As soon as the Foster Shelter ordinance passes ( and in coming Mayor Grenz has already assured Diane G. and at least one of the council members that he will pass it) anyone who has thought about opening a day care for dogs will have the perfect opportunity

In the draft that is soon to be taken to the council for approval, there will be NO fee charged to get a license to have the shelter, NO approval of neighbors, *although close ones will be notified that you're starting one up*, NO regulations on yard space. As far as getting around the Foster term, the owner brings dog to be 'fostered', then changing their mind at the end of the day/week!

Has to be no profit? Hey..who's gonna notice a little tip in the jar once in awhile, for all the good,selfless work being done?

Diane brought up at the Public Safety Meeting that it would be useless to include the stipulation that the fostered dogs should be the abused, unwanted ones from Custer County ~ she would just ask a friend to lie and say the dog belonging to them. Sounded like a good idea to everyone there then, so surely more creative wording when necessary would be okay?

If there is no license fee, how are the admin cost of creating the license covered? I don't believe the city has cash to hand out free licenses. How is the additional cost of enforcement of the ordinance on people who decide they want 8 dogs but decide if the license is free they really don't need, one going to be covered? This all seems like it will do nothing but create a lot of zoning issues. Please let me know when the property at 508 Mississippi becomes available and we will test this theory.

Richard...you are totally my hero...even if you tell kinda dumb jokes!

There are presently no worries being expressed by the committee about any of the issues you've brought up, so apparently there isn't going to be a problem with any of it. Hurray!!

Does sound more like doggie day care than foster facilities for homeless animals in Custer County. We could have animals from everywhere here while the homeless animals in Miles City are euthanized due to lack of places that would foster them until new homes are found.

There are presently no worries being expressed by the committee about any of the issues you've brought up, so apparently there isn't going to be a problem with any of it. Hurray!!

Which absolutely begs the question I really wanted to ask...
Who slept with whom, to get this passed?

Rich~ARD!

No regulations!?!?! No neighbor's approval?!?!?! Wink wink at making a profit?!?!?

Man, the lawsuits that are coming are going to bankrupt the City.

Amorette: Don't be silly..I don't know of a single person that wouldn't be elated to have 8 dogs in the yard next to them, do you? It will be a great, great thing for Miles City ~ you'll see.

Richard: 508 Mississippi ~ he,he,he, *I finally got it

Karla Duffy, Shame on you!!!! Your post was a deliberate misrepresentation.
I most definately DID NOT say that I would lie. The truth is, I merely gave an example of how difficult it would be to monitor & enforce that regulation. There were several other examples also given by others. I am NOT a liar and absolutely DO NOT condone or encourage lying.

You should be ashamed of yourself. This appears to be a mean hearted attempt to demean me and entertain yourself.

Karla,
Re: "and in coming Mayor Grenz has already assured Diane G. and at least one of the council members that he will pass it"

Neither Councilman Ahner or myself made this ridiculous statement, because we both know that the Mayor DOES NOT vote and therefore would not be able to pass any ordinance at his own whim.

If anyone in the public would like to know truthfully what was said at the Public Safety Committee meeting it would be a much smarter choice to read the meeting minutes, which are available to the public.

If anyone in the public would like to know truthfully what was said at the Public Safety Committee meeting it would be a much smarter choice to read the meeting minutes, which are available to the public.

Contrary to popular belief, meeting minutes are not a verbatim transcript as you would find in a court room. They often do not tell the true story of "what really happened."

Diane: Are you then denying you made the statement you had talked to Mr. Grenz and that he had told you he was all for this and would see it through?

Also, what part of my statement mentions Anher??

Grenz has already assured Diane G. and at least one of the council members that he will pass it)

Oopsy!

I forgot something..as far as your sanctimonious "shame on you" When you admitted you only started this because after 14 years of breaking the law, you got caught? Shame on YOU.

[This message has been edited by K.Duffy (12/28/2011)]

Councilman Ahner is the only committee member who stated during the meeting that he had visited with the incoming mayor about the Private shelter ordinance. (I'm sure he will not approve of the misstatement of what he said either).

What actually was said was that we had visited with the incoming mayor and, at that time, he was not opposed.

