Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPetFriendlyGuide Attachment to 7-25-13 SBACC Minutes A Project ofthe National Animal Interest Alliance responding to the data: a guide to constructing successful pet-friendly ordinances NAIA presents A Guide to Constructing Successful, Pet-friendly Ordinances A new day has dawned! Working with pet owners, breeders, rescues, animal control agenc public officials, the National Animal Interest Alliance has deve constructing successful, pet-friendly ordinances. For the first allows lawmakers, responsible pet owners, and enforcement agenci resources in a positive way regardless of the special challenges of all sizes and in all regions of the US. NAIA has long championed the rights of pet owners to responsibly dogs and cats and is the only national animal interest group to ise of responsible owners as a key component of reasonable laws human/animal relationships. NAIA also supports realistic animal the agencies that have the difficult job of enforcing these stat funds and in the face of resistance from pet owners who view the As a natural outgrowth of our mission to improve human-animal re ships for the benefit of all concerned, we are therefore pleased fresh look at the connection between pet owners, animal control community animal control dilemmas; and we provide suggestions th developing a strong statute that can be supported by all citizen whether they own a dog or cat. While recognizing that different circumstances produce diverse r NAIA believes that the local response to any animal control law munity acceptance, and, in turn, community acceptance depends on ment of reasonable laws. The facts are simple: without the backi pet owners, no animal control law can succeed; and pet owners ar to support the law unless there are clear benefits for doing so. translates into losses of millions of dollars in uncollected lic critical to the support of the leash laws, nuisance laws, and ot to protect community health and safety from diseased, stray, and from owners who refuse to keep their animals at home to prevent injuries. This guide grew out of our 12-year history of conferences, colla and projects geared to strengthening the human-animal bond and w our November 2004 conference dedicated to helping communities so dog problems. The conference went beyond the mantra of Ådeeds no pool resources to identify and offer incentives for responsible draft enforceable reasonable laws to deal with dangerous dogs an owners. This document presents ideas for identifying dangerous a dangerous dogs and includes provisions for increasing dog licens viding voluntary registration for cat owners, dealing with pet-r cussing legislative efforts that backfire, and outlining basic p and control. NAIA is an association of business, agricultural, scientific, an interests dedicated to promoting animal welfare, supporting resp and strengthening the bond between humans and animals. Our membe owners, dog and cat clubs, obedience clubs and rescue groups as trainers, veterinarians, research scientists, farmers, fishermen biologists. Our membership includes some of America's most respe fessionals, advocates and enthusiasts. NAIA provides the public with factual information about animal i especially those that are complex, misunderstood or controversia bers are experts who represent the broad spectrum of animal inte alliance members. Many of our members are deeply involved with a environment as a lifestyle, a career, or a special interest. Man on local, state, and national panels dedicated to improvement in regulations governing man's contact with animals. They volunteer ters, participate in breed or species rescue efforts, teach dog organize public education seminars and events, and share their e comers to their field and the general public. With such a broad spectrum of expertise at our fingertips, we ar willing, and able to go beyond providing the information in this implement the ideas it contains. Feel free to call on us for ass Sincerely, Patti L. Strand, NAIA national director PO Box 66579, Portland, OR 97290 Email: naia@naiaonline.org Phone: (503) 761-1139; fax: (503) 761-1289 Website: http://www.naiaonline.org/ © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 Contents Constructing successful pet friendly ordinances. . . . . . . . . 6 A word about pet limit laws and breed specific restrictions. . . Breeder licenses and restrictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A few more notes on unenforceable provisions. . . . . . . . . . Essential elements ofa ordinance . . . . . 10 Dog licenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What to do about cats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One free ride home. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nuisances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Confinement and control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dangerous dogs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . At risk dog. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dangerous dog. