WHY NOT COERCIVE LEGISLATION?

We are concerned about the pressure for coercive legislation as a means to solve the problem of pet overpopulation throughout the country. Euthanasia of healthy adoptable animals is tragic and the numbers appear to be excessive. The reasons for this are multifarious, therefore solutions are complex and will differ in each community & state. We would like to pass on some thoughts which may be helpful in your area. Awareness and involvement in this issue will help you determine if the proposed ordinance is the best alternative for your community. First ask questions:

1. Does your city/county/state require that all adult dogs and cats being placed from your pounds/shelters be altered before adoption and prior to release from impoundment? This is a critical factor in reducing irresponsible breeding. Is the shelter aware of "early altering" and the number of humane organizations already altering kittens and puppies prior to maturity? A [scientific study] is underway to determine any long term effects of early altering(1)
2. Is there a provision in the shelter to collect a deposit for future altering but no contract to enforce this and no follow through procedure? The HSUS Guidelines for Responsible Pet Adoptions state that "the shelter must be able to confirm at least 90% of its adopted animals are sterilized to ensure that the shelter itself is not contributing to the pet overpopulation problem". (2)
3. Assure that you receive an accurate count of the real number of animals euthanized at your shelters because they are UNWANTED. Distinguish this statistic from those that are euthanized because they are UNADOPTABLE. The unadoptable count will include healthy animals that are otherwise unsuited for adoption.

a. Go to your county clerk's office or city clerk's office (depends with whom the shelter contracts) and ask to see a copy of the contract between the shelter and the city/county. In this contract, you should find a paragraph requiring the shelter to make a quarterly/annual report to a government office. Get a copy of the contract and take it to the office specified in the contract. Ask for a copy of the required report for the last few years. THIS IS PUBLIC RECORD. Analyze (or let us analyze) the numbers and send a copy to the CFA Legislative Committee, c/o Jerry Woolward, 13411 West 57th Avenue, Shawnee, KS 66216 and the National Pet Alliance, c/o Karen Johnson, 5969 Sorrel Avenue, San Jose, CA 95123.
b. The report, based on our experience, may indicate that the findings on which proposed legislation is based are misleading and present an inaccurate picture. they may include all animals -- injured, sick, dead, vicious, unweaned animals, euthanasia requests at surrender, untamable feral cats, etc. -- in their goals to eliminate euthanasia. Your objective is to determine how many HEALTHY, ADOPTABLE ANIMALS ARE BEING EUTHANIZED.
c. Separate the figures for HEALTHY ADOPTABLE animals from the FERAL CATS (genetically domestic cats reverted to wild state). These two categories require DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS: the first may be affected by adoption outreach, increased advertising, use of special assistance grants, the shelter policies on screening, hours open, foster home and other programs as well as numerous factors which could be modified. the second could only be affected feral cat trap/alter/release programs in areas which are secure for cats (parks, campuses, etc), foster care to tediously tame some of these cats and cooperation with the Farm Bureau.

4. Does your shelter have low cost spay/neuter facilities? It is estimated to cost $30 for a shelter to handle each animal. All shelters would benefit by assuring that animals placed at the very least are not capable of reproduction. According to one study, 16% of unspayed cats and a comparable number of dogs in the population reproduced. (3)
If there is a low cost altering clinic, is it available to the general public?
5. Has the community considered a certificate program in which all pet owners can get low cost spay/neuter services from a veterinarian of their choice. (4)
6. Although cats euthanized are the primary problem, pedigreed cats represent only an estimated 3% to 8% of the total cat population. Find out, with the help of the CFA Central Office, how many breeders, ongoing and active in registering litters, are within your area. Most likely the number will be extremely low. It will help illustrate that targeting pedigreed cat breeders is no solution and that this will not bring anticipated revenue.

Coercive legislation should be the LAST RESORT. Bureaucracy is expensive and infringes on our rights. Voluntary methods with incentives should be tried first. Eliminating deterrents to adoption, such as licensing of dogs without addressing zoning and limit laws, have not been tried. Identification of cats to facilitate reclaim has NOT been fully explored.

THE FACTS AND FINDINGS OF PET OVERPOPULATION ARE NOT RELATED TO PEDIGREED CAT AND DOG BREEDING. All data indicates that the problem is mainly related to free roaming and feral cat multiplication. Increase in human population density and the increased desire for cats as pets is a factor. Pet store and "backyard breeder" indiscriminate selling of animals without altering contracts and follow through is a factor. To focus on regulations attacking responsible breeders is not the solution.

Pedigreed cat breeders provide education, funds and help raise the status of all cats. they can continue to contribute to solutions if they are not alienated by humane organizations which are insensitive to their interests.

Pedigreed cat and dog breeders are not comfortable with legislators determining cattery or kennel management, proper environment for breeding animals, and, especially, reproductive decisions concerning numbers and spacing of litters. A national certification program (perhaps with CFA/AKC/AVMA/HSUS cooperation) may be a better alternative for problems concerning these issues. Assuring the WELFARE of breeding animals is not directly related to PET OVERPOPULATION. It is a separate matter.

Cost of compliance with legislative solutions is high. The suggestion that offenders will be discovered by community reporting and by license checking, thereby saving expenses, is offensive in a free society. A "spy system" of neighbors, veterinary clinic workers, and surveys of newspaper ads, etc. set up an atmosphere of distrust in the community.

Legislative proposals can be a means to avoid scrutiny of poor Humane Shelter management. Existing policies leading to the choice of euthanasia over outreach or because of lack of cage space, poor hours, refusal to solicit grant support, explore new programs, eliminate deterrents to adoption, etc. should be changed PRIOR to consideration of new laws.

NEW ANIMAL SHELTER POLICIES MUST BE CONSIDERED, AND GIVEN A TRIAL PERIOD, PRIOR TO COERCIVE LEGISLATION.

Some ideas which might be workable in your area:

1. altering all adult animals before adoption and early altering of kittens and puppies.
2. Cooperation with feral cat altering/release groups.
3. Voluntary cat identification should be implemented using the new low cost microchip implants (can be scanned at a distance of 8" and do not require anaesthesia to insert; may be inserted by veterinarians at the time of vaccination). Safety collars could be another option offered. Identification allows cats to be reunited with their owners. (Microchips may also be useful to the cat fancy for parentage identification in the future).
4. Discount certificates for spay/neuter allowing owners a choice of low cost clinics or participating veterinarians which are reimbursed from a special fund may increase voluntary altering.
5. A higher cost for dog license and cat registration for unaltered animals would provide money for spay/neuter programs and further encourage altering.
6. free roaming animals causing nuisance and reproducing are a major source of community animal problems. When a dog is impounded two or three times the requirement to alter is not unreasonable; when a cat is impounded once, fees and altering requirements might be considered. An appeals board would handle unusual circumstances for properly licensed/identified animals.
7. Critical to licensing of any dogs/identification of cats is to eliminate or modify the existing community "limit laws" so that people will not fear compliance. If numbers of animals need to be stipulated, dogs and cats should be separately considered and the limits should be based on CONDITIONS related to potential nuisance or public danger, not arbitrary figures. Whether the animals are totally indoors, housing is well spaced from neighbors, etc. are factors for determination.
8. Propose a spay/neuter "amnesty" program with free or very low cost altering offered to city/county residents for a specified length of time. Require proof of license/identification or certification at surgery time to help defray costs.

All these suggestions are alternative to the pressure to pass laws. Education of irresponsible people must continue as part of any effort to reduce pet overpopulation. Feral cats don't buy licenses nor do they have owners to alter them. The community which states a goal of "zero population growth" must face this big obstacle. Although feral cat trap/alter/release programs have been successful, there are circumstances in which the cats may be subjected to conditions which are more inhumane than euthanasia. (5)

Many people have supported the passage of radical legislation believing that it is at least SOMETHING, a start. A REAL start would be implementation of the alternatives suggested above and utilizing the abilities of national organizations, such as CFA, combined with local efforts. It is time to appreciate the part that cat fanciers play in improving fundamental attitudes regarding the value and status of all cats. Passage of coercive legislation will sidetrack and thwart this important objective.

References:

1. "R.H. Winn Foundation Report and Grant Award Announcement, Developmental and Behavioral Affects of Prepubertal Gonadectomy in the Domestic Cat", _CFA ALMANAC_; April 1991, pg. 99
2. "HSUS Guidelines for Responsible Pet Adoptions", January 1990.
3. R. Nassar et al, "Study of the Feline and Canine Populations in the Greater Los Vegas Area", AmJ vet Res, Vol 45, Feb 1984, pg. 282-287
4. S. easterly, "The Humane State", _Cat Fancy_, November 1990, pg. 38- 39.
5. P. Wright, "feral Cats Revisited", _Cat Fancy_, November 1990, pg.2.

Contact CFA | Privacy Policy | Credits | Search | FAQ

Copyright Š1995-2007 The Cat Fanciers' Association, with the exception of the photographic images which are Copyright Š by the individual photographers.