That is not the same as your interpretation, "in coming Mayor Grenz has already assured Diane G. and at least one of the council members that he will pass it".

Meeting Minutes may not be "verbatim transcript as you would find in a court room", but they do require a vote of approval by the committee members and are public record, which makes them more reliable than simply talking trash.

Karla knock it off. You are representing our group CCFA. Don't get caught up in these stupid posts. Use your head girl.

Must disagree with you, Dixie. I am most definitely NOT representing CCFA in this issue! I am speaking as a homeowner in city limits with many concerns that this whole endeavor has not been more carefully planned and thought through.

Okay, this is NOT a done. Deal. Whew. I didn't think that sounded kosher.

There will be weeks or months of tinkering and hearings before any such ordinance gets voted on, let alone passed. Several new council members will need time to digest what is going on, both in the way of public opinion and legality. The City Attorney will need to review. Public hearings will be held.

I suspect it will be revised extensively to reflect what is a more realistic a method of allowing (or disallowing) large numbers of animals in a private home. (No yard requirements is insane. Chickens have to have a minimum amount of square footage and so should dogs.)

Be sure to attend meetings when it is discussed. That way you know what is going on because the minutes are very dry and concise and never quote anyone directly. Which is a shame but we wouldn't be able to afford the paper necessary if minutes were verbatim.

[This message has been edited by K.Duffy (12/30/2011)]

All I know, is that I hope that my neighbors on both sides set one of these doggie shelters up. There is nothing I love more than having a bunch of reject dogs barking at me and chewing on my kids.

I think it sounds like a great idea.

I plan on setting up a doggie hospice in my home/yard/garage.

Yes Diane shame on you for trying to do a good thing and fostering pets. Shame on you for spending your money feeding, sheltering,providing medical care of these pets for the past 14 years. Did your neighbors complain then or is it just people on mc.com? Pretty sad your being attacked for trying to do something to help. Sure there are pros and cons but this is why there are meeting and commitee members that get to voice all there opinions on this matter.
Best of luck to you Diane I hope everything works out for the best

Actually one neighbor complaint in 14 years. However, it was not an official complaint and was determined to be unfounded so no citation was ever issued. I have provided the city with signatures from 13 of my neighbors who state they are not opposed to what I do or to me having a private shelter in their neighborhood. Many of my neighbors come over regularly to visit and bring their children or grandchildren to play with the dogs. Several neighbors come along on our evening walks. The dogs love it. My neighbors have helped name some of the dogs I have rescued. In fact a couple of my rescues have been adopted by my neighbors.

Sometimes people are so sure that things are bad that they forget to look around and see the good things all around them. Not everyone is going to do things perfectly, but not everyone will do things poorly either.

exactly! glad to hear you have had so much success over the years helping so many pets
once again i wish the best of luck to you!

This isn't about whether or not Diane has done a good deed. It is about all of the ashholes who will abuse the relaxing of rules.

then why not just say that instead of only attacking diane? why not go to the meetings and voice your opinion rather than posting it online? seems reasonable to me

Show me where I trashed Diane.

There will always be people who do the wrong thing, but that should not keep us (as a whole) from trying to do the right thing.

There are people who commit adultery, but we still allow marriage.
There are people who do not raise their children correctly or abuse their children, but we still allow people to procreate.

If people let what bad thing might happen keep them from moving forward & progressing, we would not have electricity, running water, paved roadways, airplanes, and many many lifesaving medical procedures, etc....
I do not understand people who live in fear, fear of change or fear of something going wrong. I try hard to focus on the good that could come from progress, keeping in mind there will always be problems. Problem solving is merely an opportunity to improve something & make it better.
No man-made law is carved in stone. This ordinance is just the beginning of a good thing. We have tried to cover all the bases, keeping everyones best interests in mind. Of course there will be changes as issues arise. Don't let imaginations run wild until you have read the ordinance and it's regulations.
The application process alone is designed to preclude hoarders or breeders from having a private shelter
Be assured the City Council members have been very cautious in the creation of this ordinance.

