Comments: 0

So, the good news is, nothing has changed for the rescues who foster dogs for now – keep doing the good work you have been doing. Also, a lot of issues that we have all been frustrated about have been brought to the forefront. Despite frustration at times, a conversation has been started with city leadership about issues we have been talking about for some time. Now, they are talking about them and, hopefully, will continue to include us in the conversation.

Thanks to everyone who has been participating and coming together to ensure positive outcomes for the animal welfare community. I will keep you posted on any new developments of which I am made aware and please let everyone know if you learn of anything new as well.

Comments: 0

The issue is on the City Council agenda for tomorrow night as “A Consensus of the Tulsa City Council establishing a Animal Welfare Task Force.” http://www.tulsacouncil.org/inc/search/meeting_detail.php?id=LCWX3CT3715201182657

I know there are several people going from the animal welfare community and I plan to go myself. It is my understanding that public comments are allowed on items that are on the agenda for the evening but you must be there at 6:00 to put your name on a list if you wish to give public comments.

In the meantime, please contact city councilors and let them respectfully know this does not reflect the discussion that took place at the meeting with the community on Friday, July 22nd, nor does it reflect what everyone who attended the meeting perceived as the outcome. As stated several times at the meeting, Tulsa needs to take a comprehensive look at our animal ordinances and the issues that surround them. Modifying the hobbyist permit will not solve a majority of the animal related issues Tulsa faces, including enforcement and compliance with all ordinances under Title 2. In addition, regardless of whether changes are made only to the hobbyist permit or to Title 2 in its entirety, city council should form a committee of knowledgeable citizens to assist council with addressing these issues. Moving forward in the fashion Mautino has proposed will create bad policy. His approach does not reflect what is best for Tulsa, nor does it reflect what the citizens of Tulsa have expressed they want to see happen. Visit http://www.tulsacouncil.org for contact info for city councilors.

Mautino should be held accountable to all Tulsa citizens and Tulsa clearly stated we want meaningful change. Mautino proposes making poorly considered changes to a single ordinance which will impact hundreds of Tulsa citizens, all this to appease a few constituents in his district. This is not acceptable and not good for Tulsa. Hopefully, if we make our voices heard loud and clear, city council will act accordingly.

I will keep you posted of any developments.

Comments: 0

Deanne McNabb
Great Pyrenees Rescue of OK

Comments: 1

Comments: 0

Comments: 0

We are awaiting clarification on Mautino’s intentions and will provide further information as it is available.

Comments: 0

In the meantime, please continue to utilize this site to share information and ideas about animal welfare. You can start groups,post information pertinent to your organization, etc. We are still working out some bugs and will provide some tutorials on how to use the site. Anyone from a legitimate animal welfare group is welcome to join.

Comments: 0

Comments: 0

Comments: 0

Comments: 0

Just a reminder, tomorrow's meeting is at 8:30 at City Hall, Room 411 in case anyone wants to attend. Amy Hoagland and I will be speaking on behalf of animal welfare groups. Is everyone ok with that or does anyone else want to also speak?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Collective Response of Animal Welfare Groups to Councilor Mautino’s Proposed Changes to Title 2

We respectfully assert that if changes to Title 2 are being considered, additional input from the community and all stakeholders, as well as additional research on the issues, is needed. There are many issues involved in the current state of animal welfare in Tulsa and the proposed changes to Title 2 do not solve a majority of the problems. Certainly, we do not disagree with Councilor Mautino that if the current ordinance allows for abuse of the hobbyist permit, then it should be addressed. However, rewriting the ordinance with the proposed changes does not address issues with compliance and enforcement or resolve other issues which contribute to animal related problems in our city. In addition, it unfairly places limits on rescues which are part of the solution to animal welfare in Tulsa, not part of the problem.

