Law Angers Cat Lovers

(Akron, Ohio) Due to frustrated citizen complaints, in 2002 the Akron City Council added cats to the existing city ordinance on stray animal control. The complaints included free-roaming and stray cats which were scratching vehicles, damaging gardens, attacking fenced-in dogs, using children's sandboxes as litter boxes and running in front of vehicles. Since that decision, the number of cats being deposited at the Summit County Animal Shelter increased from an average of 100 per year to 2,000.

The practice of rounding up and euthanizing the strays produced outrage among cat lovers, in particular, a group known as Citizens for Humane Animal Practices (CHAPS). The group posted Internet notices which prompted angry email from around the world accusing Akron of being inhumane to the cats. CHAPS also challenged the city cat ordinance in court. On Tuesday, Summit County Common Pleas Court Judge Brenda Burnham Unruh issued a summary judgment that the cat law is constitutional and that the city of Akron acted reasonably under its police powers. (As an aside, it's interesting to note that the cat lovers had no problem with the law when it applied only to dogs. CHAPS decided to challenge the law's constitutionality when cats were included. Maybe it takes a cat lover to understand that logic. To me, a stray is a stray.)

Personally, I think stray animals are a public health hazard in addition to being a nuisance and causing damage to property. It doesn't make a difference whether the stray is a cat or dog.