ANIMAL ISSUES MOVEMENT (213) 413-6428/413-SPA Y(PH/FAX) firstname.lastname@example.org
August 11, 2010
C F #10-0982 — OPPOSITION to Increased Animal Limits (doosicats) in the City of Los Angeles
Attached is a chart showing the animal limits of cities/jurisdictions in the immediate Los Angeles area and is submitted as a part of this file, which has been referred to LA Animal Services, the CAO and CIA. (Updated on 8/11/10 to add West Hollywood.)
Increasing the legal limit of dogs, in particular, to this number would have a serious impact on the quality of life for both animals and humans in the community and also a negative impact on property values throughout the City, and we believe it should be opposed. It must be remembered that most pets are unaltered. Here are some of the concerns that have been expressed to Council and committees and in opposition by members of the public through the media:
• Animal safety will be endangered by "pack" behavior by dogs, which commonly develops when they are in large multiples.
• Barking/noise will be increased, not only within each residence which increases the number of pets, but throughout the community, because barking is "contagious." (One of the most frequent causes of dog barking is the presence of cats or squirrels in their sight.)
• Cats may be allowed to roam and create a nuisance on surrounding properties (including health/waste issues.)
• Emergency services and public-service personnel will be impaired from entering properties.
• Law-enforcement officers may face increased danger from aggressive-breed dogs maintained to protect criminal activity locations,
• It is reasonable to assume attacks by escaping dogs will increase.
• Sanitation/odor problems can be created by this large number of animals.
• Parasite/disease control (including airborne/contagious diseases) will increase.
• There will be increased risk for children, adults and motorists from unconfined dogs in the community and streets because of the difficulty of properly controlling/confining this number of animals. (We do not have fencing requirements specific to dogs.)
• Most pets in Los Angeles are not altered (spay/neuter ordinance is enforced only on complaint) and this could create increased accidental/intentional breeding in many backyards—creating, in essence, numerous "kennels" in residential zones.
(Ed M. Comment. I do not believe "most pets in Los Angeles are not altered.)
• There is no guarantee that dogs/cats in these large numbers can live together without serious injury to each other.
(Ed M. This is nonsense. The proof is in the pudding, as I know many people with more than 5 cats or dogs. Sometimes precautions need to be taken. And of course, there is no "guarantee." Nothing is guaranteed, but to assume the worst is not logical, but shows a profound bias.)
It is an unnecessary and unwise proposal to place this large number of pets per residence and per block throughout the City, where many lots are less than 4,000 sq/ft. Some pet owners exceed the three dog/three cat limit already and there is no problem and no complaint; thus, no action is taken by the City, so there is really no compelling reason to increase the allowance for ALL pet owners to five dogs (or ten total dogs and cats) per resident.
(Ed's Comment: Yes, there is no problem, but if there is a complaint, whether justified or not, it leads to inspections and orders to comply which can lead to the deaths of some animals as happened to Kianna and many others.)
There is no guarantee that this will increase adoption of shelter animals as indicated in the motion; and, because the majority of those who relinquish animals to city shelters report it is because they cannot afford care, there is no reason to assume that having more animals will guarantee greater quality care and longer retention.
(Ed's Comment: Of course there is no guarantee. Phyllis uses this argument a lot, but there is no "guarantee" either that people with 3 dogs or cats will not adopt an extra animal or two. The current G.M. of animal services, Brenda Barnette has stated on facebook, that:
"In communities where pet limits have increased, shelter deaths have decreased and there has been no increase in hoarding or dog bites that I can find. On the surface it looks like more lives saved and more licensing revenue and both seem like the right answers.")
DOG & CAT LIMITS (Cities surrounding Los Angeles.) A few jurisdictions allow more animals with a kennel permit; however, the City of Los Angeles requires kennels to be 500 feet from any residence) Note: Information obtained by phone calls to AC or Code Enforcement or by visiting websites (August 2010).
(Ed's Comment: I have not been able to duplicate any of Phyllis' findings on pet limits in surrounding cities by searching on the Internet the M.C. or animal control sites of each. I will begin a phone search Monday.)
TOTAL NO. OF DOGS/CATS ALLOWED PER PROPERTY
(COMMENT BY ED M. Phyllis then provides a chart with the city name on the left and pet limits on the right. However, I could not cut the list of cities to put it next to the limits. However, she supplies a long list of cities in the County with very small combined pet limits. I could not duplicate her findings by looking at websites of any of the locations she cites, although, so far, I have checked only 4. However, she specifically cites Santa Monica, a community where I lived for 23 years, and she says regarding that city:
SANTA MONICA - Although they have no limit in their MC, their City Attorney advises them they can implement the LA County limits automatically: Three (3) dogs/three (3) cats.. (Santa Monica requires a kennel permit and city business license for anyone having above the "average" number of pets.)
(Ed's Comment: I have no idea what she means. Does she mean that Marsha Moutrie, the City attorney said "they" (the city or Council) and implement the County limit automatically? Does this mean she said the city attorney told her that this can be done without any legislative process or public input? I doubt Marsha said or meant that.
In any event, that would regard some future action by the city of Santa Monica. Currently there is no restriction on cats. AND, S.M. DOES NOT require a kennel permit and city business license for "anyone" having the "above average" number of pets as of six months ago, when I was talking to Stan Hernacki, Acting director of Santa Monica's animal control, and almost 30 year employee there.
She plain made this up--I believe. However, I have just emailed my good friend Kevin Mckeown, a councilmember of 12 years who I recently talked to, as well as Marsha Moutrie, the City Attorney who I have known since 1997, to see if anything Phyllis Daugherty wrote about Santa Monica's limits is true.
I think we will find she just made it up. If that is true, we can reasonably believe other "facts" she states may also be made up.)
COUNTY OF L.A. Three (3) dogs and three (3) cats. (In unincorporated areas, county owners can have up to five cats if they're all spayed or neutered and live inside." (This requires a vet examination or sterilization certificate for each cat, plus they must have rabies shots.)
ORANGE COUNTY Animal permits required
You are allowed no more than 3 dogs and 3 cats over 4 months of age per residence. If you have more than that you need to apply for an animal permit.
(Ed's comment: which seems to mean that more than 3 each are allowed with a permit.)