A proposed ordinance to require dogs and cats to be sterilized with some exceptions died for a lack of a second during a recent meeting of Durant City Council.
The ordinance, if it had been approved, would have made it unlawful for any person to have a dog or cat over the age of six months that had not been spayed or neutered. Exceptions would have included if the animal has a medical condition that would make sterilization unsafe or the citizen obtained a permit to have pets that are not sterilized. The current ordinance only requires that pets be vaccinated and any adopted from the city must be spayed or neutered.
Councilman Danny Sherrer asked acting Police Chief Joe Clark if he thought residents would comply with the ordinance.
“No, not going be 100 percent compliance,” Clark said. “That’s where our animal control officers will need to step up and make sure that everyone’s in compliance.”
Sherrer asked, “Are you going to go door-to-door knocking on doors asking people, ‘Do you have a pet? Has it been neutered? has it been spayed?”’ Clark replied that he did not think that was the objective of the ordinance and Sherrer asked what the objective is.
“Responsible pet ownership,” Clark said. “Our stray population is continuing to grow. It’s an effort to try to curb irresponsible pet ownership. People get their pets and then let them roam free and they multiply and just create a big problem.”
Sherrer said, “If they’re irresponsible, do you think they’re going to follow this ordinance?”
“Probably not,” Clark said. “I mean, it’s going to be their option to either comply or be cited for it.”
Mayor Martin Tucker asked if the proposed ordinance was patterned after another city’s ordinance or a recommendation from a healthcare authority.
City attorney Tom Marcum said he could answer that question.
“There are many cities in Oklahoma that have similar or almost word-for-word ordinances just like this and the short answer is, there’s not going to be a 100 percent compliance but for those animals that are roaming loose, the owner essentially has to comply,” Marcum said. “If they’re being irresponsible and letting their animal run loose, they’ve got to comply to get their animal back. We wouldn’t need an animal shelter built as big as we are building if everybody complied and was responsible.”
When Councilman Humphrey Miller asked how many people have been cited for a loose animal in the last year, Clark said he didn’t have an exact number but probably 1015 people per month are cited.
“If we’re already seeing citations and people having to pay citations for stuff and I don’t really see a problem with the system we’ve got now,” Miller said. “If we’re having them every month, I really don’t see putting another regulation on people if it’s occurring as often as you’re saying.”
City Manager Pam Polk said, “It’s sort of working but the city has all kinds of ordinances that people don’t adhere to, otherwise we probably wouldn’t need a police department. But I have had several cat people, dog people, come to me and really, we need this ordinance. They want this ordinance because it will help with the strays and the whole pet population. So, you can see it on both sides I guess, but we do have a faction that does want this ordinance and asked for that. It’s not that everyone doesn’t want it.”
Tucker asked if there are other ways to address animals not being controlled by their owners.
Marcum said there is more than one issue and the current ordinance only prohibits dogs from running at large which he said is a health and safety issue. The new ordinance is to keep animals from overpopulating, according to Marcum.
“It’s not just when the animals are loose,” Marcum said. “People may have them 100 percent contained but they’re not spaying and neutering, so then when their animals breed and have puppies, they dump them down the street or take them to the animal shelter or whatever and we end up with a bunch of unwanted dogs at the shelter or running down by the railroad tracks or wherever else they choose to dump them. So, it’s not just loose dogs. This doesn’t just apply to dogs that are running loose. Maybe most of the enforcement will be for dogs that are running loose because unless they’re over breeding or whatever, I don’t know that law enforcement is going to go knocking on doors, but this doesn’t just address loose dogs.”
Vice Mayor Mike Simulescu said the council needed to vote on it and see, so he made a motion to approve the ordinance which died when no other council members seconded his motion.
In other agenda items, the council took no action on an agreement between the city and Theorem LLC for architectural and engineering services at a cost of $96,250 for a new animal shelter.
When Tucker asked if any council members had questions, Sherrer said, “I don’t see how we can design a facility without having a location selected for it first.”
Polk said the city has been looking at several different properties owned by the city.
“Right now, we think that probably the best piece of property that we have is at the Multi-Sports Complex, a 10-acre tract,” Polk said. “Of course, we don’t need 10 acres for this, but staff has been discussing it and we think that’s probably the best place for it.”
Sherrer replied that most of the time, the location is selected before the design.
“We can go either way with it I guess, but this has been one of the biggest concerns with visits I have had with the public since I’ve been here to get a new animal shelter,” Polk replied.
Sherrer said he agreed the city desperately needs a new animal shelter, but that this is “putting the cart before the horse.”
Tucker asked Theorem owner Shane Knight to speak.
“We haven’t done any investigations on the site in terms of surveys, topography, utilities, any of that yet other than we know it’s a 10-acre tract on the northeast side of the sports complex,” Knight said. “It seems to be an attractive site just from driving by, but we haven’t performed any investigations on it yet. I don’t anticipate there being any real issues just knowing the area. I know nothing has been selected yet.”
Tucker asked if the price would change from one site to another and Knight said it depends upon where they go with the project.
Polk estimated the cost to build the shelter will be $1.2 to $1.3 million.
The council agreed to take no action on the proposal and it will be discussed again at a future meeting when the exact location for the shelter is determined.