New dog and cat fees advance on first reading

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Lorri Sughroue

Dog and cat owners will pay a little extra to keep their animals, under a new city ordinance the McCook City Council approved Monday night on first reading.

The ordinance includes 25 sections of city law relating to pets and also cracks down on those who own vicious dogs. It will go through two more readings before enacted.

The proposed laws include dog licenses of $15 each year per dog for altered dogs and $45 per year for each unaltered dog; $10 per year for each altered cat and $30 per year for each unaltered cat.

The license fees will be paid at the city office and deposited into the General Fund, with the money used to offset the cost of an animal control officer and other animal control costs. A rabies shot certificate will be required for each dog, cat or hybrid animal before the license is issued. Licenses would be required on or by Aug. 31 of each year.

The ordinance also require owners of potentially dangerous dogs, dangerous dogs or hybrid animals to obtain liability insurance for each animal at the minimum of $150,000 per animal.

Even indoor cats are not exempt from the licensing fees. Councilman Lonnie Anderson asked if owners of indoor cats who never go outside would have to pay the license and City Attorney Nate Schneider replied yes, as it was the only way to make it fair to all pet owners.

Councilman Aaron Kircher commented that it was important for people to know that one of the amended laws makes those who take care of a dog, cat or hybrid animal (such as a wolf crossed with a dog) for 10 days or more at their home will be liable for all penalties, such as dog at large tickets.

Another issue brought up at the council meeting was if someone would be cited if they took care of a friend's dog at their home and along with their own dogs, violated the maximum number of dogs allowed at three.

Councilman Kircher asked if the ordinance could be re-worded to allow for special circumstances, for people who are not trying to skirt the law but simply doing a favor for a friend, such as someone in the hospital.

Schneider said the ordinance would be enforced on a complaint basis and is discretionary. He added there is always an investigation of the situation before a ticket is filed, to find out the circumstances behind the complaint. But if the proposed ordinances are worded too tightly to allow for some situations and not for others, they become impossible to enforce.

McCook City Police Chief Ike Brown noted that sometimes, dangerous/potentially dangerous dogs tend to be shuffled among friends to avoid detection, with no one taking responsibility for the dog. The intent of the ordinance is to make sure dogs are left with responsible people or a boarding facility and to keep the public safe.

The amended ordinances will include the suggestion from Councilman Colleen Grant to prohibit the training of dogs to fight. The suggestion will be added to the ordinance that makes it unlawful for any person to set dogs or hybrid animals to fight.

There is currently no animal control position in the city. If the council decides to create the position, it would be included in the budget with costs for salary, equipment and operating expenses.

The proposed animal control laws were formed by the McCook Animal Control Advisory Committee and included recommendations requested by the council.

Other requirements in the proposed laws include:

* Licensing fees for an altered, potentially dangerous dogs will be $250 per year, per dog; unaltered, potentially dangerous dogs will cost $500 per year, per dog, and owners of an altered or unaltered dangerous/vicious dog will pay a fee of $500 each year if said dog has not been euthanized.

* Owners who are found without licensed pets will pay $50 for the first offense, $75 for the second and $100 for the third and subsequent violations.

* dog at large penalties are increased to $50 for the first, second and third offenses and $100 for the fourth and subsequent offenses. Currently, those ticketed for having a dog running loose pay $20 each time. Owners of a dangerous dog caught running loose will pay $500.

* mandates specific requirements for housing dogs deemed dangerous/potentially dangerous.

* Those cited for feeding feral animals will be ticketed $20 for the first time, $50 the second time.

Comments

View 38 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

kudos, kudos, kudos! Eventually this will help pet owners be more responsible. It will take time, but its a step in the right direction!

