I SHOT THE MASTIFF

Dog Ordinances, While Arbitrary, Are the Law

By Amy Seigel, 4-18-06

	Caption: Photo by Chris Lombardi

It’s no secret that urban living takes some compromises. And most of the time we all agree to do the little things that help make our cities livable for all kinds of people—we keep our trash in bins that we put out once a week for collection, refrain from parking dilapidated cars on our front lawns, and so on. For the most part, city ordinances are things we never even think about, rules of conduct that are so commonsensical for most city dwellers that we barely give them a second thought. However, when those rules concern our pets—the creatures we often love and cherish nearly as much as children, and sometimes in place of children—we might want to pay a little more attention.

Like most cities in the nation, Salt Lake City and its surrounding communities have strict limits on the number of animals allowed per household; legally, no more than two dogs and two adult cats can reside at the same address anywhere in Salt Lake County. While at some level restricting the number of animals someone can legally own is always going to be arbitrary, many Salt Lake area dog owners believe that two is an unfairly low number, one that will only lead to more people like Janet Lane, a Herriman City woman who was recently jailed for owning five too many dogs—getting into trouble for trying to help the city’s population of homeless pets.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Cheryl Smith, the director of Wasatch Humane, described Lane as a “longtime responsible dog rescuer” who fosters for shelters, cares for homeless dogs and is “saving animals [and] serving our community.” However, Lane, who made local news last week for being told by Herriman City judge Stephen Henriod (who has had his own share of recent troubles) that “She should have taken a gun and shot the other five [dogs] before she came back to court,” has a history of taking the city’s animal laws into her own hands. Two years ago, Lane allegedly “dog-napped” a neighbor’s intact, male Labrador who was running loose, paid a veterinarian to have him neutered, and then dropped the dog off at an animal shelter in the middle of the night. While the dog was eventually reunited with his owners, he required emergency surgery to counteract the effects of being left to lick and chew at his sutures without the proper protection of an Elizabethan collar (those funny cones dogs must wear to prevent them from licking their stitches or other sensitive areas after surgery).

While Judge Henriod’s comment was clearly inappropriate, he did make a full apology in which he admitted that his statement was “harsh and [it was] unfair,” and that, as an animal lover himself, he did not bear any ill will towards the dogs. Regardless of whether Henriod was exaggerating to make a point, it seems absurd to vilify his role in this little drama while commending Lane for her perhaps well-meaning, though ultimately illegal, actions. No one wants to see unwanted animals sentenced to death and most of us, hopefully, understand that spaying and neutering our pets is the single most important thing we can do to help keep animal populations under control and stop the senseless killing of the 10-12 million animals that are euthanized every year in shelters for lack of available homes. However, there is little difference between Janet Lane deciding to abscond with and neuter her neighbor’s dog, and an eco-terrorist bombing the offices of a logging company. Just because you believe yourself to hold the higher moral ground does not mean that you can willfully disobey, ignore, or break the law.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that Henriod was justified in saying what he did or that Lane is a terrible person just because she made a few bad decisions. I am also a big proponent of raising the legal number of animals allowed per household in Salt Lake, or even granting some sort of concession in the animal ordinance for people who are actively fostering animals for local shelters. But the bottom line is that we live in a society that will break down if people claim moral superiority as justification for illegal actions. Just remember that eleventh commandment: Thou shalt not neuter thy neighbor’s dog.

Tonight at the City and County Building there will be a city council meeting to discuss proposed changes to the Salt Lake City Animal Ordinance. This includes changes to the laws surrounding “at large” citations and licensing fees. For more information on what the changes are and what they might mean to you, please contact Mill Creek FIDOS.

Meeting info:
Tuesday, April 18th at 7 p.m.
City and County Building
451 S. State Street, Room 326
[End of article]

Amy, great story. Two dogs per household, that sure seems pretty restrictive. I'm a little confused, though, was she convicted for something in the "dog-napping" incident, which clearly would seem to be a crime? And is she being prosecuted for having too many dogs? What is the penalty for too many dogs?

Thanks for speaking up on these issues. I have moved my animals out of the county. I would like to spread the word far and wide in regard to the genetic effects of our collective actions in regard to dogs and cats. These effects are on-going across human history. For any species, one of nature's survival strategies is for birth rates to exceed the sum of death rates from all risks. One risk is the genetic change. Nature--at least in the case of surviving species--sets reproductive rates high enough to overcome the natural variation in genetic outcomes. In the case of surviving species, there are some individuals in each generation that have few genetic problems.
What we do, in spaying, neutering, and disposing of significant fractions of the populations, while pouring billions of dollars into veterinary measures to ensure survival of favorites, which in many cases would die out from their weaknesses in gentics, is the cumulative genetic deterioration of the species.
While our actions reflect good intentions and good humaan values, our lack of consideration of this aspect is putting our dog and cats at risk for extinction in the long run.
What we need to do is provide areas for these species where feral populations can be protected from our other good intentions, where the gradients for survival is less contrived, and sufficient weed-out of genetic inferiors can proceed according to natural patterns.
I favor protection of feral populations in cities for two reasons. One is for control of rodent and birds on a natural predation basis. One is that there are niches where feral populations can survive. Our human management measures would have to include some monitor and vacination for diseases which cross into human health issues.
We let the pigeons sit on roofs and wires and poop all over town. Let's put up with some feral cats. I think dogs are of less value in cities and more difficult to tolerate in feral packs in metropolitia. Coyotes are dogs. We have tried to restore wolf populations even though this has created some conflicts with ranchers(I am one). But to protect our inbred dog populations(I call them subspecies)we need to set aside some areas for relocation of some of these dogs. We would have to have a program for wilding them and letting them re-learn their feral ways, but this can be done. This measure may be essential if these dogs are to surive some probable outbreaks of new disease variants such as the bird flu pandemic we are worring about now.

