.html>
http://matr.net/article-32335.html

*
Lori Davidson wrote:

> Where can we find the stimulus list? 

>

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

> From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com

> [mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Jim McGrath

> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 11:24 AM

> To: Brent Campbell; missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 35, Issue 4

>

> Is that because they have to ones that have not had funds committed

> already but are "shovel-ready" as the governor would say?

>

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

> From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com

> [mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Brent Campbell

> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 11:16 AM

> To: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 35, Issue 4

>

>  

> It is duly noted the only transportation project for Missoula included

> in the statewide stimulus list is for the Scott Street Overpass.

>

> Ouch.

>

> Brent Campbell, P.E.

> President / CEO

> WGM Group, Inc.

> http://www.wgmgroup.com

>

>

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

> From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com

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

> missoulagov-request at cmslists.com

> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:00 PM

> To: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Subject: MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 35, Issue 4

>

> 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 (Lynn Ascher)

>    2. Re: Highlights for Monday's public hearings (Derek Goldman)

>    3. Re: Highlights for Monday's public hearings (Phil Smith)

>    4. Re: MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 35, Issue 3 (Sutton Stokes)

>    5. Re: Highlights for Monday's public hearings (Robert Struckman)

>    6. Re: Highlights for Monday's public hearings (Janet Grove)

>    7. Re: Highlights for Monday's public hearings (Jodi Allison-Bunnell)

>

>

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

>

> Message: 1

> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:08:52 -0700

> From: Lynn Ascher <lascher01 at bresnan.net>

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

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

> Cc: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Message-ID: <3BD02665-ACA0-4DD6-85E7-3057296D3EB4 at bresnan.net>

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

>

> I would like to comment on Rod Austin's statement that feral cats are  

> "prominent carriers of rabies."  According to the U.S. Center for  

> Disease Control from 1981-1999 in the United States there were only  

> 37 cases of humans having contracted rabies; 22 were from bats, 14  

> from dogs, and one from a skunk.  Additionally, coyotes, raccoons and  

> foxes are also carriers.

>

> This is corroborated by statistics posted on the website of the  

> Berkeley CA municipal animal shelter: "Since they are not a natural  

> vector for rabies, cats, including ferals, pose a very low risk for  

> contracting and spreading rabies.  In 1998 only three cats tested  

> positive for rabies in all of California.  There are no known cases  

> of a human ever contracting rabies from a cat in the state of  

> California."

>

> Also I am wondering if Mr. Austin is using the term "feral cat" when  

> he really means free-roaming neighborhood cats who have owners and  

> homes, and spend time in them.  Feral cats are descendants of  

> domestic cats whose owners abandoned them and/or did not spay or  

> neuter them. After several generations of living and breeding on  

> their own, they return to a "wild" unsocialized state, live in  

> colonies, and avoid humans.  Controlling feral cat populations  

> through euthanasia programs has generally failed because the former  

> colonies are immediately repopulated by other abandoned, breeding  

> cats and thus the cycle begins all over again.  Much more successful  

> are long term TNR (trap-neuter-return) programs wherein a colony's  

> feral residents are trapped, spayed or neutered and returned to their  

> original colony where volunteers feed and water them.  They also trap  

> any new residents for spaying or neutering.  Ultimately, with no  

> breeding going on, the colony dies out as its residents die.  For  

> anyone who is interested: The Humane Society of Western Montana  

> sponsors a TNR feral cat program.  Also HSWM and Animal Control  

> regularly hold low-cost spay/neuter clinics for domestic cats.

>

> As for the very annoying habits of free-roaming neighborhood domestic  

> cats, I subscribe to keeping cats indoors.  I have four cats who have  

> lived happily indoors since kittenhood.  They never make a mess of my  

> or my neighbors' yards; they're never been attacked by predators  

> (including humans) or other cats, hit by cars, poisoned, trapped, got  

> lost, kidnapped, or stuck in somebody's basement, etc.  They have not  

> killed any birds. And they are not neurotic because they don't go  

> outdoors. And, as a result of living indoors exclusively, their life  

> spans will be three times that of cats who go outdoors.

>

>

>

> On Jan 12, 2009, at 8:28 AM, Rod Austin wrote:

>

> 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/ 

> 2008/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdinanceAmendment%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.

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/fed77

> e0a/attachment-0001.htm 

>

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

>

> Message: 2

> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:12:21 -0700

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

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

> To: jim parker <westridge at montana.com>, <bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>,

> 	<missoulagov at cmslists.com>

> Message-ID: <COL104-W37E6A7E15B19F8305CBC94DFD80 at phx.gbl>

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

>

>

> 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.comTo: derekmgold at hotmail.com;

> bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us; missoulagov at cmslists.comSubject: RE:

> [MissoulaGov] Highlights for Monday's public hearingsDate: 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

> GoldmanSent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 12:55 PMTo:

> bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us; missoulagov at cmslists.comSubject: 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 -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/2008/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdin

> anceAmendment%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. 

> http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009

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

> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> URL:

> http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090112/c7e09

> fd9/attachment-0001.htm 

>

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

>

> Message: 3

> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:40:59 -0700

> From: "Phil Smith" <PSmith at ci.missoula.mt.us>

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

> To: <missoulagov at cmslists.com>

> Message-ID:

> 	

> <689D48B33023A5469751A46A44C5A7A30BC152E6 at mailserver.ci.missoula.mt.us>

> 	

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

>

> 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 <http://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/2008/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdi

> nanceAmendment[1].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(tm): Keep your life in sync. See how it works.

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

> _012009> 

>

>  

>

> ________________________________

>

> Windows Live(tm): Keep your life in sync. Check it out.

> <http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_01200

> 9> 

>

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

> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> URL:

> http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090112/5dbaa

> b8a/attachment-0001.htm 

>

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

>

> Message: 4

> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:17:27 -0700

> From: "Sutton Stokes" <sutton.stokes at gmail.com>

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 35, Issue 3

> To: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Message-ID:

> 	<ed0a22290901121117k36e7bbeav3dd10ef94351c4b3 at mail.gmail.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

>

> 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/2008/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdin

> anceAmendment%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/20090111/21be8

> 58a/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/2008/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdin

> ance

>   

> Amendment%5B1%5D.pdf<ftp://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/Council/2008/20

> 08-12-15/2008CatOrdinanceAmendment%5B1%5D.pdf>

>   

>> <

>>

>>     

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

> anc

>   

> 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/f9847

> 459/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/200

> 8/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdinanceAmendment%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/2008/2008-1

> 2-15/2008CatOrdinanceAmendment%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/d75e2

> 0a1/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/aaef3

> 536/attachment-0001.htm 

>

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

>

> Message: 5

> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:53:01 -0700

> From: "Robert Struckman" <robert at newwest.net>

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

> To: "Phil Smith" <PSmith at ci.missoula.mt.us>

> Cc: missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Message-ID:

> 	<1ed7b0c00901121553i13d3b0eei611994646b53621f at mail.gmail.com>

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

>

> 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/2008/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdin

> anceAmendment%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_howi

> tworks_012009>

>   

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

>>

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

>>     

> out.<http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_0

> 12009>

>   

>> _______________________________________________

>> 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/20090114/5b7e0770/attachment.htm>