We request the council to stop moving forward with these proposed changes so that Title 2 can be evaluated holistically. At the very least, modifications to activity permitted by rescues should be taken off the table since rescues are not part of the problem which prompted the proposed changes.
The animal welfare community suggests forming a task force which could utilize the many resources available to us in creating viable solutions to the issues we face. This task force should include all stakeholders – members of the animal welfare community and other citizens, city leadership, TAW and TPD. We should all be working together to solve these problems because we all have the same ultimate goal – for Tulsa to be a wonderful community for all of us.

Many communities across the country have recently rewritten their animal welfare ordinances, including Oklahoma City, to reflect progressive approaches to addressing pet overpopulation and irresponsible pet ownership. Additionally, we are a lifelong partner of HSUS as a result of the COTAS evaluation a few years ago. They have experience in working with municipal codes and have valuable resources we can utilize. Furthermore, HSUS recommends any animal code revisions should involve input from satellite cities so the laws compliment those of adjoining cities rather than conflict. It would be prudent to evaluate the successful changes which have been made in other communities, especially in light of the current evaluation of animal welfare operations. We respectfully request that City Council refrain from voting on the proposed changes until the proper research and input from all interested parties are obtained.

However, if Councilor Mautino insists the proposed changes must move forward, then we certainly want to give our input. While Oklahoma Alliance for Animals and our animal welfare partners support any effort to curb breeding by disreputable breeders, address issues pertaining to the abuse of hobbyist permits and decrease irresponsible pet ownership which results in community nuisance issues, we have several concerns about the proposed changes to Title 2 and the negative impact those changes will have on animal welfare in our city. The proposed changes will cause unintended, additional animal welfare issues in Tulsa, including an increased burden on the already scarce human and financial resources of our city.

As you know, Tulsa already struggles with a severe pet overpopulation problem. TAW is an open admission shelter already struggling to deal with over 11,000 pets which enter the shelter annually. Of those 11,000 animals, approximately 65% of them will have to be destroyed, largely due to lack of space. Caring for that many animals and ultimately destroying 2/3 of them is expensive for Tulsa tax payers. At a time when Tulsa is focused on reducing shelter costs, increasing efficiency, improving community response and improving live release rates at our municipal shelter, the proposed changes to Title 2 will have the opposite effect for several reasons.

Limiting the number of animals housed by rescuers to 5 will negatively impact animal welfare in our city and result in an increased cost to the city. Most individuals involved in pet rescue already have the maximum number of pets allowed under city ordinance (5 animals of which no more than 3 may be dogs). Rescues take in strays and owner surrenders that would presumably find their way to TAW. In addition, they pull adoptable animals from TAW, freeing up additional space for the never ending flow that comes from the community. They do this all at their own expense. The 5 animal limit will result in increased intake at TAW, an increase in the frequency which the shelter must euthanize for space and, consequently, increased costs for the shelter. Furthermore, it will be a step backward for Tulsa in trying to improve animal welfare and shelter operations in our city.

With a greater strain on human and financial resources available at TAW, responding to animal control issues will be even more difficult. A lack of resources to enforce current ordinances seems to be the impetus for the proposed changes. However, since the changes proposed place a greater strain on resources, the changes will make it less likely TAW staff will be able to effectively perform their animal control duties, as well as respond to community complaints for nuisance and animal ordinance violations. Conversely, if we focused on using our limited resources to enforce current ordinances, to making effective changes to those ordinances to resolve community complaints and helping TAW decrease intake/increase live exit, we can solve issues such as the ones in Councilor Mautino’s district as well as reduce pet overpopulation.

The proposal for a private kennel license will create more problems than it solves for our community. Permitting private kennels in industrial and commercial areas will be an open door for breeders to conduct their operations in the City of Tulsa, encouraging the type of disreputable breeding we are trying to eliminate at both a state and local level. It will create health and nuisance issues in those areas, as well as create a decline in visual appearance. There are real concerns over the manner in which these animals will be housed and cared for, neither of which are addressed in Councilor Mautino’s proposals. If the proposed changes move forward, we will be shifting the problem from the residential segment of our community to another, arguably making the problem worse, rather than addressing the issues with the current ordinance.

