|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A controversial new animal control ordinance won’t be approved in Mountain View without some significant changes, City Council members said Tuesday.
In a study session, council members took straw votes on controversial parts of the ordinance, including a portion that would have required cat licenses and an annual rabies vaccination.
“As to the question of whether cats need rabies shots or not, if it’s not settled in the minds of veterinary professionals, it’s not my place to make the decision,” said council member Ronit Bryant, echoing the opinion of much of the council.
With member Mike Kasperzak absent, the council was unanimous in opposing the rabies vaccinations requirements, a complete turn-around. The council had approved the requirements along with the rest of the ordinance in June before community uproar over the cat license and rabies vaccine requirement prevented a second vote that would have made the ordinance official.
Council member Jac Siegel recalled talking to a veterinarian at Adobe Animal Hospital about the issue. “They don’t automatically say you need a rabies shot,” Siegel said. The veterinarian had “never seen a case where someone had been bitten by a cat. I think it’s problem we don’t need to solve.”
The requirement would have meant cat owners in violation would be subject to an “administrative citation” and a fine, a lesser punishment than an infraction or misdemeanor, and which would have been handled by the city’s new animal control services provider, Santa Clara-based Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority.
Council members also killed a requirement that cats in Mountain View be licensed at a cost of $10 a year (an effort to increase low rates of returning lost cats), but left the option available for residents. Council members examined the possibility of requiring cats to be micro-chipped to allow them to be returned to their owners, then informally voted to keep the option available on a voluntary basis.
According to a survey of over 700 residents, only 23 percent percent said rabies vaccinations should be required for indoor cats. For outdoor cats, 43 percent of residents said the vaccination should be required. Only 6 percent of cat owners said they had licensed their cat.
Residents at a community meeting strongly opposed the cat licenses, and on Tuesday told the council that there has not been a case of a cat with rabies in Santa Clara or the state of California for many years. They said that veterinarians don’t always recommend the vaccination, which is said to cause health problems for some cats.
In a survey of 67 animal control providers around the country it was found that 92 percent of their “veterinary medical experts” recommend requiring rabies vaccinations for all cats, but only 55 percent actually require it. Only 39 percent of the providers required cat licenses.
At the urging of some residents, council members considered expanding the number of dogs and cats allowed in a household from four to six, but decided to leave the limit at four, as it has been for years.
“It’s something we don’t need to solve right now, it’s working,” Siegel said of the policy, enforcement of which is “complaint-driven.”
Council member John McAlister opposed the limit on the number of dogs and cats in a household after asking questions about what would happen if a dog or cat has a litter of puppies or kittens. City staff members said owners would be able to keep the litter for up to four months.
Council members also supported a prohibition on dogs in city buildings, clarifying a portion of the ordinance that would have kept dogs off “city property.” City staff members said the intent was to keep them out of city buildings. Animals would be allowed with a permit or permission from the city manager. Service animals always would be allowed.
Some council members said the city should follow the lead of local companies that allow dogs in their offices.
“If city employees bring dogs into the workplace, it’s certainly acceptable to me,” Bryant said.
Mayor John Inks voted against most of the provisions, saying the new ordinance was unnecessary.
An official vote on the entire ordinance will happen at a later date.
I asked my three cats what they thought of the proposed ordinance and Jolie stuck out her tongue!
Whoever said there hasn’t been a case of a cat with rabies in California in many years doesn’t have their facts straight. There was one in Sonoma this year. This information is publicly available. I find it interesting the council doesn’t fact-check before making decisions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMhwddNQSWQ
Is all I can say about M.V. Government these days.
How does an indoor cat contract rabies? There are known issues concerning problems with the vaccine. Is the city ready to handle the liability issues by making MANDATORY infringement of existing rights?
Why get involved with another RVENUE GENERATION issue? Don’t your cops write enough tickets for REVENUE ENHANCEMENT?
“How does an indoor cat contract rabies?”
Great question! I’m on a number of neighbor forums and several times a week, a lost cat notice goes out for an “indoor cat”. Usually the cat turns up again by nightfall, but sometimes several days or never. What do you think happens…infection!
“No collars on indoor cats? No collars on feral cats? No collars on any cat!!! ”
No problem! A child walks up to a cat to pet it, slash, rabies infection, dead kid. But we have to save our cats from these so called “known issues” with the feline vaccines.