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Penalties for dangerous dog running at large. . . . . . . . . . Dog fighting and other crimes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ 4 ] Responding to the Data: Constructing successful pet friendly ordinances Pet licensing was established to protect the public from disease free-roaming and dangerous dogs at a time when rabies was a comm public health threat. The goal was to round up as many dogs as p a given community and inoculate them. During the last 60 years or more, the practice of linking rabies vaccination to dog licensing became a widely accepted method for ing that goal. But in the last few decades, pet ordinances expan issues of public health, safety and livestock protection. TodayÈ include measures to make pet owners more responsible and humane, take aim at reducing surplus shelter animals and neighborhood nu such as roaming cats and noisy dogs. Many of these newer provisions attempt to avoid problems by broadly defining or restricting the conditions under which people can own or keep pets. As a result, there are now pet limits to prevent people from keeping more than a certain number of pets; bans against owning specific breeds; extra licensing requirements for people whose pets have litters; and higher license fees for intact dogs and cats than for neutered ones. Yet despite these and numerous other amendments put forth by well-meaning lawmakers, citizens and activist groups; and despite a dramatic 1 increase in household petsand the amount of money their owners are willing to spend on them,2 only about 30% of pets targeted by these ordinances are ever licensed.3 Attempts to license the remaining 70% have focused on the threat of enforcing greater re and heavier penalties. These are empty threats, however, because for increased enforcement usually does not exist. So while this scare a few owners into grudging compliance, it also causes a co ding measure of cooperation and support to be lost from the grou was already compliant. If the goal is to improve compliance levels, itÈs crucial to und stand why the majority of American pet owners (and not just the sible ones) resist even the most basic pet licensing requirement is said and done, pet license compliance levels reflect communit for animal control services, so if people choose not to license, because they do not recognize animal control services as necessa beneficial or do not consider that animal control officials supp responsible pet owners in the community. Even though the majority of households keep pets today 4, and [ 6 ] © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 even though most pet owners report that they consider their pets of the family, animal control laws often treat the entire pet-ow munity as the problem and their pets as disposable commodities o sances that must be monitored or banned. Instead of defending th of responsible pet owners, many ordinances today are loaded with forceable provisions that actually threaten an ownerÈs sense of convert otherwise responsible citizens into scofflaws, driving t ground for fear of being found in violation of the law. Worse, u able statutes undermine confidence in the legal system and poiso opinion against animal control. Nevertheless, it appears as if some lawmakers believe that the b efits produced by adding idealistic but unenforceable requiremen mal control ordinances outweigh the negative consequences of dec community support for animal control and loss of licensing reven reality, unenforceable ordinances unite responsible pet owners, irresponsible pet owners and non pet owners in their opposi- tion to animal control. At NAIA we consider this an unfortunate and totally unnecessary outcome. Animal control agencies perform important work that deserves the support of the communities they serve. It is the purpose of the NAIA Pet Friendly to help pet owners and municipalities alike Ordinance Project begin to address the root cause of all these animal control problems: specifically, ordinances that make adversaries out of the public they serve. Our research shows that to be successful, ordinances must distinguish between responsible and irresponsible pet owners. They must offer support and incentives to encourage and reward responsible pet ownership; and they must enforce reasonable penalties against irresponsible pet owners to bring them into compliance. As a result of our research, NAIA offers this ordinance concept to communities seeking answers to animal control problems. The first of its kind, this prototype to be adapted to local and regional needs; is intended as a conceptual guide hence it can be used in whole or in part to redesign or amend an trol ordinances. This model challenges many of the assumptions t underlie failing animal control ordinances. A word about pet limit laws and breed specific restrictions Number limits are commonly found in both zoning and animal control ordinances, but they are ineffective at best and counter at worst because they: cause animal control agencies to lose potential license fees because pet Ó owners with multiple pets avoid licensing altogether for fear of being [ 7 ] found in noncompliance; © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 are difficult to enforce; Ó create bureaucratic snarls between governmental agencies when an Ó control officers are required to enforce zoning laws; many of wh generated by unresearched local planning office opinions; are vulnerable to court challenge: Ó This model law does not include are used to harass neighbors; Ó either pet number limits or breed- specific restrictions. NAIA study ignore the ability of responsible owners to keep more Ó shows that it is far better to prose- than X-number of pets without causing a nuisance; cute actual nuisances and dan- gers than it is to penalize the uni- increase the number of pets entering shelters by prohibit- Ó