Can we outlaw pet overpopulation? Part 2, continued.
Just limit the numbers
Despite the great attention paid to anti-breeding ordinances since October 1990, laws have been enacted to fight pet overpopulation for decades. The original form of such legislation, and the simplest, involves attempting to limit the number of animals who may be kept by any one household. This approach has many politically popular features. First, it is easy to understand. Second, it sounds easy to enforce, usually via pet licensing. Third, it promises to cost the community nothing; enforcement costs presumably will be met by licensing fees and/or fines for noncompliance. Further, in many communities, pet limits merely codify rules that have been informally maintained by landlords for generations. Finally, pet limits allow governmental bodies to "address" pet overpopulation without actually having to do anything about it. In effect, pet limits throw the responsiblity for figuring out how to reduce pet numbers back to individual pet keepers, who may take no more action than they ever did.
Statutory limits on animal numbers have even been incorporated into some more aggressive legislation, including the celebrated San Mateo County anti-breeding ordinance. However, while pet limits may restrict the numbers of animals who officially live at any location, they do little or nothing to reduce the overall dog and cat population. Indeed, pet limits might even encourage pet overpopulation by providing an incentive for people whose pets have litters to give away the puppies and kittens as fast as they can to any takers, no questions asked, and to dump the animals if there are no takers, before they get big enough to be noticed by complaining neighbors.
Pet limits have one major virtue, in that they give animal control authorities a means of moving against "animal collectors," who adopt far more animals than they can humanely handle, often to prevent the animals from being euthanized in a shelter. Animal collectors tend to be elderly, socially isolated, delusionary, and generally well-regarded in the community for taking in otherwise unwanted dogs and cats, no matter how poor the standard of care. When prosecuted under ordinary anti-cruelty laws, animal collectors tend to get off easilyand have an extremely high rate of recidivism, often estimated at 80% or more. For this reason alone, weary animal control departments often support pet limitsespecially if they haven't seen such limits fail in other communities.
But animal collectors are only a small minority of the people who may have more pets, especially cats, than pet limits typically allow. Cat keepers average four cats apiece in some parts of the U.S. two above the typical statutory limit. Thus cat keepers have turned out in force to fight proposed limits in communities including Syracuse, New York; Gloucester, Pennsylvania; and Akron, Ohio. In some cases, hours of anti-limit testimony from responsible pet keepers have made municipal counselors reluctant to consider any anti-pet overpopulation bills.
Where pet limits are in force, for instance in Denver, Colorado, many responsible pet keepers feel constrained from providing as many good homes as they otherwise might. Many others simply defy the law, since if animals are kept indoors, detecting limit violations can be very difficult. Animal control officers meanwhile discover that trying to enforce pet limits is both thankless and endless work. Consequently the limits have a way of being forgotten as quickly as possible.
Denver tried to get around this problem by prorating the number of animals per household according to the size of the property. The amount of floor space, however, might have been a more appropriate determinant of the pet "carrying capacity" of a house or apartment than the amount of yard space surrounding it. Certainly a three-story Victorian house with little or no yard space will provide more habitat for indoor cats than a modest two-bedroom ranch house, even if the latter is on a ten-acre lot.
Other communities have simply limited the number of animals who may be free-roaming. In May 1992, Natick, Massachusetts, not only adopted strict pet limits (and differential licensing), but also barred free-roaming pets altogether. Because free-roaming pets who have not been neutered often breed with strays and ferals, the latter provision may help somewhat to slow dog and cat overpopulation. But even indoor pets escape once in a while, and sexually intact dogs and cats are quite as capable of breeding indoors as out, if they get the opportunity.
Finally, pet limits can discourage animal rescuers, especially those who practice neuter/release to control feral cat populations. The neuter/release technique, imported from England and South Africa approximately a decade ago, consists of neutering feral cats, inoculating them against distemper and rabies (and sometimes other diseases), then returning them to their habitat, where they are kept under the supervision of volunteer feeders. The feeders insure that the cats don't become a public nusiance, and detect any fertile newcomers to each cat colony. Neuter/release is highly controversial, opposed as cruel by HSUS, but endorsed by other humane groups including Friends of Animals, Alley Cat Allies, and the Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy. A demonstration neuter/release project completed by ANIMAL PEOPLE in 1992 and a national survey of cat rescuers undertaken later in 1992 by ANIMAL PEOPLE and the Massachusetts SPCA produced somewhat ambiguous results, from the humane perspective. (See "Cat Project Update," 9/92, and "Seeking the truth about feral cats," 10/92.) The survey did indicate, however, that neuter/release is effective in reducing the homeless cat population. About 75% of the respondents who had tried neuter/release reported that it stopped the growth of the feral cat colonies they observed. Neuter/release may have been included in an official animal control plan for the first time in Cape May, New Jersey. According to Cape May animal control department head John Queenan, neuter/release has helped to reduce the euthanasia rate in his jurisdiction to virtually zero.
As usually worded, pet limits have the effect of putting neuter/release rescuers at risk of being identified and prosecuted as the alleged "owners" of the cats they care for, inasmuch as they are feeding them, providing veterinary care, and often holding them in homes, at least overnight, before and after surgery. This problem could be avoided if existing pet limits were amended to include a special exemption for authorized rescuers, who would have to be registered with the local animal control department and would have to meet various other appropriate conditions, such as guaranteeing neutering, marking the cats in some way for identification purposes, and returning cats only to property where owners are willing to tolerate their presence.
Differential Licensing
Differential licensing is the most widely practiced form of pet breeding regulation, and is probably the easiest form to enforce. The idea is simply to collect a higher license fee from people who keep unaltered animals, plus a higher reclamation fee from the keepers of any unaltered animals who are picked up by animal control officers. The higher fees give owners a substantial incentive to neuter, especially over several years. While obtaining compliance is as difficult as obtaining compliance with any kind of licensing, the experience of hundreds of communities indicates that at least differential licensing isn't any more difficult to enforce than traditional single-fee licensing.
Although differential licensing is usually applied only to dogs, because relatively few jurisdictions license cats, it is demonstrably effective. One study found that a sampling of 86 pounds and shelters located in areas without differential licensing handled approximately the same number of dogs each year from 1980 to 1985. By comparison, 61 pounds and shelters in areas that had differential licensing handled an average of 12.3% fewer dogs. Thus if differential licensing had been in effect across the whole U.S., pounds and shelters would have euthanized an average of two million fewer homeless dogs per year.
Early differential licensing ordinances usually tried to set the fees just high enough to cover the operating costs of animal control. The higher fees for unaltered animals were typically no higher than they needed to be to make up for any revenue lost by setting lower fees for altered animals. As more law-abiding pet keepers opted to neuter, however, the revenues from licensing unaltered animals decreased. This raised a dilemna. Some jurisdictions opted to further increase the licensing fee for unaltered animals, at risk of decreasing compliance. The argument was made, with some validity, that people who wouldn't spend money to neuter wouldn't spend money on licensing, either. Other jurisdictions went for the easy income by increasing the licensing fee for animals who had been neutered, whose keepers were known to be cooperative. This had the effect of narrowing the gap between fees, again encouraging noncompliance.
Extending differential licensing to cats poses an additional set of problems, even if the advent of tattooing and/or microchip identification has made it possible to identify cats who won't wear collars. First, animal control officers still can't tell at a glance whether a cat carrying a tattoo or microchip implant is in fact currently licensed. Second, a new population of pet keepers must be convinced to pay what many perceive as a thinly disguised tax. To be fair, some cat-licensing proposals in recent years have been exactly that. Objections to cat licensing can be partially answered by pointing to the AHA redemption statistics, which show that only about 2% of all cats who enter pounds and shelters are reunited with keepers, compared with a 16.3% reunion rate for dogs.