The author fails to mention that "Duke," the dog in question, repeatedly kept showing up on Janet's property, presumably wanting to be closer to and socialize with Janet's dogs. Dogs are pack animals, after all, and we humans tend to forget that and try to make their sociable habits fit into the solitary existence that we force upon them. Referring to Janet's action as "dognapping" is not accurate, when all Janet was doing was removing a stray dog from her property and saving taxpayer money by saving Animal Control a trip to pick up the dog. The real issue here that we should be questioning is why are residents being allowed to let their unneutered (as well as unspayed -- and incidentally, Janet has documentation that every one of her dogs had been spayed/neutered, as her neighbor Yvette Brimhall had falsely accused her of having unspayed female dogs in the Salt Lake Tribune. I still can't believe that they printed that without checking the facts.) pets roam free. If anyone should be being criticized, not to mention punished, it is Janet's neighbor who thinks it is perfectly fine for her unneutered dog (a Golden Retriever, not a lab) to roam free, able to impregnate every unspayed female dog in heat that it comes upon. All it takes is a trip to one of the many local animal shelters and a realization of the thousands of unwanted, homeless animals that must be destroyed every single day (yes, day) to realize who the real victims of this crime are. And those victims, the helpless and innocent animals themselves, pay for the crimes of people like Ms. Brimhall with their very lives.

In answer to a few questions:

1)According to the Salt Lake Tribune, http://www.sltrib.com/contentlist/ci_3705309, there was an outstanding warrant out for Janet's arrest in the alleged dog-napping incident. The warrant was for "criminal mischief." I do not believe she has actually been tried and/or convicted and/or exonerated with respect to these charges.
2)Whether or not the dog was running loose on her property, Lane had NO RIGHT, PERIOD, to have a dog that was not hers neutered. She would have been well within her rights to take the animal to a shelter or call animal control; however, in what universe is it okay to request that a veterinarian do a procedure of any kind, let alone surgery, to a dog that you do not own! What if Duke’s owner was planning on breeding him in a responsible fashion? I obviously cannot speak to the specifics of this situation and the precise relationship between Ms. Lane and her neighbors, but this sort of thing would set a very dangerous precedent if allowed to go unchecked.
3)I am not sure what the exact penalties are for owning too many dogs. I imagine that there is a fine and that you would be required to get rid of all the animals beyond the legal number allowed (2 dogs, 2 cats). For more on the debate surrounding Salt Lake’s pet ordinances, check out this website: http://network.bestfriends.org/animallawcoalition/news/2717.html.
4)I just want to add that it may be the case that Lane’s actions were all well-intentioned, and that with the size and location of her property she very well should be able to own more than two dogs. But there are legal ways to go about changing ordinances and laws. Simply violating laws and overstepping rights (with respect to her neighbor’s property) is perhaps not the best way of going about initiating change.

First off, Janet would greatly appreciate if you would contact her first so that facts can at least be published, as opposed to rumors and guesses and quotes from newspapers that are notorious for publishing misinformation. Were articles being published about YOU, I'm sure you would expect and appreciate the same respect, and being in the publishing business, I would hope you are sympathetic to such a simple request. Regarding #1, Janet's next court date is April 25. #2, If Duke's owners were planning on breeding him in a "responsible fashion," then they wouldn't be letting him run loose constantly, never knowing where he is or what he's gotten himself into. Only irresponsible dog owners let their dogs roam free, neutered or not. And it is illegal to let dogs roam free. #3 Janet didn't actually own all of the dogs. She volunteers at the Humane Society of Utah, and she fosters dogs that are old, sick, and have behavior problems (such as separation anxiety) -- in other words -- dogs that nobody wants to adopt and would otherwise be destroyed. The zoning on her 5-acre lot allows her to have a ranch with 50 head of cattle if she wants, sheep, goats, chickens, ducks, geese, and all kinds of other farm animals too... yet only 2 dogs. She could even have herself an unlimited number of children if she wanted, and feed and clothe them off of the welfare system, and that would be perfectly legal. But only two dogs are allowed. She has already spent several thousand dollars trying to get a kennel license so that she can legally keep more dogs, but because her property is in unincorporated Salt Lake County, she is only allowed two dogs (how she would round up all the sheep and cows on her ranch without the appropriate sheepdogs and cowdogs is a mystery, but that's the law as it's written). Ironically, were Janet's property just one mile closer to town, within the boundaries of Herriman city proper (in the 'burbs, as opposed to above and beyond them), she would be able to have her kennel license because the zoning there would allow it. #4 As Margaret Mead so eloquently stated: "Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can make a difference; indeed, it is the only thing that ever really has." Again, let's not forget what started this entire issue, and what is at the heart of the matter -- pet overpopulation resulting from unfixed domestic animals roaming free. None of this would have happened had Duke been properly cared for and not allowed to roam repeatedly onto Janet's property. Perhaps the 11th commandment should read: Though shalt not let thy unneutertered dog roam free, lest they neighbor neuter it for you.

we have parrot eggs of different species for sale like the Hyacith macaw , Eclectus, scarlet macaw eggs, Timneh grey, Blue and Gold, African Grey,Umrella,palm,Black Cockatoo, Gallah hen Eggs,Green Wing macaw, we do delivery with a FREE incubator ok for more infor contact