4-1 Vote: Antioch Bans Feeding of Feral Cats on Public Property

The Antioch City Council voted Tuesday night to approve a ban on feeding feral cats on public property while also requiring permits on pet owners who exceed the number of pets allowed on a property.

Under the new ordinance, it is now unlawful to feed feral cats off one’s own property while it is also unlawful to keep more than 5-cats without a permit. For dogs, it’s unlawful to keep more than three without a permit.

The City of Antioch in a 4-1 vote in favor of the ban with Councilman Tony Tiscareno being the lone “no” vote.

The council argued that the ordinance does not ban the feeding of these cats, people can still feed them on private property or at their own homes—they simply cannot do it on public property.

The council listened to twenty people from the public speak about the proposed ordinance which a majority stating the council should not approve the feeding ban and allow a trap, neuter, and return to work (TNR Program).

Susan Smith says she spent several hours for TNR to hundreds of cats and encouraged the City to work with them on the program. She explained how we need to help our Rivertown cats. Says the feeding ban is wrong. She encourages feeding stations at appropriate times for a humane result.

Justine Charlie shared her concerns about letting animals starve in the street saying that is wrong.

“I understand this is a problem but letting them starve in the streets is not humane. We need to extend the time we keep cats and not dump them. We have to first ask how a cat became feral,” said Smith.

Barbara Sobalvarro (Friends of Animal Services) asked council to vote no on cat limit and feeding ban. She encouraged the council to give some time to work with rescue groups who have proven their interest and heart felt concern and untold personal sacrifice to help our city cats.  She explained how Antioch is already described as crime ridden and business unfriendly and did not want to see the words cruel and inhumane to the list.

Karen Kops (Homeless Animal Response Program) shared that TNR Programs do not work with a feeding ban. She also challenged the City cots on TNR saying that 104 Rivertown cats have been TNR at less than $500 thanks to 1,000 hours of community service. According to the city calculations, that would be $23,000. She asked for a 6-month trial period for the city and staff to work with rescue groups on TNR.

Mike Heckathorn explained how he was against this ordinance because its inhumane . Stated the city has bigger problems from “methheads” to “gang-guys” and that the problem was not a cat peeing on his shoes. Stated we are talking about cats, not solving the gang problem. Called the ordinance ridiculous on a certain level. Said this needs a lot more of a study.

Marla Ly stated the city crime rate has put Antioch on the map as 85 most dangerous in the country. She accused the council of wasting so much time on feral cats and number of pets versus the actual crime in the city. Shared she had never heard of feral cats mugging or killing someone and says the focus should be on “real crime” instead of attacking feral cats.

Meanwhile, several people spoke in favor of the ordinance including Nancy Fernandez.

“There is little doubt what needs to be done. They need to pass this ordinance and would like the council to ban vicious dogs. This City has become a giant cat box because of the good hearts of people but the cats are reproducing faster than we can care for them,” said Fernandez.

Lori Cook also spoke in favor of the ordinance.

“The cat problem is really bad and the smell is atrocious. “said Cook. “I see signs about animal cruelty but don’t see signs about cleaning up cat poop and cleaning up food. I believe you all know I go around the city and clean up garbage and I don’t see any signs or see them doing any of this. This concerns me. This is a problem. I clean up after my dogs. I am asking they clean up after the cats.”

Meanwhile, Marylou Wood explained the cats should not be punished, but the people dumping them should be held responsible.

“The people that dump the cats are the ones that should be punished. It’s them that did wrong, not the cats. They are the victims of this,” said Wood. “Yes they are reproducing, but the TNR is one way to humanely take care of the problem. If they don’t have the equipment to reproduce they won’t.  Its mean, its cruel, and pitiful and should not be done not to feed cats. Anybody with a soul can see not feeding them is wrong.”

Paul and Nancy Shore shared their support of the ordinance and stated TNR Programs have not shown to work and reduce the cap population because more cats are simply dropped off. Urged the counc

Lisa Kilk encouraged the police department to contact Sacramento because they have a program that works and shared that the staff report proves what they are doing has not worked.

