AN

IM

AL

FA

RM

FO

UN

DA

TI

ON

.OR

G

Positive Things Happen When YouCombine a Proactive Community with

Breed neutral, nondiscriminatory laws.

BUILDING SAFE COMMUNITIES

contentsINTRODUCTION

COMMUNITY SPAY & NEUTERPARTNERSHIPS

Discover why communities needcooperation, education, and accessible,

affordable services - not mandates.

RESPONSIBLE PETOWNERSHIP MODEL

Solutions are in responsible pet ownership& animal services, not animal control.By National Canine Research Council

RESIDENT DOG VSFAMILY DOG

What's the difference?By National Canine Research Council

MEDICALLY ATTENDEDDOG BITES

OUT OF THE PAST

IT'S NOT US VS THEM

A guide to updating animalcontrol ordinances.By Cory A. Smith for

Animal Sheltering Magazine

Find out what's fact and what's fiction.By National Canine Research Council

animalfarmfoundation.org

A letter from AFF's Executive Director.

We all want our communities to besafe for people and pets. Safecommunities happen when we treatall dogs as individuals and empowerpet owners to be responsible.

This involves introducing laws thatare nondiscriminatory and breedneutral. A focus of these laws shouldbe centered around negligent dogowners and not based on theappearance of a dog.

Laws and community programs whichfoster responsible ownership arecentral to a safe communities.

Introduction to Whyhumane communities aresafer For people and pets

People must be responsible for the dogs in their care -this is for the safety of their dogs, as well as other petsand people in the community. Officials must enforcethese laws to ensure a safe community.

It is important to stress that the majority ofcommunities are safe and the number of dog bitesacross the country is relatively low. But, for thoselooking to craft new regulations or update existing ones,it's important to remember that these ordinancesshould combine common sense laws with communityoutreach. This ensures that everyone has access to thenecessary resources for compliance.

It also means that pets won't have to suffer simplybecause of how they look and people won't bediscriminated against simply because of the dogs theyown.

animalfarmfoundation.org

We all want to decrease euthanasia rates,encourage responsible pet ownership andsupport the human-canine bond, butmandates about spaying and neutering dogsaren't necessarily the way to achieve thosegoals.

Most dog owners want to provide good carefor their pets, but some need assistance.

If we want safe and humane communities,then we should provide accessible andaffordable spay/neuter services. This gives everyone the opportunity to be a responsiblepet owner.

Accessible and targeted services paired withoutreach and education is how you reach themajority of dog owners. Mandatoryspay/neuter laws won't do that.

Mandatory spay/neuter laws criminalize dogowners who want to provide good care fortheir pets but cannot afford it.

In 2005, San Francisco, Californiaimplemented a mandatory spay/neuter lawfor “pit bull” dogs and “pit bull” dog mixes.

As soon as the measure passed, some SanFrancisco dog owners faced landlordultimatums: keep the dog and move, or beevicted. Although “pit bull” dogs were stilllegal, the law’s designation of “pit bull” dogsas a special “problem” had stigmatized boththe dogs and their owners.

Breed specific mandates endorsediscrimination and profiling of all kinds,including by landlords and insurancecompanies.

Kansas City, Missouri’s breed-specificmandatory spay/neuter laws resulted in asteady increase in, not only its "pit bull" dogeuthanasia but also the number of all dogseuthanized.

Los Angeles, California passed mandatoryspay and neuter laws for all dogs in 2008. Fiveyears later 38% more dogs were impoundedand 56% more dogs were euthanized than in2007, the prior year of the ordinances takingeffect.

high volume, low cost or free,accessible services

targeted, voluntary, freeoutreach, services, &

Incentives*Reaches under-served

parts of community

Enforcement,Consequences,

maximumPenalties

for offenders

*Reaches the majority ofdog owners

MandatorySpay/Neuter LawsDivide the

animalfarmfoundation.org

Community & Breakthe Human-CANINEBond

Without community outreach, mandatoryspay/neuter laws often don't affect the ownersthey were designed to reach. Those with limitedresources may be unable to comply withregulations - which criminalizes well-meaningpet owners.

Pet guardians who are unable to get their dogsspayed/neutered for financial reasons mayhave to pay a fee for being in violation of thelaw. If they already cannot afford to have theirdog spayed or neutered, it is unlikely that theycan afford to pay a fine. There is also thepossibility that the dog may be taken by animalcontrol, leaving the owner with yet another feeto reclaim their dog. In some cases, this mayincrease euthanasia rates.

However, “shots fairs” in lower incomecommunities have a positive impact on dogsand owners. These fairs offer affordable andeasily accessible vaccinations and spay/neuters,as well as education about responsible dogownership. They result in fewer shelter intakesand lower euthanasia numbers.