While we understand Councilor Mautino’s concerns and agree there is needed change, Oklahoma Alliance for Animals wants to ensure any changes to the current hobbyist permit and Title 2 in general will not have a negative impact on animal welfare or the quality of life of Tulsa citizens. Again, while we request the current proposed ordinance change not move forward so that a comprehensive evaluation pertinent to all animal issues can be conducted, we have made the following recommendations. We have provided both a narrative as well as a response to specific sections of the proposed changes which follows:

• We are open to a rescue permit which would allow members of recognized rescue groups to temporarily house homeless animals awaiting adoption by a new family. In order to ensure this permit is not abused, we are supportive of a cap on the number of animals a permit holder could house at any given time. We would like to see that number be 7, all of which could be dogs or cats, inclusive of owned animals. We are supportive of a process which would allow for trained members of the animal welfare community to ensure compliance of rescue permit holders.
• We request the provision requiring petitioning of neighbors be eliminated. Rescuers are volunteers who are doing a service for the community and alleviating some of the burden placed on Tulsa Animal Welfare. Most have other responsibilities and this requirement places an undue burden on rescue fosters. We assert that other provisions of Title 2 regarding qualifications for a rescue permit, as well as general nuisance ordinances, would sufficiently govern the activity of rescue fosters, especially if the animal welfare community is permitted to self police to ensure compliance with all the requirements of the rescue permit ordinance.
• We request the rescue permit be put under a separate subsection of the ordinance rather than combined with the private kennel permit or revised hobbyist permit. This would make the provision less confusing and eliminate the possibility that rescues would be impacted in the future should the show/hunt hobbyist provisions or private kennel provisions be eliminated or changed and vice versa.
• We appreciate the removal of the blanket spay/neuter exemption for nationally recognized breeds and we agree with the spay/neuter exemption for show/hunt hobbyists, provided they have a cap on the number of animals they are permitted to possess.
• We suggest that rather than implementing a private kennel permit for show/hunt hobbyists, the current hobbyist permit be left in place with the stronger provisions recommended by Councilor Mautino. In addition, we suggest a provision be added to clarify the term hobbyist to eliminate the abuse of the permit which has allegedly taken place. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines hobby as “a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation.” Language should distinguish between a hobbyist, a commercial pet breeder as defined by state law and a professional pet breeder which is someone who may not qualify as a commercial pet breeder but does rely on the breeding of animals for a significant portion of their income. Finally, in order to further prevent the abuse that has taken place, we recommend a cap on the number of animals housed by a hobbyist that is equal to or less than the number of animals permitted under a proposed rescue permit.
• We oppose the private kennel license provision for several reasons. First, permitting private kennels in industrial and commercial areas will be an open door for breeders to conduct their operations in the City of Tulsa. This type of permit potentially creates a loophole for those breeders that fall outside of the scope of the newly enacted Commercial Pet Breeders Act. By creating a private kennel license, Tulsa would be encouraging the type of disreputable breeding we are trying to eliminate at both a state and local level. Additionally, permitting private kennels to conduct business in industrial and commercial areas will create health and nuisance issues in those areas, as well as create a decline in visual appearance. Finally, by permitting non-commercial dog breeding operations in industrial or commercial areas, we are potentially creating a scenario where private kennels would operate under the radar of citizens and city officials since many of these areas are remote and sparsely populated. Owners could keep animals in unacceptable conditions which would normally be reported by “nosy neighbors”. If the owner was breeding their animals, this could ultimately impact the consumers who buy their products. We assert that if an acceptable permit is designed for true show/hunt hobbyists with a cap on the number of animals owned and with new provisions in place to ensure they are a true hobbyist, there is no need for the private kennel license and we would like to see this removed from further consideration.
• We also assert that regardless of what changes are ultimately approved, additional city resources and/or the implementation of citizen code enforcement needs to be evaluated so that our ordinances can be enforced or, in the case of less fortunate citizens, we find ways to help people comply so they are not in violation of the ordinances. There are many issues with animal welfare in addition to the abuse of the hobbyist permit which need to be addressed. Selling puppies on the street corner; those who don’t comply with the hobbyist permit requirement at all; those who do not spay/neuter their pets or comply with owned animal limitations and licensing requirements; pets at large, etc. We can create new ordinances infinitely but until we address compliance issues, we cannot create the change needed to move our city forward. Passing the buck and pointing fingers has not served us well so far. OAA and its animal welfare partners would like to see all interested parties find a way to work together to make the city a better place to live for all citizens and their four-legged companions.
For your reference, we have listed our suggestions and issues as they pertain to specific provisions:

• §101.A.14.d. – OAA opposes the private kennel exemption and would like to see a rescue permit placed under a separate subsection to address rescue specific requirements. All references to rescues in other sections should be removed.
• §117.A. – We suggest that the current hobbyist permit provisions be kept in place with the following modifications:
o a cap be placed on the number of animals a hobbyist can own. This number should be no greater than the number of animals permitted to be housed by a rescue.
o a removal of the exception for hunter hobbyist to have more than 3 dogs outside at once.
o A provision added for “professional breeder” which should be defined. For example, a professional pet breeder is someone who does not qualify as a commercial pet breeder under state law but who does makes a living from selling puppies and kittens. This should be to distinguished from someone who engages in the hobby of showing pets for leisure purposes.
• §117.C.4. - Proof that the applicant has participated in at least one field trial within the past 12 months should precede the requirement the applicant has a nationally registered dog. Otherwise, a hunter otherwise qualifying for the exemption without a nationally registered dog could leave his dog intact.
• §117.F. – Requirements for a Rescue – We request a separate section be created for a Rescue Permit and all requirements for rescue organizations be placed in this section.
• §117 – We request language be clarified to identify the number of animals the hobby exemption would allow for show/hunt.
• §118.A. – Private Kennel Exemption Permit – We would like to see the proposed private kennel exemption permit eliminated. Rather, we feel the same objectives can be achieved with modifications to the current hobbyist permit as stated above. If the current hobbyist permit is kept, we suggest a cap on the number of animals which can be housed by a hobbyist and that the number be no greater than what is allowed a rescue.
• §118.A. – The permit fees for rescues should be significantly less than that of a private kennel. We request the fees not increase from what they currently are for rescues ($25 for the first year and $10 for renewals). This also illustrates the need to move all rescue related provisions to a separate section specifically related to rescue provisions.
• §118.B. – We would like the term “commercial breeder” to be defined and the term hobbyist to be defined with possible language to distinguish a hobbyist from a professional breeder who earns part of their income by breeding and selling dogs and cats.
• §118.B.3. – If the private kennel permit is kept, we would like to see a cap on the number of animals that can be kept there, a definition of acceptable accommodations, provisions for standards of care and provisions which govern how often the owner must visit the facility.
• §118.B.4. – We request that the number of animals allowed by a rescuer be 7, all of which may be dogs or cats, inclusive of owned animals permitted by Title 2. Again, we also request that all rescue requirements be removed from this section and placed in a separate section to address the requirements specific to rescues to alleviate confusion.
• §118.F.1. - The rescue permit should not be referred to as a private kennel permit. Rescues are permitted to house their animals in a residential area. Private kennel permits are for those facilities which will be located in commercial or industrial zoned areas.
• §118.F.2. – We request the petition provision be eliminated. Rescuers are volunteers doing a service for the city. Requiring the petition places an undue burden on the rescuer and we risk losing dedicated volunteers if the burden is too great. Furthermore, neighborhood disputes could make abiding by this provision difficult. We suggest other provisions in place in Title 2 for qualifications, self-policing of the animal welfare community and general nuisance ordinances will ensure the permit is not abused.

These suggestions are respectfully submitted on behalf of several groups in the animal welfare community in Tulsa. We wish not only to reduce pet overpopulation, but also to encourage responsible pet ownership and eliminate situations which impact the quality of life for all Tulsa citizens.

Comments: 0

Comments: 0

Comments: 8

Comments: 1

Comments: 0

Comments: 4

Comments: 0

Comments: 0

Comments: 3