-- Posted by LOAL4USA on Tue, Jul 21, 2009, at 4:35 PM
I agree that McCook is behind the times and that an animal control officer is very much needed. My only problem is with the amount they want to charge for licensing fees. When you compare the licensing fees of towns in Nebraska with similar population, McCook is going to charge way too much! For instance, in Gering NE, an unaltered animal is $10; altered animals are $5. In Alliance NE, an unaltered animal is $5; altered animals are $3. In Ralston NE (along with many other towns), an unaltered animal is $15; altered animals are $5. I do not have a problem with paying my animal licensing fees, but seriously McCook, how can you justify charging the proposed amounts?!

-- Posted by anonymous1117 on Tue, Jul 21, 2009, at 5:15 PM
Also, what about the responsible pet owners that already have more than the allotted 3 dogs? There are several households in McCook with more than 3 dogs. For many people, their pets are part of their family. Will these people be 'grandfathered in', or are they expected to give away one or more of their 'children'?

-- Posted by anonymous1117 on Wed, Jul 22, 2009, at 8:14 AM
This is so assinine! Why the hell should I have to pay for all the idiots that don't take care of their pitbulls in this town? Every **** dog owner in this town is now going to be forced to pay for a coupe morons and thier out of control pitbulls.

That makes sense.

Why can't we just outlaw pitbulls in town? That's all this BS is about anyway...pitbulls!

I know **** well these people with pitbulls on chains that never pay attention to them will NOT be paying these fees in the first place, especially since they are going to be much higher fees.

Rural citizen thinks I don't have a clue, but this is stupid. McCook's just try to pay for another police officer and that's it!

And making people more responsible? I'm sorry but you can't fix stupid, they're born with it. In my experience you can't change what people no matter how hard you try and this fee is not going to be a life changing event for stupid people.

Only someone stupid would think so.

I think McCook would be better off if they went from the appoach of actually helping the dog situation instead of the approach of simply raising money.

From whet I see, the typical troublesome pitbull owner in McCook is not going to be able or willing to pay for the $500 at large fee. So where does the dog go when they abondon it? Now the town is paying for the dog to be locked up and they are not collecting the fee.

Wow, economics is fun when pull your head from your posterior!

-- Posted by Justin76 on Wed, Jul 22, 2009, at 9:56 AM
Someone has to be the adult in society and set an example. As responsible pet owners, McCook is trying to set that example. The viscious dog rules that will be adopted in this account for all types of animals, not just pitbulls. The owners of these viscous dogs will pay eventually or find out that they won't have a dog anymore and won't be allowed dogs anymore. It will take time, but it's what has been needed for years. The City of McCook is not the instigator of this. Law abiding concerned citizen's group has done their research over the last few years and approached the City. The City isn't looking to put on a new officer for the heck of it. It wasn't their choice. However, it may be mandated to be able to uphold these new laws in making pet owners responsible.

-- Posted by LOAL4USA on Wed, Jul 22, 2009, at 11:17 AM
Why must responsible pet owners pay the price for those who do not take care of their animals.If animal control is needed then by all means lets get some, but lets approach the problem case by case. To tax all pet owners to fund this seems silly to me. Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to simply out law vicious dog breeds within in city limits. How many pets will be abandoned or dumped in the pound because of this ordinance, don't we already pay enough to live in our little town.

-- Posted by lab fan on Wed, Jul 22, 2009, at 2:02 PM
It's not just the responsible pet owners that will be paying. Eventually even the owners of viscious animals will be paying. However, they will be paying a higher price. The ordinance does have a section on viscous dogs and will remove them as deemed viscous. It will all work out in the end.

-- Posted by LOAL4USA on Wed, Jul 22, 2009, at 2:40 PM
Since you're so concerned about McCook safety, maybe everyone should pony up for this officer, not just responsible pet owners!

You have not done your homework. What will happen is that these violent dogs will be abandoned instead of the owners paying the $500 fine if they're caught and the city of McCook will be left paying the bill.

What about hampsters, birds, snakes, lizards, Chinchilas, Guinea Pigs, and rats? Why don't these people have to pay for their pets?

