ANOTHER TRAGIC ACCIDENT! ARE EUREKA CITIZENS PROTECTED BY THEIR ORDINANCES?

     ONCE AGAIN we are reminded of the safety risks involved with the keeping of exotic animals in a confined environment. The employee at the Wildcat Santuary in Oregon 

was an experienced worker who was "comfortable with the animals she cared for." The worker was killed by a cougar in a sanctuary in the suburb of Sherwood, outside Portland, Oregon.

     Eureka has an ordinance in place that is meant to protect the citizens in this community  This ordinance should be strictly enforced and not free-wheeling; nor should it be viewed as a "suggested"tool, available to protect citizens.


Ordinance 3, Chapter 7, Section 3 - EXOTIC ANIMALS
A. Purpose and Intent
It is the intent of the Town Board of the Township of Eureka to protect the
public against the health and safety risks that exotic animals pose to the
community and to protect the welfare of individual animals that are held in
private possession. By their very nature, exotic animals are wild and
potentially dangerous and, as such, do not adjust well to a captive
environment.

Sanctuary says woman killed in cougar attack didn't follow protocols

By KATU.com Staff Published: Nov 10, 2013 at 6:07 PM PST Last Updated: Nov 11, 2013 at 7:22 AM PST

SHERWOOD, Ore. -- An employee at a Sherwood animal sanctuary who was attacked and killed by a cougar on Saturday didn't follow safety protocols, the facility says.

Sgt. Robert Wurpes of the Clackamas County Sheriff's office said the attack was reported Saturday night at WildCat Haven in Sherwood just before 7 p.m.

The sheriff's office and medical examiner said Renee Radziwon, 36, of Portland died of injuries consistent with a wild animal attack. A fundraising site has been set up for Radziwon's 6-month-old daughter.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife spokesman Rick Swart on Sunday told KATU that a cougar attacked and killed Radziwon.

The sheriff's office said there were two cougars in a cage with her when she was killed. In a statement released on Sunday, WildCat Haven said Radziwon was alone with the cougars during the attack, which goes against the facility's protocols.

"WildCat Haven has strict safety protocols to ensure the well-being of everyone working at the sanctuary and all the sanctuary’s neighbors. The sanctuary’s handbook specifies that 'two qualified staff members shall work together during the lock out of dangerous animals. Once the animals are locked out, one staff member can safely enter the enclosure to clean or make repairs. Two qualified staff members shall be available when releasing animals from lockout areas.' At this time, it is believed that Radziwon-Chapman was alone at the sanctuary and alone in the enclosure with cats, who had not been shifted into the lockout area. Investigation is ongoing," the statement said.

Executive Director Cheryl Tuller also said the thoughts and prayers of everyone at WildCat Haven are with Radziwon's family.

As a Eureka citizen, do you feel confident that your local government officials are enforcing the ordinances and protecting you against the health and safety risks that exotic animals pose to the community?

• 
  

DOES THIS SUIT YOU?

One very interesting development to come up (barely) at the Board meeting last Monday was that a lawsuit has been filed against the Board/Township.  I may not get everything exactly right since the information was so sketchy, but here goes:

At the agenda approval time, Supervisor Budenski asked if the lawsuit that had been served to the Board were going to be on the agenda as it hadn't been placed there already. Chair Storlie quickly looked to the attorney, Mr. Lemmons, for help.  Chad advised that it could be mentioned, but not to go into any detail or discussion of it.  It was placed on the agenda.

When it came up later, it was never actually stated what the lawsuit was about. ( I guess the audience of taxpayers and constituents didn't need to know?)  At any rate, from the brief discussion that did occur, and which centered around exotic animals and a recent vote, it would seem that enforcement of the Ordinances might be the issue.  Supervisor Budenski was at great pains to make clear that it was "you three" (Storlie, Ceminsky and Madden) who had voted together on the matter, implying (at least I inferred) that he, Budenski, was not responsible for a lawsuit being served. The "matter" followed a citizen complaint that certain exotic animals were being harbored illegally in the Township in violation of the Exotic Animals Ordinance.  Ultimately, the Board had voted 3-2 that there was no problem with the animals in question because they were part of an agricultural operation. The discussion had been very involved, including DNR definitions of said animals, state statute definitions of said animals, the legal concept of estoppel, and more, such as local ordinances taking precedence over DNR licensing. (Apparently, it is clearly stated on the DNR license that was so belatedly finally submitted to the Township, that this license does not preclude or supersede local ordinances--or words to that effect.) Those in the majority vote had cited parts of Board minutes to support their stand.  Supervisor Miller had joined Budenski in dissent.

