1 Nephi 16:30
And thus we see that by small means the Lord can bring about great things.
As this is a developing (and ever-changing story) here is an excerpt from a Q & A type interview I had with Howard Marder, spokesperson for the New York City Housing Authority, shortly before the 'breed ban' (pits, rotties and dobies) "officially" went into effect. We are continuing to follow this story through a myriad of public hearings and continued questions from various parts of the community.
Indeed, there are some (as Mr. Marder himself eludes to) that are in full support of the ban. We'll bring news to you on that, too, as it emerges.
Diane West: It is my understanding that New York State has a law banning 'breed discrimination' (counties of New York cannot make a law contradicting this). In other words, a ban on owning pit bulls, etc. How is NYCHA getting around this? Did they meet with state lawmakers about this or is NYCHA exempt from this law, and if so, why?
Howard Marder: The law you refer to, is Article 7 of the Agriculture and Markets law, Section 107 (5). That section prohibits a municipality from regulating specific breeds of dogs. NYCHA is not a municipality. The rule does not apply.
DW: Is this officially called a 'regulation' concerning NYCHA buildings only? What constitutes a building that falls under the NYCHA umbrella? Section 8 and/or other subsidized, such as Mitchell-Lama or others? All boroughs of New York City?
HM: It is applicable in NYCHA owned and operated buildings. It never applied to Mitchell Lama. NYCHA only provides subsidy to Section 8 tenants and does not own or manage the buildings in which the vouchers are used, so it does not apply to them. However, if there is a building that receives Project-Based Section 8, the rule does apply.
DW: How many people is this likely to affect throughout NYCHA residences?
HM: We have no idea because if people are not registering their pets, there is no mechanism for us to do a pet census. Anyone living in a NYCHA apartment today has the ability and responsibility to register their pet under the old policy.
DW: When was this first enacted, and what event/s precipitated it? Were their public discussions or other notices to the public about this poss ible change, and if so, how/where were they announced?
HM: The pet rules came effect with the passage of Federal guidelines requiring all public housing authorities in the U.S. develop their own policies to allow residents to own one or more common household pets. NYCHA’s 40-lb. weight rule was instituted in May 2002. NYCHA announced the change in pet policy to our residents in mid-March by letter to each household and by articles in the Housing Authority newspaper, The Journal.
DW: Why/how did NYCHA come upon the ban of no animals over 25 lbs as opposed to 40lbs? (which documents said was the rule previous.) Is there some kind of study or other reason which made NYCHA decide on this weight?
HM: NYCHA had the 40-lb rule from May 2002 till the present and, in many instances, NYCHA and its residents saw that it did not work. It created a number of problems such as those caused by larger, menacing and dangerous dogs and dogs that the NYPD complained were threatening and vicious. The larger dogs were simply creating a problem because of the density in our buildings with the limited elevator and hallway space by which our residents could traverse. Many of these situations are complicated when there are large dogs.
DW: There is an extensive lists of breeds (full and 'mixed') on the list (below.) How did you decide upon these breeds? In particular you seem to put emphasis on "Pit bull, Rottweiler, Doberman , Chow, Boxer, Akita, German Shepherd". Again, is there a particular reason, study or justification for this? Why dogs such as Dalmatians, Golden Retrievers, and several breeds of terrier?
HM: The NYCHA Pet Policy Overview has been updated. (see the link to our website) http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downloads/pdf/pet_policy_overview.pdf . It now prohibits three breeds, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and Doberman Pinchers.
DW: There is also a provision for 'one cat per apartment'. Is this correct? So in other words, a tenant may either have one 'approved' dog or one 'approved' cat (not one of each?) Why were cats included in the new regulations? Also, a 'reasonable amount' of other animals (birds, etc.) What is a 'reasonable amount'?
HM: The rules provide for either one dog or one cat, not both. That has been in place since May 2002.
DW: How will these regulations be enforced? Will NYCHA representatives or building agents be looking in apartments or patrolling grounds? What happens if someone is not in compliance?
HM: NYCHA will use its limited resources to address lease violations such as this as well as all other lease violations or Quality Of Life infringements or crimes as it is made aware of them. NYCHA has and will continue to cooperate with the NYPD for any City-initiated enforcement efforts.