Some examples of differential licensing structures:
DOGS Intact Neuter
San Mateo County, Calif. $25.00 $10.00
Connecticut, state $15.00 $ 6.00
Dade County, Florida $25.00 $20.00
Palm Beach County, Fla. $ 9.50 $ 4.00
Fort Wayne, Indiana $25.00 $ 4.00
Charlotte, N.Carolina $20.00 $ 5.00
Pittsburgh, Penn. $12.00 $ 5.00
Houston, Texas $10.00 $ 4.00
King County, Washington $55.00 $10.00
CATS Intact Neuter
San Mateo County, Calif. $15.00 $ 5.00
Connecticut, state none none
Dade County, Florida $ 4.00 $ 2.00
Palm Beach County, Fla. $ 9.50 $ 4.00
Fort Wayne, Indiana $25.00 $ 4.00
Charlotte, N. Carolina $20.00 $ 5.00
Pittsburgh, Penn. $12.00 $ 5.00
Houston, Texas $10.00 $ 4.00
King County, Washington $55.00 $10.00
The differentials in Dade County, Florida, are so low as to be virtually meaningless, while the differential in King County, Washington, is close to the cost of neutering a tomcat at many discount clinics. People who pay the $55 fee for licensing an intact animal are given coupons worth a discount of $25 on a neutering operation.
Amendments to the basic differential licensing structure have proved essential in most jurisdictions, either to secure enactment of differential licensing in the first place, or to secure enforcement. Most significantly, breed fanciers' associations have demanded discount permits for breeding kennels. Fort Wayne, Indiana, established a professional breeder's permit in 1982, now priced at $100 per year. Professional breeders are defined as people whose animals produce more than one litter in total over any 12-month period. People who keep more than three unaltered animals are also required to get a kennel or cattery license. These measures have been widely emulated. But the Fort Wayne system has been considerably refined meanwhile. The original Fort Wayne differential licensing system included a $25 "household breeder's permit," required of anyone who sold, traded, or gave away a litter. Because this tended to penalize people who adopted pregnant strays and/or sought homes for abandoned kittens, it was replaced in 1990 with a "minor breeder's permit." People whose pets have litters are now ticketed and given the choice of either purchasing the minor breeder's permit for $40, or paying a fine of $10 plus the fee for spay surgery at the city neutering clinic, which is a maximum of $40.
Most breeder licensing systems now in effect follow the Fort Wayne model, but San Mateo County took a somewhat different approach, as result of compromises enacted after a year-long debate over stiffer anti-breeding measures that were largely scrapped. There, since December 1991, breeders have been required to pay $25 per animal for a breeding permit, plus $5 for an unaltered animal permit, over and above the higher licensing fee for an unaltered dog or cat. However, the higher licensing fee is waived and a license is issued at the same price as for an unaltered dog or cat if the guardian promises in writing that the animal will not be allowed to breed unless the owner has first obtained a breeding permit. This clause substantially reduces the deterrent to "accidental" breeding.
Other variants in the San Mateo County licensing structure include a fanciers' permit priced at $10 for anyone who keeps more than four but no more than 10 cats and/or dogs; and a stipulation that anyone who feeds an animal for 30 days becomes responsible for having the animal neutered. An exemption is provided for people who feed feral cats, if "an organization for humanely trapping cats" is notified. Finally, people with more than 10 dogs or cats are required to obtain kennel/cattery permits, costing $5 per animal if the animals are simply pets; $25 per animal if the offspring are sold or given away.
Further common variants on differential licensing include special discounts and/or lifetime permits for senior citizens and people on fixed incomes. Some jurisdictions also issue temporary licenses at a nominal fee (under $5) for animals taken in by registered rescuers, providing that the animals are neutered and adopted out within a specified period (usually 60 to 90 days), or euthanized. Adopters are then required to obtain the regular licenses. Since taming a feral cat sufficiently to adopt out may take six months, a temporary licensing provision may include a limited extension clause.
The leading cause of dispute in connection with differential licensing involves the disposition of license fees. If the revenue goes straight into the jurisdiction's general fund, licensing functions as a form of taxation, and eventually tends to become managed as suchmeaning that fees are adjusted to produce maximum income, rather than maximum success in combatting pet overpopulation. Even where licensing revenue is specifically directed into an animal control budget, diversions from anti-overpopulation programs are frequent when animal control departments need new offices or trucks or are more interested in trapping coyotes than in preventing kitten births. The most successful differential licensing ordinances set priorities for the use of revenues. The first priority is usually administration of the program itself; the second is care of impounded dogs and cats; and the third is subsidizing neutering.
(continued)