It is of interest, however, that when it had come up at an earlier Board meeting that the complainants'attorney had informed the Board that a lawsuit might follow an unsatisfactory addressing of the complaint, Supervisor Miller described that as "A SCARE TACTIC."  At that point, Mr. Lemmons, who as Township Attorney had received the letter from counsel, advised the Board to "take this very seriously."
The Board then decided, since a potential lawsuit was involved, that it would schedule a closed Special Meeting with the Attorney.  What followed at the next regular Board Meeting has been recounted in the "Can You Say Estoppel?" post.

It is also of note that the attorney for the complainants asked Chair Storlie to recuse himself from the decision on the complaint, due to his familial relationship to those connected to the property complained against.  He declined to do so and went on to what I would call "spearheading" the response to the complaint which resulted in the vote to allow the animals.  The audience left that meeting that night in what I would call a very disgruntled mood.

ENOUGH ABOUT THE HISTORY; IT'S HARD TO KEEP IT ALL STRAIGHT--AND I WAS THERE FOR THE ENTIRETY OF IT!
This action will surely result in still further Special Meetings of the Board with the Attorney to discuss this current lawsuit.  The Board has already engaged in multiple Special Meetings with the Attorney concerning its own (forgotten?) counterclaim lawsuit against Ms. Petter concerning her land use. All charges from the counterclaim by the Board and those meetings concerning it are paid for by Eureka taxpayers. (The initial suit from Ms. Petter was covered under insurance.)
Since the Board is now being sued again, the Township will again be represented in this latest suit by Minnesota Association of Townships counsel under its insurance with that group.  (I believe there is a deductible involved --perhaps $1,000 or more per occasion?)
FYI: Did you know that the community of Greenfield is no longer carried by its insurance provider due to the extremely high costs resulting from challenges to its officials' decisions?  Thankfully, Eureka isn't close to that yet...

BUT KEEP YOUR CALCULATORS HANDY, FOLKS...

                                     THE VOTE IS IN!           

Eureka Town Board Meeting August 12, 2013:

 Multiple complaints have been filed with the Eureka Township via formal complaints from citizens, letters to the Board from citizens and attorney correspondence, asking the Board to
enforce the Township Ordinance 3, Chapter 7, Section 3 - EXOTIC ANIMALS.
The intent of the ordinance is to protect against the health and safety risks of the exotic animals that are held in private possession. The agenda item to be discussed at the August 12 Town Board meeting requested the Board to enforce its ordinance and in particular not allow Ms. Terri Petter and Dan Storlie to continue to harbor and exhibit exotic animals.  The issue was discussed and the Board of Supervisors voted:

SUPERVISORS MARK CEMINSKY, PETE STORLIE AND STEVE MADDEN VOTED   YES! (To allow Ms. Petter to harbor her exotic animals)

SUPERVISORS KENNY MILLER AND BRIAN BUDENSKI VOTED    NO!

ARE THE SUPERVISORS WHO VOTED YES PROTECTING CITIZENS AGAINST THE HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS OF EXOTIC ANIMALS IN THIS TOWNSHIP WHEN THERE WERE VALID REASONS PRESENTED TO ENFORCE OUR ORDINANCE?  YOUR TOWNSHIP - YOU DECIDE!

 

 

 

  ARE EXOTIC ANIMALS ALLOWED IN EUREKA TOWNSHIP?

                                                          

 Is someone in your neighborhood keeping exotic animals as pets?  Eureka township
has adopted an ordinance which prohibits the harboring of exotic animals:  Ordinance 3, Chapter 7,  Section 3 - Exotic animals.

A. Purpose and Intent
It is the intent of the Town Board of the Township of Eureka to protect the public against the health and safety risks that exotic animals pose to the community and to protect the welfare of individual animals that are held in private possession.  By their very nature, exotic animals are wild and potentially dangerous and, as such, do not adjust well to a captive environment.

B. Keeping of Exotic Animals Prohibited
1. It shall be unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, harbor, bring, or have in one's possession an exotic animal within Township limits.
 2. It shall be unlawful for the owner, possessor, or any other person in control of a lot, tract, or parcel of land within the Township or any residence or business premises situated thereon to knowingly permit any other person to be in possession of an exotic animal or exotic animals upon the property, residence or premises.

