Halifax council decided Tuesday to revisit the potentially absurd cat issue, and held a contentious, if brief, debate on pesticides.
Two years ago, councillors brought much public scorn and derision
upon themselves by spending dozens of hours first debating, then
implementing, a cat registration system, only to reverse themselves
when it was discovered that expanding the animal shelter to handle the
influx of unregistered felines would cost upwards of $2 million.
Tuesday, councillor Jim Smith suggested that council take a look at
adopting a trap, neuter and release program for feral cats. Although
such a program wouldn’t intrude on citizens’ complex relationships with
their feline friends, it is arguably even more ambitious than the
aborted cat registration scheme—Smith seems to belive that he can
reverse 250 years of history and turn Halifax into a port city free of
feral cats.
There is in fact evidence that trap, neuter and release can work;
Pierre Filiatreault has successfully lowered the feral cat population
on DND properties along the waterfront (see Lezlie Lowe’s profile of
Filiatreault, “City of cats,” from April 9). But it’s anyone’s guess
what a city-wide program would cost—one expert told Lowe it’d cost
some $33 million.
In the end, council voted 14 to eight to direct city staff to
investigate that cost and bring back a report detailing how a trap,
neuter and release program would work. Expect a catfight at some
future, as yet unscheduled council meeting.
Emotions also ran high Tuesday when councillor Jennifer Watts asked
council to endorse a Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities resolution
calling for the provincial government to ban the sale of
pesticides.
In 2001, HRM banned the cosmetic use of pesticides within HRM
limits, but there are wide exemptions—for golf courses, for
example—and the banned chemicals are still for sale in garden supply
stores. Judging by brisk sales at the those stores, many residents
simply ignore the ban.
The UNSM resolution is vague (see unsm.ca) and not likely to be considered by the
province in any event, but councillors spent 10 or 15 minutes in a
heated argument about it anyway, before voting 13 to nine to sign onto
the resolution.
This article appears in Sep 24-30, 2009.
There should be a city wide program available. Funding should be easily assessable to those who do TNR. There is nothing available to help them, they do this on their own dime.
And also, metro needs a low cost & neuter clinic.
Letting Coun. Jim Smith make policy about cats is like letting a fox make policy about chicken coops. He wants to eliminate cats from going outside in HRM, plain and simple. He is a cat-hater and is abusing his position to continually raise this issue.
Jim Smith is not a cat hater, BG. Have you spoken with the man on this issue? It seems not. Jim Smith has lobbied for solutions to the feral cat problem on behalf of his constituents, not because of personal feelings towards felines, but because representing residents of his district is his job.
He does not want to prevent cats from going outdoors. He wants responsible pet ownership for owned cats. Controlling feral cats is another issue entirely.
The cat bylaw was requested in 2004 because of an ill-conceived, poorly run cat shelter that exists on a tiny property in HRM’s District 9 that is breeding uneutered cats on a regular basis. There are easily 30 or more cats living there which turn neighbouring properties into giant, reeking litterboxes and cause expensive destruction to neighbour’s yards, homes and belongings. Politely asking the elderly, incapable owner of the cat shelter to control her animals results in beligerence, vitriol and retaliation. She is not interested in the welfare of the cats or she would not be letting them run amok in the neighbourhood or let them breed uncontrollably. She is only interested in the attention, albeit negative, that keeping that many cats attracts. It is a pitiable situation for the cats and the old woman whose home consists of the type of squalour and odour associated with housing that many animals ineffectually in a tiny 600 sq. foot house.
The cat bylaw was requested because, unlike dogs, there are no regulations in place for cat owners who are disrespectful of others.
This may come as a shock for some people, but the cat bylaw was never about cats or even their owners. THE CAT BYLAW IS NOT ABOUT CATS – IT IS ABOUT EQUALITY! When one resident’s actions cause loss of equality for another resident to enjoy their property then that equality is lost. THIS is what Jim Smith has been fighting for. He is not against cats. He is for equality of HRM residents.
Oceanlady, spare me your cheerleading on behalf of Jim Smith. Have I talked to him? I tried — and received a rambling, delusional reply that made no sense, similar to yours, in fact. When I challenged some of his points, he refused to respond any further. So let’s talk about equality of representation for humans first, because I have a representative on council who will neither speak nor write to me. Let’s start there, OK?
