Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA005 - Letter fromTodd Herriott and Michael York opposing proposed ordinance 24 July, 1998 Todd Keith Herriott Michael August York 207 South Maple Avenue Ames, IA 50010 515-233-5131 Ames City Council 515 Clark Street Ames, IA 50010 Dear Sirs and Madames: We are writing you to express our opposition to the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code of the City of Ames, specifically Section 3.126, which institutes a numerical limitation on pets in the city of Ames, being presented to the city council on Tuesday, July 28. As citizens of Ames for more than 5 and 14 years(respectively, Mr. Herriott and Mr. York),and as the owners of several pets, we cannot express to you our dissatisfaction and dismay that such an ordinance is even up for consideration. Our specific concerns are as follows: How did the framers of this amendment arrive at the seemingly arbitrary number of 10 pets as a maxi- mum number allowable? After conversations with the director of the Ames Animal Shelter, Lorna Lavender, we have been led to understand that this number seemed to only affect a small minority of pet owners in the city limits and that it had been her"personal experience that the larger the number of pets owned,the more problems that have been found." We have to say that we beg to differ,not only from our"personal experience" but also based upon the outcome of the hearing two months ago and upon research that we have done ourselves. First, let us dispel the myth that there are very few pet owners in the city of Ames with ten or more animals. After consulting with the seven private veterinarians in the city of Ames, ISU Veterinary Teaching Hospital, and two veterinarians located in neighboring communities, it was found that on average 15% to 20% of all of their practice deals with pet owners of ten or more pets (this is not includ- ing livestock or commercial breeders). That means that of the literally thousands of pet owners in the city of Ames, anywhere from 450 to 600(conservatively speaking) own ten or more pets. This is a far cry from the small percentage supposedly targeted. And with the rumored inclusion of any adult animal of 1 pound or more, the numbers could potentially rise exponentially. As for the association of multiple pets and multiple problems,this is not only totally unfounded in any actual documentation, but it is simply not true. According to the veterinarians questioned, not one of them found any causal relationship between number of animals and number of problems or abuse. In fact, the opposite was true. The experience of most of the veterinarians was that individuals who owned multiple pets (10 or more) tended to be the most conscientious and responsible owners. The vast major- ity of suspected abuse, mistreatment or other problems, occurred in situations where there was only one or two pets. During the open hearing to discuss any possible change to the current city code, the overwhelming majority of people in attendance were in direct opposition to any numerical limitations. Of the people in attendance who were in favor of some changes to the code based upon their own experiences with problematic pets,all of their complaints stemmed from situations involving only two to three animals. There was not a single complaint brought forth that involved any large number of pets. When questioned by the audience as to whether or not there were any statistics or studies, scientific or not, that supported any type of correlation between number of animals and number of complaints, Director Lorna Lavender said that there were none, and that no study was planned. When asked if she, based upon"her experience," could site even a slight correlation, she again said that she couldn't. Obviously if there is no evidence even of a correlation, let alone a causal relationship, between number of pets and problems, then it would seem that this legislation is not only arbitrary in its design but misdirected as well. Our next concern is why there is no form of"grandfather"clause in the amendment? How can it be justified to make an arbitrary limitation and not provide for owners who currently have ten or more pets? Allow us to make an analogy, if you will. Lets assume, that for whatever reason, the city of Ames decided to enact a population control measure that limited the number of children per household to three. What do you tell the parents of four or more children? "Sorry,but you will have to pick one (or more) of your children and get rid of them," Understandably this seems extreme, but you have to look at it from a pet owners(and voters) viewpoint;these are not just pets, but family members, and loved companions. To simply say,"Sorry, but someone has to go," is not only cruel, but politically short- sighted. The answer touted by the amendment is a permit system, for those who wish to maintain the number of pets that they have. The permit though, as stated in the amendment, is both ambiguous and open to potential interpretation and abuse. Nowhere is the requirements for said permit outlined, nor the cost(is it per animal over ten, per animal total,or a flat fee), nor even the process for inspection or renewal. Additionally, we ask you to look at the current city budget,and the amount allotted to the Ames Animal Control. At the open hearing, Lorna Lavender, the Director of Ames Animal Control, said that under the status quo, they are unable to enforce the animal control laws currently on the books. Ms. Lavender spoke of a lack of both funds and manpower to even meet the current demands. After a recent conversa- tion with Ms. Lavender, she said that she didn't think that this proposal would affect very many people and therefor would not be a problem to enforce. Based upon the present writing of the amendment, we don't see how that can reasonably be true. The new amendment will require Ames Animal Control to increase its inspection and response to com- plaints. It will have to now keep track of any potential violator of the numerical limitation(Sec. 3.126.1-4),as well as inspect and approve or deny applications for the new permit, maintain ongoing inspections (Sec. 3.126.5),monitor any new liters of animals born, and their duration at any said resi- dence (Sec.3.126.6a),as well as a host of other new responsibilities that this amendment will entail. Again, if one looked at the open hearing, it would be clear that the current dissent among Ames resi- dence is that CURRENT legislation is not being enforced or properly dealt with. It was abundantly clear that all those present were in fact against any new legislation, in particular any dealing with numerical limits. The only proposed legislation that voters agreed upon was better enforcement and possible fines for infractions, which is adequately covered in Sec. 3.124 of the proposed amendment. We are asking that you clearly look at the facts in this situation and realize that passage of this amend- ment would be inappropriate and misguided. The facts are that there is no evidence, scientific or anec- dotal which supports either a causal relationship or even a correlation between number of animals and numbers of problems associated with those pets. In actuality, the experts in the field, veterinarians in the city of Ames, support the opposite theory, supporting multiple-pet owners as responsible and conscien- tious. Second, the majority of concerned citizens oppose any numerical limitation. Additionally, the only problems cited have involved fewer than three animals. And, finally, from a financial standpoint, this amendment is doomed to failure, because of the lack of funding and manpower needed to fully enforce and comply with its directives. It would seem that our time and tax dollars would be better spent in trying to enforce the legislation already in place and to look at educational programs that could assist citizens in being better, more responsible pet owners and neighbors. Perhaps even look at the potential of requiring licensing for pets in the city of Ames, both to increase revenue and to promote owner responsibility? That was the re- sounding voice of those in attendance at the open hearing, perhaps it is time to listen to them. Again, we urge you not to pass Amendment Sec.3.126,and reject any future numerical limitation of pets proposed. Thank you. Sincere' , odd K. Herriott Michael A. ork