Chicken Little in Chattanooga

Chickens in Chattanooga? The Sky is Falling!

As many people become more concerned about their food choices, or simply want to try their hand at urban farming, one of the most popular trends across the country has been for towns and cities to approve ordinances allowing citizens to keep a few backyard hens.

With urban chickens there are no roosters crowing to wake neighbors. Hens eat bugs so they can actually be a benefit to the neighborhoods where they’re kept. And any mess associated with keeping the birds is kept strictly confined to their own backyard. It’s their owner’s responsibility to keep the area clean and tidy. Chicken litter can be a great composting material. When it’s allowed to dry and cure it can be a great manure for gardens.

Besides these benefits, chickens obviously lay fresh eggs for their owners. Owners don’t have to worry about where the eggs come from, how they have been handled, or how the chickens have been housed and kept. In short, keeping a few backyard hens can be a win-win situation for everyone, including the hens who typically live a comfortable life as backyard pets.

Knoxville recently passed an ordinance allowing backyard hens in their city with little fuss or fanfare:

Backyard chickens get the go ahead in Knoxville

Posted: Aug 24, 2010 10:55 PM

KNOXVILLE (WATE) - Knoxville residents will soon be able to keep chickens in their backyards.

The Knoxville City Council passed a measure Tuesday night allowing chickens, with one controversial issue removed.

Originally, the ordinance stated if a person gets a permit for the chickens, animal control officers could come on to that person's property at any time.

The ordinance was revised to state that residents still have to obtain a permit, but animal control will not have unlimited access to residents' property.

The ordinance does come with a number of other rules including: no roosters, only six hens per lot, and no selling of eggs or breeding.

The Metropolitan Planning Commission must rewrite city zoning code to match the new ordinance.

Seems pretty sensible and straightforward, right?

Well, people in Chattanooga also wanted to keep some chickens in their backyards. Unfortunately, things aren’t going nearly as smoothly. The animal folks in Chattanooga seem to be much more into controlling everything that people do with animals. For instance, at an early meeting to discuss keeping chickens, McKamey Animal Center and the City Council estimated that it might cost $200,000-300,000 to regulate and enforce regulations concerning backyard chickens in the city.

Some Council Members Skeptical On Urban Chickens; Crockett Is "Pro-Chicken"

posted October 19, 2010

Some City Council members on Tuesday expressed skepticism about implementing an ordinance allowing city residents to keep chickens, but Office of Sustainability Director David Crockett declared himself "pro-chicken."

Mr. Crockett said cities all across the country are moving to allow chickens as part of a movement toward urban farming and home-grown food.

But Councilman Jack Benson said regulating chickens might add from $200,000 to $300,000 of the budget of the McKamey Animal Center.

The McKamey Center raised a litany of concerns:

having a procedure for permitting chickens, amount of distance chickens should be kept away from surrounding homes, how the chickens’ feces and feed could affect water quality, whether roosters would be permitted and whether owners would be allowed to slaughter the chickens.

But the largest concern could be that more animal control officers may be needed, depending upon how many people want to take advantage of a backyard chicken program, she said.

Could it be that McKamey simply wants to discourage people from having chickens? Do you think they’re simply trying to come up with excuses to nix this urban farming idea? Consider some of the statements of Karen Walsh, McKamey’s executive director:

“We don’t want to end up as the McKamey Chicken Farm,” she told council members.

Walsh told the council she did not have any cost estimates about increased costs for the city. She said she feared once the city started, it could be much like a fad where some people buy rabbits on Easter and then they end up at the shelter.

She said some chicken owners might lose their infatuation with the birds and want to fall back on the McKamey Center to take them.

She said the center is already being asked to find spots for goats, sheeps [sic] and other critters.

It would seem that Ms. Walsh feels that owners are not responsible enough to actually take care of a few chickens in their backyard. So that estimate of $200,000-300,000 would be for hiring more animal control officers to check on chickens and their owners. One person has also suggested the money would go toward confiscating chickens and housing them at the McKamey Center. Doesn’t it seem strange that Knoxville was able to pass their ordinance without this kind of increase in manpower or budget? Are people in Knoxville that much more responsible than they are in Chattanooga? Is it that much harder to keep a few hens in Chattanooga than it is in Knoxville?

