I understand people’s desire for an orderly society and their desire to feel safe in our communities. However our city, state and local governments seem to let power go to their heads and create stupid laws simply for no reason, other than they can. What makes it even sadder is that the citizens that will be affected by the laws do not even take the time to show up and voice their opposition to the iron-fisted approaches to controlling them. The City of Licking is a small town in Missouri that consists of about 2000 people. That number includes the 600+ inmates at the local, high security prison. Recently the City Administrator and the Mayor (Linda Miller) decided that the City of Licking has an animal problem and decided to put a new law into effect that they thought would solve the problem of loose animals in the city. They passed a “3 pet” law, which also includes banning pit bulls from being housed within the City limits.
The rule simply states that the citizens living within the city limits can only have three canines or three felines on their property or any combination thereof, as long as they don’t exceed a total of three, regardless of whether the property has been fenced to contain the animals. They made no exemptions for Service Dogs either, a class of animals that are covered by Federal Law, which clearly states that Service Dogs are not classified as pets (http://www.mo.gov/disability/pdf/ServiceAnimalsAllowed.pdf) . Why only three? Why not two or four? No one understands the reasoning behind the law and the City of Licking, with its small, entrenched local government officials have offered no justification other than it feels that 3 is the right number for any household to have.
When they were pushed to explain why they were creating such a law, the city replied with the following reasons:
1) There are too many loose dogs & cats in the city;
2) There are too many dogs barking and making noise at night; and
3) Other cities are doing the same thing.
In response, a few city dwellers made the points that the city has leash laws and noise ordinances that should be enforced to help with complaints 1 and 2 and no further laws were needed. In response to #3, it just sounded plain dumb for a city administrator to make such a statement. The City Council informed the attendees that they did not have enough law officers to enforce the current laws on the books and this law would reduce the enforcement responsibilities.
The city leaders did not even bother to coordinate with the local animal shelter which is already full to the brim with abandoned and abused animals to take in the animals that would need to be surrendered when the law went into effect.
My friend in the city is fighting this ordinance. She has 4 dogs and has been to all the city meetings pleading with them not to enact this law. Ironically, the mayor lives right next door to my friend and the law has been in effect now for 6 months. The cops have yet to come to her door to fine her or take her dogs.
The law serves no useful purpose, and as many laws do, has resulted in the unintended consequences of many pet owners taking their pets to the already full-to-the-brim shelter, or worse, dumping them along the side roads outside the city. The mayor and the city council members have been in office so long that they have forgotten who they represent. We, The People won’t forget. They need to keep their noses out of our houses and our private lives. We’re going to help them do that.
The only purpose of this law is most likely to create more revenue for the city. they would most likely not even take someone’s dogs away at first if these exceeded the number, but would fine them. This is why the speeding light and red light cameras as so unpopular, because these did not improve traffic safety, these were only a source of revenue. Local city governments are getting less funding from the state these days, so they create new ordinances to generate revenue.
I also remember from my experience long ago that animal control is often used by neighbors to snitch and fight with each other, wasting tax payer dollars and creating drama. When there is a story in your newspaper sheriff’s log in 1995 about how they had to report to the scene of a dog barking at nine in the morning, you know there is nothing really going on in your community, and they have to make stuff up to do. Actually they stopped printing the sheriff’s log in our local paper because a lot of people pointed out if was a privacy violation, but there was a time when all it was about was barking dogs and dogs running around. Oh my goodness, so scary!
Another thing I would suggest is if someone owns a seeing eye dog, than contact one of those organization and get them on your side. Those groups have the funding where they might put some pressure on this city to reconsider the number of seeing eye dogs.
Thank you for the comments Sweatbearies! I should have mentioned, my friend with the 4 dogs – 2 of her dogs are classified as “service dogs”. I have helped her compose and send out mailings to the Dept. of Justice. The protection of service dogs is covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That was over 3 months ago, and we haven’t heard back yet. In thinking about this now, we should probably send a mailing to the ACLU also.
Anyway, you bring up a good point – it’s about revenue, and I’m betting that the city is counting on “snitches” instead of having to worry about the cops finding & enforcing the law. They’ve certainly found a way to create more divisiveness in this country…as if we need more of that. 🙁
Communities and small towns thrive on fighting with each over minutiae such as dogs barking, who mows their lawn better, and the neighbor who allegedly has too many cars parked in his yard. Part of it is revenue making, and part of it is neighbors fighting with each other and wanting to tattle. There have been a lot of these small town dramas through out US history, but I think they are becoming worse because people want more entertainment, and the reality TV mentality. There is this type of drama in urban areas too, but it is more detached as people do not know their neighbors as well. Since you cited the Americans With Disabilities Act and the service dogs, I think the city will have a hard time explaining their justification for violating this.
There was a case last year when a lady was being cited for having a garden in her front yard, and then it some how also involved her dogs and city ordinances. This stuff can get silly and out of hand.