Pets Alive Westchester supports their decision but needs YOUR help

It all started with pre-teen Lucinda, 12, who had been saving up for a place of her own for over a decade, nearly twelve years to be exact. In January (thanks to the depreciated housing market) her wish came true and she found the PERFECT house, with a field of wild flowers to wander in each day and a deck to sunbathe. It was almost as if the house was built just for her. As you can imagine, her old friends back at Pets Alive Westchester are quite jealous of the lovely Lucinda. She writes often to tell the tales of her new adventures and sends pictures, but the damage is done- the seed has been planted…

These teenagers want OUT!!

Onyx, also 12, was the next to venture out on his own. Soon after Jake, 14 and Webster, 14- each had been waiting since the late 90’s- now had the strength and the confidence to leave the nest. Before we knew it Brandy, 9, who had been spending the weekends at a friend’s house was offered a room to stay at the neighbors-permanently! Then Honey Bear, 13, and Oreo, 12, who had been shacking up together at the center for over 10 years decided that they too would like to see the world and experience something new. They are still together and loving life- they send us post cards of their wonderful adventures together.

At 15 years old, our oldest and wisest resident, Smokey was secretly dreaming of a new life as well. While he loved us all dearly, he knew he had much more to offer and many more hearts to touch. So he looked up his dear old friend Lucinda and asked if she could give him a place to stay for a little while. Lucinda enthusiastically offered Smokey a new home, a new companion and a new life. Smokey instantly fell in love with the meadow of wildflowers and Lucinda was happy to share her own little oasis.

Each time we hear from Smokey, Lucinda, Webster and all the others we cry tears of joy for them. Of course they all have just one question for us. What about the rest of their friends? When will they have the opportunity to be as happy and loved? While we work tirelessly to find them all a home, we need YOUR help. There are still 100 teenagers back at the center who are looking for a chance, an opportunity, to experience something new. To see new places and meet new friends. Most of them don’t need much. Perhaps a couch to crash on, a ride from the center to your place or even just a reference to a friend or coworker to help get them started out. YOU can make that difference. YOU can give them the only thing they have ever wanted- a place to call home….

Operators are standing by to give you more information on how you can make a difference today.  Even better you can stop by the adoption center and meet any one of our wonderful teenagers- we guarantee you leave with a smile, a full and happy heart, and a new best friend!

(Please note – the animals pictured here are still looking for a way out. Come and give them a ride – today!)

Pets Alive Westchester, 100 Warehouse Lane, Elmsford, NY 10523
914-592-7339, www.petsalivewest.org
We are open 7 days a week: Sun – Thurs 10-4, Fri 10 – 7:30, Sat 10-6:30

Pets Alive Westchester is a no-kill animal shelter. Our mission is to improve the lives of companion animals everywhere by any means possible, including rescue, adoption, advocacy, collaboration, intervention and education. We care for dogs, cats and rabbits at our adoption center in Elmsford, NY. Many of the animals at Pets Alive Westchester are older, have special needs or require special care.

We heard about this situation the first week of March. That is when the complaint was made and the police moved in to assess the situation. After going on the property, they must have seen that they had to pursue much more serious legal action against Sylvia Pinneta and at that time they were authorized to remove only dogs that were in absolute CRITICAL states of needing medical attention, after giving Sylvia the opportunity to do so. From what I understand she was asked to seek medical attention for the dogs that the police department felt needed it most and I believe that perhaps she refused, and as a result they were able to then confiscate those dogs. (again, all of this is between her and the police and I can not speak to what happened, so please understand that I have no knowledge of the legalities involved in this situation).

Those dogs, who we named Josh and Kelli were brought to Pets Alive. Josh had such a badly mangled leg that had been untreated for so long that he was in agony every time he moved, severely malnourished, and very tiny, (most likely a result of having so little care and being in so much pain for so long). We rushed him to Dr. Furman who immediately had to amputate his leg. Josh had a very difficult recovery, but he is now well on his way to moving about comfortably.

Kelli had what appeared to be two broken toes. Again, they appeared to be old injuries where no medical attention had been sought and they had healed facing UPWARD. She limped very badly on them and was also clearly uncomfortable. There was nothing to do for her but to amputate half her foot to remove those toes. Kelli is doing well and is able to run around now. She is now being fostered with a wonderful family who will formally adopt her once this process is over.

The town gathered all their information and got all their ducks into a row and then this week they were finally able to arrest Sylvia on animal cruelty and other charges. Pets Alive has offered to take every single dog from the home, ONCE THE TOWN HAS OWNERSHIP OF THEM.

We can not get into a situation where we take the dogs and board them here and care for them (there are almost 80 of them) while the town goes through Sylvia’s due process, which could take months, or unfortunately even YEARS. Once they do have ownership though, we have stepped up to offer our services and we will work closely with other organizations to make sure all the rotties are properly vetted, cared for and adopted.

So the rotties are NOT here yet. We have a few of them that were in severe medical crisis – Josh and Kelli – and now we took in Eileen – another severely injured (or malformed) dog that needs some serious surgery or additional help. All the puppies were taken out of there (to Middletown Humane) and all the late term, very pregnant females were taken and put into foster by Mountain Rottie Rescue.

NONE OF THE DOGS ARE AVAILABLE FOR ADOPTION YET!

Please do not come here or to Middletown Humane and ask to see them or adopt them. Unfortunately the dogs still “technically” all belong to Sylvia. So until a judge orders their seizure, none of them can be shown or adopted.

However if you ARE interested in adoption, then we would love for you to PRE fill out an adoption application. This way once the dogs do come here, and get vetted, we can immediately have you come down and get first pick of a dog that you might be interested in possibly adopting or fostering!

So I hope that clears up our role. We don’t really HAVE any official role in this. We can’t really ACT or do anything until the police have actual custody of the dogs. We HAVE gone up a few times to assess the situation and help in a minor way but we do plan (and expect) that eventually ALL the dogs will be here where they can be taken care of properly and moved into other rescues and into homes!

We thank ALL of you that are stepping up to help and to volunteer time and services but at this time we only have three of the dogs, and they are not available for adoption yet. There is also nothing else that can be done to help the dogs, until the town has seized full custody.

We will keep you all updated!

And hey…while these pictures are sad…you can also be happy that the police thought enough to come to us and trusted us enough to care for these guys, because -

LOOK AT KELLI NOW!

You can tell by that grin that she knows she is going to be ok now!

We also get all of the CACC mailings with the pictures of the dogs and cats that are scheduled to die the next morning and we look at those and help pull those animals whenever we can.

That is how I came across one of the saddest looking dogs I had ever seen. His name was Jojo.

Jojo was supposedly 10 years old. His owner had gotten arrested, and JoJo was brought to the CACC, where JoJo just…..well….gave up.

He wouldn’t even sit for his picture and volunteers said he would not respond in any way to them, or come for a walk.
He lay in his run, not looking at any one.
Not eating.
Not participating in life.

And so he went on the kill list to be euthanized the next day.

All night I watched his thread, hoping I would see that he was “safe” but with an old dog, there are not many people who would take this on, never mind an old dog with possible issues or in need of specialized care or worse – very special adopters that would ignore his age, his special needs and his depression. No rescue wants a dog that will stay for a long period of time. We want to be able to move our dogs out into homes, so we can help save the next one!

But they start killing the animals early in the morning, and at 6 am, I checked again, and he was still there.
Not safe.

Awaiting his death.
He looked so miserable, so sad. So broken.

And so we reached for the phone and pulled him.

Over the next few days we hit a few obstacles in getting him to us from the city, and finally his transport was arranged, and we eagerly awaited the day of his arrival. Volunteers had followed his story and they were all set to shower him with love and to show him a new life.

Then I got an email from the CACC. Someone had come in looking to adopt JoJo. The woman said they had been looking all over the place for him, at every shelter in NY and was he here? They responded that he was, but that he had already been adopted.

WHAT??? I’m sorry – but WHAT? The woman was a family member. Sister to the person who had been arrested. She said she loved JoJo and had been searching everywhere for him. She also added that JoJo was on medication – he was an epileptic and he needed medication for that and also for his joints and she told them how much of a dosage he got and how often. Clearly this woman KNEW the dog, cared about him, and wanted to take him home. But they stuck to their guns. Jojo was “adopted” .