I hope this all works out for Diane. She has proved herself to be fully capable of doing this. Miles City needs some "real" help with the case of animal abuse, other towns do this.

If you look on Miles City.com alot of the posts are about "PETS"...needing help, needing homes, care...come on people, what does this tell us???

I don't think there are to many out there just itching for the chance to open a shelter...give Diane a chance. It's a good thing.

As important as caring for homeless animals is, it should be done in an area zoned "commercial" or outside of the city limits. I'd quite frankly rather see 30 homeless dogs put to sleep than have 30 barking dogs living next door to me.

Those with a passion for rescuing animals should do so - but not at the expense of the neighbors or the neighborhood.

WOW, Former....that's COLD! You would rather see 30 dogs put down...then given a chance to live and be loved???

I totally get where your heart is...no wonder you aren't for it.

Of course there needs to be CONTROL...why think so negative???

OH...that's right...you'd rather God's creature's be "PUT DOWN" as if they don't count.

And you'd put homeless animals over humans.

I'd fully support a private animal shelter being run by someone set up to do so. 30 dogs in a residence, or the yard of a residential lot, is not reasonable. Someone housing a couple of strays in town is one thing - running an "animal shelter" in the middle of a residential neighborhood is another. I'm an animal lover with several happy healthy pets. I still don't want a so called "animal shelter" next door disrupting the quiet enjoyment of the home I purchased and raise my family in.

I'm glad you know me so well, though.

As for "God's creatures" - I assume you'd treat them all equally? Or just the cute ones?

[This message has been edited by Former (1/1/2012)]

If everyone with a pet was as conscientious as Diane, the ordnance would not be necessary. Unfortunately, that is likely not the case.

I still don't understand how/why there would be a free licensing program here when the application process needs to be comprehensive enough to screen out hoarders and breeders. The city absolutely needs to recapture the administrative costs.

YES, Former...I DO LOVE ALL God's creature's equally! I certainly don't refer to the unwanted one's as "REJECT's" as you did in a earlier post...!

As for putting a dog before a human...not sure where that came from??? YES, I would most certainly want to see 30 dogs live then to be put down...if that is what you are asking???

Almost sure I would rather hang with a unconditional loving dog then some of the human's I know...!

I don't get it...you aren't Diane's neighbor, right? Her neighbor's are all for her...so, what does it matter to you?

Your post made NO sense to me...and even though I do NOT claim to know you...you words do sound COLD! Re-read your posts again.

I appreciate the capitals for emphasis, and will follow suit.

I do NOT live next to Dianne - and I am SURE that she is doing a FANTASTIC job. What I am SAYING is that I do not want to see a the FLOODGATES opened to anyone who WANTS to have A ZILLION ANIMALS be allowed to do so if they are not PROPERLY set up for such large quantities of animals, which GENERALLY requires having PLENTY of space, which IN MOST INSTANCES would not occur INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. I know that Dianne doesn't have 30 dogs in her back yard. I am simply voicing MY opinion that I feel that such "shelters" should not be given a free pass to operate in residential areas at the expense of the neighbors.

Watch an episode of Hoarders every now and again - you will see many well intended "animal lovers" who have bunches and bunches of animals living in substandard conditions, causing a nuisance for the neighbors, and the last thing Miles City needs are mentally ill people such as these having a PERMIT to keep "HOMELESS" animals in their HOMES.

Dianne is the exception - and is not the "average" keeper of many animals.

Any license granted should be strictly scrutinized (and in order to afford such scrutiny, should not be free). I would also hope that neighbors are given the opportunity to object to the issuance of such license, as the right of homeowners to peacefully enjoy their property trumps that of a herd of dogs to live within the city limits in a residentially zoned private "shelter."

I am sorry that my previous post made no sense to you. I was clearly not talking about Dianne in specific - I am talking about the impact of such licensing on a macro level.

And, I didn't call those creatures "reject's." As they don't own anything. "Rejects." Yes - an owner threw them out (I believe that the definition fits). These dogs are probably more often than not mistreated, many of them likely aggressive as a result of their "upbringing." They on average are probably not well trained. This is all the more reason that a bunch of them should not be put together in a residential area with small children running around unless they are in the hands of a well trained individual and a secure area.

