Rosendahl/Koretz Motion Will Increase Animal Limits in Los Angeles
By Phyllis M. Daugherty, Director of Animal Issues Movement | January 01, 2011
On June 4, 2010, Councilmen Bill Rosendahl/Paul Koretz introduced a motion allowing each resident of Los Angeles to own five dogs AND/or five cats (ten animals). This is a 66-percent increase over the current three dogs and/or three cats limit--already one of the highest in tahe immediate area.
Introduction of a measure with such potential impact on safety, health, quality of life, and property values of an entire city should have involved notification to homeowners/stakeholders in every community and extensive study by LA Animal Services, Planning/Zoning/Code Enforcement, Public Works/Sanitation, County Health, L.A. Police and Fire Departments (including medical response), U.S. Postal Service and utility companies whose employees enter private property.
Also, no Environmental Impact Report was requested, ignoring considerations of the impact on environmental/wildlife issues--waste management, noise, odor, parasites/disease control.
In some City areas, this increase could result in hundreds of animals within one block and more pets roaming the streets. Dog barking, already the #1 complaint to LAAS, will increase geometrically everywhere. With rising veterinary costs and a faltering economy, expanding animal limits could backfire and increase shelter relinquishments and abandonments. Is this humane to animals or humans?
The Councilmen’s premise is that the current limit, “…is preventing stray dogs and cats from finding homes and potentially putting them at risk to be euthanized.” And that, by increasing the numbers, “…it could raise revenue for the City through additional animal registration fees.”
There is no evidence that increasing limits guarantees adoption of stray animals from shelters. Many may come from puppy mills. importers, backyard breeders, or Internet sources. Only about ten percent of L.A.’s dogs are licensed—will those who don’t license three suddenly license five?
Cats are not registered. Pit bulls and feral cats make up the greatest percentage of impounds and euthanasias, and it is unlikely more would be adopted.
L.A. Animal Services does not enforce the current animal limit without complaints of inhumane conditions/ neglect/ cruelty. This allows many responsible owners to have extra pets already.
On August 17, Councilman Rosendahl sent a letter to L.A. Animal Services Commission urging support of his “original motion” and an expedited hearing. Two public meetings were just planned: (
www.laanimalservices.com) (Brenda.Barnette@lacity.org)
Anyone wishing to submit a position on this issue should do so promptly, addressing Councilmen Rosendahl, Koretz, and the entire City Council , and filing it with the City Clerk, John.White@lacity.org (Ref: CF 10-0982).
On September 22, 2010, the Department of Animal Services will be hosting two Town Hall meetings to hear from the community about Increasing Pet Limits in the City of Los Angeles.
Please attend and let your opinion count!
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
6:30 p.m.
West Los Angeles
Animal Care Center
11361 W. Pico Boulevard
|
Comments to date: 2. Page 1 of 1. Phyllis M. Daugherty
Los Angeles | 2:13pm on Monday, January 3rd, 2011 | Thank you so much for printing my opinion on this very important matter which could have such major impact on the lives and safety of both animals and humans in the city of Los Angeles and beyond.
CF 10-0982 (increasing animal limits) has been waived by the Public Safety Committee and assigned by Council President Eric Garcetti to the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee. As soon as I have more information, I will ask the Brentwood News to allow me to provide an update. |
Search4Truth
Santa Monica | 12:55pm on Saturday, January 1st, 2011 | Barnette has bigger fish to fry it appears. Let her collect those outstanding 90% licenses first, that should bring in revenue. Considering that only 10% of pets are acquired through the shelter systems and 30% are acquired from breeders/pet stores, looks to me like she is handing over a 30% increase in business to her breeder friends. Not to mention backyard breeding can increase if those limits are raised. No, this is not a good idea, it is one of the more stupid ideas I have ever heard of. |
|
