[MissoulaGov] MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 35, Issue 4
Geoff Badenoch
geoffb at ism.net
Wed Jan 14 14:05:04 MST 2009
It also could be that Missoula is still paying a price for being the only
municipality in the state to receive federal CMAQ money in the--what? 1995
Federal Transportation Bill? That was around $30 million or so (before the
state took its administrative cut of several per cent) and a lot of scowling
around the state appeared.
Geoff Badenoch
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-----Original Message-----
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Brent Campbell
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 11:31 AM
To: Jim McGrath; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] MissoulaGov Digest, Vol 35, Issue 4
That could be it but there are others that are, including North Higgins.
Brent Campbell, P.E.
President / CEO
WGM Group, Inc.
http://www.wgmgroup.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim McGrath [mailto:jmcgrath at missoulahousing.org]
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.
>
--
Robert Struckman
(406) 241-6576
robert at newwest.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090112/54838
6f7/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:53:59 -0700
From: "Janet Grove" <JGrove at wgmgroup.com>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Highlights for Monday's public hearings
To: <missoulagov at cmslists.com>
Message-ID:
<53245E482AB7BE408B0A750C2D6D4BDD01E3EB6C at wgmsrv1.WGMGROUP.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
And I married a man who is very allergic to my cat, so the cat cannot
come in the house. She is spayed and belled, has a warm nest and food
in the garage, and is endlessly seeking affection from the passersby on
the sidewalk. She is emphatically not 'feral' and resents being
compared to a dog.
Janet Grove, P.E.
Project Engineer
WGM Group, Inc.
http://www.wgmgroup.com <http://www.wgmgroup.com/>
________________________________
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Phil Smith
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 3:41 PM
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Highlights for Monday's public hearings
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/bc3b8
88a/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:14:48 -0700
From: Jodi Allison-Bunnell <jodi at allison-bunnell.net>
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Highlights for Monday's public hearings
To: missoulagov at cmslists.com
Message-ID: <E718255E-2850-4E0A-8116-FBF0110D3854 at allison-bunnell.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
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/2008/2008-12-15/2008CatOrdin
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. 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/20090112/64b42
14d/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 4
******************************************
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
More information about the MissoulaGov
mailing list