« I'm just not that into you, PR hack | Main | Winn Feline Foundation: Saving cats ' lives, one research study at a time »

20 April 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Nancy Freedman-Smith CPDT

Pat, I will have to check. A lot of people use it as a mailing list. I never have.


Nancy, can they also get number, breeds, gender, and so forth of any and all animals you own?


Crap. This is the way they’re wasing *my* taxes? Time to pick up the phone and turn into a MAJOR pain in the ass…

Just be a pain in the ass it the right people! Remember that the City of Duluth is trying to keep the information private.

Nancy Freedman-Smith CPDT

Here in Maine it is common knowledge that anyone can go to city hall and get a listing of every registered pet owner. It is valuable info for ownenrs of any pet biz.


Crap. This is the way they're wasing *my* taxes? Time to pick up the phone and turn into a MAJOR pain in the ass...


The blogpost talks about an "economic hurricane" and yet criticizes the city for its actions. The city's actions in this case would be *fiscally wise* (avoiding the loss of revenue), even if you care nothing about a citizen's right to privacy.


Bluedogstate has been posting about the abuse of animal licensing laws to track citizens for quite a while (sometimes aided/abetted by PRIVATE security firms). For example:



Dogpolitics raised an extreme alert a couple of years ago about NAIS



Don't they realize this will drive revenue DOWN for the city? Or am I being too generous here?


unh-huh. in the state I live in, a local television station makes it a point to maintain an annual database of the name, home address, position, and salary of every state employee. mostly, because it can. sometimes, on the off-chance it finds a salacious tidbit. _this_ is one way "public right to know", "public" information is used.


I'm having trouble coming up with a justifiable reason for anyone outside of government to even *want* this data.


Comment by YesBiscuit! — April 20, 2009 @ 7:51 am

Don’t they realize this will drive revenue DOWN for the city? Or am I being too generous here?

Let's remember that the City is actually trying to KEEP the information private in this particular instance. So any letters sent should be supporting them in that position. Here is contact information for Alison Lutterman who is trying to keep this information private:

City Attorney's Office

Room 410, 411 West First Street

Duluth, MN 55802

Phone: (218) 730-5490

Fax: (218) 730-5918


Here's a bit of legalese I found on this:


Not enough caffeine yet this morning to attempt a lucid interpretation.

But I WILL say that if licensing my critters means my name, address, and listing of all the critters I own can be published in a newspaper somewhere, then I'm sorry, but that takes licensing my critters off the table!


Comment by Social Mange — April 21, 2009 @ 5:50 pm

Now, why doesn’t this Wee Willie Whistleblower disclose who’s asking for the data?

From his piece:

"It all started with a request from Brandon Stahl of the Duluth News Tribune"

And here is a link to Brandon Stahl's blog discussing his urgent need to get the CIty of Duluth to pony up this data:


Social Mange

Now, why doesn't this Wee Willie Whistleblower disclose who's asking for the data?

It's fiscally responsible to keep it confidential. You don't need an employee to fulfill requests for data. There is also the matter of personal security; the city might be liable for anything that happened because of released personal data.

I hope the City wins the fight to keep this data private.

The comments to this entry are closed.