Cheverly Mayoral candidates answer animal-related questions!

The three Mayoral candidates agreed to answer nine questions put together by the ChvDog authors. We thank our candidates for participating in this process!

The following questions were posed to each of the three Mayoral candidates, who were kind enough to submit their answers. The questions appear below, in bold; answers have been copied in their entirety and have not been edited for content, style, or spelling. Answers from each candidate are pasted below each question; answers by individual candidates are provided in alphabetical order by last name. The following abbreviations are used:

Mike Callahan: MC
Tom Foley: TF
Micah Watson: MW


1.This year, two animal-welfare bills appeared before the MD legislature: SB 305, banning the sale of puppies at pet stores (and working to eliminate puppy mills), and SB 21/HB 265, HR MD, increasing jail time for cruelty to animals.
a. What are your views on these two bills?
b. If elected, do you anticipate voicing your support/opposition for animal-welfare bills that come before the MD Legislature?

a.

MC: Personally, I agree with both of these bills, as I previously owned a Golden Retriever. The over breeding of Goldens has caused hip issues, which mine unfortunately died of at an early age. I believe the only way to really stop puppy mills is to increase adoption rates at neighborhood animal shelters, creating a shortage in demands for these puppies. Increasing publicity for adoption is one key tool, and the state providing tax incentives for adopting a pet is another. One thing we can do here in town is to create an organization of residents that can publish articles in the newsletter.

TF: No to absolute ban; yes to ban from uncertified supply sources; yes for increasing jail time for animal cruelty.

MW: I strongly support both bills. Unfortunately, the puppy mill bill (SB505) seems likely to die, as the Finance Committee has not acted on it and the bill was not cross-filed in the House. The animal cruelty bill has passed the Senate, however, the House version appears likely to die in the House Judiciary Committee. The Senate version will meet the same fate unless the House Judiciary Committee changes its mind. Fortunately, one of Cheverly’s delegates, Victor Ramirez, sits on that committee. I’d suggest we contact Victor and ask him to keep the Senate version of the animal cruelty bill alive.

b.

MC: Since I’ve joined council there have been conversations regarding which state or federal issues we should voice support or opposition to. The council has avoided weighing in on every issue, as we feel it weakens our voice on key issues with a direct impact on the town. Examples of issues we avoided are Nuclear Free Zones or the War in Iraq. An example of one I supported was the Maryland Clean Cars Act passed in 2007 to help reduce air pollution from vehicles. I agreed with the Clean Cars Act because of the proximity of the town to major highways.

While I personally support these animal welfare bills I would not anticipate putting the town’s weight behind them. However, I would always be open to considering it if a significant number of residents made a compelling case as to why this particular issue required the Town’s intervention.

TF: Personal support – yes; official support without Council approval – no.

MW: Yes, as mayor, I would be a powerful advocate for animal rights. While the Town has often taken positions in Annapolis and Upper Marlboro on issues directly affecting development, police aid or other “obvious” topics, I believe the Mayor of Cheverly should also take stands on issues of importance to Town residents and the broader concept of Town “well-being.”

2. If elected Mayor, would you pursue an area dog park, and if yes, where?

MC: I believe the entire council would like to see a dog park in town. Unfortunately, after a lot of time and effort, including careful examination of several areas in Town, we were unable to identify a location that was not perceived to infringe on neighboring homes.

Two essential keys to a great dog park are space and distance from homes. The only location nearby that I believe meets these criteria is Kentlands. Unfortunately the county turned us down when we suggested this. It is worth continuing to pursue and I welcome suggestions.

TF: I understand the County has a dog park plan under consideration. If they decide against it, the decision to support a Cheverly dog park would depend on the availability of town property space and cost.

MW: For the past five years, I’ve been the primary advocate on the Council for an enclosed off-leash dog park in Town. A paucity of good sites and strong neighbor opposition have prevented us from moving forward. More recently, I pushed the Council to lobby the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission to include a dog park in ongoing redevelopment plans for large parks near Cheverly, so that Cheverly residents could at least drive to a nearby dog park. With renewed resident interest, I believe we could make this a reality in the next few years.

