Petition on pet limit could place measure before Cape voters

The Cape Girardeau City Council would be forced to repeal the city's new limits on pets or put the issue before voters if a current referendum petition drive is successful.

City officials believe it may be the first such referendum petition since the city charter was adopted in 1981.

Five Cape Girardeau pet owners are circulating the petition seeking to overturn a provision of the city's new animal control ordinance that limits the number of pets a person can own to no more than four cats and four dogs.

"We are still collecting signatures," said petition organizer Kimberly Necas. The petition drive has so far collected 1,200 signatures or about half of the number needed, she said.

The petition must be submitted to the city by 5 p.m. today. Necas said she doubts her group will have enough signatures by the deadline.

But she said the charter allows for insufficient petitions to be amended. That process could give her group a couple more weeks to collect signatures.

That could prove enough time to garner sufficient signatures to force the council to take up the issue, Necas said. The group plans to collect signatures at the SEMO District Fair this week.

Necas said her group has even registered some residents to vote just so they could sign the petition.

If the petition effort is successful, the council would have to repeal the pet limitation provision or within four months put the issue before the voters.

The city's Planning and Zoning Commission last week called on the city council to reconsider a provision of the new ordinance that requires residents to seek special-use permits to operate commercial kennels if they want to keep more animals than allowed.

Commissioners worried that they would be flooded with requests for such permits from pet owners.

Cape Girardeau resident Jenny Stigers applied for a special-use permit, prompting the commission's action.

Stigers, who is one of the leaders of the referendum petition effort, has five dogs. Although they are grandfathered in, Stigers said she would be in violation if she ends up caring for strays or if guests in her home brought their pets and stayed more than three days.

Apartment or 21 acres

Stigers said the new ordinance forces her to seek a permit to operate a commercial kennel even though she lives on a 21-acre tract in the city and has no intention of setting up a pet business.

"You could be in an apartment or own 21 acres, the ordinance is still the same," she said.

The new ordinance took effect on Aug. 12. It includes a grandfather clause that allows residents who owned more than four dogs or cats prior to enactment of the new law to keep those animals without being in violation.

But that still doesn't sit well with Necas, who owns eight dogs and routinely cares for stray dogs. Caring for stray dogs would put her in violation of the new city law unless she obtains a special use permit.

City officials argue that the pet limit will make it easier for police and animal control officers to respond to nuisance complaints and enforce the city's animal control laws.

"This is the first step at attempting to address the pet population in the city," Mayor Jay Knudtson said.

The mayor said he has talked to city manager Doug Leslie about creating a task force to look at other ways to improve animal control.

Knudtson said the pet limit makes it easier for officers to enforce animal control laws without having to check on whether dogs and cats have been spayed or neutered. The old ordinance had no limit on the number of animals a person could own. The only restriction was that the resident couldn't have more than four unaltered dogs or cats.

But petition organizers, including Necas, insist that limiting the number of animals in a household won't solve the city's animal control problems.

Irresponsible pet owners are to blame for dogs running at large, nuisance barking and unlicensed pets, Necas said.

Some people can't responsibly take care of a single pet. Others can take care of many pets, she said.

Necas said the limit hurts responsible pet owners, including those who raise show dogs and those who rescue stray animals that otherwise would be euthanized in animal shelters.

Even those pet owners who are allowed to keep more animals because of the grandfather clause would be in violation if they took in a stray animal or replaced a pet that had died, Necas said.

The city would do better to enforce existing animal control laws and establish set fines for violations rather than limit pet ownership, she said.

Necas said the city also should require violators to perform community service duties at the local Humane Society shelter.

Under current animal control laws, violators face possible fines of up to $500 or 90 days in jail. But those punishments apply to a number of city laws, not just animal control measures.

It's up to the municipal judge to determine the specific fine in each case, Necas said. Setting specific fines for various animal control violations would be a better deterrent, she said.

'Trying to help'

The city, she said, also needs to update its animal license records so it can better keep track of whose pets are legally licensed.

"We are on the side of animal control," she said. "We are trying to help."

Necas said some states have banned such pet-limiting animal control ordinances as unconstitutional.

But city attorney Eric Cunningham said other states have found such limits to be legal.

Necas said most petition supporters personally aren't seeking to keep more pets. Those who signed the petition generally are pet owners who have one or two animals. "Some signers don't have any," she said.

mbliss@semissourian.com

335-6611, extension 123