|
|  |
| |
|
| | The *It's a Dog's Life* Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts | | Burning "My Old Kentucky Home" | Views: 3585 | | Dec 30, 2006 1:42 pm | | Burning "My Old Kentucky Home" | # | 
Wicked Witch of the West | | I'm sure many of you have heard about this, but if you haven't, Louisville is about to put in place the worst ordinance yet to effect ALL pet owners. This is not just about pit bulls or dogs, this is one that effects everybody.
I've always wanted to attend the KY Derby. Well, guess I'll be kissing that good-bye if this ordinance is not vetoed by the Mayor. It is rather interesting though, that Chrurchill is exempt from the whole thing cause I'm sure there is nothing illegal, explotive or abusive going on there? Yeah right.
I'd encourage you to at least skim through the actual ordinance which can be found at the link below. Contact information for the Mayor and city reps can be found there as well. If this goes through, it will mean that anyone with a pet in Louisville will be subjected to basiclaly being a common criminal any time they refuse to have thier animal revaccinated after boarding or refuse to tell the Animal Services Director when they are taking the dog on vacation!
LOUISVILLE’S ANTI-PET LAW
On Wednesday 12/20/2006 at 3:45 a.m., Louisville Democrats rammed through an anti-pet ordinance that rivals laws all over the country for its sheer arrogance. This is not an anti-pitbull ordinance. It is an Anti-Pet ordinance. It strips property rights from owners, and grants the Director of LMAS (who also just happens to not be a U.S. citizen) the power to determine whether you may own your animal or not. It includes pet limits, vague nuisance provisions, and makes it next to impossible to keep an intact dog. You can read the entire ordinance HERE.
Here are some of the provisions:
1) There is no grandfather clause. If you currently own more dogs than are permitted for your lot size (No more than 3 dogs if you have .5 acres or less). If you’re over the limit, you are out of luck and out of compliance.
2) All unaltered (spayed/neutered) dogs must be in an enclosure that has been *approved in writing* by the Director of Louisville Metro Animal Services.
3) If you trail ride in the park, you must carry with you a "suitable device for the picking up, collection and proper sanitary disposal" of any manure dropped by your horse. Further, you must actually dismount, collect said manure, and dispose of it while maintaining control of your horse.
4) Vets are required to turn over their rabies shot records to LMAS so that dogs which got a rabies vax but not a license can be impounded.. They are also required to notify their clients of the provisions of this 94+ page ordinance.
5) All unaltered dogs must be microchipped. (There are new studies out that show a link between microchips and cancer, by the way--several of them.)
6) If you show your unaltered dog, and travel with it for more than 3 days, you must notify the Director as to the change in location of your unaltered dog.
7) If you sell, give away, or board (yes, board) your unaltered dog, you must notify the Director.
8) You may not purchase an unaltered dog without the written permission of the Director.
9) Revaccination/relicensing requirement for all dogs/cats removed from a kennel or cattery at any time.
10) Prohibits use of invisible fencing for unaltered dogs.
11) Mandates spay/neuter for any unaltered dog that is impounded for any
reason before the owner can reclaim the dog.
12) If any of your animals (not just dogs) “irritates” or “perturbs” anyone twice within a 5 year period, you will be forced to give up ALL of your animals and will be prohibited from owning animals again for 2 years.
13) Prohibits ownership of ANY animals by anyone who has two violations within 5 years-no matter how minor.
14) Requires reporting of all sales of all dogs, with buyers name & address to be sent to MAS, even if buyer is not local.
15) If you have more than one unaltered pet, of any species, then you will need a $300 Animal Dealer’s license to sell any offspring of your current pets. This includes gerbils, mice, ferrets as well as dogs and cats.
16) Every time you pick up your dog, cat, or ferret from a kennel—even a boarding kennel, you must get it relicensed and revaccinated against rabies!
The list just goes on and on...
This law, if enforced, will result in the end of pet-ownership in Louisville. Meanwhile, it is a boon to the very commercial breeders (puppy mills) and back-yard breeders it was intended to stop. Instead of ending bad breeding practices, it makes good breeders jump through so many hoops that many of them can be expected to throw up their hands and give up or leave. Those of us who need a carefully bred purebred dog will have to search far outside of Louisville to get one and will be punished financially if we bring them to Louisville.
Why would anyone need a carefully bred purebred dog, anyhow? Well, if you are disabled, you want the best quality dog you can find, because your very life will depend on that dog. If you want a companion animal, you want one with a stable temperament. If you would like to compete in AKC and other pure bred sporting events you can only do so with a pure bred dog. The best source of such dogs is home hobby breeders—who, under this law, will become extinct in Louisville.
If you would like to do something about this new oppressive ordinance, there are several options. First, write a letter, call or email Mayor Jerry Abramson and tell him to veto this ordinance. He can veto it for up to 10 days. It is widely believed he plans on signing it into law when he returns from vacation. Also send an email to the council members and let them know how you feel about this oppressive ordinance. Send a donation to the Louisville Kennel Club who has been fighting this thing for months and now will need funds for the legal battle they are about to take on with the city. Keep checking back here.. Soon we will be selling LKC items to bolster the legislative fund. Call you veterinarian and let them know how you feel about them releasing all of your personal information about you and your pet to the government.
http://www.louisville-pets.com/Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | Dec 30, 2006 2:13 pm | | re: Burning "My Old Kentucky Home" | # | 
Shannon Hill | | This is disgusting, and amazingly ignorant. No reputable vet would be WILLING to continually revaccinate pets - what about people who travel for business and board pets several times a year? Can you imagine the vaccine overload? I'll be sending in my opinion! Private Reply to Shannon Hill | | Dec 30, 2006 2:42 pm | | re: re: Burning "My Old Kentucky Home" | # |
Shannon Hill | | Here's what I sent: (feel free to pilfer any part you may find useful)
Dear Mayor Abramson,
I sincerely hope that you will VETO this appalling ordinance. I strongly favor laws to protect pets and responsible pet owners, but this ordinance DOES NOT do that. It penalizes people who comply with the rules by making them subject to intolerable government interference. It will virtually guarantee that many kennels, boarding facilities, and vets will leave your area because these new conditions make it impossible for them to stay in business.
It is extremely irresponsible to insist on constant re-vaccination of pets. What about business people who travel frequently? It is unsafe for their pets to be re-vaccinated each time they are boarded; no responsible pet owner or veterinarian would comply. Furthermore, there are some dogs who are allergic to the vaccines and cannot have them.
This ordinance gives an outrageous amount of power to the LMAS and means that enforcement could easily become political and open to acute favoritism and/or vendetta. For example, consider the provision that requires any dog impounded for any reason to be altered: What if, for example, someone (say, the meter reader or a mischievous child in the neighborhood) let a high quality show dog out of its yard, and LMAS impounded the dog? How is it appropriate to insist on altering the dog before the owners can have it back? It destroys the dog's value and makes it useless as a show dog. As a rule, I believe in spaying and neutering, but this ordinance simply goes too far.
Then there's the travel ordinance: Why, precisely, should anyone have to tell the city government that they are going on vacation and taking their dog with them? First, you make it impossible for them to board the dog, and then for them to travel with the dog? There is no logic to this.
Should this outrageous ordinance be passed, I fully expect to see your city government spending a lot of taxpayer dollars fighting the various lawsuits that will ensue from this blatant overstepping of the government's boundaries. I will also expect to see your city take a lot of negative publicity from the multitude of pro-animal organizations who will fight this. And I am certain that you will experience a sharp decline in tourism, because most of the horse people who visit your area travel with dogs, and they will not knowingly put their pets into jeopardy by bringing them within the jurisdiction of so ridiculous an act.
It is more than apparent that this ordinance was drafted by people who know NOTHING about animals and in fact do not like animals. I strongly encourage you to consider the negative effects of these ridiculous provisions on your residents, on tourism to your area, and on the many pet-related businesses which would decline under these restrictions. Not to mention the fact that you would have to exponentially increase the staffing of the LMAS in order to cover all the increased work created by this ordinance.
Again, please veto this ordinance.
Private Reply to Shannon Hill | | Dec 30, 2006 5:29 pm | | re: re: re: Burning "My Old Kentucky Home" | # | 
Ann Rader | | I can't say I agree with some of this, at all, and I'm amazed any municipality has the man power to enforce it, but given the enormous number of dogs and cats who are stray and die on the streets or are euthanized, extreme measures regarding unaltered pets are going to become law.
The leading number one cause of death in cats? Euthanasia.
Though that may not be true, since it's estimated that 60 million cats roam as feral and stray populations and die of disease or injury.
Dogs ... not so good either, though I don't have the statistics at hand. I do know that 40 percent of dogs entering shelters are pure breeds, not mixed breeds.
It's really sad that goverment has to create such oppressive laws, but it's government and the tax payers that are stuck with "solving" the pet over population problem -- billions are spent annually on euthanasia -- it only follows that sooner or later legislators are going to try to figure out how to stop the flood. Private Reply to Ann Rader | | Dec 30, 2006 5:38 pm | | re: re: re: re: Burning "My Old Kentucky Home" | # |
Shannon Hill | | Unfortunately, laws like this one penalize people who DO take care of their animals. We can't afford to allow precedents like these to start, because it makes life harder for all responsible pet owners. Can you imagine having to get written permission to take your dogs to a friend's house for a week? Or having to re-vaccinate them after they spend a weekend in a good boarding facility?
And I really believe this would have a terrible economic impact, as many pet-oriented businesses would go under as part of the fallout. (Actually, I really think they'd get sued and lose. But imagine the expense on both sides!)
Euthanasia as crowd control will continue until people in general (not just us on this board!) really acknowledge the need to treat animals with dignity. I'd be in favor of offering incentives for spaying and neutering, as well as mandatory spay/neuter of shelter dogs/cats upon adoption. And I'm very in favor of Nathan Winograd's no-kill model. It seems to be very effective. But any time we give the government a foothold to control our lives to this extent...VERY dangerous precedent.Private Reply to Shannon Hill | | Dec 30, 2006 6:18 pm | | Nathan Winograd's no-kill model | # | 
Aleithia Artemis | | Would you share it with us, Sharon?
