SIDNEY - It’s back to the drawing board for proposed amendments to the existing kennel ordinance in Sidney after city council decided to send the ordinance back to the planning commission.

Council had previously read the title of the ordinance twice after approving the amendments that said pet owners could own no more than three dogs, three cats or a combination not to exceed three. However, the ordinance did not fully pass because of community opposition during Tuesday night’s third reading of the ordinance. If it had been read unopposed, it would have passed and become law.

Instead, after comments from the public and discussion among council members, the council asked City Attorney Jordan Ball to make major language changes to the ammendment and to send it for review to the planning commision.

The current kennel ordinance says that no one can own more than three dogs without first obtaining a kennel license. One of the amendments added cats to the ordinance, while another restricted the area where a kennel could be located. The restriction was that a kennel could not be located in a residential zone, or a zone abutting a residential zone.

While the ordinance would allow for residents currently owning more than three cats or a combination of cats and dogs to keep their pets, it would restrict them from replacing the pets should one die, unless the number of animals would remain at three or lower.

City council listened to multiple complaints from residents during its Tuesday night regular session in which the public said other options exist to help keep the hoarding of animals down, versus a law that punishes responsible pet owners.

That was one of the points presented by Roberta Peters, the former leader of High Plains Animal Rescue.

“Legislation on people only penalizes the people who are responsible,” Peters said.

Peters said hoarding is a mental disease, and there are people who harbor more cats than they can care for, but if council should pass the amendment, irresponsible people would simply toss the fourth pet out into the streets. She said the responsible pet owners would simply hide the pet and not get it proper care for fear of being caught breaking the law.

Peters’ suggestion to council was to form an animal control advisory board that would help mediate neighbor disputes over pets and help run public information campaigns to keep pet owners responsible.

Peters was joined by Sidney residents Dan Carlson, Tamara Nelsen and Carole Kadie in her arguments.

“Don’t put this asinine law through,” Kadie said. “You have better things to do. What we need in this city and county is a humane society or animal rescue organization.”

Councilman Dave Weiderspon said he would like to see the ordinance be more like the state statute on kennels. He suggested the language change to say no more than three of a species that are of breeding age. The state recognizes breeding age to be six months and older, unless the animal has been spade or neutered.

Council agreed that the amendments to the kennel ordinance should be sent back to the planning commission along with suggestions for language. The restriction of where a kennel can be located is likely to stay, as council agreed it liked limiting kennels in residential zones.

An animal rescue provision was included in the amendments, stating that a pet owner could have more than the limit if an organization requested foster home care of a pet. The time limit to foster a pet was 60 days.

Printer Friendly | Email this story For a more complete archive, search our online e-edition archives.