versal of a nuisance or possibility ing families from adding a pet they can easily care for; and danger. Therefore NAIA supports nuisance laws and dangerous dog lead to a disrespect for the law and a willingness to Ó laws that clearly describe dog and violate it. owner behaviors that constitute nuisances and public dangers. We Number limits are often cited as a means to prevent have learned that pet number the hoarding of more pets than can be properly housed and limits and breed specific restric- cared for, but this problem is better solved by strict enforce- tions simply do not work. They are ment of animal control and nuisance laws that require prop- difficult to enforce and create er confinement and noise abatement, by health regulations animosity among responsible that govern odor and waste, and by cruelty laws that protect owners who become criminals as a animal welfare. result of poorly defined terms and arbitrary laws. Pet number limits are not only unenforceable and destructive, they were also ruled unconstitutional when challenged in Pennsylvania.5 Breed restrictions are also costly, impossible to enforce and likely to cause the deaths of many well-behaved, wel dogs that are beloved family pets. In addition, they give citize sense of security that they are protected because a breed or typ been banned. NAIA believes that well-constructed and strictly en dangerous dog laws that target irresponsible owners, illegal dog and aggressive dogs serve the community far better than specific restriction laws. Breeder licenses and restrictions Beginning in the early 1990Ès, activist groups convinced some municipalities that breeder licensing and other restrictions wou the number of pets entering shelters and raise funds needed to cope with overpopulation. They claimed that breeders were the source of s problems, and they used the media very effectively to promote an er sentiment and anti-breeder ordinances.6 [ 8 ] © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 They euthanized dogs and cats on television to showcase the issu population and inflamed the public against breeders who they sai blame.6 Much of the information used to sell these ordinances was not true. For one thing, they drew no distinction between different breeders; instead, they lumped responsible breeders who dedicate selves to improving their breeds with people who breed animals without regard to their health, welfare or placement and with families who simply forgot to spay a household pet and wound up with an unwant- ed litter. Today, most of the counties that adopted such provisions have long since discarded them because they did not work. These laws alienated the most responsible dog breeders in the community, but had no affect on the irresponsible ones they were intend- ed to reach. They created a wedge between animal control and citizens who formerly supported them. They drove res breeders underground, and they didnÈt raise funds or address the source of surplus shelter dogs and cats. They were failures by e objective measure.7,8 NAIA opposes breeder licensing and restrictions, not only becaus they donÈt work, but because they are detrimental to the product well-bred, healthy, puppies and kittens of good breed temperamen restrictions lead to the conclusion that breeding pets is a sham when, in fact, in-home hobby breeders who attend dog or cat shows and belong to kennel or cat clubs are major stakeholders in responsi ownership. Such breeders are the best sources for healthy puppie tens and excellent resources for responsible pet ownership educa ects, breed rescue efforts, obedience training, temperament eval behavior problem-solving. They host dog training classes and mic clinics; their club events bring millions of tourism dollars to nities, and they often donate event profits to charity. These hi enced advocates of responsible pet ownership should be the natur of pet licensing programs, but because theyÈve been made the bru unenforceable anti-breeder provisions, they often avoid dealing animal control agencies altogether. A few more notes on unenforceable provisions ... Some communities have been tempted to include prohibitions or restrictions on animal husbandry practices or to add language th tutes guardianship for animal ownership. NAIA opposes these prov because they change the focus of animal control laws, create uni legal and economic consequences and do nothing to enhance compliance. [ 9 ] © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 Essential elements ofa ordinance Now that weÈve emphasized elements that do not work and should not be included in pet ordinances, itÈs time to look at s elements that will convert a failing ordinance into a truly work that will serve the community well. HereÈs our model. Pet licensing In an ideal world, county governments would fully finance animal control services from the general fund, and pet licensing as we know it today would be converted to an identification system designed to assure rabies vaccination compliance, monitor potentially dangerous dogs and distin- guish cats that have owners from ones that do not. But in most jurisdictions, licensing programs continue to be impor- tant because dog licensing fees are still needed to supple- ment the costs of running a professional animal control agency. As much as those fees are needed, many licensing programs fail because pet owners do not see the advantages of buying a license, especially for a pet that stays home. Responsible pet owners