Many thanks.Private Reply to Aleithia Artemis | | Dec 30, 2006 6:36 pm | | re: Nathan Winograd's no-kill model | # |
Shannon Hill | | Here's the link.
http://www.nokillsolutions.com/
I learned about him from an article in Reader's digest, and since have heard a lot about how good his program is from people I know in the veterinary industry. This is a man who puts his money where his mouth is!Private Reply to Shannon Hill | | Dec 30, 2006 7:29 pm | | re: re: Nathan Winograd's no-kill model | # |
Ann Rader | | I adore Nathan Winograd and I do cat rescue myself. So I really know, from the inside, how hard it is ... as do many of us on this forum.
Since government and tax dollars are responsible for dealing with the pet over population problem, it's going to be government that comes up with legislative solutions.
Do some Southern states still have "drop-off" boxes for dogs and cats along highways? Animal control in some localities put these things up and people can drive up and then deposit their dog or cat in a shute, sort of like a mail box shute, and the animal slides down the shute into a room. Animal control comes along every so often and collects the dogs and cats. These officials believe that this is a better solution than having abandoned animals running along the highways. And people use them.
In light of this level of mentality, does the Lexington proposition seem so, so, extreme?
I don't mean I'm in favor of most of it, but I understand the motivation. I understand clamping down on irresponsible pet ownership. I wonder how many dogs and cats are euthanized annually in Lexington's shelters and pounds. Private Reply to Ann Rader | | Dec 30, 2006 7:46 pm | | re: re: Nathan Winograd's no-kill model | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | Great letter, Shannon!
I can't agree with ordinances like this in any form. Main reason being, as Shannon said, it punishes those who do do the right thing and literally has no regard for those that do not. Laws in this country were created to punish the minority of people who are not responsible and who in all honesty, when it comes to animals, don't give two beans about what is right and what is wrong.
Any time you FORCE people to microchip, s/n, have specific limits, vaccinate or otherwise mess with their rights as pet owners, you walk a very thin tightrope. I know many a person who are responsible pet owners who will spit on a councilperson who supports this kind of garbage versus actually doing what is asked in ordinances such as this. If I lived in Louisville and someone who is in no way qualified to make decisions about my dog's health tried to tell me I had to vaccinate for rabies multiple times, they had better be prepared to deal with my attorney, the ASPCA, the AVMA, and the ACLU.
There are plenty of low cost s/n programs available, there are organizations that give money to communities who support no-kill and plenty of resources available to teach things like bite prevention, responsible pet ownership, etc. for little cost or even free. This ordinance has AR smeared all over it and like I said, nice of Louisville to completely overlook one place where no doubt plenty of animals do need to be protected, Churchill Downs. It's apparent that no research has gone into this thing and these people supporting haven't got the first clue about animal health and responsible ownership.
Louisville hosts one of the largest all-breed dog shows in the country. If they actually let this come to pass, they most certianly can kiss those tourists dollars, not to mention dollars assocatied with just simple travelers who like to bring along their pets. Along with losing all that money, an ordinance like this will no doubt cost millions to enforce with the amount of staff that would need to be hired to police, higher numbers coming into shelters, phone calls by "do-gooders" to 911 or police to report "violators", etc. In one community just the enactment of BSL forced an AC budget up over $750,000 in one year which forced them to repeal because even with the additional funds allocated, the problem did not disappear.
I'm not sure where anyone in Louisville got this grand idea, but I am sure of one thing, if I lived there, you'd better believe I'd be asking for the head of every councilperson on a platter when they were up for re-election if they supported this kind of crap. I'd already be demanding that the Director of Animal Services be fired for going along with such measures. Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | Dec 30, 2006 7:50 pm | | re: re: re: Nathan Winograd's no-kill model | # |
Shannon Hill | | I've never heard of drop boxes. And I hope I never see one. I routinely rescue highway animals - just ask my vet, who, God bless him, never turns one away.
There are certain provisions in the bill that are certainly motivated by the perfectly correct desire to curb overpopulation and give them ways to deal with people who don't care for their animals. But like so many bills, those good points are rendered valueless and even dangerous by the crap built in with them.
Unnecessary vaccinations? My Peke just had surgery to remove what we thought was another tumor. Turned out to be - per the lab report, I swear - a "deep inflammatory lesion" which according to the lab is the most likely result of too many vaccinations in one site during her lifetime. Better that than another tumor, certainly, but still, not good! As according to the lab it could have turned cancerous over time. Since she's a rescue, I have no way to know how many times she's been vaccinated prior to her arrival here. And then there are the dogs who become ill when vaccinated. My mom has 2 of those.
Travel restrictions, for God's sake. We are not an authoritarian state. I take my dogs to my mom's and my cousin's in other cities all the time. Can you imagine having to get written travel permission to do so? It's absurd, invasive, impossible to enforce, and opens the door to incredible governmental capriciousness.
And I LOVED the idiocy about expecting people to stop their horse every time it poops while riding and clean it up. That is literally not feasible. Some horses - well, let's just say they go continuously. Not that I'd want a park full of...but if it is a horse park, then you know to what to expect.
So many potentially good laws get brought down because things attached to them are dangerous. Hopefully these particular politicians will realize this and eliminate the more controversial and unreasonable components.
And my guess is that they euthanize an appalling number. But I do not think this particular ordinance is the way to fix the problem. If they want to throw money at the problem, then let them bring Winograd in to present his program, which is (to my understanding, anyway) cost-effective and successful. The way to go is to penalize people who don't take care of their animals, not to make it impossible for people who do take care of them. I wonder - is there an election coming up in their city?Private Reply to Shannon Hill | | Dec 30, 2006 7:50 pm | | re: re: re: Nathan Winograd's no-kill model | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | IMO, Ann, it does not matter how many animals are euthanized in their shelters annually because this stupidty isn't even focusing on people who would dare drop off their dog on the side of a highway, etc. This is targeted directly at responsible dog owners and statistics have already proven that is you start forcing manadatory things on people, your kill rates in shelters will increase, not decrease. San Mateo is a perfect example of how MSN can turn a city into a killing field. Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | Dec 30, 2006 7:57 pm | | re: re: re: re: Nathan Winograd's no-kill model | # |
Shannon Hill | | Churchill Downs - good point. I grew up in the horse world - my family still owns a horse farm (show horses, not racers). The racing industry cripples, maims, kills huge numbers of young horses every year because they begin racing them before their knees are fully mature and it puts too much strain on their adolescent bodies. Reference Barbaro, this very year, who is crippled for life and damned lucky to be alive. And that doesn't touch the sometimes cruel training methods, the drugs, the mishandling (all of which can get a horse or trainer barred from the track, but with the money at stake, please, we all know it happens anyway.) Horses are terribly fragile and the racing industry is terribly hard on them. Private Reply to Shannon Hill | | Dec 30, 2006 11:09 pm | | re: re: re: re: Nathan Winograd's no-kill model | # |
Ann Rader | |
I don't know what has happened in San Mateo -- but I totally believe in mandatory spay/neuter. Especially, when it is then offered free, as in Albuquerque, New Mexico, at the present time. Most who do not spay/neuter are not neglecting this surgery for responsible reasons. As for microchipping, it is a requirement because dogs come in to the shelter wearing a collar and often dragging a leash or retractable leash, yet no one comes for the dog. In Albuquerque, it's the people running the shelter, ie. euthanizing 1000 animals per week, who want the law.
I wonder what Nathan Winograd has to say about mandatory spay/neuter and microchip implants.
Private Reply to Ann Rader | | Dec 31, 2006 12:03 am | | re: re: re: re: re: Nathan Winograd's no-kill model | # |
Shannon Hill | | The key there is MOST people. Once again, the law seeks to penalize the responsible few for the possible governance of the irresponsible many. And I have to say, I'm tired of paying their way - taxes, stupid laws, crime rate, welfare, etc.
Any dog or cat adopted as a rescue from a shelter should definitely be altered (and my 3 pets are altered). But I do NOT want any government telling me that my personal pet acquired through other channels must be altered - what about reputable breeders? All that would do is send the reputable breeders out of business and support the millers, who already break the law. So say I'm a reputable breeder, and someone steals a dog from me. Animal control recovers it - why should I have to alter it? Anyone enacting a law MUST consider every possible situation and ramification that may occur, or unfairnesses will occur.
I am, btw, very in favor of chipping; all three of mine are chipped.
As to the situation in Albuquerque: I used to live there, so I understand the problem, especially in the South Valley where the fighters run. In fact, when I lived there people were even dumping potbellied pigs to roam the streets! And I believe that they should be penalized.
But not at the expense of the privacy and rights of those of us who treat our animals right.Private Reply to Shannon Hill | | Dec 31, 2006 5:23 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Nathan Winograd's no-kill model | # |
Ann Rader | | You know, I agree with you. But given the scope of the problem, I'm more in favor of legal sanctions which have the effect of reducing the overall population of homeless pets. As for responsible breeders, only those who will always take back one of their dogs or cats if the home doesn't work out, is responsible, and with 40 percent of pets entering shelters being pedigreed dogs, those are few and far between. So if even the few responsible breeders' programs are limited, it doesn't bother me. There are plenty of dogs and cats available for people who want one.
FYI -- It is indeed the South Valley in Albuquerque where free spay/neuter is currently offered. My mother and sister live there (North Valley) and they are cheering the new legislation. My mother (aged 77) has taken three dogs off the streets, including a Pit and a Pit mix, just what she needs at her age, and my sister has an on-going rescue with her neighborhood cats and now has 20.
The Albuquerque breeders tried to fight the passage of the law and sue the individual who instigated it. They lost -- in these terrible times extreme action is necessary. Albuquerque does hope to become no-kill following Nathan Winograd's model. Private Reply to Ann Rader | | Dec 31, 2006 5:35 pm | | was Nathan Winograd's no-kill model. Now chipping. | # |
Aleithia Artemis | | You raise some interesting issues, Shannon. And today is the last day to take a stance on one of them: mandatory microchipping.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is busy implementing the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), a corporate welfare program for Agribusiness and surveillance technology companies. NAIS will drive family farms out of business, raise the price of your food, and increase red tape in nightmarish proportions.
It will REQUIRE RFID chips in ALL DOMESTICATED ANIMALS. Yep, that's your family pet. Further, you gotta get government permission to have that domesticated animal leave its "Ordinary premises." You can't make this kind of bad law up! Yet our USDA just did.
