My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« 11 month old killed in dog attack in Tillamook, OR | Main | Another ill-informed, well-meaning person pushes for MSN in Memphis »

July 06, 2011


A Waltz

As with ANY law, you have to look at who is benefitting... wouldn't that be the impetus for someone to propose the law in the first place - because they will benefit? I find it interesting that microchipping was added to the MSN. Was it a microchip manufacturer that proposed the MSN law?

Certainly this is not for protection of the citizens or pets, but probably some company/corporation/individual/agency that thinks they stand to GAIN (i.e., make a profit?). If it were truly altruistic and for the benefit of the animals, whomever proposed this would've done their due diligence.

Like you pointed out, it's really not hard to look up the information online to see whether there's a precedent...and find out there is, and THAT DID NOT WORK.

Sorry, I'm jaded. And I'm angry too that we aren't any smarter today than we were yesterday. I wish people would quit trying to make a profit off of the innocent and helpless ones.


In theory, microchipping would make it easier for them to get animals back home if they end up at the shelter -- but there are just other ways of doing this that are proven to be better than mandatory microchipping (which I've never seen a successful case study from either). Calgary has a great example of how they offer a "free ride home" to licensed pets -- and make licensing as an insurance policy of sorts for a lost pet. They get loose and caught, they come home, free. It gives people an incentive to license -- but in a partnering way, not in a punitive way. For some reason we always seem to gravitate toward punitive measures....which always ends up being most costly to the animals we say we're trying to protect.


As always, another great blog, Brent. I agree with you that microchips could have the potential to get animals back to their rightful owners more expediently, but the overall system is broken right now, with multiple chips, multiple scanners and multiple frequencies.

And, I don't know either why we lean towards punitive actions...especially by creating new, sweeping laws that punish diligent pet owners because of a few isolated incidents or miscreants. The move to arbitrarily limit the number of pets people can own is just another example (

I too wish I had an overall answer...low cost neutering is one component, as is education, but I think that all animal welfare advocates need to sit down and realistically understand the ramifications of all the different laws and ordinances they propose.

Lori S.

Barely related, but something I found interesting about a Ypsilanti Township's recently passed BSL/MSN: Internal documents from a a Michigan shelter that supported the BSL/MSN in Ypsilanti Township show that they did so because they weren't getting high enough participation in their low cost s/n program for which they had received a grant. To read those documents full of justifications for supporting the BSL/MSN is enough to make a sane person go mad.


Lori, you must share those documents...

As the World Turns in KCKS

I just read the entire proposed ordinance. Wow - in addition to MSN, Mandatory microchipping, the ordinance states the pet limit (dogs and cats) to a single address is 4. The pet limit includes pets you harbor, which would most likely be feral cats. To exceed that number you have to apply for a $200 kennel license and subject your home to a search by the city.

None of this is going to move St Louis towards being a No Kill community. I can already see many animals being driven into the shelter system.

Seeking the truth

Brent you wrote

"Calgary has a great example of how they offer a "free ride home" to licensed pets -- and make licensing as an insurance policy of sorts for a lost pet"

With licensing fees being $31 for each altered pet and $50 for each unaltered pet wouldn't that program be an expensive insurance policy for pet owners - especially those who adequately secure their pets on their own property. Does Calgary have a "pet limit" law? If so, I can think of a number of reasons why I woud oppose any such plan in my community.


Calgary has no pet limit law.

And yes, I would tend to agree that I think their licensing fees are generally too high -- but, then again, I think the vast majority of people are more than willing to pay that price for their lost pet to find their way home.

Additionally, if someone gets caught without their animal licensed, they are generally given a free license for the first year just to get them in compliance -- because the goal is to get them licensed and get them home, not to punish people.

Seeking the truth


How is charging $250 in licensing fees for eight dogs who have never violated any animal ordinances not being "punative"? With the fines set up for non compliance with a "mandatory" licensing program being so high wouldn't THAT mandate lead to more pets being surrendered or impounded by the shelter? How can you be opposed to one mandate while supporting the other?