Anyone operating one of these "shelters" should be required to carry not less than a $2 million liability umbrella of some kind, which covers dog bites, prior to being issued a license. Because, again, I would rather see 30 dogs put down than one of my children bit on the face by some wild rescue dog with a questionable history which had no business being housed by an inexperienced do-gooder in a residential area.

+1 Former

Perhaps now my dream of having a shelter for rescued fighting bulls from Mexico inside city limits has a chance of coming true. Don't worry, I will warn my neighbors against wearing red.

Anyone operating one of these "shelters" should be required to carry not less than a $2 million liability umbrella of some kind, which covers dog bites, prior to being issued a license. Because, again, I would rather see 30 dogs put down than one of my children bit on the face by some wild rescue dog with a questionable history which had no business being housed by an inexperienced do-gooder in a residential area.

But, but, but... they're sooooo cute.

The dogs obviously - once your kid's had her nose gnawed off, that knocks her Charisma score down a point or two...

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (1/2/2012)]

I agree with what you are saying, Former. I think everyone needs to read the ordinance before using imaginations that this is going to happen and that will be happening.
It hasn't happened yet, and it sounds like there is care being taken into the consideration of hoarder type situations. Much to worked out, yet a step in progression of something that could be a good thing for MC with the right people.
I agree there needs to be control in something like this and I guess I am with Diane in the fact that, how do we know something won't work...unless we try. I feel and see a need for this. I don't want to come on here and battle it out with anyone, I do have a passion for animals and sure would be willing to donate my time and help with a shelter in MC. I just get upset with the negative remarks and putting the apple before the cart, sort of speak.
Thank you.

luvlife

Great! Miles City already has a shelter. Go down to City Hall and offer to volunteer.

Kelly...this is what I mean about the negativity.

BTW...they won't let me help at our shelter here because of liability reasons. I wish I could. I will be talking to Diane about any help I can do for her if it goes her way.
Thanks Kelly.

Miles City does not have a shelter. Miles City has a dog pound where dogs are given 3 days (maybe) and then killed. Euthanasia fees are paid by the citizens of Miles City to the tune of thousands & thousands of dollars a year. That is not a shelter.

In my extensive research I found many towns/cities in Montana & neighboring states that have these ordinances (sometimes called permits, licenses, etc.)in place for years. I found out after interviewing law enforcement agencies in those towns/cities that they are not an enforcement burden in any way & those who are licensed are very seldom found in non-compliance.

The majority of those agencies interviewed said the problems are with the people who DO NOT have shelter permits or licenses & NOT with the permit/license holders.

When I asked about Hoarders, every person interviewed said, Sure we have hoarders, but they are not the ones applying for permits/licenses; hoarders are, by their very nature, covert, hiding what they do and anyone with a brain will know a hoarder situation when they see it.

Most agencies were very surprised to hear that Miles City Montana did not have something like this already in place. In fact several even laughed at how far behind the times we are.
Their words NOT MINE.

With the Miles City private shelter ordinance I would be allowed to have a max of FIVE (5) shelter/foster dogs waiting for adoption.

30 dogs ???? REALLY ?????

A lot of people want to help stray animals, giving them temp. homes and work towards finding them permeant ones. This is a very good idea. A lot of people are worried that if there are no or few regulations this will turn into many bad situations across town. Also a good thought process. Let us hope the city council and new Mayor find a plan and law that satisfies both concerns. Making laws without looking at as many concerns as possible ahead of time, tends to lead to bad situations, large expenses and eventually new bad laws in the long run.

5 dogs seems reasonable, along with a site inspection (requiring a fenced area) and the insurance requirement prior to obtaining a license.

Anything larger than that really needs to be outside of the city limits...

"A lot of people want to help stray animals, giving them temp. homes and work towards finding them permeant ones."

Steve, A lot of people already do help stray animals, giving them temp. homes and work towards finding them permanent ones, and have been doing it for years & years. All we are asking is for the city of Miles City to give us an opportunity to do this leagally. We are otherwise law abiding citizens. We just have hearts that are a little too tender for our own good.

+2 Diane

MMmmmmMMMM....hearts.....