often see animal control ordinances as making them pay for the actions of irresponsible owners who ignore the law. Therefore, our model ordinance distin- guishes between responsible and irresponsible owners by providing incentives to reward responsible owners, penalties to bring irresponsible owners into compliance and a program for ing the number of licensed pets. Each jurisdiction (city, townsh may set its own license fees and has the option of offering mult lifetime licenses and registrations. In order to develop and implement an effective dog licensing or voluntary cat registration program, local governments must: eliminate the unenforceable provisions (i.e., pet number limits, i. breed and breeder restrictions, unrealistic reclaim fees) that m fear animal control agents and agencies; provide incentives by giving financial breaks to those who ii. demonstrate responsible ownership practices such as permanent pet identi- fication, secure fencing, proof of training, spay or neuter, ear licensing/registration, etc. pledge special treatment for pets that are identified by iii. microchip and a license or registration by providing one free tr longer hold times and specific contact efforts; [ 10 ] © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 write and enforce meaningful penalties against violations of iv. dangerous dog laws and nuisance ordinances; create an animal control advisory board made up of representa- v. tives from pet-related businesses, an animal welfare group, dog club enthusiasts, and a non pet owner. These might include a vet and a groomer, a representative from the pet industry, represent local cat and dog clubs, a dog trainer and a homeowner who does not have a pet; and advertise the program to local citizens. Openly discuss the vi. challenges faced by animal control and invite the community to h Explain how the new, improved ordinance and licensing and regist programs are designed to benefit them and the community. Provid ble identification (bumper stickers, T-shirts, pins, etc.) for r owners to build community awareness of the program and build a v partnership between responsible owners and animal control agenci Perception is reality. If the public doesnÈt know about the inno grams that have been established, they will have far less chance of success. Dog licenses All dogs that have reached a designated age (usually 3-6 1. months) in the jurisdiction must be licensed. License fees will be set by the county using a format or system 2. of licensing that enables animal control to recognize and rewardesponsi- ble dog ownership at the same time it sets penalties for irrespo ownership. so fees should be High license fees may lower compliance rates, chosen carefully. Licenses may be valid for the term of the cur inoculation with discounts on annual license fees given for licenses that span more than one year. For example: If a one year license fee two year license might be $25 per year and a three-year license year. Many jurisdictions already provide a lower license fee to reward those who spay or neuter their pets. This practice has proven to excellent method for encouraging owners to neuter pets that are involved in formal breeding programs. But many pets impounded in shelters today are already neutered, demonstrating that neuterin part of the solution. There are numerous other behaviors that pr responsible pet ownership. Discounted fees can also be used as i to encourage or reward those who permanently identify their pets confine them behind a fence, take them to obedience classes, or complete other tasks that make the job of animal control easier and that community from the nuisance or danger of unrestrained and unsupe pets. Incentives may include but not be limited to the following, to be provided for the dogs of those who: [ 11 ] © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 complete an AKC Canine Good Citizen course and test 10; i) achieve an obedience title awarded by a nationally respected ii) organization such as the American Kennel Club; use microchips (or other permanent iden- iii) tification that is acceptable to the agency)11,12; confine their dogs in a yard that is securely iv) fenced to prevent escape; belong to an obedience club, kennel club, v) or dog organization that promotes responsible dog ownership 13,14; are active participants in dog sports, search vi) and rescue activities, or therapy dog visits 13,14,15; neuter their pets; or vii) participate in a dog or cat rescue program. viii) Incentive discounts cannot be used to reduce the yearly dog 3. license fee below a minimum amount set by the agency. Under the current system, there is one fee for fertile dogs, and a discounted fee dogs, the price of a neutered dog often being about half of the rate charged for an intact dog. Under the system recommended here, re ble dog owners with intact dogs would also be eligible to receiv for practices that are associated with responsible dog ownership ers would choose from a menu of license discounts: a dog might q for a $15 discount if he is neutered; an $8 discount if microchi discount if the dog passes a CGC test or completes an obedience course or achieves an obedience title, or $5 if the owner participates in belongs to a club or association that promotes responsible dog o or participates in dogs sports or therapy dog visits to hospital homes 16. Those who wish to keep their dogs intact can get their discounts by permanently identifying their dogs, participating in dog spor py work, belonging to a club that promotes responsible pet owner performing rescue, confining their dogs behind a secure fence, e A review of licensing statistics shows that neutered dogs have t highest license compliance rates. This suggests that incentives work and that the responsible owners of intact dogs might also be excelle dates for licensing if incentives were offered to them. A side b program is its public education value. It provides a vehicle for important information about specific elements of responsible dog ship to the public, with a positive feedback loop for people who license their dogs. Breeders, rescuers, hunting dog owners and others with multi- 4. [ 12 ] © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 ple dogs can purchase annual kennel (facility) licenses for an a the county using a format or system that enables animal control nize and reward responsible ownership. Facility licenses are ava dogs owned or housed on the property as long as the facility and meet minimum standards for housing and care. Facility licenses can be discounted based on the incentives listed 5. for individual dog owners. If public perception of animal control is going to change, pub- 6. lic education and advertising programs will be necessary to info about animal control programs and goals. Therefore, license fees set aside in a fund specifically for animal control programs, in impoundment of uncontrolled dogs, administration of the county a control program, and annual public education events to encourage responsible dog ownership necessary for a viable animal control License fees shall be waived for: 7. any dog used primarily as a service animal when the owner or i) keeper establishes the service animal's function as an assistanc under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC 12101 et seq. any dog used by a public agency or a private organization ii) under contract to a public agency as a police dog, tracking dog, rescue dog, arson or drug sniffing dog, or for any other job tha the mission of the agency to protect and serve the public intere Free juvenile licenses may be made available for dogs below 8. licensing age. Each jurisdiction can determine the age division juveniles and adults. Juvenile licenses provide a non-threatening entry into the system when the puppy is acquired and new owners are most op information about becoming responsible pet owners. Juvenile lice be available through breeders, veterinarians and pet stores at t puppy is obtained or first seen by a veterinarian and can be input into the data base for rabies vaccination and license renewal reminders. licenses can come with brochures describing animal control benef relating to home returns, microchip and fencing for reduced fees What to do about cats ¼ NAIA opposes cat licensing for a variety of reasons. Cats pose little threat to public health, which is the conventional reason for govern- ment regulation of animals. To the contrary, cats can and often a public health benefit in settings where mice and other rodents might otherwise proliferate. In addition, some cats never go outdoors unjust to expect the owners of indoor cats to foot the bill for roaming and indoor/outdoor cats that become nuisances. Studies that more than 40% of US cats are strays or feral animals and th [ 13 ] 10% of households feed stray cats.17 © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 Cats are now AmericaÈs most popular companion animal. In many parts of the country, cats continue to serve communities in historical role, keeping rodent populations under control, as we family pets. In densely populated urban settings, though, outdoor cats arenÈt always greeted with open arms. Free-roaming cats often be neighborhood nuisances and have replaced dogs as the number one plus shelter animal in many parts of the US. As a result, even t 20-25% of shelter cats appear to have been owned in the recent p animal control agencies spend significant resources taking care which no one else takes responsibility. From a practical standpoint, once an uniden- tified cat ventures beyond its own property, it belongs to no one. Furthermore, cat owners arenÈt as likely as dog owners to immediately go looking for a lost pet at the local shelter, so the number of cats returned to their owners is disproportionately low.18 Many shel- ters post photos of impounded cats on their websites to help owners locate a lost pet, but in the absence of permanent identification, shelters have a difficult time distinguishing between cats whose owners will look for them and less fortunate ones. Consequently, some cats are placed or euthanized before their owners can find them, a very disheartening circumstance. This is why our mo recommends owner-initiated voluntary cat registration linked to microchips to help shelters reunite cats with their owners. For a voluntary cat registration/identification program to work, animal control agencies must agree to check all cats entering th for a microchip and contact their owners if one is detected. If the owner cannot be located immediately, the agency must also agree to hol tered/chipped cats beyond the standard hold time. This system of initiated voluntary registration linked with identification prov sible cat owners a better chance that their pets will be returne importantly, it provides animal control agencies a means of dist between cats whose owners are more dedicated to them than others shelter. Voluntary, owner-initiated registration