My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PetFriendlyGuide Attachment to 7-25-13 SBACC Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Committee Meeting Minutes
>
2013
>
PetFriendlyGuide Attachment to 7-25-13 SBACC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/2/2013 8:51:31 AM
Creation date
8/2/2013 8:51:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Essential elements ofa <br />ordinance <br />Now that weÈve emphasized elements that do not work and <br />should not be included in pet ordinances, itÈs time to look at s <br />elements that will convert a failing ordinance into a truly work <br />that will serve the community well. HereÈs our model. <br />Pet licensing <br />In an ideal world, county governments would fully <br />finance animal control services from the general fund, and <br />pet licensing as we know it today would be converted to an <br />identification system designed to assure rabies vaccination <br />compliance, monitor potentially dangerous dogs and distin- <br />guish cats that have owners from ones that do not. But in <br />most jurisdictions, licensing programs continue to be impor- <br />tant because dog licensing fees are still needed to supple- <br />ment the costs of running a professional animal control <br />agency. <br />As much as those fees are needed, many licensing <br />programs fail because pet owners do not see the advantages <br />of buying a license, especially for a pet that stays home. <br />Responsible pet owners often see animal control ordinances <br />as making them pay for the actions of irresponsible owners <br />who ignore the law. Therefore, our model ordinance distin- <br />guishes between responsible and irresponsible owners by <br />providing incentives to reward responsible owners, penalties <br />to bring irresponsible owners into compliance and a program for <br />ing the number of licensed pets. Each jurisdiction (city, townsh <br />may set its own license fees and has the option of offering mult <br />lifetime licenses and registrations. <br />In order to develop and implement an effective dog licensing or <br />voluntary cat registration program, local governments must: <br />eliminate the unenforceable provisions (i.e., pet number limits, <br />i. <br />breed and breeder restrictions, unrealistic reclaim fees) that m <br />fear animal control agents and agencies; <br />provide incentives by giving financial breaks to those who <br />ii. <br />demonstrate responsible ownership practices such as permanent pet identi- <br />fication, secure fencing, proof of training, spay or neuter, ear <br />licensing/registration, etc. <br />pledge special treatment for pets that are identified by <br />iii. <br />microchip and a license or registration by providing one free tr <br />longer hold times and specific contact efforts; <br />[ 10 ] <br />© National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.