San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas

January 19th, 2009
Mayor says council could overturn animal ordinance

by BRAD ROLLINS
Managing Editor

Less than a month after it was unanimously approved, Mayor Susan Narvaiz said today she wants the city council to suspend a city of San Marcos animal ordinance that some resident oppose as going too far to expand municipal government’s reach.

Narvaiz, who criticized the rules when they were proposed but voted for a pared down version last month, said she is responding to growing discontent over fear that implanted microchips can cause cancer in cats and dogs and, in general, that the rules are unnecessarily intrusive.

“For me, there were so many questions that went unanswered during the consideration process and, being in the minority, some of my colleagues lost interest in asking critical questions. So it went through with the hope that we could clear up alot of the issues through the public information process, this series of meetings. Now we’re hearing alot of the criticism that I think we would have heard earlier if the Animal Shelter Advisory Board had conducted public hearings on these subjects before they recommended it to the council as new law,” Narvaiz said in a telephone interview from Reagan Washington National Airport where she was waiting to return from a National League of Cities conference.

A discussion of the animal ordinance is on the council’s agenda for its regular meeting, rescheduled for 7 p.m. Thursday at City Hall. Narvaiz said she expects the council to be advised by the city attorney on the exact legal action needed to repeal or delay implementation of the animal ordinance, which is set to go in effect April 1.

She said, “To me, I would have no problem doing an about-face and revisiting this ordinance and putting it aside until we have some of these questions cleared up,” a process she said could require the Animal Shelter Advisory Board to hold public hearings.

From the recent outcry over the pet that died during a traffic stop by a San Marcos officer to the public showdown of an ordinance in 2005 requiring dogs be tethered while traveling in the bed of pickup trucks, San Marcos shares a spirited history when it comes to animal issues.

The tethering requirement was included in the original proposal from the shelter advisory board but was deleted from the version approved by the council Dec. 16. In addition, council members adjusted the ordinance to softened a requirement that the owners of impounded animals attend pet owner responsibility classes before their animals are returned, limiting it to cases in which an animal was abused or neglected, or if the animal had been picked up twice previously running loose.

The ordinance, however, still covers a vast swath of regulatory ground, including the mandatory microchipping of dogs and cats; a trap, neuter and release program for feral cats; and more aggressive measures addressing dangerous dogs.

Email Email | Print Print

--

6 thoughts on “Mayor says council could overturn animal ordinance

  1. You’ve got to be kidding me. They go through all of this and miraculously have a progressive law passed to protect animals and the Mayor wants to undo it. Can she even do that? Repeal an ordinance that is already on the books even though it hasnt taken effect?

  2. The Humane Society of the U.S. supports pet microchipping: “… microchipping provides an important safety net for your pet.” Thousands of animals were put down in San Marcos alone last year plus thousands more around our state. Many were lost. People do not put tags and collars on their pets as they should. Microchips have been found safe by vets and are used internationally to reunite lost pets with their families. They save pets’ lives. Studies in which tumors were found were performed on lab mice and less than 1% of 4,279 chipped rats had this result. These mice studies were conducted in mice specifically bred to produce tumors. Dr. Lawrence D. McGill, a veterinarian and leading expert in animal pathology says the tumor development in rodents is unsurprising. “Even if you put in a bland piece of plastic, it will produce tumors in rats and mice,” says McGill, who assessed the studies on behalf of VeriChip. He says it would be a leap to apply the findings of studies in mice to cats or dogs — or to humans, for that matter — which are much more complex animals.

  3. CITY OF SAN MARCOS
    BRASHLY IMPOSES MANDATORY
    666 “MARK OF THE BEAST” 666
    UPON ALL PETS
    (Humans come next)

    In case you did not know, and whether you really wanted your tax dollars spent on such a “golden cow”, the City of San Marcos has recently completed a million dollar dog pound or pet facility.

    On 1-26-09 a newsbite came across the radio stating that the city of San Marcos had just adopted a mandatory microchipping of all pets ordinance with some San Marcos official stating “we want to get all those lost pets back to their owners”.

    Lying dog bullcrap.

    The real reason for microchipping is so that BIG BROTHER can track the stray pet back to the owner so they can collect BIG MONEY and pay for and justify this million dollar pet jail. When they have your dear little Fido locked up in the dog pound or pet jail they can now check the microchip & demand you come down and pay a huge fine to get him out of jail. It’s all brought to you by the same mentality of those that want to lock up and make money off everybody on the planet.

    After all, this is TEXAS, the most hideously evil spot on the planet which imprisons more of it’s citizens per capita than any other state in the USA or nation in the entire world. Yes, it’s really true – – – go research it. I have more than 500 pages of research documents to prove it. There is HUGE money in prosecuting & locking people up (and apparently in locking up your pets too).

    Guess they’ll be a rash of you tube videos now on how to extract or cut out those RFID chips.

    The biblical Mark of the Beast 666 is really coming true – – – just like the MATRIX where Agent Smith injects the little “bug” creature into Neo’s stomach in the police interrogation room.

    At first this microchipping of pets was optional in San Marcos, now it’s mandatory. Just wait, next they’ll be offering you incentives to get yourself microchipped in case of serious accidents, or lost and confused elderly. Yeah, they’ll always dream up some positives to sell you on the Mark of the Beast 666.

    But then suddenly after the next big terrorist attack (another “inside job” of course just as both German and Israeli intelligence have concluded about the World Trade Center attack) they will announce it’s mandatory – – every citizen must get microchipped or if you refuse it’s a FELONY OFFENSE. I’ve heard some say you better stock up on ammo ’cause it’s coming.

    And did you know that not one, but two research studies have concluded that microchips cause cancer in pets ?

    Call your city councilman & the mayor today and tell them you want this ordinance quashed:

  4. What if your pets are indoor-only? I have two cats who are scared of the outside world and don’t need to be microchipped. I know lots of other people whose pets are indoor only and don’t need to be microchipped because they’re not going anywhere. And does this ordinance apply only to dogs and cats? Or are snakes, ferrets, gerbils, etc. also supposed to get microchipped?

    Makes me wonder what kind of kickback deal the city struck with which microchipping company to get this passed.

  5. Sharri gave us this little gem from th chip makers themselves: “Even if you put in a bland piece of plastic, it will produce tumors in rats and mice,” says McGill, who assessed the studies on behalf of VeriChip.” Isn’t that a little like the fox guarding the hens? Besides, ANY foreign object implanted in tissue (which is constantly regenerating in every living body) could cause regenerative malfunction (cancer)- even “bland plastic.”

    Plus the animal people at city hall yesterday explaining the ordinance will hasten to tell you how many poor puppies get euthanized each year, but couldn’t tell me how many fewer (if any) would be after this goes into effect.

    Plus the whole root issue is that this is flawed philosophy: You cannot mandate personal responsibility. Any pet owner who actually still wanted the dog would call the pound straight away, and describe their dog, as it has been done since telephones were invented, without needing a chip. An uninterested/neglectful/can’t-afford-this-dog-’cause-we’re-having-a-hard-enough-time-in-this-depression person is surely not going to pay the fine more than once. That dog will be euthanized in the backyard, versus plodding down the street on the other side of town, collarless and (temporarily) free.

    This is in the name of safety, but Pit Bull was right, people who don’t own guns will be cutting these things out. How exactly does this keep dogs from jumping the fence and getting hit by a car? Or strangling themselves with their tether? The swivels on tethers measure is good. These microchips are good IF YOU SO CHOOSE.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:)