Why does R in TNR=abandonment

Mark,

I think you and I touched upon this briefly in the other thread...but I wanted to pursue further this idea that "returning" a feral cat after it has been fixed is considered abandonment. Since the abandonment law was not designed for ferals (who are not "dumped" cats..but cats that have been living outdoors their entires lives) why is it now being associated with TNR?? I can understand it being associated with a "stray" cat that was obviously once owned..but not with a "feral" cat that was never owned. Further information would be beneficial.

A second part of this question then (obviously) is...how does AC and feral cat groups/caretakers come together to ensure that these cats are treated "humanely" but within the current laws. TNR has been shown to be very effective where it is practiced...and the hope is that this thread will give opportunities to further the good of TNR groups/caretakers.

Thanks Mark.

Katie

P.S. Follow Virginian here.

In Virginia, an owner is broadly defined. Providing food, water, veterinary care, allowing to remain on property are all components of ownership. The code does not specify a percentage of any of these so its the cliche "in for a penny, in for a pound". By doing these things, the caregiver establishes a claim to the animal and the code then holds them responsible for license and rabies vaccinations where required by local code. Not all jurisdictions in VA license cats. Now that ownership is established, the caregiver has a duty under the code to continue to provide those things on a daily basis. Many prosecuting attorneys (city & county types) have decided that the release of animals on property other than another meets the definition of "abandonment" under the code and could prosecute for it. As stated for the purposes here, it would more than likely only amount to a fine (max $500) for the class 3 misdemeanor violation.

If you want, I can point you to the code sections.

Thanks Mark....I don't need the exact code. Knowing that this law exists...and that there is a need to spay/neuter these cats. How can a caretaker best work with the ACO?? Is there a middle ground that the caretaker can strike to avoid the penalty?? Obviously not all cats are suitable for rehoming and releasing is definately more humane than euthanization. If someone is a caretaker who is acting on good faith to practice TNR in the hopes of stabilizing a colony...does AC allow that to occur?? (In other words...as long as no one complains...does AC simply allow TNR to occur?)

Thanks,

Kaite

That's a fascinating subject. Surely, if the R was simple "release" like it used to be, some cases of TNR could have been abandonment (if the cats were simply released somewhere, away from where they were trapped). But if they are returned to the colony where they were taken from and then given the exact same care (usually at least feeding and often vet care as well) - how can that be abandonment? I can see what you're saying about ownership of the cats Mark, but is there a law that says that those cats have to be kept indoors? If someone is taking care of a colony of ferals, TNR's them, with them being returned to the same place where they lived before - how can that be construed as abandoment?

Hi All,

Mark, are you implying that a feral cat caretaker who might care diligently for two or three separate colonies, should happily plunk down $500 fines any time one of the cats from those colonies lands in the impound group and has to be redeemed?

If that's what you are saying, I can appreciate that Animal Controls are sorely understaffed and underfunded. And yet, because I know a lot of colony caretakers, I know that those people are not rich by any means. Often, it is the less well-off people in a community that have the time to provide colony management. They're the people who may have chosen to have one or two indoor, well-cared-for pet cats, but who can't turn their backs on homeless cats in their neighborhoods or worksites. It's not that these people intentionally decide to start spending a larger proportion of their income on someone else's former pet or a group of hard feral cats. It seems to me that fining these people is really a punitive measure that they don't deserve. How about instead, fining all the members of the community who DID NOT help prevent the cats from breeding ;-)? I think construing TNR as declaring ownership rights is a round-about way of encouraging insensitivity about animals.

It is already difficult for many caretakers to find funding to speuter lots of outdoor cats. Add $500 to that budget, and you break many caretakers' budgets completely. To a caretaker, $500 is a LOT of money. It's not just a slap-on-the-wrist fine. Heck, even for rescue organizations, that's a big chunk of change, particularly if the rescue group is doing a good job and covers a large number of managed colonies. I can imagine having to budget for a couple of thousand in fines, in this scenario.

