Le Mars, Iowa · Friday, March 19, 2010
[Masthead] Overcast ~ 45°F  
Print Email link Respond to editor Read comments (12) Share link

Pet licensing ordinance gets first round approval

Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The reality of licenses for Le Mars dogs and cats moved a step closer Tuesday as members of the Le Mars City Council, voted 4-1, to give first reading approval for a pet licensing ordinance.

Councilman Rex Knapp, who voted against the ordinance, emphasized that his action was not that he was against either dogs or cats but was based on his belief that responsibility for proper control of pets belongs to owners themselves.

"It should not be the city's job, nor that of the police to control the pets," he said.

Knapp used by way of comparison, city action establishing a curfew to restrict activities of young people when, in fact, in this case, it is the parents, not the city, who should be responsible, he said.

His stance Tuesday could possibly change during action on the final two readings on the measure, Knapp said.

The ordinance, Councilwoman Dalena Ihrke said, has a two-fold purpose.

"We see the ordinance as assisting pet owners in helping to locate lost pets," she said, "and secondly, as a way to help in funding an animal control person."

Ihrke and Councilman Ken Nelson represented the council during development of the new ordinance. City Attorney Joe Flannery, city staff and local veterinarians were among additional committee members.

Nelson noted that he sees the ordinance as also providing help to the city in controlling all types of what he termed "roaming animals" that might come to the attention of the animal control staff while carrying out their future duties.

Animal control funding was cut from the fiscal year 2009 budget and has since been assigned to the police department.

The new ordinance as written will require the annual licensing of all dogs and cats age 6 months or more by a local veterinarian with proof of current vaccinations required. The annual licensing fee is set at $6 for neutered or spayed pets with a $12 fee for other animals.

Fees will be set annually as part of the council's fee resolution action each January.

From each licensing fee $1 will be given to the licensing veterinarian. The remaining fee amount, and any fines assessed for licensing violations and/or costs for abandoned or unclaimed animals will be used for animal control costs with any excess funds going to a possible future dog park.

Pet owners will receive a metal tag at the time of licensing with the dog tag to be affixed to the collar of the respective dog. Cat owners will, meanwhile, be required to show proof that the cat is licensed if a collar is not worn by the animal.

The current $25 fine for abandoned or running dogs will be applicable to unlicensed pets as will the current boarding costs of $10 per day for a large dog, $8 per day for a small dog, and $6 per day for cats.

The new licensing ordinance must come before the council for its second and third readings before approval.

If it is passed on its third reading, the licensing ordinance will become effective Jan. 1, 2009.


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on lemarssentinel.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

My rabie tag is already registered with Town and Country with a number so that in the event it's lost you know the owner. The reasoning doesn't wash with locating pets. When the dog gets loose, the owner knows where to call and that owners pays the cost. 3 times in over a year dogs were caught by me and no pound picked them up the police did it. Call it what it is a REVENUE. DOG PARK??? Will it be just like our skateboard park?????

-- Posted by economics101 on Wed, Nov 5, 2008, at 1:57 PM

I agree with "economics". We have found stray dogs that had tags. We called a home number once and the vet's office a second time in order to contact the owners directly. A dog park? I would love to see that option - but I know that we will only hear that "no one will want it in THEIR neighborhood". Why should the vet get the extra $1? They are already getting money from the vacinations that we have to go in for each time (some shots are only good for one year) as part of the "office visit".

-- Posted by justanoutsider on Wed, Nov 5, 2008, at 4:58 PM

I hope when my wife walks my dog the cops don't pull them both over for a tag check. This whole thing sounds like more government control which is really not in line with the way this area votes in general elections. Another important decision made by Comedy Central.

-- Posted by happydays on Wed, Nov 5, 2008, at 6:40 PM

As a cat owner whose cats NEVER venture outside the confines of my home, I'm curious to know why the city seems to think I should be funding a dog park which I will never utilize??

I can (sort of) see the rationale when considering licensing dogs since dog owners (& by extension, the dogs) would enjoy the advantages of a dog park. But, for cat owners, where's the benefit?

-- Posted by netgirl2002 on Wed, Nov 5, 2008, at 11:22 PM

Do any of the council members own pets?

I am sure there is more this council should be doing than to worry about getting an ordinance on registering our pets.

Hold the individual who owns the lost or lose pet responsible, not tax the rest of us.

-- Posted by Smile it's just my opinion on Thu, Nov 6, 2008, at 7:32 AM

Ok, why aren't the council people trying to get on top of this graffiti problem instead of worrying about dogs and cats? First off, a dog park?? Like that will ever happen. Secondly, cats that are declawed and never go outside are not ever going to be a problem as far as roaming. Why should their owners be charged a license fee? All this is going to do is cause a problem of people abandoning their pets because they can't afford the licensing, shots,food, neutering etc. Some elderly people have pets for companionship but can barely afford food and medicine. So now another fee has to come out of their pocket just so they don't feel so lonely and have a pet?? There are better ways to spend your time city council!!

-- Posted by Sammysmom on Thu, Nov 6, 2008, at 8:52 AM

I don't own a pet but I think this new "fee" is absolutely absurd! A dog park is a good idea however I think it will end up just like the great and grand wonderful skate park, which is another issue in itself. I feel that many people in this town are able to keep a good eye on their pets, hence the reason they have them and other do not. I may be wrong here but I always thought that after the pet went to the vet and got it's tags with the owners name and number and such on it meant that was a way for others to contact if say the pet got out by accident. Now they want another tag, that makes no sense. And, the vets getting $1 for everyone is ridiculous, they make enough money the way it is, let the citizens keep their own hard earned dollar! And in closing, helping to fund some "dog catcher" is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard, lets waste more money on a job and gas. Let's just think a little bit about this and maybe concentrate on gangs and the members in this town! WOW!!! :)

-- Posted by Dream_It on Thu, Nov 6, 2008, at 11:11 AM

It appears that the council has no concept of being new, creative, and original in their thinking. Sioux Center builds an indoor pool,we need one too. Which by the way haven't seen any article on what that fiasco has cost and is losing. Orange City, Sioux Center, Sioux Falls, a bike/walking trail--we got one now. Down town renovation---Orange City did this years ago. And the list is longer than that, just that these are the most expensive. It seems as though our council it trying to mimmick more successful towns around us. And now a bus transit system like Sioux City. Not saying that's bad but Sioux City is losing enough money that routes are being terminated and days the buses run cut. And now with a doggie park that will need maintenance, a pooper cleaner upper person with benefits and IPRS of course at the expense of people paying taxes.

-- Posted by economics101 on Thu, Nov 6, 2008, at 12:02 PM

You want a cat park? Why don't you just throw a fence around my property and call it a cat park. My yard almost always has at least one walking through it (if I'm lucky) and many others stopping to "take care of business." If this new ordinance would REQUIRE someone to pick up any stray cats that are reported, then I'm all for it. If not, at least issue some tags, have a limited season, and let me and Bob Barker help control the pet population.

-- Posted by Mark S on Thu, Nov 6, 2008, at 2:49 PM

LOL I am with Mark on this one!

-- Posted by Amanda83 on Fri, Nov 7, 2008, at 10:56 AM

Standing Ovation for all previous blog entries!

Politicians always like to have their name on a new law...small town city councils are no different.

Don't just blog...call the mayor or a city council person.

-- Posted by ClearThinker on Wed, Nov 12, 2008, at 4:35 PM

By the way...way to go Knapp..

Ihrke trying to make a name for herself?

-- Posted by ClearThinker on Wed, Nov 12, 2008, at 4:38 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on this site, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.