Read more about it here: http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=46
Tell the USDA to dismantle this bad bill here:
http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/contact_us/general.shtmlPrivate Reply to Aleithia Artemis | | Dec 31, 2006 6:00 pm | | re: was Nathan Winograd's no-kill model. Now chipping. | # |
Shannon Hill | | Alethia,
Thanks for the info! I do not see that this applies to dogs and cats - does it? As far as I can see, it applies to far animals, regardless of purpose. Still ridiculous. If they have chips, why file the report?!Private Reply to Shannon Hill | | Dec 31, 2006 6:28 pm | | re: re: Mandatory chipping. | # |
Aleithia Artemis | | Yes, it applies to dogs & cats: "All domesticated animals." Your dog is not a wolf. Your cat is not a tiger. They are "domesticated animals."
And your question is excellent. Another example of bad legislation. I hope everyone contacts them at http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/contact_us/general.shtml to oppose it, as today is the last day they are accepting public feedback.Private Reply to Aleithia Artemis | | Jan 03, 2007 2:00 pm | | Update on Possible Veto in Louisville | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | Tuesday, January 2, 2007
UPDATED: 10:12 AM
Mayor asked to veto dog ordinance
The Courier-Journal
The Courier-Journal
Louisville Metro Council Republicans have asked Mayor Jerry Abramson to veto the city’s new dangerous dog ordinance, which the council passed on Dec. 19.
Abramson, who has vetoed only one measure since he became the first mayor of Louisville’s merged city in 2003, has said he would probably sign the measure into law.
“I don’t think anything has been presented to him thus far that would lead him to believe the ordinance is fatally flawed,” said Chad Carlton, Abramson’s spokesman.
Republicans, in requesting the veto, said the ordinance would have an adverse economic impact on the city because the Louisville Kennel Club has threatened to move its annual dog show out of the city.
They also argue that it “violates the rights of responsible dog owners” and that it possibly violates state law.
Carlton said Abramson received a copy on Friday but hasn’t had a chance to review it. He said Abramson will consider those concerns once he reads it.
Check back for further updates at www.courier-journal.com.
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20070102&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=70102010&SectionCat=&Template=printart
If you haven't done so already, contact the Mayor's office and point out things in this ordinance that make it veto material.
mayor@louisvilleky.gov
The phone number is:
502-574-2003Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | Jan 03, 2007 2:40 pm | | re: Update on Possible Veto in Louisville | # |
Shannon Hill | | I'm glad to see the kennel club speak up - that's a BIG chunk of income the city would lose. Hopefully once the mayor reads it, he'll isten. Private Reply to Shannon Hill | | Jan 03, 2007 5:47 pm | | re: re: Update on Possible Veto in Louisville | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | Let's hope Shannon. I just wonder how many pet owners are already considering just moving the heck out of Dodge given that they came out in force to overwhelmingly ask that this law be squashed and their city officials obviously didn't listen.
Here is the letter I sent to the Mayor. If he doesn't veto by tomorrow, then we all need to spend the dime on a phone call to his office and flood the phone lines with requests for veto as the law will go into effect on Friday if he does not veto.
Honorable Mayor Abramson:
I have read over the current ordinance before you that council Republicans are requesting be vetoed, and without any hesitation, as a non-Republican, but a concerned dog owner, I too ask that this ordinance be vetoed. The ordinance in its current form would not only be costly to the city of Louisville, it would do NOTHING to control true problems that plague animals and the ownership of such, irresponsible owners and breeders. The city will not only lose revenue from the people who will no doubt choose to mark Louisville off their places to visit, but will spend thousands, if not millions trying to enforce such ridiculous things as the releasing of balloons, and making sure that owners are "checking in" every time they travel with their animals.
Listed are provisions in this ordinance that are not only troubling, but just downright ludicrous:
1) Every time you pick up your dog, cat, or ferret from a kennel—even a boarding kennel, you must get it relicensed and revaccinated against rabies!
This is the primary reason to veto this ordinance as this type of requirement is not only unhealthy for animals, but a danger to their very well-being. There are many in the animal ownership world who are moving away from yearly routine vaccinations in favor of titer testing and three-year rabies. The State of Kentucky does NOT require a yearly rabies vaccine and clearly supports the three-year vaccine, as does the AVMA, and the CDC. There have been numerous studies done that show over-vaccinating of pets is one of the primary causes of many types of cancer and that when an animal is otherwise healthy, clearly not necessary. Any vet that would support such a measure could not care about the health of animals but rather his wallet. Just so you have a complete picture of the vaccine issue, here are more links that provide information on the issue:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8572826/
http://www.avma.org/pubhlth/rabord.asp
http://www.jeanesholistics.com/id9.html
2) There is no grandfather clause. If you currently own more dogs than are permitted for your lot size (No more than 3 dogs if you have .5 acres or less). If you’re over the limit, you are out of luck and out of compliance.
There are many people who care about animals that do rescue work who often are over pet limits set down by cities. In many cases, breeders are not considered reputable if they do not do something within animal rescue or at a minimum agree to take back animals that were produced from their kennels. Needless to say, I do not want to live next door to someone who has 20 dogs in a small space, but neither do I want to live next door to someone that owns a snake. Limits on the number of pets any one person should own should not be based on the size of their property, but rather on their ability to care for those pets. If all pets within a home are healthy, well-cared for and well-behaved, who is the city to tell people that they must be limited to how many animals can reside within their residence? Remember, it takes quite a bit more space to house a Great Dane then it does a Yorkie. This is something that would have to be policed by an AC department that will no doubt already be overworked just trying to police the other stipulations set down in this ordinance. Is Louisville really prepared to make criminals out of those who over their limit by one or two animals simply because they do rescue work or happen to be able to care for more than three? I've heard it stated by many a politician that these are not the people being targeted by such a law, however, can any politician, law enforcement official or otherwise afford to discriminate based on income levels, etc.?
3) Vets are required to turn over their rabies shot records to LMAS so that dogs which got a rabies vax but not a license can be impounded.. They are also required to notify their clients of the provisions of this 94+ page ordinance.
Are the veterinarians of Louisville really on board with policing clients, many of whom have no doubt been customers for many years? Where in the rules and regulations of the AVMA does it say that it is the responsibility of a veterinarian to perform vaccinations against a clients will, turn over medical records for their animals, and verse them on all the requirements of a city ordinance? It seems to me that we are much better to leave vets to doing what they are paid and trained to do, vet animals, not police them and their owners.
4) If you show your unaltered dog, and travel with it for more than 3 days, you must notify the Director as to the change in location of your unaltered dog.
What concern is it of the city of Louisville where a dog, intact or not, travels and for how long? It is no business of the Director of anything, the decisions an owner makes in regards to the travel and showing of an animal. How in the world is the city even prepared to monitor and police a stipulation this utterly insane?
5) If you sell, give away, or board (yes, board) your unaltered dog, you must notify the Director.
See above.
6) You may not purchase an unaltered dog without the written permission of the Director.
Is the Director going to police the breed you can buy, what city a dog must be purchased in, and the lineage of the parents as well? Again, the Director and the city have no business in people's bedrooms and neither do they have any business in what kind of purchases they make. Most puppies come from breeders unaltered, many on spay/neuter contracts. That is between a buyer and a breeder, not the city, state or federal government. Once again, how is the city prepared to police such legislation? And, again, are you really prepared to make criminals out of otherwise responsible, taxpaying and voting citizens?
7) Mandates spay/neuter for any unaltered dog that is impounded for any reason before the owner can reclaim the dog.
You are aware, I'm assuming, that accidents do happen and that PEOPLE make mistakes? Is it unreasonable to consider that an animal might slip past a dog sitter out the front door while an owner is out of town? Is is unreasonable to consider that a utility person does not get a gate fully latched after reading the meter? Is it not equally unreasonable to consider that an animal may slip out of its collar and bolt after a scare? What gives the city any right to deem that every unaltered dog, regardless of whether or not that dog could possibly be a grand champion in the show ring, to determine that every dog must be altered the first time they are impounded? Habitual offenders are one things, first timers from responsible homes, give them a free ride home and call it a day.
8) If any of your animals (not just dogs) “irritates” or “perturbs” anyone twice within a 5 year period, you will be forced to give up ALL of your animals and will be prohibited from owning animals again for 2 years.
Should we not simply look to the old analogy of the Hatfields and McCoys to see where the problem lies in this type of stipulation? As a dog owner, does this mean that if a neighbor's child harasses my animals over the fence more than once in a five year period, I have the right to call DCFS and have those parents called unfit?
9) Prohibits ownership of ANY animals by anyone who has two violations within 5 years-no matter how minor.
Yet one more thing that the city is in no way prepared to police or enforce without unlawful entry into private property.
I could continue on, but I think you get the point. Mayor Abramson, there are many things in this ordinance that simply do not make sense, can not be controlled, and again, do nothing to solve problems that plague the community. The only responsible action is to veto this ordinance and work with local dog owners and groups that can help draft an ordinance that will work to protect citizens, while punishing those that truly need to be punished, irresponsible dog owners.
Best regards,
Marla R. StoutPrivate Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | Jan 03, 2007 5:56 pm | | Meet Louisville's Director of Animal Services | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | Dog days: Grudge match under way between MAS director, foes
By Stephen George
The emergence of the so-called dangerous dog ordinance as a marquee issue in Louisville has created a royal pissing match between groups entrenched on either side of the issue.
Dr. Gilles Meloche: was hired as director of Louisville Metro Animal Services last year and charged with changing the department’s culture. He’s come under criticism from the Louisville Kennel Club, which disagrees with him over the pending dangerous dog ordinance.
Metro Animal Services director Dr. Gilles Meloche was hired by Metro government last year with marching orders to change the culture at the animal shelter. Since November, he’s also been under pressure from Metro Council members to help develop a new law to deal with the city’s supposed pit bull problem.
But the Louisville Kennel Club, incensed over a draft dog ordinance it deeply disagrees with, is calling for Meloche’s head, primarily because of what members say is a troubled work history.
Both sides have lawyers in their corners, and the stare-down is ongoing: Meloche is considering suing the kennel club for defamation of character, for what he says is an unwarranted personal attack.
The kennel club has done its own research and compiled a significant file detailing Meloche’s work history, which includes a guilty administrative plea in Canada for improper record keeping of a controlled substance, termination from a job in Durham, N.C., for failing to follow the chain of command, and a controversy in Tallahassee, Fla., that centered around his overarching philosophy of animal control.
