August 1, 2000

To the City Board of Little Rock:

Here is what I found wrong with proposed changes (there was plenty wrong with the ordinance to begin with so I did not address those problems only proposed changes. My three part letter to the board addressed those.):

1. DEFINITIONS: That the definition "kennel" be either clarified to mean a commercial kennel and not a "hobby" kennel (i.e. like those of the Dog Fancy) or deleted.

2. That under "Section 9 (f)" a diseased or injured animal can be euthanized if a licensed vet or the head of Animal Services decides it is necessary to "prevent unwarranted suffering by the animal." Technically, this could take decisions about when it is proper to euthanize an animal out of the hands of owners and is in itself "unwarranted."

3. Dangerous/Vicious Dog sections: -

1. Section 11(d) regarding dangerous dogs adds "by providing oral notice to the owner of the dog" as sufficient. Is oral notice adequate?. In a heated exchange, an owner may not "hear" this. This opens this section to the same problems inherent in Miranda to criminal cases. Was the criminal "Mirandized" or not, did the owner receive notice or not? Why shouldn't animal control be required to post notice at least that the owner is going to be required to keep the dog pursuant to the requirements for keeping a dangerous dog? Section 11(d)(3) adds that, "The owner may appeal the decision of the animal services division manager to the City Manager, whose decision is final." While I agree that keeping a dangerous dog should be regulated, do you seriously intend, as public representatives, to attempt to prohibit people from exercising their legal right to challenge the constitutionality of any ordinance?

 2. Section 11(d)(7) regarding keeping a dangerous dog, adds a "sterilization" requirement which constitutes a "taking" of value, the reproductive value in an animal, from an owner and is questionable. Further, it is questionable from a behavioral perspective, as most dogs become "dangerous" and in fact "vicious" because of environmental factors and not "breeding" contrary to common "opinion."

3. Section 11(h)(1) regarding keeping a vicious dog, adds, once again, that the decision of the City manager is final. While I agree that keeping a vicious dog should be regulated, I ask (again) if you seriously intend, as public representatives, to attempt to prohibit people from exercising their legal right to challenge the constitutionality of an ordinance?

4. Regarding Section 11(h)(3) regarding keeping a vicious dog: Does this section still apply? Or has it been renumbered or deleted because it is not clear on my draft. (I think it has just been renumbered to be 11(h)(2).) Although entitled "Judicial determination," it is not judicial in any way and allows the City Manager, if he determines that the dog is vicious, to ORDER one of two alternatives, i.e., that the dog be euthanized or that the dog be removed from the city limits forthwith. This decision should rest with the owner and, assuming they agree, the owner should be given a "time limit" within which to comply.

4. Section 12 CRUELTY: generally, the proposed amended are problematic generally and the wording of the CURRENT law is preferable. Here are some of the problems with the new wording:

1. Section 12(1), Cruelty to Animals, while having good intentions goes too far by stating that "Abandon any animal under circumstances subjecting it to the POSSIBILITY of death, injury, starvation, dehydration, or disease." Technically speaking, every day if you work outside the home and leave an animal in the house OR backyard, you are subjecting it to the POSSIBILITY of any or all of these contingencies. The animal could "heatstroke" unexpectedly because of a health problem, the animal could accidentally injure itself, you could become incapacitated for any number of reasons and unable to feed or water your pet or even see that someone else does, and diseases can be airborne, etc. Can you prevent yourself from contracting the common cold? While well intended, this wording is obsessively inclusive. The wording of current law regarding cruelty to animals is adequate and appropriate.

 2. Section 12(2) regarding "cruelty" includes "tying or strapping with weights or heavy chains." Again, while well-intentioned, this would preclude the possibility of "weight-pulling contests" for example, a recognized dog sport. It would also preclude using a chain sufficient to restrain most large dogs and/or is impossible for the average citizen to determine what is meant by this provision. Everyone's opinion as to what constitutes too heavy a chain is different and the "reasonable" man cannot be expected to know what a "heavy chain" is for a particular animal. If you believe a dog is being harmed by being forced to carry excessive loads then you have your cruelty statutes to fall back on.