DW: Will there be a grace period for people who have animals grandfathered in to get what you are asking them? (ie, licenses, vets/vaccination/etc?) As paying this all at once may be a hardship for some.
HM: As the pet policy overview makes clear, a person just has to submit the registration form before the May 1 deadline to register a pet that hasn’t previously been registered, to register it. Residents will be given a grace period of 90 days after submission of the registration form to comply with other requirements, such as veterinarian examination, spaying and neutering, rabies inoculation and Health Dept. licensing
DW: If one has, say, a pit bull, or Rottweiler, or other right now, they do not have to give it up, but it must be registered. After this animal passes away, it cannot be 'replaced' with a 'new' pit bull, etc., but only a pet on the approved list. (I just want to make sure that people understand whether they have to give up their animal or not come May 1st.) Have you reached out to the shelters and adoption groups in the NYC area re this and its possible ramifications?
HM: Nobody will have to give up a previously existing pet that complies with the old policy (dogs up to 40 lbs and breed restriction) if it is registered before the May 1 deadline. We have had discussions with the ASPCA and the Mayor’s Alliance for NYC’s Animals concerning our pet policy.
DW: Are there exceptions for 'service animals' (even if they are on the 'banned' list? Section 8 residents don't have to pay a fee (but do have to license and vet.)
HM: Verified Service animals are exempt from any breed restriction or weight limit. As mentioned, this does not apply to Section 8 voucher holders living in private buildings.. It does apply to Section 8 project based residents since they are in a NYCHA owned building.
DW: Just FYI-- Are you aware the online-license form has been intermittently down for a few months now?
HM: There is an additional 90 day grace period to comply. As with any rule good faith attempts to comply that are made difficult by external sources are taken into consideration.
Indeed, there are some (as Mr. Marder himself eludes to) that are in full support of the ban. We'll bring news to you on that, too, as it emerges.
Diane West: It is my understanding that New York State has a law banning 'breed discrimination' (counties of New York cannot make a law contradicting this). In other words, a ban on owning pit bulls, etc. How is NYCHA getting around this? Did they meet with state lawmakers about this or is NYCHA exempt from this law, and if so, why?
Howard Marder: The law you refer to, is Article 7 of the Agriculture and Markets law, Section 107 (5). That section prohibits a municipality from regulating specific breeds of dogs. NYCHA is not a municipality. The rule does not apply.
DW: Is this officially called a 'regulation' concerning NYCHA buildings only? What constitutes a building that falls under the NYCHA umbrella? Section 8 and/or other subsidized, such as Mitchell-Lama or others? All boroughs of New York City?
HM: It is applicable in NYCHA owned and operated buildings. It never applied to Mitchell Lama. NYCHA only provides subsidy to Section 8 tenants and does not own or manage the buildings in which the vouchers are used, so it does not apply to them. However, if there is a building that receives Project-Based Section 8, the rule does apply.
DW: How many people is this likely to affect throughout NYCHA residences?
HM: We have no idea because if people are not registering their pets, there is no mechanism for us to do a pet census. Anyone living in a NYCHA apartment today has the ability and responsibility to register their pet under the old policy.
DW: When was this first enacted, and what event/s precipitated it? Were their public discussions or other notices to the public about this poss ible change, and if so, how/where were they announced?
HM: The pet rules came effect with the passage of Federal guidelines requiring all public housing authorities in the U.S. develop their own policies to allow residents to own one or more common household pets. NYCHA’s 40-lb. weight rule was instituted in May 2002. NYCHA announced the change in pet policy to our residents in mid-March by letter to each household and by articles in the Housing Authority newspaper, The Journal.
DW: Why/how did NYCHA come upon the ban of no animals over 25 lbs as opposed to 40lbs? (which documents said was the rule previous.) Is there some kind of study or other reason which made NYCHA decide on this weight?
HM: NYCHA had the 40-lb rule from May 2002 till the present and, in many instances, NYCHA and its residents saw that it did not work. It created a number of problems such as those caused by larger, menacing and dangerous dogs and dogs that the NYPD complained were threatening and vicious. The larger dogs were simply creating a problem because of the density in our buildings with the limited elevator and hallway space by which our residents could traverse. Many of these situations are complicated when there are large dogs.
