Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> such agency can do so. We ask the following: what expertise is <br /> required to conduct such "training"; what agency determines who has <br /> it; and how is it regulated? We suggest there is no such program, nor <br /> are there "qualified" and regulated personnel to conduct it. It is not <br /> believed that this regulation would survive a court challenge, and we <br /> recommend it be removed in its entirety. <br /> <br /> 7. Page 6, Section 4-16 (a): "The biennial license fee neutered <br /> dogs..$9.50...$28 for unneutered dogs..." This represents a four-fold <br /> step increase over current fees, and presents a particular economic <br /> hardship to owners of multiple dogs. These inordinately high fees are <br /> counter productive to licensing compliance, and need to be <br /> substantially reduced. <br /> 8. Page 10, Section 4-31 (3): "A microchip registering the owner with <br /> <br /> the National Computer Recovery Network.." We are familiar with <br /> the two popular suppliers of animal identification systems employing <br /> microchips, Avid and Home Again. We have not heard of, nor can we <br /> find any information on a "National Computer Recovery Network". <br /> Before such terminology is incorporated into an ordinance, the <br /> organization's actual existence and relevance should be verified. <br /> <br /> 9. Page 15, Section 4-40 (e) (9): "The owner and dog...attend training <br /> sessions conducted by an animal behaviorist, a licensed <br /> veterinarian, or other recognized expert in the field". We know of <br /> no veterinarian who conducts such "training", and question the <br /> definition, requirements, and regulation of "animal behaviorists" and <br /> "other recognized experts in the field". Recognized by whom? Belief <br /> that behavioral modification training will correct undesirable <br /> <br /> characteristics in dogs deemed dangerous to the public is more <br /> wishful thinking than fact. Vague and unsubstantiated statements have <br /> no place in an enforceable ordinance. The subject statement should be <br /> removed from the proposed ordinance. <br /> 10. Page 16 (bottom): Section 4. This is a repeat of the preceding <br /> paragraph, Section 4-45. <br /> <br /> <br /> We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed ordinance, and <br /> hope our suggestions will assist the Council in drafting fair, useful, and <br /> enforceable animal control legislation. <br /> <br /> Respectfully, <br /> <br /> Jz;.6" HO#L, , President <br /> <br /> <br /> 3 <br />