Agencies ask NAIA to help fashion animal control policies
By Patti Strand, president
Over the course of the last decade, members of NAIA's board and staff have
served on national, state and local task force bodies, on blue ribbon panels,
and on animal welfare and fish and wildlife committees aimed at improving public
policy affecting animals, animal ownership and the natural environment. In many
cases, NAIA and its members have succeeded in launching precedent-setting initiatives.
We have helped draft good dangerous dog laws, created reasonable standards for
dog parks, removed limit laws, improved consumer protection laws, and generally
helped make animal welfare legislation more reasonable.
NAIA has worked with scores of jurisdictions throughout the US helping county
commissioners; private citizens; dog, cat and horse fanciers; rescue groups
and others improve legislation, ordinances, and policies in their communities.
We have achieved great success in many areas and learned a lot along the way.
Our library of articles chronicles many of the specific issues we've addressed
and many of our related activities and accomplishments.
Because of our successes, we have been inundated with requests for information
about specific animal control issues and we have found that our articles need
to be distilled into more user-friendly downloadable formats that are better
suited for distribution. Below, you will find the beginning steps of developing
those materials. We hope they will be of benefit to you as you live, work and
enjoy animals.
Animal control laws
The National Animal Interest Alliance supports animal control laws that encourage
people to become more responsible pet owners, i.e., to license, identify, confine,
vaccinate, train and humanely keep and enjoy their pets.
Getting people to take the first step to license their pets is not an easy
task. Throughout the US, compliance rates for pet licensing are notoriously
low, with few jurisdictions achieving even a 30 percent rate. In many cases
the fees raised from licensing are not enough to cover staffing and reporting,
let alone enforcement of the license code.(1) A major challenge
for animal control agencies everywhere is overcoming the public's unwillingness
to comply with animal control laws generally and licensing laws in particular.
If Richard Avanzino and Pam Rockwood are right in saying that caring can't be
mandated, and licensing mandates only punish those who care,(2)
then animal control agencies need to rethink some of their fundamental beliefs,
attitudes and approaches - and they are!
Today, animal control agencies recognize that they cannot achieve their mission
without public support and good will. As a result, they are moving away from
coercive and punitive mandates and toward incentive-based programs designed
to help people become better pet owners.
Ed Boks, the highly-respected executive director of Maricopa County Animal
Care and Control in Phoenix, an animal control agency that handled 62,000 animals
in 2001,(3) advocates value-added programs such as "the
free ride home" and "extended stay" programs for licensed pets
rather than coercive laws that offer only punishment. He believes that pet owners
license their pets and comply with animal control laws only when they believe
that animal control services and laws benefit pets, pet owners and the community
at large. Boks states flatly that there is an inverse relationship between punitive
measures such as high license fees and licensing compliance rates: generally
speaking, the higher the license fee, the lower the compliance rate.(4)
This is a key issue because licensing is the doorway for most other animal control
programs, rabies vaccinations, and neutering and public education campaigns.
Unfortunately, many animal control laws are passed in response to a specific
problem or crisis, by well-meaning citizens who are unaware of the many competing
interests and issues that impact animal control laws and enforcement. Drafting
laws in an emotionally charged environment guarantees the worst kind of regulations,
ones that are unrealistic, unenforceable and in some cases unconstitutional.
Of greater importance, laws that appear to be unfair or at odds with public
values or common sense erode public support, reduce license compliance and assure
non-stop conflict.
Pet limit laws drive a wedge between responsible pet
owners and animal control agencies
Limit laws are high on the list of well-intended pet laws that result in unintended
consequences.
The National Animal Interest Alliance opposes pet limit laws because:
Limit laws are virtually unenforceable and worse, they drive a wedge between
animal control agencies and many of the citizens they serve who responsibly
keep more than the allowed number of pets. Such laws drive owners underground,
lowering license compliance rates.
Animal control agencies are charged with protecting public health and safety
from free roaming, dangerous and diseased dogs, and to protect the welfare of
homeless pets. Licensing is the primary mechanism for getting pet owners to
vaccinate their dogs against rabies. When dog owners fear reprisals from animal
control, like being forced to give up a beloved pet because they are over their
limit, they hide from animal control and the agency loses the opportunity to
fulfill its most basic responsibility, that of assuring rabies vaccination.
Limit laws are not successful in addressing neighborhood nuisances or in identifying
inhumane activities such as hoarding, irresponsible breeding or negligent rescue
operations.
Instead of limit laws, NAIA recommends thoughtfully written nuisance and cruelty
laws. Nuisance laws should require pet owners to be considerate of their neighbors.
They should require pets to be confined to their own property or on leash when
off their property; set and describe standards for acceptable levels of barking;
mandate how often yards must be picked up and how often dog runs must be cleaned.
Approximately 50 percent of all households keep pets, so it is also imperative
that nuisance laws are written using "reasonable man" standards so
that unreasonable or hypersensitive individuals cannot hold an entire neighborhood
hostage by trying to enforce irrational or overreaching demands.
Likewise, cruelty laws should be written using clear language about what is
considered acceptable behavior and what is not. The care that pet owners are
required to give and the conditions under which they are required to maintain
their animals must be spelled out.
Pet limit laws are arbitrary and have been found unconstitutional when challenged
in the courts.(5) In a landmark decision regarding pet limit
laws in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, the judge cited Kadash vs City of Williamsport,
1975: "What is not an infringement upon public safety and is not a nuisance
cannot be made one by legislative fiat and then prohibited. Even legitimate
legislative goals cannot be pursued by means which stifle fundamental personal
liberty when the goals can otherwise be more reasonably achieved."
NAIA believes that the reasonable way to achieve the goal sought by pet limit
laws is through enactment of nuisance laws that address the specific conduct
that is desired or opposed.
The bottom line is that people who maintain any number of pets responsibly
and humanely and do not present a nuisance to their neighbors should not be
prevented from keeping them because other pet owners might not be as responsible.
Irresponsible pets owners, whether they own one or 10 pets should be the focus
of animal control nuisance laws, not people who do things right but have a certain
number of animals.
Limit laws often exist in both animal control ordinances and zoning laws. Under-funded
animal control agencies should not be required to enforce limit laws, many of
which are outdated or ill-conceived, for building, planning and zoning departments.
Pet limits found in zoning codes are usually attempts to mitigate nuisance complaints
but are addressed through zoning restrictions - the only way available to a
planning or zoning department without jurisdiction for animal control enforcement.
These limits often evolved from building code restrictions intended to prevent
the construction of kennel buildings, especially large boarding facilities,
in developing neighborhoods. Today, "kennel" means multiple dogs,
whether a building is involved or not, and the restriction against kennel buildings
has been interpreted and expanded to limit multiple dog ownership.
If necessary at all, determinations about how many pets people should be allowed
to keep in a given area are better addressed through codes, covenants and restrictions
(CCRs) for specific subdivisions rather than on a county-wide or city-wide basis
through unenforceable limit laws. Neighborhoods vary from small lots in densely
populated areas to tracts where large lots and acreages exist, all in the same
county. Home buyers can find CCRs by reviewing title searches and deeds before
acquiring a new property to enable them to make educated and appropriate decisions
about their pets before their purchase, rather than falling victim to arbitrary
and intrusive limit laws afterwards.
Homebuilders should also do their homework before adding pet limit CCRs to
their developments. The goal should be to limit specific nuisances, property
destruction and neighborhood degradation. While limit laws may appear to offer
a quick fix, they seldom accomplish the most important or intended goals and
they are painful to enforce. Also, because 50 percent of American households
keep pets and a sizeable number of them keep multiple pets, it also may be better
business to deal with potential problems directly, rather than through limit
laws that penalize good behavior along with bad.
Pet limit laws discourage volunteers from rescuing and providing foster homes
to pets, when doing so puts them over their legal limit. Through these efforts,
volunteers contribute invaluable services to animal control agencies, humane
shelters and their communities. Pet limit laws that discourage these activities
discourage kindness and cost taxpayers money.