“But cats never get rabies… it’s dogs that do!”
Oh really?
http://www.cdc.gov/features/dsrabies/
According to the CDC, cats have more rabies than dogs!!!
“Rabies in Cats on the Rise
While dogs have historically been associated with rabies transmission to humans, cats are more likely to be reported rabid in the U.S. Cats are often in close contact with both humans and wild animals, including those that primarily transmit rabies. This creates a situation in which rabies may be more easily transmitted from to humans from cats.”
So, thank you mountain view council for forcing dogs to be licensed so they can be vaccinated. Much of the dog licensing fees will be to care for all of the “indoor cats” and their offspring that keep coming into the shelter. That’s fair, right?
Why? Cats wipe out our bird population and they spread more rabies than dogs. Why should the dog owners shoulder the burden?
MV Council– Please align the licensing fees with dogs and cats. It’s just not fair otherwise. That means either mandatory licensing for cats or no charge licensing for dogs. Or simply make it voluntary.
Other states (like Massachusetts) have cat rabies vaccine laws. What is the big deal? If it protects people and the animal, it’s a good law. I had an indoor cat for years, and every now and then he did dash out the door and disappear for a few hours. I was careful, but he knew how to plan his escape. He’d make a run for it when an unsuspecting guest was heading out, or when I was distracted, like when signing for a UPS delivery…. I was glad his vaccines, including rabies, were current.
One more thing! Who is this veterinarian who says he never saw a person get bit by a cat? Well, I think it’s obvious why… When a person gets bit by an animal , they don’t go to a veterinarian,. They go to their own physician or an ER. I know this from personal experience! I GOT BIT BY MY OWN CAT! The one and only time I tried to give him a bath (the pet salon made it look easy). He sunk his tooth right into my wrist. I had to get a tetanus booster. Thankfully I didn’t have to get the series of rabies shots because my cat was vaccinated.
I was once bitten by my cat, a cat that had not been vaccinated against rabies. The bite became infected overnight, and I sought treatment from a physician who – knowing the cat had NOT been vaccinated against rabies, and also knowing that the cat was an indoor only cat – decided to place me on a dose of antibiotics and stated that no further treatment was necessary. She stated that the chance that my cat had rabies was infinitesimally small and unless I began exhibiting any unusual symptoms there was absolutely no need to be worried that I had been infected with rabies.
Feel free to get your cat all the vaccinations you want, and I will likewise do the same with mine…emphasis being on the freedom to choose.
Thanks.
Freedom? Freedom to have a diseased cat ? What more freedoms should pet owners have? Freedom to abuse or neglect their pets? I don’t think anyones freedom is getting stomped on by a simple vaccine law. Maybe their wallets. Perhaps the law could also set price limits on required vaccines.
Uh, my cats are very well cared for, thank you very much. My cats (litter mates) also happen to be immune compromised, and because of that fact and combined with the fact that they are indoor only cats with no other animals in the home, my vet has recommend AGAINST any further vaccinations, including a rabies vaccination. So yeah, you ARE stomping on MY freedom when you are trying to MANDATE that my cats be forced to receive vaccinations which go against the veterinarians medical recommendation.
It took recently passed (10/2011) state legislation “Molly’s Bill” (AB258) in order to allow dog owners the same freedom to NOT vaccinate dogs, which meet certain medical and other criteria.
Here’s the link to read more about the bill…
http://www.petmd.com/blogs/thedailyvet/pmahaney/2012/sept/rabies_in_california_mollys_bill#.UkUSCODVk20
first paragraph of the article…
“I feel compelled to praise the California government for making vaccination an individual decision undertaken as a collaboration between pet owners and veterinarians. This is a victory for our canine companions, as circumstances exist where a vaccination can induce illness and can be a contributing cause of death.”
MVresident67 makes good points that help support cat licensing and vaccination.
In the example she cited, it was her cat that bit her. That means she was able to observe the animal’s behavior to ensure that it wasn’t exhibiting signs of rabies infection.
However, she shows her ignorance when she says that the doctor told her not to be worried about rabies unless she exhibits unusual symptoms… Once symptoms show, the bite victim is almost certainly dead 90+ pct mortality rate even with treatment!!
