Loading...
WC CWF Health District Board Minutes - 10/24/2008WICHITA FALLS - WICHITA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH BOARD MINUTES October 24, 2008 Wichita Falls - Wichita County Public Health District 1700 Third Street - Parker Conference Room Wichita Falls, Texas MEMBERS PRESENT: Board Members Richard Sutton, M.D, Chair Kathy Sultemeier, D.V.M., Secretary David Carlston, Ph.D. Tracy Hill, D.D.S. Lauren Jansen, R.N.C. Robin Moreno, M.T. MEMBERS ABSENCE EXCUSED: Bryan Press, Vice -Chair Lou Franklin Director of Health Amy Cone Assistant Director of Health Ahmed Mattar, M.D. Health Authority Not Present Assistant City Manager Not Present County Judge Councilor Dorothy Roberts -Burns Council Liaison Councilor Michael Smith Councilor Charles Elmore 1. CALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTIONS Chair Dr. Sutton called the Board of Health meeting to order at 12:00 pm after a quorum of members was obtained. Introduction of guests Kris Howcroft of the City's Attorney office, Terri Russell and Danielle Montag of Miss Fannie's Feline and Canine Friends (MFFCF), and Councilors Charles Elmore and Michael Smith. II. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 2008 MEETING MINUTES & EXCUSED ABSENCES Chair Dr. Sutton called for the review and approval of minutes from the last meeting held on August 22, 2008. Ms. Jansen introduced a motion to approve the minutes as presented and Dr. Carlston seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. The excused absence of Bryan Press was noted. Lou Franklin gave a brief food establishment update stating they have been working with Information Technology (IT) and it has been a greater challenge than anticipated. The anticipated live date of November 1 st is now projected to be during the first of the year to early Spring. III. FERAL CAT ORDINANCE Dr. Sutton stated that at the last meeting Ms. Russell had some objections to the proposed ordinance changes and was asked to come back with her comments and suggestions in writing. He asked Ms. Russell to briefly go over her comments, objections and recommendations then time will be given to Ms. Howcroft to respond. Ms. Russell researched different ordinances, the state law and spoke with Jessica of Alley Cat Allies, and Best Friends. The biggest concern is registration of colonies. Alley Cat Allies and all major organizations that work with feral cats do not recommend registration to be under a government agency due to fear of the cats and care taker being public information, but with a non profit welfare animal organization. They believe being public information and not everyone caring for feral cats it could potentially lead to the cats and /or care taker being stalked or harmed. When asked to pay a permit fee or yearly application approval it is felt people do not want to come forward and will continue to run under the radar. This will not benefit the program and would only chase people away. Ms. Russell does recommend a colony registration that would be made with MFFCF or any organization like the Humane Society or a non profit animal organization in the city but not with Animal Control. She does agree with the need to get approval from owners where feral cats are located but many are at restaurants, empty lots, abandoned buildings which could take awhile to run down property owners. Instead of yearly, a one time approval should be sufficient unless property owners change or there is a new establishment. To get every cat sterilized and vaccinated for rabies within 30 days after identifying colonies is an unreasonable expectation; it may take up to 6 months. There is the need to work and try to get them in but it depends on the money available. The goal is to spay /neuter to stop the over population. Ms. Russell also stated that she currently manages 35 different colonies ranging from 5 to 25 cats in a colony. It would be a considerable amount of money for a care taker to meet this requirement. Ms. Russell agrees it would be wonderful to microchip all the cats but said it is costly and the money needs to be spent on spay /neuter. Ear tipping for all feral cat colonies is her recommendation. Removal of all kittens before 12 weeks of age is impractical. All reasonable efforts are made by MFFCF to rescue as many as possible but some can not due to lack of space. Until a foster home care network is built up, not every kitten can be taken in. You take them in get them sterilized, vaccinated for rabies, monitor, tame, and socialize them then if time permits and space opens you get them out of the colony. Asking to pay a foster home permit fee and the yearly application for approval will steer a lot of people away which works against building of a network. Foster homes should be on the number of animals and more on the quality of life then the time they spend in the home. No more than 60 days in any one foster home is impractical it usually takes 60 days to get the animal placed. Then to get re- approval every 60 days for that animal is a lot of paperwork, tedious time that should be spent on getting the animals adopted, sterilized, and vaccinated this being the ultimate goal. Ms. Russell put together a written proposal that is at the end of the sample ordinance handout. She stated she is already doing this program managing 35 colonies having fixed 100 cats. The second 2 proposal is a recommendation to conduct a pilot program for a year and return at years end with statistics on how it works. The third proposal was to keep doing what they have been doing. They can not work with the ordinance as it is, not being able to comply with all the laws and regulations it sets them up for failure. Ms. Russell will do what they can with rabies. She has talked to the State Department of Health and there they have not seen a case of rabies in humans since 1975 from cats. Ms. Russell would like everyone to seriously consider their recommendations, to read all their responses and comments and take them into consideration before any decision is made. Ms. Howcroft was given the opportunity to respond. She wrote the ordinance in working with the Health Department and researched other places that had