SHELBY, Ohio – The fate of a number of animals living within the city of Shelby is now in the hands of city council, as lawmakers and citizens debate how to proceed in amending the city’s legislation concerning livestock within city limits.
The discussions stem from a complaint brought to city council in January by Shelby resident Deanna Ratliff. Her problems began when her neighbor’s dogs became a disturbance, but the animal situation soon escalated when the neighbor acquired rabbits, chickens and quails. Now, Ratliff says she can’t even enjoy the backyard of the home she’s lived in for 26 years.
“It hasn’t always been an issue, but somebody’s got to put a stop to it,” she said in an interview with Richland Source. “There’s just too much, and they keep having babies and it’s a mess. The sounds and the smells don’t stop at the property line.”
Ratliff’s neighbor is Samantha Wilson, who has lived next door to the Ratliffs at 121 Broadway for the past seven years. Currently, Wilson keeps six chickens, nine rabbits and two quails in her backyard in addition to four dogs and two cats inside the house. She said she keeps her animals to supplement her diet and also barters them to receive plants for her garden.
“The rabbits are used for food, and [the Ratliffs] don’t like that, she said rabbits are not meant for food unless they’re in the wild, which isn’t true,” said Wilson in an interview. “I pluck the angora rabbits and use their wool to make yarn. The hens are used for eggs and once they stop laying eggs they go in the freezer.”
Shelby’s current legislation states that no person shall keep any hoofed animal such as horses or goats, Lagomorphs such as rabbits or hares, or fowl such as chickens or quail inside city limits unless the animals are located on one acre of land or more. Recognized agricultural education programs and projects such as FFA and 4H are exempt from the one acre requirement.
An amendment to the ordinance proposed by Council member Pat Carlisle on June 1 addresses livestock owners in Shelby who do not participate in agricultural education programs. The amendment would exempt persons who depend on livestock to supplement their diets or income from the ordinance’s restrictions, however the total number of livestock, regardless of species, could not exceed 10 livestock.
Furthermore, only two of the 10 livestock allowed could be hoofed animals. The amendment also currently states that safe, healthy and secure housing for the animals must be maintained, and the housing cannot be an eyesore or diminish the comfort and enjoyment of neighboring and adjacent properties.
A number of Shelby citizens involved in FFA and 4H were present at Shelby City Council on June 15 to voice their concerns about the proposed amendments. Carlisle reiterated that the proposed amendments would have no affect on these programs – there is no numerical limit on livestock for those participating in agricultural education programs like FFA and 4H, and participants in these programs are exempt from the one-acre requirement according to current legislation.
Shelby resident Faith Abbott, who keeps animals so her children can participate in 4H, spoke at council Monday evening on behalf of Shelby citizens who keep animals responsibly but who are not exempt from the one-acre requirement because their animals are not for FFA or 4H.
“You can’t fault everybody because of one household,” said Abbott. “I know you have to set your rules, I understand that, but there are some people that don’t have 4H and FFA and literally raise their animals. There are people that are legitimately trying to better themselves, but they’re not all dirty and nasty. There’s got to be a different way to work around to not only help us but other people, and still crack down on the people that need to be cracked down on.”
Last year, Deanna Ratliff said she couldn’t even mow her lawn without plugging her nose. She called the police, and Wilson was fined for keeping her rabbit cages too close to her home according to current city legislation. But the smells are still a problem.
“My one son works third shift and he can’t open the windows in his bedroom because of the sounds and smells,” said Ratliff. “The quail and rabbit [feces] were a foot deep under the cages. If they were sanitary about it I wouldn’t care. I just try to ignore it as much as I can.”
Wilson said she has since taken steps to alleviate the smell of her animals, but that she can only do so much. She said she did get rid of 10 chickens and four rabbits recently to try and keep peace with her neighbor, and she cleans her rabbits once a week according to guidelines from the Health Department.
“We bought Stall Dry to absorb the wetness from the [feces] and the odor so it doesn’t stink,” said Wilson. “When it rains yes it does smell I’m not going to lie, but there’s not much I can do about that. On days when it’s warm and dry you can’t smell anything. It’s not like I sit in the house and let my animals stink, I’m out every couple hours making sure they have food and water, I take care of them the best that I can.”
Mayor Steve Schag and Project Manager Joe Gies visited Wilson’s property over the winter and provided her with a copy of the city’s legislation in an attempt to resolve matters peacefully.
“The mayor told us to paint my cages, but if I paint them and the rabbits lick them, they’re dead,” said Wilson. “I don’t think they look that bad, it don’t have to be sexy to hold your animals.”
At Monday’s City Council meeting, the amended ordinance written by Carlisle was committed to the Safety Committee for further review and revision at the suggestion of Councilmember Nathan Martin. Councilmember Derrin Roberts was in agreement, saying he felt council was moving too fast on the ordinance.
“I feel like we’re trying to fix one specific situation and we’re making it worse for the due rights,” said Roberts. “I know there’s an issue, and it seems like we’re trying to move too fast to fix something. We need to slow it down and make sure we come up with the very best ordinance we can come up with that’s best for the whole city before we pass a third reading of something that’s not going to work.”
“The problem with trying to be so prescriptive with regulations is that it really only punishes those who are voluntarily compliant,” added Martin. “I mean can anyone here with all honesty and candor believe that anything is really going to solve the problems on Broadway, or are the police just going to be going back out there time and time again because they’re going to try to go under different exemptions or loopholes? It’s not like they’ve shown the recourse to do things the ‘right’ way anyway.”
If the amendment were eventually passed in its current form, Wilson would be in violation because she has 17 animals total. Wilson said she believes she should be grandfathered in should the ordinance pass in its current amended form.
“I’ve already bought my permits, so there’s no reason I can’t keep my animals. And I will fight that – they’re not going to take my animals away,” she said. “I’m bipolar, so my animals help me keep balanced. I would prefer instead of the neighbors going to the city that they come here and tell me what their problems are, and I will see what I can do to fix them.”
Carlisle stated during Monday’s meeting that in discussions with a number of Shelby residents, not one person supports leaving the animal ordinances as they are. However, she noted that all investigations are complaint driven and the city is not interested in creating an “animal police.”
“Shelby is a city, it’s not a farm, and as such control of animal population is necessary,” said Carlisle. “Abuse of the current animal ordinances and creative interpretation of the animal ordinance language by a few citizens make it necessary to reconsider and amend animal ordinances with more specific language. The police department needs very specific ordinance language that clearly determines when a violation is occurring and supports the issuance of a summons for court appearance.
“Some animal complaints escalate into neighbors deliberately antagonizing and repeatedly aggravating each other – no one wins when you get into a neighborhood battle,” she continued. “It is not council’s job to mediate neighborhood squabbles, that’s not our purpose. We write legislation, that’s it. So if you and your neighbors want to have an argument you’re just going to have to have an argument, we don’t want to be involved in it.”
Ratliff said at one point she was friendly with her neighbors, before the animals arrived. She believes she has gone the right way about dealing with Wilson, but noted she feels there are some people who don’t want to talk – during Monday’s meeting, her husband Greg Ratliff shared with council that rabbit feces have since been flung into their yard. Samantha Wilson’s husband Brian stated in an email this claim was “a boldfaced lie.”
“I don’t want it to be the Hatfields and McCoys, I want to live peacefully but I want to be able to enjoy my property and how else am I going to be able to do that?” said Deanna Ratliff. “Enough is enough.”
