Last October, Decatur County (GA) passed a new ordinance that mandated that people register their dogs and have their necessary rabies vaccinations.
The ordinance takes effect on Thursday, but already, last week, the Humane Society in Decatur County saw a huge influx of animals from people who were unable or unwilling to comply with the ordinance.
The Humane Society, which serves a county of only about 28,000 people, saw 170 animals brought into the shelter last week. On Monday alone, employees had to kill 25 animals due to the influx.
For many reasons, I am supportive of cities that have licensing requirements (primarily because I feel like it helps the shelter to get animals back home if they are loose) -- and obviously, getting rabies vaccinations is a good idea.
However, the problem with many of the mandatory programs is that they do not provide the support to overcome the biggest barrier for most people in compliance, which is usually money. Most people would be willing to comply with these laws if the barriers (usually money) were removed.
How much more effective might it have been for the city to provide low-cost, or no-cost vaccinations for people who could not afford them? Many animal welfare groups and citizens would donate money to this type of cause.
They could have also allowed owners to, if they truly couldn't afford the registration, to have free registration for the dogs for a year or two just to keep these animals in homes. My assumption is that the goal of this ordinance was get animals licensed and vaccinated -- not confiscated and killed.
But now, a fairly simple ordinance that just mandates registration and a rabies vaccination, has cost 25 animals their lives before the ordinance even took effect. That's quite a few for such a small population, and this could get worse once they begin enforcing the ordinance.
What is unfortunate is that Decatur County, GA's laws only touch the surface of the many mandatory laws that animal welfare people often push for in cities. And as the laws become more numerous, the people able to comply become fewer and fewer...eventually leading to more animals entering into the shelters.
The more successful route is always to spend the money up-front to remove the barriers of compliance with low-cost and no-cost programs vs paying the money on the back end to care for the animals once they enter the shelter and costing animals their homes, and their lives. Our methods need to include helping people become the type of owners we want them to be....not trying to punish them into doing what we want. The punishment, almost always, is harshest for the dogs.
Peer pressure, provision of affordable easily accessed services and public education work far better than legislation - which should just provide tools to control antisocial behaviour.
Here in Ontario for example, where licensing runs at about 10% compliance, people who license their dogs are actually exhibiting deviant behaviour. Of course, with the current anti-dog climate which generates fear, it's unlikely licensing will improve until we scrap BSL. Duh.
As Bill has demonstrated in Calgary, making licensing attractive coupled with enforcement works very well to boost compliance. I'm convinced that's the secret of his success.
Posted by: Selma | January 13, 2009 at 05:53 PM
Wow....
Well I feel bad for the dogs. And the people who had to put them down....(must be the worst job in the world).
But it sounds like these owners were really not that into their dogs in the first place. I am sure some could not afford, but then they are not a responsible owner to begin with and do not deserve the previlage to own a dog.
If children are taken out of the home it makes a good sense to take dogs out of the home as well...and in this case they just turned them in....
This is a good thing....
I can tell you how many times that I have seen Brent, Selma, Caveat all post with the concept that all dogs need temperment training and to pass tests.....and that this will make good owners.....
Well if owners can even pay for the money for the license fee and a Rabbis shot...do you really want them owning dogs in the first place...
Again...this goes to my whole point of raising the level of quality dog ownership....
A homeless person can love their infant more than anything in world...but the government is still going to take the kid away because he is not responsible enough to care for the child.
Brent I actually read that three times....just in case I missed something....you are so far off base on this one...it goes against everything which you have stated in the past....its great for the dog.....but it puts a dog back into a home which could not afford
*****************************************
NEWS FLASH
*****************************************
I just got off the phone with the shelter in Question and she said that there is NO FEE for License only a FINE if you dont get your RABIES shots. I asked how much the Shots cost and she said depending on your Vet between $10-$15.
Feel Free to call and confirm...
Now (as I type with a smile on my face) it seems the misreporting in Media also goes both ways.....granted....I will say the negative stuff out weighs this kind of fluff.
But it does go both ways.....
Posted by: doug | January 14, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Doug,
I have no problem with taking animals out of home if they are being cruely treated or are in danger of mistreatment - -which are the reasons we confiscate children from homes. We don't take children from homes because they are not licensed or because people are poor.
