City mulling new restrictions on pet ownership

Friday, September 4, 2009

Pet owners in Mountain Home may end up paying additional fines and face new restrictions on owning more than five pets as part of the city's plan to overhaul its current animal control ordinance.

The Mountain Home Police Department recently started a comprehensive review of the existing law to fix long-standing deficiencies and clarify key sections of the document, said Police Chief John Walter.

During the process, it gave the city's animal shelter staff an opportunity to fix sections of the ordinance they felt were broken for months or years.

"It's been a growing process for our people to say how do we make things work better ... and that process takes time," Walter said.

Under the draft ordinance, which goes before a public hearing Sept. 14 at city hall, repeat offenders could face misdemeanor charges versus the current, lesser infraction penalties. This allows judges to impose tougher fines on repeat offenders above the current $100 cap.

See the Mountain Home News for the complete story.

Comments
View 5 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.
  • Ban Pit Bulls that would be a start

    -- Posted by Freedom on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 10:52 AM
  • Just what we need. More government. If I read this correctly, if my two dogs have puppies, and have more than three, I'll exceed the limit of five. In lieu of a civil infraction, this excess number of pets will now result in a misdemeanor...a criminal offense. This is asinine. Chief Walter needs to focus his efforts on the forthcoming meth epidemic.

    -- Posted by BruceGibson on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 11:02 AM
  • Yeah, lets get more government.... Why don't we crack down on illegals, or many of the other problems our city has... Freedom, people that make comments like yours should be banned.

    -- Posted by Idahogrinder on Sun, Sep 6, 2009, at 11:58 AM
  • Bruce (and others)

    I would be happy to provide you or others a copy of the proposed changes to the animal ordinances. If you simply read a newspaper article, it can be misleading on what is being changed, as it simply provides a reporters overview and not a tremendous amount of background or detail. The ordinance provides for the scenario you describe (dog having puppies) and does not count such additions unless you retain the animals past the age of 6 months. The first two violations of this particular portion of the ordinance are infractions, it is not until a person violates it a third time that it becomes a misd. (Progressive justice/punishment)

    As for MHPD focusing on methamphetamine, we have two tremendously dedicated detectives who focus on drug sales, distribution and manufacturing. If you have information of a "forthcoming epidemic" I encourage you to call us and share whatever information you have so we can address the matter.

    My asking Shelter personnel to work on updating ordinances for animals(an area I get complaints on almost ever week) does not impact our detectives or officers abilities to fight crime or respond to calls for service. In fact, updating ordinances helps those endeavors, as officers frequently handle animal calls and the current ordinances do not give them all the tools they need to expeditiously or efficiently handle such calls.

    It's like a speeder telling an officer, "why don't you go catch real criminals, like murderers." One portion of an officers job is to deal with traffic safety and handling that portion of the job does not diminish his/her ability to handle other portions of the job. In fact, many criminals are arrested after being stopped for routine traffic violations. The two often go hand in hand vs. competing with one another.

    If I can provide any additional information on the proposed animal ordinances please feel free to call me. I would also encourage you to attend the public hearing on September 14th at 6:00PM to share your thoughts with the ultimate decision makers, the City Council.

    Respectfully,

    Chief John Walter

    -- Posted by Chief Walter on Tue, Sep 8, 2009, at 2:50 PM
  • Chief Walter,

    Terrific, well-reasoned response. Thank you for taking the time to do so. As to the meth epidemic, you have the same information I do.

    The "traffic safety" reference has no relevance in this discussion, but for the record, I'm certainly an advocate for traffic enforcement.

    Overall, I am not only impressed by your response, I am appreciative of it. However, my position on the animal/pet ordinance and increased government interference remains the same. If your agency is dealing with repeat offenders pursuant to the current ordinance, then drop the hammer on them with escalating levels of punishment. As for the majority of pet owners who do not fall within that category, exercise restraint.

    -- Posted by BruceGibson on Thu, Sep 10, 2009, at 11:05 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: