by Janet Warner LouisvillePetPals.com Staff

Local News Mayor's Community Conversations: Dog Ordinance is a "Work in progress"

Click to view
full-size images

LOUISVILLE, KY, January 16, 2007 -- It’s a shotgun approach to a specific problem,” said Chuck Juengling of Quail Unlimited. “I don’t see it as persecution; I just think it’s a foolish law.” Juengling attended the January 16th, “Conversations with the Mayor” with a large group of area hunters at Moore High School, hoping to voice their disagreement with the newly signed Louisville Metro Dog Ordinance.

In the crowded high school auditorium on Outer Loop in Louisville, people came for answers. A long line of people formed down the room’s center to speak to Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson. His Honor spoke to small clusters of folks and individuals for an hour and a half. Representatives of Louisville Metro Government sat behind white tables along the room’s parameter prepared to interact with the public. Some Louisville Metro employees had the distinct facial expression of the underemployed Maytag repairman as they watched a disproportionate number of bodies crowd one end of the room. Two side by side tables resembled the NASDAQ Trading floor; Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) and Louisville Metro Animal Services (LMAS).

LMAS tried to respond to questions about the controversial dog ordinance posed by folks who were standing two and three people deep at their table. LMAS Capt. Ann Camp, LMAS Education Coordinator Dr. Tami Harbolt-Bosco, and other staffers looked somewhat fatigued as they answered many of the same questions over and over again.

“It went all right,” said Harbolt-Bosco. “It is mostly an issue of misperceptions and difficulty reading a long legal document. These people have a fear of reprisal for being responsible dog owners. The people showing their dogs and the breeders have felt that they were in jeopardy even though this ordinance makes huge concessions for breeders, show people and hunters.” Harbolt-Bosco credits much of the confusion to misinformation distributed at the event as well as posted on bulletin boards in local pet supply stores. “It took a lot of things out of context”.

The only dog that attended the event was a companion dog in training named Tucker,(a 14 month old “Goldendoodle”). He accompanied his trainer, Claudia Tyler and Paws with a Purpose President Evalynn Mills. “I came to get information about this ordinance. We have trainers with concerns of how this will effect them,” said Mills. “This is set up different than we’d imagined. It’s too loud. I felt like I was yelling at her [Capt. Camp]. This is not a good way to communicate.”

Mills, like many others had copies of the flyers dispensed by those against the ordinance. The flyer did not reveal the individual or group of individuals that it represents.

“One person who raises dogs for us has three dogs already. We needed to clarify the impact of the ordinance whether we can place another dog with her,” continued Mills. “She can; it [the ordinance] doesn’t affect her, it applies to outside dogs. I was told there was other stuff in there that had words left off like about the kennels and the revaccinations. It was implying something else.”

Claudia Tyler declined to comment on the issue. “I haven’t read it so I can’t speak to it.”

Pam Karcher, a local pet owner that competes with her dogs in obedience and agility, has been unable to read the whole ordinance because of technical difficulties with her computer. “I’ve seen a number of emails about it. I’ve read sections that I have printed off. I’ve heard that if you have two complaints in five years, they can seize your dogs. And they don’t have to actually witness what the complaint is about. That concerns me- they are not gonna take my dogs- I’ll move first.”

“I understand if dogs are a nuisance- I hope the neighbors would come to me first! I make every effort to be a good neighbor” said Karcher whose three dogs are microchipped, vaccinated and altered. As for her conversation with the mayor, “I feel like I’ve been heard but I don’t think it will stay with him. He has heard so much tonight. I’m not against an ordinance but this one needs a lot of work.”

After most of the other Louisville Metro Departments had packed up to go home, a large group of approximately fifty (mostly men), came in from the hallway where they had been speaking with LMAS Assistant Director of Communications Jackie Gulbe. They were disappointed that the event format did not include a large forum discussion. The mayor considered their request, broke the traditional “Conversations with the Mayor” format and took questions from the crowd.

One man expressed concerns that if his Championship blood line hunting dog got away from him, LMAS would pick it up and neuter it, thus under the new ordinance LMAS would be responsible for ending a life time of breeding work.

Another man argued that because of the new ordinance, he couldn’t sell his large litter of puppies. “People are afraid to buy dogs because of the ordinance” he said.

A woman holding a stuffed toy dog plastered with anti-mayor and anti-ordinance slogans written on white tape, identified herself as Linda Farly, an AKC Member from southern Kentucky. Farly announced that dog show people from all over the country and the world were watching how Louisville dealt with the ordinance. “They won’t come to Jefferson County for a dog show; they won’t even buy a dog from anyone in Jefferson County.”

One woman who runs a boarding kennel in Fern Creek was apprehensive about the ordinance’s economic impact. “My clients are concerned that because the ordinance requires that I turn over privileged information about who is licensed and who is not.” The woman also cited distress over the section requiring animals to be vaccinated upon leaving a kennel. “This is a restrictive ordinance and it’s not going to help grow Jefferson County.”

The Mayor addressed some of the issues specifically and stated that the ordinance was “a work in progress”. He candidly agreed that the ordinance has “some stuff that is not appropriate, "but I don’t have line item veto.” He stated that the portion of the document referring to moving an animal from one location for more than three days and having to notify LMAS seemed unreasonable. When individuals stated that that was the law, Abramson pointed out that those enforcing the law, indicating Gulbe, would be interpreting the law. People, in general, did not seem satisfied with that response.

Abramson reminded the crowd that the ordinance came from an initiative of members of the Metro Council and that while he does not dictate to the council but he does have the power to recommend. “When this all began, I asked them to use common sense and to go slowly.” He repeatedly pointed out that this was the democratic process. “I have asked Metro Animal Services to provide monthly and quarterly reports to myself and the Metro Council about how the ordinance is working.” Abramson continually assured the crowd that the ordinance, although signed into law, was amendable and would be updated periodically. He asked that the general public continue to weigh in with their thoughts, opinions and suggestions.

The conversation then turned to how the ordinance had evolved and who participated in its formation. Many in the crowd felt that partisan politics determined the nature of the ordinance. The Mayor assured them that this was not the case. Taskforce member, Donna Herzig, Vice president of the Louisville Kennel Club, recited her taskforce associates, not by name but by occupation or organizational representation, adding negative remarks about some of the members. The hunters present at the Louisville Metro event pointed out that no sportsmen had been represented on that taskforce.

“Overall, there is a general concern about this ordinance,” said Chuck Juengling in a separate interview while the Mayor wrapped up his forum discussion. “This ordinance has been worked on for one years, had 13 revisions and yet no sportsman was involved in formatting the ordinance.”

“They have to make sure that the legitimate dog owners aren’t penalized as Louisville Metro writes a vicious dog ordinance,” Juengling continued. He felt that the license fees were unreasonable and that the penalties for violating the ordinance were unconscionable. “If you want to raise more that one litter per year, it will cost $300. A sportsman will tell you that this is unreasonable. I guarantee that nobody raising vicious dogs for fighting or guarding meth labs is going to pay a fee or buy a license. You need some other legislation that will address vicious dogs.”