Since 2010, the Humane Society of the UnitedStates' Pets for Life (PFL) program has operatedin 20 areas across the United States. Over 87%of the dogs they encounter are unaltered.Through community outreach, whichsometimes includes door to door canvassing,and vouchers for free services, 89% of the

unaltered pets the PFL teams encounter arespayed or neutered due to the program.

Pets for Life reports that due to lack of accessto affordable veterinary services:

"Most people have not had access to qualitywellness information and care resources fortheir pets. A strong majority of pets in PFLcommunities have not seen a veterinarianbefore meeting the PFL outreach teams. This isdue to the lack of access to affordableveterinary services, not a lack of interest or carefrom the people."

In Florida, the City of Jacksonville and FirstCoast No More Homeless Pets partner toprovide free and low-cost spay/neuter surgeriesfor dogs and cats. Since 2002, the partnershiphas facilitated over 107,000 pet sterilizations.The city has seen an overall reduction in petintake and a 90% decrease in euthanasia.

By providing targeted incentives instead ofissuing mandates, Jacksonville, FL is betterserving its pets and pet owners.

The "hardest to reach" people are actuallyreachable if you implement voluntary programswith special offers that address the specificneeds of community members.

*Reaches the majority ofdog owners

animalfarmfoundation.org

Not only are proactive programs cost effective, in the endthey are our only hope to end pet overpopulation. Bitterexperience has shown that we cannot adopt our way out ofpet overpopulation or build our way out. A system thatcontinues to spend upwards of 95% of its resources on reactiveprograms is doomed to failure and frustration.

Investing in proactive programs allows the increasingreallocation of resources to proactive programs, buildingmomentum to the day when shelters will realize theircentury-long mission – to rescue and rehabilitate homelessanimals and find a loving home for each and every one.

-- Peter March, Esq

animalfarmfoundation.org

The Responsible Pet Ownership Model is focused first on supporting and incentivizing responsible behavior in

pet owners and second, discouraging problematic behavior. Former Director of Animal & Bylaw Services for

Calgary, Bill Bruce, elaborated on the why this is the focus of the philosophy, because “a positive change in

human behavior will always yield a positive change in animal behavior.” Bruce explained, “The foundation of any

successful program starts with collaboration between all agencies involved with animals and a common

understanding of the community’s acceptable standards. With this knowledge, we can create programs and self-

sustaining services that foster responsible pet ownership through education and recognizing the benefits of

compliance, rather than relying solely on compulsion. Certain traditional approaches only create barriers to

responsible pet ownership.”

Every community should identify what the components of responsible pet ownership should be. The City of

Calgary enacted its Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw in 2006, based on five principles that enable cats, dogs,

their owners, and neighbors to live together in “safety and harmony.”1,2

1. License and provide permanent identification for your pets.

2. Spay or neuter your pets.

3. Provide training, socialization, proper diet, and medical care for your pets.

4. Do not allow your pets to become a threat or nuisance in the community.

5. Procure your pet ethically and from a credible source.

Though the foundational points are simple, if all pet owners in a community did them, the majority of a

community’s animal issues would be solved. Bruce explained, “Licensing and identification quickly reunite lost

pets with their families; spay and neuter initiatives reduce unwanted litters humanely; proper training and care

produces safe, healthy animals; and proper management prevents pets from becoming a threat or nuisance, and

reduces community complaints about animals.”

Through 2012 Calgary achieved an unparalleled level of compliance with its easy-to-understand bylaw, through

education that clarified the responsibility of all pet owners and programs that facilitated and incentivized pet

owner compliance.

In 2012, public education programs included collaborative events with parks groups about pet owner’s

responsibilities under the bylaw, as well as presentations on responsible pet ownership in English and French that

reached 9,200 elementary and junior high students.3 Additionally, Calgary incentivized licensing for residents with

a rewards program in collaboration with local merchants4 and a “Drive Home Program” where pet owners could

tangibly see the benefits of licensing their pets through a quickly returned lost pet that would be driven directly

home, rather than to the shelter.3 On the rare occasion when education did not produce the intended outcome,

the Bylaw was rigorously enforced.

ILLUSTRATED BY CALGARY, ALBERTA, CANADA THROUGH 2012

THE RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERSHIP MODEL

1

CALGARY ANIMAL SERVICES’ SUCCESS THROUGH 2012*

2012 Results:3,5,6

Animal Services Operations funded primarily through licensing revenue.

92% of animal calls were “successfully resolved through compliance rather than strict enforcement

options.”