3. Section 12(4) regarding cruelty states that no person shall, "Subject any animal in his custody to neglect under circumstances exposing the animal to injury, disease, unsanitary conditions, extreme temperatures, starvation, dehydration or death." Again, while well-intentioned, technically speaking, kept inside or out, this provision may be OVER-INCLUSIVE. For example, define "unsanitary conditions." There are people that believe if a dog has to relieve itself in the same yard it plays in that it is being "neglected." There are people that do not realize that, for instance, some Huskies are, by choice, perfectly happy sleeping out in a blizzard. A "reasonable" man might see such a dog and determine that the owner is "neglecting" it but the owner can't MAKE the dog get in its dog house. What exactly are "extremes in temperatures? Will people no longer be able to leave their dogs outside when it is hot or cold? Is 100 degrees a temperature extreme? What if the dog has water and shade and even maybe a kiddie pool to cool itself off? Healthy animals can take temperature fluctuations better than sick or diseased animals. Young animals better than old ones. Outside dogs more than ones that live indoors, in climate controlled environs. The temperature is still 100 degrees. And how does one NOT expose his dog or himself for that matter, to disease? Disease is everywhere. The common cold spreads like wildfire. How does one keep their dog from being exposed to disease?

4. Section 12(7) states, "Chain an animal on a chain that is shorter than six (6) feet in length." This is an arbitrary approach and does not address the real issue that it purports to address. Example, if we are talking a Chihuahua then a six foot chain is more than adequate; conversely, if we are talking a Great Dane, it is unnecessarily restrictive. Another consideration, when addressing "chaining" is public safety, what if the chain allows an animal to go over the owner's property lines or jump partway over a fence? While my personal opinion is that all tying out of dogs, except for a short time, in an emergency, should be unlawful, I have seen the following wording used: "Dogs may be restrained with suitably sized tie-outs or overhead cable run. Such restraints must be at least six (6') feet in length excluding length around collar and non-rigid to allow the dog freedom to move about without becoming tangled in obstacles. The tie-out or cable shall be located so as to prevent the dog from escaping or trespassing upon another person's private property, public sidewalks or public property and to prevent the dog from physically interfering with the use of public property or with the use of another person's private property."

 5. Section 13 regarding trapping, is the same as current wording BUT section (b) does not also exclude other commonly trapped animals like moles, rats outside, squirrels in attics, etc.

6. Section 15 seems to be duplicative of but is worded differently than Section 12. Possibly the two should be combined or at least made consistent with one another.

7. Section 16 generally should be amended so as not to preclude the responsible keeping of many of the animals currently prohibited by this section.

1. Section 16(A)(1) should have a new subsection (f) excluding pygmy goats and miniature horses, any another other similar animals, if section 14(4) is going to exclude pot-bellied pigs from regulation.

8. Section 17 regarding offensive odors includes the wording "disturbing to any person within 300 feet of the premises." I question why any limit should be applicable. For instance, if you live several doors down from a yard with obnoxious odors but the neighbors closer to that yard, within the 300 foot limit, don't care about the odor, why should it be acceptable for the odor to prevent you from enjoying your property? Conversely, how will one determine that the offending odor is in fact coming from a yard with animals in it and not from some neighbor=s nasty garbage can?

9. Section 19 while well-intentioned and trying to set a "standard," also ends up being arbitrary. What if the adult animal is a pygmy, miniature, or bantam variety?

10. Section 21 should be amended to apply only to "commercial" kennels and not "hobby" kennels or the average citizen. The definition of kennel, as contained in section 3(i) is "an establishment wherein any person engages in the business of boarding, breeding, buying, grooming, letting for hire, training for a fee, or selling dogs or other animals." This means this section applies to "hobby" breeders and the average family dog and these requirements are far too restrictive for either the average "hobby" breeder or the average family to be reasonably expected to provide or comply with.

11. Section 22 (2) requiring that the "room" temperature of pet shops be maintained at a level healthful for every species of animal kept in the shop. The "healthy" temperature can vary widely from species to species, so the temperature requirement should be limited to the area in which the animal is kept not the store as a whole.

12. Section 26 prohibits the sale or giving away of various animals from parking lots WHICH ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY and along streets and other rights-of-way. The parking lot provision should be deleted because it is private property. (Although I laud the intent.)

