A Pet-Friendly Model Community
A Positive Approach
By Nick Van Duren
Introduction
Recently, animal issues have become a matter of concern to districts and municipalities. Part of the reason stems from media hysteria. The other reason comes from animal rights organizations lobbying to make pet ownership more difficult. There has been a concerted effort to exploit ignorance and spread political correctness to achieve this aim. However, the militant animal rights agenda can only be successful by instituting its goals into the fabric of law.
Despite the claims of hysterics and animal rights activists, pets are an asset to a community; as are their owners. Rather than creating an adversarial relationship with pet-owners, adopting a model to promote a pet-friendly community should the priority.
However, if we’re trying to adopt a model in the manner most municipalities are accustomed to, than it is not really a model per se. In truth, we’re re-inventing the wheel.
More accurately, we’re posed to adopt a flat tire.
Most communities have become failures in regards to their animal ordinances. Even though the popularity of pet ownership is at an all-time high, ordinances are making pet ownership increasingly more difficult; and in the process, less safe.
Unfortunately, while we’re busy offering carrots to families with children, some are advocating taking a stick to our pets to the outright neglect of creating fun opportunities for dog education and socialization. However, people rightly don’t tolerate it punitive approaches to their children. Most families, and especially the pet fancy, consider pets to be their children too. They’d rather keep a low profile than be held at the whims of politicians and animal rights organizations.
Pet regulation actually hinders responsible pet ownership, thus creating future problems.
A True Model Approach
The following model is crucial to keeping a community a positive and safer place to live:
• And open pet community
• An active pet community
• An educated community with readily available resources
• A community that values pet owners and pet fanciers and breeders, utilizing these groups as a resource.
The benefits of an open and active community are immeasurable, as it is a boon to positive community development. Rather than adopting new mandates and enforcements, the municipality should commit itself to reaching out and promoting an open and active community.
In addition, open and active pet-friendly communities are necessary to prevent problems such as cruelty to animals, possible attacks or bites, abuses of authority by the municipality/law enforcement, and nuisance behavior.
Contrast that with states and municipalities with the most mandates and enforcement measures in places. The result is that they end up harboring the worst offenders, thereby suffering the most consequences.
Pet-Friendly by Default
Leaving people’s animals alone in laisse faire environment is predominately a pet-friendly policy. However, a community can strive to be even better.
A model needs to be adopted that will retain this laisse faire policy while also promoting and encouraging an active and open pet community.
An open and especially active place to live is great for pet socialization, on-going education, training, general health and well-being of pets, good behavior, and even promoting property values. A happy and active population is good for both residents and municipalities.
An open and Active Pet Community
Mandates regarding pets automatically create hidden problems. However, an open and active community polices itself. The more open and active people are with their pets, the less likely abusive and cruelty issues are to be a problem. If they do occur, than an active community is more likely to address and be successful in correcting the problem appropriately. A positive relationship fostered between the general pet-owning public and a municipality has a much better success-rate in preventing cruelty and nuisance problems.
For example, Colorado State Law already protects a “whistle-blower” who turns in a person suspected of animal cruelty. However, strong provisions for prosecuting false allegations must be included. Baseless complaints by hyper-sensitive neighbors create disputes, which in turn pose a very expensive and time-consuming problem for law enforcement. Therefore, strong deterrents are necessary to separate false complaints from credible complaints.
A Community That Values Pet Owners and Fanciers and Breeders
Historically, pet fanciers (those who show, breed, and train pets) are the most responsible and educated pet enthusiasts in the world. They are an asset to a community. However, they have been severely under-utilized as a resource and even driven out of some communities. They have been unfairly targeted directly by animal rights activists; which explains the reasons these organizations lobby for mandatory spay/neuter and breeder registration schemes. In essence, targeting the best and more responsible pet owners is the most direct way to destroy domestic pet ownership, which is exactly what animal rights organizations have as their agenda.
For local governments, the opportunity cost of not tapping into the dog fancy as an educational resource is immeasurable. What’s more, the overall health of the pet population decreases. When fanciers and breeders are open and active, the community has a healthier pet population. Contrast that with more restrictions on pet breeding: pets become less healthy and shelters actually destroy even more animals than they ordinarily would.
The reason is that regulation always forces fanciers to keep a low profile; they cease being mentors and active participants in a community. They may be active within their own clubs, training facilities, and with their own puppy-buyers, but they do not reach out to the public. After all, what home-owner is likely to cooperate with registration, fees, and home inspection from a municipality? Not many.
What remains and takes its place? Irresponsible breeders, militant animal rights activists, quack trainers, and more political opportunism. The result of strong regulation is that dogs in these areas will eventually begin to suffer bad conformation, bad health, worse temperament, and a lot less socialization.
How could this ever be good for the health and safety of a community?
A perfect example of this is in the cities of Denver and Aurora. There are many dog fanciers who reside in these cities. They hide, living in constant fear of both animal control and often even their neighbors. It is not a coincidence that these cities have some of the worst animal abuse offenses and publicized dog attacks.
To address those who insist that we can’t leave breeders alone because of the risk of abusive breeding, the answer is simple. The problem is more accurately addressed when Animal Cruelty laws are enforced. That is appropriate as abusive breeders and owners of pets should be prosecuted; but regulated? No.
Overall, the regulation approach is not conducive to a healthy community.
Again, an open and active community is more likely to prevent animal cruelty and address it if it does occur. In addition, pet fanciers already police themselves by internal market forces (other fanciers, dog showing, health testing, and contractual agreements with puppy-buyers) and also by strong breed and all-breed club regulations.
I would strongly encourage municipalities to take note that most dog fancier contracts already have very stringent provisions in regards to raising a puppy. Again, this is a self-policing and educational measure that is already in place.
An educated community with available and reputable resources is more likely to buy healthier pets from a fancier. This will avail the public to better-quality pets and subsequently raise the standards of all pet-owners.
Regarding intact dogs and cats, great strides have been accomplished in regards to the public vaccinating and spay/neutering their pets. As a result, over-population is nearly non-existent. This has been entirely a private effort.
Why create Mandatory spay/neuter laws when more than 80% of the public already spays and neuters their pets?
Addressing the concerns of those who claim that intact dogs pose behavioral problems, the argument is baseless. For starters, any behavioral difficulties are easily addressed by containment. Second, the Rocky Mountain Cluster Dog Show put on in Denver by Plum Creek Kennel Club and the Colorado Kennel Club boasts around 3,000 dogs, nearly every one of them intact and in close proximity. Rarely is there a problem to be found other than the occasional whimper of a male who is detecting the scent of a female in heat. And there are females in heat at these dog shows.
It all comes down to responsible handling of these animals, not having a government mandating a surgical procedure.
Ultimately, this is a preventative and market-driven solution that not only retains a community’s already existing pet fancy, but attracts and promotes them as a valuable resource. It also substantially increases the education of pet buyers, as contractual agreements and on-going relationships are fostered rather than hindered. The result is positive. By encouraging fanciers to breed in a community develops a positive pet environment, more effective in reducing any breeding or behavioral offenses.
The Failure of Licensing and Regulation
Despite decades of efforts of municipalities to invoke licensing/registration schemes and a variety of other mandates, compliance is extremely low. Simply put, licensing of pets is a failure.
Part of the reason is that it has become a redundant form of identification. The primary reason is that it serves as a tax. The results have lead to little success and a great administration expense to governments and an increased burden to the public.
Abuse and neglect are propagated by such a minute number of the population, that licensing and regulation only serves to punish the masses. As a result, the best and most responsible pet owners become less-open and active in public.
Dog owners don’t like to comply with public mandates because they rightly fear that exploitation and abuses will eventually come their way. In some communities, animal control has been going door-to-door, entrapping home-owners into admitting that their dogs may not have a license. The result has been a very angry and bitter community…and less compliance and good-will than ever.
Again, licensing and regulation of pets is simply redundant and inappropriate use of scarce public resources.
Licensing also provides a poor statistical method for determining the number of cats and dogs in a community. It only manages to serve as a database full of names; an incomplete one at that.
As a method to enforce identification, licensing is not necessary. As a way to encourage both vaccination and spay/neuter, it is not necessary. What’s more, dangerous dog incidents are already going to be on record. There is no need to implement special licensing schemes to handle those issues either.
Licensing ends up harming a community more than helping it. Therefore, licensing and pet regulation begs the question:
How is it healthy to a community and its pets when educated and responsible pet owners are forced to keep a low profile?
We ought to consider its pets and fanciers an asset, not mandating that pet owners and fanciers obtain permission just to live in their community.
Communities with licensing schemes should phase them out and instead simply retain an identification requirement on all pets.
Educational Resources
An educated community should be a given, however, it is surprising how ignorant the public can really be in regards to dog behavior. It is crucial that good manners in regards to pets be taught in our schools. Therefore, the town should strongly encourage school districts to allow dog fanciers to come in on a regular basis to help teach proper dog education.
Public seminars are also a great idea. In addition, it is good for the public to see what conformation, obedience, field trials, and agility training is all about. Many local dog breed clubs would be proud to do “Meet the breed” events ; which offers the public better education about specific dog breeds, what to look for, what to avoid, and what kind of breed fits a family’s lifestyle.
By utilizing the pet fancy as an educational resource, it avails us the opportunity to undo much of the ignorance and a consorted effort by animal rights organizations to disseminate political correctness.
As a matter of policy, not merely practice, a municipal liaison should be responsible for fostering relationships with dog and cat organizations.
However, it is crucial that educational programs be scrutinized by local dog organizations affiliated with reputable registries such as the AKC, UKC, etc.
The idea is to educate but also prevent animal rights influence from obtaining access to the educational establishment. The dangers these groups pose to children are immeasurable. An example of this is PeTA Comics: a graphic and inappropriate propaganda tool which seeks to brainwash children, even turning them against their parents. HSUS does the same, except with a better public image; HSUS plays both sides of the fence to keep the advantage and pursue its legislative agenda.
What’s more, there has been an effort by these animal rights organizations to utilize shelter agencies as resources and even as official policing organizations. The problem with this is that even many of the most popular shelter agencies have become havens for animal rights activists.
Contrast that with the AKC, which has safeguards built into place and an overall mission to increase the health, behavior, and genetics of dogs. This self-policing and market-driven force enables AKC dog clubs to have a far greater level of repute than most other organizations.
It is not the intent to demonize shelters or dissuade the public from buying their pets from these entities; however, a word of caution is in order:
While shelters do serve a valuable function, some have also been one of the largest contributors to disseminating false information and political correctness. The goal of adopting homeless pets is noble. However, in recent years, many of their methods have become extremely distasteful.
The general public is unaware that even some of the most reputable shelters actually operate as some of the most profitable pet shops around. Simply put, tell the public that there is a pet “over-population” problem and the public will buy its pets from a shelter. Then they proceed to kill anything that doesn't bring top dollar.
The shelter plays the emotion-card by claiming the animal is slated to be euthanized the very next day. Tell a prospective buyer of a shelter dog that the dog is about to be euthanized, you’ll close the deal.
Thankfully, not all shelters operate this way. In fact, the rise of “No-Kill” shelters has been a positive development. Many dog clubs and fanciers are knowledgeable about which shelters are truly reputable and which ones are unethical. In fact, AKC-affiliated clubs often have their own breed-specific shelters; which the municipality may be able to contact for help.
Dogs At Large and Dogs Off Leash
In this day and age, municipalities are not tolerant of roaming dogs. Most residents are not either. Nearly every dog is now kept in-house, in the back yard, or in a built in dog run or kennel.
This does help prevent dogs from roaming; however, there has been a down-side: proper socialization and good behavior of both dogs and the general public suffers.
