47hclwym (anonymous) says...

Welcome to one step closer to being a dictatorship or is it welcome to Emporia home of the communist party? Good gosh people when will it stop. Before long they will be telling us what time and where you can pick your own nose. The gov. is always either making new laws or turning old ones around so much they may as well be new laws. Dogs have been riding in the backs of trucks since there were trucks. JMO May

September 26, 2007 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

johncanyon (anonymous) says...

What about the ones jumping around in the front seat and on the laps of the driver while they are driving down the road ?
Does this only concern dogs in the back of trucks or will there be a fine for the ones riding in the back seat with there head and half there body hanging out.
I agree.. I think this is rediculous. Seems to me that there is plenty of things out there that law enforcement can and need to be doing, besides writting tickets for a dog in the back of a truck..... Shacking my head and wondering what's next

September 26, 2007 at 1:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dhcc66 (anonymous) says...

ok, so which one of you is going to cry if one of those dogs falls out of the back of a truck and is run over in front of you?? or....suppose one of them jumps out of the back of the truck and bites you or your child??? i guess no matter what happens, somebody is going to whine

September 26, 2007 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

The city doesn't do much to enforce the leash laws that are in effect for dogs that are roaming the streets, so how is this going to make things better?

Doesn't the city have better things to do with its time?

I have two dogs. The only time they go in our vehicles they ride in the back seat. They never ride in the bed of one of the vehicles, which is a pickup truck.

From what I've observed, the dogs who do ride in the beds of trucks seem perfectly content, delighted even. I've never seen one here in Emporia jump out and attack anyone. Nor have I ever seen one fall out.

September 26, 2007 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

offc_grl76 (anonymous) says...

First and foremost, I think the city does need to enforce the dogs running loose in the back of trucks. There has been many times that I am sitting at a red light and there is a dog barking at me that is running loose in the back of the truck. What if he decides he wants to chase something else other than a stopped car, like a small child. Then everyone here who complained would be saying the city should have enforced it. SECOND.....the city has cut the budget for the Animal Shelter and Animal control so we only have one full time officer and now they are trying to replace their part time officer. BUT.....WHEN I GET TOLD BY ANIMAL CONTROL HE DOES NOT LIKE TO GO THROUGH MY NEIGHBORHOOD CAUSE HE PICKS UP TO MANY DOGS....PUHLEASE. I had to call the PD and speak to a supervisor to get the problem of loose dogs taken care of in my neighborhood.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: NO DOGS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RUN LOOSE, WHETHER IT IS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, OR IN THE BACK OF A TRUCK. IF YOU WANT TO BE A PET OWNER THEN STEP AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM AND KEEP THEM IN YOUR FENCED YARD OR ON A LEASH.

September 26, 2007 at 1:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jackslap (anonymous) says...

Doesn't the city have better things to worry about?

September 26, 2007 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

bob (anonymous) says...

How is it that the fine for a "dog at large" is $30 but the fine for a non-restrained dog in a truck is $90?? Weren't they "supposed" to be the same violation?

September 26, 2007 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

imgone (anonymous) says...

First thing, I own a dog. I live in a city where you dont see dogs running loose and I have yet to see dogs riding in the back of a truck.Dogs running loose are picked up and off to the pound.There are plenty of dogs but they are always on a leash and under control. If your dog makes a mess you clean it up or pay a $10 fine. Life is good here. By the way, when I lived in Emporia I did see a dog fall ftom the back of a truck and was struck by a car.I can still hear that poor dog screaming. Be responsible for your animal.

September 26, 2007 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

pmh61 (Won Ton) says...

So does that mean you get a ticket if your at the park or in my case, I go to the college pond take the leash off. I let him swim in the water does that count as a non-restrained dog? Is there going to be a designated area that people can take there dogs in public and let them play? Do I have to leave the leash on with i throw the frisbee? Will the city give a park or an area of a park so that pet owners can take there animals and play? Lot of questions need to be answered, or if they are answered let us she what the answers are. Does anyone know where to get the information about animals? I have 3 dogs and if i have one with me I will let him/her in the front with me. But if i have more than one with me at the same time, I will use my truck and they all ride together in the BACK. Others have made comments that they are at a stop light and a dog was barking at them, and they say what if they decide to chase me and bite me. Most people that make that kind of comment are ones that are afraid of dogs in general. My next comments are a little vulgar but TRUE. (I myself am half mex/white) Just because you see a Mexican doesn't make them a wetback or a dirty person. Just because you see an African American doesn't make them a thug or a rapper. Just because you see a white farmer doesn't make them a Redneck honky. Just because you see a dog in the back of a truck, DOESN'T MEAN HE WANTS TO BITE YOU. The sad part is you have to deal with these things when they happen. Does anyone know if there has been a recent outburst of dogs jumping out of trucks lately and injuring people? So much more that could be said, but I have other things to do I hope the city rethinks this or does something to make it more pet owner friendly.

September 26, 2007 at 2:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

admireed (anonymous) says...

How about cats?

September 26, 2007 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

offc_grl76 (anonymous) says...

pmh61: EMPORIA DOES HAVE A PLACE YOU CAN TAKE YOUR DOG TO RUN WITHOUT A LEASH!!!! IT IS THE BUCK FUND DOG PARK LOCATED BY WAL-MART. Lots of responsible owners take their dogs there, including ME.

September 26, 2007 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

offc_grl76 (anonymous) says...

You are right everyone has their own opinion, and everyone has the right to voice their own. But like you said if people would enforce the rules then the Buck Fund Dog Park would be a better place, so once again...IF YOU ARE GOING TO OWN A DOG STEP UP AND BE RESPONSIBLE

September 26, 2007 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

eatasheep69 (anonymous) says...

offc_grl76 : I agree wholeheartedly with your views.

I too have seen a dog fall out of the back of a truck. It was on the I-35 bypass and it did not look like it faired well from the trip. That was an accident that could have been avoided by a little forethought.
Worse yet is when I see a dog sitting on the lap of a driver. That's a distraction that should definitely result in a fine. If everyone would use simple common sense then laws like this wouldn't be necessary.

September 26, 2007 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

I don't see much good sense in this law. Just because something is made the law, it doesn't make it viable or enforceable.

I still maintain that the city needs to do a much better job at the dogs who are running loose in neighborhoods rather than focusing this attention on dogs riding in the back of trucks or in the back seats of cars.

And I still maintain that the city needs to focus on much more pressing problems here. We're on the verge of losing a big employer and another is cutting jobs. Our household incomes are about the lowest in Kansas and our taxes are high. Those are just some of the things that really need to be fixed. That's what the city fathers need to be focusing on.

September 26, 2007 at 6:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

LouToYou (anonymous) says...

offc_grl76- I to agree with you, if you own a pet it is YOUR responsibility, gone are the days of "thow away pets". Our pets these days come with very expensive price tags and more often then not they are part of the family, you dont find "outside" pets too much anymore, at least not in my neiborhood. Pet owners please love your animals and protect them from harms way.

September 26, 2007 at 6:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dhcc66 (anonymous) says...

why are we complaining about restraining our pets? it is a law, just deal with it. that right there would take care of half of the problems for those dogs running lose.
I guess for those of you who intentionally let your dogs or cats run loose, deal with them getting picked up or run over....sad that you would care so little about an animal that you take care of.
and for those of you who are arguing enforceability, i guess you can take your chances with the officers when they stop you for a violation.

September 26, 2007 at 7:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

flexj66801 (anonymous) says...