108,688 dogs licensed out of a canine population of 122,325; 89% license compliance rate for dogs.

1,185 lost dogs were taken directly home through the Drive Home Program, avoiding the shelter.

201 reported dog bites in a human population of 1,120,225. 132 dog bite charges were laid.

*In the years following 2012, Calgary’s Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw core programs, such as a focus on

public education and licensing, have changed, and consequently, the results have changed. When animal control

relies heavily on enforcement, as opposed to focusing on educating citizens on the benefits of the responsible pet

ownership standards and facilitating and incentivizing compliance with them, the community results suffer.

As Bill Bruce notes, the “downward trend confirms that the Responsible Pet Ownership model does work and is

not because Calgary as a community is an anomaly.” As the results show, when you “stop applying the model,

the results will deteriorate back to the old animal control results.”

Updated February 2016

SOURCES and NOTES:

1. City of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. (2015). Animal Services. Retrieved from:

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Pages/Animal-Services/Animal-services.aspx

2. Bylaw Number 23M2006: Being a Bylaw of the City of Calgary Respecting the Regulation, Licensing, and Control of

Animals in the City of Calgary. (2006). Retrieved from: http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Legislative-

services/Bylaws/23M2006-ResponsiblePetOwnership.pdf

3. City of Calgary Community Services & Protective Services. (2012). Animal & Bylaw Services: Annual Report 2012.

Retrieved from: http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Documents/CSPS-Annual-

Reports/ABS_Annual_Report_2012.pdf?noredirect=1

4. City of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. (2015). I Heart My Pet Rewards Program. Retrieved from:

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/ABS/Pages/Animal-Services/I-heart-my-pet-program.aspx

5. The City of Calgary’s Census periodically reports the total dog and cat population – most recently in 2010:

Calgary City Clerk. (2010). 2010 Civic Census Results. Retrieved from: http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-

clerks/Documents/Election-and-information-services/Census2010/2010_census_result_book.pdf

6. The 2010 total canine population was used to calculate the estimated rate of license compliance.

2

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

RESIDENT VS. FAMILY DOG

All dog owners are responsible for the dogs in their care.

Consider the difference between Resident & Family dogs:

A RESIDENT DOG

Resident dogs are dogs, whether confined within a dwelling or

otherwise, whose owners maintain them in ways that isolate

them from regular, positive human interactions. The isolation

and lack of exposure to the family unit results in the display of

behaviors different from family dogs.

Left: Windsor as a resident dog.

A FAMILY DOG

Family dogs are dogs whose owners keep them in or near the

home and also integrate them into the family unit, so that the

dogs learn appropriate behavior through interaction with

humans on a regular basis in positive and humane ways.

Left: Windsor as a family dog.

We will achieve safer, more humane communities when we

hold owners of all dogs accountable to high standards of

humane care, custody, and control.

Sources for this graph1

HOW OFTEN DO DOG BITES REQUIRE MEDICAL ATTENTION?

MEDICALLY ATTENDED DOG BITES

1

According to the most widely cited studies of dogs bites2 at least 4 out of 5 (80%) of all dog bites cause no injury

at all or injuries so minor that no medical treatment was sought, even though the threshold for medical

treatment may well be lower for dog bite injuries than for those from other causes.

The rate of dog bites sustained by children has been steadily decreasing over the last decade:

Sources for this graph3

HOW SEVERE ARE THESE INJURIES?

Among injuries presented for treatment at Emergency Departments, dog bite injuries are generally much less

severe than the typical injury:

96% of dog bite injuries presenting at ER’s are minor4-- the person is treated and released. Dog bite

injuries are among the highest rate of treat and release for any injury tracked by the CDC.

Less than 1.5% require hospitalization5, unlike injuries in general, which result in hospitalization more than

4 times as often.

Severity comparisons with other common injury modalities may be helpful here:

Kids 1-12 who go to the ER with an object stuck in an ear, eye, or nose6 are more than 3 times more

likely to be injured seriously enough to be hospitalized than those who present with a dog bite. This does

not include objects swallowed or stuck in a child’s throat or airway which are even more serious.

