Happenings In My Small Town

For some time now, the city of Shelbyvillle has been reworking the city dog ordinance. This action came after there was a local woman mauled by dogs and her dog killed. After this event, the city and the county decided that something, law or ordinance, be enacted concerning dangerous dogs. Many good things have come from the city and county talking to residents, animal organizations, and concerned pet owners. I'm glad that they are trying to be proactive, instead of reactive. The dangerous dog provision has been voted on and is becoming law. Unfortunately, there are some other issues that have come up during the restructuring of the city ordinance.--Click HERE to see the ordinance in its workings.-- The one change that concerns me most is part 3-116: Limitations On Keeping Domestic Animals. You guys know that I have several pets that I often refer to as "the zoo". It seems that the city wants to put a limit on how many pets I can own. We are NOT a big city. We are still rural in many ways. Heck, all we have in town is a Wal-Mart, a few grocery stores, and a few restaurants.

3-116 Limitations on Keeping Domestic Animals

(1) Domestic Animals are defined as dogs, cats, birds, snakes, small rodents, rabbits, chickens(including roosters), ducks and other fowl, which can be and are continually kept or raised in a home or on a lot. Animals not considered domestic animals include, but are not limited to,the following: horses, cows, donkeys, goats, sheep, and any endangered or exotic species of animals.

(2) Domestic animals as defined in permitted in all zone classifications within the City. Themaximum number of inside or outside animals is listed below.

(a) Inside Animals:

i. The number of birds, snakes, and small rodents, kept in aquariums, terrariums, cages, or other similar containers shall not be limited unless limited by health codes.

ii. All other domestic animals kept inside shall be limited to not more than five (5)total domestic animals. Except for the domestic animals list in subsection (a)(ii) above, the total number and type of inside animals allowed shall not exceed the number of animals that are allowed outdoors.

As you guys know, I have over the newly proposed limit. Before I have my say, I do want to go on record saying that this limitation may not be ALL bad. It will act as a deterrent to animal hoarders and people that breed dogs and cats improperly. It can be an instrument of good.

BUT for me, someone who obeys the animal laws: leash law, vaccinations, veterinary care, food, water, walks, and much love, this is a rather devastating blow. I spend my life trying to protect animals and save them. My pets are my babies. I don't have children, and they bring me much happiness and love. This limitation makes me feel like my right to happiness is being infringed upon. There have been several meetings with pet owners and the Shelbyville City Council on exactly this matter, and last Tuesday night, council members really got an earful. I agree with the point a lady made in attendance:

"...why she was being punished for the irresponsible action of others, saying that 'good people are being punished for the bad people.' "

Apparently, at this point, they are only putting the limitation on pets kept outide according the local paper. So you see, I'm confused from the get go. The written ordinance says inside and outside, so what am I supposed to think? It's frustrating not knowing how to prepare myself! My pets are NEVER outside, unless they are on a potty break or being walked by me or Casey. We are with them AT ALL TIMES with leashes. My dogs are inside dogs ONLY!! They are never kept outside AT ALL!!! So what I want to know is, how is this going to affect me? I've really been troubled over this for the past several months. I understand that my dogs can be "grandfathered" in, but this, according to the ordinance, requires many hoops to jump through. I can keep what I have now, but I can't adopt more if I lose any that I have now.

I believe one of the best ways to prevent questionable residents from owning many dogs is to charge them an overage fee. A certain fee for each dog owned over the limit. I would have no problem with paying that fee. My dogs and other pets mean that much to me. I do believe that it would dissaude others. Money is a strong motivator. It would definitely cull out those pet owners that were in ownership on impulse. Apparently, pet owners like me have come out in droves against the limitation. So, there should be a lot more meetings on the issue. I wasn't able to be there on Tuesday night this time, because of work. You can bet that I'll DEFINITELY be there next time! I'll keep you all posted on the developments. This has just made me heartsick.