13. Section 28 has a variety of problems including, but not limited to, the following:

 1. Is there are only two types of licenses available - one for sterilized animals and one for FEMALE dogs? (My copy of the ordinance did not print this out) Is it the intent of this body that adult male dogs not be licensed at all? And, while this section is being called a "differential" licensing proposal, it is, in fact, a MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER proposal. Under the proposed section, one must either spay/neuter one's animal or pay excessively high fees. The term "differential licensing" would be more appropriately applied if licensing fees were more reasonable. For instance, if the fee for a sterilized animal is $7.50 as it is in this proposal, a differential license for unsterilized animals would be more appropriately set at, say, $12.50.

2. Further, of critical concern from your perspective, should be the fact that licenses are to insure animals receive rabies vaccinations. Each time the cost of a license is increased, there will be a commensurate a decrease in compliance. Thus, the public health issue alone, should be sufficient reason NOT to increase licensing fees substantially. The "Puppy Litter License" and the "Dog Breeder License" combined serve to effectively create a mandatory spay/neuter law. This is being proposed allegedly to address the problem of the "overpopulation" of animals being euthanized in shelters. In actuality, it does not do this. By framing the discussion in terms of "overpopulation," one limits solutions to those related to breeding, which is problematic in that it does NOT address the real reasons that animals are in shelters. Animals are in shelters because they are no longer wanted by owners who do not understand their animals most basic behaviors and/or needs, or owners who have some "lifestyle" change that makes keeping the animal no longer "convenient" for them. Neither is an "overpopulation" issue.

3. The proposed ordinance also attempts to FORCE the public, by limiting the availability of animals and increasing the cost of available animals, to go to shelters to adopt animals. While possibly noble in intent, the reality is that this type of ordinance negatively impacts the economically challenged more than the upper economic strata of our society and forces people to adopt animals that not only may have behavioral or health related problems but that may not be especially suited to their lifestyle. For instance, a couch potato might be better off with a small dog or a sedentary type of dog, like a Bassett. A runner might be better off with a sighthound, like a Greyhound. What if neither are available at their local shelter? In fact, usually, in shelters, dogs are between 6 and 18 months of age, old, sick, otherwise infirm, and of mixed parentage. If one obtains an animal that is unsuitable to one's lifestyle, it INCREASES the probability that the animal will end up back in a shelter. Worse still, just obtaining an animal from a shelter increases that probability.

 14. Section 32 (c) should have wording added to it that would preclude escape from the vehicle if the animal is "properly confined by leash or chain..." Right now the wording merely allows a "properly confined" animal to hang itself out a window, etc.

15. Section 34 is repetitive to section 17 and possibly they should be combined.

16. Section 36 requires the mandatory sterilization of ALL animals released from pounds, shelters, or humane organizations. While the American Veterinary Medical Association "supports" the concept of early spay/neuter, they advocate that veterinarians use their best medical judgment in deciding at what age the surgery should be performed ON INDIVIDUAL ANIMALS. We believe that sub-section (b) attempts to address animals that may be medically compromised by the procedures, but it adds wording to the effect that the exemption applies ONLY if the animal cannot "withstand" immediate sterilization. Does this mean the animal is exempt only if the animal can be reasonably expected to die from the surgery? What if its general health is compromised or if long term complications can reasonably be expected to result?

1. Sub-section (b) also requires that two veterinarians concur that the animal is unlikely to ever recover. Pounds, animal shelters and humane organizations will be unnecessarily burdened by this requirement and the opinion of one veterinarian should be sufficient.

17. Section 37(d) requires that owners who fail or refuse to reclaim or repossess a dog be fined for failing to do so, although the amount of the fine is not indicated, and that the owner pay a daily boarding fee of $10.00 per day. This is an attempt to force owners to be responsible for their animals. In reality, they may choose instead to make sure they do not keep identification on their dog so that, if impounded, they cannot be found. Although not stated, is it intended that this daily boarding fee be limited to the five days that the owner has, upon being given notice, to reclaim the dog? If not, is it open-ended if, for instance, the shelter decides the animal is adoptable and to keep it for whatever unspecified time until it is adopted?

Once again, my conclusion is that this ordinance will not reduce the numbers of dogs euthanized but be instrumental in increasing those numbers, will penalize the responsible owners, and drive the irresponsible owners further into hiding where they will continue to avoid licensing, and vaccinating their dogs. Still not one cent has been allocated for EDUCATION, which is the means to alleviate the numbers of dogs surrendered to shelters, the numbers of mixed breed dogs that are bred, the eventual elimination of the puppy mill, and all over better care for our companion animals.

Thank you.

Leslye Morrow