Injuries caused by shoes and socks7 (not counting sports shoes) are almost 4 times more likely to require

hospitalization than dog bites.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Per

10,

000

Ch

ildre

n

Year

Rates of Children Medically Attended for

Dog Bites (per 10,000): 2001-2013

0 -12 year olds

0-4 year olds

5-9 year olds

10-14 year olds

2

OUR DATA

To produce comparisons such as those above, and graphics such as the chart on rates of bites to children, we

use the Center for Disease Control’s Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS)8 for

dog bites and other injury modalities and the Consumer Product Safety Commission9 for product related injuries,

both of which use the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). This provides the most reliable

data because NEISS:

Collects large samples, gathering data from a nationally representative sample of 100 hospital emergency

departments, ranging from large inner-city hospitals with trauma centers to suburban, rural, and children’s

hospitals

Is based on actual emergency room intake data

Provides clear indicators of injury treatment severity

Have been consistently replicated each year over a long period

Allow for ready access to comparisons by year, age group, gender, and kind of injuries

Limitation—NEISS captures injuries treated in hospital emergency departments, not private doctor’s

offices or urgent care clinics

We do refer to the most frequently cited studies10 but only as a source of overall bite incidence, including those

that cause no injury. We do not use them as our primary source of bite severity or injurious bite incidence

because they:

Are based on small sample telephone surveys asking people to remember events over a year’s time

Had low respondent rates and wide margins of error

Are one time surveys that quickly become dated and are seldom replicated

Provide only vague distinctions between injurious and non-injurious bites and vague definitions of injury

Updated February 1, 2016

SOURCES and NOTES:

1. Slight or No Injury & Treated and Released:

Gilchrist et al., 2008 (see below) was used for the total number of bites, and for the percentage receiving medical

treatment, as this (and the predecessor, Sacks et al., 1996) is the only study that has attempted to include non-injurious

incidents in dog bite counts.

Serious:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), Non-

fatal injury reports, 2001-2013. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

Query: Bite: Dog; Disposition: Transferred or Hospitalized; Years: 2001-2003 [Averaged]

3

Fatalities:

Patronek, G.J., Sacks, J.J., Delise, K.M., Cleary, D.V., & Marder, A.R. (2013). Co-occurrence of potentially preventable

factors in 256 dog bite–related fatalities in the United States (2000–2009). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 248(12), 1726-1736.

2. Sacks J.J., Kresnow, M.J., & Houston, B. (1996). Dog bites: How Big a Problem? Injury Prevention, 2, 52-54.

Gilchrist, J., Sacks, J.J., White, D., & Kresnow, M.J. (2008). Dog Bites: Still a Problem? Injury Prevention, 14(5), 296-301.

These 2 studies are the source of the frequently cited 4.5 million annual dog bite rate in the United States, and are the

result of a telephone survey of all types of injuries sustained by members of 5,238 households in the 1996 study and 9,684

in the study published in 2008. The results include all bites that the respondents could recall during the preceding year,

including those that caused no injury.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS),

Non-fatal injury reports, 2001-2013. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

Query: Bite: Dog; Disposition: All Cases; Years: 2001-2013 [Separate query each year]; Age Group: 0-4

Query: Bite: Dog; Disposition: All Cases; Years: 2001-2013 [Separate query each year]; Age Group: 5-9

Query: Bite: Dog; Disposition: All Cases; Years: 2001-2013 [Separate query each year]; Age Group: 10-14

Query: Bite: Dog; Disposition: All Cases; Years: 2001-2013 [Separate query each year]; Age Group: 1-12

All rates converted from 100,000 to 10,000.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS),

Non-fatal injury reports, 2001-2013. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

Query: Bite: Dog; Disposition: Treated and Released; Years: 2001-2012

5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS),

Non-fatal injury reports, 2001-2013. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

Query: Bite: Dog; Disposition: All Cases; Years: 2001-2012.

Query: Bite: Dog; Disposition: Hospitalized; Years 2001-2012.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS),

Non-fatal injury reports, 2001-2013. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

Query: Foreign Body; Disposition: Hospitalized; Years: 2001-2012; Custom Age Range: 1-12.

Query: Bite: Dog; Disposition: Hospitalized; Years: 2001-2012; Custom Age Range: 1-12.

7. US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) NEISS estimates query

builder, https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/NEISSQuery/home.aspx

Query: Code 1645 (daywear socks); Year: 2012

Query: Code 1615 (non-athletic shoes) ; Year: 2012

8. This system collects data from a large sample of emergency departments, in a standardized methodology since 2000

ensuring valid comparisons from year to year. See http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/facts.html for an explanation of

how this data is collected and compiled.

9. This system collects data from a large sample of emergency departments, in a standardized methodology since 2000

ensuring valid comparisons from year to year. See http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data/ for

an explanation of how this data is collected and compiled.

10. Sacks J.J., Kresnow, M.J., & Houston, B. (1996). Dog bites: How Big a Problem? Injury Prevention, 2, 52-54.

Gilchrist J., Sacks J.J., White, D., & Kresnow, M.J. (2008). Dog Bites: Still a Problem? Injury Prevention, 14(5), 296-301.

