Licensing cats/limiting the number owned

I'm not certain that this is the correct forum for this thread, but the subject has been raised in the "96 cats..." thread. I live in Germany, where animal shelters are both "no kill" and hopelessly overcrowded. Many animals spend years vegetating in shelters. Dogs must be licensed (and in many places the owner has to have liability insurance), and the annual "dog tax" runs from about $75 in small towns for the first dog (and roughly twice as much for the second) to about $250 in large cities. Owners of "dangerous breeds", which include bull terriers, American Staffordshires and the like, are generally required to pay much more, e.g., in my small town c. $1,250. Unfortunately, this tax is not earmarked for animal rescue, but is simply "revenue". There is no such thing as a "cat tax", and there are major problems with abandoned cats, non-neutered cats, feral colonies, and "cat hoarding". I know that more and more US communities are adopting such policies. I've "had my head chewed off" on German cat forums and in the cat rescue organization I belong to (and one I felt compelled to quit) for suggesting that a cat tax, with deep cuts for owners of cats adopted from shelters or accredited rescue organizations, neutered cats, or for senior citizens and welfare recipients, be instituted here. What are your thoughts on the matter? Perhaps my arguments simply aren't convincing enough, or I'm "barking up the wrong tree". Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Another question I have is, who benefits directly from the dog/cat license fees in your area? When I lived in PA, dog licenses were purchased directly from the county SPCA.

The problem with a cat tax is the possible implications to TNR efforts. Would a caretaker who can barely afford to feed and then fix these feral cats have to pay for the "priviledge" of helping to reduce the number of feral cats??

Yes..abandonment is an issue..all over...but I do not think having a tax will help to ensure that it doesn't happen. Many states have abandonment laws..but people will find ways around them...so if we want to reduce the numbers of unfixed, free roaming cats...we must attack it from many angles...1. all cats and dogs adopted from shelters/rescues should be fixed PRIOR to being adopted. 2. We should provide low cost or free spay/neuters to those who cannot afford the full price (the time to spay should be changed from 6 monthes to between 2 to 4 monthes to avoid accidental births). 3. We should work with the public on issues which cause their cats to be abandoned in the first place. 4. We should step up TNR efforts to bring feral cat colonies under control. Again....these are very general ideas and will need to be adjusted based on the need of the particular area.

Katie

Katie

Originally posted by TNR1
The problem with a cat tax is the possible implications to TNR efforts. Would a caretaker who can barely afford to feed and then fix these feral cats have to pay for the "priviledge" of helping to reduce the number of feral cats??

Yes..abandonment is an issue..all over...but I do not think having a tax will help to ensure that it doesn't happen. Many states have abandonment laws..but people will find ways around them...so if we want to reduce the numbers of unfixed, free roaming cats...we must attack it from many angles...1. all cats and dogs adopted from shelters/rescues should be fixed PRIOR to being adopted. 2. We should provide low cost or free spay/neuters to those who cannot afford the full price (the time to spay should be changed from 6 monthes to between 2 to 4 monthes to avoid accidental births). 3. We should work with the public on issues which cause their cats to be abandoned in the first place. 4. We should step up TNR efforts to bring feral cat colonies under control. Again....these are very general ideas and will need to be adjusted based on the need of the particular area.

Katie

Katie

Click to expand...

Katie, that's a very good point to consider. Does anyone on this forum live in a county/city/borough that has laws pertaining to exemptions for caretakers of feral colonies? If so, can you provide links/texts? Or, if there are no exemptions, could you describe the problems encountered?

Being more familiar with the laws, I think Mark Kumpf might be able to help us think through some of these issues in the new forum that'll he'll be moderating in the month of March.

I'm not sure, but I think licensing fees in most municipalities are ear-marked to offset the cost of animal control.

Jcat - re: paying the licensing fee directly to the SPCA. I don't know Philly, but in NY and NJ - and many places, the SPCA has "police power" to investigate animal cruelty charges and to make arrests, thus paying the local SPCA directly likely went to offset their costs. Though they do run shelters (in addition to many other animal advocacy effors), many animal control agencies also run shelters. Others outsource that work. I live in Northern New Jersey, and the town (where we now take our cats to see the vet) outsources part of their animal control rescue efforts by taking any animals they capture, confiscate, etc. that need medical attention to local area vets with which they have contracts. The town will pay for the medical care and boarding for two weeks. If the animal has not been placed by then, it is supposed to be euthanized (although the vets have people like Gary and I that "adopt" the animal if it's at its deadline, and we assume financial responsibility for it until it is placed in a home).

That's one thing that has become very apparent to me in our rescue work - the vets are really on the front line of educational opportunities, and they're in an unusual position given their role in the community to be able to lobby for local legislative changes regarding animal control laws and/or licensing.

The real problem with licensing, as Mark Kumpf pointed out in the "96 cats" thread is that compiance (if I remember correctly) is about 10%. The issue then becomes one of enforcement - and I'd guess that it would cost more to enforce licensing laws than the revenue generated from them. Now, that's not to say that structuring licensing correctly to encourage management by TNR in communities that are smart enough to support it, to encourage rescue efforts by individuals in addition to shelters, to support proper breeding by qualified people or organizations and prevent back-yard or "puppy-mill" breeding, or potentially to fund low-cost spay/neuter programs, etc. shouldn't be explored, but with my lack of knowledge I wouldn't know where to begin regarding proposals!

I'm really looking forward to the new forum where I hope we can pick Mark's brain to help us begin to address some of these questions.

jcat posted on 02-15-2004 at 05:01 PM
Katie, that's a very good point to consider. Does anyone on this forum live in a county/city/borough that has laws pertaining to exemptions for caretakers of feral colonies? If so, can you provide links/texts?

Click to expand...

Here's the problem with "exemptions." Let's say I have nine cats. They're indoor/outdoor. I file for an exemption because I don't want to pay their licensing fees as pets. Who's to say they're pets and not a feral colony? What if I don't have them spayed/neutered, and they're breeding indiscriminately? Now there are 37 cats - but I'm a colony caretaker, so I don't have to pay licensing fees. How does the town or county decide who's legitimate and who's not? Vet records? Maybe that is a way to support an exemption for TNR workers, I don't know.

You're absolutely right - what criteria can be used to decide who gets an exemption and who doesn't? The problem is, the vast majority of the shelters here are totally dependent on volunteer workers and donations. If a cat license fee were to be imposed, many people with low incomes would be forced to give up their pets. However - I just don't see how most shelters/rescue operations can survive without such fees, given the economic situation here (c. 10%+ unemployment; in many areas close to 25%). Donations are dwindling, and more and more people aren't neutering their pets because they simply can't afford to. It's often a struggle to feed the animals. On Wednesday, I got an email from a pet supply company I buy from, offering a very good deal on cat food: 300 cans of food for $219, instead of the normal price of $299, with a limit of 1,800 cans per customer. The food is produced in Thailand, so presumably the retailer is afraid that nobody will buy it because of the avian flu. Since an import ban went into effect in the E.U. as soon as the disease cropped up, I'm working on the presumption that the food is safe, as it was canned months ago. The rescue organization I belong to really needs the food, but there aren't enough funds to take advantage of the offer. My father-in-law, who is afraid of animals and prefers as little contact with them as possible, stopped by while I was discussing the offer with our chairwoman this morning, and for some reason known only to himself (maybe he's mellowing with age) said he'd pay half, so I ordered the maximum amount. So there's enough food for a couple of months. After that, who knows? I'm becoming very discouraged. Producers spend millions on advertising, while millions of animals have to fend for themselves.