Low Income, the Law and Surplus Animals

by Bob Christiansen

In trying to find solutions to pet overpopulation we must keep in mind that less than 3% of dog owners are responsible for surplus births. The main reason for cat overpopulation is feral, free-roaming, unowned cats.

When government looks at ways of solving transgressions, fines and fees play an important role in modifying human behavior. This approach work well with human violations like drunk drivers for example, people fear penalties and fines for violations. This tactic, however is not effective with low-income animal owners.

When progressive organizations study their regional pet demographics they find a disproportionate amount of surplus pets coming from low-income areas.

Here are the reasons why!

On average, 1 in 3 dogs are licensed. Licensing is a failed system despite the fact that it is the law. It promises to return lost dogs home. In fact, if your poor, it instigates their demise. Dog licensing nationwide is not obeyed by a majority of citizens. 30 to 35% compliance rates are the norm.

There are many reasons why licensing has an overall negative effect. The poor simply do not license their pets. As a result they run scared of authority. They are afraid to make use of any services that will expose them to law enforcement. They do not visit veterinarians, participate in shot clinics, use low-cost spay/neuter programs, or seek health assistance for injured or suffering pets. They do not redeem pets that end up in shelters and often dump pets rather than take them to shelters and face possible fines. When confronted by officials that require payments for fees and fines, owners forsake ownership. After all, the average cost to obtain a new dog is only 50 to 75 dollars, or in some cases, by simply answering an ad in a paper.

Animal advocates, frustrated by continually high euthanisia rates, exasperate the problem even further by proposing tougher laws compelling owners to spay/neuter. Disincentives in the form of higher license fees for intact pets, breeding bans, door-to-door license sales, higher penalties and limits on the number of animals allowed in households are proposed. Cash-starved animal control officials welcome the thought of more revenue.

The poor are put in a no-win situation by intact license fees and fines. Where anti-breeding ordinances are in effect, many poor people might like to neuter their pets, but cannot afford to do so. Nor can they afford either the registration fees for having unaltered pets or the fines for noncompliance. This failed policy unjustly targets the poor. Plain and simple, it's extortion: pay/spay or we kill your dog or cat!

The main reason for licensing is, in theory, to return lost pets home. In reality, it's a pet tax. Designed to pay for government services. Unfortunately, 70% to 75% of dogs and cats that enter animal control shelters in California have no identification. Stray pets produce a tremendous impact on shelter capacity and are the root cause of high euthanasia rates. Let's be real. Stray dogs are not a breeder problem. They are an owner "pet retention" problem.

Furthermore, strays negatively impact the resources of the system. There are no impoundment revenues collected from owners who cannot be found. License and impoundment fees generated by responsible owner's pay for services that are disproportionately used by unidentified, unlicensed dogs and cats.

Study of programs that have enacted harsh anti-breeding ordinances reveal increased euthanasia rates and, in the case of high differential licensing, lower licensing rates. This means lower revenues for animal control programs. In turn, this results in more general fund, taxpayer dollars to underwrite enforcement and promotion programs. At the same time, 60% of the dog owning public who don't license their dogs become irate at public officials and animal control enforcement officers, especially when they employ door-to-door campaign tactics reminiscent of nazi Germany.

The Humane Answer:

Better organizational management
More attention needs to be paid to objective, scientific research that defines the surplus animal problem. Local demographic characteristics of low-income and high-animal-problem rates need to be studied. Targeting high-problem areas within a community with helpful, people-friendly intervention programs will yield the most benefits (for people and pets) per funds spent.
Studies show that breeders of planned litters create proportionately low animal control problems. It's the unplanned, accidental, mixed breed litters that become animal control problems. Purebred animals that enter shelters are usually relinquished or stray pets that were once owned. These distinctions need to be clearly made (no one intentionally breeds animals of mixes pedigree for profit). Once this is done, a clear picture emerges. The majority of animal control dogs and cats are from unplanned, accidental litters with a large portion coming from low-income areas.
Low-cost spay/neuter programs need to target areas that show greater incidents of producing unwanted litters (usually low-income areas) to solve the dog surplus birth problem.
The surplus cat problem is largely caused from unowned, intact, feral and free-roaming felines that rapidly reproduce and supply the bulk of kittens to households. Pedigree cats represent only 3-4% of all owned cats nationwide.
The solution to the stray dog problem is mandatory permanent identification (microchips) not anti-breeding legislation. When used in tandem with visual identification this modern system provides a means to return animals home. It also provides tracability to owners, thus encouraging responsible animal ownership. A mandatory system would reduce the stress on shelter capacity and give animals in shelters more time to be adopted.
Governments should promote microchips by offering a FREE lifetime license when owners produce proof of a microchip. The strategy is this; people won't have to pay up-front to underwrite animal control. They pay when their pet becomes an animal control problem. Poor people will not have to live in fear of the government and will participate in low-cost community programs. This program is already being advanced in Canada.
The course is very clear to those who study the facts. Anti-breeding legislation with financial disincentives does not work. In fact, it increases killing in shelters. The need is clearly for fewer disincentives (high fees and fines, at least high for the poor) and more services directed to the poor. For instance, if fees and fines, including license, redemption, impound, surrender and adoption fees were prorated according to income, and even eliminated for those below the poverty level, great gains could be realized. We must keep in mind that less than 2% of pet owners are responsible for surplus births. This makes fee structures critical in reducing surplus births. Positive action is necessary. Not only are low-cost services needed, but also removal of disincentives is necessary to up participation rates in low cost programs.
Animal control must realize by prorating fees they are gaining revenue. The unredeemed dog brings in no revenue, while a prorated fee that a poor person can afford (or work off) would lead to a partial recovery of costs and, more importantly return the pet home. A license fee that the poor can afford would remove the fear that keeps that person from participating in low income spay/neuter or shot clinics. Prorated license fees would reduce surplus births and decrease animal death.