Email Council saying you do support a pet limit increase.
Below is her protest letter to Council about increasing the number of allowed animals in residential households using illogical reasoning.
ANIMAL ISSUES MOVEMENT
420 N. Bonnie Brae Street
Los Angeles, CA 90026-4925
(213) 413-6428/4 13-SPAY(PH/FAX)
e-mail: animalissu@aoLcorn
Los Angeles, CA 90026-4925
(213) 413-6428/4 13-SPAY(PH/FAX)
e-mail: animalissu@aoLcorn
July 2, 2010 Councilmember Bill Rosendahl Councilmember Paul Koretz Los Angeles City Council 200 N. Spring Street Los Angeles CA 90012 | PROTEST | 0 |  |
RE: CF No.10-0982 INCREASING ANIMAL LIMITS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES | -V7 rv IS.47 |
Animal Issues Movement hereby submits opposition to any attempt to increase the current dog limits per residential property in the City of L.A. The City of Los Angeles wisely allows only three (3) dogs. Almost every jurisdiction in the country allows only this number or less.
IMAGINE LIVING NEXT DOOR TO FIVE (5) PIT BULLS, OR ANY OTHER ANIMAL-AGGRESSIVE BREED, AND HAVING THEM JUMP OVER FENCES INTO YOUR YARD TO KILL YOUR PETS OR ESCAPING THROUGH GATES INTO YOUR COMMUNITY. FURTHER IMAGINE HAVING FIVE (5) PIT BULLS—OR ANY OTHER BREED OF LARGE or NOISY DOG (even Chihuahuas can create tremendous noise in multiples)—on EVERY PROPERTY IN A BLOCK AND ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. As we know, barking is contagious and the cacophony of barks would make life for the community one of constant, uncontrollable noise.
Also, many of the most popular dog breeds today cannot be safely kept in multiples because of territoriality or animal-aggression. Imagine the lives of cats that might be kept in the same property or on adjacent properties.
· Increasing dog limits has been defeated soundly several times in the past by a large contingent of homeowners' associations, apartment associations, and realtors, who would again unite to oppose it.
· It also was opposed by the Zoning Dept. because of the dangers, noise and enforcement problems it would create and the potential deterioration of residential neighborhoods.
If the Council wishes to have LA Animal Services explore the feasibility of developing a program for microchipping and registering up to five (5) SPAYED/NEUTERED indoor-only cats, that should be presented to them for study of the impact on the Department and the increased staffing required to maintain records and perform inspections if necessary. It is still highly unlikely this will make a substantial increase in adult cat adoptions. And there is the possibility that it will create an even greater market for kittens—most of which will not be altered.
The answer to reducing the shelter population is not by merely passing out more animals to people who may potentially abandon them again because the cost is too high to maintain them. AIM can provide current charts regarding the cost per year of maintaining cats and dogs and also animal limits allowed in surrounding jurisdictions.
Although undoubtedly this motion were well-intended, in reality adding more animals to the residential population at this time when Animal Services is reducing its staffing will have a diametrically opposite effect than intended.
· THE REASON ANIMAL OWNERS ABANDON OR RELINQUISH ANIMALS IS BECAUSE OF POOR JUDGMENT IN THE COST, CARE OR RESPONSIBILITY OF PET OWNERSHIP. TO BELIEVE THAT ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE MORE ANIMALS WILL REDUCE THE PROBLEM IS OBVIOUSLY A FALSE PREMISE. Those who can least afford animals are the ones most likely to attain more than they can safely and financially handle. Many responsible owners already slightly exceed the current animal limits (3 dogs/3 cats) and LA Animal Services does not investigate unless there is a complaint.
· To allow up to ten (10) animals per residence would merely encourage hoarding and result in more animals suffering, dying in horrific conditions or being ultimate impounded in poor condition. This proposal would allow ten (10) total dogs and/or cats to be maintained per single residential lot. Can you imagine living next door to the noise, waste, odor, fighting/killing and confusion of ten animals in one yard and in EACH yard?
CF No.10-0982 July 2, 2010
Page 2
Although we have a spay/neuter ordinance, LA animal Services reported recently that the number of licenses of unaltered dogs has increased at a much higher percentage than those of altered pets. As a matter of fact, because owners who wish to maintain unaltered dogs much first obtain a breeder's permit, the number who could now breed is in the thousands.
Although introduced as a well-intentioned effort to help rescuers or to provide more homes for rescued animals, in reality allowing more than three dogs per household creates serious noise, conflict between both animals and neighbors, sanitation and public health and safety issues.
