|
1-2 of 2 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
Burton, MI proposed ban, NO grandfathering
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on April 27, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Typical stupid ban no grandfathering, they fear animals being in city streets, but what des the stupid government think will happen if owners HAVE to get rid of animals within 10 days an dif no new home is found? Either keep it illegally or let it free.
IDIOTS.
Z
==
http://www.mlive.com/news/flintjournal/index.ssf?/base/news-49/1209241207112910.xml&coll=5
Burton eyes ban on exotic animals
BURTONTHE FLINT JOURNAL FIRST EDITION Saturday, April 26, 2008Staff Report
BURTON - Alligators, venomous snakes and poisonous spiders aren't welcome in the city, according to The Burton News' Web site, www.mlive.com/burton.
That's the word from the city's legislative committee, which held a special session Wednesday after receiving reports of an alligator in a DeCamp Street house. Committee members recommended adopting a proposed ordinance to ban keeping exotic or dangerous household pets.
If approved, the measure would require the city to give the owner of a banned animal 10 days to remove it from the home. The owner also could be required to show proof of where the animal was taken.
The proposed ordinance also would prohibit releasing banned animals into the wild.
"I'd hate to see an alligator in Kelly Lake or Thread Creek," said Councilwoman Ellen Ellenburg, a legislative committee member.
The ordinance could be a moot point in the case of the DeCamp house.
Jennifer Watson, a resident there, said this week that the alligator is not kept in the home. A man, who would not give his name, said he owns the animal, which he described as a 33.5-inch-long freshwater alligator.
The legislation excludes fowl, ferrets and "small rodents of varieties used for laboratory purposes" and makes an exception for accredited zoos or aquariums, wildlife sanctuaries, nature preserves, circuses and legitimate scientific, medical or educational research facilities.
Communities have to step in to police some animals because species not native to Michigan aren't regulated by state or federal government.
It's up to cities and townships to write laws to protect residents against living near species that may be considered dangerous, said Lt. Ron Utt, district law supervisor with the state Department of Natural Resources.
Federal regulations apply to endangered species but include special rules for specific varieties and where they originated, said Dan Sheill, a special agent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services in Ann Arbor. Federal rules also regulate bringing certain species across state lines without a permit.
Violating the proposed Burton ordinance could be a civil infraction, requiring the violator to answer to a judge and potentially pay fines and fees.
The City Council must twice approve the measure and publish the ordinance before it takes effect. That could mean waiting until June.
Councilwoman Laurie Tinnin, said she hopes to persuade Council President Tom Martinbianco to call a special council meeting to speed the process.
***
|
| |
|
RE: Burton, MI proposed ban, NO grandfathering
|
Reply
|
|
by yoyoing on April 27, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The other option available for people wanting to be completely law abiding is euthanization. When possessing the animals becomes illegal, killing them will not. Kind of the reverse of animal rights.
I understand the point about communities deciding about what they want to tolerate locally, but this really should happen at a state level. That is the most local level where the resources are available to make the policies with intelligence and emotional detachment. Florida is a model for this and I nod to Tallahassee daily.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
