With last weeks sad news that a local woman's house cat was mistakenly killed at Gwinnett's shelter after failing what appears to be the shelter's "feral cat" evaluation the question arises "why are we killing our feral cats?"
Even the wildest cat can learn to live around humans and may even exhibit pet like behavior to the person who feeds him. Those locally who care for cat colonies with feral cats witness cats who rub up against their legs and even perhaps purr, just like pet cats. Don't mistake their aloofness as being a symptom of a dangerous nuisance animal.
Contrary, even the most pampered house cat who escapes and runs loose in the wild can survive with the deftness of the most voracious raccoon, rabbit, squirrel or other wild animal. Wouldn't that cat deserve the same respect and rights of survival as any wild animal?
Behaviorally speaking the answer again appears to be that feral cats are wild animals and such should be treated by animal control as such. We have no more right to address feral cats through "trap and kill" policies as we do to the wholesale slaughter of our communities birds, rabbits, squirrels or raccoons.
If a pet cat is abandoned or runs off and gets lost in the woods, has kittens and the kittens that grow up wild because they have no contact with people, are they wild or domestic? Technically, they would be domestic because of domesticated parentage but don't all domesticated cats ultimately come from the wild?
Defining a feral cat as a "nuisance" in the absence of any nuisance behavior is simply wrong. Society goes to great length to protect "wild animals" with great efforts being placed on "allowing" man to live amongst them.
Regardless of whether the cat is the most beloved and pampered pet or the wildest outcast, shelter policies that claim to be based on humane policies view the feral cat as without a human home to protect them and therefore is better off taken to a shelter and killed. Does Gwinnett Animal Control view un-owned cat’s life as a series of brutal experiences? Is Gwinnett responsible for "protecting" these cats from continued andfuture suffering. Or is the ultimately suffering endured when these cats are rounded up and killed within hours of arriving at the shelter?
The reality is that all animals living in the wild face hardship—and feral cats are no exception. Since no animal groups support the trapping and killing of other wild animals—raccoons, rabbits, fox—why do we reserve this fate for feral cats? Wild animals would not choose to have their "suffering" to survive in the wild replaced with feline suicide so why is man so quick to make that choice instead?
If feral cats are genetically identical to wild animals, and they survive in the wild like wild animals, andthey are unsocial to humans like wild animals, and they share the same hardships as wild animals, and if they can and do live in the wild like wild animals, shouldn’t we treat them as we do wild animals—by advocating on their behalf, pushing for their right to life, and respecting and protecting their habitats?
In a humane community why should we condemn feral cats simply because of mistaken logic that some may face hardship while a vast majority peacefully co-exist in nature? I have to say I am not a "cat person" but do respect all animals rights to co-exist in our community. Wholesale rounding up of any animal must be condemned especially in light of other communities that have set up programs for feral colonies implementing trap, neuter, release in controlling the population of the colonies.
Please contact your commissioner and animal control and express your displeasure with Gwinnett's policy of killing feral cats. Slaughtering animals is not part of any animal control policy our community should support.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Foreclosure Market Killing Our Pets
The AJC ran an interesting article that only confirms what those of us in the rescue community have suspected for many months.
The housing slump and high number of homes going into foreclosure have caused shelter intake numbers to dramatically increase.
Families throughout the Atlanta area are having to make the heartbreaking decision of surrendering their family pets when they lose the family home.
Even neighborhoods like my own are not immune to this slumping housing market. A glut of older homes for sale and an over development of new homes which have caused many property owners watch the value of their homes drop. The house next door went unsold for a number of months before it too went into foreclosure last summer.
While those of us who own homes riddled with empty foreclosed homes nearby which causes concerns over decreased housing values and potential crime magnets.
While the housing market has caused a crisis for families and their pets it has also spawned a market for real estate speculators looking to cash in on the glut of foreclosed homes throughout the Atlanta area. Many of these speculators view the pets living in these homes and surrounding neighborhoods as a hindrance in cashing in on this market.
Susie Porter, a local Solid Source realtor, bought the run down home located next to the hounds and I last summer. My initial relief in watching the house being repaired would soon turn to a nightmare when Porter decided that my hounds stood in the way of her attaining her own windfall profit by quickly selling the property.
In the AJC, Susie Porter, a real estate agent from Snellville was quoted as saying "I bought the house next door out of foreclosure last year with plans to fix it up and live in it."
http://community.myfoxatlanta.com/blogs/By20hounds/2008/05/28/Lilburn_man_wont_give_up_dogs_despite_jail_threat
While honesty and ethics seem to get lost in Porter's real desire to make a quick $65,000 cashing in on her new investment property, what doesn't get lost was her obsessive hatred for "hound dogs". While moving her family in was never an option - moving my hounds out was.
Porter's claim that the dogs barked might have been confused with what she really meant "DEAD DOG'S - DON'T BARK..........". After placing her extensively remodeled "must see inside" home on the market for only ten days Porter pounced on the opportunity to have the dogs impounded under Gwinnett's radical barking dog ordinance.
According to her comments in the AJC she didn't want to see me jailed "I just want him to be reasonable." There's nothing reasonable in trying to get my hounds impounded and sent to our new county shelter where they would become simply a blip on a statistic sheet. A brand new shelter already killing for space even though it had only been open for a few short months.
While Cobb County appears to have had a 15% increase in the number of pets killed during the first five months of 2008 Gwinnett's numbers had soared 50% higher. How many of these numbers are from people who simply dump their pets? How many are from people who are encouraged to dump their pets from unethical realtors like Porter who view the family pet as "disposable". How many of the pets being killed could of and should have been offered alternatives that would have kept them out of the shelter in the first place? These are the sorry questions we all need answers to.
Sadly, Porter is not alone in taking socially irresponsible policies on marketing houses that include family pets. Are these corporate positions part of a training program to deal with dogs and cats in marketing theior listings? One of her colleagues offers this advise on "leashing the family dog" in the backyard in order to show the house. Another suggests that "pet odors" are an important consideration when trying to sell your house.
