Covington Ban - Please Help!

 
As of July 1, 2003, in Covington, a small city in Kentucky, it will be prohibited to keep, as a pet, many animals that are considered domesticated pets today per the "Revised Animal Control Ordinance for the City of Covington," Section 90. An article was written about it in the Kentucky Post on June 25, 2003 which you can read here.

We (Nat Human, Andy Human, Schweez, Seedl, Charmin, Belly, Maverick, Dust, Stew, etc) live in Covington. We've done nothing wrong. We are not rabid nor we do not cause damage to individuals or their property. And yet, as of July 1, we will be breaking the law.

This affects you too, no matter where you are. Other localities may attempt to follow in the footsteps of Covington. Other localities may attempt to generalize their existing laws and ordinances, may attempt to redefine and recategorize "domestic animals," in order to appease the monkeypox-fearing masses. Don't let Covington's "Revised Animal Control Ordinance for the City of Covington" be used as an example in your community!

I am asking for your help. Please consider taking a moment to write letters to the individuals involved about this issue. I'll outline everything for you! You just need to compose, in your own words (as this is more effective) your feelings on the subject, and send it off. Of course postal mail letters are more effective, but emails help too! Anything you can do to help persuade them to rephrase this rights-violating ordinance would be appreciated!

This is the ordinance which was signed by Mayor Callery and the 4 City Commissioners in Covington:

"No person shall own wild animal(s) and/or exotic animal(s) within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City. This prohibition does not apply to zoological parks, properly licensed transient animal exhibits, circuses, licensed veterinarians or licensed caregivers to wild animals, or persons owning birds of prey in compliance with all state and federal regulations."

 
According to the ordinance and associated definition, "[n]o person shall own wild animal(s)...within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City" which "include, but are not limited to,...rabbits,...rats, mice, rodents..."

[Note: within the Order Rodentia are rats, mice, gerbils, hamsters, chinchillas, and guinea pigs.]

Even if that animal fits the definition of "not wild," namely, "[a]ny animal that is not a domesticated companion animal, or any crossbreeds of these animals with domestic animals, or any descendant of any crossbreed," if that animal is on the "such animals include" list, they are, by Covington's definition, wild (and thus, illegal to keep as companion animals)!

Even schools, universities, and research institutions are, per their ordinance, prohibited from keeping "wild" (their definition of wild) rats and mice!

Be sure to include why you feel that this is a problem:

Do you have one or more of the banned animals that would needlessly need to be killed on July 1, 2003? How would you feel about that?

What do you believe your rights are as a citizen of the United States (or your country of origin)? What if your local government used this ordinance as an example to formulate their own?

Do you have a friend, family member/child who has a small companion that they love dearly? Maybe you had a small pet of your own growing up.

Let the Covington City Officials know how you feel about this!

 
For Your Amusement: The Covington Ban Demystified.