Someone get that goat

"Highlander-Datsuns are Forever" (jamesbowland) 04/30/2019 at 13:47 • Filed to: goats

0

7

COPY-Pasta.

Not police blotter worthy but a good read nothing the less . In Libby you could probably keep a horse in your yard and nobody would notice.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

A Libby woman cited for possessing livestock within city limits is vowing to fight what she thinks is unfair treatment toward her and her emotional support goat named Cinnamon. But city officials say the law is the law and Cinnamon has to go.

Janice Bailey got Cinnamon, a 2-year-old Nigerian Dwarf goat, in 2017 not long after her father passed away as a way to cope. Bailey was living in Washington and taking care of her father before he passed. After he died, she decided to move to Libby to be closer to family.

Bailey said she called the city offices before moving to Libby to ask if there were any ordinances regarding emotional support goats and that she was told there was not. However, according to Libby city code, livestock is prohibited within city limits, including goats.

Late last year, a neighbor complained about Bailey’s goat. City police gave her a $100 ticket and ordered her to get rid of Cinnamon. Bailey said she will not comply with the order and is expected to go to trial on May 23. She also wants to speak with the city council about changing the rules regarding animals like Cinnamon.

Bailey said Cinnamon is smaller than a pit bull and never leaves her yard. It has a small shelter in the backyard where it usually stays, unless it’s raining or snowing, and then it comes into Bailey’s house. The animal eats alfalfa, grain and the occasional marshmallow as a special treat. Bailey said Cinnamon is generally quiet, except for baaing when she sees friends or Bailey’s two dogs.

“The dogs can be nosier than Cinnamon,” Bailey said.

Bailey said she has a letter from her counselor stating that Cinnamon is useful as an emotional support animal.

“She’s not livestock,” Bailey said. “She never gets out of the yard. She doesn’t try to get out. I just don’t see what the problem is.”

But Mayor Brent Teske said rules are rules and the livestock ordinance applies to all goats, including emotional support goats.

“This isn’t a new rule,” he said.

Bailey is hopeful that she will win in court and that the city will change the rules to allow emotional support animals. Supporters of Bailey have also offered to give Cinnamon a home if she does have to move the animal, but she hopes it doesn’t come to that.

“Cinnamon would be devastated if she was taken away, and I would be devastated too,” Bailey said.

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever 04/30/2019 at 14:01

3

TL;DL (Didn’t listen) - Service animals are federally regulated (i.e. seeing eye dogs, service dogs, and also weirdly mini-horses) and thus protected and cannot be discriminated against, removed, etc. so long as they are serving their service purpose.  “Emotional support animals” are do not benefit from the same such federal jurisdiction and receive no such protections.  The goat = livestock and thus has to go!

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever 04/30/2019 at 14:01

1

Emotional support animal =/= Service Animal. That being said, she should be able to apply for a variance but yeah a goat is livestock no matter what you try label it as. 

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Snuze: Needs another Swede 04/30/2019 at 14:02

4

I’ll add that my personal feelings on this are that it seems a bit silly and if the goat is really small, relatively quiet, and harmless I don’t know why the lady can’t have it.  But I can understand why the town council doesn’t want to make exceptions.  

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > Snuze: Needs another Swede 04/30/2019 at 14:05

1

That’s her point, dogs are legal and her quite goat is smaller than most dog doesn’t bark or bite. The city shouldn’t be such dicks about this.

farscythe - makin da cawfee! > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever 04/30/2019 at 14:08

0

aight

time to call in the goat squad... lets give the neighbours something to complain about:p

seems pretty silly to me to be complaining about a little goat... and im pretty sure i wouldnt get on very well with the people that did...

but rules is rules... i dont think the lady has much of a case to make there

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever 04/30/2019 at 14:17

0

Jawsx2, is a goat livestock?

Snuze: Needs another Swede > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever 04/30/2019 at 14:28

1

This is really tough for me. Like I said, I really agree with her and see her argument. I tend to err on the side of liberty so if her goat isn’t harming anyone then I don’t see why she can’t keep it.

But the reason I posted the Lehto video is he does a pretty good job of breaking it down, and from a legal standpoint she has no leg to stand on, at least with regards to it being an “emotional support animal”.

The thing is, I can also see why the city wants to stand firm on this. If you make an exception for her, you open the door for other people. Now if other people want pet pygmy goats that are also small and harmless, that’s fine. But what about when someone wants a loud, obnoxious rooster? Or a giant brahma bull? I think most normal, rational people can make a clear distinction of a slightly unorthodox but otherwise okay pet, like the goat, or a potbelly pig or something, versus an outrageous pet . Y ou’re bound to get the people that think a z ebra is okay. And when the city drops the ban hammer on that, Zebra man   is going to take it to court on the grounds that they made an exception for the goat lady. Then it’s going to get tied up in litigation, wasting time and resources. So I can see the city’s argument on this.

I mean, I know she called and asked and they said it was fine but did she get anything in writing on that? Better yet, did she ask to look at the city code? The fact that she had the wherewithall to call and ask in the first place I think is a good indication that she’s an otherwise rational person and had some idea that this could be, at least, a contentious issue, and then went ahead and did it.

Now, what I think should happen is the city should re-evaluate their ordinances to change the definition of a pet and livestock and what is and isn’t permissible.