She also raises an issue around immune compromised cats and Molly’s law. I’m fine to have a Molly’s law exception for cats. However, this particular forum poster clearly doesn’t understand how the law is implemented. You have to apply with a vets letter. Keep it away from the public and any unvaccinated animals. I believe there is a clause holding the owner financially responsible for any damages done.
Given that most cat owners don’t want to do anything, I can’t imagine that they would fulfill the requirements of Molly’s law. Mvresident67: would you?
Also most cats can be collared to prove vaccination status or Molly’s law exception. The rest can be tattooed.
But again, the lazy cat owner won’t want to do anything…
Meow.
rabidcats: “In the example she cited, it was her cat that bit her. That means she was able to observe the animal’s behavior to ensure that it wasn’t exhibiting signs of rabies infection.”
>>Uh, neither my treating physician nor myself was concerned that my cat had rabies…so, there was no observing animal behavior going on.
~~~~~
rabidcats: “She also raises an issue around immune compromised cats and Molly’s law. I’m fine to have a Molly’s law exception for cats. However, this particular forum poster clearly doesn’t understand how the law is implemented. You have to apply with a vets letter. Keep it away from the public and any unvaccinated animals. I believe there is a clause holding the owner financially responsible for any damages done. ”
>> Why would you assume that I did not read and/or do not understand Molly’s Bill and how it is supposed to work? Did you read the part of my post in re: Molly’s Bill, which stated the following:
“It took recently passed (10/2011) state legislation “Molly’s Bill” (AB258) in order to allow dog owners the same freedom to NOT vaccinate dogs, which meet certain medical and other criteria.”
Or, did you not understand the content of my post, the part which clearly stated…
“My cats (litter mates) also happen to be immune compromised, and because of that fact and combined with the fact that they are indoor only cats with no other animals in the home, my vet has recommend AGAINST any further vaccinations, including a rabies vaccination. So yeah, you ARE stomping on MY freedom when you are trying to MANDATE that my cats be forced to receive vaccinations which go against the veterinarians medical recommendation.”
~~~~~
rabidcats: “Given that most cat owners don’t want to do anything, I can’t imagine that they would fulfill the requirements of Molly’s law. Mvresident67: would you?”
>> You are painting with some pretty broad brush strokes with that one. Care to support your assertion with some actual statistics?
~~~~~
“Also most cats can be collared to prove vaccination status or Molly’s law exception. The rest can be tattooed.”
>> Indoor only cats should need no collar or other proof of vaccination or Molly’s Bill type exception. They are INDOOR ONLY cats. The vet has the records, and if the jack booted thugs come to my door and demand proof of vaccination or exception – of my indoor only immune compromised status of my cats – I’ll refer them to my vet.
Oh, but wait…Mountain View city council pulled up on this one and was unanimous in their decision opposing the rabies vaccinations and cat licensing requirements.
Meow.
“>>Uh, neither my treating physician nor myself was concerned that my cat had rabies…so, there was no observing animal behavior going on.”
Most likely you are forgetting what the doctor told you to do. I wasn’t there, so maybe you were BOTH dumb.
“>> Why would you assume that I did not read and/or do not understand Molly’s Bill and how it is supposed to work? Did you read the part of my post in re: Molly’s Bill, which stated the following:…”
Because you are clearly clueless about the realities of animal disease and their impact on the community. Your insistence that this is a private decision for yourself to make is not only selfish, but also shows you have not read Molly’s law outside of press releases or news sites.
Depending on where you live in California, you may need to submit 3 forms to the gov. Are you telling us that you knew this already?
Did you know that even with a vets note, you can be denied? Money is on you didn’t.
“>> Indoor only cats should need no collar or other proof of vaccination or Molly’s Bill type exception. They are INDOOR ONLY cats. The vet has the records, and if the jack booted thugs come to my door and demand proof of vaccination or exception – of my indoor only immune compromised status of my cats – I’ll refer them to my vet.”
Wow. You are really dumb.
You keep saying your cats are indoor cats, but indoor cats get out.
Also, people could just claim that their untagged cats are indoor cats that just escaped.
Cat people are lazy… That’s why they got cats instead of dogs. Why is this so hard to understand.
And again you show ignorance of Molly’s law. If you truly have a vet exemption, it would have to be filed with the state at minimum… Of course the problem is proving the cat with the exemption is the one in question, because I’m sure you are one of the lazy “my cat doesn’t like collars” or “it’s a safety hazard for the cat”
How about this rule instead?