I have two Australian Cattle Dogs who love to ride. They have ridden with me since they were puppies. They do ride in the back of my suv with the windows rolled down so they can enjoy the ride. Usually one is poking its head out of each window soaking up the experience. They do not "hang out" of the window, Nor do they bark or show aggression to anyone, They simply love to go for the ride.
I would find it more irresponsible to to take away their joy by leaving them at home or restraining them in the back, Than allowing them to be where they fully love to be, With me going for a ride.
I will note however that I consider myself a "responsible" pet owner. My dogs are spoiled, They are truly my kids, just with for legs instead of two. They see the vet regularly. And receive more attention than than any "backyard pets".
I do understand that everyone has different perceptions of what a responsible pet owner is, But ridiculous is just simply ridiculous! What I am reading are small accounts of possibilities. Where are the high percentages of cases involving dogs falling from trucks, Jumping from trucks, Chasing anyone from trucks, Or biting anyone from trucks to justify a change in law or the enforcement of this ordinance. It seems to me that some of these people are suffering from "what if phobia" as previously mentioned. The "what ifs" are simply getting carried away with it.
Sticking with facts here, We have a shortage of Police officers & Animal Control officers. One person here already claimed that they had to speak with a Police Supervisor to get an animal problem resolved. How could you possibly expect an enforcement on such a petty issue when there are much larger problems & dangers in our city.
The City Officials & Commission shouldn't be bothered with these opinionated what ifs. They should be allowed to spend their time figuring out how to solve the real problems in Emporia. For examples, To many industrial employers leaving town & no one to take their places. Good paying jobs being sent across the border & overseas forcing people to take lesser paying jobs or leaving town to find better work. Someone else stated our taxes being high & our wages being low. All of this lends to Emporias suffering economy. Take a look around sometime! There are people suffering in this town, Losing their jobs, Their homes, Their pride, & their futures are in question.
Here we are distracting ourselves from the real tragedies surrounding our community to make new laws & implementing enforcement over what boils down to be nothing more than a "what if" of a petty situation.

September 26, 2007 at 7:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

emporian (anonymous) says...

Its just a classic example of 30 people showing up to push their item through while the vast majority think that it is rediculous. Thank god I moved out of town.

September 26, 2007 at 8:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

JessicaNelson (anonymous) says...

This is total dog doo doo.

September 26, 2007 at 8:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

flexj66801 (anonymous) says...

Thanks Kstrebuchet,
I'm truly glad you feel that way. I feel its a complete shame when people misplace motivation to fix real problems & instead find it necessary to commercialize their petty insecurities at the expense of others freedoms. Common sense has sadly been left behind in this issue.

September 26, 2007 at 9:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dhcc66 (anonymous) says...

ok, now that all of the complaining is done....all this energy spent complaining to a few of us who vent on here could have been spent e-mailing the city commission (yes they even have e mail addresses) and asking them to modify or repeal the ordinance. If they listened to the "special interest people" then they probably would listen to you folks who want to take your dogs for a drive instead of just walking them like a lot of normal folks do.
anybody for letting the kids ride in the back window of the car again??

September 26, 2007 at 10:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

blulitespecial (anonymous) says...

Here's an old traffic law they could enforce "At night,all horseless carriages shall be preceeded 250ft by a small boy carrying a red lantern and shooting Roman candles". Makes about as much sense as all this!

September 27, 2007 at 1:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

I have already e-mailed the commissioners. I got no response.

September 27, 2007 at 5:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

LMAO about this one.

We think we need to pass a law "in case" a dog jumps out of a truck and someone or the dog gets hurt. Yet, smoking and drinking are legal, which kills millions of of people a year.

I'm just holding my breath waiting for the latest ordinance that will tell me that if the Emporia Police Department finds any grasshoppers in my yard that I can be sued by local farmers for harboring a destructive pest.

Hey, it's our fault. We elected these idiots.

ROFL :)

September 27, 2007 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

KristieR (anonymous) says...

I think I might have a different view on this than most. I have a license to sell insurance, but I don't sell on a day to day basis.

If there is a law regarding dogs running at large, the city is required to (try to) enforce it or be (potentially) liable in any case where an unrestrained dog hurts/bites another person. If a dog falls out of the back of a truck and the car behind them swerves to avoid/hits the dog and the driver/passengers are hurt...a good (smarmy) lawyer is going to attempt to sue anyone even remotely responsible. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I understand it. More and more people slap lawsuits on anyone they can in hopes of winning some big bucks for minor injuries. Even if they win, the city spends big bucks defending themselves.