Again…WHAT?

No he wasn’t. He had been pulled by rescue. Us. But a rescue. To go to live a life in a shelter. NOT a home. And here was a HOME – someone that KNEW the dog, wanted him and was standing in front of them crying?
…and they turn their back on her and on Jojo and continue the process to transfer him to us??????

Oh my. Sigh.

Thankfully someone at the CACC went after her and wrote all of this down and passed it on to us, including the woman’s contact information.

But again, here is such a disconnect. Jojo had family. He had someone that was looking for him. WHY WOULD ANY ORGANIZATION NOT IMMEDIATELY CALL US AND TELL US THE GREAT NEWS!??

Why in the world would you send this woman away, from a dog that she loved and from one that loved her, to send that dog to an unknown life in a shelter, when he could go to a home?

The minute I read the email about the need for Jojo to be on the medication, and the woman’s number to contact if we needed more information about it, I was stunned.

Why, why, why, why, why?

We immediately contacted her. We told her we would be thrilled for her to take Jojo. She broke down and wept. She wept loudly, and long, and with great happiness, great despair, and great relief. She must have thanked us 1,000 times.

We arranged for her to go BACK to the CACC as a Pets Alive representative to pick up the dog “for us”.

And of course we didn’t take the dog – we instantly approved her adoption and sent Jojo directly home with her.

Jojo never came here, he never needed to.

His home was with the people that loved him. With the people that went to every single shelter in NYC to try to find him, after calling netted them no results.

This woman called the police, the shelters, she hunted for days for this beloved dog of her sister’s and was bereft when she was told that the dog had been adopted out.

Why would any organization prevent her from taking that dog home with them? This is another disconnect, another problem at the bleagured CACC in NYC. The lack of common sense. The lack of the ability to make a judgement call, to do the right thing, to do everything in their power to reunite a lost dog with an owner, or to give a confiscated dog to a family member that clearly loves and wants that dog.

I know the pictures on this page are not great. The people have only an older cell phone and are not computer savvy so it was hard to get us some good pictures, but the pictures you see here are the day that they picked Jojo up and took him home. Home. Home after taking him for a long walk at the beach, after getting his epilepsy medication into him, after getting him a good meal and settling him down in a warm and cozy bed in their living room.

Why would anyone deprive them of taking this dog home with them, and why would anyone deprive a dog that had given up all hope and just waited to die, a chance to go home with someone he clearly loved?

You’re home Jojo. We are so glad to be the instruments of that for you and so glad that your eyes have light in them once again.

Enjoy the rest of your days in the arms of people that didn’t give up on you. Who hunted the mean streets of NYC to bring you home.

Home.

Below is an email sent by Pets Alive to the Middletown Council to consider instead of a city wide insurance requirement for renters.  We hope that they might consider this option instead of the current plan, or working in conjunction WITH the insurance plan:

———————————————–

In regards to the issue in Middletown with the problem owners of problem dogs.  I think that we are actually on the exact same page about this.  I believe in reading the PDF you posted originally that it doesn’t explain the real issue at stake, and contrary to the mayor’s opinion, we are far from naïve about the issues involving dogs in cities. If we are going to be honest and upfront about this here –  you have some irresponsible citizens using dogs to intimidate, threaten and wreck havoc in your city.  Terrorizing neighbors, making it difficult to do inspections or deal safely with public issues in those areas.

You asked for a possible solution.  I’ve come up with an idea that I’d like to have you all review.

Please forgive me for the convoluted nature of it.  It is just in the “thinking” stages right now, which is why I didn’t voice it last night.  It would need some major fleshing out, but maybe this is a possible solution.

It seems to be that you have the majority of Middletown residents that are law abiding, responsible people.  You also have a fair share of “issue people” with “issue dogs”.  How many would you estimate?  50? 100?  150?  How many would you honestly say are the problem people in the city?  I have no idea what the number would be but I think it would be a fair guess that it is not 95% of the population.