It’s that philosophy — “zero euthanasia” for adoptable animals — that figured into his hiring in Louisville, to fix what Metro officials acknowledge was a broken MAS system in need of a fresh approach. And while that method may be a nearly universal ideal in the world of animal control, it comes with clear problems, specifically the potential for overcrowding in shelters.
Louisville is poised on the edge of a major change in animal control, and regardless of Meloche’s background and the clamor that seems to have followed him everywhere, the Mayor’s office says he’s the man.
But should such a prior work history be overlooked? The Louisville Kennel Club says no.
Meloche’s career began as a dairy farmer at his family’s Meloche Farm, a 100-head cattle operation. He was 16 years old when his father had an accident, forcing him to quit high school and take over operational duties, accelerating him into adulthood. He spent just over 11 years there, from 1971-82, in the town of Vaudreuil, in Quebec, Canada, before entering Montreal University to study veterinary medicine, according to the résumé he filed when he applied for the Louisville position in March 2005.
He graduated in 1986, and that July took a job running De la Cité Veterinary Hospital, also in Quebec. His résumé lists him as both the director and owner, a position he held until January 1995.
In an interview Tuesday, Meloche said the clinic grew quickly — too quickly for him to keep up, in fact — and that he didn’t have the management skills necessary for maintaining it. According to a complaint filed with the Disciplinary Committee of the Order of Veterinary Physicians of Quebec, a professional organization, between May 1993 and April 1995, Meloche acquired 69 bottles of Winstrol, an anabolic steroid regulated by Canadian government, which also requires strict record-keeping of all sales of the drug. Eventually Meloche was unable to account for sales of 27 bottles, and in December 1995 he pleaded guilty to an administrative charge of failing to keep adequate records for a controlled substance and failure “to write a suitable veterinary prescription.” He was ordered to pay $2,800 in fines, plus the costs of handling the complaint. His veterinary license was not revoked, and he did not apply for renewal when it expired in 2001.
In person, Meloche comes off as charming, with a deep French accent. In the interview, he said the steroid issue arose because of a clerical mistake by an employee, and that he was not acting maliciously.
“It’s a parking ticket,” Meloche said. “It’s a big difference between a parking ticket and being convicted of DUI. Do you agree with that? That’s exactly what (LKC is) trying to do.”
He said he sold the hospital in January 1995 and took a job at College Lionel-Groulx, in Sainte-Therese, Quebec, as a professor of Animal Technology. On his job application for Louisville MAS, he listed his reason for leaving the hospital as “career change.” He was at the college until December 1999, the same year he earned a master’s in business administration from Concordia University, also in Quebec.
At that point there is a 16-month gap in Meloche’s work history. It arose, he said, because he’d begun dating his current wife, a New Yorker. She considered moving to Montreal, but the couple ultimately came to the States. Meloche said he had a difficult time finding a job until March 2001, when he was hired as animal control administrator for the city of Durham, N.C., a job he kept for 10 months before being terminated.
Meloche was fired for writing a letter to Durham County officials criticizing a plan to renovate the animal shelter there; according to a former colleague, he was upset that his organization — animal control and the animal shelter are different entities in Durham — was not receiving the upgrade.
The Durham experience was Meloche’s first in the hyper-charged world of animal politics, and he admits handling it poorly. Kim Willis, who worked 18 years in animal control and chaired the Durham County Animal Control Advisory Committee, where she worked directly with Meloche, said that’s when she first glimpsed what she believes is the controlling side of his personality.
“My working relationship with him was OK,” she said in a phone interview last week. “Part of the problem is that he would get, I don’t want to say a loose cannon, he’d get an idea stuck in his brain and there was no way to shake it out of him. He had a temper; lots of people do. He had difficulty letting things go.”
Willis said Meloche got along well with his staff at animal control, but that he had conflicts with animal shelter staff members — not all his fault — as well as with the Durham Animal Protection Society, which operates the shelter.
Meloche bristled at the suggestion that he has an authoritarian personality, but said he doesn’t back down when he believes he’s right.
At any rate, his personality — the unyielding attachment to his vision for animal control — would continue to be an issue, and his inability to play politics would ultimately cause him to resign his next job.
Meloche became director of the Tallahassee-Leon Community Animal Services Center in February 2002. His hiring — the result of a national search — came at a crucial time for the center, which had become dissatisfied with his predecessor, according to a former colleague. Meloche was touted for his credentials, an MBA and veterinary license, which he’d since earned in the States. His credentials are a sought-after combination in the field.
As director, Meloche answered to an advisory board made up of citizens and various professionals, such as a veterinarian, a Humane Society representative, and other rescue group agents. They met once a month. Right away, the advisory board pressured Meloche for vital statistics from the shelter, according to a former advisory board member and certified animal behaviorist who wished to remain anonymous because of a current job.
The most pressing concern was for a reduction in euthanasia, and Meloche became driven by it to a fault, the former board member said. But the numbers were not falling, even after many months. More radical representatives of rescue groups started showing up at meetings and hounding Meloche, hurling insults and trying to shame and embarrass him.
Meanwhile, the shelter became overcrowded, nearly doubling capacity at one point. The former board member said animals were dying regularly in their cages, the facility was rank with urine and feces, and staff became demoralized.
Sheree Connolly started her job at the center in December 2001, a few months before Meloche’s arrival.
“We all thought he was going to be the breath of fresh air we were looking for,” she said in a phone interview Monday. “Gradually it became a nightmare.”
She and two co-workers wrote an anonymous letter to Tallahassee officials in October 2002, citing four instances where animals were improperly treated under Meloche’s care. One case mentioned in the letter dealt with a husky-mix puppy with a bad leg, which Meloche decided to treat himself. He took the animal home that night, but it died of aspirin toxicity. It received too many painkillers.
Connolly said the three were informed that, unless someone was willing to claim authorship of the letter, nothing would be done. Connolly said she admitted writing the letter and was fired shortly thereafter. She sued the city as a whistleblower, she said, and ultimately settled out of court.
“His thing was to get our euthanasia numbers down, and of course everyone wants to do that, but his method was to let the animals suffer and die,” said Connolly, who now teaches in Florida public schools.
Meloche didn’t respond directly to Connolly’s charges, but reiterated that his method is not to allow animal suffering but to try and halt animal killing, even by humane euthanasia. “In Tallahassee,” he said, “I did a fantastic job.”
Jane Parsons, another former advisory board member, characterized the situation with Meloche this way: “The problem we had in Tallahassee was primarily that Dr. Meloche had not had any experience really in the public sector, so he didn’t really — it was a bad fit, because when you’re running a program with taxpayer dollars, your No. 1 obligation is to satisfy the public problem, and the public problem — it would be the same reason Louisville would’ve hired him — is to solve the overpopulation problem. Dr. Meloche was anxious to do zero euthanasia before we were ready. Instead of preparing a plan so it would work, he sort of jumped to the bottom line before we were ready. Not that it wasn’t an admirable goal; just unrealistic.”
Meloche resigned in October 2004. He said the reason was politics: too many people getting in the way of his vision. He lacked support from city government, support he has in Louisville. He grew frustrated.
“I’m very passionate about what I’m doing,” Meloche said. “I strongly, strongly believe in what I’m doing. I’m a good fighter. That I will stand for. When I believe in something, I will push as much as I can, because I think it’s my job.”
In July 2005, a Humane Society of the United States audit of the Tallahassee facility revealed that overcrowding had led to inhumane living conditions for the animals. Part of the audit was conducted while Meloche was still working in Tallahassee, and it attributed the overcrowding to Meloche’s euthanasia policy.
Meloche’s vision quest, then, is both why he’s in Louisville and why some people here want him gone. He has the political support in Louisville that he’s never had before: the Abramson administration, the Kentucky Humane Society and the Shamrock Foundation, among others, are willing to give him time, money and the benefit of the doubt to change things. Abramson has pledged to build a new shelter facility; this year’s Metro budget allotted $100,000 to train and hire new employees.
But questions linger. Chad Carlton, a spokesman for Mayor Abramson — who appointed Meloche last year after a national search — said the city conducted a thorough background check and officials were aware of Meloche’s past. Calling him a “change agent” and the victim of a campaign to impeach his credibility, Carlton said none of it shakes the Mayor’s confidence in Meloche.
What remains to be seen is whether Louisville MAS will follow the pattern that Meloche’s background seems to establish. Overcrowding is being talked about openly as a problem here. In an Aug. 21 Metro Council committee meeting, Councilman Kelly Downard referred to a surprise visit he made to MAS where there were some 400 dogs on hand. The capacity is 300. One explanation is that the Humane Society last year increased its fee to accept animals, which caused the intake at MAS to rise some 35 percent within a couple months. Another is that Meloche refuses to euthanize animals, instead letting them sit in cages for 40 days or more in some cases.
Some insiders say those who don’t agree with Meloche’s philosophy are being weeded out. Take Robert Risinger, a 28-year MAS worker who was fired by Meloche in February for euthanizing a cat he said was suffering badly, but without getting permission to do so. That came after at least two months of back-and-forth e-mails between the two, with Risinger complaining repeatedly about deteriorating conditions for the animals at the shelter.
On Feb. 2 of this year, Risinger wrote: “THIS WILL BE MY LAST E-MAIL TO YOU ABOUT THE KENNELS I GIVE UP YOU WIN ALL MY CONCERNS ARE FALLING ON DEAF EARS. I WILL COME IN DO MY JOB AND DRAG DEAD DOGS OUT IF NEED BE OR NOT LOCK THEM IN IF WE ARE OVER CROWDED. I WILL NO LONGER TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE MESSES EVERYONE ELSE LEAVES [sic].”
Exactly one week later, and two days after Risinger — a kennel specialist at the time who had the authority to euthanize animals before a heart attack several years ago prompted him to request a demotion — put the cat down, Meloche called him into the office. He fired Risinger on the spot, making him sign a paper saying he would never return to the premises, according to Risinger.
“I really think, after looking at the situation, I was just causing too much trouble with my e-mails and trying to bring attention to the situation out there,” Risinger said in a phone interview Monday. He is now retired.
Meloche said there were and still are a select few at MAS who simply resist change. “This shelter was a kill shelter,” he said. “Period.”
So what’s this all have to do with the dangerous dog ordinance? For one thing, Meloche helped write it, and he is set to assume additional discretionary powers in enforcing it.
Donna Herzig, vice president of the Louisville Kennel Club, said they got a tip in March from a Florida colleague that they should look into Meloche’s background. She said the group’s investigation initially had nothing to do with the dog ordinance, but she believes his background does matter in that context.