1. Some residents "take in/rescue" animals from the streets and are given stray and unwanted animals, which they believe they cannot refuse. They often become "hoarders" and lose the ability to care for the animals and do not spay/neuter nor provide appropriate medical care because of the costs. Increasing the limit numbers enables "collecting" animals and encourages them to not relinquish someone's lost pet to the shelter where it can be reclaimed by the owner. It also subjects animals to months—or even years—of living in squalor, dehydration and malnutrition, and living in their own waste because the hoarder is either afraid to place it in trash bins which might reveal the number of animals or does not have the time to clean.
2. Animal control officers have historically NOT punished nor harassed individuals in regard to the number of well-maintained animals they keep as pets, UNLESS there are complaints by neighbors, in which case the issue must be addressed regardless of zoning or legal limits. (Any attempt to claim otherwise should require proof by the claimant that harassment occurred.)
WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM INCREASED ANIMAL LIMITS?
1. BREEDERS who usually keep a number of breeding adults and a large number of puppies/kittens on the premises. This would allow them to increase their non-taxpaying business in a residential zone.
2. DOG FIGHTERS who keep numerous pit bulls chained on their properties for fighting and breeding purposes. (Note: Often the animal limit is the ONLY way to gain entry to a property to inspect and curtail this activity.)
WHO WOULD NOT BENEFIT FROM INCREASED ANIMAL LIMITS?
1. The residents of the City. BARKING DOGS IS THE #1 COMPLAINT TO LA ANIMAL SERVICES. (I know from personal experience how disturbing and how quickly the quality of life can be diminished by neighboring dogs that bark continuously.)
2. Property owners who might have neighbors with a large amount of animals that create a nuisance or health/safety risk and negatively impact the quality of live and property values in the community.
3. The public that already suffers from daily dog attacks on both humans and animals (the Council needs to be more accurately advised of the magnitude of this problem.) IN FACT, COUNCILMEMBER KORETZ COMMENTED AT A PUBLIC MEETING ON JUNE 2, 2010, TO THE VICTIM OF A DOG ATTACK, "DOG ATTACKS ARE INCREASING AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT."
4. The Mayor and Council, who would receive an increasing number of complaints about animal-related issues, including noise, odor and DANGER.
5. The animals of this City would not benefit from being adopted by people who have no idea how to control a "pack" of dogs (a mentality that occurs in dogs in multiples.)
6. Police officers who are frequently forced to shoot animals in order to enter properties to assist humans or conduct investigations. (The greater the number of dogs, the more danger to the community and to law- enforcement.)
7. LA Animal Services, which would receive far more calls for dog bites and injuries from dog/cat fights in homes.
8. Also, the children who would no longer be able to walk or play on the streets and the pets who could no longer be safely taken for a walk without threat of attack.
As Councilman Koretz stated at the June 2, 2010, meeting, the City cannot handle the problems it already has because of owners not controlling their dogs. This ordinance would merely create more problems, more danger and more suffering by both humans and animals, and we respectfully enter this opposition.
Phyllis Daugherty
14 comments:
Her arguments are ridiculous, for sure. The only shocking part is that she truly believes this junk.
Yes she has animals. No, I don't know what kind or how many. She hates pit bulls. She does like other dogs. Notice that she does not say "imagine living next door to 3 cocker spaniels and 2 bichon frise dogs."
If you want to neutralize her you have to do what she does (if you don't have a job or anything else to do). Go to the government and make noise. She does it. She does is several times per week. They know her and she is consistent in her beliefs and actions--year after year, meeting after meeting-- unlike ADL-LA.
ANYONE who wants their opinion on the official record of any proposed legislation need only write a letter to the City Clerk and specifically ask that it be attached to whichever council file you are addressing. My letter will be on this file. Will yours?
Figure out how this disastrous government works and use what is available at lacity.org and the city clerk's site which will tell you everything pending on any issue through a convenient search box. Automatic notification by email on any council file (proposed item).
More dangerous than Phyllis is the chair of the Public Safety Committee which overseas Animal Services and through which every Animal ordinance must pass on it's way to Council...or not.
This chairman, when told by Linda Barth (who is also against this because it did not come from her), that the most pit bulls impounded come from Sylmar and Pacoima said,"I guess I'll be telling my wife not to use the MetroLink station in Sylmar, anymore." Thankfully, he will not seek re-election this time as Ed has reported. No doubt there's a nice lobbyist position awaiting him and a higher salary than the already bloated Councilmember salary.
That's your government. Get involved or people who do will own it, as they do now. No car? Take the bus.
The humane community needs to start doing what Phyllis does-lobby their Council member, submit letters to the City Clerk and attend as many meetings as possible. Speak during an important item; but also speak on those "off days" during public comment.