And, when we don't just remove children from homes and take them into an orphanage and kill them becaus the orphanage is too crowded...but we do for dogs.
We're not talking about removing dangerous, neglected or cruelty treated dogs from homes here -- we're talking about taking dogs from homes and killing them.
Posted by: Brent | January 14, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Brent....I did not think that you were going to go there with the kid/dog comparison....so I will cut you another break.
We actually do take kids away from people who can not afford them.
I think if you dig a little deeper in this story...you will find its a lie....we are talking about $10 to $15 dollars to get the proper shots for you dog....and people are saying that they cant afford it.....
Lets say that we lowered the price down to $5...and people still came in, in the same numbers....would you still say that it was a money issue.
This story is a propaganda lie from the get go....spun to get more press and more donations. You notice in the story they had no mention of how much the shots cost....if people knew it was $10 to $15 dollars...this would not be a story....
What we are talking about....is good public citizens who have determined that they could not take care of their dogs any more, and turned them in....
Please also take into account that this is 3 weeks after Christmas.....all the fresh new puppies under the tree...well the kids are sick of taking the dog for the walk and the parents are sick of picking up dog poop....so off to the pound they go....
I am sure January has the highest dog totals for dogs headed to the gas chamber.
The bottom line is these dogs are being sent to the pound because the owners do not want them....that is a responsible thing to do.....
Bottom line about the story....it was spun to get donations....and you took it hook line and sinker.
Posted by: doug | January 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Shot may be $10 - $15
but around my area, to get the shots at a Vet you likely have to get an exam ~$40 which usually comes with a office visit fee of around $25.
So lets say you're just charged an office visit (stacking the numbers in your favor Doug) that's $35 - $40, and yes to some low-income families that is quite a bit of money.
Just sayin'
Posted by: Adam | January 14, 2009 at 11:17 AM
I do want to clarify something.
On the surface, I really don't have much of a problem with the ordinance that Decatur County put in place. On the surface, I agree with licensing laws -- and of course think that dogs should be vaccinated.
However, I posted this just to note that even with the simplest, most basic, mandatory law, there will be a segment of people who are unwilling or unable to comply. As you add more and more mandatory laws, the number of people who are unable/unwilling to comply grows exponentially -- which leads to more dogs in the shelter, and more dogs dying.
Posted by: Brent | January 14, 2009 at 11:48 AM
If even the simplist most basic mandatory law has a segment of people who are unwilling or unable to comply....do you actually want them owning a dog in the first place.....
In this case registering a dog was free and it cost money for the Rabies shot.
People might not want to register their dog because they are: Lazy, Not Responsible, Dont respect the Law or are wanted from the Law.
Or they may may not register their dog because they can't afford it...which in this case was $20.50 (from a random call).
Either way....these are the people who you do not want owning a dog.
If all people followed the basic rules there would be no need for more rules and laws....
Same thing with my earlier post of the 10, 20 Life law...the basic laws for commiting crimes were not good enough a deterent, so society came up with more laws to address the basic laws which were not being followed.
I agree the more laws you have the harder to follow, but if you are responsible this should not matter...they can make the strongest hand gun laws in the country...and I am positive I an never going to break that law.
Posted by: doug | January 15, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Doug,
You again failed to miss the point -- and viewed the post as a complete silo, separate from every other post on this site (or even from others this week). Let me reiterate:
1) I never said that I opposed their law
2) I used this as an example of how any mandatory law, no matter how basic, will bring with it a certain percentage of owners that cannot (or will not) comply.
3) One of the bigger obstacles for animals in this country are the animal people who push for more mandatory laws (particularly mandatory spay/neuter laws) that bring with them larger numbers of people who cannot/will not comply, which brings more dogs into the shelter, which means they are killed. See the posts the past two days about LA and Louisville.
There is no evidence that we can punish people into obeying the law. You change behavior by changing attitudes -- not creating more laws. We have more gun laws than anything in this country, and yet 70% of the people who are murdered are killed using guns. We have hundreds of traffic laws, and yet the #1 accidental killer of people in this country is auto accidents. We have created hundreds of drug laws, and are no closer to solving the nation's drug problem than we were did in the 70s.
