City mulling new restrictions on pet ownership

Ban Pit Bulls that would be a start

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

Yeah, lets get more government.... Why don't we crack down on illegals, or many of the other problems our city has... Freedom, people that make comments like yours should be banned.

Bruce (and others)

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,

Chief John Walter

Chief Walter,

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

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

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