- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Politics
- School Zone
- Youth Camps
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Lee Heller: Why We Need a Responsible Pet Owner Ordinance
It’s a rare person these days who doesn’t believe animals are entitled to some sort of protection. Remember the outcry when Michael Vick electrocuted his pit bulls? The call went out, loud and clear, for legal action on behalf of those with the fewest legal rights and protections.
Oddly, however, the issue of legal protection becomes much more complicated when it involves requiring that pet owners behave responsibly and get their animals fixed to help reduce the pet overpopulation problem. How do we persuade people that spaying or neutering their pets is the responsible thing to do?
Here’s the reality: Santa Barbara County’s shelters take in roughly 9,000 dogs and cats annually, of which about 25 percent end up euthanized. The shelters have had to double, even triple, cage occupancy to avoid killing otherwise adoptable animals. On one day in October, Goleta’s shelter had 106 dogs crammed into 50 cages (occupancy rate: more than 200 percent). In Santa Maria, where the county opened a much larger facility in 2005, overcrowding is so bad that volunteers drive vanloads of dogs to shelters in San Luis Obispo, Marin and Sacramento counties.
As for cats, about 1,000 kittens come through each year, many of them too young for shelter life. Imagine being the shelter employee who has to kill hundreds of kittens each year for lack of a place to put them.
With this problem in mind, in 2008 the Board of Supervisors appointed a Spay-Neuter Task Force to make recommendations about an ordinance to increase spaying and neutering. The task force members agreed that the goal was to increase responsible conduct by pet owners, and to leave the decision about spaying or neutering between a pet owner and her veterinarian.
The resulting ordinance does not require that any pet owner “fix” her dog or cat. It requires only that, if you don’t want to fix your pet, you get a simple certificate from your veterinarian. Since dog owners are already required by state law to get their dogs licensed and rabies vaccinated, and since a vet has to give the rabies vaccination, this new requirement wouldn’t add any burden to a dog owner; you just get an additional certificate from the vet during the same vet visit you already have to make every three years. (There would be a new obligation for cat owners to license their cats, but the fees would be much lower or even waived entirely for spayed or neutered cats.)
It’s a simple, minimally intrusive way to make pet owners think about their pets’ reproductive status, rather than just going along until that litter of puppies or kittens is suddenly there, needing homes (or being taken to the shelter). And it’s got an “opt out” for people who feel they need to keep their dog or cat intact, without paying more or having to offer special justifications.
Ironically, the community most in need of this new law is the one most likely to face some financial impact from it: low-income families. Would the proposed new ordinance unfairly burden these families?
The fact is, no matter your income level, you must rabies vaccinate and license your dog every three years; that’s existing state law and its not negotiable. There are low-cost rabies vaccination clinics to help low-income pet owners comply, as well as low-cost spay/neuter clinics for pet owners to have their animals altered cheaply, along with free options from several nonprofit animal rescue groups. It will actually be cheaper for a low-income pet owner to accept these services and alter his pet than to get a vet letter and pay the higher license fee — and that is the carrot that will persuade people to make the responsible choice.
Please let the Board of Supervisors know that a simple, minimally intrusive ordinance like this is a reasonable start in educating pet owners to behave more responsibly. The board will hear comments on the ordinance at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday in the board hearing room, 105 E. Anapamu St., Fourth Floor, and again on Nov. 10 in Santa Maria.
— Lee Heller has lived in the Santa Barbara area since 1996, and has been active on animal welfare, environmental and social justice issues, working on behalf of various animal rescue organizations, such as Dog PAC SB (also as a board member) as well as the Environmental Defense Center, GOO! (as a board member) and The Fund for Santa Barbara. She has a Ph.D. in literature and a law degree.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules.
- No abusive, defamatory or libelous attacks. In plain English: No personal attacks.
- No vulgar or discriminatory language.
- If you do not follow these rules, don't be surprised if your comment is removed.
- Please use the Report Abuse button on offensive comments.
- Share what you know, ask about what you don't. Give us your eyewitness accounts, observations, background and history. Tell us what else you want to know about the story.
- Stay on the topic, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK, and forgive people their spelling errors.
Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Thank you for your respectful participation. Click here for our complete Terms of Use.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.
» on 11.02.09 @ 01:49 PM
Another possible intrusion by the government.
» on 11.02.09 @ 11:55 PM
I have found it difficult to locate sweet, well raised kittens available for adoption in this area. The local shelter does not like to adopt kittens to families with young children. Now, since my last cat died, I have had more trouble with rats in the yard. I actually miss the occasional stray cat that kept the neighborhood clean of such vermin.
» on 11.03.09 @ 09:22 AM
Spaying and neutering the irresponsible pet owners themselves. Leave the innocent animals alone.
» on 11.05.09 @ 04:28 PM
The County Animal Shelters are full of Pit Bulls, Chihuahuas, and feral cats. The source of these animals are irresponsible owners who will not comply with the proposed ordnance, they don’t even comply with the existing laws governing vaccinations, licensing, and limits on the number of dogs. The proposed ordinance will penalize the responsible. The private organizations that are reprtedly so overwhelmed import dogs here from outside the County (eg - the Bakersfield Shelter), perhaps they would be less overwhelmed if they stopped that practice. DAWG spends ungodly amounts of money on dogs with serious medical and temperament issues (no eyes, double hip replacement, etc). How about spending that money on some free spay/neuter clinics? These “free spay/nueter” clinics referred to serve very few people, they have extremely limited capacity and have only been introduced in the last few weeks by a newly formed organiztion with no substantial funding (and I hope they are wildly successful).
Faoro described the ordinance as a “compromise” of the Task Force members. It is no such thing - it was vetoed by 5 of the 6 Task Force members. He described this ordinance as unique to SB, new and never before implemented. Completely false. This ordinance (veteranary exemption) has existed in Santa Cruz for many years, where the shelter population and euthanasia has only gone up. In fact, there has NEVER been a location where manditory S/N has been implemented where shelter populations and euthanasia have decreased, and this includes Lompoc. Oh, and that 24% euthanasia rate quoted? Don’t forget that the SB sheleters are, and have been, “No Kill” for 12 years. That 24% is deemed unadoptable for medical and temperament reasons. The propsed ordinance will do nothing to decrease that #.
Ready access to free/low cost s/n clinics and education would greatly improve the situation at local shelters, and would not require another government intrusion into our personal lives. Urge your County Supervisor to vote NO on this proposed ordinance.
Weather: Fair 53.0º
Search Noozhawk »