The latest chicken bombshell came at Tuesday’s City Commission meeting when Ms. Walsh offered a compromise plan:

Compromise Plan Offered To Bring Chickens To Chattanooga

posted October 26, 2010

Karen Walsh, executive director of the McKamey Animal Center, on Tuesday floated a compromise plan for bringing chickens to Chattanooga.

She told the City Council it was an alternative to not allowing chickens in the city on the one hand to making it possible for residents to raise chickens in their backyards on the other hand.

Ms. Walsh said an alternative would be to have three sites were residents could participate in chicken raising.

She said it would be similar to having communal gardens.

Ms. Walsh said three possible sites would be the McKamey Animal Center in the Dupont area, Crabtree Farm in South Chattanooga and Greenway Farm in Hixson.

She said it would be much easier for her staff to regulate the chicken raising with the three sites than if there were chickens being raised all over town.

City Council members had a crowded agenda and did not discuss the latest chicken plan.

How pathetic is that idea? Communal chicken raising? It sounds like Chattanooga is in the Dark Ages, keeping livestock communally on a village green. The only people who really benefit are McKamey staffers since they won’t have to go to the effort of visiting people to approve coops and fencing and it would drastically reduce their paperwork for permits. But the idea does nothing to help homeowners who would like to have their own chickens in their own backyards.

Perhaps McKamey Animal Center should just add words to their mission statement stating that they don’t actually want people to own any animals. It’s too much trouble for them to do their jobs when people have animals at their homes. It’s so much easier for McKamey to monitor the animals and keep everything under control when they can just let people visit the animals. Get real, Ms. Walsh! This is not an acceptable alternative for people who want to keep their own chickens.

Chattanooga: Heritage Park Dog Park

Tell Your Dog To Save His Pennies

If you live in Chattanooga, plans are going forward to create a pay dog park at Heritage Park.

Here's a notice that was in The Chattanoogan earlier this week for the City Council meeting on October 19 where there will be a First Reading of the following Resolution:

A resolution authorizing the Department of Parks and Recreation to

enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the McKamey Animal Care

and Adoption Center and the Chattanooga Goodwill Industries to

operate a membership-fee dog park located at Heritage Park.

According to news sources, a season pass for the park would be $50 and dogs and their owners would get "services and amenities" not available at other dog parks in the city. These would supposedly entail an on-site monitor (someone to watch the dogs play?), health screening (?), separate areas for large and small dogs (what, two fenced areas?), double-gated security (oh, to keep people out), drinking fountains for the dogs, and "commercial grade" agility equipment, whatever that means.

According to Larry Zehnder, Chattanooga Parks and Recreation Director, "This is a somewhat of something that's happening throughout the country, these kinds of specialty facilities for dogs."

Uh, no, it's not. Private or pay-to-play dog parks are relatively rare in the United States. They have only been tried at all in the last several years and, so far, opinions about them are very mixed. As you might imagine, many more affluent people are all in favor of them, while people with more modest incomes are usually wondering what their tax dollars are being used for when they can't even take their dogs to a park that they have probably helped pay for already.

Considering all of the rhetoric that Chattanooga has put forth about making the city more livable and offering amenities to its residents, it does seem very strange that they would want to charge for something as basic to human (and dog) life as a dog park. On the other hand, Chattanooga does tend to like to keep the "riff-raff" out, so maybe this is just their way of maintaining a sense of smug superiority over certain people they don't want to meet in a dog park, even if they do have dogs.

It seems to me that if Chattanooga was serious about making life better for dogs that this dog park would be freely open to all who wanted to use it.

If someone wants to have a "membership-fee" private dog park, shouldn't it be done on private property instead of city property?

It kind of makes you wonder if someone will challenge the city about this idea, too, and take them to court for keeping dogs out of a city park, doesn't it? Oh, and McKamey Animal Care and Adoption Center will be involved in running the park, so you have to wonder just how long it will be before things really go off the rails.

VOTE in Tennessee!

It's Time To Vote In Tennessee!

Make sure you check out the Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting

Alliance recommendations at the link below for legislators who oppose

or support the radical agenda of the Animal Rights movement to end

all use and interaction with animals: http://www.saova.org/2010/

Tennessee10.html

Susan Wolf has done an excellent job compiling this information with

nationwide recommendations. You'll find specific endorsements for

many Tennessee races.

