Cat Ordinance, Animal Control Procedures Readied For New Facility

By John Voket

Following the Legislative Council’s approval of a local feline ordinance March 7, the Board of Selectmen is similarly poised to enact a Welfare Policy for Impounded Animals at its next meeting March 19. Formalizing both initiatives will position the new animal control facility with the necessary administrative tools required to open once construction and all required inspections are completed.

Public Works Director Fred Hurley has told town officials that a late spring or early summer opening of the facility is anticipated.

State law prohibits a municipal shelter or pound from accepting cats unless that community has an approved enabling ordinance on the books related to its practices for administering both impounded and feral felines in the community, according to Ordinance Committee Chair Mary Ann Jacob.

The related statute is 22-332d, which authorizes “any animal control officer for a municipality which has adopted an ordinance to take into custody any cat found to be damaging property other than property of its owner or keeper or causing an unsanitary, dangerous or unreasonably offensive condition unless such cat can be identified as under the care of its owner or a registered keeper of feral cats.”

The statutes further define the conditions for the ordinance under subsection b of section 22-339d, which states: “A municipality may adopt an ordinance providing that no person owning or keeping any cat shall permit such animal to (1) substantially damage property other than the property of the owner or keeper or (2) cause an unsanitary, dangerous or unreasonably offensive condition. Violation of such provision shall be an infraction.”

The approved ordinance outlines a schedule of fines for keepers found to be in violation, which begin at $25 per violation per day. The fine may be charged in addition to other costs incurred to keep or notify the keeper about any feline(s) in custody.

The local ordinance details procedures a Newtown animal control official should follow to accept a cat into the local municipal facility. Before the ordinance was approved March 7, the council agreed to modify the draft wording to give facility personnel some discretion in evaluating an incoming feline.

If an authorized official suspects the cat is from another community, or is suspected to be feral versus domesticated, the town reserves the right to not accept it into the local facility.

The ordinance breaks down the definitions of a feral versus a domesticated cat, as well as what constitutes its “keeper.” The council also modified the draft to change a classification of “domestic” to “domesticated.”

According to the ordinance, any keeper of feral cats must register with the town within one year of the ordinance being enacted. Any such keeper is required to keep any felines inoculated, and is to provide for each animal’s spaying or neutering.

The ordinance permits a local animal control officer to take any feral cat that may be causing damage to property except that of its registered keeper — or causing an unhealthy, dangerous or offensive condition per the ordinance.

Found Or Abandoned

The ordinance further states that any resident may bring a cat to the animal control facility, and any such cat may be made available for adoption in accordance with the town Animal Welfare Policy. The animal control officer is bound to exercise reasonable efforts to contact the owner of any cat in the custody of the facility, including publishing information about the found animal.

The ordinance states that if such a feline’s owner is not identified after 14 days after publication, and if the cat is in good health, it may be offered for adoption. The keeper of any domestic or feral cat may claim any animal(s) in custody of the local pound after showing proper identification or certification of ownership.

Any identified keeper will also be responsible for paying the cost of the published notice as well as a $15 redemption fee. Additional care costs may compound if that keeper does not respond to claim the feline within 24 hours of being notified by the animal control official of its custody in the municipal facility.

The ordinance also references a local appeals process keepers may employ if they feel they have been fined or cited in error. Before its unanimous passage, the council also modified draft language to reference the proposed animal welfare policy that will come before selectmen March  21.

The proposed animal welfare policy is intended to provide support for the continuation of the town’s long-standing “no-kill” practice, according to the draft provided to The Bee by First Selectman Pat Llodra. The policy is intended to serve as a guideline for all personnel when considering the well-being and fate of animals impounded at the Newtown Animal Control Facility.

Mrs Llodra and her fellow Selectmen James Gaston and Will Rodgers all previously stated that Newtown remains committed to a no-kill philosophy and “there is nothing in this policy that should be construed as advocating the euthanizing of animals impounded at our control facility.”

The draft policy states that “euthanizing any animal impounded in the Newtown Animal Control Facility should be avoided unless circumstances dictate euthanasia is the only reasonable course to pursue. Euthanasia will not be considered as a control for overpopulation at the Newtown Animal Control Facility.”

 The proposed procedures outline how local animal control personnel must proceed with practices that will limit the danger and threat to the human and animal populations.

‘Non-Sustainable’ Defined

In the case of what is deemed to be a “medically non-sustainable” diseased or injured animal for which no restorative action is reasonably available, a licensed veterinarian will make the recommendation to euthanize to the municipal animal control officer on duty (MACO). That individual will in turn consult with the supervising animal control officer or ACO.

Only when those persons mutually agree on the euthanizing action may the veterinarian proceed with a euthanasia procedure.

The policy states that euthanasia shall not be considered for any animal that is relatively healthy and which can be reasonably accommodated at the animal control facility. Every effort must be put forth to locate appropriate homes for all animals housed at the facility.

These efforts must be fully documented and become part of each animal’s case file, according to the policy.

According to the proposal, the euthanizing of any animal “behaviorally non-sustainable” animal for aggressive behavior that has led to bodily harm to humans or other animals cannot occur unless the following conditions are met and documented in the case file of the animal:

1. Has every possible and reasonable effort been implemented to locate the owner of the animal in question?

2. Has every possible and reasonable effort been undertaken to find an appropriate home for the animal?

3. Is there a rescue shelter or a rescue group available to take custody of the animal?

4. Are there arrangements that can be made to temporarily house the animal in an alternate location?

5. Has the animal been professionally evaluated by an independent animal trainer to determine the suitability for a behavior modification program? If yes to the above question, has a suitable program been implemented without success?

6. Has a licensed veterinarian tested the animal for known health disorders associated with aggressive behavior? If yes to the above question, has the animal undergone all available treatment?

Chain Of Command

A licensed veterinarian may proceed with a euthanasia procedure only after the MACO, ACO, licensed veterinarian, trainer or animal behaviorist, and chief of police or his/her designee, and the first selectman or his/her designee have carefully and thoroughly reviewed the case file, and agree that euthanasia is the only appropriate course of action for that behaviorally non-sustainable animal.

For purposes of this policy: a) MACO is understood to be a municipal employee, not a member of the town’s police force; and b) the preferred veterinarian and trainer or animal behaviorist involved in the treatment and decision making will have had experience with impounded/shelter animals.

A checklist with signatures and comments for items 1–6 above is maintained with the file of each animal euthanized under this behaviorally non-sustainable category.

Mrs Llodra said that the proposed draft of this policy and procedures was crafted with much input and cooperation from members of the community, and particularly with those involved with Canine Advocates, which provides extensive volunteer and financial support to the animal control facility and its personnel.