Frustrated over animal code

Editor: I am responding to June Gerron’s Oct. 22 letter. While I admire her stated passion for Petaluma’s animals and her commitment to civic duty, I think that she is not fully in command of the facts.

My husband and I attended the Animal Advisory Committee for the first time Nov. 7, 2007. We were met at the door by the then-Animal Services manager, Nancee Tavares. I told her that our purpose was to introduce ourselves to the committee members, to distribute information regarding potbellied pigs and to ask for their help to change the existing 1992 ordinance. She stated that “the committee does not report to the council directly and that they have no legislative power ... that they once did, but not anymore.”

After a lively Jan. 9, 2008 meeting, the Animal Advisory Committee rendered their recommendations, the most critical of which was to allow an aggregate of four pigs and/or dogs per household. Unfortunately, the spirit of their recommendations never left the building. Ms. Tavares’ July 16, 2008 memo, to then-City Manager Mike Bierman, titled “feral pigs,” lists the committees’ recommendations and her own, apparently sealing our fate:

1. “After surveying many similar jurisdictions, I recommend allowing a maximum of two potbellied pigs.”

Her “survey” was based on a report that Animal Control had completed, cherry-picking ordinances that were as old and out of date as Petaluma’s.

2. “That all pigs root ... It could be environmental and neighbor concern if the rains cause runoff.”

No, not all pigs root, just like, not all dogs dig.

The first time that I saw the completed version was when it had been set for the May 6, 2009 City Council agenda. I met with Lt. Mike Cook, who is now supervising Animal Services and is responsible for the final draft. I requested that the proposed limit of two pigs per household be changed to the committee’s aggregate approach. Lt. Cook told me that he personally did not have an objection, but that Animal Services did. I asked what the specific objections were and in a later conversation he said, “maybe it just boils down to ... Animal Control does not want to deal with more than two.” The current Animal Services manager subsequently told me that he does not have objections.

A special meeting of the Animal Advisory Committee was held on May 13, 2009 for the purpose of discussing the proposed changes to the animal code. Ms. Gerron, you were not present. I made a public comment requesting that the committee adopt their own recommendations. Not one member addressed this issue or even asked a question. Not one!

Can you now understand my frustration and why I am asking for greater transparency in our city government and for the Animal Advisory Committee to be restructured and televised?

Angelique Fry, Petaluma