This is cleary not the solution, just another attempt to increase government control and more bureaucracy in this country.

What about people just outside of town? can their animals not stray into town and pose a therat? At what line do we draw as to who must pay?

The idea of controlling violent animals is fine, I like it, but it shouldn't be all the responisble people that have to foot the bill. We have enough of that already in this country.

I myself am more worried about the little prick down the alley from me that has already almost killed 3 kids while playing with his dodge pickup and extrememly reckless driving.

We have many kids in our neighborhood now. He has almost hit a woman walking her dog the other night too. This kids comes home 20 times a day going 65 miles on our in a school zone and does cookies and fishtails everywhere he goes at all hours of the day and night.

Why is we can put more effort into controlling dogs and cats than we can controlling out of control moron 18 year olds that are endangering our children every single day?

-- Posted by Justin76 on Wed, Jul 22, 2009, at 7:04 PM
Oh, and who decides what dog is viscious. What is you have a non viscious breed that is taunted or treat cruel by a neighbor kid and the kid ends getting his lunch ate b the dog? Is that my dogs fault? Do I have to pay the higher fine for non viscious breed?

Who gets to decide what's viscious? What about Rotwiellers and Dobermans. They are not viscious dogs unless you are a person in a place where you are not supposed to be and the dogs let you know it. Who's fault it that? The trespasser's or the dog owner that is trying to protect his family and property?

-- Posted by Justin76 on Wed, Jul 22, 2009, at 7:08 PM
They want big money for a license. Hmmm?? I would like them to explain that to an elderly person on a fixed income who has a pet for a companion. Sure, it's fine to ask for large amounts of money. What does it get them??? Alot of hate and discontent from the citizens in the community. Especially the elderly. Five dollars is good enough for a license. Or does the city want to be a money making corporation?? This is an economic development situation. Use the sales tax and stimulus payment for hiring an animal control officer.

-- Posted by edbru on Wed, Jul 22, 2009, at 10:55 PM
Justin, like I said, no dog is a VICIOUS BREED. It is the owner's fault who makes the dog react the way it does. When you chain any dog and taunt it, it will become vicious. I've seen just as many "vicious" pomeranians, ********, yorkie's, etc the list goes on, every breed, every type, can be mad, angry, defensive. It depends on what happens to that dog, if you see a kid taunting an animal, rip the kids a$$. If you see an adult being cruel to an animal, turn them in. If you see an animal in living conditions that are not right or just, turn them in. THERE ARE animal cruelty laws. But we do not have our wonderful police force looking for such things, only minors drinking and people out past curfew....but go on and be a crack head and abuse your animal, children or spouse, and life will be problem free.

-- Posted by marlin on Thu, Jul 23, 2009, at 10:14 AM
Ok, the one question I have for all of the people that are upset about the fees that are going to be charged: Have you went to the council meetings and let the city council know what you think?

On the radio the other morning,if I remember correctly, no one was at the meeting to let them know what you think are excessive charges. I suggest Justin that you attend the next meeting and let it rip, it's your right to stand up at the meeting and let them know that you think the fees are too high. I will agree with you Justin, (didn't think that was possible!) the kid in the dodge pickup needs some attention from our boys in blue, there are more like him around town! Perhaps a phone call to the boys in blue, might help remedy the problem, seems like if you tell them that the safety of children (or old ladies)is in danger they seem to react somewhat quicker.

Give them a call you might be surprized.

-- Posted by goarmy67 on Thu, Jul 23, 2009, at 1:17 PM
I am not upset about licensing my dog, however I do think that $10 or $15 is enough a year, my small dog is not fixed and I think $45 is a little high, she is a house dog and has never been "at large" I think that the council should relook at the fees before passing this.

-- Posted by McCook Gal on Sun, Jul 26, 2009, at 4:17 PM
Nate doesn't understand the word fair. The owner chooses which animal they own. If all of the animals in the city are indoor animals there wouldn't be a need for an "animal control officer" or any animal control costs.