Pet lemon laws have a dual purpose: protect buyers
and sellers and educate the public
The National Animal Interest Alliance supports laws that promote the responsible
breeding, rearing and selling of well-bred, healthy pets to educated and responsible
consumers. Accordingly, NAIA supports the concept of pet lemon laws, also known
as consumer protection laws, so long as they are enforceable, promote reasonable objectives and
pre-sale consumer education.
Consumers need protection from unscrupulous and irresponsible pet sellers.
They should be protected from fraud, unsound business practices and the purchase
of unhealthy animals. And, because most pet consumers are inexperienced in purchasing
a dog(6), educational materials and disclosures should be
made available prior to completion of the sale.
Unfortunately, most lemon laws fall short of these goals. They attempt to mandate
"perfect world" solutions aimed at protecting consumers from every
conceivable problem. They miss opportunities to educate pet buyers before they
purchase a pet, and they are often difficult to enforce. In addition, lemon
laws often place all of the responsibility on the seller whether the animal
is obtained through purchase or adoption,(7) even though the
acquisition of a dog or puppy is a two-way street. To be effective, lemon laws
should reasonably reflect the obligations of both parties.
Reasonable protections and guarantees
Consumer laws should offer protection from fraud, misrepresentation and breach
of contract and require sound business practices.
In order to assure that purchasers receive what they are promised, sellers
and adopting agencies should provide purchasers with a detailed bill of sale
or adoption or a contract describing the animal and the terms of the sale. That
information should include:
- The names; the home, business and e-mail addresses; and the phone numbers
of buyers and sellers;
- The date of sale;
- The purchase price;
- The conditions of the sale, including warranties and disclosures and the
responsibilities of both parties;
- The age of the pet (estimated if a shelter animal);
- The sex of the pet and its breeding status, i.e., whether it can be bred,
must be altered, or has been altered;
- The pet's color and distinctive markings; and
- The breed, if applicable.
- In the case of a purebred dog purchased from a private breeder or a pet
store, the seller should provide in writing, prior to the consummation of
the sale:
- A pedigree showing at least three generations of the animal's lineage;
- The name of the registering organization if the pet is sold as registered
or eligible for registration (i.e., the American Kennel Club); and
- A guarantee that the registration papers will be delivered within three
months of the sale if they are not available at the time of the sale and transfer.
- Consumers have a right to expect that they are purchasing a healthy pet.
To assure this, the seller should provide:
- A guarantee stating that the pet is healthy and free of parasitical infestation
at the time of sale;
- A health record warranting that the pet has received all appropriate vaccinations
and treatments for parasites along with a medical history showing all relevant
veterinary check ups, procedures or treatments;
- A reference to parent club contacts for educational information about the
breed; and
- A checklist enumerating these items for the buyer to sign.
Health screenings
Consumers have a right to know and an obligation to discover the background
of a particular dog regarding congenital or hereditary conditions and diseases
if they are known. With regard to fail-safe warranties, dogs are not manufactured
goods like toasters or automobiles. Although the relative uniformity of purebreds
makes them more predictable than mixed-breeds in skeletal structure, size, temperament,
coat type and certain characteristics related to longevity and health, they
possess practically infinite genetic variation and potential and never produce
identical phenotypes.
Some genetic diseases run in breeds as they do in some human families. Mixed
breeds suffer from the same array of maladies as purebreds, but they do so in
a less predictable manner. Nonetheless, the degree of variation that makes dogs
infinitely more complex than a machine also renders them absolutely impossible
to unequivocally guarantee. As such, there is some degree of risk that must
be recognized and knowingly undertaken in the purchase or adoption of a pet.
The good news is that the degree of predictability found in purebreds allows
conscientious breeders to perform health screening tests on potential breeding
stock and identify carriers before using them in their breeding programs. This
enables responsible breeders to reduce the incidence of certain genetic diseases
in their puppies and in their breeds. For diseases with simple modes of inheritance,
genetic testing allows breeders to totally eliminate some diseases. In some
breeds, responsible breeders routinely x-ray their stock before allowing them
to breed. Others screen potential breeding stock for heart or eye diseases and
other disorders that are sometimes found in their breed.
