Cat lovers fail to stop new Petaluma regulations
Published: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 12:16 p.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 12:16 p.m.
Despite impassioned pleas from cat lovers – and two of their attorneys – the Petaluma City Council has formalized an ordinance that regulates the care of feral cat colonies in the city.
On a 5-1 vote with one councilwoman absent, the council on Monday night adopted the new law that requires those caring for wild cat families to be affiliated with a nonprofit agency.
That agency, which hasn’t been chosen by the city, will be the official care provider for the unknown number of feral cat colonies. The nonprofit will also be required to insure volunteer colony caretakers.
Many feral cat advocates opposed those parts of the ordinance, and one of the largest groups, Forgotten Felines of Sonoma County, has said it won’t work with the city because of it. The agency said it will continue to seek to trap, spay and neuter the animals, many of which live along the city’s waterways and other places.
Some people, particularly bird lovers who frequent Schollenberger Park, consider wild cats a nuisance and danger to other wildlife. They wanted the cat colonies eliminated from city wetlands to protect the dozens of species of birds that live there.
The issue had developed as a cat-lover vs. bird-lover dispute, Councilman Mike Healy said.
“They . . . just agree to hate each other,” he said. “It’s really sad. We’re used to seeing people trying to get along.”
The ordinance states that any volunteer caring for feral cat colonies who isn’t registered with the city’s chosen nonprofit will be prosecuted. Although police said they won’t actively pursue rogue cat caregivers, many feline advocates opposed what they perceive as heavy handedness.
In voting no, Councilman Mike Harris said he wanted to spend more time on the issue to make sure both sides were satisfied with the final wording of the ordinance.
Other councilmembers said they want to see how the ordinance works before revisiting it.
“It is not going to please everyone, I don’t believe,” said police Lt. Mike Cook, who helped draft the ordinance. “I would like to see it as a starting point. If all the energy devoted to this recently . . . is devoted to making it work, we’ll be much further ahead.”
The ordinance will be brought back in a year, Healy said, to determine if it needs to be modified.
Attorneys for cat advocates’ suggested some of the ordinances’ requirements may be unconstitutional.
All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.
Comments are currently unavailable on this article