“Any cat found outside on public property will be impounded. If no collar, tattoo or microchip is found or has an expired license then the animal will be euthanized. If the animal has a Molly’s law exemption, then it will be euthanized.”
You would be ok with this, right? Since your cats “NEVER” go outside…
I am quite well versed on Molly’s Bill, having nothing to do with my comments on this forum or even relating the bill to cats in general, but don’t let that stop you from calling me “dumb” “clueless” or generalizing that “cat people are lazy”.
@rabidcats: “How about this rule instead? Any cat found outside on public property will be impounded. If no collar, tattoo or microchip is found or has an expired license then the animal will be euthanized. If the animal has a Molly’s law exemption, then it will be euthanized.” You would be ok with this, right? Since your cats “NEVER” go outside…
>>> Well since we don’t have a cat licensing or mandatory rabies vaccination law, in Mountain View, I would say euthanizing any cat which does not have one or both of the above might be a bit extreme, but if it makes you feel better about yourself…go for it.
Why so bitter…do you need a hug or something?
mvresident67 wants all laws to fit her (self-perceived) situation exactly. I’m sure that she always drives at the safest speed, so she doesn’t see the need for speed limit laws too.
She still has not shown any knowledge of rabies or Molly’s law beyond a superficial level. But, lets take her opinion and value it. Not!
It’s a shame that conscientious dog owners are having to financially support the large number of lazy cat owners who claim their cats are indoor cats yet keep winding up at the shelter.
Either strike down the dog licensing fees or make the cats pay their fair share !!!!
rabidcats: “mvresident67 wants all laws to fit her (self-perceived) situation exactly. I’m sure that she always drives at the safest speed, so she doesn’t see the need for speed limit laws too.”
>>> Do we know each other, because clearly you know me well. 🙂
~~~~~
@rabidcats: “She still has not shown any knowledge of rabies or Molly’s law beyond a superficial level. But, lets take her opinion and value it. Not!”
>>> I didn’t realize I had an obligation to demonstrate my knowledge of Molly’s Bill, at any level. My proffer of Molly’s Bill was purely to provide an example of why a “one size fits all” rabies vaccination mandate is not, in fact, in the best interests of a certain subset of dogs, nor would such a mandatory rabies vaccination have been in the best interests of certain subset of cats. The law mandating rabies vaccinations for ALL dogs – regardless of circumstance – was so egregious that it required legislation to provide legal exceptions to this law.
People are free to read Molly’s Bill themselves if they would like to gain a better understanding of the law and how it is supposed to work.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0251-0300/ab_258_bill_20111007_chaptered.html
~~~~~~~~~~
rabidcats: “It’s a shame that conscientious dog owners are having to financially support the large number of lazy cat owners who claim their cats are indoor cats yet keep winding up at the shelter.
Either strike down the dog licensing fees or make the cats pay their fair share !!!!”
>>> Now I think we’re finally getting to the source of your ire…it’s not really about mandatory rabies vaccinations for cats is it? It’s about “lazy cat owners” not paying their “fair share”.
How about if I send you my vet bills over the last several years and you tell me if I have paid my “fair share”. Oh, but wait, it’s not about how much is actually spent on the health of the animal…it’s about a revenue scheme, er stream. Got it. 😉
Now…do you still need a hug?
You didn’t read what I initially wrote:
“So, thank you mountain view council for forcing dogs to be licensed so they can be vaccinated. Much of the dog licensing fees will be to care for all of the “indoor cats” and their offspring that keep coming into the shelter. That’s fair, right?
Why? Cats wipe out our bird population and they spread more rabies than dogs. Why should the dog owners shoulder the burden?
MV Council– Please align the licensing fees with dogs and cats. It’s just not fair otherwise. That means either mandatory licensing for cats or no charge licensing for dogs. Or simply make it voluntary.”
So yes, either the taxpayers should pay 100 pct of costs associated with the cat and dog management or both dog AND cat owners should contribute extra through licensing. Isn’t that reasonable???
rabidcats: Would you be so kind and provide a link to the source information/documentation which supports your assertion that “Much of the dog licensing fees will be to care for all of the “indoor cats” and their offspring that keep coming into the shelter”.
I’d like to know exactly what percentage of those fees is actually used for cats that can be verified as “indoor cats and their offspring that keep coming into the shelter.”