ordinances of this type, which there are not a lot of ordinances in effect, and laws vary from state to state. MFFCF response described the laws as outdated laws and that Animal Control aimed at nuisance prevention or control and that is not the case. Animal Control laws are aimed at rabies and other disease control which is a public health issue and the intent and the letter of the law in the state of Texas is adequate rabies control. We are under rabies quarantine in the state and the policies that are contained with the new ordinance are focused on that goal of rabies and disease control. Ms. Howcroft reviewed the information from other agencies discussed by Ms. Russell. She talked about the Alley Cat Allies position statement and their view of colonies and how they interact with the community. They emphasize the need for open dialog so that people can understand the process and caregivers are the frontlines of the program. As such, there is a need to be open about care giving, including being part of a public record. Texas A&M University veterinary school runs Aggie Feral Cat Alliance of Texas ( AFCAT) as a study program that not only does vaccination, spay and neutering, but tracks their cats with radio telemetry collars. Their program is based on a Stanford University program which is considered to be one of the most successfully university programs in the country. There are similarities in the proposed ordinance changes and the AFCAT program. Caregivers go on record that they are responsible for that cat; microchipping is required as of 2000. Ms. Howcroft addressed the request for a pilot program, including concerns regarding who would run the program and what type of record keeping they would be required to maintain. Government entities are perfectly capable of running and coordinating with these programs. You see this on several levels the AFCAT program again is run by a government entity. Stanford University program is run in coordination with the grounds division of the facility at Stanford University and they have a specific contractual agreement that lays out the requirements for the program and designates who is going to do what. These are examples of how government is involved in successful programs. The local government here is Animal Control and the main goal is rabies control, which includes enforcing state laws. A concern we have about the request to change the ordinance revisions legally is that you can not semi -own an animal; either you own it or you don't. The State of Texas and the Health and Safety Code define ownership of dogs; we can infer that the same standards of rabies control apply to cats. Ownership is nothing more than a person who exercises control. So, when you are looking at a statute these people are going to vaccinate, trap, feed, spay and neuter. They are exercising control over those cats, so under state law, whether they like it or not, the state is probably going to view them as owners. Consequently, what that means under state law is that every single owned cat has to be vaccinated. Ms. Howcroft reported that she was not able to find any feral cat ordinances or programs that do not have accountability for the specific care givers in regards to cats as far as ownership. Every single program she was able to look at in detail has someone as the responsible individual. Our definition of feral cat is broader than the definition that has been presented to you in the rebuttal ordinance which means it is going to apply to more cats rather than less. Another concern is that property owners and human rights are going to determine the rights of cats in any 3 ordinance that is passed. A public health concern is people that are allergic to cats have a legitimate health reason for not wanting that colony in their neighborhood. This is why it is very important that we keep the annual face time with neighbors in our ordinance as Alley Cat Allies. Additionally, in our ordinance waste removal is not optional as waste removal is a state law issue, state nuisance law issue and a disease transmission issue. Ms. Howcroft discussed Ms. Russell's statement that vaccinations for all at this time is impractical. Ms. Howcroft stated that illustrates why government involvement is needed in this particular program. Practical or not, it has to be done. Microchipping is necessary for rabies tracking and it can be easily integrated with licensing. She stated that government control is necessary so that animals carrying contagious diseases are not in the population spreading those diseases to other animals. There really is no legal justification for differentiating between feral cats that someone exercises control over and domestic cats that someone names and hugs. Both cats, if they are going to run around outside, are going to face the same risks, disease risks, and problems for neighbors in the community. Ms. Howcroft stated that there is no legal justification for a sponsor organization; the program can be run by Animal Control through the Health Department; they have the authority. Ms. Morris is the Local Rabies Control Authority. As such, she must ensure that state law is enforced. This is not something we want to send out in the community and let get away from the control of the Health Department. The program could be successful if there are people who want to participate are going to be compliant. Compliance includes having cats spayed /neutered; receive shots in a reasonable amount of time, and communication with neighbors. Ms. Morris stated she agreed with everything Ms. Howcroft said with rabies being the main concern. Ms. Franklin mentioned that she looked at other ordinances and that Ms. Russell was correct in stating that there are very few ordinances in Texas, with San Antonio being the closest to ours. She also stated that If we want to implement a feral cat colony program in our community, they need to be regulated and closely followed so that we can assure the program runs according to Alley Cat Allies and others. Our proposed ordinance changes are similar to Alley Cat Allies and other programs Ms. Howcroft mentioned around the state that are effective and working. Ms. Jansen