FH

with fava beans and a nice Chiante.

I applaud you for your heart and efforts. My point is if some of the objections are not addressed ahead of time, some will abuse the system and there will be legal problems that will cause the city to shut the whole system down again and probably have to enforce it strictly. Do it right the first time and a smoother running system can be in place that will make everyone happy or at least mostly so. I wish you very good luck getting a system set up and please do not get discouraged if it takes some time and meeting to create a working program.

If my neighbor had 5 dogs in the yard next to me I would move. Sorry, but keep the dog shelters outside of city limits. There is plenty of land out of town, and no one would be bothered by the smell and barking.

Ditto

Given the choice between well managed dogs, a residential day-care, or a half-way house (we have multiples of the latter two within a few blocks, the dogs are boarded by a veterinarian right across the street) I'll pick the dogs anytime.

Great perspective, Dave - I would agree.

But that's not the choice being offered.

I'm not saying that I'm "all for" the private shelters in city limits - simply that given the above choice, I'd rather live next to five dogs. (...and call in noise complaints as needed.)

A reply about the city paying to euthanize dogs and cats to the tune of hundreds of dollars. The city pound is required to hold the animals for three full business days which it does! Sometimes they are held longer even if they are unclaimed and available for adoption. Brian does try to adopt animals out from the pound when people come to look for a pet. But then they refuse to pay the fees involved in keeping the animal in the shelter. So who should pay this-the city and should people be allowed to have free animals after the city pays for their care? After the required stay in the shelter the animals are transferred to East Main Animal Clinic. There they are evaluated to see if they would make good pets-by temperment, breed (no wolf hybrids), and medical conditions. Then if there is room or a foster home for the dogs they are held until adopted. The cats are tested and if they are negative they are held if there is room or foster homes available until they are adopted. They are NOT euthanized unless there is no room at the clinic or no foster homes available. Dr. Lindley charges less than $15 to euthanize an animal-very reasonable considering the cost of the drugs, needed equipment, and personal time. Also she provided feed and shelter and needed medical care for the animals she is holding for adoption. Go by the clinic and see how many cats she is holding that need new homes. This is all done without compensation to her. Yes, she does charge for the animals when they are adopted--she is running a business and the adoption fees go back to help the next homeless animal that comes along. The adoption fee covers some shots, care, and feed for the animal while at East Main. Go to Billings and check out their adoption fees which run as high as $100 for a kitten! Very few people opt to foster animals that she is holding for adoption, so if she has no room she has to euthanize the animals. I don't know if more people will come forward to help foster these pound animals if the ordiance goes through, but being a foster home for 10+ years I doubt if any more will step forward. East Main goes out of their way to help the homeless animals from the pound, but it is also a business and business have to make money to keep going. Check with other vet clinics throughout the nation and see how many would hold animals for several months paying for their care before that animal is adopted. You will find very for any length of time., very few that would do that So let's stop berating Brian and East Main. They go out of their way to help these aniimals! Brian has to follow the city laws he works under and can do no more than that. East Main has no responsiblity for these animals, but does care for these animals because they like animals! So let's see what happens when and if the ordinance is enacted--let's see if people step up to foster our homeless animals that come through our pound and not from other cities or states. If it doesn't work then back to rework the ordinance. People need to be responsible for their pets throughout the life time of the pet. They need to find new homes for them if they can't keep them, not just turn them loose for the pound to pick up. They also need to SPAY AND NEUTER them to prevent additional animals that they cannot find homes for!! Just because someone says they will take a puppy or kitten if you breed your animals doesn't mean when the animal is ready that they will take that animal. Too many animals now you can find any kind or breed of dog or cat that you would ever want without breeding yours!

Who do I need to talk to, to enact an ordnance requiring use of the enter key to create paragraphs on MC.com?

What Richard said. The enter key is your friend.

Annie makes some great points. Below is her message broken up for your reading convenience.

A reply about the city paying to euthanize dogs and cats to the tune of hundreds of dollars.

The city pound is required to hold the animals for three full business days which it does! Sometimes they are held longer even if they are unclaimed and available for adoption. Brian does try to adopt animals out from the pound when people come to look for a pet. But then they refuse to pay the fees involved in keeping the animal in the shelter.