More laws is not the way to change behavior...
Posted by: Brent | January 15, 2009 at 12:30 PM
I have to laugh when I read remarks saying that people who don't license their dogs shouldn't own one.
The elephant in this room is stupidity combined with ignorance wrapped up in one cone-shaped package.
More people than ever don't license exactly because of these kinds of punitive laws. Licensing compliance has always been low anyway but now it's getting lower.
People see no reason to let authorities know they own a dog or what kind it may be.
While I have always bought tags, I tend to agree with these people. The less informaton the dog-killers have, the better.
As for mandatory neutering, as far as I'm concerned it's the business of the owner and their vet. Period.
Posted by: Selma | January 15, 2009 at 01:36 PM
Actually that is kind of how our society was founded...we are a country a laws...and one of the best things about our contry is the concept that no one is above the law.
Years ago there was a term used to describe where you live...THE WILD WEST!
It was not until, the law came to town that peoples behaivor changed.
Having laws....is one reason why the term "Law and Order" was first coined....
Without basic laws there is no Order....
What would our society be like if we had no basic laws which governed, Guns, Drugs, Driving....our society would be called a "Third World Country" and be filled with Pirates and Banditos and fast drivers....
Even with all our laws, you're are 100% correct, our prisions are filled to capacity....for one big reason....YOU CANT FIX STUPID.......
Laws are based on what society dictates...not all laws are perfect or in some cases leagal...but we need laws non the less because not everyone in this country is as law abiding as your group...I guess I should say our group....seeing how I type more to you than my family....
Sincerly,
Your new Cuz
Doug
Posted by: doug | January 15, 2009 at 02:10 PM
Gee, thanks for explaining that. Wow. Who knew that people should respect the law. Mind-blowing.
I wish the people who are elected to write our laws - yes, that's their job which is why they keep doing it whether it's necessary or not - had as much respect for citizens as they feel citizens should have for them.
The reason licensing compliance is high in Calgary is that animal services is seen as an ally, not an oppressor. But of course, they have no breed bans, pet limits, mandatory neutering or other undemocratic bylaws that cause people to lose respect for them.
Law in itself doesn't necessarily deserve respect. In fact, bad laws should be disobeyed because they should never be written in the first place. A dictatorship is just a place where more and more laws are written by people who want to control more and more aspects of citizens' lives.
Fair, universal laws should be obeyed, I agree. I have no problem with licensing, for example and have always promoted it as one of the foundations of a solid dog ownership community.
However, just funneling the money into general revenue to create a slush fund, starving animal services and harassing and oppressing good owners with pointless regulations isn't the purpose of licensing, or it shouldn't be.
I was just explaining why many people these days are not licensing their dogs out of fear of what an unfit government might do next. And trust me, most of these people are by no means low-income types.
Posted by: Selma | January 15, 2009 at 04:56 PM
Regarding breed bans, what are we really talking about....maybe a hundred or two communitys who have some kind of BSL.
Arn't there entire states which have anti-BSL legislation?
The law is the law...it was made either by elected officials or by referrendum and the majority rules.
I don't think that you will get too much support with people in Canada or in the US to get people to beleive that we live in some sort of dictatorship.....just because you have one law....that you don't like (which does not even effect you)....does not make it even close to a dictatorship or even a bad law....just a bad law in your opinion.
Also having a Litmus Test to determine who you want to elect is not a good idea for elected polticians either...
Determining which guy running for office is "Dog Friendly" and the just going for that guy does not do the rest of the public any good...
Posted by: doug | January 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Doug,
I disagree on the Litmus test. If any politician looks at BSL, and the information out there about it, and thinks that it works, I would have severe reservations about their decision-making ability. If they would make policty decisions and enact ordinances that had proven themselves not to work, what other ignorant decisions are they going to make?
Given that about 40% of the population owns dogs, I don't tink it is necessarily out of the realm of smart thinking to find the dog-friendly candidates (most are), and then choose wisely among those candidates. People make political decisions all the time based on less logical criteria.
Posted by: Brent | January 16, 2009 at 10:46 AM