One can only guess how many family dogs and cats end up in our shelters simply because home owners act irresponsibly and follow Solid Source's "professional" advise. Of course, tying the family pet out in the back yard would be a violation of Gwinnett's anti-tethering ordinance but this seems to be inconsequential in making that sale.
http://www.billwagnerhomes.com/SolidSource4.aspx?page=19&content=Getting%20Started%20Selling%20Your%20Home
Even neighborhoods like my own are not immune to this slumping housing market. A glut of older homes for sale and an over development of new homes which have caused many property owners watch the value of their homes drop. The house next door went unsold for a number of months before it too went into foreclosure last summer.
While those of us who own homes riddled with empty foreclosed homes nearby which causes concerns over decreased housing values and potential crime magnets.
While the housing market has caused a crisis for families and their pets it has also spawned a market for real estate speculators looking to cash in on the glut of foreclosed homes throughout the Atlanta area. Many of these speculators view the pets living in these homes and surrounding neighborhoods as a hindrance in cashing in on this market.
Susie Porter, a local Solid Source realtor, bought the run down home located next to the hounds and I last summer. My initial relief in watching the house being repaired would soon turn to a nightmare when Porter decided that my hounds stood in the way of her attaining her own windfall profit by quickly selling the property.
In the AJC, Susie Porter, a real estate agent from Snellville was quoted as saying "I bought the house next door out of foreclosure last year with plans to fix it up and live in it."
http://community.myfoxatlanta.com/blogs/By20hounds/2008/05/28/Lilburn_man_wont_give_up_dogs_despite_jail_threat
While honesty and ethics seem to get lost in Porter's real desire to make a quick $65,000 cashing in on her new investment property, what doesn't get lost was her obsessive hatred for "hound dogs". While moving her family in was never an option - moving my hounds out was.
Porter's claim that the dogs barked might have been confused with what she really meant "DEAD DOG'S - DON'T BARK..........". After placing her extensively remodeled "must see inside" home on the market for only ten days Porter pounced on the opportunity to have the dogs impounded under Gwinnett's radical barking dog ordinance.
According to her comments in the AJC she didn't want to see me jailed "I just want him to be reasonable." There's nothing reasonable in trying to get my hounds impounded and sent to our new county shelter where they would become simply a blip on a statistic sheet. A brand new shelter already killing for space even though it had only been open for a few short months.
While Cobb County appears to have had a 15% increase in the number of pets killed during the first five months of 2008 Gwinnett's numbers had soared 50% higher. How many of these numbers are from people who simply dump their pets? How many are from people who are encouraged to dump their pets from unethical realtors like Porter who view the family pet as "disposable". How many of the pets being killed could of and should have been offered alternatives that would have kept them out of the shelter in the first place? These are the sorry questions we all need answers to.
Sadly, Porter is not alone in taking socially irresponsible policies on marketing houses that include family pets. Are these corporate positions part of a training program to deal with dogs and cats in marketing theior listings? One of her colleagues offers this advise on "leashing the family dog" in the backyard in order to show the house. Another suggests that "pet odors" are an important consideration when trying to sell your house.
One can only guess how many family dogs and cats end up in our shelters simply because home owners act irresponsibly and follow Solid Source's "professional" advise. Of course, tying the family pet out in the back yard would be a violation of Gwinnett's anti-tethering ordinance but this seems to be inconsequential in making that sale.
http://www.billwagnerhomes.com/SolidSource4.aspx?page=19&content=Getting%20Started%20Selling%20Your%20Home
Those who advocate for our community's companion animals need to speak out against "corporate" policies that put any pet at risk. Realtors who work for Solid Source who don't share these same "sorry" irresponsible opinions on selling homes with pets need to speak out as well.
Marketing of houses must take into consideration the safety of all of our family pets and not become fall out that drives the escalating shelter intake that costs far too many pets their lives.
"Through May, the Gwinnett Animal Welfare and Enforcement Center has put down 2,570 dogs and cats. Last year, during the same five-month period, it euthanized 1,720."
"I don't know if it's [foreclosures], or if it's just sorry people," says Gwinnett Police Lt. Mary Lou Respess, who oversees the center. "But we have noticed an increase" in unwanted animals.
Maybe it's the "sorry" overzealous enforcement of Gwinnett's revised animal ordinance that has animal control recommending impounding pets on fixable offenses that are contributing to this crisis.
The numbers being reported by the AJC directly contradicts the information being posted on Gwinnett's Animal Shelter web site which states: "With pet overpopulation on the rise, we're proud to report a decrease in incoming animals and an increase in animals placed to individuals and rescue groups through our shelter."
The AJC should be commended for seeking out the truth about Gwinnett's shelter numbers especially since that information IS NOT being shared with local residents. It is deplorable that OUR county animal control refuses to post updated records on the number of pets that enter and die in our shelter. Nothing has been posted since year end 2006.
Despite our shelter director's opinion it's not just the "sorry people" causing the increases in "unwanted" pets turning up in our shelter. It's the small number of "sorry" realtors like the state's witness against my hounds that drive these increases as well. It's the new direction of sorry shelter management policies that help drive this huge increase in killing by not investigations allegations before recommending impounding family pets.
Instead of developing programs to help pet owners keep their pets out of our shelter we are witnesses a wave of prosecutorial sentencing that adds to the shelter numbers.
There appears to be a disconnect with our shelter's management still convinced on blaming the "sorry people" in the community for skyrocketing intake numbers. These intake numbers include an equally disturbing number of "wanted" pets that are being forced into our shelter over minor violations of our revised animal ordinance. Correctable ordinance violations that result in forcing pets into an overcrowded shelter is simply irresponsible.
This "sorry" policy comes right out of our county leadership in animal control and the courts that should be protecting the sentinel interests of our community's pets. Our pets are not the problem - it's the owners who should face the burden of penalties under the law.
This disturbing transgression is also shared in our local court system as well. Solicitor Joe Randazzo was quoted as offering me a deal to avoid trial and jail: "give up 10 of the 25 dogs, and accept 24 months on probation." While that was an improvement over animal control's recommendation of surrendering over 20 of my hounds in order to avoid a twelve year and $24,000 fine sentence any sentencing arrangement for barking dogs that leads to even one death is simply irresponsible. Are our courts so ill advised as to how irresponsible those sentencing arrangement would be?