I hope I read you wrong! :-)

Originally posted by linda_of_pgff
Hi All,

Mark, are you implying that a feral cat caretaker who might care diligently for two or three separate colonies, should happily plunk down $500 fines any time one of the cats from those colonies lands in the impound group and has to be redeemed?

If that's what you are saying, I can appreciate that Animal Controls are sorely understaffed and underfunded. And yet, because I know a lot of colony caretakers, I know that those people are not rich by any means. Often, it is the less well-off people in a community that have the time to provide colony management. They're the people who may have chosen to have one or two indoor, well-cared-for pet cats, but who can't turn their backs on homeless cats in their neighborhoods or worksites. It's not that these people intentionally decide to start spending a larger proportion of their income on someone else's former pet or a group of hard feral cats. It seems to me that fining these people is really a punitive measure that they don't deserve. How about instead, fining all the members of the community who DID NOT help prevent the cats from breeding ;-)? I think construing TNR as declaring ownership rights is a round-about way of encouraging insensitivity about animals.

It is already difficult for many caretakers to find funding to speuter lots of outdoor cats. Add $500 to that budget, and you break many caretakers' budgets completely. To a caretaker, $500 is a LOT of money. It's not just a slap-on-the-wrist fine. Heck, even for rescue organizations, that's a big chunk of change, particularly if the rescue group is doing a good job and covers a large number of managed colonies. I can imagine having to budget for a couple of thousand in fines, in this scenario.

I hope I read you wrong! :-)

Click to expand...

Yes, you did! The fine is a penalty for being convicted of misdemeanor animal abandonment and is a maximum POSSIBLE not the likely fine. What you are comparing this to is redeeming an animal that has been impounded. That would be "Animal At Large" and impoundment fees (anywhere from $20 or up depending on the local).

This whole scenario implies that the subject was caught dropping the cat off at the location and not just "claiming" the kitty.

With my colonies, when new ones appear, I get them fixed keep them for 2 days (females) and 1 day (males) and "drop them off" back to the colony that I originally found them at. Surely you are not talking about that?

It would be next to impossible to find out who the original owner was who abandoned the cats that are in a colony, so as I read this thread, it seems like it falls on the person who cares enough to handle the colony that they would be at fault for doing so?

I don't mean to speak for Mark, but legally speaking.....yes, that's exactly what he's saying. However, most places aren't going to go looking for a caretaker of a colony. But, if a neighbor or whatnot gets a thorn in their side about you caretaking this colony, that would be the grounds on which charges *could* be filed.

Perhaps you remember last year when we were all up in arms about the proposal in Pennsylvania which would outright outlaw TNR as abandonment? They ended up changing that proposal so that the final law excludes domestic cats from it. Score one for us! (Mark, please correct me if I'm wrong on that...it's been a while since I've read it...)

Originally posted by valanhb
I don't mean to speak for Mark, but legally speaking.....yes, that's exactly what he's saying. However, most places aren't going to go looking for a caretaker of a colony. But, if a neighbor or whatnot gets a thorn in their side about you caretaking this colony, that would be the grounds on which charges *could* be filed.

Perhaps you remember last year when we were all up in arms about the proposal in Pennsylvania which would outright outlaw TNR as abandonment? They ended up changing that proposal so that the final law excludes domestic cats from it. Score one for us! (Mark, please correct me if I'm wrong on that...it's been a while since I've read it...)

Click to expand...

Yes, that is EXACTLY how some interpret the code. Taking an animal into your possession, providing complex medical treatment, and then releasing it to fend for itself (whether you put food out or not) falls into most definitions of abandonment. Again, what is actually prosecutable is open for debate.