It was an enormous project and Tennessee voters certainly appreciate

it. So please vote November 2nd! Urge all your friends and family

to vote if you want to preserve our historic relationship with

animals. If you just want to view animals from afar ... in the wild,

vote for the "animal rights" extremists' endorsements. They are

about abolition, not animal cruelty as claimed.

Early voting in Tennessee is going on now through October 28.

VOTE NOVEMBER 2ND! Our animals lives truly do depend upon your

participation in this electoral process.

Cross-posting encouraged

TENNESSEE: Vote "YES" On Proposed Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment!

From the National Rifle Association:

TENNESSEE: Vote "YES" On Proposed Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment!

The proposed Right to Hunt and Fish constitutional Amendment, on the November 2 Ballot, will amend the Tennessee State Constitution to forever recognize Tennessee's sporting heritage and the great contributions that hunters and fishermen make to conservation and wildlife. The National Rifle Association has spearheaded efforts to provide truly meaningful protections to sportsmen across the country. These meaningful protections embedded in the proposed Amendment are the result of the NRA's effort to enshrine in the Tennessee Constitution the people's long cherished right to hunt and fish. It is expected that nearly one-quarter of all states will have adopted similar amendments by year's end. Tennessee’s Right to Hunt and Fish provides permanent safeguards against attacks from the radical animal "rights" extremists whose ultimate goal is to end all hunting in America.

Hunting and fishing has a rich heritage that is woven into the very fabric of the Volunteer State. The proposed Amendment will allow your kids, grandkids, and future generations to have the opportunity to experience the outdoors in the spirit of Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett. The flourishing wildlife populations and sound conservation in Tennessee are the result of what hunters and fishermen do.

PETA opposes the Right to Hunt and Fish in Tennessee, which should be reason enough to vote Yes on November 2. They have been quoted as saying that the proposed amendment is a “solution in search of a problem” and that no one is trying to ban hunting or fishing. Soon after these statements, PETA sent a letter to UT-Chattanooga asking that the University ban its fishing team because fishing is a “blood sport.” The fact is that PETA and extremists like them are the problem and this Amendment is the solution. Making hunting and fishing a permanent part of Tennessee’s Constitution will help to fend off attacks from anti-hunting extremists who continually attempt to advance their emotional and political agenda.

For more information, please visit: http://www.nraila.org/righttohunttn/

Vote "Yes" on the Right to Hunt and Fish amendment and tell the anti-hunting radicals that the Volunteer State is off-limits to their anti-freedom agenda!

IMPORTANT! Chattanooga: City Council Eyes Changes to Charter, Ordinances

Heads up!!!! If you live in Chattanooga or the surrounding areas this is something that you should watch carefully. Make sure that any changes are done fairly. These changes could affect you and your dogs, cats and other animals since they will impact the way that McKamey seizes animals and your right to appeal. Whether you are a kennel club person, a breeder, or just a pet owner, this pertains to you!

If you let the city write whatever they want they will make it easy for McKamey to seize animals and hard to appeal. You see they didn't even have an appeals process in place when they originally wrote the laws regarding McKamey. Pay attention to what they're doing now or you might not be able to get your animals back, or you'd have to spend thousands of $$$$ to try.

Carlotta

City Council Eyes Changes to Charter, Ordinances

October 12, 2010 10:52 PM

Jana Barnello

Recent court cases have exposed problems with the Chattanooga City Charter and city ordinances. Council members are talking about when and how to fix those problems.

Two big stories over the summer showed where city laws and rules aren't what they should be - the Recall Ron movement and the the Pet Company court case. Councilman Andrae McGary asked the rest of the city council at Tuesday's committee meeting to consider going through the charter to make sure they're up to date with the law. It was an idea proposed back when a Hamilton Court Judge ruled that state not city charter recall rules applied to a recall effort of Mayor Ron Littlefield.

"It just raised a lot of questions as to, 'Are there other areas that we may have overlooked that really are not applicable but we think they are?'" McGary said.

Any charter changes would have to be put up for a public vote in 2012. However, McGary's other concern could get addressed much sooner. That concern is with the McKamey Animal Care and Adoption Center.

When it was created, the city put no appeal process in place for animal businesses that lose their license. A judge's decision to throw out McKamey's case against the Pet Company left taxpayers footing the bill to care for the seized animals. Something that might have been avoided had that appeal process been in place.