DW: There is an extensive lists of breeds (full and 'mixed') on the list (below.) How did you decide upon these breeds? In particular you seem to put emphasis on "Pit bull, Rottweiler, Doberman , Chow, Boxer, Akita, German Shepherd". Again, is there a particular reason, study or justification for this? Why dogs such as Dalmatians, Golden Retrievers, and several breeds of terrier?
HM: The NYCHA Pet Policy Overview has been updated. (see the link to our website) http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downloads/pdf/pet_policy_overview.pdf . It now prohibits three breeds, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and Doberman Pinchers.
DW: There is also a provision for 'one cat per apartment'. Is this correct? So in other words, a tenant may either have one 'approved' dog or one 'approved' cat (not one of each?) Why were cats included in the new regulations? Also, a 'reasonable amount' of other animals (birds, etc.) What is a 'reasonable amount'?
HM: The rules provide for either one dog or one cat, not both. That has been in place since May 2002.
DW: How will these regulations be enforced? Will NYCHA representatives or building agents be looking in apartments or patrolling grounds? What happens if someone is not in compliance?
HM: NYCHA will use its limited resources to address lease violations such as this as well as all other lease violations or Quality Of Life infringements or crimes as it is made aware of them. NYCHA has and will continue to cooperate with the NYPD for any City-initiated enforcement efforts.
DW: Will there be a grace period for people who have animals grandfathered in to get what you are asking them? (ie, licenses, vets/vaccination/etc?) As paying this all at once may be a hardship for some.
HM: As the pet policy overview makes clear, a person just has to submit the registration form before the May 1 deadline to register a pet that hasn’t previously been registered, to register it. Residents will be given a grace period of 90 days after submission of the registration form to comply with other requirements, such as veterinarian examination, spaying and neutering, rabies inoculation and Health Dept. licensing
DW: If one has, say, a pit bull, or Rottweiler, or other right now, they do not have to give it up, but it must be registered. After this animal passes away, it cannot be 'replaced' with a 'new' pit bull, etc., but only a pet on the approved list. (I just want to make sure that people understand whether they have to give up their animal or not come May 1st.) Have you reached out to the shelters and adoption groups in the NYC area re this and its possible ramifications?
HM: Nobody will have to give up a previously existing pet that complies with the old policy (dogs up to 40 lbs and breed restriction) if it is registered before the May 1 deadline. We have had discussions with the ASPCA and the Mayor’s Alliance for NYC’s Animals concerning our pet policy.
DW: Are there exceptions for 'service animals' (even if they are on the 'banned' list? Section 8 residents don't have to pay a fee (but do have to license and vet.)
HM: Verified Service animals are exempt from any breed restriction or weight limit. As mentioned, this does not apply to Section 8 voucher holders living in private buildings.. It does apply to Section 8 project based residents since they are in a NYCHA owned building.
DW: Just FYI-- Are you aware the online-license form has been intermittently down for a few months now?
HM: There is an additional 90 day grace period to comply. As with any rule good faith attempts to comply that are made difficult by external sources are taken into consideration.
1Nephi 13:37
And blessed are they who shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the everlasting kingdom the Lamb; and whoso shall publish peace, yea, tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be.
10 And it came to pass that I beheld a tree,whose fruit was desirable to make one happy.
11 And it came to pass that I did go forth and partake of the fruit thereof; and I beheld that it was most sweet, above all that I ever before tasted. Yea, and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen.
12 And as I partook of the fruit thereof it filled my soul with exceedingly great joy; wherefore, I began to be desirous that my family should partake of it also; for I knew that it was desirable above all other fruit.
24. they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree.
30.they came and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press their way forward, continually holding fast to the rod of iron, until they came forth and fell down and partook of the fruit of the tree.
“Mrs. Pot, is this the pit?” said me.
“Why yes it is, a pit to hiss,” said she.
“The boy, Mrs. Pot …,” said me.
“His name?” said she.
“Gryphon,” said me.
“Has he been hissed in the pit before?” said she.
“No hissing around,” said me.
“Sixty dollars,” said she.
“Uggg,” said me.
“Gryphon’s collar,” said she.
“I’m wearing THAT?!” said he.
