|
Friday, 13 November 2009 |
By MIKE BURKHOLDER
Managing Editor
ST. MARYS — As city councilors continue to hear debate about a proposed cat control ordinance, a neighbor to the north dealt with the issue several years ago.
“We had some issues with a couple of properties in a certain area of town,” Spencerville Village Administrator Sean Chapman told The Evening Leader. “Adjoining property owners were complaining about the cats and the abundance of them and the lack of care. They came to council meetings and stressed that something needed to be done.”
Chapman said councilors in 2005 had the village solicitor draw up an ordinance regarding feral cats. The three-page document, which passed Jan. 9, 2006, placed requirements on pet cats and outlined how to deal with feral cats.
“If you have a housecat that you allow to roam, you have to have it collared and have a licensed tag on it,” Chapman said. “Otherwise it would be taken to a shelter.”
According to the ordinance, no owner, harborer or keeper of a cat shall allow it to run at-large on any public place, enclosed lands or another’s property. Owners also must keep their cats’ inoculations, including rabies, up-to-date. Female cats that are in heat must be confined to a building or a secure enclosure so that they do not create a nuisance and do not attract other cats.
A criteria for determining if a cat can be deemed a nuisance is spelled out in the ordinance. Examples of a nuisance cat include if it is more than 6-months-old and has not been inoculated for rabies, it does not have a collar or other means of identification, it is loud and frequently yelps, cries or howls, it damages any property other than that of its owner, it runs at-large and it is not confined while it is in heat.
The ordinance also requires cats owned by village residents to be affixed with collars, identification tags or a label that identifies its owner. Cats that lack the proper identification are subject to humane trapping, which may be done by any village resident, animal control officer or law enforcement officer.
All feral or free-roaming cats that are trapped are to be turned over to the police chief. Once a cat is impounded, it is kept for 72 hours and humanely cared for by personnel. The ordinance also allows for the humane euthanization of cats that are not claimed. Owners can retrieve their cat by providing proof of ownership as well as agreeing to have the animal sterilized and inoculated. Written proof must be supplied on both accounts. Owners are assessed a fee of $15 for impounding the cat and $10 per day for housing. Residents also are prohibited from feeding feral or free-roam cats without permission from the owner.
Also included in the ordinance is a clause the prohibits willfully injuring or killing a cat without the owner’s permission. Residents also are prohibited from removing a collar or identification tag on a cat to conceal the true owner of the animal.
Anyone found in violation of the ordinance is guilty of a minor misdemeanor — which is punishable by a fine of $100.
The ordinance appeared to help, Chapman said.
“To be honest, it has quieted down since we enacted the ordinance,” Chapman said. “I don’t know how much the police have had to deal with this issue since we enacted this ordinance.”
In New Bremen, Village Administrator Wayne York said the village has no legislation dealing with felines. During his time as village administrator, York said the issue has not been brought to his attention.
“I am not aware of any complaints,” York said.
Wapakoneta also does not have an ordinance specifically dealing with cat control.
The Associated Press recently reported on a story from Dudley, Mass., regarding cats. The town bylaws were amended to restrict cat ownership to a maximum of three per private residence. If a person owns more, they need to apply for a special residential kennel license for $50. An e-mail seeking comment from town officials was not returned as of press time.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 08 December 2009 )
|