Pam Rogers, Kentucky program coordinator for the Humane Society of the United States, supports Meloche and the dog ordinance. She said she’s gotten along well with Meloche, with whom she worked regularly to develop the ordinance.
“I like him. I find him easy to work with. He’s receptive, he calls you back. I find him pretty easy to get along with.”
The dog ordinance, now in its eighth draft, is still being debated in the Council’s Government Administration committee.
Contact the writer at
sgeorge@leoweekly.com
http://www.leovia.com/?q=node/2427&PHPSESSID=c4423ffd4b92c399ca62b8467f149807Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | Jan 04, 2007 12:40 am | | re: Meet Louisville's Director of Animal Services | # |
Shannon Hill | | Meloche sounds like a whacko - well-meaning, perhaps, but impractical, egomaniacal, and not looking at the whole picture. And certainly NOT the person to listen to!
btw, Marla, great letter!Private Reply to Shannon Hill | | Jan 04, 2007 2:57 am | | re: re: Meet Louisville's Director of Animal Services | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | I di hear form Kim Bloomer today that this is NOT going to get a veto form the Mayor. My thought is that we all need to call city hall and voice our concerns about this ordinance. The entire thing is just nutty, but the vaccine thing is just dangerous, IMO. Animal Talk Naturally will be doing a special show on Friday to discuss the ordinance, what can be done to fight, and getting suggestions from people in other communities that have fought this kind of bad legislation, etc. As soon as I have the specifics form Kim, I'll post it and hopefully some of you will be able to join. Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | Jan 04, 2007 4:39 am | | re: re: re: Meet Louisville's Director of Animal Services | # |
Shannon Hill | | IF it does get through, it will be VERY interesting to see the fallout - economic and political. Frankly, I think if the mayor signs it, it will the last term as mayor for him. That city is in a very animal-oriented area anyway and public outrage (not to mention a few lawsuits), combined with a vicious economic impact, should seal his political fate if he is actually dumb enough to go through with it.
My question - if this Meloche character is actually a vet, WHAT is he thinking with this ridiculous vaccine crap? Something is really wrong in this...Private Reply to Shannon Hill | | Jan 04, 2007 12:04 pm | | Louisville Ad Campaign | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | PERMISSION TO FORWARD GRANTED!
This is it folks.
Thursday is the LAST day that Mayor Abramson has to VETO the Louisville Metro Council's oppressive 90+ page animal ordinance. If he does nothing or signs it, Louisville Metro pet owners will have this stinky 900# load of red herrings strapped to their backs and in EVERY aspect of their lives - their homes, their yards, their vet's offices, their boarding kennels, you name it. For more info about the law, see http://www.louisville-pets.com/
(Love that new look, louisville-pets!)
Yesterday we purchased a block of advertising with Louisville Clear Channel radio stations that will run on Thursday. It bought us 5 ads of 15 seconds each on 8 Louisville stations that say -
"PET LOVERS! LOUISVILLE'S NEW ANTI-PET LAW MUST BE VETOED TODAY. CALL 502-574-2003 AND TELL THE MAYOR TO VETO THE PET LAW! PLEASE HELP SAVE OUR PETS OR SAY GOODBYE!"
The Clear Channel ads cost us 1600.00. I forked over some extra above my pledge because of all of you who did as much as you could to get us where we are now.
We were 110.00 short of buying 8 ads across the same 8 Clear Channel stations, which would amount to roughly one ad every hour per station through the business day on Thursday.
We haven't even tapped Radio One, who has 5 stations broadcasting in the Louisville Metro area. For 500.00, we can have 3 ads on each of 5 stations during the day. For 1500.00, we can have the same roughly one ad per hour per station as with Clear channel (8 ads through the day).
Do we want to squeak or do we want to ROAR?
Do we want to settle for making a minor drop in the bucket, or do we want to SATURATE the Louisville radio broadcast market with our ad?
I know what I want. This could be me next. It could be you.
Would you want to think about which of your fur babies you need to give up each time you look at them because you're over the limit?
Do you want your local Animal Control in your yard dictating the specs of how it should be set up and your dogs contained, even tho you've NEVER been cited for a loose dog or had them cause any trouble?
I could go on for days, but you get the picture. NOBODY who owns animals, has dogs, or pets in general should have to live under this sort of tyranny!
Our fund since yesterday's Clear Channel debit is at 280.00
TODAY IS YOUR LAST CHANCE to ROAR against this BAD law - http://www.ccdirtdawgs.com/vetofund.html
Many thanks to all who have helped us get where we are now. I can't begin to describe the feeling of empowerment this has given me as an owner of 7 delightful dogs who has spent the past year being chased around the Southeast by BAD pet law. I'm FIGHTING BACK.
I hope all of you who have donated feel the same as well. To those who haven't, PLEASE JOIN US!
We've gotten where we are by donations from across the nation - 5.00, 10.00, 25.00, 50.00, 100.00 - whatever you can spare. It's all GOOD!
Robin Harrison
Clear Creek Dirt Dawgs
http://www.ccdirtdawgs.com/vetofund.htmlPrivate Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | Jan 04, 2007 10:45 pm | | Special Edition of ATN on Louisville | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | Animal Talk Naturally invites you to join us LIVE January 5th, 2007, at 2:30 pm E.S.T as we tackle one of the worst anti-pet laws to ever hit the law books in the USA. Together with our sister podcast, The Pawz Cauze, we'll be hosting this special two-hour event to talk about this legislation, the problems associated with it for everyone involved, and the solutions. This affects everyone who owns animals across the USA as this is not an isolated event. It is a foreshadowing of things to come to the ENTIRE country UNLESS we unite and tackle this together in a team effort. Everyone desiring to know more and to be a part of this event and subsequent movement is invited to attend. We currently only have 20 seats available but we hope to expand that to enable more people to attend by Friday. Those who are in the Louisville, KY area are especially encouraged to come and have your voice heard.
To participate you only need an internet connection and speakers. If you wish to speak, a computer mic will be necessary. The recorded version of this event will be available at a later date if you cannot participate in the live version.
Just click here or go to http://www.holistic-pet-audio.com or cut and paste this URL into your browser: http://www.holistic-pet-audio.com. Click on the link that says "Install Plugin" (the install wizard will install it) then COME back to http://www.holistic-pet-audio.com, log in and join us!
If you have already downloaded the plug-in, just go to the page and sign in.
If you miss the show we invite you listen to it streamed online or download it to your computer, mp3 player, ipod, or CD by going to Animal Talk Naturally! or to The Pawz Cauze so you can listen at your leisure.
We look forward to hearing you there!Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | Jan 05, 2007 12:13 am | | Mayor Signs Ordinance | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | Talk about shoddy reporting, they make it sound like this is as simple as everyone get a license. What a freaking joke!
Mayor signs dog ordinance
If you are a pet owner in Metro Louisville, you must now have your animal licensed. Today, Mayor Jerry Abramson signed the animal enforcement ordinance passed by Metro Council last month.
The mayor says the ordinance promotes responsible pet ownership and gives animal control officers more power. Officials with Metro Animal Services say the ordinance will help control pet overpopulation. Dr. Gilles Meloche of Louisville Metro Animal Services says, "It's time that everybody get it right. You have to be licensed. It's like you need a drivers license, you need a car tag, it's the same. You need a license. It's the law."
The law went into effect Thursday, but there is an amnesty period to give pet owners a chance to comply with the law.
http://www.fox41.com/article/view/9805/?tf=wdrbarticleview.tplPrivate Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | Jan 05, 2007 12:19 am | | Meloche is an Idiot | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | To paraphrase John Grisham from "The Rainmaker", "what is this guy, stupid, stupid stupid?"
He actually thinks this crap will make the jobs of ACOs easier. Boy is he in for a very rude awakening. It will be interesting to see how he will try to spin it when ACOs are dropping like flies, budgets go thorugh the roof, euthanisia rates are up, and still dogs are biting people. Everyone beware, this guy will be on the street in less than a year looking for a job and your city coudl be his next target!
Foes try to block Louisville's new dog law
By Joseph Gerth
jgerth@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal
Opponents of Louisville's new dangerous-dog law are trying to stop it before it starts, with Metro Council Republicans asking for a veto and dog breeders threatening to sue.
The moves come as lawyers in the Jefferson County attorney's office continue to sort through the complicated, 89-page ordinance, making sure to include all the amendments the Metro Council adopted during its 10-hour meeting two weeks ago.
In fact, they're asking council members to check the legislation to make sure their changes are included in the final draft.
The 26-member council's 11 Republicans sent a letter to Mayor Jerry Abramson over the weekend, asking him to veto the measure because the Louisville Kennel Club has threatened to move its profitable yearly dog show out of the city.
They also argue that the ordinance "violates the rights of responsible dog owners" and that it possibly violates state law.
Abramson, who received a copy of the ordinance on Friday, hasn't reviewed it but has said he expects to sign it into law.
"I don't think anything has been presented to him thus far that would lead him to believe the ordinance is fatally flawed," said Abramson spokesman Chad Carlton.
Abramson was in Miami for the Orange Bowl yesterday and won't sign the legislation until tomorrow at the earliest, Carlton said.
The wide-ranging ordinance began as an effort to ban pit bulls and ended as legislation that rewrote many of the city's animal-control laws.
Council member Cheri Bryant Hamilton, D-5th, first proposed rewriting the dog laws in the fall of 2005 after a 2-year-old girl was killed by her family's pit bull.
About that time, a 65-year-old man was killed when two dogs -- at first thought to be pit bulls -- attacked him.
The new ordinance, which would go into effect over the next three months after the mayor signs it, requires all dogs to be spayed or neutered unless dog owners purchase a $50 permit.
It requires that all dogs impounded by Metro Animal Services be spayed or neutered before they are returned to their owners, and it limits the number of dogs that can be kept outside on residential properties of less than 2 acres.
Unaltered animals must be kept on short leashes or in cages while on city streets.
Animal groups almost unanimously oppose the legislation, arguing that it punishes responsible dog owners while doing little to protect people from truly dangerous dogs.
But Animal Services Director Gilles Meloche has said that changes in the law will make it easier for his officers to cite people for violations and will make it easier to ensure that dogs are properly registered with the city.