Thanx.
Perhaps you should consider imploring city council to revisit the issue. 🙂
Why don’t you look this up yourself mvresident?
Because you don’t care..you just want to have dog owners pay for your laziness.
If you look this up for yourself, you will see that almost twice as many cats as dogs come into the shelter. So, actually, they should mandate licensing for cats, rather than dogs, right? Since most of the costs are cat-related, how does it make sense to charge dog owners?
It’s sad that people like you are unwilling to even fork over $10/year to help pay the costs of managing your cats in this city.
rabidcats: “If you look this up for yourself, you will see that almost twice as many cats as dogs come into the shelter. So, actually, they should mandate licensing for cats, rather than dogs, right? Since most of the costs are cat-related, how does it make sense to charge dog owners?”
>>> I didn’t ask you how many dogs and cats come into a given shelter annually. I was asked you to provide a link for the source documentation that supports your assertion that:
~~~ “Much of the dog licensing fees will be to care for all of the “indoor cats” and their offspring that keep coming into the shelter”. ~~~
I’d like to know exactly what percentage of those fees is actually used for cats that can be verified as “indoor cats and their offspring that keep coming into the shelter.”
You made the claim, now support your claim with the source documentation otherwise people might begin to think you’re some kind of shill for the city or SCACA or just perhaps just a garden variety lunatic.
That should read: SVACA = Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority…Mountain View’s new and improved animal control contract provider.
Why don’t you look this up yourself mvresident?
Because you don’t care..you just want to have dog owners pay for your laziness.
If you look this up for yourself, you will see that almost twice as many cats as dogs come into the shelter. So, actually, they should mandate licensing for cats, rather than dogs, right? Since most of the costs are cat-related, how does it make sense to charge dog owners?
It’s sad that people like you are unwilling to even fork over $10/year to help pay the costs of managing your cats in this city.
Ah, so now you’ve got me leaning towards the garden variety lunatic thing, which is fine. Context is important…thanks for clarifying. 🙂
MVresident: Name-calling is the last resort of the desperate.
Most shelter expense comes from cats, yet most revenue comes from dog owners. Is this fair? Certainly not !
rabidcats: “MVresident: Name-calling is the last resort of the desperate.”
Haha, that is rich coming from you…
~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by rabidcats, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Sep 27, 2013 at 1:00 am
[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
~~~~~~~~~~
Let’s see what did you call me in the post that was removed…
Posted by MVResident67, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Sep 27, 2013 at 1:18 am
I am quite well versed on Molly’s Bill, having nothing to do with my comments on this forum or even relating the bill to cats in general, but don’t let that stop you from calling me “dumb” “clueless” or generalizing that “cat people are lazy”.
~~~~~
BTW, I did not report your post. I thought it was funny in a revealing sort of way. 😉
Now rabidcats, before you try and move the goalposts, yet again, let’s go back to your original assertion and see if you are able to provide the requested source documentation to back up your claim…
~~~~~
rabidcats: “If you look this up for yourself, you will see that almost twice as many cats as dogs come into the shelter. So, actually, they should mandate licensing for cats, rather than dogs, right? Since most of the costs are cat-related, how does it make sense to charge dog owners?”
>>> I didn’t ask you how many dogs and cats come into a given shelter annually. I asked you to provide a link for the source documentation that supports your assertion that:
!~~~ “Much of the dog licensing fees will be to care for all of the “indoor cats” and their offspring that keep coming into the shelter”. ~~~!
I’d like to know exactly what percentage of those fees is actually used for cats that can be verified as “indoor cats and their offspring that keep coming into the shelter.”
You made the claim, now support your claim with the source documentation otherwise people might begin to think you’re some kind of shill for the city or SVACA or just perhaps just a garden variety lunatic.”
Why don’t you look this up yourself mvresident?
Because you don’t care..you just want to have dog owners pay for your laziness.
If you look this up for yourself, you will see that almost twice as many cats as dogs come into the shelter. So, actually, they should mandate licensing for cats, rather than dogs, right? Since most of the costs are cat-related, how does it make sense to charge dog owners?
It’s sad that people like you are unwilling to even fork over $10/year to help pay the costs of managing your cats in this city.
Mr.Chau is glad he won’t have to break the law…
I’m not one to applaud the council as a whole, but this was handled properly.