Seeking - Explain to me where I wrote that I supported their high licensing fees. I supported their free ride home program (which I think is great). Don't try to pick fights for the sake of creating an argument.

Animal Lover

I explained MSN (Mandatory Spay Neuter) to a young man of about 8 several years ago - as making it so that NO dogs or cats can have puppies or kittens. He processed the info - then blurted out at the top of his lungs: "HEY, WHERE AM I GOING TO GET A DOG WHEN I'M OLD ENOUGH TO GET MY OWN?????"

How come an 8-year-old gets it - and so many adults can't see beyond the nose on their face.

NO - MSN is NOT about an overabundance of animals. Face facts - there are multiple rescue groups bring animals in from 3rd world countries!!! What it IS about is the elimination of ALL domestic animals, one-by-one, NO PETS!!!!!!! It's planned and deliberate! Has nothing to do with the welfare of the animals and everything to do with the VEGAN/H$U$ agenda - no domestic animals!!!!!

Jan Dykema

One has to wonder if this is an HSUS sponsored bill or at least connected to them after their "defeat' in Missouri with Prop B. When AB 1634 failed at the statewide level in CA ( MSN for the state) the proponents did and still do promote the passage of MSN city by city


Jan -- I'm not sure HSUS is involved in any way -- they seem to be mostly concerned with passing their new Missouri law that would make it harder to revise future HSUS ballot initiatives.

Lori S.

Brent, my lovely new Michigan friends have the documents. Let me see if I can get them to share electronically so I can send to you. (She previously offered to send them to me but just hearing the excerpts made me so angry I told her to hold onto them until I got settled at the new place. Also, I suspect she'll be willing to let me forward, but will need to confirm :o)


I must be old and forgetful but I honestly thought St. Louis already had MSN and it had been on the books for several years.

Of course I also thought Webb City, Missouri already had BSL. I thought I must be mistaken but then a friend of mine who lives near Webb City said she also remembered them passing BSL. We're beginning to think they did pass it but it never got codified the first time.

Okay, back to St. Louis - I looked it up and here's what's allegedly already on the books, with the caveat that I didn't knock myself out looking this up -

In St. Louis, MO the city requires mandatory spay/neuter of all bite animals. Sec.10.04.120 (G) Any impounded STRAY (emphasis mine)animals must be spayed/ neutered at the owner or guardian’s expense and micro-chipped as well. (my comment - if it's a stray how in the heck does it have an owner or guardian to pay for this stuff??????) Secs. 10.04.150,.160, .170

There is a $50 charge for having an unaltered dog and only $4 for those that are spayed/neutered. Sec.10.04.070

(b) Fees and penalties collected under the ordinance go into a fund to offer financial assistance to city residents for spay/neuter and education of the public on its importance. Sec. 10.04.165 (My comment - HA HA! like THAT'S happening!)


Okay, so does that only apply to animals that have bitten? And how is it that a stray has an owner or guardian (guardian????) to pay the fines and surgery fees?

I'm confused.


In response to Jan Dykema - Jan (GREAT photo, by the way) - I suppose it's possible Pacelle is involved in the St. Louis MSN proposal but my instincts tell me he has bigger fish to fry. I'm inclined to agree with Brent.

Wayne Pacelle did threaten to go from city to city in Missouri and pass Proposition B at the municipal level if the state legislature modified the law. The first attempt at getting a city to pass Prop B was St. Joseph, Missouri. (Still working on that one).

the problem is only first-class, or charter cities, can pass something more stringent than state law, which in this case is the existing ACFA law and SB161, the bill that modified Prop B and added money for actual enforcement.

St. Louis is not a charter city. They're a second class city, so they can't pass Prop B or something more restrictive than what's on the books at the state level.

And even though California didn't get AB1634 passed they did get SB861 on the books (Jackie Spier's bill - I think that was the bill number)which makes MSN easy to pass at the municipal level.

The comments to this entry are closed.