This community thinks humane legislation and code amendments will pass on their own if voted on by the AS Commission or proposed by a Council member; or, that a day before an item is heard they can copy and paste the same email; or, make a couple of minutes comment at a meeting the item is heard (when Council member usually already know how they'll vote) will further the cause. It just doesn't work that way.
Please folks, get to know your Council member's animal service liaison. Visit the field office in your district. Heck, bring 'em cookies, preferably vegan. Start educating them in a cordial way. Send letters in your own words. File them with the City Clerk. And, then, also go to Public Safety and Council members. Get your position on record. The more the better.
You can complain about Phyllis or you can do something pro-active to further your cause. If 50 members of the humane community starts to do what Phyllis does, we'd be light years ahead in our movement.
In other words, take a lesson from Phyllis.
The chair of Public Safety's long time employee will be taking over his Council seat. I doubt any opponents, if there are any, will win.
Maybe it's time to get to know him. Visit his campaign office. Ensure easier access to him in the future.
Phyllis letter states:
"2. Animal control officers have historically NOT punished nor harassed individuals in regard to the number of well-maintained animals they keep as pets, UNLESS there are complaints by neighbors, in which case the issue must be addressed regardless of zoning or legal limits. (Any attempt to claim otherwise should require proof by the claimant that harassment occurred.)"
A great letter hc members can write is that, if the above mentioned is true, why not legalize lifting the limit? Why should those providing good humane conditions exist in fear due to being illegal on the number of animals residing in their home? In addition, since such limit violations are discovered by complaints, ACO's can finally focus on conditions without having to look the other way on other laws they are sworn to enforce.
Sounds like a win-win to me.
It's almost like we need to teach people how to participate in their government in this town. Why is that? Look at the last mayoral election. Pitiful, yet everyone complains about AV.
What is it about this city that makes people whine but do nothing?
Yes, chances are that no council members will be in their seats when you make your public comment. They're in the back making deals. Still, you must go if you are able. You can get free parking from your council district office with a phone call.
There was a time..oh 5 years ago...when people besides Phyllis went to Animal Services Commission meetings. At night, on an off campus meeting (4x a year) there might be 100 people or more. Even in the day there were more than just Phyllis in her regular seat.
People gave up on the Board/Commission (it's a "Board" of Commissioners BTW...not a Commission). They are thought of as a rubber stamp and a lot of times they have been. Conscientious and courageous Commissioners have resigned or been fired for speaking their true opinions and trying to effect real change. Elections for officers are often fixed by the Mayor's office.
So why participate? Because only you can change it. I can't even count the number of times I have moved the Board or the Department to submit to the law. I was loud--persistent. They couldn't take it anymore and gave in. Today, the last 5 months of meeting minutes were posted on the Board's LAAS page. Why? Because I demanded it...openly. Why were they withheld for so long when they had been approved a long time ago? Guess. The Secretary forgot? No. By design. Whose design? Guess.
Look at the city clerk's site. Search "animal." See how much LAAS legislation has been slammed through which you probably know nothing about since Boks left. Who did this? Kathy Davis? The Board?
Nope.
Don't call Phyllis or email her or harass her. She's excercising her right from her one-person "movement." The only way to defeat her...if that's your aim...is to play the same game and outnumber her and out argue her. These council members get antsy when the public shows up and get more "reasonable" and fair-minded. Magically. So show up.
Sadly, there are no night Board meetings this year. Budget cuts, but that suits Linda Barth just fine. I think it's $400 per meeting for security and whatever. I can raise that. Do you think they'll accept it. I'm sure Barnette will like the idea of night meetings. We'll see. There will be changes big and small.
Personally, I'm hoping that Barth's (Phyllis has WAY too much influence over Barth) head rolls right over to another Department. Anybody?
Hey everybody, Jeff de la Rosa is right. Attend and speak at meetings. Write letters and attach them to the targeted Council file through the City Clerk. Send letters to individual Council members. Get involved; stay involved.
It's all politics and you gotta know how to play, unless you don't mind losing.
Ed makes a good point-there are the best and worse case scenarios. Of the worse case ones, offer solutions to address them.
Make any motion that a council member passes something he can hang his hat on.
On her Facebook page she says her birthday is May 8, 1960. She is 50? I don't think so. I think she's almost 70.
Bill Rosendthal just sent in a letter on this file. He wants dogs removed from the limit increase. I guess Brenda Barnette can't come to LA after all as she has five dogs, two cats.
If 50 members of the LA animal community does what Phyllis does, we are likely in the last days.
How do you find these files and upcoming proposals for council's actions?
""2. Animal control officers have historically NOT punished nor harassed individuals in regard to the number of well-maintained animals they keep as pets, UNLESS there are complaints by neighbors, in which case the issue must be addressed regardless of zoning or legal limits."
