New Protests against proposed pet limit increases lodged with City Clerk

Since the new GM of Animal Services Brenda Barnette's September town hall meeting, regarding the proposal by Councilmembers Rosendahl and Koretz to increase the number of dogs and cats allowed in a "household," new protests have been lodged with the Los Angeles City Clerk. They appear below. It seems that the advocates for this proposal are unaware of the process by which they may make their opinions known to Council. Better get on it.
Protests to date: 8
Supporters: 13

This, like any other legislation , is a numbers game.


PROTEST

Please file with city clerk in Council file 10-0982 to protest.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathleen Johnson
To: amyg93@aol.com
Sent: Fri, Oct 1,20104:57 pm
Subject: Re:
here is what i sent:
October-1, 2010
Dear Mr. Koretz;
I have recently become aware of a proposed ordinance to allow individuals
to take in five dogs. This proposal seems very untenable, without any
monitoring or control over who gets the animals, no measure to prevent
abandonment, nor any oversight on how many dogs anyone might
possibly take in.
With noise pollution already a serious issue, the last thing our neighborhoods
need is more barking-not to mention the inherent mess of careless owners.
We all love animals, but surely there are far better ways to spend our
money to ensure their well-being.
Thanks for your time and consideration,
Kathleen Johnson
South Carthay

___________________
PROTEST

Please file with City Clerk in council file 10-0982 as a protest.
-----Original Message-----
From: alex collins
To: PauI.Koretz@lacity.org; BiII.Rosendahl@lacity.org
Sent: Sun, Oct 3, 2010 2:12 pm
Subject: Opposition to increase in dogs/cats per residence
Council members,
Please know that as a resident in the Miracle Mile, I'm opposed to the proposition
currently being discussed that would allow residents to increase the number of pets
from three to five. I don't agree with the assertions that it would decrease the number of
pets in shelters, however, I believe it would increase the potential for safety issues
within residences, increase potential noise violations from louder animals, as well as
increase the potential for animal cruelty.
Thank you.
Alex Collins
____________________

please file with city clerk in council file 10-0982 (Protest)
-----Original Message----- PROTEST
From: Sofia Speth
To: Mayor@lacity.org
Cc: BilI.Rosendahl@lacity.org; P.Koretz@lacity.org
Sent: Tue, Oct 5, 2010 1:38 am
Subject: Protest Against Proposed City Ordinance to Allow More Dogs per Household
It is extremely important that the proposed City Ordinance to allow more dogs per household (Council file
10-0982) be tabled indefinitely in order to consider the unintended and highly negative impacts to the
City of Los Angeles.
This City Ordinance, if approved, will impact our urban environment in enormous and highly negative
ways.
This City Ordinance, if approved, will impact our City budget by increasing the need for additional funds to
administer it, which we certainly cannot afford.
Thank you for considering my protest.
Please think before you act. Study the negative environmental impact and increased costs to our City.
Sofia G. Speth
4874 W. 2nd Street
Los Angeles, CA 90036
(323) 934-1901
sofiagspeth@yahoo.com
011 -<
PLEASE FILE WITH CITY CLERK IN COUNCIL FILE NO. 10-0982 - PROTEST
-----Original Message-----
From: Devin Galaudet
To: amyg93@aol.com
Sent: Tue, Oct 5, 2010 12:55 pm
Subject: Here is what I sent PROTEST
Dear Mr. Koretz and Mr. Rosendahl,
It has come to my attention that there is a consideration of making it legal to allow an average family within city
limits to have up to five dogs, raising it from three.
I would appreciate to know who might be helped by this increase? As it stands there are too many unwanted dogs
and too many irresponsible dog owners to make sense making a change like this. My main concern is the safety
issues associated with giving dog owners to bite off more than they can chew (pardon the pun). Managing three
dogs is difficult. Managing five is a public nuisance and a problem waiting to happen. Five dogs are a pack and more
dangerous in a group -- on a leash or not. They require too much supervision. A loose gate allows five into populated
areas with children and no simple way of wrangling them. The choice is asking for trouble.
This does not even take into consideration the amount of dog owners who allow dogs to bark at all hours, do not
pick up after their dogs or abandon them in the streets. As, I am sure you know, too many strays and over populated
animal sanctuaries.
Simply put, the consideration is selfish and puts non-dog owners, tax-payers, and voters to carry the burden of
having to deal with even more dogs in a major city.
In the end, five dogs in a crowded city is completely unnecessary. Of course, this one is easy, do not pass the
ordinance.
Sincerely,
Devin Galaudet
Editor In The Know Traveler
devin@intheknowtraveler.com
______________________________.
PLEASE FILE AS PROTEST WITH CITY CLERK IN COUNCIL FILE 10-0982 .------
-----Original Message-----