“’twill but tickle,” said she.
“In the pit?” said me.
“In the pit and be hissed,” said she.
“The hissers?” said me
“Are three,” said she.
“The grass, the box and the bush,” said she.
“What that?” said he.
“A hisser,” said me.
“WHAT”S THAT?!?!?” said he.
“A tickle,” said she.
“DAMN!” said he.
“It worked,” said she.
“To the bush!” said she.
“Ok,” said he.
“Rattle hissssss,” said Three.
“
“Bravo!” said she.
“He passed?” said me.
“Grade A,” said she.
“I’m outtie,” said he.
“In the truck,” said me.
“A COOKIE!” said he.
So we left ol’ Mrs. Pot’s pit and her hissers three and went home to where we don’t have a Mrs. Pot or a pit to hiss in. Perhaps we never will. Should a hisser stop to hiss, without a pit, Gryphon now knows to “let it be, let it be, if there is a hisser, let it be!” (sorry John)
Note: snake awareness training is serious business in parts of the country (like ours) where hissers are about. The old adage of “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” sure applies here. Although I was loathe taking him to this training, it was certainly not as bad as I anticipated. I will have to admit that it was weird wandering around in the grass field where there was 1 Diamondback Rattler loose (rattling, agressive and sometimes within just a few feet), 1 rattler underneath a dead cedar bough (and rattling) and a Copperhead in a box. The vipers were all missing the venom glands but were fully functioning and healthy otherwise. Frankly I think the exposure in the viper emporium was as helpful to the bipeds as the canines – recognizing potential danger by sight and sound and also by observing the viper’s behavior. There were 20 dogs, more people, 3 vipers, lots of stories (both good and bad) that support the activity and I came away with a companion that KNOWS not to stick his nose where it doesn’t belong.
Gryphon’s first days here have been phenomenal. He’s taken to the house, cats, critters and us. It has been an instant bond from the day I arrived at the breeder’s and he took to “B” immediately when he and I arrived home. One cat has become his “bud” and one is a bit hesitant, but doesn’t flee when he approaches. Izzy, on the other hand, cannot understand WHY we would let such a behemoth in HER house! She gets along with all the other critters, including
He’s had no issues being in his kennel during the day (I suspect that he sleeps most of the day). He was a bit restless at night and we realized that he was used to having a crate to retreat into and has been fine at night since that purchase. Using a crate has been a huge change from how things were with
The trip was like most road trips that you push through alone. It was mostly a drive on auto-pilot; although, this time I managed to remember to pick up several book CDs from the library before setting out. The books made the long miles easier, especially at night.
The straightest and fastest shot from home to
The most stressful part of the trip was the very first night. Dark had fallen hard while I was still on I-10 and I was already wary of the stretch north from Ft. Stockton to the New Mexico border. I had not seen another vehicle in a couple of hours. This lonely road is a lot of sage, oil wells and … well … nothing actually. There was, however, a proliferation of jack rabbits, horned owls, coyotes and deer. Proliferation is not an adequate word; abundant might be a better choice, but still doesn’t do it justice. The scene played out like a peripheral sidebar featuring a Steven King novel while I was listening to Sarah Dunant’s In the Company of the Courtesan – a very weird experience at best, with carnage both in the book and on the road. After a half dozen owls had flown up in front of the Explorer over the course of 10 miles I began to feel a little spooked by all the nocturnal hijinks and pulled off in the next picnic area to sleep till dawn – probably another 40 miles and many more owls and critters.
I got out to unkink and shake off the unsettling miles, looked up and was awestruck. What struck me in this very western part of
The rest of the trip was pretty uneventful, save the suicidal flood of bugs upon the windshield north of
I spent a good bit of the time feeling like I was in a huge extended neighborhood, since I’ve run this route so often. I really don’t have to think where to turn, where the motels are, where the gas exits are as well as the restaurants. I’m sure truckers must feel this way. No thinking - pas de la pensée. There were long distances of some pretty spectacular scenery and often I would find myself absorbed in what seemed like an endless non sequitur - flashes of grandeur that had zero relation to the book I was listening to – comic and confusing sometimes. On the return I had the added comedy of Gryphon – my own canine Cirque du Soleil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)