linked to identification should not be seen as a regulatory scheme but as a pact or servi ment between responsible cat owners who want to increase their o getting a lost pet home and animal control, which agrees to trea cats with greater concern by making defined efforts to contact t ers and extending impound times before placement or euthanasia. charged for this optional service will be used to defray some of expense needed to give a cat special attention. Registration fees will be set by the county in an amount that encourages cat owners to participate. For communities that alrea [ 14 ] © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 date cat licensing, responsible owners can receive license fee d if they: keep cats indoors; i) spay or neuter their pets; ii) belong to a cat club that promotes responsible pet iii) ownership 19; or participate in cat shows or cat rescue efforts 19. iv) Incentives cannot reduce the license fee below a base amount. For details on how to implement incentive and education programs, see the discussion under dog licensing above. One free ride home NAIA supports animal control agencies that recognize and work with feral cat colonies and their caretakers by providing health spay and neuter services for colony animals. Identification of t to the success of the colony program. If a licensed or registered pet is picked up at large and is ide by its chip or license tag, thereby allowing the animal control return it without taking it to the shelter, the pet will be retu owner directly. When returning the pet, the animal control offic remind the owner that the pet must be confined and that further may result in impoundment, a fine, or a citation. If the pet is picked up running at large on a second occasion, i will be taken to the shelter and a citation for violation will be issued to the owner. Penalties can be increased for subsequent violations. Nuisances Abatement of nuisances caused by pets is essential for neighbor- hood harmony. Nuisances include excessive noise, soiling of public property 1) and of private property not owned or rented by the pet owner, an caused by failure to clean the dogÈs resident property. It is a dogÈs nature to bark at strangers and other dogs and a 2) dog ownerÈs responsibility to minimize the impact this noise has neighborhood. The noise rises to the level of nuisance when the barks, howls, or yelps in a habitual, consistent, or persistent manner that continually disturbs the peace of the neighborhood. Soiling occurs when the dog or cat: 3) [ 15 ] © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 deposits feces on public property, public and private rights-of- i) way, and private property; sprays or deposits urine on lawns and landscaping that ii) causes damage to grasses, flowers, shrubs, etc. Nuisance soiling also includes odors caused by failure to prop- 4) erly dispose of feces and clean urine from kennels and yards. Owners are responsible for picking up feces deposited by their 5) dogs in public places, confining their dogs and cats so that their pets do not soil neighborÈs yards, and cleaning up their own properties odors. The animal control agency shall investigate each complaint and 6) issue a warning letter to the dog owner on the first offense. A be issued on subsequent offenses. Penalties may include fines or court-ordered owner attendance 7) at a responsible dog ownership session or dog and owner attendan obedience school at the ownerÈs expense. The fines may be waived upon completion of the requirements. Dog owners who repeatedly violate nuisance laws will be 8) subject to increased fines and to requirements that they provide confinement or noise control for their pet. If the violation inv sanitation on the property, health inspectors may make periodic assure that sanitation is maintained. Confinement and control Most animal control problems are caused by loose dogs and stray cats. Therefore, laws and policies written to protect the community must be tailored to encourage respon- sible pet ownership and must be strictly enforced against own- ers who fail to keep their pets at home or from becoming nui- sances or dangers to their neighbors. Confinement: All dogs and cats must be confined 1) to prevent escape. Control: When off the ownerÈs property, the 2) dog must be restricted by a leash or otherwise controlled by a legally responsible person to prevent it from causing a nuisance. Tethering: Because tethering in an unfenced area 3) is an invitation to approach a dog and thereby risk injury to the dog or person, this method of control is allowed only as a [ 16 ] © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 redundant method of confinement behind a perimeter fence or with another enclosure in urban areas. Tethered dogs cannot escape fr perceived threats; as a result, tethering has been implicated in number of bites when children tease dogs or enter a tethered dog territory. A reasonable timetable should be set to enable dog ow obtain the required fencing. Animal control personnel have the authority to remove a dog 4) or cat from a vehicle if the animalÈs health is endangered by su ment in hot weather. Dangerous Dogs Communities have a right and a responsibility to deal with dan- gerous dogs in a manner that clearly identifies such dogs and ho responsible for their actions. Identification of potentially dan valuable to allow for intervention before a serious injury or de However, animal control agents should be trained to recognize th ence between a potentially dangerous dog and a dog that is actin watchdog or is simply alerting strangers to avoid its territory. At risk dogs Animal control agencies should investigate claims that dogs are dangerous, provide due process to owners who are accused of harb dangerous dogs, and be authorized to euthanize dogs if deemed ne after due process has been exhausted. Regardless of the appeals in the no-kill movement, dogs adjudicated as too dangerous to li community should not be shipped to another jurisdiction. An at risk dog is: 1) a dog that, when off the property of the owner and unpro- i) voked, menaces, chases, displays threatening or aggressive behavior or otherwise threatens or endangers the safety of any person; a dog that, while running at large, menaces, attacks, or ii) injures a domestic animal; a dog that, while running at large, jumps on, chases, or bites iii) a person causing a less than severe injury. (A severe injury is physical injury that results in broken bones or disfiguring lace tions requiring multiple sutures or cosmetic surgery.) a dog that, unprovoked and absent extenuating circum- iv) stances, menaces, attacks, or bites a person on the ownerÈs property causing a less than severe injury. [ 17 ] © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 Procedure for classifying a dog as at risk: Upon filing of a 2) complaint, the animal control officer or his representative shal the circumstances and notify the dog owner of the charge. The re the investigation should be reported to a magistrate or other court officer or to an appointed animal control board and to the dog owner. If the court officer deems the dog to be at risk, the dog owner has the option of filing an appeal with the animal control board or court or accepting the designation. Notwithstanding the above, the dog warden or his representative shall have discretionary authority to refrain fro classifying a dog as at risk, even if the dog has engaged in the specified behaviors, if it can be determined that the behavior w the result of the victim abusing or tormenting the dog or it was directed toward a trespasser or a person committing or attempt- ing to commit a crime or it involved other similar mitigating or extenuating circumstances. Sanctions for owning an at risk dog: The owner must provide 3) secure fencing to keep the dog confined on his own property. Whe the ownerÈs property, the dog must be kept on a secure leash of than four feet in length and under control of a legally responsi The owner must also place photos of the dog on file with the animal control agency, microchip the dog for identification, and provid liability insurance that covers injuries. (This insurance may be impossible to obtain, so owners should have the option of self-insuring against an incident.) Depending on the outcome of the investigation, the court may also assign the dog to private or group obedience classes or to by a behavior specialist and may require the owner to attend a r ownership class. These additional requirements will be at the ex the owner. Procedure for removal from at risk dog list: If there have been 4) no further incidents for a period of 18 months and the owner can proof of obedience training at a reputable club or business, he to the court of the animal control board for removal of the desi Dangerous dog A dangerous dog is one that 1) has previously been classified as at risk and exhibits escalatin i) aggressive behaviors that result in further complaints; a dog that, without provocation, inflicts severe injury on a ii) human being; [ 18 ] © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 menaces, maims, or kills domestic animals when iii) off its ownerÈs property; or is used to threaten people or domestic pets or is used as a iv) weapon in the commission of a crime. Notwithstanding the above, the dog warden or his representative shall have discretionary authority to refrain from classifying a gerous, even if the dog has engaged in the specified behaviors, determined that the behavior was the result of the victim abusin menting the dog or it was directed towards a trespasser or a per mitting or attempting to commit a crime or it involved other sim gating or extenuating circumstances. Upon receiving and investigating a complaint, the animal 2) control officer or his representative shall investigate the circ notify the dog owner of the charge. The results of the investiga be reported to a magistrate or other court officer or to an appo mal control board and to the dog owner. If the court officer dee dog to be dangerous, the dog owner has the option of filing an a with the animal control board or accepting the designation. Depe the circumstances, the dog may be impounded pending disposition of the case. Sanctions for owning a dangerous dog: A dangerous dog may 3) be returned to the owner or may be destroyed depending on the ou of the investigation. If the dog is returned to the owner, it mu microchipped, confined in a locked pen with a top when not in a home or other building, and restricted by a sturdy leash no longer than when in public. The pen must be built so the dog cannot dig his way out or otherwise escape. Photos of the dog must be filed with the an trol agency and the owner must provide proof of at least $100,00 bility insurance. Depending on the outcome of the investigation, may require a behavioral evaluation of the dog and sentence the attend a responsible ownership class. Confinement of dangerous dogs: Dogs