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Gwinnett Revised Animal Ordinance
Last night after a very lengthy board meeting I was able to give comments to the commissioners which addressed many of the issues surrounding Gwinnett's new revised animal ordinance.
There are several points that I addressed. They include issues of sentencing and killing dogs on ordinance violations. I also discussed more precisely the way that the animal advisory board drafted and passed this law. In a packet that was given to each of the commissioners I included the open records copies of the animal advisory board meeting from 2006 onward.
Additionally, copies of the animal advisory bylaws, copies of the Georgia Canine Coalition board of directors and copies of all the donors who contribute to Gail's political action coalition that serves to protect the interest of many of Georgia's kennel clubs.
The entire draft of my presentation (which I condensed in my comments to the board) was also included. What follows are my prepared comments that clearly ask to have the revised animal ordinance retracted with public hearings being scheduled to help draft a RESPONSIBLE animal ordinance in Gwinnett that serves not only the public that owns pets but more importantly a law that serves the best interests of the pets themselves. Any such responsible law should include:
To support and promote laws, regulations and court decisions which positively benefit the lives of wild, exotic, farm and companion animals in the State of Georgia, and to oppose existing or proposed legislation negatively impacting animal welfare;
To advocate for the effective enforcement and prosecution of Georgia laws designed to protect wild, exotic, farm and companion animals, and in particular, to advocate felony prosecutions when applicable and appropriate, and to facilitate educational opportunities for those involved with such enforcement and prosecution; and
To support the strengthening of spay/neuter initiatives designed to address companion animal overpopulation in the State of Georgia.
Those last three comments come from the mission statement for the Georgia Legal Professionals for Animals web site. One would question how the current law addresses these concerns especially in light of the fact that both the President and Vice President of GLPA were provided input in drafting this revised law.
It is one thing for the Georgia Legal Professionals for Animals, Inc. to espouse an ethical and moral precept which maintains that animals are sentient beings, with a capacity for pain and suffering and an intrinsic right to their own lives. It is an entirely different concept to understand the rationale of forcing impound on those same pets who already enjoy living safely in responsible homes.
The concept of protecting and serving the needs of ALL of my pets from a cruel and inhumane sentence of ending up in our county's shelter is what I will continue to advocate for.
Board of Commissioner’s Meeting June 24th, 2008
I am here to discuss the revised animal ordinance passed by this Board of Commissioners in January of 2007. This ordinance was passed without allowing any public reading of the proposed changes or even more importantly – asking local pet owners for their comments on the new law.
Thousands of pet owners are now discovering that even being a responsible pet owner can lead to criminal charges being filed for such minor infractions as barking dogs, dogs tethered for short periods of time and a number of other issues that micro-manage the care we provide our pets.
Instead of focusing our animal resources on educating citizens on how to be responsible pet owners, our resources are being directed towards prosecuting and impounding pets with the worst possible consequences leading to more deaths at our brand new $15 million dollar shelter.
Gwinnett has historically been a pet friendly place to raise our families – including our family of pets. Funding for pet friendly projects, be that new dog parks or more recently our new shelter have met with overwhelmingly approval of these expenditures. This revised law allows for sentencing our family pets into impound situations that will fill this shelter with barking dogs.
It is the outrageous penalties that the ordinance authorizes that have the pet owners outraged. I am facing twelve years in jail and up to $24,000 fines for what is a first time citation for alleged dog barking. That threat has been clearly presented during the negotiation process trying to force me to surrender my family of hounds.
We are outraged with the board of commissioners for authorizing a law that would seize and dispose of property by ending the lives of our pets in sentencing. Those who support such draconian punishment not only lose our respect but our future votes as well. You do not force responsible pet ownership with irresponsible punishment that leads to killing our family pets.
The Nuisance Animal "dog barking" statute does nothing towards drawing our neighborhoods together but instead serve as a catalyst for ripping them apart.
This revised ordinance allows for any entity to persecute and manipulate the court systems to rid neighborhoods of our family pets. This includes “predatory” realtors and speculators who purchase properties in our neighborhoods merely to make a quick profit. Selling these homes at all cost, including the lives of our family of pets, only to move on once that sale is completed.
With this developer’s mantra of “dead dogs don’t bark”, anyone who allows their pets outdoors where barking may occur can now be cited. Even if the dog is barking at a squirrel it is in violation of the ordinance if the complaining party hears the barking.
Since the law YOU passed doesn’t require any investigation by animal control – doesn’t require that any noise level requirements be met or proved – it makes defending this law virtually impossible. This law leaves open for interpretation under what guidelines how even the word intruder comes into play.
Witnesses who live miles away can still file complaints under this ordinance.
Even though I am facing twelve years in jail, huge financial fines if convicted, recorder’s court has denied me a jury trial because ordinances citations don’t qualify under county rules.
Recorders Court apparently isn’t familiar or doesn’t follow a document called the U.S. Constitution that entitles all citizens the right to be heard by a jury of our peers.
No one wants to live in a community where and live in fear - fear that their family pet could very well be next to be accused of being a "public nuisance". This law doesn’t support responsible pet ownership but instead criminalizes the ownership of pets.
As disturbing as the revised animal ordinances are what is more disturbing is the blatant way that this law was created.
In March of 1993 a resolution of the board of commissioners created the Animal Advisory Council. The purpose of this group to provide a CLEAR CHANNEL for communication and dialog with citizens who responsibly own and cherish their families pets and the Board of Commissioners.
I don't think I need to clarify that transparent government is essential in allowing all citizens voices to be heard on important issues in our community. To those of us who own and cherish our pets there would be nothing MORE important then the passage of revisions to our animal ordinances.
How the Animal Advisory Council drafted and agreed on the new revised law remains a mystery. Those revisions were passed on "staff recommendations" in a total elapsed time of SIXTEEN SECONDS. No public reading of the amendments were posted nor was citizen comments allowed prior to this becoming the new animal ordinance.
The real problem with the passage of this law is HOW it became law in the first place. Despite several attempts at trying to determine when, why and how this bill morphed into the nightmare that it is - there is NO DOCUMENTATION on how the revised bill was even created. It appears to have grown like a mushroom in the dark of night.