4

Out ofthe Past

How long has it been since your local animalcontrol ordinance was updated? Was Clintonstill president? Were people wearing skinnyjeans - for the first time around? Did the radiostation play a lot of Burt Bacharach – ormaybe Bing Crosby?

Just as times change, laws can and shouldchange along with them. When it comes to theprotection of citizens and animals in acommunity, an up-to-date, effective animalcontrol ordinance is essential. It not onlyoutlines the basic expectations for those whowant the privilege of keeping companionanimals, it sets a tone for the community’sattitude towards pets, their guardians, andpublic safety.

A comprehensive and well-considered animalcontrol ordinance can help ensure immediateas well as long term results – and as withother local laws, animal control ordinancesshould be tracked and assessed over time aspet ownership trends and other communitydynamics shift.

By Cory A. Smith for Animal Sheltering MagazineJuly/August 2012

Updating youranimal controlordinance

animalfarmfoundation.org

When it comes to theprotection of citizens

and animals in acommunity, an up-to-

date, effective animalcontrol ordinance is

essential.

27

Protect public safety throughmechanisms for preventinganimal bites, vehicularaccidents, and other dangerscaused by free roaming andimproperly confined animals.

Protect public health throughmechanisms designed toprevent the spread of zoonoticdiseases, especially rabies. Create means to ensure thatevery pet is traceable to itsowner in order to foster petowner accountability andincrease the numbers of lostpets reunited with their owners. Regulate the behaviors ofthose selling, boarding,displaying, or otherwise usinganimals.

Deal with the protection aswell as the control of animals,supplementing the state animallaws to establish properstandards for animal care inyour jurisdiction.

Treat dogs and cats as theprimary concern, but alsoprovide for the control andprotection of other species, likesmall mammal pets, wildlife, andcaptive exotics.

Anticipate and provideremedies for animal-relatedproblems likely to occur withinthe community.

Incentivize pet owners tocomply with the law (vialicensing fees that recognizeresponsible behaviors, etc.), andpenalize those who violate it.

Be well-understood by thepeople enforcing it, so thatproblems can be addressed in aproactive, productive manner.

Allow for strong intervention,implementation, andenforcement procedures.

an effective ordinance should:

asking the rightquestionsWhen assessing whether yourcurrent animal controlordinances need an update, it isimportant to keep in mind howlaws are to be implemented,enforced, tracked, andmeasured to ensure efficacy –and how all these elements willbe funded.

Some ordinances work better insome communities than others,and some laws sound better onpaper than they actually are interms of measurable impact onpet populations and animalmanagement.

There is no cookie-cutterapproach to creating an effectiveanimal control ordinance. Whenconsidering new ordinances, it’sreally important to think themthrough carefully from start tofinish.

animalfarmfoundation.org.By Cory A. Smith for Animal Sheltering Magazine July/August 2012

27

How will this make ourcommunity better?

Will this help our agency towork smarter, not harder?

Will this have a backlash effectthat we haven’t thought of yet?

If so, is it one we can avoid bypromoting and explaining thereasons for the ordinance inadvance of its passage?

How will this affect our staffbudget and time?

Outside of our agency, who elsewill this impact, and do we havetheir buy-in?

Do we have partnerships withother groups who might havevaluable input on these laws?

Will we be able to enforce thisfairly and consistently?

Does the animal cruelty statutein place for our communityprovide adequate protections,or do we want to enhanceelements within our local animalcontrol ordinance?

Are there barriers tocompliance that we have notconsidered?

Are there laws already in placethat cover the same territorythat could be enforced better ordifferently with the sameeffects?

Consider the practicalimplementation of a new law,whether there are adequateresources in place to support themeasure, and what real changemay come as a result.

Animal control agencies shouldadopt a tiered approach to thelaws that govern theircommunity’s relationship withanimals. Starting with the mostbasic laws, such as leash lawsand proper confinement laws, isthe first step in building a strongfoundation.

Once these basic functions ofanimal control are in place andthe community has acceptedthem as the standard, local

ask questions like:

governments can takeincremental steps towards acomprehensive, progressive setof laws, building an atmospherethat supports the joys of petcompanion- ship whileprotecting the public and animalhealth and safety across theboard.

animalfarmfoundation.org.By Cory A. Smith for Animal Sheltering Magazine July/August 2012

A Tool forPrevention

An animal control ordinanceprovides requirements andregulations for the community.But at its best, it also empowersagencies by allowing for newapproaches to animalmanagement based onprevention tactics.

27Where previous legalprohibitions may be in the wayof progressive programs,ordinance amendments can bemade to provide animal controlagencies with the green light toembark on new initiatives suchas legal trap-neuter-returnprograms for community feralcats, the promotion ofspay/neuter and humanewildlife services, and theeducation and training of animalcare and control officers.