While I think the CGC (Canine Good Citizen) test has some merit, this is again having your RESPONSIBLE pet owners have to go and get this testing done on their perfectly good dogs to prove and show they are decent people with decent pets.  I do like this idea though as a way to be exempted if you choose to still go with the forced insurance plan.  Good people and good dogs should have a way of being excluded from having to be penalized for doing nothing wrong.

The “issue people” aren’t going to go for this test and you feel then they would go and get insurance.  I would guess though that you’re wrong.  I would guess that they would get dogs and not tell landlords, that if caught they will say the dog isn’t their’s, that they are minding it, or that they just found it…they will dump the animal, wait a month and get another one.

Years ago I was in a car accident.  The driver ran a red light.  He was drunk. He had a suspended drivers license and he had no insurance.  Running a red light is illegal. Driving while intoxicated is illegal.  Driving with a suspended license is illegal. Having a car with no insurance is illegal.  Yet there we were.  The law abiding citizens will obey your laws.  The others – WON’T. You may catch and enforce this on a few people but I truly believe this isn’t going to solve your problem in the city and it certainly won’t stop the bites and threatening dogs. They will all still be there – just with insurance.

What about if you JUST focused on the problem people and the problem dogs.
ONLY on them?

How about instituting a complaint system.
Someone gets three complaints (or whatever number the city determines to be realistic) about their dog (even if by the same complaintent) with three incidents reported, then that dog MUST go for a temperament test. A summons that an ACO or a police officer could write that mandates a behavior evaluation.

The “incident” would NOT have to be a bite.  Don’t wait that long!!!  ANY person can file a complaint about a dog for anything they deem threatening.  Such as lunging at them.  Lunging at their dog.  Snapping or growling as they walk through their own hallways.

Once three complaints are filed (or whatever number you feel responsible), then that dog MUST go for a temperament test (or perhaps attend a CGC class instead?).

Pets Alive has one of the top three canine behaviorists in the country.  His name is Pat Whitacre and he was the dog trainer from the National Geographic show DogTown. We can ask him to do these evaluations.  He can then code the evaluations for you as RED (potentially dangerous and/or unpredictable), YELLOW (may need caution, a muzzle or can be pushed to react) or GREEN (non-issue dog).

If the dog is a RED, then that owner MUST then get the insurance you mandate, must keep the dog muzzled at all times when in public, perhaps pay a  “retainer” to the city in case of a bite, or would need to surrender the dog.

If the dog is YELLOW then this should be at the discretion of the city how to handle and perhaps each yellow dog can be reviewed on a case by case basis by anyone you see fit (and we would also be happy to help with this, make the recommendation, or turn it over to someone in your city to make that decision). Perhaps YELLOW dogs would also require the insurance, or perhaps a muzzle in public depending on WHY they were yellow (for instance are they yellow because they hate other dogs?  Are they yellow because if really pushed they MAY react by snapping or biting (but are generally ok if not provoked), or are they yellow because they are particularly fearful or shy and therefore their reactions may differ in different situations).

GREEN would mean the dog seems to have no issues, and could not be provoked into a dangerous reaction.

Perhaps you can have the owner pay a $50 fee for these evaluations, and the city would take a $25 administrative fee and Pets Alive would be paid a $25 eval fee (or whatever fee you feel appropriate).  If not Pets Alive, then some other organization that is qualified to do temperament testing but you also must be careful because you have two schools of dog/rescue people out there – you will have the ones that want to pass all the dogs and you have the ones that will fail many of the dogs for impractical causes.  The dog world can be a crazy place.  I will promise you that Pets Alive and our trainers would be 100% on board with our evaluations for you.  We WANT these dogs off the street.  We WANT to see these people not be allowed to have dogs. We hate that they can mistreat and use dogs in this manner and we are deeply upset to think about children living in fear in their own homes, or being mauled by an animal.  But equally we want to make sure that the dog is fairly evaluated and since we have one of the best behaviorists in the country right here it seems silly to not use him.  However, that would be up to you, we merely volunteer our support and help in this, if we can.