During the process of drafting this revised ordinance in 2006, AAC meetings were routinely moved from location to location, scheduled meetings appear to have only minimal information available or minutes have been misplaced. Minutes approved by the council don’t even exist.
In an even more flagrant abuse of the open meetings act the last meeting was held in a Lawrenceville Restaurant where COUNTY business was discussed. I would hope that NO ONE on this board is going to suggest that having to purchase a meal to attend an animal advisory meeting even remotely complies with Georgia's Open Meeting Act.
The current Animal Advisory Council has become a special interest advisory group as opposed to providing locals pet owners with a say in our county’s animal policies. NO ONE on that group represents your average pet owner yet there are TWO members who represent the breeders and kennel clubs.
These two members, Gail Laberge and Clara Seals also serve as board members for the Georgia Canine Coalition – a political action group that takes money from breed clubs in Georgia. Having the Georgia Canine Coalition involved in setting animal welfare policy in Gwinnett is as offensive as allowing a coalition of developers with their special interests run the county’s planning council.
One needs to question whether the needs of pet owners and rescue groups are being circumvented to the special interest needs of local breed clubs instead?
Why should issues of saving shelter pets become a priority when the kennel clubs are competing for the very same pet homes in our community?
Officers chosen for the Animal Advisory Council, Gail Laberge and Clara Seals are expected to do their jobs – they hold key positions on the board being the chairperson and secretary that controls and approves vital meeting functions including scheduling, meeting agenda’s and keeping of council’s records.
These are standard procedures clearly spelled out in the Animal Advisory Council’s bylaws. These standard procedures once enacted should have lead to proper ordinances being proposed instead of this controversial ordinance that was recommended for passage.
As officers who should be following parliamentary procedures it appears from open records requests that this council has failed miserably in that responsibility.
It bewilders the average citizen that meetings that were held two years ago still have records being stored and kept under Ms.Laberge’s control. This is NOT open government but a governmental entity that drafts laws for approval under a veil of secrecy and EXCLUDES the local citizens from that process.
My question for all of you is what are YOU going to do about this? Obviously those of us who own pets and vote are totally outraged at these abuses in open government.
Nothing short of removing both Laberge and Seals will restore confidence in the Animal Advisory Council. They need to be replaced by an open process that includes members of the community who own and rescue pets. Otherwise, if THIS Board of Commissioner’s cannot or will not provide the oversight the law requires then this council needs to be disbanded.
Citizens are simply tired of the same old worn out promises of our elected officials who promise to watch out for our interest up until they are elected, only to have the same officials serve the special interests groups once elected.
There are several coalitions of pet interest groups being formed now that these issues are in the public’s eye. The worst-case scenario of a “perfect storm of outrage” will be a joining of all these groups to form ONE voice in making sure our voices are heard. If we can’t get our voices heard through the current Board of Commissioners then rest assured we can and will have our voices heard in the election booths in November.
Randy DeCarlo
Lilburn
Finally, Jock Connell mentions that the new shelter has increased the number of hours the shelter is open for the public to adopt pets. That information is NOT currently on the county's shelter web page. I might also suggest if serving the needs of our community's pet owners is a priority then maintaining accuracy on the shelter's petfinder's site should be important as well.
Those who agree that we need to completely reevaluate our animal ordinances through public hearings should please email the county commissioners with that request.
Current Animal Advisory Board
Tricia.Smith@gwinnettcounty.com Tricia Smith
DK1011@aol.com Dennis Kronenfield - Feline Issues
calicoglk@netzero.com Gloria Kennedy = Gwinnett Humane Society
outland@laberge.org Gail Leberge Chairperson and Lawrenceville Kennel Club
allisonwilkerson@bellsouth.net Allison Wilkerson Rooks Gwinnett Municipal Association
CPSeals@aol.com Clara P. Seals Member at Large
carla.brown@gwinnettcounty.com Carla Brown Member at Large
Mary.Respess@gwinnettcounty.com Mary Lou Repress New Shelter Director
County Commissioners
Charles.Bannister@gwinnettcounty.com
Commission Chairman:Charles Bannister770.822.7010
District 1 Commissioner: Lorraine Green 770.822.7001 Lorraine.Green@gwinnettcounty.com
District 2 Commissioner: Bert Nasuti770.822.7002 Bert.Nasuti@gwinnettcounty.com
District 3 Commissioner: Mike Beaudreau770.822.7003 Mike.Beaudreau@gwinnettcounty.com
District 4 Commissioner: Kevin Kenerly 770.822.7004 Kevin.Kenerly@gwinnettcounty.com
Crosspost freely
There are several points that I addressed. They include issues of sentencing and killing dogs on ordinance violations. I also discussed more precisely the way that the animal advisory board drafted and passed this law. In a packet that was given to each of the commissioners I included the open records copies of the animal advisory board meeting from 2006 onward.
Additionally, copies of the animal advisory bylaws, copies of the Georgia Canine Coalition board of directors and copies of all the donors who contribute to Gail's political action coalition that serves to protect the interest of many of Georgia's kennel clubs.
The entire draft of my presentation (which I condensed in my comments to the board) was also included. What follows are my prepared comments that clearly ask to have the revised animal ordinance retracted with public hearings being scheduled to help draft a RESPONSIBLE animal ordinance in Gwinnett that serves not only the public that owns pets but more importantly a law that serves the best interests of the pets themselves. Any such responsible law should include:
To support and promote laws, regulations and court decisions which positively benefit the lives of wild, exotic, farm and companion animals in the State of Georgia, and to oppose existing or proposed legislation negatively impacting animal welfare;
To advocate for the effective enforcement and prosecution of Georgia laws designed to protect wild, exotic, farm and companion animals, and in particular, to advocate felony prosecutions when applicable and appropriate, and to facilitate educational opportunities for those involved with such enforcement and prosecution; and
To support the strengthening of spay/neuter initiatives designed to address companion animal overpopulation in the State of Georgia.
Those last three comments come from the mission statement for the Georgia Legal Professionals for Animals web site. One would question how the current law addresses these concerns especially in light of the fact that both the President and Vice President of GLPA were provided input in drafting this revised law.
