Finance Committee - 07/10/2019 Page 2
A box is checked on the form indicating that the cat was impounded as a stray and/or for running at large.
Based on these facts it is and has always been my position that my cat was impounded by the City and the
ACO on the basis that she was a stray or because she was running at large.
The ACO and the Humane Society do God’s Work in my opinion by caring for animals. But the ACO and the
City’s actions must be consistent with the authority provided the City by Law as well as with public
pronouncements made by the City with respect to animal control issues. | feel that there were and are a
number of significant issues associated with the manner and circumstances under which my cat was
impounded including on the basis of reporting a stray or running at large.
First and please be aware of the information on the Police Web Site covering Frequently Asked Questions
regarding Animal Control and a copy of that page that | printed down from the web site is attached to my July 9
letter. | printed that letter out on July 9 so the information is current. It is the information that is currently
available with the public in Nashua and it was the same information that was there in September of 2017 when
my cat was impounded. As you can see or as you will see, the web page expressly provides that cats are not
subject to a leash law. The web page further provides that cats are not required to be licensed. Lastly and
perhaps most importantly the web page provides expressly that there is no law prohibiting cats from running at
large.
If the information on the Police web site is accurate, then | ask you why my cat was impounded as a stray or
for running at large. If the info on the web site in accurate then the citizens of the City are not being properly
advised what the law is regarding cats in the City. To me it is fundamentally unfair to leave cat owners to
believe that their cats may run free, including off of the owner’s property when, in fact, the City or the Police in
practice are impounding cats for running at large or as strays. Second the City’s Animal Control Ordinance
which | think is Article 93, on its face authorizes only the impounding of dogs as strays or for running at large
and maybe chickens, |’m not sure of that. Conversely, the Ordinance does not authorize the City to impound a
cat as a stray or for running at large. State Law is similar in that provides that dogs only maybe as strays or for
running at large and then only pursuant to the State Statute and the Licensing Law for dogs adopted by the
municipality. | do agree that the State Law allows cat to be impounded for having rabies, but that’s not the
issue here. With all respect intended our Government’s powers are limited to what the law and the State
Constitution provides to the Government in way of power. Here the City is not authorized legally in my opinion
under current State Law and municipal ordinance to impound cats as strays or for running at large. If the City
wants to do so, or in fact is doing so as a matter of practice, then it should modify its animal ordinance to
provide for such and the Ordinance would serve to put cat owners on notice that their cat may not go off of
their property without the possibility of being seized and impounded by the City and its ACO.
Third and as mentioned the City has no licensing law for cats. The purpose for the licensing law for animals in
my view include 1) assuring the City knows which animals reside in the city and that they are properly
vaccinated, informing animal owners of the need to vaccinate, informing animal owners of conduct by their
animals that is violative of City Law. Putting animal owners on notice for penalties for violations of the
ordinance or related City Law including monetary penalties, penalties involving seizure and impounding of
animals, requiring that licensed animals be identifiable in some fashion including so the City can provide notice
to the owner of the seizure of the animal. And providing the City with a data base maintainable by and
available to the City so it can provide such notice to the owners of seized animals. All of these things are
absent given the lack of a licensing law for cats in Nashua. If the City is going to seize and animals, including
cats or ferrets for running at large or as strays, they should first license those animals including so the City has
a way to allow the seized animal’s owner to retrieve their pet.
Fourth and finally, the lack of a licensing law for cats and the associated mechanism for identifying cats so
owners can be advised of their seizure poses the potential that the City will seize an animal and deprive its
owner of possession of the animal in a way that violates the owners’ due process rights under the 14""
Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Animals are personal property under New Hampshire Law. The
Federal Constitution requires several things when the citizen’s property is seized by the Government. One is
that the owner of the property must be properly informed prior to the seizure that the law permits seizure of the
property, in this case an animal, under certain circumstances and what those circumstances are. Once the