Ex. If I observed you release a cat on property other than your yard and determined that you had taken the cat to a vet for surgery, under my state and city code you could be charged with a total of four offenses.
1. Abandonment (misdemeanor)
2. Failure to provide duties of ownership (which is food, water, SHELTER,and continued vet care
3. No rabies vaccination (only if you didn't get it vaccinated)
4. No city license (only if you hadn't purchased one)

Since 1 & 2's only defense is owning the property and being able to provide all of the ownership duties, they are hard to beat. If the animal is not contained, convincing a judge that you can catch it right away and provide needed care or uneqivocally state that it will not be attacked by another animal, abused by humans, or run over by a vehicle are sometimes futile. If you don't own the property, the actual owner may include trespassing as well.

I agree, the well meaning individual can end up as PUBLIC ENEMY #1 for what is ostensibly a "charitable act". Careful!

Obviously that CAN happen...but since we certainly do not want to disuade individuals from practicing TNR..what are some ways that a caretaker can protect themselves while providing this important service.

Katie

One way I can think of would be to affiliate or join with others who are doing the same kind of thing. This is a political move that works for other kind of interest groups. It's important for local lawmakers to see that there is a significant size voting block that wants compassionate care of animals -- not just pet dogs, or house cats -- sanctioned.

This is why I feel it is so important for there to be local organizations that are "feral-friendly." An organization, if it is set up and run right, will be around longer than any individual caretaker may want to or be able to. An organization can see to it that a colony has care over the very long term. And an organization can better raise funds to cover those nasty fines until and unless legal statuses change.

Heidi - I'm not familiar with the PA issue and I'm not sure I understand what you wrote. Essentially it sounds like PA has made it legal to dump pet cats in order to support those caring for strays and ferals?


The discussion in this thread has rasied a couple of questions for me:

1) In communities that support TNR efforts, how do they avoid conflict with animal abandonment laws? Is the answer essentially that they've changed the law to make it (essentially) legal to abandon cats?

2) In communities with pet licensing laws (any idea what percentage of communities in the U.S. have these laws in place?), generally speaking, is licensing the animals the only way for "backyard" rescuers to "legitimize" (or generally legally comply with local codes) their work? In essence, to become their "owners" as opposed to their "caretakers"? (If the question is too general, perhaps just speak to your community).

Thanks,

Laurie

Hey Laurie...I went to the Alley Cat Allies site and copied some links that provide further information regarding the PA issue:

http://www.alleycat.org/penn.html

I'm sure there is more information on the web.

Here is my take on the whole "abandonment" issue....I do not think having these laws necessarily discourages dumping of cats...given the number of strays/ferals there are...obviously people do not give the law much credit. Plus...the only people who typically would be "caught" by this law are the people who do TNR, as they return cats during the daytime...so I don't see how it is effective. Plus...when individuals conduct TNR...the R is for Return...it's not like the person is "dumping" the cat...the cat was already there.

I think much more effective is to provide individuals with a sense that they can bring the cat to a shelter and 1. not be charged a fee and 2. know that the cat will not be killed. Many rescues now have it in their contract that if the cat doesn't work out for any reason..the adoptor is to bring the cat back to them. Also...key to all of this is to make spay/neuter mandatory. Less accidental births...less behavioral issues...better for both people and the cats.

Those are just my thoughts.

Katie

Thanks for the info Katie.

TNR1 posted
I do not think having these laws necessarily discourages dumping of cats...given the number of strays/ferals there are...obviously people do not give the law much credit. Plus...the only people who typically would be "caught" by this law are the people who do TNR, as they return cats during the daytime...so I don't see how it is effective. Plus...when individuals conduct TNR...the R is for Return...it's not like the person is "dumping" the cat...the cat was already there.

Click to expand...

It's also illegal to speed, but many people do it all the time. Should we remove speed limit laws?