PROTEST
From: Lenore Sachs
To: Amy Galaudet
Sent: Tue, Oct 5, 20102:56 pm
Subject: Fw: 5 dogs per household legislation:

Amy, I just sent this off to Paul Koretz. Hope it helps. I
also intend to call his office on Robertson Blvd. Lenore
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Lenore Sachs
To: PauI.Koretz@lacitv.org
Sent: Tue, October 5, 2010 12:54:30 PM
Subject: 5 dogs per household legislation:
Dear Councilman Koretz, lam writing to you to express my
opposition to the proposed legislation that would .permit up to
5 dogs in households in the 5th District. Consider this
scenario: Because there are all kinds of reasons your
neighbor might use to justify either a constantly barking dog
or one that messes up the easement in front of your home twice
daily while it's being walked by its owner, before you can
convince that owner to stop the barking and to cleanup the
daily mess, it takes determination, time and energy
(yours), plus the intervention of the Animal Services
Unit. Multiply that by5 and you have a neighborhood
disaster. The present limit of3 dogs per household seems to
be reasonable, but when you increase the number to 5, you cross
the line into the realm of unreasonableness. One way for you
to resolve this is to ask yourself if you would be agreeable
about accepting this (the new rules allowing 5 dogs) if it were
your neighbor keeping 5 dogs. Your honest answer to this
question should be the one you use to cast a vote.

Respectfully,
Levine Sachs
6628 West 6th Street
Los Angeles, California 90048

___________________________________________________


Please file with city clerk in Council File 10-0982 (Protest). Thank you. PROTEST
-----Origif)al Message-----
From: jesse sugarman
To: PauI.Koretz@lacity.org
Cc: BilI.Rosendahl@lacity.org;AmyG93@aol.com
Sent: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 7:21 pm
Subject: Misguided Dog Ordinance
Dear Councilman,
5 animals, (Dogs specifically) in a.{Lapartm~flt or house is way too much.
Barking
is a major issue.
save dogs by this
that gave them up
Dog harding has become
misguided ordinance? It
in the first place will
a problem and how do you expect to
doesn't make sense. The same people
just do the same thing.
There will always be abandonded dogs. People can't afford their upkeep or
pay
for their vet bills now, and you want to give them the ability to have more
dogs. Ridiculous. And most of all the city does not maintain any sembellance
of
monitoring now. How do you plan to do this in the future?
This ordinance is an awful idea. Please come to your senses for all our
sakes.
Sincerely,
- Jesse Sugarman
Jesse Sugarman
216 1/4 S Poinsettia Place
LA, CA, 90036
____________________________________________
PROTEST
Please file this protest with city clerk in Council file 10-0982
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark DeCouto
To: amyg93@aoLcom
Sent: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 12:59 pm
Subject: FWD: 5 dog ordinance
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Mark OeCouto"
>Sent: 09/30/10 - 10:58
>To: Paul.Koretz@lacity.org
>Subject: 5 dog ordinance
>
>Dear Mr Koretz
>The proposed ordinance allowing up to 5 dogs per residence will create a
bigger nuisance than the one you are trying to solve.
>
>I send this email in objection to such an ill concieved idea, based on
the
many reasons you've heard already (breeding, noise, feces, etc ...).
>
>Solutions to the population problem need to be re-enforced.
>
>Sincerely
>Mark DeCouto
>Los Angeles 90048
>323-9605655