It is one thing for the Georgia Legal Professionals for Animals, Inc. to espouse an ethical and moral precept which maintains that animals are sentient beings, with a capacity for pain and suffering and an intrinsic right to their own lives. It is an entirely different concept to understand the rationale of forcing impound on those same pets who already enjoy living safely in responsible homes.
The concept of protecting and serving the needs of ALL of my pets from a cruel and inhumane sentence of ending up in our county's shelter is what I will continue to advocate for.
Board of Commissioner’s Meeting June 24th, 2008
I am here to discuss the revised animal ordinance passed by this Board of Commissioners in January of 2007. This ordinance was passed without allowing any public reading of the proposed changes or even more importantly – asking local pet owners for their comments on the new law.
Thousands of pet owners are now discovering that even being a responsible pet owner can lead to criminal charges being filed for such minor infractions as barking dogs, dogs tethered for short periods of time and a number of other issues that micro-manage the care we provide our pets.
Instead of focusing our animal resources on educating citizens on how to be responsible pet owners, our resources are being directed towards prosecuting and impounding pets with the worst possible consequences leading to more deaths at our brand new $15 million dollar shelter.
Gwinnett has historically been a pet friendly place to raise our families – including our family of pets. Funding for pet friendly projects, be that new dog parks or more recently our new shelter have met with overwhelmingly approval of these expenditures. This revised law allows for sentencing our family pets into impound situations that will fill this shelter with barking dogs.
It is the outrageous penalties that the ordinance authorizes that have the pet owners outraged. I am facing twelve years in jail and up to $24,000 fines for what is a first time citation for alleged dog barking. That threat has been clearly presented during the negotiation process trying to force me to surrender my family of hounds.
We are outraged with the board of commissioners for authorizing a law that would seize and dispose of property by ending the lives of our pets in sentencing. Those who support such draconian punishment not only lose our respect but our future votes as well. You do not force responsible pet ownership with irresponsible punishment that leads to killing our family pets.
The Nuisance Animal "dog barking" statute does nothing towards drawing our neighborhoods together but instead serve as a catalyst for ripping them apart.
This revised ordinance allows for any entity to persecute and manipulate the court systems to rid neighborhoods of our family pets. This includes “predatory” realtors and speculators who purchase properties in our neighborhoods merely to make a quick profit. Selling these homes at all cost, including the lives of our family of pets, only to move on once that sale is completed.
With this developer’s mantra of “dead dogs don’t bark”, anyone who allows their pets outdoors where barking may occur can now be cited. Even if the dog is barking at a squirrel it is in violation of the ordinance if the complaining party hears the barking.
Since the law YOU passed doesn’t require any investigation by animal control – doesn’t require that any noise level requirements be met or proved – it makes defending this law virtually impossible. This law leaves open for interpretation under what guidelines how even the word intruder comes into play.
Witnesses who live miles away can still file complaints under this ordinance.
Even though I am facing twelve years in jail, huge financial fines if convicted, recorder’s court has denied me a jury trial because ordinances citations don’t qualify under county rules.
Recorders Court apparently isn’t familiar or doesn’t follow a document called the U.S. Constitution that entitles all citizens the right to be heard by a jury of our peers.
No one wants to live in a community where and live in fear - fear that their family pet could very well be next to be accused of being a "public nuisance". This law doesn’t support responsible pet ownership but instead criminalizes the ownership of pets.
As disturbing as the revised animal ordinances are what is more disturbing is the blatant way that this law was created.
In March of 1993 a resolution of the board of commissioners created the Animal Advisory Council. The purpose of this group to provide a CLEAR CHANNEL for communication and dialog with citizens who responsibly own and cherish their families pets and the Board of Commissioners.
I don't think I need to clarify that transparent government is essential in allowing all citizens voices to be heard on important issues in our community. To those of us who own and cherish our pets there would be nothing MORE important then the passage of revisions to our animal ordinances.
How the Animal Advisory Council drafted and agreed on the new revised law remains a mystery. Those revisions were passed on "staff recommendations" in a total elapsed time of SIXTEEN SECONDS. No public reading of the amendments were posted nor was citizen comments allowed prior to this becoming the new animal ordinance.
The real problem with the passage of this law is HOW it became law in the first place. Despite several attempts at trying to determine when, why and how this bill morphed into the nightmare that it is - there is NO DOCUMENTATION on how the revised bill was even created. It appears to have grown like a mushroom in the dark of night.
During the process of drafting this revised ordinance in 2006, AAC meetings were routinely moved from location to location, scheduled meetings appear to have only minimal information available or minutes have been misplaced. Minutes approved by the council don’t even exist.
In an even more flagrant abuse of the open meetings act the last meeting was held in a Lawrenceville Restaurant where COUNTY business was discussed. I would hope that NO ONE on this board is going to suggest that having to purchase a meal to attend an animal advisory meeting even remotely complies with Georgia's Open Meeting Act.
The current Animal Advisory Council has become a special interest advisory group as opposed to providing locals pet owners with a say in our county’s animal policies. NO ONE on that group represents your average pet owner yet there are TWO members who represent the breeders and kennel clubs.
These two members, Gail Laberge and Clara Seals also serve as board members for the Georgia Canine Coalition – a political action group that takes money from breed clubs in Georgia. Having the Georgia Canine Coalition involved in setting animal welfare policy in Gwinnett is as offensive as allowing a coalition of developers with their special interests run the county’s planning council.
One needs to question whether the needs of pet owners and rescue groups are being circumvented to the special interest needs of local breed clubs instead?
Why should issues of saving shelter pets become a priority when the kennel clubs are competing for the very same pet homes in our community?
Officers chosen for the Animal Advisory Council, Gail Laberge and Clara Seals are expected to do their jobs – they hold key positions on the board being the chairperson and secretary that controls and approves vital meeting functions including scheduling, meeting agenda’s and keeping of council’s records.
These are standard procedures clearly spelled out in the Animal Advisory Council’s bylaws. These standard procedures once enacted should have lead to proper ordinances being proposed instead of this controversial ordinance that was recommended for passage.
As officers who should be following parliamentary procedures it appears from open records requests that this council has failed miserably in that responsibility.
It bewilders the average citizen that meetings that were held two years ago still have records being stored and kept under Ms.Laberge’s control. This is NOT open government but a governmental entity that drafts laws for approval under a veil of secrecy and EXCLUDES the local citizens from that process.