A dog inside a vehicle is restrained. A dog in the bed of a truck is not.

http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/in...
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs annually, resulting in an estimated 800,000 injuries that require medical attention. With over 50 percent of the bites occurring on the dog owner’s property, the issue is a major source of concern for insurers.

http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/per...
Dog bite liability is generally placed on the owner of a dog. Dog owners are the primary party who are responsible for the aggressive actions of their dogs. Dog bite liability laws outline the responsibilities of dog owners to prevent their animals from causing injury or property damage to others. When an owner fails to keep their dog under control and the dog bites another person, they can be held liable for any damages that are caused including medical expenses, loss of income, disability, and pain and suffering.

Dog bite liability can also be placed on other parties who have a responsibility to maintain a safe environment free from the risk of aggressive dogs.
Dog bite liability laws are governed by each state and local jurisdiction. These laws are enforced by local law enforcement and animal control authorities. As a general rule the following parties have dog bite liability: any party whose negligence caused or contributed to the dog bite incident; any party in violation of local leash, restraint and other animal control laws; and those who keep a dog with the knowledge that the dog has a history of injuring people. A dog owner can have dog bite liability for any incident that occurs in a public or lawfully private location. Dog bite liability is generally not placed on canines that, in the line of duty with law enforcement of military persons, cause injury to a person.

September 27, 2007 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

City commissioners are not idiots. What a thankless job it must be to be on that commission. Damned if you do; damned if you don't.

I'm pretty sure they didn't just decide out of the clear blue sky that it was time to enact a loose dog ordinance. Somebody, or a whole bunch of somebodies, had to have complained a good deal about dogs in the back of pickups. It would be interesting to know how the city got on the subject to begin with.

September 27, 2007 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Well, we allow a certain group to drive on our streets without proving that they really are capable of operating a motor vehicle safely, to the standards the rest of us are held accountable to, and there's been plenty of complaints about that, and nothing done. So why pick on the poor dogs?

September 27, 2007 at 10:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I think people talking on their cell phones while driving are at bigger risk to cause an accident. But nowadays we always seem to concentrate on things with a very small or nil chance of happening and ignore those that happen 10 or 100 or 1000 times as often. Our tax dollars at work.

September 27, 2007 at 11:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

KristieR (anonymous) says...

open_eyes - I agree. I hate seeing people yacking on their cell phones in traffic. I have one and I use it very infrequently and even then, I usually pull into a driveway or side street before I dial.

September 27, 2007 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dhcc66 (anonymous) says...

you know, i guess it just goes to show you....none of the people complaining bothered to read that this is just enforcement of a law that is already on the books. Nobody changed anything except maybe answering a question of what applied to the ordinance......
if you would have read....

Section 6-22 Running at large, adopted in 1986

(a) It shall be unlawful for the owner or harborer of a dog or cat to permit the same to run at large. For the purposes of this article, a dog or cat shall be deemed to be running at large:

(1) When the dog or cat is not confined by a building, fence, cage or within a closed vehicle; or

(2) When the dog or cat is not restrained by means of a lead, leash, rope, chain or cord held by the owner or harborer; or

(3) When the dog or cat is not securely fastened by a rope, chain or cord to the ground, a tree or structure with strength sufficient to keep the dog or cat within the limits of the owner’s or harborer’s premises.

that law has been unchanged since 1986....all people are doing is asking to have it enforced.

September 27, 2007 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Kindof like our illegal immigration laws, huh?

September 27, 2007 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

So if you go strictly by the wording of (1) above, I would presume that the back of a pickup is not "within a closed vehicle". So does that apply when a pet is in the front of the vehicle if the window is left open a crack so the animal will not smother? It is not entirely "closed" then.
Just trying to get some clarification.

September 27, 2007 at 1:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tosie (anonymous) says...

I'm pretty sure there's more to worry about in this city than dogs riding in the back of a truck!!!!!! This city is so backwards....

September 28, 2007 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MrCmonkeeDo (anonymous) says...

It doesn't really seem like the INTENT of that law/ordinance/whatever was/is being followed. If:

"It shall be unlawful for the owner or harborer of a dog or cat to permit the same to run at large...When the dog or cat is not CONFINED by a building, fence, cage or WITHIN A CLOSED VEHICLE; or..."

