Will costs associated with sheltering strays and unwanted animals drop? Probably not. Animal control costs may actually increase. Financial losses will increase.
There is no evidence that this bill will do anything significant to reduce shelter populations. It just shifts the source of those dogs from casual breeders to commercial breeders or breeders. Thus there will be no significant cost savings, there will be increased enforcement costs.
The Hayden bill prohibits euthanizing "adoptable" animals even if they are unmarketable. Fewer animals coming in won't reduce costs if the unmarketable remain. Does this mean I want to kill them off? No - but we have to be honest about the costs. The primary cost of shelters is housing the animals, not killing them. If we keep to the mandate to not kill the healthy "adoptable" animal then we warehouse the unmarketable - at least until the shelter conditions render them no longer fit for adoption. Today the "adoptable" are killed to make room for new arrivals. Assuming 100% of casual breeders stop breeding animals will still come in. And they will stay and cost resources. Great for the adoptable animal. Not so good on cost savings.
This bill will reduce rate of licensing and permit acquisition thus increasing costs of enforcement and reducing overall revenue.
This bill will increase abandonment rate on the streets and in rural areas thus adding to impoundment costs.
Local communities and California will see significant losses due to travelers avoiding California as a destination.
There is no current data to support the claimed savings. As much as I love many of the animals in the shelters a pit bull is not a pomeranian. People will still seek the breed they want and puppies. Do we have good information about what pets are in the shelters? Are they coming directly from the breeders? Or are they coming from people who acquired them from either the breeder or a third party. Is there a difference in the rate of euthanization between dogs arriving directly from breeders vs strays vs owner relinquished? What are the differences between dogs and cats for these questions? Are the numbers being looked at reliable and current?
If we don't know these answers then how can we fairly and reasonably assess the degree to which this bill will reduce costs by reducing shelter populations? If we only influence the source from which people acquire a pet, and not why they relinquish a pet, in what way does that translate to reduced costs in shelters? Nothing in this bill provides for addressing the direct source of shelter animals, that is the people who allow them to stray or relinquish them, or the existence of feral populations.
Will the lack of casual breeder availability significantly reduce the rate of irresponsibly acquiring a pet? Do we have any evidence to show this? Information from programs ten years ago about pet acquisition is not useful in today's internet environment. It is as easy to buy a cat or kitten over the internet as it is a pair of shoes. The same people who are relinquishing pets now will continue to relinquish or abandon them. I don't see facts and figures that convince me that this will result in fiscal improvements for government animal shelters. Current and credible information is needed.
Another fiscal impact is the drop in licensing revenue and corresponding cost of a rise in enforcement costs as people decline to license their dogs to avoid the burdens this bill imposes. While large governmental agencies may have the financial resources to initially finance enforcement campaigns the costs to smaller agencies will be unbearable. They won't be able to finance sufficient enforcement to obtain compliance and any licensing revenue that currently exists will drop significantly. The chart labeled "Rabies Control Activities Reporting by Local Health Jurisdiction (LHJ) California 1995-2005" shows a significant reduction in licensing between 1995 and 2005. Licensing declined at a greater rate than the decline in shelter populations. At the same time the rate at which shelters reported their statistics also declined. 58 of 61 jurisdictions reported in 1995, while only 44 of the 61 reported in 2005.
Expect also increased costs associated with increased incidence of rabies because veterinarians are required to report to their local agencies, and again people will seek to avoid this.
Increased animal control costs will follow as people dump accidental litters to avoid the fines.
The bill as approved on May 31st has limited exemptions for travelers from out of state. The traveler is only exempt if the local agency finds the presence of the dog or cat to be "legitimate."
Any owner of a cat or dog who is not a resident of California shall be exempted from the permit requirements set forth in this chapter if the owner provides proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that the cat or dog is temporarily in California for training, showing, or any other legitimate reason.
There is no criteria to control or limit to the local jurisdiction's discretion. Therefore any person arriving for a visit with an intact dog or cat will be at risk for being subject to the mandatory spay/neuter requirement. The level of proof is not defined, it is up to the local jurisdiction. That may vary from one jurisdiction to another. Since travelers will have no permit they risk varying rules as they travel. What one juridiction views as sufficient another may judge to be inadequate. Thus California and its local communities will stand to lose millions of dollars, not just from lack of shows and competitions but from the average person who avoids California.
Financial losses from the absence of large shows will be the most obvious losses because the income generated is concentrated in both time and area. However, losses will not be limited to the millions generated by shows and competitions. Losses will also come from the traveler who has an intact cat or dog for any number of reasons, including (but certainly not limited to) that the animal is a valued farm or ranch dog, is a service dog in training, is a scent detection dog for a public or private agency, is obtaining medical treatment, or is simply a valued travel companion. How is any traveler going to be assured that simply "along for the ride" is an acceptable "reason" by a local jurisdiction. Every traveler with an intact dog or cat will need to avoid traveling with their pet to California.
--
Diane Blackman, DogPlay Webmaster
http://www.dogplay.com
Information on Responsible breeding
Check out the No Kill Solution
DogPlay Home Page
Lost? PageList lists all the DogPlay pages.
Check the Help page. 
Learn more About DogPlay.
Dog Books and Videos at 4 M Dog Books
Fun dog related designs on T-Shirts, sweatshirts, mugs, buttons, stickers and more at DogPlay Mall and DogPlay Shop.
Before making a link request, check my criteria.
Shop or Create What's On Your Mind at CafePress.comCopyright © 2007,
Diane Blackman
Created: April 2, 2007
Updated: June 1, 2007
Help with Contacting DogPlay
For information on linking and other uses of this material see the copyright
page.
Disclaimer and Privacy Policy
Help About Feedback Partners Listing Home