Downtown Delinquents That Cater to Cats

[XLFD]

The Problem:  We have a problem with stray and feral cats.  There is no doubt about it.  The City Council wouldn't have been considering for its third month a remedy for such cats if there was no problem. 

But we can also say there was no problem last year, as the City actually got through the year without even a consideration of such measures.  Thus, the problem has developed since last year and so we need to figure out what made the cats a problem since then.

 

The Genesis of the Problem? :  On July 12, 2010 the following was noted in the "New Business" portion of the DDA's monthly meeting:  "Dog bowl project information has been sent out. 11 stores have responded so far."  The always incomplete minutes of the DDA, mentions this here first and gives no relevant info about a "dog bowl project".  But less than a month later the Planning Commission met on 8-4-2010 and had this in their minutes:

 

And we're still flummoxed over what this initiative is.  The next months DDA meeting states:

First it's a project, then its an initiative and now we're talking dog stations.  We begin to get the impression that bowls for the feeding of dogs are being placed in the downtown area of Ludington.  And it began last summer.  Besides the above cryptic passages, there is nothing you can google or find in the City website except for the following which occurs in almost all local 'tourist information' sites:

 

Project Dog Bowl, courtesy of Mason County Transit Mix, out on the PM Hwy.  Now your pooch can stay hydrated while he shops downtown.  Look for water bowls. 

 

I did.  In August, I went downtown and took some pictures of the dog stations that are part of the dog bowl initiative-project. 

Sportsman's Dog Bar

108 Threads- Two Dog Ceramics

Snyder's Shoes and Dog Watering Hole

Blu Moon-Dog Restaurant

And some others including this one in front of AJ's Party Port:

 

OK, let's quickly review: the DDA Board decided to put bowls of water around the downtown area, along Ludington Ave and James Street to be dog-friendly to those who walk them downtown during last summer, and they still remain.  Let's go on.

 

Where has the problem been reported? 

 

According to my FOIA into cat complaints received by the City, there has been no formal complaint received, nor any problem with stray cats investigated by the LPD in the last year.  But there has been two people who bring in their anecdotes of 'the cat plague of 2011' into the City Council meetings.  The first is from the 7-11 meeting, the last two from the 8-8 meeting.

Both of these people are in the downtown area, within a block or two of several of these watering bowls, put out for dogs, and left out overnight.  No other person has commented on this problem anywhere else in the City.

 

Who is responsible for solving this problem?

 

This area is exclusively in the Third Ward of Ludington, which was served by Councilor Scott until he retired after 11.5 years of service in April 2011.  The new councilor, Les Johnson, took over and presumably took over Mr. Scott's position on the Public Safety Committee.  Him, along with Councilor Castonia and Peterson, initially agreed to ban the feeding of all animals by people other than their owners, even inside their own house.  When some sanity came back to them they agreed to the latest revision of this proposed law. 

Les Johnson is a member of the DDA and was back last year, and serves as the secretary to that organization.  He helped institute the dog bowl project, helped keep it obscure by not keeping minutes that actually comply with the Open Meetings Act, and helped put a dog station in front of the business he owns, AJ's Party Port on the deep south of James Street.  For my own anecdote, the only cat I have seen at night on James Street since I have been looking has been a cat within feet of his bowl (in the picture above) who ran away when he noticed me. 

 

What does the proposed ordinance say?

 

While City Clerk Luskin usually keeps exceptional minutes she did not put out the revision at the last meeting.  And, of course, I cannot view the ordinance because I am restricted from entering City Hall by city policy.  But here is the closest I can give you:

 

"Anyone intentionally making water available to any cat"? 

 

Let's summarize.  The DDA Board thought it would be a tourist-friendly act to provide watering stations for dogs in front of the downtown businesses.  They purchased bowls from Transit Ready Mix, filled them with water and have had them placed since summer of last year and they have remained there.  A problem with stray and feral cats developed over this winter in that same area, if we believe the testimony of those who sought this ordinance.  They say that people have been leaving food out for them. 