I don't ask to be contentious, but to make my point, which is just because people ignore the law doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. It's illegal to dump cats here (Blairstown, NJ, Warren County), yet it happens all the time. Having mandatory spay/neuter laws in place would also probably result in a low level of compliance. If the same people aren't going to pay to license their cats in municipalities where that is required, I very much doubt they're necessarily going to pay to have their cats and dogs spayed or neutered. But there is no doubt in my mind that dumping a sick cat because one doesn't want to pay for vet care or euthanasia is cruelty and should be illegal - whether the chances of catching people who do that are next to nil or not.

I agree with making spay/neuter mandatory except for licensed breeders, but again, the question gets back to compliance. Low-cost (or no-cost) spay/neuter must be part of the answer, though funding is really the issue.

However, what I seek, ultimately, is how to ideally structure the laws/codes, licensing, etc. to support both TNR groups and "non-official" rescue efforts for existing homeless animal populations so that "backyard" rescuers don't have to look at it that they're "not going to get caught." ...how to structure a law that enables rescuers to be in compliance with laws while making things like dumping unwanted animals illegal. So I am interested in the letter of the law, and definitions of "ownership," "abandonment" etc. have to be taken into consideration.

Laurie,

I hope Mark will answer your question. It will be interesting from his viewpoint to hear him on this issue. I know he will answer it as soon as he can.

....which makes me realize that I have another couple of questions ready for Mark.

I realize this is essentially my original question in this thread asked a different way, but have you ever encountered a legal definition of ownership that didn't make someone caring for strays or ferals their legal owner?

Hi MA! You must have posted while I was writing that last one. I'm sure he'll do his best to address the issue - I know it's really broad, but I'm so glad he volunteered to tackle hosting this thread!

I think of mandatory spay/neuter as falling to the shelters and rescues. In Virginia it is the law that any cat/dog that is adopted from a shelter/rescue be fixed within 30 days of being adopted OR by 6 months of age if it is a kitten/puppy. The improvement that I see occurring more and more frequently is that rescues/shelters are doing the spaying and neutering upfront so that the owner isn't required to get it done.

I understand where your analogy comes from...however, this is how I see it. Say someone is speeding because a person is dying or needs immediate attention at a hospital....I would consider that to be different from the people who are simply speeding because they enjoy it or because they are ignoring the laws.

The point I was making was that TNR really isn't "dumping" so there needs to be a way to make the law specific enough to address true "dumping" versus TNR. I am hardpressed to find an analogy that fits in that..TNR is not used for stray cats which can be rehomed. They may be trapped and neutered...but most strays are friendly enough to be rehomed. Feral cats would not necessarily make good pets which poses a dilemma...do we ignore that they need to be spayed simply because they are not domesticated?? In light of the fact that were TNR is embraced shelter euthanizations of cats goes down...I think arguments against TNR don't fly...there just isn't an alternative that makes as much sense at the moment.

I think most people would embrace the T and N part...it is the R part that most people do not want to deal with...they would rather these cats were placed or kept in a sanctuary.

Atlantic City actually has all caretakers register and the city provides the feedstation and conducts the TNR. I think it is still used as a model program.

I'm glad we're on the same page then! I thought from your first reply to my post that you were saying that there shouldn't be an abandonment law because it isn't effective anyway. I obviously misunderstood.

TNR1 posted
I think of mandatory spay/neuter as falling to the shelters and rescues. In Virginia it is the law that any cat/dog that is adopted from a shelter/rescue be fixed within 30 days of being adopted OR by 6 months of age if it is a kitten/puppy. The improvement that I see occurring more and more frequently is that rescues/shelters are doing the spaying and neutering upfront so that the owner isn't required to get it done.

Click to expand...

That is having tremendous benefit in communities implementing this type of program, and I do see this more and more. However, in my dream world where the law is structured in a way that works to promote rescue and yet punish cruelty, "mandatory" spay/neuter means that unless you're a licensed breeder, it is illegal to have an unsterilized pet rabbit, cat, dog, rodent....

Which just leads to yet another question, LOL! Would that violate some type of constitutional right? Or could "unintentional" breeding be construed to be animal cruelty?