My question for all of you is what are YOU going to do about this? Obviously those of us who own pets and vote are totally outraged at these abuses in open government.
Nothing short of removing both Laberge and Seals will restore confidence in the Animal Advisory Council. They need to be replaced by an open process that includes members of the community who own and rescue pets. Otherwise, if THIS Board of Commissioner’s cannot or will not provide the oversight the law requires then this council needs to be disbanded.
Citizens are simply tired of the same old worn out promises of our elected officials who promise to watch out for our interest up until they are elected, only to have the same officials serve the special interests groups once elected.
There are several coalitions of pet interest groups being formed now that these issues are in the public’s eye. The worst-case scenario of a “perfect storm of outrage” will be a joining of all these groups to form ONE voice in making sure our voices are heard. If we can’t get our voices heard through the current Board of Commissioners then rest assured we can and will have our voices heard in the election booths in November.
Randy DeCarlo
Lilburn
Finally, Jock Connell mentions that the new shelter has increased the number of hours the shelter is open for the public to adopt pets. That information is NOT currently on the county's shelter web page. I might also suggest if serving the needs of our community's pet owners is a priority then maintaining accuracy on the shelter's petfinder's site should be important as well.
Those who agree that we need to completely reevaluate our animal ordinances through public hearings should please email the county commissioners with that request.
Current Animal Advisory Board
Tricia.Smith@gwinnettcounty.com Tricia Smith
DK1011@aol.com Dennis Kronenfield - Feline Issues
calicoglk@netzero.com Gloria Kennedy = Gwinnett Humane Society
outland@laberge.org Gail Leberge Chairperson and Lawrenceville Kennel Club
allisonwilkerson@bellsouth.net Allison Wilkerson Rooks Gwinnett Municipal Association
CPSeals@aol.com Clara P. Seals Member at Large
carla.brown@gwinnettcounty.com Carla Brown Member at Large
Mary.Respess@gwinnettcounty.com Mary Lou Repress New Shelter Director
County Commissioners
Charles.Bannister@gwinnettcounty.com
Commission Chairman:Charles Bannister770.822.7010
District 1 Commissioner: Lorraine Green 770.822.7001 Lorraine.Green@gwinnettcounty.com
District 2 Commissioner: Bert Nasuti770.822.7002 Bert.Nasuti@gwinnettcounty.com
District 3 Commissioner: Mike Beaudreau770.822.7003 Mike.Beaudreau@gwinnettcounty.com
District 4 Commissioner: Kevin Kenerly 770.822.7004 Kevin.Kenerly@gwinnettcounty.com
Crosspost freely
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Speaking out for Gwinnett's pets....
A now controversial revised animal ordinance passed in Gwinnett by our Board of Commissioners in January of 2007. This ordinance was passed in all of SIXTEEN seconds without allowing any public reading of the proposed changes or even more importantly – asking Gwinnett’s County of pet owners and rescuers for their comments on the new law.
Now, thousands of pet owners throughout the county are discovering that even being a responsible pet owner in Gwinnett can lead to criminal charges being filed for such minor infractions as barking dogs, dogs tethered for short periods of time, no tags, and a number of other issues that micro-manage the care we provide our pets.
Even issues of veterinarian care which should be a decision made between a pet owner and their family vet now comes under scrutiny of animal control's discretion. All of these offenses should be "fix it" citations but instead the new revised ordinance allows the county to impound your pet. Pet owners sentenced to jail for not complying with judicial sentencing are being threatened with jail terms only further endangering their ability to care for their family pets.
Instead of focusing our animal control resources on educating citizens on how to be responsible pet owners our animal control resources are being directed towards prosecuting and impounding dogs with the worst possible consequences leading to more deaths at our brand new $15 millon dollar shelter.
How this revised ordinance became "law" is even more disturbing. This revision of animal issues in Gwinnett was passed solely on the recommendations of the county attorney's with the blessing of Gwinnett's dysfunctional and highly secretive Animal Advisory Council.
Gail Laberge, the long time or should I say "life long" chair of AAC claims this group has "no power" but only acts as an advisory for the Board of Commissioners. To be clear, Gail represents the interest of local kennel clubs and not the interest of those pet owners and rescue volunteers with a vested interest in preventing pets from entering our animal shelter.
This law needs to be retracted and a dialog with the community's pet owners and rescue volunteers needs to be heard before any changes in our ordinances are passed into law.
More importantly the makeup of the Animal Advisory Board is in serious need of new blood which will include active participation by local pet owners and private volunteer rescuers who have for too long now been silenced from this process. While Laberge may be powerless to do anything but protect her own special interests WE do have the power of electing our commissioners to protect our family interests INCLUDING our families of pets.
There will be an evening session with the Board of Commissioner's on Tuesday June 24th at Gwinnett's Judicial Center. The meeting starts at 7:00 PM and the public is permitted to speak at the end. With the entire Board running for re-election it is imperative that the voices of our community's pets be represented as well as Gwinnett's other "important issues. Those of you who have something to add to this dialog are encouraged to write out your thoughts which can also be presented to the commissioners for public consideration.
WE all have strong feelings on making Gwinnett a more humane community and for moving towards a direction of building a no kill community. Aren't we tired of all the dire excuses of blame that changes nothing and allows the killing as usual become our standard animal control policy?
I look forward to seeing you there.
Permission to cross post
Now, thousands of pet owners throughout the county are discovering that even being a responsible pet owner in Gwinnett can lead to criminal charges being filed for such minor infractions as barking dogs, dogs tethered for short periods of time, no tags, and a number of other issues that micro-manage the care we provide our pets.
Even issues of veterinarian care which should be a decision made between a pet owner and their family vet now comes under scrutiny of animal control's discretion. All of these offenses should be "fix it" citations but instead the new revised ordinance allows the county to impound your pet. Pet owners sentenced to jail for not complying with judicial sentencing are being threatened with jail terms only further endangering their ability to care for their family pets.
Instead of focusing our animal control resources on educating citizens on how to be responsible pet owners our animal control resources are being directed towards prosecuting and impounding dogs with the worst possible consequences leading to more deaths at our brand new $15 millon dollar shelter.