Potential Problems with this idea:

The “crazies”. You are going to have some people that just hate dogs and will file erroneous complaints about every dog they see.  Perhaps a way to solve this would be that if the dog turns out to be GREEN then THEY are required to pay the testing fee of $50.  After a few of these stack up they won’t be so quick to complain about every single dog in the neighborhood.

What constitutes a complaint:  The city would need to be clear on what can be complained about.  This is about threatening dogs.  This is not about dogs peeing on bushes that the city cut too short (smile) or defecation on the lawn that wasn’t cleaned up.  Complaints need to be specific as to the feeling of being threatened or damaged in some way by the dog or the person with the dog.

Legality:  I have no idea if you can FORCE someone to get a temperament test on their dog or force them to ONLY get it at a pre-approved City of Middletown place. Would they legally be allowed to bring the dog to any place that conducts such testing? Can they be required to pay?  Perhaps this solution of temperament testing would be offered as an option or they would THEN fall under your other insurance law. “Do this. Or buy the insurance”  ?

Liability to Pets Alive and the City of Middletown:   I’m a little anxious about offering the temperament testing because of liability issues.  If we rate a dog a green and that dog then bites someone, can this come back to “bite us both in the butt”?  Can the city and Pets Alive be sued?  Or can each rating go with a clause stating that neither the city or Pets Alive guarantee these temperament tests to be accurate, or something to that effect?  Because even GREEN dogs might potentially bite in the right situation and dogs by their very nature can be unpredictable in any circumstance.  Wording would need to be in place to protect Pets Alive (or whoever was doing the testing) and the City of Middletown for a lawsuit stemming from this.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.

My name is Kerry Clair and I am the executive director the Pets Alive Animal Sanctuary in Middletown.

We very much appreciate being heard on legislation regarding animal issues.

I’d first like to address the proposal before the council to mandate the purchase of dog insurance by renters.

In every town across the nation, where mandated animal laws were adopted, the law never solved the issue it was supposed to resolve. In every case, towns that adopted ordinances such as insurance requirements, mandatory spay neuter and breed specific legislation have never been successful. The problem is that only the responsible pet owners will follow these mandates. The irresponsible ones will ignore them ANYWAY.

Additionally many landlords will decide the law is not worth the hassle to enforce, and will demand that tenants get rid of their dogs. Where will all of those dogs go? Is there a plan for that? Are you planning on mass killing for all of them? That sounds harsh, but there doesn’t seem to be a plan in place for housing or rehoming these animals that will be surrendered. Already the Middletown Humane Society and surrounding shelters are full and there is already a waiting list to take dogs in. What will now happen to these dogs that tenants will be forced to surrender?

Even if they are not forced by landlords to surrender their dogs, many will not be able to afford to purchase this insurance. An additional $300 a year in insurance , for people already struggling to make ends meet, is simply not affordable for MANY residents of Middletown. Those people will also be forced to give up their pets.

Already so many landlords do not allow pets. We could place so many more animals in homes and have so many fewer animals in shelters if more landlords would allow pets. This law gives them another reason for not dealing with what they perceive to be the hassle of pets in their rental property.

Our second concern is the definition of a bite. The ordinance calls for any person that has a dog that has bitten to carry extra insurance, and uses the term “dangerous dog”. “Dangerous Dog” has a specific legal definition under NYS Agriculture and Markets law. The law has specific circumstances under which a dog can be determined by a judge or justice to be a dangerous animal to the community. For that reason we shouldn’t use or redefine that term when describing a dog that has bitten or nipped someone.

Additionally, who will determine if a family has to carry even MORE insurance because their dog has a bite on his record? Will each bite or nip be analyzed independently? They are not all equal and shouldn’t be treated as such.

Instead, why not require muzzles for dogs that have a past and proven aggressive bite history, when out in public, like the New York State Dangerous Dog Law does? Wouldn’t that be more fair? This will safely enable dogs to be out in public without unfairly penalizing renters and people in Middletown who have perfectly well behaved dogs and are perfectly responsible pet owners.

Will having insurance result in fewer bites? No. What is the goal of this new law and how will it be enforced? Obviously police can’t go house-to-house demanding to see proof of insurance for dogs. Does it only have to be proven if the dog has bitten? And then what happens if the renter doesn’t have that insurance? Do they then get fined? Kicked out? The dog confiscated? Since the town won’t really know if a renter has the insurance until after a bite, why should every owner be penalized if they are responsible and act responsibly in their personal dog ownership?