“The Cat population is preventative, if you want to euthanize them that is fine, but starving them is inhumane,” said Kilk. “Work with volunteers on a TNR Program and what is the plan to deal with starving cats?”

Fred Hoskins stated the ordinance is not about anything other than feeding cats on public property.

“There is no band to feed cats at home. People can feed them at home. Go home and feed them all you want. Create cat sanctuaries at home. Forget the six months delay, this ordinance has to be taken care of now,” said Hoskins.

Council Discussion:

Councilman Tony Tiscareno stated after hearing the public comments he is still undecided because he is not a pet owner and sees both sides.

“I need to look at this from a logical standpoint and both parties understand there is a problem. One side says TNR Programs and through attrition we will see a decline. The other want to see this ban supported. I am still trying to determine in my mind how we are going to enforce these ordinances,” said Tiscareno. “The simple thing to do is ban it and then you are done but what happens to the organizations and the cats?  I want to be compassionate but I also appreciate those who want to maintain the integrity of the city in a clean city.”

He says he was open minded about a TNR program to see if it works and that if it doesn’t he would support putting the ban in place. He also expressed his desire to see if there is a cooperation with organizations on a TNR Program over a period of time.

“There has got to be a method to keep everyone productive and get things done. This is a tough decision,” said Tiscareno.

Mayor Pro Tem Mary Rocha shared the issue is a lack of ability to work within the city’s own system to come to a conclusion. Either we do a ban or work with organizations on TNR Programs.

“Feral cats started out as an idea of away from public property. We are not feeding them, someone else is. If we can find an area for TNR and a happy medium but that depends on community, volunteers, and our staff. No one wants to eliminate them completely by euthanization but we can’t have them roam all over public land,” said Rocha. “People have good hearts by feeding them, but they are causing a problem. At this point, I am not sure. I am undecided but I do want it away from public land away from where they are at now.”

Councilwoman Monica Wilson shared that she was also undecided and was torn because she has cats of her own.

“This is tricky and I have three cats of my own,” said Wilson. “We do have a feral cat problem and we have a problem and need to find the best solution. Is the ordinance the best solution? We don’t know.”

After hearing three councilmembers state they were “undecided” during the discussion, Councilman Gary Agopian called the council “gutless” by explaining the cats are wild animals without a natural predator to keep the natural order of events—meaning controlling the population.

“Nothing in this ordinance stops anyone from doing a TNR program.  They will not be able to do public feeding,” said Agopian. “If you work your network you can come up with solutions to mitigate this. One thing I noticed as a potential ordinance, there was a lot of people who became against it and starting work. Why weren’t we doing that before. “

After being interrupted by the audience, the councilman discussed respect of how he listened to 20-speakers and now it was time for council discussion and his turn to speak. After another interruption, he immediately moved to pass the ordinance which ended council discussion—Mayor Harper seconded.

Mary Rocha stated that the city has to get away from feeding them downtown but would like to amend the ordinance for staff to continue to work with the public on a designated area to try a TNR Program.

Tiscareno stated he could not cannot support the ordinance as written by staff because he wants to give the organizations a window of time to work to prevent public feeding.  He stated by going forward with the ordinance, he believed it would mean organizations and the city would not work with each other.

“It’s not that I don’t oppose the ban, I think the ban should be there if all solutions are exhausted. I am not trying to waiver or be gutless but we want to make sure we are doing this right and protecting not only our downtown area but have a method to eliminate some of these cats in a humanly way,” said Tiscareno.

After being asked to amend the ordinance as written for staff to work with organization on a solution, Agopian rejected the idea because the staff and organizations can still work on a solution to be brought back to council.

“I I don’t object to staff working with any of these groups on TNR Programs,” said Agopian. “I do object to changing the motion because it dilutes what we are doing. We don’t have the money or groups that are doing it all the time, then the cat population will get out of hand and be back at same problem. I would like to leave it as is and work with the groups that have interest on possible TNR opportunities that may exist. I want to get off the dime we are not fixing the problem. My motion stands.

The City Council voted 4-1 with Tiscareno being the lone no vote.