How this revised ordinance became "law" is even more disturbing. This revision of animal issues in Gwinnett was passed solely on the recommendations of the county attorney's with the blessing of Gwinnett's dysfunctional and highly secretive Animal Advisory Council.
Gail Laberge, the long time or should I say "life long" chair of AAC claims this group has "no power" but only acts as an advisory for the Board of Commissioners. To be clear, Gail represents the interest of local kennel clubs and not the interest of those pet owners and rescue volunteers with a vested interest in preventing pets from entering our animal shelter.
This law needs to be retracted and a dialog with the community's pet owners and rescue volunteers needs to be heard before any changes in our ordinances are passed into law.
More importantly the makeup of the Animal Advisory Board is in serious need of new blood which will include active participation by local pet owners and private volunteer rescuers who have for too long now been silenced from this process. While Laberge may be powerless to do anything but protect her own special interests WE do have the power of electing our commissioners to protect our family interests INCLUDING our families of pets.
There will be an evening session with the Board of Commissioner's on Tuesday June 24th at Gwinnett's Judicial Center. The meeting starts at 7:00 PM and the public is permitted to speak at the end. With the entire Board running for re-election it is imperative that the voices of our community's pets be represented as well as Gwinnett's other "important issues. Those of you who have something to add to this dialog are encouraged to write out your thoughts which can also be presented to the commissioners for public consideration.
WE all have strong feelings on making Gwinnett a more humane community and for moving towards a direction of building a no kill community. Aren't we tired of all the dire excuses of blame that changes nothing and allows the killing as usual become our standard animal control policy?
I look forward to seeing you there.
Permission to cross post
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
AJC - Man won't take probation, give up dogs to avoid jail
The following article has been printed in the AJC. I have prepared comments to present to our county commissioners which will address the serious problems with Gwinnett's revised animal ordinances.
It is one thing to complain about the problems these laws cause especially the resulting impact of pet owners forced to surrender their family pets or who simply dump the family pet to prevent facing being cited under the new ordinances.
Gail Laberge can claim that the animal advisory council acts only as an advisory group but it is in that capacity that this group has failed to protect responsible pet owners and more importantly the very lives of pets now at risk. Gail Laberge does not represent the interests of thousand of Gwinnett pet owners who are responsible for their family pets. She doesn't represent the rescue community either.
Holding animal advisory meetings at local resteraunts and having AAC records in disarray does not come close to complying with the laws concerning open records or open meetings.
Gwinnett's Animal Advisory Council is in need of new leadership which understands how to reach out to pet owners in the community instead of simply providing meaningless lip service instead.
http://www.ajc.com/food/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2008/06/18/gwinnett_dog_lover.html
Man won't take probation, give up dogs to avoid jail
Randy DeCarlo intends to complain to Gwinnett commission
By GEORGE CHIDI
The Atlanta Journal-ConstitutionPublished on: 06/18/08
A Lilburn man accused of violating the county's noise ordinance with his pack of two dozen hound dogs plans to bark at the county commission Tuesday.
Randy DeCarlo said Wednesday that he wants the commission to address his concerns about Gwinnett County's new animal ordinance and the policies — including those governing euthanizing cats and dogs — of Gwinnett's animal control department, and the county's animal advisory council.
Georgie Chidi/AJC
(ENLARGE)
Gwinnett County Solicitor Joe Randazzo has offered Randy DeCarlo, seen here with a few of his dogs, a deal to avoid trial and jail: give up 10 of the 25 dogs, and accept 24 months on probation, but the 55-year-old animal rescue advocate has refused.
"Obviously, the first thing we're going to discuss is the animal ordinance and how it effect responsible pet owners," DeCarlo said.
Police issued DeCarlo 24 citations for violating Gwinnett County's nuisance noise ordinance last year. DeCarlo potentially faces 12 years in jail — six months for each of the 24 charges. Gwinnett County Solicitor Joe Randazzo has offered DeCarlo a deal to avoid trial and jail: give up 10 of the 25 dogs, and accept 24 months on probation, but the 55-year-old animal rescue advocate has refused.
DeCarlo's case, originally scheduled for trial this month, has been pushed back to August 26 in Gwinnett County Recorder's Court. DeCarlo has replaced his attorney and is seeking a dismissal, he said. He has also made open records requests of the county's animal advisory council for meeting minutes, seeking information to bolster his claim that the county's policy-making process on animal issues hasn't been open to public scrutiny.
Gail Leberge, chairwoman of the council, said her group has been in compliance with the state's open meetings laws and is open to the public. "We're strictly an advisory group," she said. "We have no powers."
It is one thing to complain about the problems these laws cause especially the resulting impact of pet owners forced to surrender their family pets or who simply dump the family pet to prevent facing being cited under the new ordinances.
Gail Laberge can claim that the animal advisory council acts only as an advisory group but it is in that capacity that this group has failed to protect responsible pet owners and more importantly the very lives of pets now at risk. Gail Laberge does not represent the interests of thousand of Gwinnett pet owners who are responsible for their family pets. She doesn't represent the rescue community either.
Holding animal advisory meetings at local resteraunts and having AAC records in disarray does not come close to complying with the laws concerning open records or open meetings.
Gwinnett's Animal Advisory Council is in need of new leadership which understands how to reach out to pet owners in the community instead of simply providing meaningless lip service instead.
http://www.ajc.com/food/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2008/06/18/gwinnett_dog_lover.html
Man won't take probation, give up dogs to avoid jail
Randy DeCarlo intends to complain to Gwinnett commission
By GEORGE CHIDI
The Atlanta Journal-ConstitutionPublished on: 06/18/08
A Lilburn man accused of violating the county's noise ordinance with his pack of two dozen hound dogs plans to bark at the county commission Tuesday.
Randy DeCarlo said Wednesday that he wants the commission to address his concerns about Gwinnett County's new animal ordinance and the policies — including those governing euthanizing cats and dogs — of Gwinnett's animal control department, and the county's animal advisory council.
Georgie Chidi/AJC
(ENLARGE)
Gwinnett County Solicitor Joe Randazzo has offered Randy DeCarlo, seen here with a few of his dogs, a deal to avoid trial and jail: give up 10 of the 25 dogs, and accept 24 months on probation, but the 55-year-old animal rescue advocate has refused.