3. Section 4-14 of Cheverly's Town Code provides for an Animal Warden; it is our understanding that the Town does not currently make use of this provision. If the Town did make use of this position, it would allow the Town to protect animals within its jurisdiction and prevent many of those animals from being turned over to the Prince George's County Animal Management Group--which has high euthanization rates (data below). If elected, would you work to make use of the Animal Warden authority provided by the Town Code, and if yes, how? If not, why?

Cats: 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Intake 4759 5068 4930 5365 5333
RTO 101 115 97 63 80
Adopt 181 194 178 192 179
Euth 3652 3513 3107 3547 3107

Dogs: 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Intake 6248 5926 5672 5751 5252
RTO 1281 1392 1151 1295 1044
Adopt 754 834 719 992 949
Euth 2967 2473 2590 2138 1876

Notes:
RTO = returned to owner
“Euth” includes only those animals euthanized at the shelter, not those euthenized at a veterinary office.

MC: I am willing to sit down with anyone who wants to work through the issues associated with implementing a Cheverly Animal Management Group. However, I do not think that Cheverly can absorb the cost of building and maintaining a kennel and hiring an animal warden. As with a dog park, finding a suitable location would also be a challenge. Given our limited resources there is no guarantee we would do a better job than the County, despite our good intentions. I believe a more effective strategy is to work to change the County’s policies.

TF: I do not have sufficient information as to the scope of the problem. It would also depend on the availability of funding.

MW: I absolutely support appointing an Animal Warden and would ask the Council to do so. While we cannot afford a full-time staff member, I know there are several Town residents who would seek a one-year appointment to this unpaid position. I envision our Animal Warden would report at least weekly to our Public Works Director and Town Administrator and, much less frequently, directly to the Council. I would ask the Council to make some funds available for supplies or equipment, and would suggest that the Animal Warden chair an informal committee of animal advocates so that she/he has a support network of Town residents for advice, coverage, etc.

4. Section 23 of the Cheverly Town Code prohibits signs on public right of ways in Town, with the exception of real estate signs. The Town Code does not contemplate signs posted for anything other than a commercial purpose; this oversight results in the crippling of search efforts for owners of lost pets in Town. The fastest way to spread the word about a lost pet is to post signs in the area where the pet has been lost, allowing the owner to receive tips from concerned neighbors who have seen the missing pet. Would you work to amend the current Town code to include a provision allowing pet owners to post signs for the purpose of finding their lost pet, with provisions detailing the duration for which the signs may stay on public right of ways and a fee associated with being allowed to do so? If not, why?

MC: I am willing to work to review the sign ordinance for many purposes, not just pets. In my campaign, I’ve heard from people who would also like the sign ordinance relaxed for yard sales, sports activities and other events. People who put up signs would need to be responsible for removing them after a short, defined period of time. While I was not on council when this policy was adopted, I am sure the ordinance was implemented in reaction to signs not being removed and creating a nuisance themselves.

TF: Probably no inasmuch permission could probably be obtained from property owners in the area where the signs would be posted in accord with the Town sign ordinance.

MW: I would support such an effort, because it provides a clear public service with minimal and short-term impact on the streetscape. However, I’m not sure it requires a code revision. Right now, you can ask the Town Administrator to allow you (for a small fee) to post signs for a one-day yard sale. I would seek to have lost animal signs fit under this existing provision.

5. Do you have any pets? If so, please elaborate.

MC: We currently have a dog, named Audra who was a pet rescue from Washington Animal Rescue League. We adopted Audra when she was 8 years old, and other than listing a little to the right as she runs, she is a perfectly wonderful pet and member of our family. Over the years we have had a collection of guinea pigs, birds, dogs and fish!

TF: We have a 13 year old neutered Siamese cat.

MW: While I grew up with cats and dogs – a proven coalition builder! – we do not currently have pets.

6. Currently, Cheverly has an issue with feral cats. Many studies conclude that implementing a TNR (Trap-Neuter-Return) program, rather than the Trap-and-Kill policy our county currently imposes, is the only way to effectively reduce the feral cat population, yet also not punish caretaker who try to attend to these cats in humane manner. Many caretakers are reluctant to take a more active role in addressing the Chevelry feral cat situation because they fear reprisal--or are afraid that they will be cited for code violations as a result of their care of feral cats. To encourage a citizen-led effort to implement a TNR program in Cheverly, would you support a resolution endorsing TNR as a humane method of addressing the Cheverly feral cat population?