That's a blatatant lie!
My neighbors never complained about my "well-maintained" animals, yet, ACTF came over to my house to demand I have all animals over three killed fully knowing they can't adopt them out either, and knowing 86% of cats relinquished to the shelter are killed.
It takes a single complaint to get your animals killed, and that single complaint doesn't have to come from a neighbor. Anyone can call to make a complaint. Anyone can get your animals killed.
When Barnette shows up in LA with her 5 dogs and two cats is ACTF going to go over to her house to demand she stop maintaining those dogs and two cats because she's got over three? Let's see if the ACTF and it's boss, Coucilman Cardenas plays fair and equal here. He's probably maintaining more than three animals himself, as is Zine, but all isn't fair in love and war is it?
Why doesn't somebody place a complaint against these councilpeople, and their "rescuer" officers who act like they care about the welfare of animals and make them pay in the same way they have made others pay with their lives simply because someone placed a complaint and simply because those animals were alive and well?!
BTW---You people know how to do your research and gather important documentation. How do you find out the name, address and telephone number of an "anonymous" complainant, anyway?
I want this person out of my life, whoever it is. Tried contacting Ross Pool, but he only has "anonymous" on the report. No name, no address, no telephone number---Oh yeah, "it's for *my protection,* right?
How about some real protection? How about they put a stop to people who are getting animals killed with their idiotic, unfounded complaints.
How about these idiots stop jerking us around with their lies? How about an eye for an eye?
You get my animals killed with your little complaint, and the "rescuer/officers" and city councilmen/woman get a complaint and have their animals killed for no reason at all except that they have more than three. They won't like their own laws and policies turned on themselves will they?
It doesn't take a neighbor to get your animals killed. It's much simpler than that. It takes someone who doesn't even know you. It takes someone who knows nothing about you, except that you MIGHT have more than three. If there are more than three, they die. ACTF knows that, animal control knows that, the SPCA knows that, the general manager and their staff know that, the shelter managers know that, the councilmen know that, and the complaining party knows that. That's the point. These people want the animals dead and all it takes is one little phone call from ANYBODY.
So, how do you find out the name, phone number and address of the complaining party? You researchers must know.
Kianna~
""2. Animal control officers have historically NOT punished nor harassed individuals in regard to the number of well-maintained animals they keep as pets, UNLESS there are complaints by neighbors, in which case the issue must be addressed regardless of zoning or legal limits."
That's a blatatant lie!
My neighbors never complained about my "well-maintained" animals, yet, ACTF came over to my house to demand I have all animals over three killed fully knowing they can't adopt them out either, and knowing 86% of cats relinquished to the shelter are killed.
It takes a single complaint to get your animals killed, and that single complaint doesn't have to come from a neighbor. Anyone can call to make a complaint. Anyone can get your animals killed.
When Barnette shows up in LA with her 5 dogs and two cats is ACTF going to go over to her house to demand she stop maintaining those dogs and two cats because she's got over three? Let's see if the ACTF and it's boss, Coucilman Cardenas plays fair and equal here. He's probably maintaining more than three animals himself, as is Zine, but all isn't fair in love and war is it?
Why doesn't somebody place a complaint against these councilpeople, and their "rescuer" officers who act like they care about the welfare of animals and make them pay in the same way they have made others pay with their lives simply because someone placed a complaint and simply because those animals were alive and well?!
BTW---You people know how to do your research and gather important documentation. How do you find out the name, address and telephone number of an "anonymous" complainant, anyway?
I want this person out of my life, whoever it is. Tried contacting Ross Pool, but he only has "anonymous" on the report. No name, no address, no telephone number---Oh yeah, "it's for *my protection,* right?
How about some real protection? How about they put a stop to people who are getting animals killed with their idiotic, unfounded complaints.
How about these idiots stop jerking us around with their lies? How about an eye for an eye?
You get my animals killed with your little complaint, and the "rescuer/officers" and city councilmen/woman get a complaint and have their animals killed for no reason at all except that they have more than three. They won't like their own laws and policies turned on themselves will they?
It doesn't take a neighbor to get your animals killed. It's much simpler than that. It takes someone who doesn't even know you. It takes someone who knows nothing about you, except that you MIGHT have more than three. If there are more than three, they die. ACTF knows that, animal control knows that, the SPCA knows that, the general manager and their staff know that, the shelter managers know that, the councilmen know that, and the complaining party knows that. That's the point. These people want the animals dead and all it takes is one little phone call from ANYBODY.
So, how do you find out the name, phone number and address of the complaining party? You researchers must know.
Kianna~
Post a Comment