-- Posted by norm on Sun, Jul 26, 2009, at 5:30 PM
Justin- The vicious / potentially viscious deeming will be done by the animal control officer according to state law LB1055 and is not breed specific. It also includes that the dog is not at fault if it is being antagonized or protecting his/her territory (your yard/house/vehicle).

Also according to state law, there must be an animal control officer in each county (Whether the county funds it or the any of the cities/towns do, it must be there).

No, you can't fix stupid but you can make them think twice about keeping a dog that is aggressive and paying extra to keep it.

I don't see too many elderly people or those with a limited income having more that 1 or 2 pets, they are limited on how much they spend on food.

McCook's had a 3 dog limit for decades, this is nothing new. The only new limit would be 3 cats.

Honestly people, the only time you can expect to be fined is if your pet is caught at large without a license & proof of rabies. Nothing new there either. If you think $45 is bad for an unaltered female license fee, I have found much worse, like over $150. $45 isn't bad compared to that. And the cost of spaying a dog here averages $130, east coast $900. We've got it good her. Quit complaining.

-- Posted by amystrauch on Mon, Jul 27, 2009, at 2:42 PM
First and foremost I am an animal lover, especially dogs. I love all dogs. I want to see all dogs treated safe and responsibly.

What I don't want to see is more bureaucracy and government spending with a result of solving very few problems.

We have enough problems that are not being solved by government while they bilk us to repay favors from donors at the tax payer's expense.

This would be no different. The likely people that will be penalized are the responsble pets onwers who have the occational blip in pet survalence and the truely irresponsible pet owners will skate under the radar while increasing our town's cost of operation since they are not paying the fees as there is no clear way to enforce the fees in the first place.

Why the hell is this so hard to ubnderstand?

And yes the boys in blue have heard plenty from us neighbors and will contiune to hear more until this kid is either locked up or looses his driving priveleges.

I really think that if there are concerned citizens that are pushing this some of them may not even own animals. I think everyone should have to pay for an animal control officer if this is going through, not just pet owners.

After all, not everyone in this town uses all the facilities as much as the next person, yet we all pay the same taxes for the most part.

If they want protected from viscious animals, they should have to pay for it too.

-- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Jul 27, 2009, at 6:11 PM
Amy, how can you compare McCook to the east coast?! Yes, $45 isn't bad compared to $150, but it is ridiculous when you compare it to the Midwest, specifically Nebraska! The cost of living is totally different on the west and east coasts, and we should not even be compared to them! In Omaha, the biggest city in Nebraska, it is $50 to license an intact dog or cat. In Lincoln, it is $34 to license an intact animal. Compare McCook to those and you clearly see that $45 is WAY TOO MUCH! Take a look at the licensing fees of town/cities in Nebraska with about the same population... you might get enlightened. Are you telling us that the people of McCook are solely responsible for paying for a 'COUNTY animal control officer' or one that just patrols McCook? Doesn't seem right for McCook to pay the price for those outside the city limits! Another thing is you are saying that there has always been a 3 dog limit law for years... then why when we moved here a year ago, that when I called the humane society (and the city office) on what the limits where, they told me 4!!! We bought a house in McCook (instead of neighboring towns) because we were allowed to have ALL our dogs live with us. Apparently, not everyone knew the law. When does McCook have their council meetings? I would love to go to one!

-- Posted by anonymous1117 on Mon, Jul 27, 2009, at 8:05 PM
Man o man, I am again going to agree with Justin on a few of his points.

1.Put the animal control officer in the budget and fund it like the rest of the police force. I do not own a pet, but I do want animals controlled, if it means an extra dollar or two a month in taxes, I would agreeable to pay.

2. The control officer should not be a "certified" officer, i.e., pulled off his animal control duties and used for whatever chiefie wants to use him for. The position should be for animal control and animal control only.

