CFA Legislative Group: Information that cat fanciers need in today’s legislative climate.

For at least ten years some organizations and groups have continued to advocate for policies and laws that have been tried over and over again and proved abject failures? Why do these organizations make promises to solve animal related problems when they are aware this is impossible? As The Cat Fanciers' Association monitors state bills and local ordinances introduced throughout North America, it is clear that most such laws lack the kind of public consensus that could mean the difference between success and failure, and too often, even the need for such legislative intervention or its purpose is not clear.

The article that illustrates this dilemma appears in the on-line site, Neighborhood Cats, at http://www.neighborhoodcats.org/. This writer points out that decades of attempts by cities and towns to eradicate feral cats by the trap-and-kill methods have failed to make a dent in the burgeoning population.

The author says, "Let's assume feral cats annually kill 100 million birds in New Jersey, poisoned all the otters along the California coast and are about to wipe out every endangered species west of Africa. … What's the solution for the growing feral population? How are we going to stop there from being so many feral cats who supposedly kill so much wildlife? Here's the big secret - the wildlife groups don't have a realistic answer."

He concludes, "Trap and remove, the traditional approach to feral cat control for decades, has resulted in the current dilemma. It's a complete and total failure and the wildlife organizations are backing a proven loser."

And yet, the year 2003 saw a movement by both law and by administrative policy to block the trap-neuter-return programs that are proving nationwide to both reduce shelter euthanasia and to reduce by attrition the numbers of cats residing in feral colonies. For instance, despite Dr Julie Levy's ground-breaking and documented work with trap-neuter-return at the University of Florida, and despite Alley Cat Allies nationwide guidance and documentation of successful TNR programs, the Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission last spring adopted an only slightly modified version of an outright and total statewide ban on feral and free-roaming cats.

The trap-neuter-return movement is being conducted by university academicians and established animal welfare agencies and cat clubs in addition to the often-maligned individual cat caretakers, and records are being kept to prove the success. The advocates of trap-and-kill most often depend on outdated and flawed studies that have been discounted by independent analysis.

The Cat Fanciers' Association was among the earliest to recognize the benefit to all cats and to society from the trap-neuter-return movement, and has both sponsored and participated in studies, workshops and other programs.

Landmark studies during the last decade dealing with the demographics of cat populations in homes, in shelters, and free-roaming, have established firmly that many preconceived ideas being used to pass restrictive cat laws are either outdated or simply incorrect. When lawmakers are given an opportunity to see both sides of the issue, they generally will back away from the counter-productive approach of coercive legislation.

Unfortunately, in some cases misguided campaigns that promise either to "end shelter euthanasia" or to "generate funding for animal welfare" have caused local ordinances or state laws to be passed that will set back the tremendous progress made in recent years. Examples in 2003 include:

Illinois HB184 - passed this year, requiring individual cat licensing, as well as litter licensing. Setting up and implementing such a broad-ranging cat tax will be a tremendous drain on state coffers, thus taking money away from positive programs with successful track records! With cat licensing compliance at something under 15% in jurisdictions throughout the country where it has been in effect, sometimes for decades, the success of this program is highly doubtful. CFA pointed out to Illinois legislators that the bill will deter rescuers who are doing the state a service, and will discourage people who feed and might otherwise be willing to adopt stray, unowned cats. Another provision of HB184 would allow local jurisdictions to require microchipping of pets. Voluntary microchipping, with a 24-hr national database, is a worthy goal, but as a law, it is again a deterrent to the very solutions it is purported to address.

Buncombe County, North Carolina Board of Commissioners in December passed another retread of the tired old ordinance mandating that all dogs and cats be neutered or spayed unless their owner pays $100 for an annual "permit" that allows them to keep that pet unsterilized, whether they plan to breed it or not. This was presented as the panacea for a county's shelter euthanasia and the associated costs. Instead, the county will find, as have others, that the ordinance is unenforceable, expensive to administer, and will represent a public health hazard as pet owners avoid rabies vaccinations for fear of being turned in. Only responsible pet owners and breeders will feel the brunt of this punitive ordinance, while dogs and cats will die because their owners either cannot or will not pay the fees and fines. High breeding fees or intrusive breeder permits have caused the responsible breeders that are the best source of healthy, socialized pets to discontinue breeding. Other jurisdictions have been revoking such ordinances in recent years for just those reasons listed.

San Francisco, CA joined the handfull of other cities to codify language designating pet owners as "pet guardians", even though a growing body of legal experts and respected national organizations are aligning solidly against such a confusing addition to jurisprudence. The Cat Fanciers' Association agrees with the American Veterinary Medical Ass'n, the American Kennel Club, The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, The Animal Council, The Civil Justice Association of California, the Los Angeles City Attorney and others in condemning this action.
http://www.cfa.org/articles/legislative/ownership-not-guardianship.html

The Cat Fanciers Association continues to provide facts and data to lawmakers and to animal welfare organizations to illustrate the folly of such laws. Even when proposed with the best intentions, animal laws have a tendency to be burdened with unintended consequences that can mean nothing but trouble for the animals, and the people who own and care for them.

Anna Sadler, January 2004

To correspond with the CFA Legislative Committee, please send email to legislation@cfa.org

Contact CFA | Privacy Policy | Credits | Search | FAQ