To Many Dogs & Cats in Mountain Home?Posted Thursday, September 17, 2009, at 12:06 PM
If approved the revised ordinance would require pet owners in the city of Mtn Home to pay additional licensing fees and fines while putting new restrictions on owning more then five pets per household within the city limits How do you feel about the limit on pets per household, should the ordinance be enforced, and/or limited to less then 5 animals per household? Do you have a problem where you live with Neighbors Pets? Are you tired of the constant barking or cats pooping in your flower bed? I would love to hear your input about this ! The economic downturn is having ripple effects in nearly every part of American life, but the impact on animal shelters has been especially acute. Struggling families are relinquishing more dogs and cats to shelters, as they find they can no longer afford the costs of pet care, or they are evicted from their homes and cannot find pet-friendly housing. At the same time, municipal governments are cutting local services, and charitable giving is on the decline, so both public and private shelters have less funding. It's a double whammy for animal shelters -- greater demand but fewer resources. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics Obama is more Likeable than Romney(53 ~ 2:12 PM, May 19)
Sharing: Via Facebook To You
Reasons I’m voting for Barack Obama
GOP’s Anti-Obama
Romney = Bush ?
|
Email link
Read comments (10)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mountainhomenews.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Another fall out from that is that people who can foster the animals RESPONSIBLY, will now have more ordinances, restrictions and obstacles to overcome... if they are able.
I know someone who has taken in more than 50 animals in the past year from shelters who are overrun.
At one time she had at least 8 foster animals along with her 4... as I said She is a responsible foster home and takes very good care of her charges.
I am proud to say she has found loving caring long-term homes for all the animals she has fostered. But some animals have stayed longer than others.
Now with this new ordinance it won't allow her to help without special licensing and more costs - which would take monies away from the animal care. Fair? With this particular case, NO.
Are there people out there that have too many animals and DON'T take responsible care of them that need this type of legal enforcement, Yes.
How do you make it fair? not sure. My friend will of course adhere to the new ordinances if passed, but what a horrible loss to those animals who need her foster care.
MsM, great post as always. This economy is really something. The city and county alike have seen less revenue and higher expenses as a result. While I do not "agree" with higher fees given the economic climate, I am sure it was needed to support the staff, facility and animals so that good care can be given while the fuzzy ones await a new home. I am sure the CC and mayor thought long and hard on this but, to avoid layoffs and a reduction in care, animals they can take in, etc., I am sure it was needed. Not the best time to raise prices for sure but they have to make up for a lack of funds somehow. Have a great night MsM.
My hsuband just took 2 bags of Iams food to them in the last few days. That should keep 1 or 2 dogs for a little while. Every little bit helps.
If anything, there are too many PEOPLE in Mountain Home.
bazookaman,
I have to agree with you. A large portion of our population wants to see growth of the community. They fail to understand that the infrastructure never seems to keep up and the costs just continue to rise. Couple growth with a bad economy and we have situations like MsM is describing.
My concern is that by raising the fees or licenses then more people will go without paying the fees and only those law abiding citizens who are already licensing their pets will be punished. My question is what is the ultimate reason for taking this actions? Is it to control the pet population? To raise additional revenue for the City of Mountain Home? For what purpose. Just me thinking.
I don't know how they will enforce the regulations on owning pets in the city. If dogs have to be licensed why not cats? The reason I ask this is because I have the honor of holding probably the only ticket in Mtn Home for not having a cat leashed! lol ! and it cost me $68.00
Good point. Where licensing is concerned, I'd be willing to bet there are more CATS running around loose in Mountain Home, than there are dogs, and I have the PAW PRINTS on my cars to substantiate that!
When I was given my ticket (cat not on leash) the officer gave me the wrong court date so a deputy sheriff came the next day to serve me with the correct paper work. On the ticket it said "Animals Running at Large" which he thought maybe my dog bit someone. After telling him it was for an unleashed cat, he was surprised as he wasn't aware of that law either, and he had a cat that he let run loose. If he didn't know about this law how am I expected to know of it. I didn't even get a warning !
Bazooka:
It is not the cats and dogs we really have to worry about...it is the ignorant people, IMHO only of course. Animals will only do what an owner allows them to do.
MsM, I feel for you on the ticket. You are probably the only person to get a ticket for a cat not on leash. I live in the country and I have other people's dogs, cats, horses, mules/jackasses (human as well as animal), cows, goats, etc. at my house. They have walked on cars and damaged them. Torn up bushes and put holes in my lawn. I would take an animal in my yard over most humans any day.
Cool Runnings,
Do you think that those people who are not going to pay the higher price license fee are paying them now. You are paying for them right now.