Kennel owners say relaxing ban would be unfair
BY ZACH PLUHACEK/Lincoln Journal Star
Owners of established kennels adamantly opposed an ordinance that would allow commercial kennels inside Lincoln city limits. Henry Sader, owner of Wilderness Kennels at 2030 Saltillo Rd., told the City Council at a public hearing Monday that it would give new businesses an unfair advantage. Council members are expected to vote on the issue next week. Since 1950, city code has prohibited commercial kennels, although state law exempts veterinary clinics.
Sader said his business, which is not a veterinary clinic, had to be built outside the city. While he’s not worried about new competition, building inside the city was never an option for him.
“If we could locate forty years ago on South Street, we probably would have done it,” he said.
Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department staff sponsored the proposal, saying that under the current code, businesses like Sader’s would be shut down when their land is annexed by the city.
Health Department Director Bruce Dart said when a business is annexed, health code applies completely and immediately. That means bans on commercial kennels go into effect just like smoking bans.
Tom Ryan of Omaha, owner of the Camp Bow Wow kennel territory in Lincoln, has been pressing for a change in the city code in order to develop a Lincoln location.
He said the free market should decide which kennels succeed.
“We will leave that up to the citizens of Lincoln where they want to leave their dog,” he said.
Ryan said his business works to control noise at its facilities.
Owners of existing kennels said the city would be hard-pressed to enforce sound and odor restraints. One kennel owner said he could hear dogs at his kennel from 1,000 feet away.
Dart said his office hasn’t had serious problems with any of the current kennel businesses. Worries about complaints, he said, are speculation.
“The current operators in Lancaster County do a really great job,” Dart said. “Because of that, there really is no public health issue with allowing this change. I’m not sure it’s reasonable to make a final decision based on what could possibly happen.”
Reach Zach Pluhacek at 473-7395 or zpluhacek@journalstar.com.

Facebook
del.icio.us
Fark It
Reddit




Post Your Comment
Standards and RulesYour posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
JMK wrote on May 22, 2007 7:35 am:
CS wrote on May 22, 2007 7:38 am:
CS wrote on May 22, 2007 7:42 am:
... wrote on May 22, 2007 8:34 am:
Anywho, IMO the change would be unfair to existing kennels that had to set up outside of city limits. A better decision would be to exempt kennels as their properties are annexed by the city. Fair is fair, a new operation would have to set up outside the city limits (just as Wilderness Kennels), but would be allowed to operate within the city limits once the property is annexed by the city. "
CS wrote on May 22, 2007 8:59 am:
Larry wrote on May 22, 2007 9:16 am:
... wrote on May 22, 2007 9:36 am:
KP wrote on May 22, 2007 10:06 am:
wake up Lincoln wrote on May 22, 2007 10:31 am:
Tom wrote on May 22, 2007 10:37 am:
Tom wrote on May 22, 2007 10:46 am:
Okay.. wrote on May 22, 2007 12:00 pm:
This is wrote on May 22, 2007 12:13 pm:
Hey wrote on May 22, 2007 12:22 pm:
Shawn wrote on May 22, 2007 1:08 pm:
Dog owner wrote on May 22, 2007 3:37 pm:
I agree wrote on May 22, 2007 4:55 pm:
scooby wrote on May 22, 2007 6:44 pm:
Support the Local Businesses wrote on May 23, 2007 8:27 am:
CS wrote on May 25, 2007 3:41 pm: