Why does R in TNR=abandonment

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.

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! :-)

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...)

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!

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

Thanks for the info Katie.

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'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.

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?

Mark wrote:
<<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.>>

I hate to beat the subject to death, but I assume this means without landowner permission? If cats are sterilized, vaccinated, have shelters, and the business owner or homeowner or park manager gives permission, I assume this is not abandonment? This is how we manage things. We have yet to find a landowner, or at least an adjacent landowner, who won't give permission for the cats to stay. Usually they are feeding the cats themselves, anyway, and feel bad for them. If one landowner doesn't like the cats living under his porch, we just fix his porch so the cats can't go under there and find someone nearby instead, and install shelters. Usually there's more than one landowner concerned about the cats, anyway.

What is the legal difference if I neuter unpettable feral cats at a lumber yard in the city, and they know I'm there, and I neuter barn cats that wander between farms in the country, for a farmer? Fish and Game in some states seems to think the first is abandonment, and the second is just plain good livestock management.

Thank goodness the Farm Bureau spoke up at the Pennsylvania Game Commission public meeting to point out they hoped PGC wasn't thinking of telling them they can't fix their barn cats!

So I guess my question is: wouldn't TNR with landowner permission be perfectly legal if the cats are fed, sheltered, and receive veterinary care and vaccinations? (in the absence of pet number limits or cat leash laws).

(for the record, if the landowner gives permission but doesn't want to accept ownership, I consider myself the legal owner, and I tell them that. So far, no problem, although I'm sure if the owner wanted to sell, I'd have to convince the next owner, or move my cats).

Thanks very much for your responses to this flurry of questions you are getting.

Susan

Fascinating thread! I have no idea whether this would be legal/feasible in most states, but some privately funded animal protection groups operating in Mediterranean countries circumvent "abandonment laws" which could be applied to TNR operations by neutering/spaying on site. Generally, a mobile home is converted into an operating room, and "vacationing" vets/vet techs provide their skills. The animals (both dogs and cats) are trapped, taken into the OP, spayed/neutered, and then released immediately after they have (more or less) fully regained consciousness. As the mobile OP remains on site for 2 or 3 days, the volunteers can monitor the animals for complications to some extent. One such group (Tierhilfe Süden) persuaded a cat litter company to donate 25 c from each $5 bag of litter sold, which is great advertising for the company, too.

I realize I am a newbie here, but I was wondering if I could put my 2 cents worth in.

I called Animal Control here in Tucson, and they told me that feral cats are just that, feral cats. They are not "owned" in the sense that house cats are "owned". The only time they would consider "abandonment" is if I were feeding a colony, and up and moved away without making some arrangements for someone to take over the feeding. I could be prosecuted for "abandoning" the colony. Having them spayed, neutered and returning them from where you got them was not considered "abandoning".

KittenKiya, what is their definition of "owned?" and how do they distinguish between ferals that are cared for and "owned" cats? Because in many places it is if you are feeding them and providing them medical care - and having them spayed or neutered qualifies as medical care. It is places like that for which we're trying to pick Mark's brain / struggling with these legal definitions and how to potentially redefine "ownership" (or another issue, "abandonment") or structure the laws to enable feral cat management without technically breaking the law(s).

This is kind of sticky, isn't it? I guess it just matters who you talk to and how THEY feel. Tucson Animal Control was so happy to hear that I had spayed and neutered mine, they would have put me up for president if I had asked them. According to my trailer park, because I spayed and neutered them, they are mine and I will be held responsible for any damage they do. Go figure. I stop them from breeding and just feed and water them like I've been doing for two years or so, and all of a sudden they are "mine". I guess it is now they have someone to blame.

KittenKiya,

You have my gratitude, too! But you do raise the very point that is a problem with the legal situation, from the standpoint of concerned, compassionate citizens:

Do nothing, and save yourself risk but watch cat problems develop;

or

Take action, and find yourself burdened with the ENTIRE responsibility.

Neither one is right, in my view. Yet many laws force you to choose. My group finds it very difficult to organize caretakers of feral cats, even though the caretakers on their own are in need, simply because they feel (rightly!) that by revealing their caretaking, they will be forced to bear the responsibility for animals they had no say in creating.

It is so morally offensive to me, I sometimes shake my head at many conventional animal organizations that refuse to face this. Blame the victim, is what it amounts to!

It is also this type of thinking that sways people away from wanting to take care of a stray cat, for fear of what that will mean down the road for them. It even causes some rescuers to stop taking on new colonies, based on the ordinances facing them, such as fines for feeding the cat or for being charged with abandoning them. YET some counties think nothing of it to openly put out poison to kill these animals without thinking twice about it. It really stirs me to anger that this problem created by PEOPLE not cats, has not been addressed. That people rescuers, and animal control alike cannot band together to come up with effective measures to stop the proliferation of kittens, and instead seem to be standing back and beating their heads against a wall trying to figure it all out- and while they are figuring, the cats are multiplying........

Hi LDG, and All,

I'm thrilled to see so many good minds addressing this issue! Great dialogue! Let's keep at it, please!

Everything I have ever been taught and read tells me that the law and forces like education and support need to work in concert. And, I've always heard that a law that does not codify what is already normal behavior for a good part of the population (60 percent?) is a bad law -- unenforceable, and likely to lead to scoffing of laws in general. So to me, the key is to BOTH move toward legalizing TNR (where it's not currently an option) AND educate people on why it is needed and how it is done. This is a tall order, I know. And that's why it will take cooperation among various parties (government, private animal organizations, schools, community groups of other kinds . . . . "it takes a village" comes to mind) to achieve the kind of change needed.

I have realized that changing the law in my area will still probably not change my local SPCA's minds. But I CAN change the minds of the local neighbors of all those feral cat colonies, if I can offer them the facts and data that they can draw their OWN conclusions from. And that is data that show that TNR DOES work, where for 30-some years, the alternatives have NOT addressed our homeless cat problems!

Hi All,

This is precisely how it works in my county in Maryland. Actually, it's worse: a caretaker once made known to Animal Control must license for each cat, must obtain a cattery license if he or she is caring for more than four cats, and must guarantee their confinement indoors to avoid future fines and charges. We have a contact who spent upwards of $15K fencing in her entire beautifully landscaped back yard. She had retired, and actually returned to the workforce to be able to pay for it. I think her next-door neighbor was ultimately too amazed to complain any more, though I am not convinced that the fencing can truly permanently contain a colony of feral cats.

It is frustrating to me that we are discussing this so abstractly, because it's one thing to say, gee, be careful, don't be found out. It is quite another thing to be faced with a choice to become an unfeeling slob v. to spend you rown funds and risk your own reputation and record. That's the kind of choice that I just do not think is right.

Another frustration about the current laws is that they are used to maintain the status quo. We have presented the TNR approach, but been told "we can't agree to that because WE HAVE TO ENFORCE THE LAW." And so, killing feral cats for an accident of fate remains perfectly legal in my county. I hope to see that change during my lifetime.