Last week, Jon Fleischaker, a lawyer representing the Louisville Kennel Club, sent a letter to council President Kevin Kramer, R-11th, saying the council should reconsider its action passing the ordinance because of an open-meetings violation.
Fleischaker says the council's Democratic Caucus violated the open-meetings law twice on the day that the council passed the ordinance.
Hamilton, the ordinance's sponsor, held a work session early in the day to go over changes in the ordinance, with the full caucus meeting at 4 p.m.
Fleischaker says the Democrats should have given notice of the meetings to the media and posted the notices conspicuously. Fleischaker, who often represents The Courier-Journal, is not representing the newspaper in this matter.
In the letter, Fleischaker asks that the council acknowledge violating the open-meetings law and apologize, acknowledge the vote was illegal and call a special meeting to rescind its approval.
"If the council doesn't do anything, it would be fair to say there will be a lawsuit," Fleischaker said in an interview.
Democratic Caucus Chairman Jim King, D-10th, said there was no attempt to violate the law and the claims made in the letter are baseless.
"When I talked to the county attorney, he thought the assertions made in the letter were without merit," said King, who said he doesn't believe there was ever a quorum at the work session led by Hamiliton.
"There was nothing secret about the meetings," he said.
Kramer said he would leave it up to the Democrats to decide how to deal with the issue.
It's still unclear exactly what the ordinance will look like.
Assistant Jefferson County Attorney Bill O'Brien said some people who have seen the ordinance are contending that not all amendments that passed were included in the latest version.
He said lawyers in his office are reviewing minutes of the meeting, trying to make sure that all approved amendments are included.
Moreover, he said, the county attorney's office is asking council members who sponsored successful amendments to read over the ordinance and verify their amendments are there.
Reporter Joseph Gerth can be reached at (502) 582-4702.
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070103/NEWS01/701030649Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | Jan 06, 2007 2:45 pm | | re: Louisville ordinance | # |
Aleithia Artemis | | Reporter Stephen George had alot to do with this ordinance' passing: His first sentence relegated the issue to a mere "pissing match" (his words).
That means we failed to get our message through. I'm not sure why. Marla, you wrote some great sample letters. I couldn't find anything wrong with them. Maybe simply a little more info on how irresponsible pet owners would get away with their behavior under this ordinance. ie: Going underground, etc., to avoid all these impositions.
Anyone have any idea what happened? What we might have done differently, to get a different outcome?Private Reply to Aleithia Artemis | | Jan 06, 2007 4:06 pm | | re: re: Louisville ordinance | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | WELL, Aleithia, NOW you hit a hot button of mine.
Here's how I think this all went down. This started out as an ordinance directed strictly at surprise, surprise, the ever lovable, "pit bull". A couple of dog attacks, some outlandish problems with dogs running wild, yadda, yadda and well, you know as well as I who gets blamed; the "pit bulls" and their owners. It was later determined that in at least one of the two attacks, the dog(s) involved were not "pit bulls", again, there's a shocker! But, you can probably put a paycheck on it that that little fact was buried someplace between the classifieds, the obits, and the land of OZ!
Anyway, my guess is, the people that are continually having to fight for their "bullies" came out and said, 'oh hell no', and I'm sure there were a few like me and you who know the right thing to do and stood with them and said, 'oh hell no', but look in the seat next to you, bet you didn't find any pet owners outside the dog world and here is how a city ends up with a mess like Louisville. Too many pet owners get whacked upside the head by "surprise legislation" because they don't have "target breeds" so they will readily sit back and say, 'not my dog so why do I care', or 'good, I think pits should be banned so my Fluffy Kitty doesn't have to feel threatened when he's pooping in the neighbor's flower box'. It's the attitude of, 'doesn't effect me and my house, so why do I care'.
Well, when you have just enough voices (especially a club that runs the LARGEST all-breed dog show in your own backyard), things get heard. 'So, dog owners don't want the pits banned, let's make things fair and make EVERY pet owner jump through the hoops. Let's partner with the good old HSUS and come up with some outlandish ideas, put them on paper and then we can all pat each other on the back when our AS Director is given an award as AR Activist of the Year! We'll put Louisville on the map with this kind of "progressive" legislation.'
Well, then they go through the ordinance and mark out the words "pit bull", make sure the biggest money-makers in town: the pet shops, puppy mills, and Churchill Downs aren't exposed, and lo and behold you've got yourself 100 pages of crap legislation ready for signing. All of the sudden, your other pet owners wake up, roll out of bed, rub the sleep from their eyes, and go 'WHAT, this was supposed to be about "pit bulls", not Fluffy Kitty!' So, they show up in mass at city hell, but hey, it's a bit late for that dontcha think?
In the meantime, this idiot Director and his cronies over at the HSUS have gotten the Mayor and a good chunk of the council convinced that this is a solution that is what's that word again, FAIR and will work. Who cares if we know whether or not we will have to hire more staff? Who cares if we have no idea how much money this will cost taxpayers to enforce? Who cares if this is not addressing the problem? We can sit back and say, well, 'we did something". Best part, let's go through this sucker when the Mayor is on vacation, he'll sign it cause he'll sign anything apparently. You think the Mayor has even read this thing? I'll bet people in Timbuktu who haven't read it word for word could tell you more about what is stipulated in that ordinance than the Mayor of Louisville. Read the newspaper reports, watch some of the coverage from local TV news, they keep talking about how people are outraged by licensing fees going up and that all animals will need to be licensed, HUH; that's the last thing anyone in Louisville is outraged about at this point. They are refusing to tell even those people who continue along with heads in the sand what is REALLY in this ordinance and who is going to have custody of their pets in 90 days! The pet owners of Louisville will no longer be pet owners, they will be caretakers of pets until the city finds the cause to come seize their property and destroy it if they so wish.
This happened in my own community. Certainly the ordinance that is still waiting for final passage here in no way touches Louisville, but we had people who sat back and said, 'damned pit bulls' and when the city figured out it's not just the pits and went for differential licensing and light MSN, they showed up to fight for their dog's balls. Hey, I'm not a lover of MSN either, but hey where were these people when we were fighting to save dog's lives? Oh yeah, at home watching the latest episode of "Survivor" and admiring the dog's privates with pride! (Ok, I know that's a bit much, but if you could hear some of these people and the way they talk about it, they sound like they have the things on a display shelf under lights, seriously). I don't disagree with their fight and I have to say I'm glad that something finally kicked them in the behind and made them wake up to the fact that this is not just about pit bulls and never will be again, this is about city and state government trying to control not bad pet owners, but good ones and their pets. This is about agendas that would readily prefer to see dogs in zoos versus in homes. It's about organizations like HSUS and PETA that have more power, money, and influence than anyone likes to admit.
I know someone that is right hand to the Governor of Kansas. She readily admits that the lobbyists that can throw the most money at something, most often win. While she prefers to see people with passion on the capital steps, the bad thing is too many legislators and people in key positions are not like her, they prefer to see the guy that can buy them dinner.
It is impossible for any of us to sit back and think that what happened in Louisville is not going to effect us now or in the future. There will be other cities that will look at this even in an unproven form and say, 'hey, I don't want to miss out on being Prom Queen for a day'. Look at Valone in NYC; he's using Denver, KCK, and Miami as guidelines to try and overturn a BSL ban and all three of those cities are disasters that have done nothing but make their problems worse. But, because so many people are ignorant to the facts and refuse to even bother with trying to educate themselves, they buy it hook, line and sinker. Too many people are ready to vote for things and people that they know very little if anything about based on media hype, over-exagerated animal control issues, emotions, and the word of politicians.
If pet owners don't take a stand together now, regardless of whether we own snakes or dogs, then we will find ourselves only getting closer to the day when we are all just like what pet owners in Louisville are about to become, caretakers versus owners. The solution lies in working paws united, not divided. There are some differences among us, sure. Some believe in MSN, while others are vehemently opposed, but at the end of the day, we all must keep our eyes on the whole picture and not just the moving parts. We must see that when the battle is over and the dust has cleared, that the outcome has kept our animals safe and the rights of responsible owners and breeders intact. This means that we must all work together to educate others and each other on ALL the issues that affect us as pet owners. Too much of the time, pet owners come to a crossroads and that is what people like Meloche count on to get stupid legislation passed. Solutions to things like overpopulation are out there in the form of low cost s/n services and bite prevention programs. While I may not agree that my dog's balls are more important than a dog I've never met's life, I do have respect for where that argument comes from and one of these days, I would hope that we all get past those kinds of forks in the road of this battle so that we can come together with respect for all to win the war being waged in city and state governments nationwide.Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | Jan 06, 2007 5:03 pm | | re: re: re: Louisville ordinance | # |
Aleithia Artemis | | You've nailed a couple issues.
1. People have no clue as to what various lobbyists are up to. Bill titles always SOUND so good. But many times do the opposite of the title - my chicken legislation post would be a case in point.
2. By the time people become aware, it is frequently too late. Most people think the rest of us are far-fetched in our down-the-road perspectives. We have a hard time articulating the inevitable to those who are complacent.
3. Sex sells better than "responsible pet ownership." So people will get worked up over MSN, but not care about death by lethal injection or traffic: both resulting from irresponsible ownership. Perhaps we should phrase our arguments with analogies to mandatorily castrating, vaccinating, tagging, licensing, and eventually, capital punishment by lethal injection for bad owners.
4. We've got to address valid fears. No one should worry about their child being mauled. And the very best solutions are usually not the governmental ones: education and rewards for spaying/neutering, getting CGC certificates, demonstrating an animal's social skills with other animals - particularly of its own species, and with humans, too.
Yes, we need to come together on the issues and approaches that best work.Private Reply to Aleithia Artemis | | Jan 06, 2007 5:32 pm | | re: re: re: re: Louisville ordinance | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | 1. People have no clue as to what various lobbyists are up to. Bill titles always SOUND so good. But many times do the opposite of the title - my chicken legislation post would be a case in point.
*Exactly. If we don't all know how bills work, we need to educate ourselves and FAST. I'm ever-amazed at the pork that is added on to bills that have nothing to do with the orginal intention of the legislation. it's how things like tea pot museums and bridges over remote ares of Alaska get built on the taxpayer dime. Same thing goes for slipping by things like the realising of balloons at weddings. Make people think it's all about buying a dog license and they will think that all is well and good. I call it smoke and mirrors.
2. By the time people become aware, it is frequently too late. Most people think the rest of us are far-fetched in our down-the-road perspectives. We have a hard time articulating the inevitable to those who are complacent.