Since we already know it doesn’t work, as evidenced in other cities that have tried it, why would the city even consider it?

The second and final thing I would like to discuss tonight is the new ban on feeding cats. I respectfully ask that you rescind this ordinance.

THIS METHOD OF CONTROLLING CAT POPULATIONS HAS NEVER, EVER, WORKED. The ONLY way to decrease stray and feral populations of cats is by TNR (Trap/Neuter/Return).

If you have 25 feral cats and you leave them unchecked, every year each female will have one or two litters and those litters will stay IN that feral colony. They will then have their own litters. This will expand exponentially. However if you have 25 cats and you fix them so no offspring are born – THOSE CATS WILL NOT USUALLY ALLOW STRANGE CATS TO JOIN THEM. So as they die (the average life span of a feral cats is about 5 years old) your colony will get smaller and smaller.

Not feeding them and punishing people that feed them will accomplish NOTHING. Starved cats do not “go away”. They are there because well before someone started feeding them, they found a food source. Or good shelter. Or safety. If you don’t help them with a little food, then they may become sick, ill or diseased, and this malnourished condition also makes them more susceptible to parasitic infestations, such as fleas and roundworms which they will then spread in your neighborhood to your family pets, though this does NOT STOP THEM from breeding. Then you have kittens born. Sick kittens in feral colonies DIE. This isn’t good to watch or for visitors to your community to see.

Kindhearted people who help feed these colonies are actually doing a great service. They use their OWN money to provide food and care. Taxpayers and communities save money by not ultimately having to trap them all and kill them when it becomes unmanageable. Trapping, euthanizing and disposing of bodies all cost taxpayer money. So does arresting, fining, or taking people to court for feeding them! When warmhearted citizens feed and care for them it does NOT cost the community a dime.

The city and county should be HELPING with feral management, not hindering it, because in the end it is FAR cheaper to manage such a colony than to just keep killing them all.
Also, really – how can you truly enforce this? Cat lovers who care about these animals aren’t going to simply stop. After I released my blog about this issue, I received the following email from a Middletown resident. She said:

“One reason TNR is the only option is people like me. I would feed the cats in the middle of the night – no matter WHAT the law says. I will not let cats go hungry! I would rather TNR but the law would arrest me or fine me.”

Are you going to have to pay police to monitor every area of woods, or garbage area, or backyard communities? Are you willing to arrest little old ladies and fine them and drag them to court? These caring Middletown citizens will find new and innovative ways to keep feeding.

Not feeding them doesn’t help you. It hurts you. Feral cats will survive ANYWAY. This has been proven in deserts and on deserted islands throughout the world where ferals survive without any nearby human habitation. Within a few years, even without feeding them, you will be so overrun with cats that you will be forced to start taking drastic measure, like killing them…and your rodent population will also be out of control.

I understand that Jane Hoffman who manages the animal situation in NYC in conjunction with the ASPCA has also emailed you a letter in regards to the feeding of feral cats. Please understand that they are managing animals in the largest city in the United States and have tried EVERYTHING with feral cat populations. The letter she sent you explains why TNR is the only way of effectively managing cats. Allie Cat Allies, the largest cat organization in the United States ALSO supports TNR as the only way of managing feral colonies.

I have a rule for my staff. Don’t come to me with problems. Come to me with solutions. As such I offer you this solution. Pets Alive will step up and work with Middletown and Wallkill SOLELY for the next year on our newly developed TNR program. If the town will help cover ½ the cost of altering the cats, Pets Alive will take on the responsibility of the other half, and of all the trapping, transporting and any additional vetting needed. Many local shelters will spay/neuter feral cats for as little as $20-30. We are ready to commit to the cats of Middletown and Wallkill. Will you commit to them too?

If we are going to fix the issues in shelters and help animals in our community, we must all be work together and do everything we can to make it easy to live with your animals in a rental home, easy to get your animals altered, and easy to allow animals in the community. We ask that the Council members please consider working with us to solve the problems the town faces.