Preventing owned dogs and catsfrom roaming freely is one ofthe primary elements of basicanimal control management inany community. Free-roaminganimals pose a risk to publicsafety (dog bites, auto accidents,etc.), to other animals, and tothemselves.

Restraint laws generally requireowners to safely confine pets ontheir property and adequatelyrestrain them when off. Properrestraint is usually described as“secured by collar and/or leash,”or “under reasonable control”when not on the ownersproperty. Restraint/leash lawsexist primarily on the local level– very few states have specificleash requirements for pets – sothey are a fundamental part of agood animal control ordinance.

Reminding owners that they areresponsible for any physical orproperty damage their animalmay cause while unrestrained isoften enough incentive for mostpeople to keep their dogs undercontrol.

Proper identification isincreasingly seen as anotherfundamental element of animalcontrol regulations.

Owned animals should berequired to wear a collar and IDtag, license tag, or have amicrochip (ideally an animalshould have both, sportingvisible ID that can be read byboth officers and citizens whohappen upon her and amicrochip that can be scannedby animal control and shelterstaff).

This helps animal control officersdetermine stray and lostanimals’ origins in order toreturn them home, keepingthose animals from long shelterstays and often keeping themfrom ever entering the shelter.

Restraint laws have traditionallybeen designed for dogs, andcame about largely as a publicsafety measure. But somejurisdictions have passedrestraint requirements for cats –with mixed results.

Given that many owners stillallow their cats to roamoutdoors, some cat restraintlaws can result in an increase ofcat intake to the shelter,resulting in increases ineuthanasia. And, if poorlyworded, some cat laws canactually prevent lifesavingprograms like trap-neuter-return.

Consideringcats

animalfarmfoundation.org.By Cory A. Smith for Animal Sheltering Magazine July/August 2012

27

Cat overpopulation stands atepidemic proportions today.Shelters are taking in andeuthanizing more cats than dogs– in most areas, the ration is 2:1at least. Approximately 3 millioncats are euthanized in shelterseach year.

It is estimated that no morethan 2-5 percent of cats pickedup as strays and taken to ashelter will be reunited withtheir owners, compared to 15-30percent of dogs. That equalsthousands of cats and evenmore thousands of dollars forlocal animal control annually,and when you multiply it by thenumber of animal controlagencies nationwide, the figuresbecome startling.

Given those realities, it’sworth considering whetherrequirements that cats beconfined will keep them safer, orresult in a greater influx of catsto local shelters. The answermay depend on yourcommunity.

An estimated 50 million feralcats live in U.S. communities.Any ordinances that apply toowned cats need to makespecific exceptions for feral cats,since there are no owners tohold accountable. Ordinancesthat enable nonlethalmanagement of feral catsshould be considered.

Passing unrealisticrequirements for cat owners is awaste of time, and can havetragic results in more cats beingsurrendered, abandoned, andeuthanized. Cat ordinancesshould be designed to protectpublic safety, protect cats, andprovide animal control agencieswith effective, proactive,productive tools to manage catpopulations and keep cats intheir homes, while educating catowners about the importance ofspaying/neutering and keepingcats indoors.

Most jurisdictions require catsto be vaccinated against rabiessince they rank in the toplistings of vector species. Somecommunities have successfully

When considering howto approach catmanagement:

passed ordinances requiring catidentification (collar and tag)and/or microchipping orlicensing for cats, leading tohigher than average return-to-owner rates.

animalfarmfoundation.org.By Cory A. Smith for Animal Sheltering Magazine July/August 2012

Licensed to Thrive

Government-mandated dogregistration systems to providelicense tags to pet owners inexchange for a fee – commonlycalled licensing – have had apositive effect in the UnitedStates. Communities with higherlicensing compliance ratesreport better numbers forreturning animals to theirhomes, saving shelters space,time, money, and keeping petsout of the shelter system.

27These programs have beenmost successful in communitiesthat spread the message thatlicensing is a pet protectionservice rather than aburdensome tax. Pet ownersare usually not opposed toshouldering some of thefinancial responsibility foranimal care and controlprograms when they value theprograms and services.

Higher pet registration fees,coupled with promotionalstrategies and stricterenforcement, almost alwaysresults in greater revenues.Licensing fees will not usuallycover the full cost of an effectiveanimal control program, butthey can be a key supplementalsource of income.

Ordinances should specify therequirement that dogs wear thelicense tag on their collars.

