RE:  Bill 17-0089, Animal Protection Amendment Act of 2007, proposed Revisions and New Amendments dated June 5, 2007, and Proposed Amendments to the Revised Animal Protection Amendment Act of 2007 as written by Ms Schaffner

Dear Honorable Council Members Catania, Barry, Graham, Mendelson, Thomas, Cheh, and Evans:

The International Cat Association (“TICA”) has reviewed BILL 17-0089, the Animal Protection Amendment Act of 2007, and both amendments thereto. Both the original proposal and amendments raised several concerns with its punitive provisions.

TICA is the largest genetic cat registry worldwide with many clubs, members and fanciers in and around the District of Columbia. The organizations and individuals in the cat fancy are dedicated to preserving beautiful cats – pedigreed and domestic cats alike. Cat fanciers can agree that reducing euthanasia rates and animal cruelty are admirable goals. BILL 17-0089 has some worthwhile points (such as recognizing the importance of trap/neuter/release in managing feral/unowned cats and low cost spay/neuter availability) but portions of the bill will not solve the District of Columbia’s problems.

Guardian/Protector/Owner:

One of the changes recommended by the BILL 17-0089 and it amendments is to change owner to guardian/owner or protector/owner. It has been suggested that either term will highlight the nature of animal ownership and increase awareness of that relationship. Does anyone really believe an abuser will cease being an abuser simply due to a name change? Nor is the change in terminology a meaningless change. Guardianship is a long time legal concept and using it or protector alone or in conjunction with owner merely creates confusion as to the new relationship between people and their pets.  Both terms are change the relationship between owner and pet to a lesser relationship and allow interference with that relationship by private entities. It also affects the veterinarian/client relationship.

MSN and intact/breeder permits:

BILL 17-0089 buys into the fallacy that mandatory spay/neuter will solve euthanasia woes while ignoring the significant improvements made in euthanasia rates nationwide without such punitive legislation. Knowledge is the key to understanding why MSN laws are detrimental to pet welfare.  Several studies show that 85% to 92% of owned cats are altered. Intact cats simply do not make good house pets. Since only 5% to 6% of cats are pedigreed cats, they cannot be contributing much to shelter problems. The vast majority of cats euthanized in shelters generally are unowned cats and kittens. Of the remaining owned cats, most are surrendered because of behavior issues, job problems, housing problems, illness or old age. The primary reason for owned cats not being neutered is lack of personal or community resources. BILL 17-0089 should focus on providing low cost accessible resources, supporting TNR (Alley Cat Allies is a good resource for feral cat issues).

Pet owners should have the right to make decisions related to the veterinary care without governmental interference. Even routine surgeries such as sterilization procedures are not without risk. For dogs there are studies that describe the risks associated with sterilization. (See www.acc-d.org ) There are no studies done on pedigreed cats so we do not know if there are long term risks we need to be aware of in pedigreed cats.

Coupled with MSN are various breeder licensing schemes such as those contained in the recent and much debated California Healthy Pets Act (AB 1634). Some of the unworkable exemptions are contained in the amendments such as animals being shown in approved registries (and what qualifies as an approved registry?). Those exemptions are designed to ensure that many valuable cats and dogs would be unable to comply. Other organizations involved in supplying working dogs, service dogs and law enforcement dogs are opposed. In reality such schemes are additional tax schemes. With no fee specified, it could be a very expensive tax. The proposed animal breeding permit also ignores many other problems, not the least of which is, like MSN, breeder licensing schemes simply do not work. Jurisdictions have repealed their breeder licensing ordinances like Montgomery County, MD or simply no longer enforce the provisions. When they are enforced they are typically complaint driven encouraging neighbor harassment and ill will.

BILL 17-0089 ignores the reality of hobby cat breeding. Cat hobbyists raise cats underfoot in the privacy of their homes and bedrooms.  This is the optimum environment for well socialized pet cats. It is unrealistic and an extreme intrusion to personal privacy to expect the bedrooms of everyone with an intact cat or dog be scrutinized. It is also expensive and impractical to enforce. 

BILL 17-0089 requires any person with a dog or cat capable of breeding to have a breeder permit.  It is impossible to be designated a nonprofit kennel/cattery under such circumstances even though hobby breeders do well just to break even in a given year. Capable of breeding is not the same as intending to breed. There are several valid reasons to not spay or neuter an animal that is “capable of enduring” such surgery, including waiting for late maturing breeds to develop in order to determine the quality of the animal.  It is also unrealistic to think everyone who maintains animals capable of breeding is truly a commercial breeder and should be treated accordingly. Even modest breeding programs required for genetic diversity will have more than one breeding animal. Genetic diversity is required for the health of a breed. BILL 17-0089 further requires the number of animals “capable of breeding” be identified.  Does this include kittens simply because they are intact? What about animals for which the owner has no intention to breed but have not been altered? This include animals which are no longer cycling or have been unproductive for quite some time but due to their age it is felt it is better not to put the animal under anesthesia. What about cats on loan or leased? Are they included in the number? What about the unexpected acquisition – the kitten too good to pass up? There is no flexibility in the proposed legislation.

Inspectors will have to make several attempts at inspection as hobby breeders typically have jobs, ensure an adult is present for the inspection, educating groups as to procedures, and trying to apply facility and care requirements not written for cats raised in home environments all add to the costs and hassle of enforcement.

Clearly the MSN and breeder licensing provisions are difficult and costly to fairly administer. If it is intended to enforce it on a complaint driven basis only, why have a law at all? Laws should be passed only if they are going to be enforced fairly and adequately for everyone, not just because someone has a vendetta.

Laws should be passed if they actually solve problems, are workable, constitutional, and can be administered fairly in a cost effective manner. BILL 17-0089 and its amendments fail on all counts. The proposed legislation is designed solely to eliminate breeding of pedigreed animals.

Chair, TICA Legislative Committee