Clinton's City Council on Tuesday began developing proposed amendments to city ordinances regarding animal protection and control.
“Last year, there were some large-scale hoarding incidents that cost taxpayers about $50,000 to deal with these situations,” said City Councilman Bill Shemers.
Current ordinance regarding the maximum number of dogs or cats allowed per facility states that it is unlawful to keep more pets than can be reasonably maintained in healthy or sanitary conditions.
The proposed ordinance would introduce a specific cap of six animals that would apply to dogs, cats, ferrets, pot-bellied pigs over six months old, or animals over three months old with one litter or more.
Currently, the only cap on the number of animals of any type allowed per facility under city code is a limit of six chickens per facility.
However, if you have seven or more animals at the time the ordinance goes into effect, your animals will be allowed to stay as long as their animal permits are current and their location is registered with the city.
“We've had people with 20 animals so far, and they were completely clean and completely healthy,” said Clinton Police Chief Kevin Gillion. “Just because you have five or more animals doesn’t often mean you’re a hoarder.”
Clinton Mayor Scott Madacion and City Councilman Cody Seeley both expressed uncertainty about the six-animal limit.
“It's not logical to take a happy, healthy dog and put him in a kennel, but that's what our law requires,” Seeley said.
The proposed ordinance also makes changes to what is considered adequate protection for animals.
“The reason is that the igloo shelters that currently exist do not comply with our ordinances,” explained City Councilor Rhonda Kearns. In frigid climates, these are actually some of the best shelters. ”
The proposed ordinance would allow round, igloo-shaped shelters that are insulated and already have a built-in floor or sit on pallets so that the bottom of the shelter is at least 3 inches above the ground. .
“I have no problem changing the ordinance, but I just don't want this three inches of ambiguity,” Gillion said. “This leaves people with inadequate shelter three inches above the ground.”
The Board has decided not to take action on this proposal at this time. It will be brought back to council once it has been amended to reflect concerns.