The bad news is that no screening test yet exists for many diseases and for
some, the mode of inheritance is so complicated, the tests that have been developed
are not very useful in predicting outcomes for individual progeny. The inheritance
of diseases such as hip dysplasia is so complex that, in many breeds, even the
most conscientious breeders will find its total elimination virtually impossible.
HD occurs in large and rapidly growing breeds and mixes; even when the parents
showed no outward or clinical signs of the disorder, it can still crop up. With
new genetic findings and the improvement of screening tests and selection methods,
the number of affected offspring can be greatly reduced, but similar to human
medical progress, animal husbandry is not a perfect science and total elimination
is not always possible.
Buyer responsibility
Unlike some consumer advocates, NAIA deems that the public is better protected
by lemon laws that educate consumers prior to the sale - thus enabling purchasers
to distinguish between responsible and careless breeders or sellers - than by
laws that attempt to protect customers from every conceivable possibility after
the sale.
NAIA also believes that buyers have some level of responsibility to discover
the nature, medical background and tendencies of the animal they are purchasing.
Achieving this goal is possible through the parent club network of the American
Kennel Club(8) and other resources.
The AKC is a club of clubs. AKC-recognized breeds are represented within the
organization by a parent club for each breed. Parent club members have a special
interest in and love for their breed and actively work to improve it. They are
breed advocates prepared to share important breed information with the public.
Buyers can obtain breed-specific information and expertise by contacting the
parent breed clubs or visiting their websites.(9) They can
locate parent clubs through the AKC website.(10)
The most useful lemon law would disclose that such resources exist and encourage
potential buyers to read up on the breeds they are considering before purchasing.
Knowing the right questions to ask is half the battle for uninformed consumers.
The answers they receive will help them make an educated purchase and enable
them to draw distinctions between responsible and casual breeders. For instance,
if the purchaser is considering a breed that is known to have a higher incidence
of hip dysplasia than others, they will know to ask if the parents were x-rayed
and to see the OFA number and rating. Simultaneously they will learn if they
are dealing with a conscientious breeder or someone who is just trying to make
a quick buck. In many cases, disclosure alone will provide the informed consent
necessary for all parties to go forward in an ethical and businesslike way.
In other cases, knowledge of a higher incidence of a specific disease in a particular
background or breed may encourage the parties to initiate warranty language
covering the possibility of its development.
In addition ...
Beyond these considerations, sellers and adopting agencies need to disclose
their policies regarding preexisting diseases or parasites; congenital or hereditary
diseases that developed later; or pre-existing temperament problems in the case
of older dogs. Buyers should also inform sellers of any known situations that
might affect the health of the puppy, i.e., that a previous puppy died of an
infectious disease, other pets have been treated for an infectious disease or
parasite invasion, or the buyer is fighting a flea, tick, or worm infestation
on his property.
There are many issues to consider, and refunds, replacements and reimbursements
play big roles in resolving problems. For example...
- Are there any circumstances under which the purchaser can return the pet
without cause and receive a refund? If so, for how much and for how long?
- How soon after the sale must the purchaser obtain a veterinary check up
for the pet? How long does he have to return the pet if a problem becomes
evident?
- Will the purchaser receive another pet or a refund if the pet is returned
for preexisting illness?
- What liability does the seller have (if any) if the pet has a serious flea
or other parasite infestation?
- What liability does the seller have (if any) if the pet develops a common,
easily treatable condition such as puppy vaginitis or demodicosis?
- What liability (if any) does the seller have if the pet has a preexisting
illness and the purchaser decides to keep it and have it treated by a veterinarian?
Are there limitations on the choice of veterinarian and treatments? Are there
limitations on expenditures?