that have been adjudi- 4) cated as dangerous must be confined behind a locked fence of suf height and materials to contain the dog and prevent trespass. Co must be sufficient to prevent children from coming into contact dog. When off the ownerÈs property, a dangerous dog must be rest by a leash of no more than four feet in length and may be requir wear a muzzle. Transporting dangerous dogs: Dogs that have been adjudicated 5) as dangerous must be confined in a crate in a closed vehicle to opportunities for escape and in a manner sufficient to prevent c from coming into contact with the dog through an open window in vehicle. [ 19 ] © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 Penalties for dangerous dog running at large NAIA has a no-tolerance policy towards dangerous dogs running at large. Therefore, the punishment will be severe, absent mitig circumstances. Dangerous dogs that run at large and 1) repeat the behavior that earned the designation will be impounded and euthanized. Dangerous dogs that run at large with- 2) out repeating that behavior may be returned to their owners at the discretion of the animal control agency after reviewing the case and inspection of the confinement facility. Owners who fail to confine their dangerous dogs out of 3) carelessness or neglect face high fines and possible jail time. penalties must be enforceable. Dog fighting and other crimes Raising and training dogs for fighting and participating in dog fighting are serious crimes that deserve tough penalties, includ time. Those who use dogs to illegally threaten others or to guard crim nal activities should also face serious consequences, including jail time. [ 20 ] © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 Notes 1. According to the U.S. Pet Ownership & Demographics Sourcebook (AVMA, 2002) there are more than 60 million pet dogs and nearly cats in the US. (http://www.avma.org/membshp/marketstats/sourceb 2. American Pet Products Manufacturers Association Fact Sheet: Indu , (http://www.appma.org/press_industrytrends.asp) & Trends 3. A hard statistic to pin down, but 30% is the number most ofte control agencies as the high end of the compliance curve. Many c a lower compliance rate. 4. According to the 2003/2004 APPMA National Pet Owners Survey, of US households (40.6 million) own at least one dog and 34 perc lion) own at least one cat. (http://www.appma.org/pubs_survey.a 5. In (Pennsylvania 639 A.2d 1296 Pa.Cmwlth.,1994), Commonwealth v Creighton the appeals court overturned a pet limit and quoted these preced an infringement upon public safety and is not a nuisance cannot be made one by legislative fiat and then prohibited." [Kadash v. City of Willia Commonwealth Ct. 643, 650, 340 A.2d 617, 621 (1975).] Further, " mate legislative goals cannot be pursued by means which stifle fundamental person- al liberty when the goals can be otherwise more reasonably achie Commonwealth v. Sterlace, 24 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 62, 66, 354 A.2d 27, 29 (1976). For more information, see: http://www.naiaonline.org/body/docs/penny2000.doc 6. by Anna Sadler, Pet Overpopulation Ä A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy? Cat Fanciers Association (http://www.cfainc.org/articles/legislative/pet-overpopulation.h Included in this article is the following: ÅThe healthy puppy an euthanized on live television as a kick-off to Kim Sturla's orig ing ban proposal sent animal lovers scurrying to their checkbook this tactic is being repeated nationwide.Æ 7. The San Mateo County Pet Overpopulation Ordinance: A Legislative , a report from The Animal Council Failure (http://www.fanciers.com/npa/sanmateo.html) 8. , San Mateo ordinance fails test of time http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/smateo01.htm 9. In 1993, a Pennsylvania legislator introduced a bill that call for a Åvoluntary moratoriumÆ on all dog breeding in the state. (http://www2.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/BT/1993/0/HR0194P2697.pdf #search='breeding%20moratorium') 10. AKC Canine Good Citizen program, http://www.akc.org/events/cgc/index.cfm 11. AKC Companion Animal Recovery program, http://www.akccar.org 12. AVID Microchip ID, http://www.avidmicrochip.com/ [ 21 ] © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 13. AKC clubs and performance events are listed on the organizat http://www.akc.org 14. United Kennel Club clubs and performance events are listed o http://www.ukcdogs.com 15. Many states have canine search and rescue organizations that tracking lost persons or locating the victims of tragedies. The Search Dog Network (http://www.nasdn.org/) provides general info about the use of search and rescue dogs. 16. Therapy Dog International (http://www.tdi-dog.org/) is one o that certifies dogs for nursing home and hospital visits. 17. National Pet Alliance website, http://www.nationalpetallianc 18. Statistics taken from Multnomah County Animal Services for t months in 2004 paint a typical picture of owner returns of dogs cats were impounded: 87 cats (3%) were returned to their owners. impounded: 1062 dogs (45%) were returned to their owners. 19. Cat FanciersÈ Association Inc., http://www.cfainc.org/ [ 22 ] © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005 [ 23 ] [ 24 ] [ 25 ] National Animal Interest Alliance PO Box 66579 Portland, OR 97290 email: naia@naiaonline.org http://www.naiaonline.org/ phone: (503) 761-1139 fax: (503) 761-1289 © National Animal Interest Alliance, March 2005