C. Exceptions
 The following shall be exempt from these regualtions under the conditions noted:
 1. Animal control officers

 2. Licensed veterinary hospitals or clinics

 3. Any wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the State who temporarily keeps exotic animals 
  within the Township when the purpose is to return the animals to the wild

  4. Any person who owned, possessed, kept or harbored exotic animal(s) on or before the
   effective date of this Ordinance, provided that all federal, state, and local licensing and/
   or approval requirements are met.  Any person who falls within this paragraph
   shall be permitted to hold, keep, harbor or maintain the number of exotic animals
   that person was legally permitted to hold, keep, harbor or maintain as of the date of
   adoption of this ordinance BUT SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO INCREASE THE
   NUMBER OF EXOTIC ANIMALS HELD, KEPT OR MAINTAINED WITHIN THE
   TOWNSHIP. (RESOLUTION 59, 8-13-2007.) This Resolution is applicable to any
    animals that are currently harbored in Eureka.

D. Violations and Penalities
Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor 
 and shall by punishable according to State law.  Each day that a violation continues shall
 constitute a separate offense.

                                                             _________________________


    
A LIFE SENTENCE: THE SAD AND DANGEROUS REALITIES OF EXOTIC ANIMALS IN PRIVATE HANDS 


Across the United States, millions of exotic animals are kept captive in private homes and in ROADSIDE ZOOS and menageries. The trade in exotic animals is a multi-billion dollar industry, and exotic animals are bred, sold, and traded in large numbers.

Monkey Kept as a "Pet"
View more images »

But these animals — including, among other species, lions, tigers, cougars, wolves, bears, monkeys, alligators, and venomous snakes and other reptiles — pose grave dangers to human health and safety. By their very nature, exotic animals are unpredictable and are incapable of being domesticated or tamed.
In many states, people are allowed to keep exotic animals in their homes and backyards without restrictions or with only minimal oversight. Every year, people are attacked and injured by exotic "pets" or exotic animals in roadside zoos; some of the attacks are fatal, and children have too often been the victims. In recent years, people have been mauled by tigers, attacked by monkeys, and bitten by snakes, just to name a few of the tragic incidents involving exotic "pets" and incidents involving exhibited animals. View a comprehensive list of all Exotic Animal Incidents that Born Free USA tracks.
Compounding the risk to the public, many exotic animals are carriers of diseases, such as herpes B, salmonellosis, monkeypox, and rabies, which are communicable — and can be fatal — to humans.
Further, the conditions in which privately-owned exotic animals are kept also raise serious animal welfare concerns. Most people cannot provide the special care, housing, diet, and maintenance that exotic animals require. Many animals who have become too difficult for their owners to care for, or who have outgrown their usefulness as "pets" or profit-makers, end up languishing in small pens in backyards, doomed to live in deplorable conditions, or are abandoned or killed. A very few lucky ones are placed in genuine sanctuaries to live out the rest of their lives.
The serious problems associated with the private exotic animal ownership have led groups as diverse as the American Veterinary Medical Association, the United States Department of Agriculture, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Animal Control Association, and the American Zoo and Aquarium Association to oppose the private ownership of certain exotic animals.   

Born Free USA


Minn. State Statute 343.20

Subd. 5. Animal control officer.

"Animal control officer" means an officer employed by or under contract with an agency of the state, county, municipality, or other governmental subdivision of the state which is responsible for animal control operations in its jurisdiction."

An Animal Control Officer can only be an Animal Control officer in the jurisdiction that he/she is employed. I am not aware that Eureka has employed an Animal Control Officer; are YOU!

Several complaints have been filed with the Township regarding Exotic Animals in the Township.

As of this date the Town Board has refused to enforce its Ordinance regarding Exotic Animals.

Perhaps the Town Board Supervisors will finally address the issue at its Monday, August 12, Town Board meeting. 

                  IF YOU ARE CURIOUS, CONCERNED AND INTERESTED IN THE

EXISTENCE OF EXOTIC ANIMALS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN SPECIFIC OR

IN EURKEA TOWNSHIP, PLEASE ATTEND THE AUGUST 12 TOWN BOARD MEETING.

                                    STAY TUNED!