- How will a congenital defect or hereditary disorder be handled if it develops
later? Is such a problem warranted for life or only for a set period of time,
up to 18 or 24 months of age, for example? If a refund, replacement or reimbursement
is offered, is the purchaser forced to surrender the pet in order to get it?
- What liability attaches to the seller or shelter if an older dog with a
pre-existing temperament problem is purchased or adopted? For how long? Will
they allow the purchaser to return the pet for a full refund or a replacement?
If the dog attacks someone and medical bills are involved, under what conditions
(if any) will the seller assume the liability and for how long?(11)
- Does the purchaser lose all warranties if he fails to follow the seller's
instructions regarding future vaccinations, veterinary check ups, confinement,
training, feeding, breeding and all other issues agreed upon in the contract?
- Does the purchaser lose the right to refunds, replacement, or reimbursement
if he fails to disclose known situations that could affect the health of the
puppy?
- Does a purchaser forfeit his right to a given pet if he does not live up
to his contractual agreements?
Pitfalls
But problems remain. No matter how reasonable a law might be when it is first
passed, laws have a way of evolving over time, often with dangerous and unexpected
consequences. Most people would not support consumer protection laws if their
passage meant the end of well-bred purebred dogs and cats. Unfortunately, though,
there are radical interest groups that actively oppose the keeping and breeding
of companion animals, and these groups are not above disguising their true intentions
by putting on the sheep's clothing of consumer protection or any other laudable
goal to achieve their agenda.
Typically espousing animal rights philosophy and goals, these groups work zealously
to eliminate the breeding and selling of purebred dogs through whatever means
necessary. For these reasons and more, lawmakers and consumers, including many
people who keep and love purebred dogs, should exert great care to make sure
that unreasonable clauses are not added to pet lemon laws.
Lemon laws that mandate pre-sale education and disclosure and encourage sellers
and consumers to write their own contracts and warranties are far superior to
consumer protection laws that arbitrarily determine the problems and potential
problems from which consumers should be protected. Treating an animal as a standard
retail commodity by attempting to guarantee it against every potential problem
encourages owners to treat it like any other disposable product. It also leads
to the erroneous conclusion that perfect health and genetics are possible in
companion animals, even though such is not the case anywhere else in the natural
world.
Notes
- http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1998/Jan-21-Wed-1998/news/6803500.html
(No longer online) and http://www.216.110.171.197/02/3/dogscatslicenses302.html
(also no longer available)
- http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/AgainstCat-lic.html
- http://www.alleycat.org/pdf/maricopa.pdf
and www.maricopa.gov/pets/
- Telephone interview: Ed. Boks, executive director, Maricopa
County Animal Care and Control and Patti Strand, May 5, 2003.
- /articles/archives/limitlawpennsylvania.htm
- Most puppy lemon laws deal only with dogs, but the principles
remain the same for laws that include cats or other pets.
- With the surplus dog problem on its way to resolution
in many parts of the US, some humane shelters now charge an adoption fee of
several hundred dollars for dogs, making the shelter a de facto pet store
and the term adopt a misnomer. For the purposes of this discussion, any humane
agency that adopts a dog for more than $150 is considered a pet store and
should therefore fulfill the obligations required of similar transactions
conducted by private in-home breeders and commercial enterprises.
- For example, see the Dalmatian Club of America's website:
http://www.thedca.org
- http://www.akc.org
- http://www.akc.org/dic/clubs/search/club_search.cfm?action=national&display=on
- This is an important issue, especially for dogs that
are sold by shelters. A sizable number of shelter dogs were relinquished by
their owners and taken to a shelter because of a health or temperament problem.
Some temperament problems are severe enough to warrant the dog being classified
as dangerous. Today, however, as the number of dogs entering shelters drops
and groups promote "no-kill" shelters, too many dogs with bad temperaments
are being placed with the public. NAIA is contacted regularly by "adopters"
struggling with the practical and ethical dilemma of how to handle a dangerous
dog. This is also true regarding dogs with serious medical conditions. Some
shelters have no-return policies, even when they charge adoption fees in the
range of $150-300.
|
