aztec reef
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
None of those areas are particularly "rural", are they? Try Montana, Wyoming, West Texas, etc. We're talking ranch land. Not farm plots.
2. totally off the topic. You said dumped pets came from the ghetto from low income folks that can't pay for them. I want to see your source for that info.
try Oregon..
2.may this will help:
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.
The poor are put in a no-win situation by intact license fees and
fines. Where anti-breeding ordinances are in effect, many poorpeople 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:
Let's be real. Stray
dogs are not a breeder problem. They are an owner "pet retention"
problem.
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.
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. 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 only3-4% 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.
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.
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.