Some jurisdictions have begunto incorporate microchips intotheir licensing programs as arequirement, and mostjurisdictions scan incominganimals for microchips whetherthey are a requirement or not.But collars and tags are still theNo. 1 means for a lost animal tobe returned home, whether by aneighbor, Good Samaritan, oranimal control agency.

When efficiently run, licensingprograms can providecommunity pet populationrecords, and when yourgovernment knows how manypets are in your community, itmakes budgeting and settingprogram goals much easier.

Your public education efforts,record keeping, and ability totarget problems in thecommunity will be much moreeffective with better

understandings of the petpopulation.

One way to engage thecommunity in helping reducethe need for sheltering servicesand the problem of euthanasiais via differential licensingprograms, which require ahigher payment to licenseunsterilized animals. This canserve as an incentive for petowners to have their animalspayed or neutered, whileshifting more of the burden ofanimal control cost to petowners who create the need forincreased services.

Charging pet owners who allowtheir pets to contribute to thesurplus of companion animals inthe community, directlyimpacting homelessness ratesand animal control costs, is asensible tactic that educates thepet-owning public, but allowspeople to keep their pets intact ifthey choose.

Estimates indicate that morethan 80 percent of counties andcities in the United States havedifferential licensing structure inplace. Some states require thatlocal governments impose atleast a minimal differential;while others leave it up to thejurisdiction.

Most licensing fees for alteredanimals fall within the $5-15 peryear range and unalteredanimals fees in the $30-200 peryear range. In recent years thetrend has been towardsincreasing the differentials.

animalfarmfoundation.org.By Cory A. Smith for Animal Sheltering Magazine July/August 2012

27

The majority ofcommunities across thecountry require proof ofrabies vaccination beforeissuing a license andregistration tags. Somejurisdictions require thatveterinarians report rabiesvaccinations to the animalcontrol agency, andincentivize veterinariansfor selling licenses fromtheir practice, which hasbeen shown to increasecompliance rates.

Ordinance sectionspertaining to rabies shouldmake it unlawful for anyperson to own or harbor a

dog or cat over the age of 3months without a validrabies vaccination.

Rabies control laws shouldalso address quarantinerequirements in case ofanimal-to-human biteincidents, domestic animal-to-animal bite incidents, orcontact between domesticanimals and wild animals.Rabies control should beconsidered one of theprimary functions of ananimal control agency, sogovernment should budgetfor and organize free orreduced-cost rabiesvaccination clinics for

residents throughout theyear.

These services can be held inconjunction with othercommunity events and caninclude other publiceducation on animal careand management issues.

An animal control ordinancehas the chance to set thetone for pet ownershipwithin your community andfor the animal care andcontrol agency itself.

animalfarmfoundation.org.By Cory A. Smith for Animal Sheltering Magazine July/August 2012

It's Not Us vs Them, We AllWant Safer Communities

animalfarmfoundation.org

In February 2013, Rhode Island officialsintroduced House Bill 5287 and Senate Bill 178,targeting “pit bull” dogs.

The bills called for statewide regulations for“pit bull" dogs and would have required, amongother things, mandatory insurance,confinement, muzzling, and banned walkingthese dogs within 100 feet of a school. Thebills would have created statewide BreedSpecific Legislation (BSL).

The language was some of the mostinflammatory I have ever seen in legislation.But as I read the legislation, it was clear thatthis was motivated from a place of deepemotion.

My experience has taught me that almost everysingle instance of proposed breed specificlegislation is motivated by emotion – a reactionto a single, frightening event. Or maybe it is areaction to something frightening that couldhave happened, but didn't. BSL is always aboutthe fear of not being safe in our owncommunities.

I called the senator who sponsored thelegislation to ask him if he was willing to tellme about his motivation. I explained that,while on the surface, it may seem that wedidn't agree I was certain we really did.

I explained that we both probably wanted thesame thing - for all the citizens of Rhode Islandto feel safe. Although the senator and I did notagree on how to get there, we shared acommunity of interest. We had establishedcommon ground on which to stand.

Turns out, I was the first person who hadcalled the senator with solutions regardingbuilding safe communities. Everyone else onlymade complaints. He asked me to speak withthe constituent who'd brought up thislegislation in the first place.

I was glad to!

The constituent, a dog owner himself, had ascary experience with a dog in his community.While they were out for a walk, another personallowed their dog to severely injure his dog.His dog needed emergency surgery and lots ofstitches.

A letter from our Executive Director

We all want to feel safe. that issomething we all can agree on.

animalfarmfoundation.org

It was a legitimately terrible experience forthis citizen and his family. They were afraidtheir pet was going to die. They had every rightto be angry and frightened. I would have beentoo.

Afterward, there was a dangerous dog hearingregarding the incident. It became clear that thereckless dog owner didn't care if his dog wasdestroyed. He'd simply get another dog.