3. Keep on calling the boys on the juvie hotrodder, maybe a hefty fine or two will either get to him or daddy, hitting the old pocketbook often speaks very loud.

4. I am not a dog or cat hater, or lover, but I do want animals to be controlled in this town, I am very sick and tired of cleaning up after the idiots that just open the door and let fido run over to my yard and take a dump, if I wanted to clean up dog----, everytime I mow, I would own my own dog. Perhaps another new item should be added to the new law, anyone that is out walking their fido should be required to clean up old fido's do-do.

-- Posted by goarmy67 on Wed, Jul 29, 2009, at 11:16 AM
People of McCOOK.... Are you really that far behind???? Yes I know you are in rural Nebraska ...but....shurly you have some kind of conscience!!!! Responsible pet owners and concentious citizens should be more than willing to fund a animal officer to safe gard their community and improve the lives of the animals that live there.

I will say this again.... Gandi said that when you go to judge the advancment of a society you can all ways tell how advanced they are by how they treat their animals. PEOPLE YOU ARE DROPPING THE BALL!!!

Do you all want to be judged by your inability to respect and care for the children of God that has been victimised by your lazyness and arrogance????

If you want me to beleive you are good chiristians....THEN....PROVE IT!! Step up and care for the innocent and helpless members of our society.

GEEZ!!!

-- Posted by kaygee on Wed, Jul 29, 2009, at 10:37 PM
People in this city are not lazy. Realize that the income in this part of the country isn't like the east coast. And look at most of the houses and yards. They are neat and clean. A percentage isn't. That can be expected in any community in any part of the USA. Be very careful on how you state that people in this city "drop the ball".

We own a pet, a very faithful dog, who keeps watch when we are away and at night when the "night owls" roam the streets. Our house was almost entered while we slept and our walk-in garage door was broke into. I am very sure that our pet is needed in our house. Since we got our pet, nothing has happened at all. And I am sure if someone tried and did get into our house, they would be rather sorry for doing that. If the dog don't get them..............well, you can guess on that one.

I do feel it is good to have your pet(s) registered and licensed. But, the cost is not in line with the income of people in this city. The council needs to reconsider the cost and what it would do to the people. You will see many pets not licensed and when they get loose, they will end up at the pound with no owner to come looking for them. That will present a problem to the city and the public. Let's all see what will happen.

-- Posted by edbru on Fri, Jul 31, 2009, at 8:40 PM
I have researched east coast cities and I just can't find any that charge $150 for a pet license! I'm not sure where Amy came up with that number! In Boston MA, it's $17 for an intact dog and $6 for one that's been fixed. In Utica NY, it's $20.50 for intact dog and $12.50 for a fixed dog. In Philadelphia PA, it's $16 for an intact dog and $8 for a fixed dog. I even checked the west coast too! In San Diego CA, it's $30 for an intact dog and $14 for a fixed dog. And in Seattle WA, it's $40 for an intact dog and $20 for a fixed one.

I have sent my research to 3 of the city council members, as I may not make it to the meeting. I included a spreadsheet of 29 Nebraska cities/towns, 3 east coast cities, and 3 west coast cities, and listed what their licensing fees for dogs are. Hopefully it will get their attention at how absolutely ridiculous the proposed licensing fees are! I still believe we should have the fees, but should be appropriate to the population of McCook!

-- Posted by anonymous1117 on Sat, Aug 1, 2009, at 7:27 PM
Kaygee, could you be any more ignorant? The measure of a society or community's conscience is the number of their law enforcement? What kind of commie/liberal/democratic zombie cud are you trying to regurgitate anyway?

I have never in my life heard anything so stupid and ignorant. You must be in a city. I find it hillarious every day to hear how you city people have everything figured out and you are living such a great life there in the cities.

You people have lost touch with reality in a big way. Most city folk are failing to even understand the basic nature of the world these these days. You know, where milk and meat come from. It doesn't originate in a grocery store.