So who should pay this-the city and should people be allowed to have free animals after the city pays for their care?

After the required stay in the shelter the animals are transferred to East Main Animal Clinic. There they are evaluated to see if they would make good pets-by temperment, breed (no wolf hybrids), and medical conditions. Then if there is room or a foster home for the dogs they are held until adopted. The cats are tested and if they are negative they are held if there is room or foster homes available until they are adopted. They are NOT euthanized unless there is no room at the clinic or no foster homes available.

Dr. Lindley charges less than $15 to euthanize an animal-very reasonable considering the cost of the drugs, needed equipment, and personal time. Also she provided feed and shelter and needed medical care for the animals she is holding for adoption. Go by the clinic and see how many cats she is holding that need new homes. This is all done without compensation to her. Yes, she does charge for the animals when they are adopted--she is running a business and the adoption fees go back to help the next homeless animal that comes along. The adoption fee covers some shots, care, and feed for the animal while at East Main. Go to Billings and check out their adoption fees which run as high as $100 for a kitten!

Very few people opt to foster animals that she is holding for adoption, so if she has no room she has to euthanize the animals. I don't know if more people will come forward to help foster these pound animals if the ordiance goes through, but being a foster home for 10+ years I doubt if any more will step forward. East Main goes out of their way to help the homeless animals from the pound, but it is also a business and business have to make money to keep going.

Check with other vet clinics throughout the nation and see how many would hold animals for several months paying for their care before that animal is adopted. You will find very for any length of time., very few that would do that So let's stop berating Brian and East Main. They go out of their way to help these aniimals!

Brian has to follow the city laws he works under and can do no more than that. East Main has no responsiblity for these animals, but does care for these animals because they like animals! So let's see what happens when and if the ordinance is enacted--let's see if people step up to foster our homeless animals that come through our pound and not from other cities or states. If it doesn't work then back to rework the ordinance.

People need to be responsible for their pets throughout the life time of the pet. They need to find new homes for them if they can't keep them, not just turn them loose for the pound to pick up. They also need to SPAY AND NEUTER them to prevent additional animals that they cannot find homes for!! Just because someone says they will take a puppy or kitten if you breed your animals doesn't mean when the animal is ready that they will take that animal. Too many animals now you can find any kind or breed of dog or cat that you would ever want without breeding yours!

There is a human being responsible for every animal that ends up in a shelter, pound, or is euthanized.

People need to be educated on pet ownership and it's responsibilities. The animals have no choices.

I live in the valley. We have 7 rescued dogs. We have a large fenced in area with dog doors. My dogs know what shut the hell up means. We do not allow any barking at night. They can be trained. A noisy dog is usually a bored dog. We have neighbors that only have one dog and It barks non stop. Makes no difference the number you have. Just excercise the heck out of them and train them. But most of all LOVE them.

Very wise advice, Dixie, I agree 100%. My dogs are walked 1-3 times a day, depending on the weather. Each walk is 1/2 to 1 mile long, which is pretty good for small dogs. Most bad dog behavior is due to lack of exercise.

Just excercise the heck out of them and train them.

That is just what most hoarders do right?

What exactly are you saying? I'm a horder?

Gosh I love this web site...if there not compairing Jesus to a dogs ass, then other people are screaming at others. Were is the popcorn!

It is "where".

Tanks

No Dixie, not calling you anything. I am saying that allowing people to have more pets in the city limits, is going to open a hornets nest of hoarders. And hoarders, unlike responsible people, don't just exercise the bark out of their dogs.

One of the things I'm really bothered with this is enforcement. The city doesn't have enough man power or time to police this. Poop, the city can't even properly enforce the home occupancy statute, as evidenced by the 6 or 7 home-based businesses that are in violation of it. The city can't even get our current businesses to get a license, even though that law has been on the books for a long time.

When I was serving as sanitarian for Miles City, I had to inspect a home where a hoarder lived with 34 cats. Won't even begin to describe the conditions in that home, but it easily rivaled the television show.

[This message has been edited by Kelly (1/5/2012)]