While some communities have built dog parks to encourage socialization and hinder dogs off-leash or at large, they’ve also missed the mark. Municipalities continue to take a hard-line approach to pets while neglecting pet-friendly opportunities. The results are mixed, with some utilizing dog parks, others keeping a low profile. Dogs still need exercise and socialization. So do their owners!
The best solution is to have dog parks, social events, and an open and active community.
The wonderful thing is that a dog park tends to double-up as open-space.
Residents get both the open space they clamor for as well as getting places where they can run with their dogs off-leash. Simply put, people want to play “fetch” with their four-legged companions. They also want an open-feel retained in their communities.
Communities should set a positive example by promoting as many open-spaces for dogs to run off-leash as possible. By doing this, we achieve the best of both worlds.
Vicious Dogs
The vast number of dogs and dog owners are responsible citizens, however, there is always going to be a few who are not. Most vicious or dangerous dogs are a sure result of abuse. Enforcing animal cruelty laws is the most appropriate way to deal with these offenses.
However, Las Vegas has made strides in dealing with vicious dogs. The provisions in their dangerous dog ordinance are pretty good, however, the rest of the ordinance is essentially a “dud“.
I can not caution enough that we should avoid the temptation to create vicious dog ordinances both in conjunction with other failure mandates.
These ordinances may reduce the number of dog attacks in the short run. Over time the result will begin to change.
Las Vegas would be wise to adopt the open and active model. Considering the growth, culture, and existing infrastructure, the result would be an outstanding success.
Municipalities need to remember that simply because a community has “quiet” dogs, does not mean that it is a safe environment. Only open and active policies can create that.
Summary
• Licensing and registration is not necessary as animal do not run free anymore. The only animals found at-large are usually those that happen to get out. Considering the responsible nature of the general public, it stands to reason that an animal at-large should be treated as a matter of good will. This is a positive way to correct the problem without “throwing the book” at the owner, thus discouraging others from cooperation and community involvement.
• More community events should be available for dog enthusiasts.
• Animal Control costs should be budgeted by the municipality in full because this is the cost of doing business. Fees and fines should be specifically prohibited from being ear-marked to animal control/law enforcement budget.
• The ordinance should state that rabies vaccination is required; however, allowing for transfers of vaccination tags and records. This prevents double vaccinations, which can do irreparable harm to the health of an animal.
• Identification should be required in the ordinance. There are many forms, but they should not necessarily be required to be visible, such as the case with a micro-chip or tattoo. Animal Control should either have a microchip reader or outsourcing identification to a veterinary clinic, which would be able to track down the owner of an at-large dog.
• Off-leash should be prohibited except in the case of an animal under voice command or electronic collar.
• Designated areas or areas where there is enclosure may be utilized for dogs to be off-leash. As funding becomes available, as many dog parks as open-space, should be built. The more, the better.
• In regards to vicious or dangerous dogs, a slightly modified version of the Las Vegas dangerous dog provisions in their animal ordinance may be adopted.
• False reporting, such as the case of a hyper-sensitive neighbor, “shall” be fully prosecuted and enforced.
• Not merely as practice, but as a policy, the town should engage and utilize local dog clubs and training facilities/instructors as an educational resource.
• Trash receptacles and waste bags should be readily available on trails, parks, and other venues where the public takes its pets. The more of these there are, the better chance that the public will clean up after its pets.
• The local school district will be encouraged to adopt a pet behavior curriculum to be overseen and conducted by local dog clubs/fanciers, coordinated by a community liaison from the town government.
A true model community; one that has the best pet ownership simply because the opportunities or education, pet socialization, health, welfare, and a fun environment is promoted. This should be adopted with a fierce conviction that you don’t have to rule a community with punitive mandates to bring out the best in it. This sets up our town as an example of a true model community for others to follow.
This is not only the right thing to do, but THIS is leadership. That is a legacy which everyone can enjoy. Now THAT is a model to be proud of.