Not you're trying to tell us stupid hicks that the more law enforcement and bureaucracy we have, the better off we'll be.

Boy I hope the country never falls into your hands...wait it already is, this sounds like Obama's ideas.

-- Posted by Justin76 on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 12:57 PM
I think so many of you are missing the point here. It's not about the money! It's the idea that some are going to pay and some aren't. Here are some educated guesses as to how this works.

1. Not all pet owners will pay.

2. Who enforces the fees anyway? That's why not all will pay.

3. Isn't this officer going to protect all citizens from viscious animals? Why then to only pet owners pay?

4. Does everyone use the parks or play structures?

5. Why then do we all pay?

I call it a tax on stupid people because only stupid will not realize it's an unfair fee or tax and pay it anyway.

Meanwhile this officer will likely be certified and then spend part time patroling the streets, at the pet owner's expense, not the average citizen.

This is nothing but an attempt to cram bureaucracy up our posteriors without the thinking man being away of the pitfalls.

Now more than ever we need to pay attention to our local, state, and federal government. Corruption has never been higher and spending is well, historically assinine!

-- Posted by Justin76 on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 1:08 PM
Everyone has their own opinions, but at least I don't call anyone stupid. Having licensing fees is not stupid. It is one of the best ways to ensure their pets return if they should get out and become lost. Although that has never happened to me, I am a responsible pet owner and will pay my licensing fees. To me, it's not about an unfair fee or tax. For me, it just doesn't make since to charge an exuberant amount. I'm sure there will be many who won't pay the fees (no matter what the cost).... that is a given anywhere.

-- Posted by anonymous1117 on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 1:49 PM
Justin 76

Oh honey..... I had knew this far before Obama was even an itch in his daddys pants. You are obvously totaly clueless. If you cant respect the other life on this planet then YOU are the waste of resorces...time and space. AND.....If Hastings Nebraska is a "city" then yes I am from the city. The animals give us sustinace and life.... If you cant get the connection...if they dont deserve our respect.... then...YOU ARE WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS WORLD!!!!SO THERE....B#$%&@

Time to get a clue!

-- Posted by kaygee on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 7:43 PM
Remember that a citizens group approached the council requesting an update on an animal control ordinance. A large citizens committee volunteered and was appointed. They reported several times to the council. The first draft of the ordinance was voted upon a couple of weeks ago with some revisions. Two more readings are required before it becomes law. All this is done to gather citizens input first. The city is NOT trying to run anything by the citizens without input. Best bet is that fees will be reduced (and citizens without pets will have some tax dollars spent to fund an officer which more than likely will NOT be a police officer). Police will not break into homes to check tags nor will they drive around shooting animals unless the dogs attack people. Isn't it nice to live in a community where the council seeks input and the hottest topic is a fee for a dog instead of a cut in city services or an increase in the tax levy. Do you see the glass half full or half empty?

-- Posted by dennis on Mon, Aug 3, 2009, at 10:30 AM
Dennis,

Thank you for reminding people of that, most of which haven't taken the time to carefully read the articles. The city council meeting tonight should be interesting.

-- Posted by amystrauch on Mon, Aug 3, 2009, at 3:05 PM
In the long run, our town will be better of. Let me give you a few examples a friend sent to me. I will type these in as she wrote them since I don't have a digital copy of the letter I can copy and paste them from.

The first sentence may be out of context a bit but the rest of the paragraph has had me thinking for a long while.

"I may be wishful thinking, however I walked into the City of Laramie's [Wyoming I believe] last fall [this letter was sent in January] and they only had 4 dogs and 7 cats available for adoption (town of 30,000). The shelter manager indicated that they have a licensing law and a spay/neuter shelter. Animal ownership is responsible in that town because of the education. If a town of 30,000 can do it, so can McCook!