But cats can go a long time without food, and very little time without water as many pet websites will tell you  PetsHub: Cats and food.   Furthermore, stray and feral cats could find enough food by their innate hunting skills in the outdoors and even subsist on plants if their hunting skills were not sharp or the prey wasn't around.

Is it too far-fetched to say that the dog bowl initiative had an effect on the habits and the population of the downtown cats?  I don't think so; yet many-hatted City Councilor Les Johnson, who voted for the dog bowl project in the DDA, who has had a dog bowl outside his business, who has deemed it necessary to create an ordinance that restricts anyone from making water available to any cat as a member of the Public Safety Committee, and who is now scheduled to vote for an ordinance to make illegal what he has done for the last 15 months in helping to create a problem for our City, is still likely going to have that dog station/after-hours cat oasis outside his business after Monday's vote whether the proposal passes or not.  As are our other business owners in the downtown area.

We will see the amount of hypocrisy inside our government when they are cat-called on it.

[Wanda Marrison]

Aquaman, I will asked about the bowls.

[Sweater Cows!]

"Project Dog Bowl, courtesy of Mason County Transit Mix" looks like the bowls were donated by that statement, usually what "courtesy of" means.

[Sweater Cows!]

It would be nicer if the bowls had liners so the biz owners could easily take them in for cleanup and refill, those concrete bowl look heavy and inconvenient.

 

I must say, I do like the concept, its just that in funtion it doesn't seem to play out well.

 

Even the dog park does not provide a water bowl as IMHO the dog owners are aware of the sanitation issues with doing so.

[easymoney]

anyone give a thought to the fact that standing water is a breeding ground for mosquito's??

[XLFD]

Anyone who has been to Downtown Ludington and has developed malaria, yellow fever, or elephantiasis, please send your medical treatment bills to:

 

Downtown Ludington Board

400 S Harrison

Ludington, MI 49431

 

Be prepared to be told that you will not be paid because you did not use an official City-contracted medical professional for your diagnosis and treatment.

[AQUAMAN]

Good observation Dag, those bowls do appear to be big, porous, heavy, and concrete in material. Easy for mold, algae, and unsanitary conditions. Really NOT a GOOD receptacle for watering dogs. Plus, as I also observed some weeks ago, the Dog Park doesn't even have a badly needed watering place for the canines. Gotta wonder wth kind of minds makes up our CC anymore, no common sense of priorities, and conflicting ideas and proposed ordinances that infringe on peoples' rights and freedoms, and well as just plain hypocrisy in nature when we see the Dog Bowl idea just ahead of banning cat feeding. Looks like one hand doesn't know or care what the other one does.

[XLFD]

Does anyone know what happened with the Cat Ordinance tonight? 

I was elsewhere and missed it-- oh heck, I couldn't have went there anyway without a personal invite from Little Johnny Shay.

[Wanda Marrison]

I voted NO and the other 4 voted YES, Holman and Engblade were absent.

[Willy]

Good for you Wanda. I hope the other councilors aren't going to  give you a lot of grief.

[XLFD]

Wanda, I'm going to give you a thumbs up gift for doing such a courageous stand.  Usually, Engblade is the lone holdout when it comes to such votes that infringe on our rights; maybe some of the Torch is rubbing off on you. 

Be careful, it's tarry and ashy. 

Was there much discussion or debate, and can you describe why you decided to say nay?

[AQUAMAN]

Looks like a nay vote has recently become an aye vote, for or against as last seen on a video. Either way, tip of the hat to a councilor with some vision, foresight, and also hindsight for our canine friends.Bravo! NOW, Maybe there is HOPE? Gotta wonder though, why the absence of City Council members, esp. the Mayor Protem? Kinda strange to say the least, but, the "agenda must be set, and complete".....or is it??

[XLFD]

And, I can't help but wonder why my honorable opponent in the City Councilor at-large race wasn't there?  She announced that the constituents who contacted her were overwhelmingly (22-5) against this ordinance.  She rarely misses a meeting, and I hope she is in good health.

Meanwhile the Public Safety Committee's three votes were all that was needed to carry this stinker forward.  In my opinion, whatever caused her to miss this vote, CC Holman ruined a perfect opportunity to show that she still had a little of what she came to the city council with nearly eight years ago.