Fear and favor applied to strays in new animal control ordinance

Enforcement of the stray animal provision in Truth or Consequences’ new animal control ordinance will be unfair and iniquitous at the city commission’s insistence. 

The city’s police department, particularly Animal Control Officer Tyler Knull and City Manager Gary Whitehead, worked eight months on researching and drafting and redrafting a fair and comprehensive ordinance. A lot of that effort will go to waste. 

About a month ago, during the third public hearing on the ordinance, Whitehead and Knull pointed out that it would be nearly impossible to enforce the stray animal ordinance if city commissioners favored livestock owners by making the city prove the owner intended to let the animal run free. Domestic and exotic animal owners, on the other hand, could be brought up on criminal misdemeanor charges for animals not under constant control. 

Carving out an exception for livestock owners would give domestic and exotic animal owners an opening to argue unfair treatment and unequal application of the law, Knull and Whitehead warned, weakening the whole stray animal law and making it nearly unenforceable. 

The city commission unanimously approved the ordinance after the final public hearing was held Feb. 25, deep into a very long meeting in which only one member of the public remained. Patrick Oliver spoke, as he had at the prior public hearing, pointing out that T or C, unlike most municipalities, has only criminal penalties for city code violations. Being charged with a civil violation and paying a fine is not an option, Oliver said. He and his wife now have a record–a criminal misdemeanor blotting their name–for not having their dog on a leash or behind a fence or in a cage on their property. 

In prior hearings Knull had said animal control officers exercise discretion and give stray-animal owners two or three chances before citing them. Oliver was cited immediately, belying that claim. Guarantee people get two to three chances by putting that into the ordinance, Oliver requested. Request denied. 

Mayor Pro Tem Amanda Forrister told Oliver it wasn’t up to them to give chances, it was up to the judge to decide. Oliver kindly informed her that the city commission drafts its laws, the judge enforces them. 

Is it possible that Forrister, amidst considering a new law or ordinance, didn’t know she is a member of the city’s legislative branch and responsible for making its policies and laws? And that judges, as members of the judiciary, are responsible for interpreting and enforcing laws?  

Whitehead said a prior city commission decided to do away with the municipal court and now all code enforcement citations go through magistrate court, which only deals with criminal charges and penalties. 

The eradication of the city’s judicial branch, the municipal court, straddled an election and two city commissions. The elected members were Rolf Hechler, Frances Luna, Shelly Harrelson, Destiny Mitchell, Merry Jo Fahl and Amanda Forrister. 

These were the same elected officials who whitewashed Forrister’s 34 animal control violations, among them animal cruelty and not having her hunting dogs vaccinated for rabies. They gave her a kennel license and exempted her vaccination and dog license requirements, which gave the special prosecutor evidence she was in compliance with the law, giving him leave to drop Forrister’s case. The public was left  with his $20,000 or so in legal fee and the lesson that elected officials are above the law. 

Hechler, Forrister and Mitchell are still on the city commission. Hechler is on his third term and Forrister and Mitchell are on their second terms, therefore it seems the majority of the electorate is comfortable with their disregard for the most basic democratic tenet–equal treatment under the law.

See the article on the prior public hearing:

https://sierracountycitizen.org/new-animal-control-ordinance-favors-ranchers/