Pet Law Concepts: Effectiveness

When drafting pet laws, "...we have to do something" often takes a back seat to "...we have to do something that will be effective." Therefore, the second in this series on basic pet law concepts covers the topic of effectiveness. An effective law gives back more than it costs the taxpayer.
For example, consider the state of Ohio. Ohio is the only state in the Union with a statewide breed-specific dangerous dog designation (a bill is in the works to repeal it).
After having this law on the books for twenty years, Lucas County has been picking up a relatively constant number of over 1200 "pit bulls" per year. Lucas County is significant because that county's dog warden, Tom Skeldon, has been one of the main drivers behind Ohio's breed-specific legislation (source: Toledo Blade, March 18, 2009). It is highly unlikely that thousands of people are paying for $100,000 of state-mandated liability insurance yet letting their dogs run loose.
In contrast, the city of Calgary, Canada, has had an increase in their "pit bull" population (likely due to owners being driven out of other towns) yet their dog bites are down (See: Calgary Dog Attacks Fall to Lowest Level in 25 Years). When a dog bites in Calgary, investigators visit the home to try to find out why. They even give the dog a medical exam to rule out physical causes for aggression. Licensing fees fund the program.
No law or program can completely eliminate serious dog bites. Just last week in Calgary a woman was charged with having unlicensed, at-large dogs and for two separate attacks that caused serious injuries. It is difficult to comprehend keeping two dogs that injured innocent people once, much less failing to confine them a second time. A free society will always be challenged to deal with the small minority of extremely negligent people.
Legislation that seems punitive -- punishing the owners of large dogs, dog and cat breeders, owners of certain dog breeds, etc. -- creates vocal community opposition. A recent trend is extremely high intact pet permit fees or mandatory spaying and neutering. The American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have both published position statements stating that mandatory spay/neuter is not demonstrated to be effective and may reduce licensing and rabies vaccination rates.
The City of Fort Worth opted for a one-time intact pet permit fee of $50 instead of higher proposed annual fees because, as stated on their website: "Keeping the cost reasonable will also promote greater compliance." Compare that to the City of Dallas, which originally proposed a $500 per year, per animal permit for intact pets. Dallas went with $100 total in annual fees which, as the Dallas Morning News reports, are largely going uncollected. If a city's intention is to license animals and therefore return lost pets and reduce the spread of rabies, $50 sounds much more reasonable than say, $1200 over the life of an animal.
When fines climb sky-high, owners cannot reclaim impounded pets, and the shelters are forced to euthanize healthy, non-aggressive animals due to lack of space.
A new law is often not shared with stakeholders until it is essentially a "done deal." Lawmakers would be better off adopting a problem-solving instead of a punitive mindset. No one expects lawmakers to be animal behavior experts, but local dog trainers, veterinarians, fanciers and rescuers are willing to help craft solutions.
Citizens can demand effectiveness before getting sidetracked on highly divisive issues:

• Are citizens happy with response time when they call animal control?
• Are certain areas of the city plagued by loose dogs?
• Can low-income people find places to get their animals sterilized without driving 50 miles and missing half a day of work?

Addressing these problems first can go a long way toward public safety.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2924-Dallas-Pet-Laws-Examiner~y2009m8d22-Pet-Law-Concepts-Effectiveness