Tacoma City Council Considers Tougher Pet Laws (13. December 2006, 08:06 by Derek Young) ~ Bow Wow Wow - Snip
It sounds as though the city council meeting last night got quite interesting. Four dozen people, or so, lined up for the public comment period. What brought out this civic engagement? Pets. Why? Because the Tacoma City Council is considering tougher laws to manage our feathered and furry friends. The laws includes a requirement that owners of unaltered dogs or cats have a breeders license. It mandates that impounded animals be fixed. It limits ‘livestock’ in the city. I guess my dreams for a few llamas in the backyard of my North Slope home may not be reasonable anymore…
I wish I had been to the meeting last night. Rules or laws that effect pets brings out some pretty passionate folks.
Link to The News Tribune
Commenting Is Closed
Comments are allowed for two weeks from the posted date. If you want to make a comment or reopen this discussion, please contact us with your request. Thank you for visiting.
with important things like homelessness, gang violence and police corruption out of the way it is good to see the council finally tackling the important issues. Go Tacoma!
1 | Posted by RR Anderson | Dec 13, 12:26 PM
Given the amount of public opposition last night, I expect a watered down version to ultimately come before the council.
The issue is a complex one. Everyone agrees that it is a tragedy that so many dogs and cats are being put down each year.
Howevever, many speakers argued that the purposed solution would not really help much and instead only penalize the the law abiding pet owners.
I thought it interesting that one speaker went through the top ten list of why pets are put down and they included health reasons, age, “soiling,” owners that were moving, and owners who had landlords who did not allow pets.
Thus, there is the open question of whether the proposed solution will really fix the reported problem. Also, the new law could end up being perceived as “successful” by simply reducing pet ownership overall which I am unsure if it is the result intended.
There actually may be some other negative consequences as well as some families may choose not to pay the money to retrieve the family pet from the pound if it costs them too much money.
Hopefully, the city will take some time to study the matter as there are still alot of questions that need to be answered including a comparison to other cities.
Too aggressive of a law could deter people with pets from moving to Tacoma if they thought they had to have them fixed to live in the city limits.
(disclaimer : I do not curretly own a pet)
Given the amount of public opposition last night, I expect a watered down version to ultimately come before the council.
I can’t think of anybody I know with a dog or cat that isn’t fixed. I’m curious, is there truly a huge public opposition or simply a very vocal minority?
just one more example of a useless city council….......what a joke, and tacoma is suffering….
5 | Posted by Rich | Dec 13, 05:27 PM
I don’t know anyone who doesn’t have fixed dogs or cats either, but I see a lot of them around the city either stray, in yards, or being walked by people.
The thing is, the people who attended this meeting are likely going to be vocal, responsible pet owners who are very active in their pet’s lives and care. The problem pet owners are those who don’t take much of an interest; The cat owner who feeds their indoor/outdoor kitty(ies) and allows it to breed and breed and breed or the dog owner who pays minimal attention to their outdoor dog who escapes regularly to find other unfixed dogs to make more puppies with.
Purebred dog breeders aren’t really the problem, enforcing the current licensing laws are. Since the Humane Society is going no-kill, they have to come up with a way to deal with the issues that are preventing them from doing that currently.
I think it is very fair that if the city finds an animal running loose and if the owner does not come forward within a set period of time that the animal is fixed. Low-cost spay and neuter programs are readily available and cost between $10 and $20 usually. I doubt that they are going to charge a huge amount as they want to encourage people to fix their pets and retrieve them.
The Pacific Northwest is known for being especially dog-friendly, and I think if they place any laws in the context of keeping pets safe and healthy, it won’t deter responsible pet owners from moving here.
Lastly (I swear), I was in 4-H growing up in a RURAL area. Livestock have no place in the city. Hooved animals and chickens need to be moved to areas that are zoned for them. It’s not hard to find farm eggs in Puyallup or the like. There are very near parts of Pierce County that are well-suited to livestock. Chickens are expecially dangerous to parrots and other caged birds when avian quarantines are needed for Newcastle Disease or, God forbid, Avian Flu.
The top 10 reasons animals are brought to the Humane Society (HS) is completely irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that there are just WAY TO MANY cats and dogs and that there are loads of irresponsible owners and breeders.
Responsible breeders are not the problem. I doubt there are many full-breed dogs being killed. In fact the times I’ve seen a full-breed and desirable dog at the HS it was priced considerably higher than the normal ones. I favor provisions to shelter responsible breeders.
Irresponsible breeders are a problem though. They often keep their pets in horrible conditions and breed for the quick side money. The animals end up with defects, health issues, disease, etc. I have no issue with making it difficult or impossible to run a puppy mill and make money at it. These are animals lives, not a 401k.
The biggest issue is irresponsible owners. Many, many people don’t bother to spay or neuter their pets. These pets breed and cause unwanted pets that there aren’t enough owners to house. Where will these pets go? Do you want 40 dogs? Build more kennels because next year you get 5 more. Cats are even more of an issue. We’re not even talking about ferals.
It is not the animals fault that they are over-populating and getting murdered. It is ours. We domesticated them, we are responsible for them. If there are people that are causing this problem by being irresponsible pet owners then THEY are the problem.
As a society we arrest people who drink and drive. They are dangerous to society even if they do not kill someone. We ticket people for speeding. If you park in the wrong place you get fined. If you have a cat that cranks out 3-5 kittens three times a year and 60% of them never get adopted (and are subsequently murdered) isn’t that worth a fine or jailtime? It is to me.
If the same irresponsible owner hung their excess kittens by the neck from a clothesline for everyone to see they’d be tossed in jail. However if you tuck them all up nice and warm in a box and drop them off at the Humane Society to be killed then they are being good citizens. Absurdity.
Over 12,000 healthy, adoptable animals were killed last year at the Tacoma Pierce County Humane Society alone. One place. The HS does not consider any feral cat or any ‘dangerous’ breed (ie pitbull) to be adoptable. The number of deaths of adoptable animals was much higher. How can we stand by and look the other way?
Go get ‘em Tacoma. Finally some leadership on a life and death issue that really matters.
8 | Posted by crazyhorse | Dec 19, 11:41 PM
Commenting is closed for this article.