* Yep. When I tell people that when you start banning things others value and they approve, they can't whine when someone takes aim at something that they care about. With politics in general, I'm sick of hearing people moan about things that effect their civil rights, but in the very next breath be okay with taking action against something that effects someone else's.
3. Sex sells better than "responsible pet ownership." So people will get worked up over MSN, but not care about death by lethal injection or traffic: both resulting from irresponsible ownership. Perhaps we should phrase our arguments with analogies to mandatorily castrating, vaccinating, tagging, licensing, and eventually, capital punishment by lethal injection for bad owners.
* Believe me you wouldn't have to ask me to sign a petition demanding such legislation for mandatory MSN on stupid people (especially those with kids and pets) twice.
4. We've got to address valid fears. No one should worry about their child being mauled. And the very best solutions are usually not the governmental ones: education and rewards for spaying/neutering, getting CGC certificates, demonstrating an animal's social skills with other animals - particularly of its own species, and with humans, too.
* Yes, education is the key. It's sad though, we have become a "nanny society", one that is lazy and wants the government to solve the problems instead of being proactive and solving them ourselves. We've got too many people that just can't graps that when the government starts manadating, there is no limit as to what can be touched. Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | Jan 06, 2007 7:42 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Louisville ordinance | # | 
Christopher Aust | | I've been sitting back and reading this string for a while and have spoken with Marla about it on the phone quite a bit. I'm not going to say how ignorant this legislation is as the points have been well covered at this point.
I am going to talk about who (IMHO) is really responsible for legislation like this. The American pet owner and charitable contributors.
Even before BSL was called BSL, I was writing and saying that if we didn't start to police ourselves, the government was going to do it. We didn't and they did. (please keep in mind that when I say "we" I am talking in general terms)
Then, when BSL emerged and focused on the "dangerous breeds" I said it will eventually affect all breeds. I got poo-pooed and here we are.
I'm not the only one either. There were numerous people saing the same thing I was all along the way. Unfortunately, the "not my dog" mentality took us over and we did little but complain in our groups (on and off line) Again, "we" is collective here so no nasty grams telling me all you do individually.
The typical pet owner cannot compete with the blood money of groups like HSUS, PETA and ALF directly. We do have more power in another capacity. Our vote and voice.
My step-dad was an attorney, judge and later the vice Mayor of Santa Ana, CA when I was much younger. I didn't learn much about politics as a result but did learn that the power of the vote and loosing his job was huge. This applies to all politicians.
I have worked with many people whose communities were facing ridiculous animal legislation over the years. I'm usually contacted by a community member who wants me to use my special "tact" when dealing with the issue.
As Marla can tell you, I have no problem openly calling a politician a liar or ignorant to their face and very publically when it is called for. I also have no issue telling a politician to enjoy their last term in office if they resort to ignorance when passing legislation.
I don't just brow beat them but back up what I say with facts. I see no reason for worrying about feelings or political correctness. To me, it is a waste of time. Believe me, AR people have been out there doing the same thing and THEY are winning the fight.
So what the hell is my point here?
We need to take on a proactive approach rather than reactive. The best time to address any animal legislation is before they put it on the table and not after.
Contact your local legislators and ask them their position on the issues and be specific. Make sure they understand you are offering your assistance (if you REALLY know the root issues)if any such legislation is brought to the table to ensure it is responsible. Don't be afraid to let them know that irresponsible legislation could cost them their position.
Refrain from sending emails also. Send it snail mail or fax it to them. Not only is there going to be a better chance they are actually going to see it, but you are more likely to get a SIGNED response.
Write a letter to the editor about places like Louisville and say how disgusting you think it is and that you are afraid your local legislator might try the same crap. Chances are, few in your community even know such laws are being passed and this will help to get others involved or at least informed.
Talk to your neighbors, groomers, pet sitters, vet, trainer, pet supply store and everyone else you can and encourage them to do the same. This way, if legislators are approached by the AR freaks, they know they are going to be in for a fight, from the very beginning, that could cost them there job if they screw it up. If they have even a lick of sense, they will take a more responsible approach and look at the REAL issues.
Finally, we need to continue to support others who are already involved in this like Louisville.
I have little sympathy anymore for people who have sat back and done nothing until it's right there in their lap. I don't mean to rant here but we have to remember that groups like PETA, and HSUS are working every day to take away our rights as pet owners. If we aren't as diligent, we really have no business complaining.
Christopher Private Reply to Christopher Aust | | Jan 12, 2007 10:24 pm | | Louisville: I'ts not Just About the Dogs! | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | Cross-posting this from another list. I know NOTHING about showing bunnies, but I do know that when I've seen them at the state fair, they are all usually shown by kids, mostly 4H members. Well, I'm guessing Louisville can say bye-bye to being in good graces wit that crowd.
Message from BSL - UAOA:
Everyone keeps yelling DOG, DOG; well let me tell ya; it is NOT just dogs! It is any animal defined as a domestic pet! I know that a fellow rabbit breeder crossposted on here what I had posted on a bunny board about how this is affecting MY family.
My 7 year old daughter is the one that can be just DEVASTATED about this new law. We just started showing/breeding bunnies as a wholesome family activity that does not require a lot of money to do. She got a show coat from her grandma for Christmas; we even had a friend embroider it with the rabbitry name(which is named for my
daughter), her name, and a pic of her first ever show bunny.
She is anxiously awaiting the start of the shows so that she can wear it and show it to all her little friends. We cannot afford an animal dealer license! It would be $125 for us to
be able to keep the bunnies and only sell 1 a year. It would be $300 for us to be able to keep the bunnies and sell more than 1 a year. And it is not like a pedigreed bunny goes for a whole lot! Maybe $60 dollars if you are lucky. The only ones we would be selling would be the non-showable ones, and they would only bring about $15 as pets.
And it is not like we win money at shows! My daughter shows in the youth division. They earn ribbons and trophies; no money! According to this new law, we can't even eat bunnies! We know quite a few folks who raise them for meat, as other people do cows, pigs, etc. It also makes it against the law for us to tattoo our own bunnies. They have to be tattooed in order for us to show them!
Many people are not taking the time to read the entire 90+ pages of this unjust law. I downloaded and printed it out.
I have given Karen the contact info for the KSRBA, and I hope they will listen to her. I know of another lady in Louisville who just now purchased a trio of bunnies to get started in the show hobby. She also is doing it for her 2 young girls; ages 7 and 6. Now she is facing the very same
dilemma as we are. Keep the bunnies and be a "lawbreaker" or go underground and not be a "heartbreaker" of your young children; who are the only darn reason you are doing this in the first place!!! I'll tell ya; getting up at 5 am to go to shows in a little tiring, but we do it for the sake of our children. I'm just so darn upset and frustrated!Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | Jan 13, 2007 1:35 am | | re: Louisville: I'ts not Just About the Dogs! | # |
Ann Rader | | Rabbit rescue is HUGE! People discard these animals in droves, the same as cats and dogs and parrots. I'm not disturbed that this family cannot afford a $125 liscence to breed one rabbit. Perhaps the child can enjoy the rabbit(s) she has. Would that be too hard? I have no sympathy for people who want to breed and show these animals who are no doubt kept in cages for life.
I lived with and deeply loved a rabbit for ten years. He was kept just as my cats were -- and with the same respect. We shared our apartment with him. This was years ago (1981 -1991) and I remember him every day.Private Reply to Ann Rader | | Jan 13, 2007 2:39 pm | | Bunnies | # |
Aleithia Artemis | | Bunny rescue is a huge issue right around Easter. There are photographers who use them as "props" for Easter photos. No kidding: that's the cold terminology for them - as though they have no life of their own.
They are also sold as gifts to children who didn't request them and have no clue as to their care. Nor do their unprepared parents.
Animals should NEVER be given as surprise gifts. For any occasion.Private Reply to Aleithia Artemis | | Jan 13, 2007 4:56 pm | | re: Bunnies | # |
Ann Rader | | Best Friends Sanctuary recently rescued several thousand rabbits from one place! Incredible. The rabbit rescue foster homes are always overflowing. They are such pretty animals and so appealing, available, and inexpensive. People buy them and loose interest quickly.
I don't think rabbits are done justice living their lives in a hutch. My rabbit, Grayland, was every bit as cognicent and loving as my cats. Not as intellegent as a feline intellegence, but in every other way the equivalent to a cat. He was given the chance to be all he could be. I miss him. Private Reply to Ann Rader | | Jan 13, 2007 7:17 pm | | re: re: Bunnies | # |
Shannon Hill | | I am always particularly appalled by the bins of pink and green dyed chicks, ducklings, and bunnies at Easter time. Mercifully, that seems to be less popular an idea than when I was a kid. Private Reply to Shannon Hill | | Jan 13, 2007 7:29 pm | | re: re: re: Bunnies | # |
Ann Rader | | Yes, in New York State now, poultry must be sold/purchased by the dozen, eliminating selling the babies that way.
As for the family with the rabbits, in my opinion, raising the bunnies and selling them off desensitizes the child to animals. Many of the 4H activities do -- the child raises a piglet, what ever, and then the animal is auctioned off at the fair, to be butchered. What effect does that have on a child?
Sometimes I wish there was a law against what some people do! Private Reply to Ann Rader | | Jan 13, 2007 11:24 pm | | re: re: re: re: Bunnies | # |
Shannon Hill | | Actually, I feel the same way about some of the 4H stuff.
In the old days of the family subsistence farm where families raised and butchered their own food, it was a necessary thing. But for a kid to raise an animal as a pet and then sell it to be killed...that's just not right.Private Reply to Shannon Hill | | Jan 14, 2007 12:07 am | | re: re: re: re: re: Bunnies | # |
Jennifer Thon | | This is insane. I wonder how many people will choose between keeping animals or keeping their address.
Jen Thon
http://www.SmallTownPets.net/TownStorePrivate Reply to Jennifer Thon | | Jan 14, 2007 12:25 am | | re: Bunnies | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | Like I ssi previously, I don't know a whole lot about bunnies. We had some at our place in the country when I was growing up, but they were never housepets. I do agree that giving them as gifts and selling dyed animals is wrong. However, I don't think that if a child chooses to take up showing bunnies, they should be expected to perhaps give up soemthing that they love just because city government can't figure out that the people doing these things responsibly are the least of their worries.
