Supervisors postpone action on cat-dog law

If you have a neighbor with hoards of cats or dogs, that person could possibly be an Animal Hoarder. Adult Protective Services should be called so a Social Worker can be assigned to assess the situation. The phone number to call is 1-800-664-9774. It is staffed here in Oroville 24/7. Indeed, people who hoard animals are in need of help, and sending Animal Control out to "educate" them will not work. As far as I know, the AC officers are not educated Social Workers. Let the folks ith the education deal with the problem.

While I agree that education is paramount in solving this problem, I also believe some ordinance is needed with a few tweaks. Dogs who bark all day are a problem. Owners should be fined and forced to take their dog to a vet to see if there are any underlying problems. If the dog contunues to bark and there are no underlying health issues, the owner should be fined until the situation is resolved. In my experience, it is usually a chained or a caged animal which barks. There is a law against chaining an animal and it should be enforced. If caging is what is causing the dog to bark, then the owner should find some other remedy for securing the dog or find it another home.
For the cat problem, I see a different solution. Instead of a "one size fits all" approach maybe the law should be ammended to a complaint accompanied by a trapped or caught cat who belongs to a neighbor who hass what some would consider too many. If a complaint is made (accompanied by a caught or trapped cat), then animal control should go to the cat owner and give them a warning about this particular cat and force them to have this cat and their remaining cats cats spayed or neutered. The problem of one cat should not be the problem of all. If the fellow out in Kelly Ridge traps the cats, he should turn them over to animal control and let them take the necessary legal measures to stop whoever is not in control of their cats. What may be part of his problem is people taking cats they have trapped in their neighborhoods and then taking them out to his neighborhood.
As far as the woman who says people who have more animals than she sees fit as enough are "sick", I think her mental health may be an issue. I see people who have too many cars, televisionns, VCR's and video games. Are people who have an excess of non-living items more healthy than those who have an excess of living ones? I think not.
I own two dogs. They are secured, they are housed and fed well, they get annual trips to the vet whether they are sick or not, they get their shots and I keep them on a leash at all times where it is required. They are healthy, friendly and happy. I think much of this problem is because people like to have pets but don't like the responsibility of taking care of them properly. If someone is letting their cats run free they are being irresponsible. If they are allowing their dogs to bark constantly, they are not being responsible. Make them pay, not the people who take care of their animals and take care of them properly; no matter how many they have.

I always get nervous when "new" laws are talked about , especially when they are to solve a problem an existing law could handle. We have nuisance laws already in effect, disturbing the peace if nothing else.If you cannot enforce an existing law, how will more laws help?
Maybe having a place to help a hundred dumped strays (how about doing something about the dumping problem first)is that ladies idea of a dream home.

LWright wrote:

I always get nervous when "new" laws are talked about , especially when they are to solve a problem an existing law could handle. We have nuisance laws already in effect, disturbing the peace if nothing else.If you cannot enforce an existing law, how will more laws help?
Maybe having a place to help a hundred dumped strays (how about doing something about the dumping problem first)is that ladies idea of a dream home.

Exactly what "existing" laws are you talking about? There are no "nuisance" or disturbing the peace laws that apply to unincorporated areas of the county. There is not even an enforceable noise ordinance. What I get nervous about are ignorant morons who have not even the slightest idea of law, but become competent lawyers when posting.

New laws don't take care of people that are nuisance neighbors. Those that have nothing to do but watch other people and report everything under the sun. Kids playing in the pool, too noisy, singing to the radio, too noisy. Breathing, too noisy. Why is it that people feel they muct make laws to accomodate a few radical busy bodies? There is a reason for some dogs to bark, intruders springs to mind. House on fire is another. We have all read how a barking dog saved his "family" from certain death. I agree that some dogs bark excessively. Someone in my neighborhood has one of those little noisy creatures. But, new laws? Where does it end? I want a law that gets rid of nuisance law makers.

Hugh G Rection wrote:

<quoted text>Exactly what "existing" laws are you talking about? There are no "nuisance" or disturbing the peace laws that apply to unincorporated areas of the county. There is not even an enforceable noise ordinance. What I get nervous about are ignorant morons who have not even the slightest idea of law, but become competent lawyers when posting.

Sounds like you have an axe to grind more than any real information.

Also, the "new" law simply make it easier to file a complaint.
Butte county has existing law that deal with nuisance dogs, which is up for amendment.

LWright wrote:

Maybe having a place to help a hundred dumped strays (how about doing something about the dumping problem first)is that ladies idea of a dream home.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I live a couple houses down from her, and really, I've never took issue with the cats, and I *hate* cats (I've also never smelled the smells mentioned either, and I walk/bike by her house daily.) But, she's lived here over 20 years or more, doesn't bother anyone, and waves as her daughter drives her by. Seems like a nice old lady. Maybe there are "hoarding" issues, I don't know, not a psychologist. But, she has her peice of paradise and maybe it's her dream.

Then, Mr. N moves up and throws a lot of money into his packaged professionally landscaped Mc Mansion (that reeks of deer repellent), and then instantly realized that he's maybe not made the best decision buying this place next to a 1970s run-down mobile home and alleged cattery. Well, if I were going to build my dream house and spend that much money, I bet I'd research things a little bit better. I mean the dude built within the bare minimum distance from the neigbor's house. If things are really so bad, didn't he ever notice before moving there (or building, as he has stated?)

Or, perhaps he was planning on displacing her all along. He once told me "you've no right to tell me what I ought to do", yet he so comfortably is wanting new laws created to tell the whole County what they ought to do.

Next thing he'll be after all the neigbor's dogs, all the deer/wildlife, and watch out, I've seen him on the trails by the Lake while out biking/hiking... he'll want them reserved for foot traffic only!