Thank you for your time.

What the author of this amendment is probably unaware of is that THIS METHOD OF CONTROLLING CAT POPULATIONS HAS NEVER, EVER, WORKED.

The ONLY way to decrease stray and feral populations of cats is by TNR (Trap/Neuter/Return).
I wrote a blog on this very issue some time ago and it is called “Feral Cats – Educating Communities“.

“When cats are removed, rodent popu­la­tions explode and increase the spreading of disease. Instead of eradicating a colony and killing cats, steriliza­tion would be the most effective and humane method of control. Roger Tabor adds that, “if a colony is neutered and returned to its area it will continue to hold the location and keep other cats out by its presence. The group’s popu­lation will gradually decline over a few years.”

For example, say you have 25 feral cats in a feral community. If you leave them unchecked, every year every female will have one or two litters and those litters will stay IN the community. They are accepted. They will then have their own litters. And so forth and so on. However if you have 25 cats and you fix them all so no offspring are born – THOSE CATS WILL NOT USUALLY ALLOW STRANGE CATS TO JOIN THEM. So as they die (the average life span of a feral cats is about 5 years old) your community will get smaller and smaller until eventually there are none.

Do you understand the concept of how this works?
Not feeding them will accomplish NOTHING.
Punishing people that feed them will accomplish NOTHING.

Starved cats do not “go away”. They are there because well before someone started feeding them, they found a food source – garbage, rodents, whatever it was. Or good shelter. Or feel it is safe there. That is why they are there to begin with. If you don’t help them with a little food, then they can become sick, ill, diseased, and this malnourished condition also makes them more susceptible to parasitic infestations, such as fleas and roundworms which they will then spread in your neighborhood to your family pets, but this does NOT STOP THEM from breeding. Then you have kittens born. Dying all over the town. Litter after litter. This isn’t good to watch, for visitors to your community to see, and it increases disease and wandering of these animals (where they then spread it).

Feeding them and managing a feral community actually keeps DOWN the number of cats.
WAY DOWN.

People that help feed these communities are actually doing a great service. They use their OWN money to care for and feed them. The healthier cat does not spread disease or wander as far. Taxpayers and communities save money by not ultimately having to trap them all and kill them when it becomes unmanageable. Trapping, euthanizing and disposing of bodies all cost taxpayer money. So does arresting, fining, or taking people to court for feeding them! Individuals feeding them – does NOT cost the community a dime. The city and county should be HELPING with feral management, not hindering it, because in the end it is FAR cheaper to manage such a community than to just keep killing them all.

Also, really – how can you truly enforce this? People who care about animals, aren’t going to simply stop. Are you going to have to pay for police to monitor every area of woods, or garbage area, or backyard communities? Pay for all that time? Arrest little old ladies and fine them and drag them to court? People who care, will find new and innovative ways to keep feeding. And they should. Because they are the ones that are right, and people who want to stop them are the ones that are wrong. Studies prove this over and over and over again. Not feeding them doesn’t help you. It hurts you. Feral cats will survive ANYWAY. This has been proven in deserts and on deserted islands throughout the world where ferals survive without any nearby human habitation. So what are you really accomplishing in your community with feral cat feed banning? Again…nothing. Within a few years, even without feeding them, you will be so overrun with cats that you will be forced to start taking drastic measure, like killing them and then the seniors in that community, their visitors, or anyone living in the area, will be extremely upset and this will cause tremendously bad press.

In addition to this legislation they are also proposing another one that will be discussed at a meeting this Tuesday. This proposed law will REQUIRE renters to get liability insurance on all large dogs. Renters would be required to have a minimum of a $100,000 insurance policy on all dogs weighing over 50 pounds. They claim the law is needed because of the rising number of dog bites. This insurance is expected to cost renters an additional $200-300 a year.

Also an additional insurance requirement would be required for dogs that have already bitten a person. Those dogs would require an additional $50,000-$100,000 policy.

