RE: Hideyo's court case 19th?? - to Michelle

[Hideyo Yamamoto]

Thank you, Michelle for you input.  One of my vets is going to do a live testimony, so I think he can testify the below (space needs for different species) on my behalf. I will also look it up about the ordinance form other cities – I know they all have a limit.. but they don’t calculate the way Alb does I remember looking into it – other cities even outside of NM, they all seem to tend to pick a number (3 or 4, or 5 or whatever they decide to pick) as a limit where there was no explanation as to why the number was picked as a limit, which I guess is also a bad thing…At least Alb tried to come up with a formula, if it was a good formula, it would have made a sense.. but it does not.   Michelle, what would you think of my argument on this? – Well the city only allows a 10% of the total property space as a place where animals can live – and within the space, each animal (up to 30lb) requires 75 sq – So will not the bottom line be as long as an animal is allocated for 75 sq, does it matter to the city if they live throughout the entire living space or not as long as I am ok with it?  I am having a hard time to understand their 10% logic --- I have a total of 4,000 – and I am claiming for 20 cats --- so theoretically, each animal is allowed for 200 sq --- which is much larger than the space they request… if I don’t mind personally as the property owner having cats through the entire living space, why does it matter if they take 10% of space or 100% of space.. the only thing I can think of is a “density” issue.. but again – why would they care if they all kept indoor and each animals has a lot of space.. I hope I am making sense.. any input on this issue is appreciated, Michelle   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 8:30 AM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th??   Look at the reasoning used in the decisions you have where ordinances were struck down, and see if you can use that.    Also, if you can get one of your "expert" witnesses-- the vet or the animal services person who is writing you a letter-- to say in a letter or in testimony that different species and sized animals need different amounts of space and that, as far as they are concerned, the formula in the ordinance has no relation to the amount of space that any particular species of animal actually needs, and to give a different opinion of how to determine whether cats are too crowded or not, that should be more than enough.  At that point the burden should switch back to the city to prove that there is some rational basis to the formula that they use.   If you can, you might also want to contact animal control or the mayor's office in other cities in NM, like Santa Fe, and also nearby towns, like Corrales, to see if they have ordinances limited animal numbers and if so what the language is.  If they do not have limits on the numbers, or if the limits they have are more flexible or make more sense than the Albuquerque one, you might want to submit those as well to bolster your claim that when cities try to figure out limits on animals for health and safety they do not use the bizarre formula that Albuquerque does.  I am not sure if this will work or not. it sort of depends on what you find out. Just a thought.   Michelle   In a message dated 12/9/2005 8:40:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was also reading some stuff on the website from other cases.. that when it’s assumed that the ordinance does not make sense, it’s a burden of the challenger (which is me) to prove that it’s not -----and though it totally does not make how they calculate how many animals one can have.. how do I prove it it does not make sense scientifically???