I actually tend to disagree on 4H. There is still a very large segment of kids who are raised on farms and who will elect to carry on the family business and that often includes the raising of quality livestock that are sold for food purposes. IMO, 4H offers kids most often from rural areas, the opportunity to hone their skills and discover things that may help them in future careers, etc. There are plenty of vets who were once in 4H or FFA and just because they raise something that might or might not be killed for meat purposes does not mean that they do not love animals or have any respect for their breeding.
And, from what I understand Jennifer, there are already plenty of people who have either talked about putting their house on the market, moved outside the city limits or investigating the possiblity. Many breeder and pet owners all over the country are electing to boycott any business' that are headquartered in Louisville and my guess is that the all-breed dog show will suffer a significant loss this year if this legislation is not overturned. I also woudl not be surprised if the Derby doesn't see it's overall take impacted as well regardless of whether or not Chruchill is touched by this thing. Many lovers of the sport of racing are pet owners and lovers and will not take to kindly to handing their dollars over to a city that threatens their very existence. Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | Jan 15, 2007 8:38 pm | | Until the Fat Dog Sings...it's Not Over in Louisville | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | I do want to make one thing clear. I'm crossposting this because I do believe that this legislation is much too harsh, unfair, and doens't do anything to solve the problems at hand. However, this person mentions being opposed to anti-tethering laws. I strongly support laws that restrict tethering of animals. While I don't want to see tethering outright banned, I'm not opposed to control points that restrict dogs form living on chains 24/7/365 regardless of weather, etc.
PERMISSION TO FORWARD GRANTED!
HAH! If anyone thought the fight for Louisville was over, I'm here to tell ya it's NOT! Better yet, I'm not asking for donations this time.
Contributions continued to roll in after it was too late to put them toward our VETO ad campaign against Louisville's anti-pet ordinance. As we all know too well by now, Mayor Abramson couldn't be convinced to veto. However, did accumulate an 1400.00 war chest.
So now the next move... (drum roll) ...
THE RECALL CAMPAIGN!
====================
On Tuesday evening at 6:30, Mayor Abramson and Louisville Metro Council will be at the Mayor's Community Conversations Meeting at Moore High Auditorium, 6415 Outer Loop, Louisville
Louisville Clear Channel stations will run our ads on Monday and Tuesday that say:
==========
PET LOVERS! LOUISVILLE'S NEW ANTI-PET LAW AFFECTS YOU! FIND OUT MORE- JOIN CONCERNED PET LOVERS TUESDAY, JANUARY 16TH AT 6 PM AT MOORE HIGH SCHOOL, 6415 OUTER LOOP AND ASK THE MAYOR TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN AND SAVE OUR PETS!
And our traffic billboard sponsorship that say: BROUGHT TO YOU BY LOUISVILLE-DASH-PETS DOT COM
==========
I sure hope that LOTS of folks will attend to tell the Mayor and Council to RECALL that ghastly "work in progress" deemed an ordinance. Bring the whole family along, especially your human children, for a live and interactive Civics lesson!
Rumor has it the League of Kentucky Sportsmen will be out in force.
Haven't heard an official peep from Louisville Kennel Club during this entire campaign, but one would certainly hope they'd concede to join the masses and do whatever it takes to BEAT this tyrannical law.
Louisville will either be the victory or the death knell for EVERY DOG east of the Mississippi (and cat, rabbit, ferret, snake). The right choice seems pretty obvious to me, but I'll stand up for who and what I love every time with NO hesitation. That's why there IS a media campaign for Louisville.
Heck, ya might even see me out thar with sleeves rolled up. Barbara would no doubt be tickled that I wear Carhartts, not camouflage. ;-) Louisville animal lovers and owners have a BIG order on their plates for Tuesday. They NEED ALL THE HELP that they can muster!
ANYONE who is in or within range of Louisville and willing to do some volunteer work on Tuesday, please send me an email and I'll get you connected - raharrison @ ccdirtdawgs.com (remove spaces)
===========
TUESDAY MEETING ITINERARY
(if you're available earlier, there's plenty of work to be done!)
* 5:30 PM - Volunteers in place w/flyers for passing out at Moore High
* 6:00 PM - Press conference - bring a sign and be part of the crowd!
* 6:30 PM - Attend the meeting with the Mayor and Council.
Do be sure to let EVERYONE know your honest feelings - RECALL/RESCIND the ordinance!
===========
For those of you who are not in range of Louisville, you can listen for our radio ads and catch some good talk radio too! WHAS (along w/several of our other Clear Channel advertiser stations) are available online. Work well even on my slow dial up connection. Click the lightening bolt in the left column for WHAS. The station broadcast will load and play with Windows Media Player -
http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/locate?select=city&city=louisville&state=ky
or http://tinyurl.com/yc4d6g if the longer address truncates.
I hear tell Jim Strader might have some words to share about the ordinance on his Outdoors with Jim Strader show from 6-8PM Sunday evening on WHAS.
Expect talk diva Francene will be speaking up against the ordinance and encouraging folks to come out for Tuesday's meeting on her WHAS shows that air weekdays from 9-11:45 AM.
This is it for me, folks. Fund raising and campaigning are draining. Our existing fund is spent. I've got my own VA legislative sessions kicking off next Thursday and any number of ugly bills to oppose - MSN, anti-tethering, the beat goes on...
Somebody else has to take up the candle for Louisville and somebody else and somebody else. As many somebodies as it takes until that ordinance is snuffed. I've given you my all and my best. You DESERVE THE BEST! Now get out there and DEMAND it for yourselves! No matter where you might be.
And don't forget to tell elected officials and public officials everywhere that "MY DOG VOTES!"
Or your favorite species - I say "MY DOG VOTES" because I have dogs and that's our own advertising and marketing genius Barbara Hayood's registered slogan and logo of her campaign for responsible dog ownership, dogs and democracy - www.mydogvotes.com
Many thanks to Barbara for helping me to take this campaign the next step higher from anything I'd dreamed from my humble living room in Appalachia on Friday morning, December 30. Many, many thanks to the rest of you who dug in your pockets to get the campaign on air and LIVE in Louisville. You've all had a hand in making history and building a better future - one that is friendly and safe for our animals AND families.
Bless ya!
Robin Harrison
Clear Creek Dirt Dawgs
SouthEast Association of Mushers (SEAMushers)Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | Jan 15, 2007 10:51 pm | | Let the Lawsuits Begin...It's Not Over in Louisville | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | Dog lovers sue Metro Council over meeting
By Joseph Gerth
jgerth@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal
Two groups of dog enthusiasts have filed suit against the Louisville Metro Council claiming the council's Democrats violated state open meeting law when they met before the council's Dec. 19 meeting.
In their suit, filed yesterday in Jefferson Circuit Court, the Louisville Kennel Club and the League of Kentucky Sportsmen ask that the city's new animal ordinance be voided and they be awarded legal fees.
Jon Fleischaker, a lawyer representing the kennel club, said in an interview that he doesn't know of any cases in Kentucky in which a court has overturned a law because of an open meeting violation. But he said courts have struck down administrative decisions, such as personnel actions against teachers, because of open meetings violations.
The claim stems from the fact that the council met on Dec. 19, a Tuesday, rather than on a Thursday, as it normally does. As it does before every regular meeting, the council Democrats caucused early to discuss the night's agenda. In the suit, Fleischaker argues that because the Democrats gave no notice they were meeting on a different day, they violated the law.
But in letters to Fleischaker and B. Ballard Rogers, a lawyer for the sportsmen's group, Assistant County Attorney Bill O'Brien said there was no violation because no action was taken at the meeting, and because the Democrats met prior to a regular council meeting as they always do.
Reporter Joseph Gerth can be reached at (502) 582-4702.
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070113/NEWS01/701130422Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | Jan 20, 2007 10:29 pm | | re: Let the Lawsuits Begin...It's Not Over in Louisville | # |
Wicked Witch of the West | | Tuesday, January 16, 2007
UPDATED: 10:41 PM
Dozens bark at mayor about new dog law
By Joseph Gerth
jgerth@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal
Nearly 200 people showed up at Mayor Jerry Abramson’s monthly town meeting Tuesday night — most of them to tell him they don’t like Louisville’s new dog ordinance.
A group of dog lovers paid for advertisements on a radio station to urge dog enthusiasts to attend the meeting in the auditorium at Moore High School.
For an hour and a half Abramson fielded questions about the new law from people who stood in line to query him or berate him.
Then he stood before a group of about 80 people for 45 additional minutes, answering questions thrown at him.
One woman told him the new law would require her to report to Metro Animal Services and get approval if her unaltered dog was to spend more than three nights away from home.
“I will go on record that that is an unreasonable thing,” Abramson responded.
Jackie Gulbe, a spokeswoman for Animal Services, said the ordinance could be interpreted that way but that her agency would not do so — and would not require such approval.
Abramson also said some Metro Council members already are working on amending the ordinance to rescind a provision requiring that all impounded dogs be spayed or neutered.
He said he expects other amendments to follow.
Abramson reiterated his comments in recent weeks that the law would be enforced using common sense.
But Pam Sweiss, who raises American Staffordshire terriers, a type of dog commonly referred to as a pit bull, wasn’t pleased.
She said the law should be changed rather than ignored by enforcement officers.
“I’ve always been legal,” Sweiss said. “I don’t want to be a little bit illegal.”
The ordinance gives animal control officers additional investigative powers and increases licensing fees for dogs.
It also limits the number of dogs people can keep outdoors on lots of less than two acres, and sets higher licensing fees for dogs and cats that have not been spayed or neutered.
In the nearly 100 pages of the ordinance, there are dozens of new provisions that didn’t appear in the old animal law.
Melody Smith complained that she has four mixed-breed dogs and that she would be required to decide which one to get rid of, since her property is just shy of one-half acre.
The law limits has a limit of three outdoor dogs on lots that size.
“I can’t see how my having four dogs gets at the problem they were trying to address,” Smith said.
James and Barbara Russell, however, came to thank Abramson for signing the ordinance.
The Russells, who live near the Bullitt County line, told him they have a neighbor with a St. Bernard that barks incessantly.
James Russell blamed the dog for his wife’s heart attack and other problems.
“All I really want is a peace and quiet I’m entitled to,” he said.
Reporter Joseph Gerth can be reached at (502) 582-4702.
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070116/NEWS01/70116086Private Reply to Wicked Witch of the West | | |
| |
| |