Stop the lie about him not wanting to prevent cats from going outdoors. His beloved cat bylaw of 2 years ago would have given HRM the authority to round up and kill any cat the cat police encountered. So technically a cat could go outside I suppose, but it was a game of russian roulette whether you ever saw it again. Stop the doubletalk.
There is a bad cat shelter in District 9? Fine. I guess Smith actually does talk with some of the residents in his riding even if he does not do so with me. Whatever. Deal with THAT small local problem. HRM does not need yet another blanket bylaw to deal with a small local problem in one neighborhood.
Finally, stop the big lie that the cat bylaw was not about cats. Of course it was about cats. Cats were the pawn in the hands of Smith and a few other councillors who wanted to once again implement a bylaw giving HRM still more control over citizens lives and freedoms. There are a lot of things that people have to put up with when they live in an urban environment. Reasonable people find a way to deal with each other without a nuke-like bylaw hanging over their heads. But Smith does not want that, and feels that a bylaw is the solution to every complaint that he manages to receive. He is the worst councillor I have ever encountered because he is not only inept, he is downright idiotic. And in this case, he is also duplicitous, using the Mayor’s absence to get this item once again on council’s agenda when it was clearly not something that was going to happen while Kelly was in the chair.
Just stop.
I don’t know how I feel about the subject, as my cat is strictly kept indoors, but I do know that Bo Gus sounds like a raving maniac which is probably why he hasn’t got much of a response from his councillor. Probably scared him.
Bo Gus: Jim Smith first requested the cat-bylaw on behalf of the neighbours of this particular cat lady who were left with no other option. How would you have handled the situation Gus, instead of asking for a bylaw?
This cat bylaw request certainly was turned into a circus by the media and city council but the initial motive was to actually have a legal opton under which one COULD deal with the problem.
The primary motivation by the particular residents who asked Councillor Smith to request a cat bylaw was to ensure that they had the right to enjoy their properties as much as the irresponsible cat ‘shelter’ owner. This is why the cat bylaw was only really about equality. It was funny, in a sad sort of way, to watch everyone else make it out to be what they wanted it to be about! And still is, apparently.
If you have a problem with a cat shelter and feel the need to pass a bylaw, then pass a bylaw dealing with cat shelters, not cats. How difficult is that? “HRM Animal Control shall have the authority to deem any residence or building a cat shelter if it meets the following criteria.. etc etc and then you specify what they can do about it. Or you could do it thru a planning amendment not allowing animal shelters in certain areas. It isn’t hard to do. Smith either didn’t get that (hence the idiotic/inept comment) or had a hidden agenda (the duplicitous comment). His approach was equivalent to having a problem with parking lots and proposing to handle it by banning all vehicles.
Jennier, I get worked up over this one, I acknowledge. It drives me nuts when my elected representative refuses to do his job. Interestingly enough, I can communicate quite effectively and civilly with those in his adjacent districts. Just not with him.
Read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/science/…
Cat’s should not be allowed to roam. Really, I think if I see a cat on my property I should be allowed to shoot it.
Cats (not cat’s, please) take care of our rodent problem quite effectively. When birds or mice get a vote, then we can pass laws banning cats from roaming.
If someone wants to keep 30 to 50 cats on a very tiny residential lot then they must not be allowed to let them roam. It doesn’t matter the species, if you are responsible for an animal, part of that responsibility is ensuring your animal is not causing grief to other people. If we were talking boa constrictors or tarantulas, both kept by people as pets, there would be an uproar if they roamed freely.
If someone wants to keep even 500 cats, that is their right. But only when the animals are contained to that person’s property. The moment one of them trespasses onto a neighbouring property that person’s equality has been violated. Key word here: TRESPASSING.
BTW Gus: The neighbours of the elderly cat lady DID request a bylaw SPECIFIC to poorly conceived ad hoc cat ‘shelters’ on residential streets but ALL of the city councillors, not just Jim Smith, turned a reasonable, justified request into a zoo! Don’t blame one man for the actions of them all. And don’t blame exasperated neighbours of the incapable old lady with all those uncontrolled, still breeding cats for requesting some sanity in an insane situation. Blame the creator of this situation…the rude, obnoxious old woman who has no intention of housing that many unneutered cats in a manner that is responsible for the cats or the neighbours.