Then how come:

"Interim Police Chief Michael Lopez said...the department issues on average 40 citations a year for dogs riding unrestrained in cars."

Why? The law/ordinance/whatever defines what an animal at large looks like and specifically states that animals in cars don't look like animals at large. And speaking of horses of different colors...

MrC was wondering if y'all caught this at the beginning of the article:

"Calling it a new interpretation of its “running at large” dog ordinance, Emporia city commissioners directed city staff to include unrestrained dogs in pickup trucks. It’s already being applied to loose dogs in cars.

City Attorney Blaise Plummer’s opinion was that the current ordinance extends to loose dogs in pickup trucks and recommended its enforcement. A 90-day warning period will be allowed to educate the public.

“We have no choice but to enforce it,” said Commissioner Bobbie Agler."

Say whut?

It's a "NEW INTERPRETATION"?!?!?!!!
"It’s already being applied to loose dogs in cars."?!?!?!!!
"City Attorney Blaise Plummer’s opinion [is] that the current ordinance extends to loose dogs in pickup trucks and recommend[s] its enforcement."?!?!?!!!
NambyPamby Commissioner Bobbie Agler said,.“We have no choice but to enforce it,”?!?!?!!!

Okay it didn't say NambyPamby...but THAT was MrCmonkeeDo's interpretation of it.

SeeYa...wouldn' wanna be Ya.

September 28, 2007 at 11:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

First of all, the City Commission is responding to a request made by animal rights advocates who are pressing for ordinances that conform to their personal beliefs. The City commission did not initiate this measure on their own, so please let's not lynch them because the rest of the mob is getting anxious to do so.

The measure is being addressed because the proponents of said measure have taken the time to participate in the government process. Perhaps if some of you took the time to do the same rather than whining and spouting off on a public forum anonymously, they would know that the majority of the public are against wasting their time and tax money on such measures.

I currently live outside the city limits of Emporia so I have no reason to get involved in the politics of the community other than to offer another opinion on here. If you do live there, and don't like what is happening, go to the Commission meetings and/or voice your opinion to the Commissioners themselves.

My personal opinion of the subject matter? It's a total waste of tax money and time.

September 29, 2007 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

"Perhaps if some of you took the time to do the same rather than whining and spouting off on a public forum anonymously,"

I didn't notice your name, neighbor.

September 29, 2007 at 4:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

tre, once in awhile it seeps out of my bones to where I can't make ole Sarcasm sit down and behave so I let him tiptoe over to my keyboard and run around for a bit. :)

September 29, 2007 at 7 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

The latest on the poll shows that about 60% of respondents do not approve of enforcement of that portion of the ordinance.

A lot of us feel that the city has better things to do with its time.

In yesterday's KC Star there was a piece about Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas. Ten years ago both the county and the city were on the brink of collapse. Crime was on the increase, median incomes were low, real estate taxes were high, and people were leaving in droves. Then the people voted to consolidate city and county government. The result of unified government was increased development, lower taxes, the population drain stemmed, and downtown housing edevlopment is on the rise.

The link to the piece follows:

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/2...

I think we need to consider some sort of consolidation here as well. I'm sure the politicos can think of lots of reasons why it won't work, but I think a lot of that has to do with maintaining their postions of power and prestiege.

My question is - is there enough public interest here in Emporia to draft a petition and get enough signatures to have the issue put on the ballot?

October 1, 2007 at 8:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

I'd like to see the Gazette put consolidating city and county government on its next opinion poll. (You saw it here first) I haven't read the article you suggest yet, netloafer, but if it worked so well for Wyandotte, why not Lyon especially since the same sort of problems are occurring here. Of course the politicos will balk, but if they haven't been able to fix what's wrong by now, then they have no room to oppose. I agree netloafer, put it to a ballot. People should not fear their governments; governments should fear their people.

October 1, 2007 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

create,

Please explain how you feel all of the residents of Lyon County would benefit from consolidation of city and county governments. Keep in mind there are government operations in Hartford, Olpe, Americus, Reading, Allen and Admire, do you feel they should be absorbed into Emporia's budget as well? I curious to hear another opinion on the matter, Respectfully, neighbor.