The dog owner was the problem. He'd failed toproperly manage his dog. He was the one toblame for the incident. But since the victimdoes not live under the “pit bull” tent, as somany of us do, he was susceptible to theincorrect notion that the “pit bull” was toblame for what happened. He believed that, inorder to prevent this sort of thing fromhappening to another family, "pit bull" dogsneeded to be restricted.

He exhausted all recourse allowed by law, butnothing had really changed. He knew heneeded to do something to bring attention tothe problem of reckless dog owners.

After months of meeting with his city council,this gentleman met with his senator to discussa legislative solution. The result was officialsproposing statewide breed specific legislationin Rhode Island.

Obviously, I do not agree with their legislativesolution. But as a dog owner who would doanything to keep her pets safe, and as ahuman being who genuinely cares about thewellbeing of her friends and neighbors, Iunderstand why they felt like they needed todo something.

I know firsthand what it feels like to live in acity where officials were consideringlegislation (fueled by the acts of a single,reckless dog owner) that would force me toeither leave my home and my job, or surrendermy dog to be killed. I was afraid. And I nolonger felt safe in my own community.

I also know what it is like to feel unsafe in myown neighborhood because a reckless dogowner will not properly contain his dog. I havea “pit bull” dog who is still too afraid to go forwalks in our own neighborhood because hewas bitten by the neighbor’s at-large dog.

In talking with the constituent, it turned outthat we're more alike than we are different.Instead of focusing on our disagreements, westarted with our shared community of interestand our goals regarding building a safecommunity.

Who Wants Safe Communities?

"Pit Bull" DogOwners

General Public

We All WantSafe Communities

We discussed how no one has proven that BSLreduces dog bites, but that we do know it failsto increase public safety. We agreed that inorder to reach our shared goal of communitysafety, BSL was not going to be an effectivesolution.

Together we determined that there was a lotof room for improvement in how Rhode Islanddealt with reckless dog owners of any breedor mix. We knew by focusing our efforts there,we could affect real change that increasedpublic safety.

We looked at existing animal control laws anddiscovered where current ordinances weren'tbeing enforced properly. When currentlegislation isn’t being enforced, introducingnew legislation makes little sense. Why not tryenforcing what you already have on thebooks, before introducing new legislation?

We could both see that there were many stepswe could take to improve community safety inRhode Island, without banning dogs based onphysical appearance or breed label.

In March of 2013, both bills were withdrawnby their sponsors.

Today, there is still much work to be done,but all the stakeholders now agree that BSL

is not going to be the solution.

It’s worth noting that I didn't attempt toinfluence the constituent’s decision by talkingabout how much I love "pit bull" dogs. I wasnot attempting to change how he felt about“pit bull” dogs. I focused the discussion onour mutual interest in building safecommunities because it was clear from thebeginning that we were both on the sameside.

I shared the research that shows BSL wouldnot lead to an increase in public safety. BSLfails responsible "pit bull" dog owners, suchas myself, and it fails our neighbors andfellow community members, such as thisgentleman.

We all wind up losing with BSL, no matterwhat side we’re on. The takeaway here is thatthere is no us vs. them when it comes towanting to be safe in our own communities.We need to start conversations from thatcommon ground, rather than starting from aplace of fear and anger.

Refuse to play the divisive game of us vs.them. That's what we did in Rhode Island, andtogether, we found a solution that benefitseveryone in the community.

animalfarmfoundation.org

OTHERRESOURCES

National Canine Research Council Website:http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/news/how-use-national-canine-research-councils-website

Pets For Life Community OutreachToolkit:https://www.animalsheltering.org/sites/default/files/content/PetsForLifeCommunityOutreachToolkit.pdf

Support, Inform, then Enforce: BasicPrinciples for Safe Humane Communitiesfrom National Canine Research Council:http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/public-policy/effective-policies

Discover Safe Humane Chicago, anUnprecedented Community-Wide Alliancethat Combats Violence by PromotingCompassion and Caring for People andAnimals:http://www.safehumanechicago.org/

A Community Approach to Dog BitePrevention From AVMA:https://www.avma.org/public/Health/Documents/dogbite.pdf

for Building Safer Communities

BUILDING SAFE COMMUNITIES E-BOOK | VERSION 1.1 | 2017

Photo Credit:

For more information, please visit ourwebsite:www.animalfarmfoundation.orgpr contact us at:info@animalfarmfoundation.org

Dog Bites Problems and Solutions FromNational Canine Research Council:http://www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/sites/default/files/Dog-Bites-Problems-and-Solutions-2nd-Edition.pdf