Another great example: The city of Los Angeles implemented a mandatory licensing and spay/neuter ordinace in 2008. In 1971 they had implemented the spay/neuter program for all shelters [not something they can do at the moment but will hopefully happen in the future]. In 1971 the City of LA euthanized 110,835 animals. Since implementing the spay/neuter program at shelters, this euthanization has decreased to 15,009 in 2007. Now with that implementation of mandatory spay/neuter for all animals, this will drastically reduce again. NOW THAT'S PROGRESS!!!!! [yes, she did type in 5 exclamation points]"

How often have you heard how crowded our humane society is?

-- Posted by amystrauch on Mon, Aug 3, 2009, at 6:40 PM
Yeah, I thought that's about how intelligent you are kaygee.

-- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Aug 3, 2009, at 8:01 PM
Is this the same city council that soght input on the McCook Army Airbase? Just checking. How much did that cost me?

-- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Aug 3, 2009, at 8:06 PM
Amy,

Last time I checked, and this IS a fact in McCook.. The reason our animal shelter is CONSTANTLY full with animals and disease is that the shelter coordinator is always running to the rescue, even if it's out of our area to save animals form other shelters, kennels, etc.

Now, I don't have a problem, with saving animals, but when it crowds our own shlter to the max, all the time, and costs us moere money, it's hard to support that.

What's even harder is believingh anything you people say when you are so good at expaining your opinions while leaving out these great facts?

Maybe in Laraimie, they don't go and rescue every dog and cat within a 100 mile radius like ours does.

Maybe that's why we have disease in ours.

Why are the citizens of McCook getting a bad name by people that don't know what's really going on here?

I'm actually quite sick of you saying how packed our shelter is when we all know what's been going on here for the last few years.

-- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Aug 3, 2009, at 8:15 PM
Justin, you always seem so mad in your posts. I will pray that you find happiness in your life. And NO this is NOT the same city council or city manager approved the air base purchase. This is the council that made peace with the state and feds, kept the city from paying millions of dollars in fines and finally addressed the water/sewer problems.

-- Posted by dennis on Tue, Aug 4, 2009, at 9:33 AM
Justin,

Calm down. Sure, Lorie does take in dogs from USDA kennel raids but that's only once or twice a year, maybe 15-20 dogs per raid. Compare that to the 509 surrendered animals between January and June this year, of that 509, 86 were strays. Of those 86 strays, 73% have returned home, the rest were adopted. Last years surrender total was 1188 (724 dogs, 463 cats, 224 strays). Last years total euthanasia's were 164 or 13%. Which would you prefer? A higher kill rate or preventative spaying and neutering for pet population control? Wouldn't it be cool to have an average daily humane society population of less than 10 instead of 50 (estimated)? Lorie's done an awesome job.

How many people live in the 90 mile radius that the humane society serves? I'm sure it's less than 30K.

That $150 fee wasn't right, it was $100 in Los Angeles California. I'm sure that's change since they made spaying and neutering mandatory. I was wrong, nobody's perfect.

Proposed license fee's can be changed before they take effect.

-- Posted by amystrauch on Tue, Aug 4, 2009, at 10:43 AM
Amy,

I'm happy that there are people like you that have the time and talent to help the animals that we don't have time to love. I don't liek to see unwanted animals or euthanized animals anymore than you.

However, I don't trust city, state, or federal law makers or policy setters. We've been lied to so much in our history by these people then find out they're on the take or in someone's back pocket.

I'm not afraid of anyone taking my animals anymore than I am someone taking my kids. It'll be their loss due to the 2nd amendment, not mine.

What I'm afraid of is us responisble pey owners that may be on the hook for the cost of all this when it is clearly the entire town that will benefit. I'll expand that to say that I also don't trust that the city won't decide to take this control officer and use them to patrol the town as a police officer, further making the burden on the responsible pet owners unfair.