"Obviously, the first thing we're going to discuss is the animal ordinance and how it effect responsible pet owners," DeCarlo said.
Police issued DeCarlo 24 citations for violating Gwinnett County's nuisance noise ordinance last year. DeCarlo potentially faces 12 years in jail — six months for each of the 24 charges. Gwinnett County Solicitor Joe Randazzo has offered DeCarlo a deal to avoid trial and jail: give up 10 of the 25 dogs, and accept 24 months on probation, but the 55-year-old animal rescue advocate has refused.
DeCarlo's case, originally scheduled for trial this month, has been pushed back to August 26 in Gwinnett County Recorder's Court. DeCarlo has replaced his attorney and is seeking a dismissal, he said. He has also made open records requests of the county's animal advisory council for meeting minutes, seeking information to bolster his claim that the county's policy-making process on animal issues hasn't been open to public scrutiny.
Gail Leberge, chairwoman of the council, said her group has been in compliance with the state's open meetings laws and is open to the public. "We're strictly an advisory group," she said. "We have no powers."
Georgia Canine Coalition Opposes Banning Gas in Shelters
While the rescue community has worked long and hard trying to change the inhumane practice of ending a pet's life with the use of gas - the same kennel clubs who support GCC oppose these changes as well.
Gail Laberge, however, through her Georgia Canine Coalition OPPOSES HB 1060. Laberge wear several hats in lobbying for laws that concern our family pets. She is the longtime chairperson for Gwinnett's Animal Advisory Council which helped draft and passed one of the most repressive animal ordinances in Georgia.
Apparently the Gwinnett bill's wording which allows sentencing of six months in jail, up to $1,000 in fines and impounding of the family pet for such minor first time offenses such as dog barking, fifteen minute tethering violations, no tags on collar ect doesn't bother Gail as much as the wording on a law that outlaws the use of gas in Georgia's shelters.
Gail is also the AKC's Board Member for legislative liaison meaning she claims the knowledge and determination to protect pet owners from abusive regulations that threaten our family of pets - well, that is everyone except those who live in Gail's home county of Gwinnett.
Here's Gail's position on supporting the current laws that allow gassing in our shelters.
Georgia Canine Coalition's policy position on "HB 1060: Ban use of Gas Chambers." OPPOSE!!! The bill is currently pending before the House Committee on Agriculture & Consumer Affairs."
House Bill 1060 was introduced on January 31, 2008 and is in the House Agriculture and Consumer Affairs Committee. This bill deals with euthanasia in shelters, training and certification of certain persons authorized to euthanize animals, and the record keeping and public reporting of certain information by all rescue groups and those designated as a “public shelter agency”. It defines a “public shelter agency” as “any facility operated by or under contract with the state or any political subdivision of the state for the purpose of impounding or harboring seized, stray, homeless, abandoned or unwanted animals. Such term shall include any veterinarian or veterinary clinic which operates for such purpose n addition to its customary practice”. The GCC has serious concerns with this bill as it is written and therefore opposes it.
(G.C.C. Item 9.) HB 1060: Ban use of Gas Chambers. OPPOSE!!! The bill is currently pending before the House Committee on Agriculture & Consumer Affairs. http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/house/Committees/agriculture/agIndex.htm Write (faxes are best) and urge a public hearing on this bill; tell committee members to vote NO on H.B. 1060.
Here is HB 1060 which would ban the use of gas in euthanasia of shelter animals. It always amazes me that Gail would have a problem with the wording of bills like HB 1060 but seems completely oblivious to the wording in Gwinnett's Revised Animal Ordinance.
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/fulltext/hb1060.htm
Can we really trust Gal Laberge to protect our pets in Gwinnett?
Gail Laberge, however, through her Georgia Canine Coalition OPPOSES HB 1060. Laberge wear several hats in lobbying for laws that concern our family pets. She is the longtime chairperson for Gwinnett's Animal Advisory Council which helped draft and passed one of the most repressive animal ordinances in Georgia.
Apparently the Gwinnett bill's wording which allows sentencing of six months in jail, up to $1,000 in fines and impounding of the family pet for such minor first time offenses such as dog barking, fifteen minute tethering violations, no tags on collar ect doesn't bother Gail as much as the wording on a law that outlaws the use of gas in Georgia's shelters.
Gail is also the AKC's Board Member for legislative liaison meaning she claims the knowledge and determination to protect pet owners from abusive regulations that threaten our family of pets - well, that is everyone except those who live in Gail's home county of Gwinnett.
Here's Gail's position on supporting the current laws that allow gassing in our shelters.
Georgia Canine Coalition's policy position on "HB 1060: Ban use of Gas Chambers." OPPOSE!!! The bill is currently pending before the House Committee on Agriculture & Consumer Affairs."
House Bill 1060 was introduced on January 31, 2008 and is in the House Agriculture and Consumer Affairs Committee. This bill deals with euthanasia in shelters, training and certification of certain persons authorized to euthanize animals, and the record keeping and public reporting of certain information by all rescue groups and those designated as a “public shelter agency”. It defines a “public shelter agency” as “any facility operated by or under contract with the state or any political subdivision of the state for the purpose of impounding or harboring seized, stray, homeless, abandoned or unwanted animals. Such term shall include any veterinarian or veterinary clinic which operates for such purpose n addition to its customary practice”. The GCC has serious concerns with this bill as it is written and therefore opposes it.
(G.C.C. Item 9.) HB 1060: Ban use of Gas Chambers. OPPOSE!!! The bill is currently pending before the House Committee on Agriculture & Consumer Affairs. http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/house/Committees/agriculture/agIndex.htm Write (faxes are best) and urge a public hearing on this bill; tell committee members to vote NO on H.B. 1060.
Here is HB 1060 which would ban the use of gas in euthanasia of shelter animals. It always amazes me that Gail would have a problem with the wording of bills like HB 1060 but seems completely oblivious to the wording in Gwinnett's Revised Animal Ordinance.
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/fulltext/hb1060.htm
Can we really trust Gal Laberge to protect our pets in Gwinnett?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)