"I'm not sure I understand the technicalities of it, but I know to be able to appeal,and what that looks like. That's not currently in our charter and it needs to be," said McGary.

Discussion on both issues will start in the Legal and Legislative committee chaired by Councilman Peter Murphy. Murphy says they'll start with McKamey.

"According to the trial judge - the substitute trial judge - they don't have the power to decide whether McKamey can or cannot hold an animal so there's that problem. We may have to assign it to a board or create a new entity," said Murphy.

Murphy says changes to ordinances involving McKamey could be written and adopted in a few weeks.

Another city law that could see some changes is about chickens, and whether you can own them in the city limits. They'll discuss that next Tuesday with representatives from McKamey.

MSN in Memphis; Elsewhere in Tennessee?

Doing a little catching up here today. Memphis passed a law requiring mandatory spaying and neutering last week. Such a bad idea!

From Eyewitness News Memphis

http://tinyurl.com/2fm5r64

New Law Mandates Pets Be Sterilized

Reported by: Jeni DiPrizio

Email: jdiprizio@myeyewitnessnews.com

MEMPHIS, TN-- If you own a cat or dog in Memphis, you have to get your pet fixed. A new law requires the animals to be spayed or neutered.

“Just like all the problems in Memphis there is no magic wand that will act as a cure, but this is one step to create a better environment for animals and citizens,” said Memphis Animal Shelter Director, Matthew Pepper.

Every year the shelter euthanizes 16,000 animals. Pepper hopes the new law will reduce the number of pets put to sleep. He added, “I think over time, spay and neutering is the long term solution to the problems we face in this community.”

Under the law, almost all cats and dogs are required to get sterilized. Pet owners can pay a $200 license fee to avoid spay or neutering their pets. Guide dogs, police dogs and breeders are exempt from the new law. Veterinarians can also exempt dogs for health reasons.

Pet owner Donna Malone thinks the law is a bad idea. “Basically this law says we don’t trust you to do what you need to do with your pet,” said Malone.

Malone believes the new law is unfair to poor people who can’t afford the added cost of sterilizing their animals, “People will end up having to surrender their pets because they can’t afford what needs to be done.”

Memphis City Councilman, Shea Flinn said the new law is a secondary violation. Animal control officers won’t search for violators. Officers will only issue a citation in connection to another violation. “The veterinarian is not going to rat you out. If your dog is in its backyard behaving you are not going to notice the change,” said Flinn.

If a pet owner is ticketed for violating the law, it is a $50 fine.

I know that Donna Malone and others in Memphis have worked their tails off trying to convince the city council that MSN is a bad idea but this time it must have been like talking to a brick wall. MSN has never worked anywhere it's been tried. It increases owner turn-ins to shelters, which leads to more animals being euthanized. It causes more people to break other pet laws because they don't want their pets registered. It means that people won't vaccinate their pets for rabies and other diseases because they don't want to risk a trip to the vet or let someone know they haven't gotten their pet spayed or neutered. MSN leads to widespread disregard of all animal laws in a city and lower compliance. Many of the places that have tried it have revoked it. The ASPCA, the AVMA and virtually every other major animal organization opposes MSN. And, yet, people and clueless local politicians keep forcing it on people. Good luck, Memphis. I hope you and your pets and pet owners survive the next few months as MSN is implemented.

What's also bad is that when one city or town puts MSN into effect, it immediately sets off other places where clueless people want to have MSN. Case in point: east Tennessee.

If you go to the site make sure you read the comments. There are some good ones.

From VolunteerTV.com

http://www.volunteertv.com/news/headlines/104034969.html

Some hope for mandatory spay neuter law in East Tenn.

One Tennessee city is now telling pet owners, they have to spay and neuter their cats and dogs. The Memphis City Council approved the ordinance Tuesday, and some around here hope similar ordinances spread around East Tennessee.

Posted: 6:13 PM Sep 29, 2010

Reporter: Heather Haley

Email Address: heather.haley@wvlt-tv.com

Some hope for mandatory spay neuter law in East Tenn.

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WVLT) -- One Tennessee city is now telling pet owners, they have to spay and neuter their cats and dogs.

The Memphis City Council approved the ordinance Tuesday, and some around here hope similar ordinances spread around East Tennessee.

Everyday Young-Williams Animal Shelter houses nearly 400 animals, hoping to find each one a home.