So let’s say your dog is running around with the kids, get’s over excited and “nips” someone. That would be classified as a bite if you go to the emergency room to get it cleaned up and your dog would now require additional insurance if you want to keep that dog. If you don’t, what are your options? You may already be struggling to pay your bills and keep your kids clothed. Now, if you want to keep the family dog, you’ll be forced to fork out another $300 a year.

In a town that is already beleaguered with animal control issues, meaning they basically have none at the moment (maybe in violation of NYS law), what is the town planning on doing with all of the dogs that will be surrendered, abandoned and let loose as a result of renters refusing, or not being able to pay this insurance?

In every single town across America, it has been shown time and time again that mandatory animal laws do not work and in fact result in a massive increase in animals being dumped on the sheltering system. It has failed nationwide. In every city, in every town where it has been enacted.

It has never resulted in less bites. Is that the goal here? Will having insurance result in less bites? No.

Having such laws has not resulted in “better” lawsuits either. What exactly is the purpose of this new law? How will it be enforced? Will police be going to every landlord and demanding to see proof of insurance for their renters? Does it only have to be proven if the dog has bitten? And then what happens if the renter doesn’t have that insurance? Do they then get fined? Kicked out? Their dog confiscated?

Is this a good use of police time, when we are already struggling in Middletown to cover the current budget?
Is this a good use of our court system?

Since we already know it doesn’t work, why would the city even consider it?

Like banning the feeding of feral cats, this law will actually have the OPPOSITE effect.

The only solution to feral and stray cats in managing the community. This is done through feeding, TNR and vetting these animals and in the end this costs the taxpayer and the city FAR less than any of the alternatives. Additionally what can be done about dog bites is strict fines and penalties for owner irresponsibility. Since the town won’t really know if a renter has the insurance until after a bite, why should every owner be penalized if they are responsible and act responsibly in their personal dog ownership? Why aren’t the people that are irresponsible fined heavily and penalized heavily for their irresponsibility?

It is time to stop penalizing and hurting the majority of good dog owners (and good dogs), for the irresponsible few.
It is time to stand up and fight irresponsible animal laws in our community.
It is time to be heard on these issues and to intelligently resolve animal infractions, and not in a way that harms the law abiding citizen and their well behaved pet.

Additionally, we must ask – why are renters being penalized? This law ONLY applies to people renting. That is a bias that also must be addressed. Isn’t isolating one type of person discriminatory and illegal under NYS Law (I’m not a lawyer and don’t know the answer to this but it seems biased to me)? What is the difference between renters, and home owners? This law would unfairly penalize renters and as stated above would result in a massive backlash of abandoned animals in a shelter system that is already bursting at the seams in Middletown.

1st Ward Alderman Joe Masi has stated that public input could change this law. We appreciate that he cares very much what the public has to say on this issue. We are asking for your public input now. We ask that all our readers attend the Common Council and speak out intelligently, politely, and pointedly about these proposed animal laws in our community and also we ask you to email our town councilmen and mayor.

Please email them and politely ask them NOT to pass this proposed law and to also read more information on the detriment of banning the feeding of feral cats.

• Joseph M. DeStefano (Middletown Mayor): mayor@middletown-ny.com
• Joe Masi (1st Ward Alderman): jmasi@middletown-ny.com
• J. Miguel Rodrigues (Common Council President): jmrodrigues@middletown-ny.com

Full contact for all the members and phone numbers can be found here: http://middletown-ny.com/mayor.htm

Thank you for caring about the animals in your community.
We are eager for the town to hear us on these issues.

It is the rescue community and the public that have the greater knowledge and experience with these issues and our voices need to be heard when they come into our courts.

Please send an email and attend the meeting this Tuesday, April 3.
Meetings are held at the Common Council Chamber on the second floor of City Hall at 16 James Street in Middletown at 8:00 PM but please get there early to get a seat and be heard.

Stepping into the vacancy created by Homer’s departure will be one of our favorites, Plato! [And no, I did not pick him because Homer's slot is reserved for only short legged dogs]

Plato’s was recently returned because his family found that he was doing some resource guarding and they did not feel they could address this in their home. Of course now that he is back, we can help him with this.

Come to our class this Saturday, ay 10am and learn how “Trading Up” can make giving up items in his possession his favorite game!