The Feeding of Free Roaming Abandoned and Feral Cats
The policy essentially says it is unlawful to feed feral cats off one’s own property. People are free to feed cats on private property with permission.

Highlights of the proposed Animal ordinance

• It’s unlawful to keep more than 5-cats without a permit.
• It’s unlawful to feed feral cats off one’s own property
• It’s unlawful to allow a dog to bark unabated
• It’s unlawful to keep a roster without a permit.
• Redeeming impounded animals: Animals will now be micro-chipped before release to an owner and now will include a $22 fee.  For a second offense, the dog or cat must be spayed or neutered before release to an owner.
• Multiple Pets or Kennel Permit: Animal Control will notify adjacent property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the applicant’s property. Adjacent property owners and tenants will now be given 10-days to provide Animal Control with any written/verbal comments regarding any animal nuisances. The applicant may now appeal the Animal Control Supervisors decision to deny a permit.  No more than 10-dogs are allowed.
• Barking Dog: a dog that barks, bays, cries, howls or makes noise for 30-60 minutes within a 24-hour period may be impounded by Animal Control.
• Updated the Authority, Entry on Private Property, Procedures, Violations and Remedies for Animal Control and Antioch Police when going onto Private Property.
• Keeping Animals & Bees
  • Number of dogs – unlawful to keep more than 3-dogs that are required to be licenses
  • Number of cats – It is unlawful for a person to keep more than 5-cats without a permit
  • Number of fowl – its unlawful for a person to keep or maintain more than 10 each of ducks, geese, chickens or other fowl. No person may keep a rooster without a permit under section 6-1.601.
  • Number of rabbits – no more than 10 domesticated rabbits may be kept on any parcel within the city.
  • Bees – Bees may only be kept in an agricultural or open space zoning district and with a permit from the Animal Control Supervisor.

Limits on the Number of Pets
At the January 12 meeting, the public spoke out against the idea of the proposed limit of pets in a home. Specifically, there were objections to the limit of 5 cats, 10 fowl, 10 rabbits, and 15 animals total. Staff has now reviewed those limitations and now recommends no overall limit on animals and that the limit on fowl and rabbits provide that a permit can be sought for more than that number, just like the limit on 3 dogs or 5 cats. Ultimately, there is a proposed “no restriction” on the number of pets, but with a permit process to allow additional pets, is a rational approach to protect the public health, welfare and safety of Antioch residents to protect animals from overcrowded and unsanitary conditions.

Highlights of the proposed Animal ordinance

• It’s unlawful to keep more than 5-cats without a permit.
• It’s unlawful to feed feral cats off one’s own property
• It’s unlawful to allow a dog to bark unabated
• It’s unlawful to keep a roster without a permit.
• Redeeming impounded animals: Animals will now be micro-chipped before release to an owner and now will include a $22 fee.  For a second offense, the dog or cat must be spayed or neutered before release to an owner.
• Multiple Pets or Kennel Permit: Animal Control will notify adjacent property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the applicant’s property. Adjacent property owners and tenants will now be given 10-days to provide Animal Control with any written/verbal comments regarding any animal nuisances. The applicant may now appeal the Animal Control Supervisors decision to deny a permit.  No more than 10-dogs are allowed.
• Barking Dog: a dog that barks, bays, cries, howls or makes noise for 30-60 minutes within a 24-hour period may be impounded by Animal Control.
• Updated the Authority, Entry on Private Property, Procedures, Violations and Remedies for Animal Control and Antioch Police when going onto Private Property.
• Keeping Animals & Bees
  • Number of dogs – unlawful to keep more than 3-dogs that are required to be licenses
  • Number of cats – It is unlawful for a person to keep more than 5-cats without a permit
  • Number of fowl – its unlawful for a person to keep or maintain more than 10 each of ducks, geese, chickens or other fowl. No person may keep a rooster without a permit under section 6-1.601.
  • Number of rabbits – no more than 10 domesticated rabbits may be kept on any parcel within the city.
  • Bees – Bees may only be kept in an agricultural or open space zoning district and with a permit from the Animal Control Supervisor.