MC: This and the next few questions raise the issue of neighbors’ rights. In a town that is mostly comprised of small lots in close proximity to each other, answers to each of these questions have to be looked at from the neighbors’ perspective who may have issues.

First let me say that there are a few feral cats on my street, that as far as I know do not cause any issue, therefore there is no outcry. However, the issue the council dealt with one year ago was significantly different -- one homeowner was managing many cats, creating a nuisance to neighbors. Asking those neighbors to release cats (that were considered a nuisance) back into their yard is not appropriate.

My points are:
1. Managing a small number of cats generally flies under the radar, and does not create issues between neighbors.
2. If a neighbor was so bothered by the feral cat that the cat was trapped, I think it is unreasonable to ask that same person to release the cat back into their yard.

I believe the Town Administrator found the appropriate balance to this question by changing town policy. Today, when a resident asks for a trap, they also receive literature regarding the humane treatment of feral cats. In addition, I would support a change in the county’s policy so that TNR is an authorized option for the handling of feral cats.

TF: I lack sufficient information to have an opinion on this issue.

MW: As mayor, I would welcome continuing the conversation we began about a year ago. If the evidence clearly points to TNR as the most sustainable policy, then I would support such a resolution. I would need to see and hear more about the “caretaker” question. While I want all animals treated humanely, as mayor I need to ensure that no resident is acting in any way that is exacerbating an animal management problem. If TNR is clearly in the best interests of the Town, then I don’t believe the Town government should stand in the way of a citizen-led effort to implement a TNR program.

7. Recently, many residents have expressed that they'd like to keep Chickens in their back yards. What are your thoughts on this?

MC: Again, this question raises the issue of neighbors’ rights. The current county law does not allow chickens on lots smaller than 20,000 square feet. I believe there is logic in this law, because it allows someone to have a chicken enclosure that does not border their neighbors’ property. Cheverly does not allow chickens at all, but I would be willing look at allowing chickens in yards larger than 20,000 square feet, as long as the ordinance ensures the enclosure was closer to the owner’s home than to their neighbor’s property.

TF: Probably no because of the noise. I have visited with relatives in Europe who have chickens in their yard.

MW: I have heard that the County does not allow residents to keep chickens in the yards. Practically speaking, if neither the Town government nor the neighbors object, the County will never enforce such a ban. As mayor, my primary concern would be impact on the neighbors and on the environment. If advocates can demonstrate to the Council that the impact on neighboring properties is not significant; waste run-off or other by-products are not adverse; and property maintenance standards do not suffer, I would have no problem with residents keeping chickens in their back yards.

8. Do you support residents keeping honeybees?

MC: Once again, this question raises the issue of neighbors’ rights. I readily admit that I do not know much about raising honey bees and the safety issues associated with doing so.

I support efforts that help promote locally-produced foods, and I am aware that a number of large cities and small towns allow for the raising of chickens for personal egg production and the maintenance of honeybees. However, any consideration of changing the Town’s ordinances must be done cautiously, including a careful review of the experiences of those communities that have allowed these practices, as well as an approach that properly respects neighbor’s rights.

TF: Probably no because of the proximity of neighbors with children.

MW: My outlook on bees is the same as my outlook on chickens. I would add that the burden of proof really is on the advocates who want to implement these initiatives. If the impacts of keeping chickens and/or bees can be mitigated in a reasonable way, the Town government should not stand in the way just out of habit.

9. With the increased use of local Cheverly blogs and listservs, reisdents have been able to help get the word out about lost and found animals in the neighborhood. Unfortunately, many of the residents that may have lost or found an animal don't utilize these mediums. If elected, would you support advertising lost and found pets on the local cable channel or possibly even within the monthly newsletter?

MC: Yes.

TF: Cable – probably yes; news letter – probably no because of the lack of immediacy of spreading the information as to the loss.

MW: One of the five planks of my platform is drastically improved communications with Town residents. I would take my cue from the Animal Warden and other advocates in Town, but I certainly would not rule out use of the Town website, the cable channel or the newsletter. While the monthly newsletter is not a timely medium, it might contain a recap of last month’s “reunions” and tips for animal care, e.g. spay/neuter clinics, inexpensive shots, and proper licensing. I also want to introduce official discussion boards, blogs and listserves, and I would want those media available for use by the Animal Warden.