asked Ms. Russell what points Ms. Howcroft mentioned that would be negotiable. Ms. Russell replied the number of days to get cats in and days in foster care were negotiable. She reiterated that she thought it was unrealistic to fix all cats and that the goal is to fix and vaccinate. She also stated that microchipping should be an option to the care taker. This is just extra cost that the organization can not afford at this time. Councilor Elmore stated that the microchip would tell if their vaccinations are current and that he would rather they be vaccinated once than not at all. There are many feral cats in the city that have not been touched. Ms. Jansen asked if there were vaccines with longer periods of protection in which Dr. Sultemeier responded 3 years is the longest. The problem is the state requires you to boost a year after the first time even if you choose the 3 years. Dr. Sultemeier asked how many Texas cities have a feral cat ordinance, why do others not have one, and do we have to be on the beginning if there are so many questions. Ms. Franklin stated there were more than five but less than ten cities in Texas with a feral cat ordinance and went on to explain that our current ordinance prohibits a cat at- large. If the ordinance is not 4 changed, with the addition of a feral cat ordinance, then every time Ms. Russell goes out and feeds the cats she is breaking the law. Dr. Sultemeier asked how many people have gotten rabies from cats in Texas? How many people in Wichita Falls in 2007 had to receive the post- exposure prophylaxis because of exposure to a stray cat? How many rabid cats in Texas last year? To the knowledge of Ms. Morris, no one has contracted rabies; they all received the post- exposure. In Wichita Falls, approximately 4 people a month received the post- exposure mostly being from cats, but there were some dog bites. She would need to check the website for last year's number of rabid cats. This year there have been 2 skunks. Every instance of rabies in cats has been the skunk strain with the exception of 2 bats. Skunks and raccoons tend to be at feral cats feeding places; the skunk strain is in all animals bitten by skunks. Ms. Franklin explained that the cat is quarantined or euthanized, with the head sent for rabies testing for every cat bite, scratch, etc. Usually, the only time prophylaxis is given is if the rabies test comes back positive or the cat can not be found. Ms. Russell advised that is why an official feral cat program is needed to have feeding shelters and stations established to keep skunks out, but that she is unable to do that right now because it is against the law. Dr. Carlston voiced his confusion of what is the primary concern because both sides want the same: to trap, vaccinate, and control the population. Ms. Montag of MFFCF responded that time and money is a primary issue due to being non profit with no grant money. They fear with all the fees it will lead them to shut down and stop caring for the cats. Dr. Sutton addressed Ms. Howcroft on several issues. Whether this ordinance is passed or not, that MFFCF are not relieved in anyway under state law as so far as the owners of these animals. Without this ordinance, would the responsibility fall under the Health Department or the State Health Department to enforce those requirements? Ms. Howcroft replied that under state rabies law, MFFCF exercises control so they are considered the owners. She also stated that the Health Department is responsible for enforcing the rabies regulation. Dr. Sutton stated under the current ordinance there is no provision for anybody to have these feral cat colonies. So this will enable legislation to allow a feral cat colony as long as it is done in compliance with state law and the ordinance. Ms. Howcroft asked to make it so we can regulate rabies tracking and effective rabies enforcement so that we do not have that problem from the state's perspective. This involves record keeping, tracking and knowing whether cats have been vaccinated. All these things are so we have a defensible program for the state to look at. Councilor Elmore asked how many cats were vaccinated last year and how many cats were licensed in Wichita Falls. Ms. Morris stated that people vaccinate their animals every day without licensing them. The microchip could take the place of tags and would add the benefit of tracking capabilities. 5 Dr. Sultemeier comments that they recommend their clients to license but does not pursue it that most indoor cats are vaccinated but not licensed. Dr. Sutton raised a couple of options available to them as a committee either to table the issue or take action to recommend to the City to pass or not to approve the proposed changes. Dr. Mattar stated that the goal seems to be the same and that a compromise might be reached on several issues. Dr. Sutton noted that as an advisory board, it is our job to look at these things and provide recommendations to the council, who is ultimately responsible for making additional changes, voting and implementation. He recommend not to table, but to act on this so that those who have the additional responsibilities can take whatever steps needed. Dr. Sultemeier motioned to table. She stated that she understands this is a difficult problem involving rabies control and the goals are the same. She suggested that Ms. Russell, Ms. Franklin and Ms. Howcroft work together to develop a common ordinance to meet the goal. Ms. Franklin stated they will continue to work together. Councilor Smith commended the work the City Attorney's office has done and that revisions must be done in accordance with state laws. Dr. Sutton asked for a motion to table. The motion was moved by Dr. Sultemeier and seconded by Ms. Moreno. The motion carried non - opposed. IV. NEXT MEETING DATE January 23, 2009. V. ADJOURN Dr. Richard Sutton requested a motion to adjourn. The motion was made by Ms. Moreno and seconded by Dr. Sultemeier. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. RECEIVED IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Date By Tire L Richard Sutton, M.D., Chair, Bryan Press, Vice Chair, or Kathy Sultemeier, D.V.M. Secretary Public Health Board D