11.B) AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF PALMETTO BAY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO WILDLIFE PROTECTION; AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO CREATE SECTION 15-3 ESTABLISHING PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Sponsored by Councilmember Steve Cody)
I oppose this ordinance because it includes homeless cats as wildlife and will make the situation worse by growing the population of homeless cats. It will ban the ability of civic minded citizens to feed and care for the population of homeless cats and see that they are humanely cared for and managed. I also wonder if this ordinance would create a chilling effect on residents' ability to have bird feeders on their private property to feed and enjoy our native birds.
I support the amendment of Chapter 15 of the code of ordinances to prohibit feeding of wildlife. This would primarily refer to peacocks and ducks, as feeding encourages congregating of both, excess feces, property damage and noise. This also creates problems between neighbors. Peacocks and ducks forage for food and don't need people to feed them, Palmetto Bay has never addressed the problem of the overpopulation of peacocks in our community. Feeding of peacocks needs to be prohibited and fines imposed for feeding.
I think this ordinance is absolutely unnecessary. Even worse, classifying homeless cats as wildlife is senseless and cruel. Some members' priorities are not even close to the current needs of the residents of Palmetto Bay. I honestly think that more attention should be paid to working for the good of the community and addressing issues of interest, such as solving the issue of speeding in our neighborhood, among others.
Thank you for your attention.
This overly broad ordinance is unnecessary and would be a dramatic over reach by the Village on private property rights.
Could Section2, 1a mean swales, sidewalks etc. that are on/run through private property? Would "public spaces" include anything that is privately owned but publicly accessible, such as offices, shopping plazas, restaurants, etc.?
Could Section 2, 1b be used to address bird feeders & squirrel stations on private property, prohibiting residents from enjoying cardinals, jays, doves, painted buntings and other wild birds?
IN Section 2, 1c, x (& xi) the definition of "feral" is vague and the proposed prohibition would impede humane population control and management of community cats, as well as rescue and adoption efforts when these resources exist. Not feeding eliminates the ability to monitor the population for newly abandoned/migrated cats (and to identify dogs) and does not magically make these animals disappear. Further, neither the Village nor the County provide housing and rehoming services for community cats or stray dogs, and not all cats are suited to being adopted. Finally, failure to monitor (through feeding and observing), sterilize and humanely manage the population of free-roaming cats and dogs will results in INCREASED reproduction and force these animals to seek food by getting into trash and hunting out of necessity.
I strongly oppose this ordinance and feel it is a waste of tax payer money and resident/Village staff time.
The way this is written is to broad.
I oppose this ordinance because it includes homeless cats as wildlife and will make the situation worse by growing the population of homeless cats. It will ban the ability of civic minded citizens to feed and care for the population of homeless cats and see that they are humanely cared for and managed. I also wonder if this ordinance would create a chilling effect on residents' ability to have bird feeders on their private property to feed and enjoy our native birds.
I support the amendment of Chapter 15 of the code of ordinances to prohibit feeding of wildlife. This would primarily refer to peacocks and ducks, as feeding encourages congregating of both, excess feces, property damage and noise. This also creates problems between neighbors. Peacocks and ducks forage for food and don't need people to feed them, Palmetto Bay has never addressed the problem of the overpopulation of peacocks in our community. Feeding of peacocks needs to be prohibited and fines imposed for feeding.
I think this ordinance is absolutely unnecessary. Even worse, classifying homeless cats as wildlife is senseless and cruel. Some members' priorities are not even close to the current needs of the residents of Palmetto Bay. I honestly think that more attention should be paid to working for the good of the community and addressing issues of interest, such as solving the issue of speeding in our neighborhood, among others.
Thank you for your attention.
This overly broad ordinance is unnecessary and would be a dramatic over reach by the Village on private property rights.
Could Section2, 1a mean swales, sidewalks etc. that are on/run through private property? Would "public spaces" include anything that is privately owned but publicly accessible, such as offices, shopping plazas, restaurants, etc.?
Could Section 2, 1b be used to address bird feeders & squirrel stations on private property, prohibiting residents from enjoying cardinals, jays, doves, painted buntings and other wild birds?
IN Section 2, 1c, x (& xi) the definition of "feral" is vague and the proposed prohibition would impede humane population control and management of community cats, as well as rescue and adoption efforts when these resources exist. Not feeding eliminates the ability to monitor the population for newly abandoned/migrated cats (and to identify dogs) and does not magically make these animals disappear. Further, neither the Village nor the County provide housing and rehoming services for community cats or stray dogs, and not all cats are suited to being adopted. Finally, failure to monitor (through feeding and observing), sterilize and humanely manage the population of free-roaming cats and dogs will results in INCREASED reproduction and force these animals to seek food by getting into trash and hunting out of necessity.
I strongly oppose this ordinance and feel it is a waste of tax payer money and resident/Village staff time.