Animal Services Was Enforcing Everything the Longcore Litigants Wanted, not the Much More Limited Judges Decision

Wondering why the City was enforcing the no feeding the coyote law, and declaring feeding ferals a kennel violation, I reread the Judges Final Decision and the original 2008 lawsuit.


In the original lawsuit  the litigants (Longcore et al) requested the City to ban feeding feral cats because of the coyote law, M.C. 53.06.5, and also, if more than three ferals were fed on a site, to enforce that as a violation of the kennel law.


The judge in the case did not grant these two demands. He states basically that the City had to get out of the TNR business, but he did not demand they ban feral cat feeding because of wildlife nor the feeding more than 3 cats at a place. The judge clearly saw that this was a few steps too far and maybe even saw this would end all private TNR because you can't have TNR without live cats to trap and neuter, which cutting off their food would do.


He did require that feral cats in the City's pounds could not be released to individuals or to TNR groups. This was later changed by an modification agreement signed by all parties that allowed ferals to be released to TNR groups and individuals if they promised not to re-release them back to the same or other colonies and stayed on the adopters' properties. It also allowed some limited advertising of TNR through, for example, allowing the Pet Press back into the shelters.


Why on earth the City was enforcing the most strict demands contained within the lawsuit is anyone's guess, but it could be that Boks et al, either thought or were told that it was best to enforce them to avoid further litigant complaints. 


However, there is no excuse that the City continued to enforce the feral feeding ban after the Judges final decision which, I believe was in February of this year. No excuse at all.