I would have no problem with a control officer if the costs came out of the city budget. We clearly have some people at the city that don't get a lot of work sone and I'm sure if they ran that place like a small business, they would find a way to cut some pork out and redistribute it to the prorper place.

You can compare this situation to the playgrounds at the city park. Clearly not eveyone is going to use them right? So why does everyone pay for them through taxes? The elderly sure won't be using them so why not just charge poeple that have kids a manditory fee every year for this stuff?

I could on all day with these parallels in our world.

The fact is this: taxation and laws do not make us progressive, it makes us slaves.

We should be able to govern ourselves. I know that will never happen. But you talk about all these animal control issues and how this will benefit society and I can almost liken that to humans as well. What if we imposed manditory poulation control in certain areas or income brackets since our demographic research tells us in certian circles this would decrease the population of unemployed fatherless criminals?

I'm just saying.....

Manditory alterations? What if I want to breed my Weimeraner as many people told me I should have. I had her fixed because I KNEW I was not the right guy to do such a thing, I don't have the time or the know-how. I don't need a law to guide my intelligence and the more me do that, the more it will be required. SOmeday people will need to fill out an application so the government can determine whether they are fit to have kids.

What this comes down to is no side in going to be happy with the outcome. People that don't have animals don't want to pay anything for this, just as people that do have animals shouldn't have to pay to secure the town from irresponsible owners.

What's fair is fair. I pay taxes to have police, city parks, streets, public works, fire & recue, etc. Some of these services we will never need, yet we pay them all. That's the only fair way to do it.

I still have not heard anything about how the fees will be enforced either. I'd like some details on that.

-- Posted by Justin76 on Tue, Aug 4, 2009, at 1:03 PM
Amy, you are right. Los Angeles CA has lowered their fees. It is now $60 for an intact dog, and $20 for an altered one. Even with the spayed or neutered mandated law, it looks like it is pretty easy to get their Exemption Application to keep their unaltered dog. The dog just has to be registered in an approved breed registry (AKC, UKC, etc.). I guess they may have cut down on the 'mutts', but it seems more and more of the registries are excepting mixed breeds. But I guess it was a start. I will have to make sure I go to the next council meeting when they discuss licensing fees, just so my voice is heard.... whether it does any good, that's a different story!

-- Posted by anonymous1117 on Tue, Aug 4, 2009, at 3:47 PM
Who enforces the license fee would be the animal control officer (if they are so inclined to get one) with the aid of the regular police. As Ike said last night, someone would have to complain or the dog would be caught at large without wearing a collar and tags (Rabies & City License) or be called out for a barking complaint or an aggressive complaint. Some people last night thought they would come knocking on your door and ask to see your dog's license. That won't happen. We have democracy not communism.

By the way, Nice post. It's the first one of yours I've read that wasn't chaotic and filled with frustration.

If things hadn't gotten out of control with the feral cat population, crowding at the humane society and the recent rash of dog bites, this may not have happened. But according to state law each county needs an animal control officer so we have to abide by the state. The vicious and potentially vicious I'm sure will eventually be like the sexual predators and pedophiles list.

-- Posted by amystrauch on Tue, Aug 4, 2009, at 5:17 PM
ha, I'm so glad I've moved out of McCook and Nebraska. I live in a big city and do not pay a dime outside of what used to be the normal in mccook. That being Rabies, shots, etc...I love being a pet owner to a loving dog. I'm fairly positive mccook has ENOUGH cops as is to handle the dogs, maybe petty could find stray dogs instead of entrap people? There's a start!!!!

-- Posted by marlin on Tue, Aug 4, 2009, at 11:05 PM
Sorry Amy, my mistake. You are correct with Los Angeles CA being $100 for an unaltered dog, $15 for an altered dog. It's in Los Angeles County CA, that an unaltered dog is $60, $20 for an altered dog. I still don't think McCook should be compared to those big areas, but to each their own.

-- Posted by anonymous1117 on Fri, Aug 14, 2009, at 10:36 AM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register