Executive Director, Tim Adams said, "If you're going to try to control or get a handle on the over-population problem in your community, truly the best way to do it is through aggressive spay neuter."

But last year, nearly 17,000 pets came into the shelter, "And 12,000 and some were euthanized," added Adams.

Memphis has the same battle with the pet population, so the City Council approved a mandatory spay neuter ordinance for dogs and cats.

President of the Board for the Humane Society of the Tennessee Valley, Pat Hackett said, "As a tax payer, I'd like to see something done instead of using our taxes to euthanize these animals. As a Veterinarian, I'd like to see these animals not be destroyed, and as the president of the Humane Society, I'd like to see us come up with a solution."

The Memphis City Council is providing exemptions. An owner can buy a $200 permit to keep their pet fertile, and if an animal is registered with an approved organization, such as the American Kennel Club, then they can skip spaying or neutering. Or, if a Veterinarian says the surgery would harm a pet.

Adams said, "It simply makes it a little more difficult for the back yard breeders, to do what they're doing. The responsible breeders, I'm sure if the law is passed, the only way it's passed, is if the responsible breeders have a way out."

Hackett said, "If it works in Memphis, it will probably spread to other cities."

Adams with Young-Williams Animal Center, encourages city and county officials around the region to look to Memphis as an example, and hopes similar laws will be discussed soon, but he says there needs to be exemptions for the responsible breeders, for it to pass.

I think the key point in this article is the statement that "if it works in Memphis, it will probably spread to other cities." Considering the way that Memphis has been running its animal control operation and its shelter, the chances of the city succeeding with mandatory spay neutering are zilch, even if it was a viable plan. Considering that MSN doesn't work anyway, I expect Memphis to fall flat on its face with MSN. Don't be surprised if the number of animals euthanized in Memphis shoots up in the next year — or if they start refusing to report their numbers, or make excuses.

As for having MSN in Knoxville or other parts of east Tennessee, know that there are people here who will fight it to their last breath. So far MSN has been defeated several times in Johnson City, Greeneville and other places where people have tried to launch it in the eastern part of the state. We've been preparing for Knoxville for some time, if necessary.

Chattanooga: Pet Company animal cruelty case dismissed

According to another article, McKamey also has to pay court costs.

Carlotta

From the Chattanooga Times Free Press

http://tinyurl.com/36uej27

Tuesday, Oct. 5, 2010

Pet Company animal cruelty case dismissed

By: Joan Garrett

An animal cruelty case against a local pet store, which was being

tried for the second time in city court because the first judge

recused herself and declared the case a mistrial, was dismissed by a

senior judge Monday.

City attorneys said the ruling means that McKamey Animal Care and

Adoption Center will not recover the $40,000 spent caring for the 84

animals taken from the Pet Company this summer.

“If this ruling stands, no action will be taken against the Pet

Company,” said Krystal Freiberg, an assistant city attorney. “We

haven’t decided if there will be anything else done.”

The animals, which were taken to McKamey because a Tennessee

Department of Agriculture inspector found them without water and

rolling around in their own feces in extreme heat, were sent back to

the Pet Company last week, said Paula Hurn, operations director at

McKamey. The animals were taken to a veterinarian and not the store,

officials said.

In a ruling, Senior Judge Donald Harris said the retrial of the Pet

Company’s case violated laws against double jeopardy because the pet

store never consented to the mistrial.

“It appears the City Judge [Sherry Paty] without forewarning the

parties as to her intent, entered the courtroom, read her prepared

order and then left,” the ruling read. “Under these circumstances,

this court cannot find the Pet Company had an opportunity to object

prior to the declaration of a mistrial and recusal of the city judge.”

The city’s case against the Pet Company, a pet store in Hamilton

Place mall, was set for retrial after Paty said she couldn’t try the

case because Chattanooga Mayor Ron Littlefield had sent her an e-mail

attempting to sway her.

Paty called the communication “an improper, unethical and perhaps

contemptible disregard for the separation of powers.”

Littlefield has said he thinks the city has been slow in dealing with

the Pet Company, and he wants the store out of business for good.

“This order doesn’t contradict McKamey’s findings, and certainly

Judge Paty recognized the condition of the store,” said Mark

Litchford, an attorney representing the city. “She said the

conditions of the store necessitated the animals’ removal.”

Contact Joan Garrett at jgarrett@timesfreepress.com or 423-757-6601.