October 8, 2007 at 5:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

As the article points out, "Bonner Springs and Edwardsville kept their governing bodies and their autonomy." So could the surrounding small towns in Lyon Co. We must also admit that many of those small towns are bedroom communities of Emporia. Of course, Wyandotte doesn't have as many small towns and rural areas as Lyon County does, so I'll give you that point. However, each small city would send members to the larger commission, members who have run on a non-partisan ballot.

I believe it would be worth appointing a study group to look into consolidation. They would provide a list of pros and cons, particularly with regard to taxes. How about a committee made up of members from all the small towns specifically to study attracting development to Lyon County? What are we getting for our money now?

On the other hand, one of the writers in KC, Kansas answered to the idea of consolidation with, "I love this!! Nothing has changed except more people and drunk rednecks! Plus your taxes are still high as hell!! Good thinking guys you are real winners!! "

With respect,

October 8, 2007 at 6:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

Sorry I had forgotten this thread Create.

Consolidation sounds good, but in reality it would be nothing more than a tax shift. There would be no savings in taxes, in fact I suspect it would cause additional raises in taxes.

First off, the studies and committee work would cost us a ton of money. If it is put to the ballets, that would cost us thousands of dollars. If it succeeded at the polls, then there would be huge expenses for administrative aspects of the change. We would have to come up with a new consolidated color scheme for the newly formed style of government. We would have to get; new vehicles, new signage for the buildings, new labels for the vehicles, new uniforms for the joint law enforcement personel and other conjoined departments, we would have to remodel the recently remodeled old courthouse back into a Courtroom setting for Emporia cases and move over city offices into the multi-million dollar Main street Joint Courthouse(that would have to be remodeled/updated to include the former City of Emporia Offices of course).

The way I see it, the City of Emporia would be the only one who would benefit from such a change. If anyone believes that the taxes in Lyon County will go down for any reason, that consolidation would bring those reductions, well they would be sadly mistaken.

October 15, 2007 at 9:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Whew, just reading through your list of changes that would have to take place made me dizzy. My property taxes are already too high. It sounds like you are right about the tax shift, neighbor. It did sound good to begin with.

Yes, I too forgot about this thread since most of us got off on the landlord/tenant issues.

To get back to the subject of pets that this news article was about to begin with, I'm wondering when the city is going to come pick up all the cats in my neighborhood. I've called. Those poor people are so under manned. It's terrible. And if I trap the cats, no telling when they will have the time to come get them. I'm about to buy a megaphone and drive through my neighborhood giving warnings about cats and the leash ordinance. How about that for a cartoon, tre?

October 15, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

Maybe Colorado can use some cats too?

October 15, 2007 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Weltha (anonymous) says...

The cats shouldn't get to run loose but atleast cats like to catch mice. Just being funny guys don't hurt me.

October 15, 2007 at 2:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

I've yet to see a yard fence that will keep a cat in. Cats are not known for their cooperation with nor tolerance of a leash. Caging or keeping a cat locked up in a house goes against alot of animal rights group's beliefs and agendas.

Cats do like to catch mice, good ones that is, but they play havoc with songbirds and game birds as well.

They are easy to catch with live traps, just use a chicken bone as bait. I was forced to do this at one time, I averaged 5-10 cats a day and it never slowed down for over a month when I gave up. The ones with collars were turned in as found pets, the obvious wild and diseased ones were put down. The city and county don't have the time or resources to deal with the huge number of feral and free roaming house cats in Lyon Co. For every cat you catch and deal with in a live trap, there 10-100 more close by.

October 15, 2007 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

I'm writing this stuff down, you know. I am. Gonna learn how to draw caricatures. I am. So far good ideas from Tre -- Pin ball in the parking lot for non-smokers, the commish trying to corral all the dogs in back of a pick up, and now this -- purrpetrators at the animal shelter. Too much!

Those poor folks at the animal shelter. Just bought 'em a bag of cat food at the Reebles donation spot.

October 15, 2007 at 2:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )