HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-12-2013 - 1ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 12, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No. 1
SUBJECT: Recommendations and Report from Animal Services Advisory Board on
Sterilization and Micro- chipping of Recovered Stray Animals
DEPARTMENT: Animal Services PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) I No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Report on the Spaying and Neutering
of Recovered Stray Animals
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bob Marotto, Director, Animal Services
919 - 968 -2287
Susan Elmore, DVM, Animal Services
Advisory Board Chair, 919 - 967 -4172
Lynn White, MD, Animal Services
Advisory Board Task Force Chair,
919- 684 -6217
PURPOSE: To receive and consider findings and recommendations of an Animal Services
Advisory Board (ASAB) study of the recovery of stray dogs and cats, including
recommendations for the amendment of the County's animal ordinance, made as part of the
strategic process of managing pet overpopulation in Orange County.
As part of the plan's legislative component, there is to be a review of established practices
governing the recovery of stray animals, specifically whether sterilization should be mandated
for animals repeatedly impounded and recovered. The ASAB has completed research on this
subject, and it is unanimously making recommendations of several ordinance amendments to
the BOCC for feedback and direction.
Specific recommendations and the research on which they are based are presented in the
attached report, which provides an executive summary as well as a broader overview. As is
seen therein, recommended ordinance amendments are to 1) create a requirement for micro -
chipping stray cats and dogs upon their first recovery; 2) a tiered and differential fee schedule
for the recovery of cats and dogs depending upon the number of times they have been
recovered and the whether they are reproductive or sterilized; and 3) a refundable spay /neuter
deposit for cats and dogs recovered three or more times.
2
These ordinance changes are presented in relation to the County's ongoing effort to make dog
and cat sterilization available on a "no -pay" or $20 co -pay basis to residents receiving public
assistance or who qualify on the basis of household income. The changes are also presented in
relation to the ongoing effort to communicate with residents about the benefits that sterilization
provides to their animal, their household, and their community.
Animal Services and the ASAB are seeking immediate action by the BOCC because ordinance
amendments require a public hearing and the recommended amendments have an impact on
the department's FY2013 -2014 budget. With approval from the BOCC, staff would bring
forward the proposed amendments as soon as possible in order to have a decision made prior
to the adoption of the County's fee schedule and budget in the month of June. Ultimately, the
goal is to have the recommended amendments become effective on July 1, 2013, along with the
County's new fee and fine schedule.
Finally, the recommended amendments have been carefully considered in order to minimize
impacts on the workload of Animal Services staff. The details of these considerations are
provided in the attached report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Discussion of this item by the BOCC has no negative financial impact.
The net effect of the amendments is expected to be approximately $10,000 of additional
revenue on an annual basis. Specifically, there would be an annual increase of approximately
$6,000 in animal recovery fees (with no offsetting expenditures); and an annual increase of
approximately $7,000 in fees from micro -chips (minus approximately $2,800 for their purchase).
More generally, the ASAB recommendations are expected to help control animal care and
control costs by increasing the number of animals that need to be recovered and by increasing
the number of spayed and neutered cats and dogs in the community. They are expected to do
so by creating real incentives (and disincentives) for residents as they consider whether to
sterilize their dogs and cats as a part of being a responsible pet owner.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the ASAB's report
on stray animal recovery, and provide feedback to the ASAB and direction to Animal Services
staff.
3
r ,
Aniamal -1
ey,
%F 14 F I 1- nc[
"qicrochipping of Recovered Stra I Y AnIMaIs*-
January 17, 201%02:>
Questions and comments may be addressed to Robert A. Marotta, Director, orange County
Animal Services (919.968.2287; bmarotto @orangecountync.gov)
Report
1. Executive Summary
11. Overview
111. Background
IV. Subcommittee Process
V. Subcommittee Findings
V1. Subcommittee Recommendations
Appendix A: Meeting Minutes from 7/5/2012,
8/13/2012, 8/28/2012 and 12/29/2012
1
Appendix B: Spay and Neuter and Microchip Requirements 19
for Stray Recoveries: Select Regulatory Review
Appendix C: Summary of Data Search
Appendix D: Frequency of Stray Dog and Cat Recoveries,
2007 -2011
23
26
5
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Task Farce on the Spaying and Neutering of Recovered Stray Animals
I. Executive Summary
II. overview
III. B ackground
IV. Subcommittee Process
V. Subcommittee Findings
VI. Subcommittee Recommendations
I. Executive Summary
The ASAB is committed to helping Orange County reduce the numbers, associated costs, and euthanasia
rates of stray and unwanted cats and dogs that are brought to the orange County Animal Services
(OCAS). The Task Force on the Spaying and Neutering of Recovered Stray Animals was asked to review
current policies regarding owned cats and dogs that are repeatedly recovered by owners from OCAS. The
goal of this subcommittee was to consider changes to legislation that may reduce the number of stray
animals, facilitate the recovery of lost animals by their owners, and reduce unwanted litters from stray
reproductive animals. Committee members surveyed current local and national practices, looked for
informative veterinary literature, identified recommendations from animal welfare organizations, and
reviewed animal recovery statistics from OCAS.
Based on their findings, the subcommittee put forward the following recommendations:
1. The committee unanimously recommends that OCAS mandate microchip placement in all cats
and dogs at the owner's expense before the animal is returned to an owner.
2. The committee unanimously recommends a multifaceted approach to encourage owners of
recovered animals to spay/neuter their dogs and cats:
a. Educate owners about the benefits of spaying/neutering their pets through personally
delivered information at the time of animal recovery and with an easy -to -read handout.
b. Ensure that owners are aware of affordable, accessible, safe, and efficient spay/neuter
programs in our area, particularly orange County's Community Spay/Neuter Program which
provides low -cost and no -cost pet sterilization on the basis of either household income or the
receipt of public assistance.
c. Identify low - income families who may be reluctant to spay/neuter their pets due to cost and
provide personalized service to link them to affordable, accessible, safe, and efficient
spay/neuter programs.
d. Provide a monetary incentive for pet owners to spay/neuter their dogs and cats through a
tiered and differential impoundment fee (similar in purpose to the tiered licensing fees
currently in place) that financially favors pet owners who have sterilized their cats and dogs,
and provides negative incentives to pet owners who have chosen not to spay/neuter their pets.
3. The subcommittee unanimously rejected the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law for
repeatedly impounded cats and dogs.
D
II, overview
The ASAB is committed to helping orange County reduce the numbers, associated costs, and euthanasia
rates of stray and unwanted cats and dogs that are brought to the orange County Animal Services
(OCAS). At the ASAB meeting on May 16, 2012, there was a review of the strategic plan, "Managing
Pet overpopulation: A Strategic Plan for orange County, North Carolina dated January 28, 2010
(available at http: llorangecountync .gov /animalservices /spayneuter .asp). The year 2012 had been
designated as the year to work on legislation that would help to control pet overpopulation.
Legislative changes are integral to the County's strategic plan to control pet overpopulation. According
to the Animal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), research indicates that the main
reason for the steady decline nationwide of per capital shelter intake and euthanasia rates has been the
increasing incidence of spayed and neutered animals in the pet population. By encouraging and enforcing
a stronger code of responsible pet ownership, which includes spaying and neutering cats and dogs, the
County can reduce the long terms costs incurred by caring for "surplus" pets due to unexpected litters and
unnecessary animal euthanasia.
One of the legislative areas considered was whether sterilization of pets repeatedly recovered by owners
from OCAS should be mandatory. Kris Bergstrand, Aviva Scully, and Lynn white were named to the
Task Force of Spaying and Neutering of Recovered Stray Animals, with Bob Marotto participating as
OCAS's director. This committee met on July 5, August 13, August 28, and December 19 of 2012, and
the meeting minutes from these sessions are attached (Appendix A). As a result of these meetings,
literature searches, and data review, this committee put forward the specific recommendations found at
the end of this proposal.
III, Background
Every year, OCAS shelters numerous owned cats and dogs that become separated from their homes.
OCAS staff provides a safe environment, food, as well as necessary medical attention, and work towards
identifying and contacting owners so that these animals can be reunited with their families.
Unfortunately, some dogs and cats are found as strays on more than one occasion and brought to the
shelter. Concerns about repeatedly stray animals include:
A. Animals at large are at greater risk of injury and death.
B. Unsupervised animals that are not spayed or neutered may participate in reproductive activities
that can result in unwanted litters of puppies and kittens and contribute to the already burdensome
issue of pet overpopulation in our area.
C. Stray animals, particularly unneutered males and females in heat, may cause human safety issues
by causing traffic accidents, engaging in fights with other animals, behaving aggressively towards
humans, and causing human injury during attempts to capture and aid these animals.
D. There are significant costs incurred by OCAS to capture, impound, and care for repeatedly stray
animals and to identify and contact their owners.
Orange County's animal control ordinance seeks to discourage pet owners from allowing their animals to
repeatedly stray by increasing the impoundment fee for each additional animal recovery. Currently, the
first time an animal is recovered by the owner from the shelter, the owner is charged a $10 impoundment
fee, a $10 daily board fee, and is charged for rabies vaccination if he/she can not prove that the pet's
rabies vaccination status is up to date. The owner is also asked to update the pet's license if it has
lapsed. Pet owners who fail to do this are warned that they may receive a citation for a lapsed pet
license. when a pet is returned to its owner a second time, the owner is charged a $50 impoundment fee
in addition to the fees noted above. A third recovery results in an impoundment fee of $100, and the
fourth and subsequent recoveries have an impoundment fee of $200.1 There is currently no fee
differential for reproductive versus sterilized animals.
This subcommittee was tasked with reviewing whether OCAS can strengthen the current recovered
animal policy to reduce the number of stray animals, facilitate the recovery of lost animals by their
owners, and reduce unwanted litters from stray reproductive animals.
IV. Subcommittee Process
After a detailed discussion during the first meeting of the committee, members decided to specifically
address two questions:
A. Should recommendations for mandatory microchip placement be made for dogs and cats that are
repeatedly recovered by their owners from OCAS?
B. Should recommendations for mandatory sterilization be made for dogs and cats that are
repeatedly recovered by their owners from OCAS?
In order to address these questions, committee members surveyed current local and national practices,
looked for informative veterinary literature, identified recommendations from animal welfare
organizations, and reviewed animal recovery statistics from OCAS.
V. Subcommittee Findings
A. Microchip Placement:
1. Surveys: A survey of animal control practices in local counties revealed that Guilford County
and Forsythe County require microchip placement at the owner's expense prior to return of
the animal to the owner. The microchip fee in Guilford County is $10, and the fee in
Forsythe County is $12. Wake County Animal Care, Control, and Adoption does not require
microchip placement. Durham APS strongly recommends but does not require microchip
placement. A brief national survey revealed that many cities, counties, and state animal
agencies require that recovered animals have a microchip placed prior to return to owner
(Appendix B).
2. Literature review: A data search was performed (Appendix Q. An article by Lord,
Ingwersen, Bray, and Wintz published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical
Association revealed that the presence of microchips in both dogs and cats greatly facilitated
the return of pets to owners in 53 animal shelters surveyed over a seven - -month period.
3. Animal welfare organizations: The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
states (Appendix Q: "The AVMA believes that state and local governments must evaluate
their needs and resources to develop appropriate and effective dog and cat population control
programs. This would include... Requiring permanent identification through
microchipping."
1 Note that impoundment and allied fees are distinct from civil fines and/or criminal prosecution for at
large animals in violation of the public nuisance provision of the county's animal ordinances. The owner
may receive a civil citation with monetary penalty in addition to paying the recovery fees itemized above.
The owner could also be charged for a misdemeanor offense under the same ordinance. These fees and
violations will not be addressed in this proposal.
E6181
rd
B. Mandatory Sterilization:
1. Surveys: No local counties surveyed require mandatory sterilization of animals repeatedly
recovered by their owners. The town of Asheville and Buncombe County have mandatory
sterilization ordinances for all owned cats and dogs. All cats and dogs must be sterilized
unless a permit has been purchased for $104, which is then good for the lifetime of the pet.
Outside of North Carolina, there are a variety of approaches towards spaying /neutering (SIN)
of animals. For example, Boulder, CO offers financial incentives to owners who allow their
pets to be sterilized prior to recovery. There are animal organizations that do require
mandatory sterilization of animals found running at large prior to recovery by the owner
(Appendix B) .
2. Literature review: No studies were identified that reviewed the impact of mandatory SIN
laws on recovery rates in stray dogs and cats.
3. Animal welfare organizations: Numerous organizations had posted commentaries on the
internet opposing mandatory spay /neuter laws for owned pets, including the ASPCA, Best
Friends Animal Sanctuary, American Veterinary Medical Association, Nevada Humane
Society, Alley Cat Allies, and FixAustin. There were no statements by organizations that
specifically addressed mandatory sterilization of stray cats and dogs that are repeatedly
recovered by their owners.
4. OCAS animal recovery statistics: OCAS stray cat statistics from 2007.2011 (Appendix D)
revealed that 182 cats during this time were recovered by their owners. Of these, 531182
(29 %n) were reproductive, and 129/182 (71 %) were sterilized. 1751182 (97 %) were recovered
by their owners once, and of these, 521176 (30 %) were reproductive and 1241176 (70 %n) were
sterilized. Six cats were recovered twice. Of the six cats, 5/6 (83 %) were sterilized and 1/6
(17%) was reproductive. No cats were recovered by owners more than twice. OCAS stray
dog statistics from 2007 -2011 (Appendix D) revealed that 1620 dogs were recovered by their
owners. Of these, 910/1620 (56 %) were reproductive, and 710/1620 (44 %) were
sterilized. 1494/1620 (92 %) were recovered by their owners once, and of these, 853/1494
(57 %) were reproductive and 641/1494 (43 %) were sterilized. 9011620 dogs (6%) were
recovered twice, and of these, 41/90 (46 %) were reproductive and 49190 (54 %) were
sterilized. 2211520 (1%) dogs were recovered three times, and of these, 11122 (50 %) were
reproductive and 11122 (50 %) were sterilized. 911620 (0.5 %) dogs were recovered four
times, and of these, 519 (56%) were reproductive and 419 (44 %) were sterilized. Two dogs
were recovered five times (both sterilized), two dogs were recovered six times (both
sterilized) and one dog was recovered seven times (sterilized).
VI. Subcommittee Recommendations
A. Microchip placement: Based on review of local and national practices as well as literature
regarding animal recovery and microchip placement, the committee unanimously recommends
that OCAS mandate microchip placement in all recovered cats and dogs at the owner's expense
before the animal is returned to an owner.2
2 Note that microchip placement for adoptable cats and dogs became elective in July 2009 (the same year
the new Animal Services Center opened) as a result of a required budget reduction of $42,968.
Previously, each adopted animal received a microchip as part of the standard adoption fee. Staff made
this recommendation because it was deemed less detrimental than the alternatives, e.g., reductions in the
supplies required to shelter and care for homeless animals, reductions in the medical budget, or the
erosion of the resources needed to continue to spay or neuter every adopted animal.
9
Microchip placement has been shown to improve pet recovery rates. The committee also believes
that microchip placement will reduce staff time and effort in identification of pets and their respective
owners, provide easier documentation of animals repeatedly brought in to the shelter, as well as
confirmation of ownership in situations in which the owner denies responsibility for the stray pet.
The Animal Services microchip fee will cover implantation of the chip as well as registration of the
animal with the microchip company prior to the animal leaving the shelter. The fee will be in
addition to other fees, including the impoundment fee, boarding fee, rabies vaccination fee, licensing
fee, and any other fees the animal may have incurred during an animal's stay at OCAS. If the owner
finds these recovery fees difficult to pay because of limited resources, OCAS staff may be able to set
up a payment plan for the owner (depending upon prior contact, the circumstances of impoundment,
and other factors).
B. Mandatory sterilization of stray animals repeatedly impounded by OCAS: This committee was
charged with considering whether legislative action should be taken to require sterilization of
animals repeatedly impounded by OCAS and recovered by owners. Six major factors were
considered by subcommittee members:
1. Respect for owner choice
2. Safety and care of the animals and pet overpopulation
3. Safety of the general community
4. Sensitivity to pet owners who are experiencing difficult financial circumstances
5. Costs incurred by OCAS as a result of repeated impoundments
6. Consideration of additional time and effort required of the staff regarding instatement of new
recommendations
Given the preponderance of evidence and opinions against mandatory spay /neuter laws for all
animals in a jurisdiction, and the lack of any evidence of spay/neuter laws restricted to recovered
stray animal populations, the subcommittee unanimously agreed not to recommend that
mandatory spay/neuter laws be implemented for animals recovered by owners from OCAS. It
was further noted that State of North Carolina veterinary Practice Acts do not allow OCAS the
option to sterilize cats and dogs in the shelter that are owned by someone other than Orange
County.
The committee recommends a multifaceted approach to encourage owners of recovered animals
to spay/neuter their dogs and cats. The goals are to:
1. Educate owners about the benefits of spaying/neutering their pets.
Every contact OCAS staff has with an owner of a recovered animal is an opportunity to educate
the owner about the benefits of spaying/neutering his/her pet. OCAS should create an easy -to-
read handout (copies in English and in Spanish) that can be given to the owner to reinforce
information delivered face -to -face.
2. Ensure that owners are aware of affordable, accessible, safe, and efficient spay/neuter
programs in our area.
Every contact OCAS staff has with an owner of a recovered animal is an opportunity to let
him/her know about spay/neuter options in the community. It is particularly important to make
pet owners aware of Orange County's Community Spay/Neuter Program, which provides low--
cost and no -cost pet sterilization on the basis of either household income or the receipt of public
assistance. This program also provides the general population with information about spay/neuter
services in the area. The handout mentioned above will contain this information, as well as
contact information for OCAS staff responsible for helping residents to access affordable
spay/neuter options.
3. Identify low- income families who may be reluctant to spay/neuter their pets due to cost,
and provide personalized service to link then/ to affordable, accessible, safe, and
efficient spay/neuter programs.
10
OCAS has already put into place a targeted community program to provide individualized,
personal assistance to low - income pet owners to help connect them to low- or no -cost spay /neuter
services.
4. Provide compelling incentives for pet owners to spay /neuter their dogs and cats.
The committee recommends a tiered and differential impoundment fee that financially favors pet
owners who have sterilized their cats and dogs, and provides negative incentives to pet owners
who have chosen not to spay /neuter their pets. This proposal includes higher penalties for owners
who have recovered an animal three or more times from the shelter, as well as a deposit system
for these owners to further encourage sterilization. The proposed tiered and differential
impoundment fees are:
First recove : $25 for a sterilized cat/dog, $50 for a reproductive cat/dog
Second_ recovery: $50 for a sterilized cat/dog, $100 for a reproductive cat/dog
Third recovery: $100 for a sterilized cat/dog, $200 for a reproductive cat/dog. The fee
for a reproductive pet is a combination of a $100 impoundment fee and a $100
sterilization deposit. If the owner provides OCAS proof of sterilization in the form of a
veterinary record within 90 days of recovering his/her pet, the $100 sterilization deposit
will be refunded to the owner.
Fourth recovery: $200 for a sterilized cat/dog, $400 for a reproductive cat/dog. The fee
for a reproductive pet is a combination of a $300 impoundment fee and a $100
sterilization deposit. If the owner provides OCAS proof of sterilization in the form of a
veterinary record within 90 days of recovering his/her pet, the $ loo sterilization deposit
will be refunded to the owner. (Note: The committee recognizes that the combined fee
of $400 may make it prohibitively expensive for some owners to recover their pets.
However, it should be stressed that most low- income households would qualify for low -
cost or no -cost sterilization services from the County's own program and thus pay no
more than $20 for the procedure. In addition, the fact that a reproductive animal has been
brought to OCAS as a stray four or more times should be taken into consideration when
deciding whether it is in the animal's best interest and in the best interest of the
community to be returned to that owner. The owner also would have had at least three
prior interactions with OCAS staff during which education regarding spay/neuter options
would have been provided.)
The committee decided to recommend implementation of the deposit system only after the second
dog/cat recovery for these reasons:
a. The committee opted to keep impoundment fees low for first and second recoveries,
understanding that animal escapes can happen that do not necessarily reflect owner
negligence. After first and second recoveries, our hope is that the helpful information
provided by OCAS staff regarding spay/neuter benefits and options will encourage
most owners to spay/neuter their reproductive animals. By the third pet recovery, we
believe that stronger incentives are required. These include higher impoundment fees
and the promise of a returned sterilization deposit if proof of sterilization within 90
days is provided.
b. The deposit system will require increased time and effort from OCAS staff members.
The number of reproductive animals that are recovered more than two times at OCAS
is much lower than animals recovered once or twice, so the staff will not be taxed by
numerous collections and refunds of spay/neuter deposits. (From OCAS data 2007-
11
2011, 53 reproductive cats were recovered one or two times, but no cats were
recovered three or more times. In the same data set, 894 reproductive dogs were
recovered one or two times, but only 19 reproductive dogs were recovered three or
more times.) Note that the sterilization deposit was kept consistent at a fixed $loo
amount to simplify staff accounting.
These proposed legislative changes dovetail with current efforts to promote pet sterilization
through tiered dog and cat licensing fees. owners of reproductive animals must pay higher rates
for new and renewal licenses. Differential pet licensing has long been recognized as a
cornerstone of progressive community animal control programs. The task force believes that the
incentives associated with differential fees can and should be applied to other elements of orange
County's ordinances and fees. In doing so, it is possible for orange County to develop an
enduring and comprehensive institutional approach capable of managing our companion animals
in a fiscally responsible and humane manner in the years to come.
We believe that by implementing mandatory microchip placement in all recovered cats and dogs,
providing educational tools and programs regarding the benefits and availability of spay /neuter
services, and creating tiered and differential impoundment fees for recovered stray animals, we
will enhance our efforts to reduce the number of stray and cats and dogs as well as shelter
euthanasia rates. The proposed changes are a progressive next step in orange County's proactive
efforts to manage pet overpopulation now and in the future.
Respectfully submitted,
The Task Force on the Spaying and Neutering is Recovered Stray Animals
Appendices:
Appendix A: Meeting Minutes from 71512012, 811312012, 812812012, and 12/29/2012
Appendix B: Spay and Neuter and Microchip Requirements for Stray Recoveries: Select Regulatory
Review
Appendix C: Summary of Data Search
Appendix D: Frequency of Stray Dog and Cat Recoveries, 2007 --2011
12
L
Appendix A
Meeting Minutes
Animal Services .Advisory Board (ASAB)
Task Force on the Spaying and Neutering of Recovered Stray Animals
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Present: Lynn white (Chair), Kris Bergstrand, Bob Marotto, Aviva Scully
1. Agenda unanimously adopted as presented.
2. Review of the Task Force objectives: At the Animal Services Advisory Board monthly meeting that
took place on May 16, 2012 there was a discussion of the legislative component of the shelter's Strategic
Plan for Managing Pet overpopulation. The year 2012 had been previously designated as the year to
work on legislation. one of the legislative areas was the possibility of requiring mandatory sterilization
of stray animals that were repeatedly impounded in the orange County Animal Shelter. Donna Bravo
raised the motion to form a subcommittee to review the owner requirements for reclaiming an impounded
stray animal. Kris B ergstrand, Aviva Scully, and Lynn white were named to the committee, with Bob
Marotta participating as a representative of the orange County Animal Services staff.
There ensued a conversation about the problem of stray dogs and cats which are repeatedly found at large
and brought to the shelter. Bob estimated that approximately 20 -25 % of stray dogs were eventually
returned to their owners, while only about 3 %n of stray cats were recovered by their owners. He stated
that there are dogs and cats known to shelter personnel who have been recovered by owners at the shelter
on multiple occasions. These repeated episodes of stray animals are a concern for multiple reasons:
A. Animals at large may be at greater risk of injury and death.
B. Unsupervised animals who are not spayed or neutered may participate in reproductive activities that
can result in unwanted litters of puppies and kittens and contribute to the already burdensome issue of pet
overpopulation in our area.
C. Stray animals, particularly unneutered males and females in heat, may cause human safety issues by
engaging in fights with other animals, behaving aggressively towards humans, and causing human injury
during attempts to capture and aid these animals.
D. There are significant costs incurred by animal services to capture, impound, and care for repeatedly
stray animals and to identify and contact their owners.
Currently, orange County Animal Services relies upon the County's animal ordinance to discourage pet
owners from allowing their animals to stray from their property. The first time an animal is recovered by
the owner from the shelter, the owner is charged a $10 impoundment fee, a $10 /day board fee, and is
charged for rabies vaccination if he/she can not prove that the pet's rabies vaccination status is up to
date. The owner is also asked to update the pet's license if it has lapsed. Pet owners who fail to do this
are warned that they may receive a citation for a lapsed pet license. when a pet is returned to its owner a
second time, the owner is charged a $50 impoundment fee in addition to the fees noted above. A third
infraction results in an impoundment fee of $100, and the fourth an impoundment fee of $200. (Note that
impoundment and allied fees are distinct from civil fines and/or criminal prosecution for at large animals
in violation of the public nuisance provision of the county's animal ordinances. The owner may receive a
civil citation with monetary penalty in addition to paying the recovery fees itemized above. The owner
could also be charged for a misdemeanor offense under the same ordinance for the same violation.)
13
There are owners who relinquish ownership of their animals rather than pay fees to the shelter. The hope
is that Orange County Animal Shelter can strengthen the current recovered animal policy to protect cats,
dogs, and the public, reduce unwanted litters, and incentivize owners to confine their pets
appropriately. Possible actions include changing legislation to require mandatory microchip placement
and mandatary sterilization of cats and dogs prior to owner redemption.
3. Best Practices at Animal Shelters. Bob shared information gathered from other communities:
A. Sacramento County Code 8.16.030 Redemption. In addition to ensuring timely rabies vaccination and
the payment of all fees, "If the impounded animal was previously impounded and released, the animal
may be released to the owner ... on condition that the animal has been spayed or neutered prior to its
release..."
B. Sacramento City Code 9.44.190 Required Alteration. "In order to reduce the likelihood that dogs
allowed to be at large shall breed unwanted animals, any dog impounded for being at large which
previously has been redeemed from the animal care services center after impoundment for being at large
shall be spayed or neutered at the redeeming owner's expense prior to a second or subsequent
redemption."
C. Minneapolis Animal Care and Control. "Upon redemption of any lawfully impounded dog or cat over
six (6) months of age found at large and not previously sterilized, the owner shall deposit with the animal
control shelter a sterilization deposit fee ... Such sterilization deposit shall be fully refundable upon proof
that the animal has been sterilized by a licensed veterinarian within forty -five (45) days..."
Similar sterilization ordinances have been passed by the following communities: Artesia, New Mexico;
State of Utah; Tulsa, Oklahoma; New York, New York; St. Louis, Missouri; and Eugene, Oregon.
4. SuRaested amendment to current Orange County Animal Services Recovered Stra y Animal
ordinance; Members of the task force discussed the addition of licensing requirements, mandatary
microchip placement, and mandatory sterilization of recovered animals.
Part 1. Ensuring licensing that is current. Issues and solutions regarding pet licensing in Orange County
are currently being addressed by an alternative committee. Therefore this committee will not address
changes to license regulations at this time.
Part 2. Microchip placement. Placement of microchips in dogs and cats prior to pet adoption has been
shown to improve subsequent stray pet recovery rates. The Animal Services Advisory Board has
reviewed the possibility of recommending that the Grange County Animal Shelter take on the
responsibility and cost of implanting microchips in all adopted pets. However, due to budget constraints,
such a policy can not be put into place at this time. In selected populations, mandatory microchip
placement may be appropriate. Additional advantages of placing a microchip in recovered stray animals
include:
A. Reduced staff time and effort in the identification of the pet.
B. Reduced owner confusion regarding the identity of a pet.
C. Easier documentation of stray pets repeatedly brought to the shelter.
D. Proof of ownership in situations in which the owner denies responsibility for the stray pet.
This committee will consider recommending mandatory microchip placement in any stray cat or dog that
is subsequently recovered by its owner. The owner must pay the expense of the placement of the
microchip and register the appropriate contact information before the animal is released to the owner.
The owner will be made aware of the consequences of additional requirements should the animal be
recovered a second or third time.
14
10
Part 3. Mandatory sterilization of recovered cats and dogs. Supporting reasons for mandatory
sterilization of returned stray animals are outlined above.
The committee will consider further recommending that the current ordinance be modified to allow for a
stepwise approach to dogs and cats that are repeatedly recovered as strays in the following manner.
A. Upon second recovery of a stray cat or dog five (5) months of age or older, the committee proposes
that prior to the redemption of an animal not previously sterilized, the owner must provide to the shelter a
sterilization deposit fee of $100. This sterilization deposit will be fully refundable upon written proof that
the animal has been sterilized by a licensed veterinarian within forty -five (45) days of fee
payment. Beyond this date, the fee is forfeited.
B. Upon a third recovery the impounded cat or dog will only be released to the owner upon the condition
that the animal has been spayed or neutered by a veterinarian designated by the owner prior to its
redemption. The cost of sterilizing the animal, including any fees, will be paid by the owner prior to
redemption. Should the third impoundment occur within the 45 day sterilization period mentioned above
for the second recovery, the owner will forfeit the sterilization deposit, and this money will not be applied
to the fees and charges incurred by the third redemption.
5. Work Plan.
A. Bob will 1) obtain recent data from the orange County Animal Shelter regarding recovery patterns
for cats and dogs, including information regarding age, microchip status, and sterilization status if
possible, and 2} Check with the Minneapolis Animal Care and Control to see if there are updates
regarding their sterilization deposit amendment.
B. Lynn will 1) Investigate the general literature to see if data exist that show that sterilization of cats and
dogs leads to fewer episodes of impounding 2) Investigate microchip placement data in relation to dog
and cat impoundment and recovery.
C. Kris and Aviva will review local county ordinances regarding animal recovery and speak with local
shelters about their recovery policies. We will need to learn details about how shelters are able to sterilize
impounded stray animals in a timely fashion without excessive transportation, veterinary, and boarding
costs. A conference call may be arranged if they identify a system that may be a good fit for our shelter.
D. An appeals process for the above proposal will need to be considered in coordination with the
department's staff attorney as part of legal review and the drafting of any ordinance amendment.
E. Pet owners who have recovered pets prior to the institution of a new ordinance would need to be
"grandfathered" in, that is, recoveries would only be counted after the passage and effective
implementation date of said ordinance.
F. A graduated payment plan could be considered for financially challenged owners.
The meeting was concluded at 6:15 pm. Minutes were respectfully submitted by Lynn White.
Meeting Minutes
Minimal Services .Advisory Board (ASAB)
Task Force on the Spaying and Neutering of Recovered Stray Animals
Monday, August 13, 2012
Present: Lynn White (Chair), Kris Bergstrand, Bob Marotto, Aviva Scully
1. Agenda was unanimously adopted as presented.
15
11
2. Meeting minutes /summary from subcommittee meeting that took place on July 5, 2012 were accepted
and approved.
3. Legislation Review by Aviva, Iris, and Bob:
A. North Carolina Local Counties:
i. Guilford County. No mandatory sterilization of reclaimed animals. Microchip
implantation mandatory ($10). Impound fees: $20 first offense, animal spayed or neutered (SIN),
$30 if not SIN. Impound fee for 2nd offense $45, 3rd offense $85, 4th offense $110. Boarding
fee $5/day.
ii. Forsythe County Animal Control. No mandatory sterilization of reclaimed
animals. Microchip implantation mandatory ($12). Redemption fee: 1st offense $30, 2nd offense
$40, 3rd offense $50. Boarding fee $12/day for dogs, $10lday for cats.
iii Wake County. No mandatory sterilization of reclaimed animals. Microchip
implantation not required. Redemption fee: 1st offense $50, 2nd offense $75, 3rd offense
$150. Boarding fee $8/day for dogs, $6/day for cats.
iv. Durham APS. No mandatory sterilization of reclaimed animals. Microchip
implantation encouraged but not required. Redemption fee: 1 st offense: $25, 2nd offense $60,
third offense $95. Boarding fee $8/day for dogs, $2/day for cats.
v. Chatham County. No mandatory sterilization of reclaimed animals. Microchip
implantation: information pending. Redemption fee: 1 st offense $25, 2nd offense $50, 3rd
offense $75. Boarding fee $8/day for dogs, unknown for cats. Citation for stray pet is $50.
B. Outside of Local Area:
i. Asheville/Buncombe County. The county has an ordinance that states all owned
animals must be SIN unless a permit has been purchased for $100, which is good for the life of
the animal. Microchip implantation mandatory ($10 for city /county). Redemption fees: 60.00
city, $25.00 county.
ii. Boulder, CO. No mandatory sterilization of reclaimed animals. Redemption fee is
$45. Boarding fee $15/day. Financial incentives offered for SIN (e.g., fee waivers).
ill. Select Regulatory Review of Animal Welfare Organizations by Bob (see attached
document). Of note is that the State of Arizona; the State of Illinois; City of Wichita, IBS; City
of Albuquerque, NM; City /County of Charleston, SC have mandatory sterilization laws in place
for animals found running at large prior to reclamation by owner. State of Illinois; State of Utah;
City of Idaho Falls, ID; Jefferson County, MO have ordinances that require sterilization of
animals impounded twice. There are also numerous cities, counties, and states listed which
require that all reclaimed animals be microchipped prior to return to owner.
4. Summary of Limited Data Search by Lynn (see attached document):
A. Microchip data. Lord LIB, Ingwersen W, Gray JL, Wintz DJ. Characterization of animals
with microchips entering, animal shelters. J Am Vet .N ed Asso 2009;235 :160 -167. 7,704
microchipped animals entering 53 animal shelters between 812007 and 312008 were assessed. Of
these, 4, 083 (53 %) were strays. Return to owner (RTO) rate for dogs: overall dogs 22 %,
microchipped dogs 50 %. RTO for cats: cats overall 2 %, cats with microchips 39 %. Owners of
SIN animals were 1.8 times as likely to be found as compared to owners of sexually intact
animals. Stray animals with microchips accounted for a median of 1.8% (range, 0% to 20.6 %) of
the total strays for each shelter. The highest percentage of owners were found through the use of
information in the animal shelter databases.
B. Mandatory Spay/Neuter Programs for Stray Dogs and Cats
i. ASPCA position Statement on Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws (no date
posted). Research indicates that per capita shelter intake and euthanasia rate declines are due to
16
12
an increasing incidence of SIN pets. There is evidence that sterilizing at -risk populations of
companion animals such as animals in shelters can contribute to reduction in pet
overpopulation. The ASPCA does support the mandatory sterilization of shelter animals and
certain individual, owned animals based on their or their owners' behavior, such as animals
repeatedly caught at large.
ii. AVMA Policy: Dog and Cat Population Control (no date). The AVMA believes that
state and local governments must evaluate their needs and resources to develop appropriate and
effective dog and cat population control programs, including prohibiting the sale or adoption of
intact dogs and cats by humane organizations and animal control agencies, and requiring
permanent identification through microchipping.
C. Medical Pros /Cons of SIN as per AVMA News May 15, 2009:
i. Pros include prevention of unexpected litters, reduced incidence of some cancers and
reproductive diseases, and prevention and amelioration of certain undesirable behaviors.
ii. Cons include potential health problems such as an increased risk of prostatic cancer in
males, increased risks of bone cancer and hip dysplasia in large -breed dogs associated with
sterilization before maturity, and increased incidence of obesity, diabetes, urinary tract infections,
urinary incontinence, and hypothyroidism..
5. Suggested reasons why pet owners may not want to SIN their animals:
A. Medical reasons: Including risks of morbidity and mortality associated with preexisting
medical conditions, risk of infection, risk of complications due to anesthesia, medical risks of SIN
as outlined above.
B. Concerns regarding decreased performance (working dogs, hunting dogs, dogs used in agility
training, etc.)
C. Desire to show dog (must be intact)
D. Desire to breed dog
E. Personal/cultural preference
F. Cost
G. Concerns about behavioral /personality changes
6. Orange County Animal Services data collected by Animal Services staff regarding stray cats and
dogs:
A. In 2011, based on all intakes minus surrenders and ferals, 27 % of stray dogs were recovered
by owner, 5% of stray cats were recovered by owner.
B. Stray cat and dog recoveries from January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2011. Dogs: Of 626 stray
recovered dogs total, 571 (91 %) were recovered once, 44 (7%) were recovered twice, 10 (2 %)
were recovered three times, 0 were recovered 4 times, 1 was recovered five times (0 %). Cats: Of
82 stray recovered cats total, 79 (96 %) were recovered once, 3 were recovered twice (4 %).
7. Future considerations:
A. Microchipping. The committee has found excellent support in the literature as well as in local
and national practice for microchip placement in stray animals prior to reclamation by
owner. We are moving towards a recommendation that all stray animals must be microchipped at
the owner's expense prior to return to owner. The $25.00 microchip fee would be in addition to
rabies, licensing, impoundment, and boarding fees that apply. Medical exceptions would be
considered. Payment installment plans would be an option for owners.
B. Mandatory SIN of animals repeatedly turned in as strays and returned to owners. This issue is
complicated. Currently, no local animal control organizations that we identified have in place a
17
13
mandatory SIN policy for pets who are repeatedly found as strays and returned to their
owners. Plan:
i. Bob to see if he can track orange County Animal Services data back over last 5-10
years to find out how many dogs and cats that have been returned to their owner more than once
have been SIN vs. sexually intact.
ii. Kris to make projected calculations regarding potential litters and impact of repeatedly
stray animals who are not SIN.
iii. All members of subcommittee to consider the pros and cons of these possible
program options:
a. owner pays a sterilization deposit which is refunded with proof of animal
sterilization within a given time frame.
b. Tiered recover rates for animals that are SIN vs. intact.
c. Charges for recovery, boarding, licensing, other penalties offset by agreement
to SIN pet prior to return to owner.
d. Requirement for mandatory SIN after specified number of recoveries at
shelter.
8. our next meeting will be determined at the general ASAB meeting on Wednesday, August 15. we'll
meet there at 6:15 pm. Minutes were respectfully submitted by Lynn white.
Meeting Minutes
Animal Services Advisory Board (.A.SAB)
Task Force on the Spaying and Neutering of Recovered Stray Animals
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Present: Lynn 'White (Chair), Kris Bergstrand, Bob Marotto, Aviva Scully
1. Agenda was unanimously adopted as presented.
2 Meeting minutes/summary from subcommittee meeting that took place on August 13, 2012 were
accepted and approved.
3. orange County Animal Services (OCAS) data summery by Bob (see attachments 1 and 2): From
2007 -2011, 182 cats were recovered by their owners, of these, 531182 (29 %) were reproductive, and
1291182 (71%) were sterilized. 1761182 (97 %) were recovered by their owners once, and of these, 521176
(30 %) were reproductive and 1241176 (70 %) were sterilized. Six cats were recovered twice. of the six
cats, 516 (83 %) were sterilized and 116 (17 %) was reproductive. From 2007 -2011, 1620 dogs were
recovered by their owners. of these, 910/1620 (56 %) were reproductive, and 71 0/1620 (44 %) were
sterilized. 1494/1620 (92%) were recovered by their owners once, and of these, 85311494 (57 %) were
reproductive and 641/1494 (43 %) were sterilized. 9011620 dogs (6 %) were recovered twice, and of
these, 41190 (46 %) were reproductive and 49190 (54 %) were sterilized. 2211620 (1%) dogs were
recovered three times, and of these, 11122 (50 %) were reproductive and 11122 (50 %) were
sterilized. 911620 (0.5 %) dogs were recovered four times, and of these, 519 (56 %) were reproductive and
419 (44 %) were sterilized. Two dogs were recovered five times (both sterilized), two dogs were
recovered six times (both sterilized) and one dog was recovered seven tunes (sterilized).
4. Identified options were reviewed:
`E3
14
A. Microchip placement. Based on review of local practices, national practices, and literature
regarding animal recovery and microchip placement, the committee voted unanimously to
recommend to the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB) that Orange County Animal
Services mandate microchip placement in all cats and dogs at the owner's expense before the
animal is returned to an owner. All efforts will be made to register the animal with the microchip
company prior to the animal leaving the shelter. This fee will be in addition to other fees,
including the impoundment fee, boarding fee, rabies vaccination fee, licensing fee, and any other
fees the animal may have incurred during its stay at the shelter. If the owner finds these recovery
fees difficult to pay because of limited resources, shelter personnel will help the owner to set up a
payment plan.
B. Mandatory sterilization of stray animals repeatedly impounded by orange County Animal
Services. This committee was charged with considering whether legislative action should be
taken to require mandatory sterilization of animals repeatedly impounded by orange County
Animal Services and reclaimed by owners. The committee reviewed local and national practices,
literature, and recommendations by animal welfare organizations. The committee also reviewed
the data regarding numbers of stray dogs and cats recovered by owners at orange County Animal
Services, reproductive status, and repeated recovery rates. After the evaluation of this
information the committee came up with options for program actions that could be put into place
for recovered animals:
i. Requirement for mandatory sterilization after a specified number of recoveries from
the shelter
ii. Owner pays a sterilization deposit which is refunded with proof of animal sterilization
within a given time frame
iii. Charges for recovery, boarding, licensing, and other penalties would be offset by
agreement to sterilize the pet prior to return to the owner
iv. Tiered impounding fees based on reproductive status of the recovered pet, with lower
rates for sterilized pets (reflecting the current tiered approach to licensing currently in
place).
Six major issue were considered by subcommittee members:
i. Respect for owner choice
ii. Safety and care of the animals /pet overpopulation
iii. Safety of the general community
iv. Sensitivity to pet owners who are experiencing difficult financial circumstances
v. Costs incurred by Orange County Animal Services as a result of repeated
impoundments
vi. Consideration for additional time and effort required of the staff regarding
instatement of new recommendations
Review of local practices and recommendations from animal welfare organizations did not at this
time support a mandatory sterilization policy for repeatedly recovered pets. The impact of such a
policy would also be small, given that from 2007-2011, only 60 reproductive dogs and one
reproductive cat were repeatedly returned to an owner. The committee also thought that requiring
a sterilization deposit of pet owners would be a difficult approach, as it would require staff time
to collect and track deposits, return deposits to pet owners, and validate owner claims of pet
sterilization. The option of incentivizing owners to allow their pets to be sterilized prior to
recovery by reducing fees was also deemed difficult for a variety of reasons. orange County
Animal Services does not provide in -house sterilization services to pet owners at this time. The
organization also relies on fees to financially support the running of the shelter, and is not
financially in a position to consider fee discounts to pet owners. Fee reductions might be difficult
19
15
and burdensome for the staff to negotiate. It was decided unanimously by committee members to
move forward with the recommendation to institute tiered impounding fees as an excellent way to
encourage sterilization of dogs and cats recovered at Grange County Animal Shelter. The largest
educational impact on owners regarding pet sterilization in recovered animals would be made
with the first impoundment and return of a pet. Review of Grange County Animal Services data
revealed that out of 1802 cats and dogs returned to owners during 2007-2011, 1642/1802 or 93%
were recovered once by the owner, and 963/1802 or 53% of these animals were not sterilized. By
creating a tiered impoundment fee that financially favors owners of sterilized animals, shelter
personnel would provide financial incentives to owners to have their pets spayed or neutered (in
addition to the known animal health and public safety benefits). Additional financial incentives
to sterilize a pet include our current tiered licensing system, which financially rewards owners of
sterilized pets with lower annual licensing fees. Owners facing financial hardship could be
identified at the time of pet recovery, and a fee payment plan could be put into place. We would
also recommend an active referral structure be put into place that will allow our spay /neuter
outreach program to provide individualized, personal assistance to qualified pet owners regarding
low -cost spay/neuter options. The committee suggested the following tiered impoundment fees:
First recovery: $25 sterilized, $50 reproductive
Second recovery: $50 sterilized, $100 reproductive
Third recovery: $100 sterilized, $154 reproductive
4+ recoveries: $200 sterilized, $250 recovered
These fees are in line with local animal services organizations.
5. Next steps: Lynn will type up a preliminary proposal that will be presented to the ASAB at their next
meeting in October, 2012. Minutes were respectfully submitted by Lynn White,
Meeting Minutes
Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
Task Force on the Spaying and Neutering of Recovered Stray Animals
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Present: Lynn White (Chair), Kris Bergstrand, Bob Marotto
5. The purpose of this meeting was to follow up on the discussion of the draft proposal
regarding spaying/neutering recovered stray animals that was presented to the ASAB on
October 17, 2012. ASAB members unanimously agreed with the committee's
recommendation that Orange County Animal Services (OCAS) require microchip placement
for all recovered cats and dogs at the owner's expense before the animal is returned to the
owner. The discussion regarding mandatory sterilization of recovered stray animals yielded
differing opinions. At the urging of fellow board members, additional information was
gathered and suggestions considered.
6. Additional information: Further Google searches were done to find additional information
regarding laws requiring mandatory sterilization of stray cats and dogs as a condition of
recovery by the owner. Unfortunately, no information was available regarding mandatory
sterilization laws or practices specifically in recovered animal populations. However, we did
review several articles regarding general mandatory spay/neuter laws. Briefly:
a. ASPCA Position Statement on Mandator Spay/Neuter Laws. This document was
again reviewed by the committee. The article states, "However, the ASPCA is not
20
16
aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement
in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a
mandatory spay /neuter law." The article further comments, "The ASPCA does not
support mandatory spay/neuter laws ... In particular, the ASPCA supports voluntary,
affordable spay/neuter programs for owned pets."
b. "Do Mandatory Spay and Neuter Laws work ?" Sharon Seltzer, January 25, 2010,
www.care2.com. This article states, "Successful spay and neuter programs must be
comprehensive and take into consideration the needs of every type of pet owner. If
they are seen as strictly punitive then people tend to `go underground' with their
animals and do everything they can to avoid the law."
c. American Fennel Club "Mandator S a /Neuter Laws ". This article states,
"However, these laws have not proven an effective solution to animal control
concerns and punish responsible breeders." Points of consideration include that these
laws are difficult to enforce, are costly to the community, restrict pet owner rights,
and may result in a decrease in the number of dogs licensed.
d. Save our Dos "Dog Licensing and Mandato S a -- Neuter ". This article reviews
the results of mandatory spay- neuter laws in California. The authors note that
mandatory spay - neuter laws resulted in a decrease in animal licensing in CA, with
resultant decrease in licensing revenues. The authors conclude, "whether policy
makers intend it or not, mandatory spay - neuter laws are perceived by the public as
especially oppressive and drive a wedge between the public and animal services
departments. This perception reduces dog licensing rates, reduces dog licensing
income, reduces return -to -owner rates, increases costs, and kills more dogs."
e. Animal Protection Association of Missouri, "The Facts about Mandatory
Spav /Neuter Laws ". This article lists numerous organizations that are opposed to
mandatory spay/neuter laws, including the ASPCA, Alley Cat Allies, FixAustin, Best
Friends Animal Sanctuary, American Veterinary Medical Association, and the
Nevada Humane Society.
Given the preponderance of evidence /opinion against mandatory spay/neuter laws for all animals in a
jurisdiction, and the lack of any evidence of spay/neuter laws restricted to recovered stray animal
populations, the subcommittee unanimously agreed not to recommend that mandatory spay/neuter
laws be implemented for animals recovered by owners from OCAS. It was further noted that State of
North Carolina Veterinary Practice Acts do not allow OCAS the option to sterilize cats and dogs in
the shelter that are still considered "owned ".
7. The committee then reconsidered its multifaceted approach to encourage owners of recovered
animals to spay/neuter their dogs and cats. our goals are to:
a. Educate owners about the benefits of spaying/neutering their pets.
Every contact OCAS staff has with an owner of a recovered animal is an opportunity to
educate the owner about the benefits of spaying /neutering his/her pet. OCAS will create
an easy -to -read handout that can be given to the owner to reinforce information delivered
face -to -face.
b. Make sure that owners are aware of affordable, accessible, safe, and efficient
spay/neuter programs in our area.
Every contact OCAS staff has with an owner of a recovered animal is an opportunity to
let him/her know about spay/neuter options in the community. It is particularly important
to make pet owners aware of orange County's Community Spay/Neuter Program, which
provides low -cost and no -cost pet sterilization on the basis of either household income or
the receipt of public assistance. This program also provides the general population with
21
17
information about spay /neuter services in the area. The handout mentioned above will
also contain this information.
c. Identify low - income families who may be reluctant to spay/neuter their pets due
to cost, and provide personalized service to link there to affordable, accessible,
safe, and efficient spay/neuter programs.
OCAS has already put into place a program to provide individualized, personal assistance
to low- income pet owners to help connect them to low- or no -cost spay/neuter services.
d. ]Provide compelling incentives for pet owners to spay/neuter their dogs and cats.
The committee continues to recommend a tiered and differential impoundment fee that
financially favors pet owners who have sterilized their cats and dogs, and provides
negative incentives to pet owners who have chosen not to spay/neuter their pets. Our
latest version of this includes higher penalties to owners who have recovered an animal
three or more times from the shelter, as well as a deposit system for these owners to
further encourage sterilization. The proposed tiered impoundment fees are:
First recovery: $25 for a sterilized cat/dog, $50 for a reproductive cat/dog
Second recovery: $50 for a sterilized cat/dog, $loo for a reproductive cat/dog
Third recovery: $ 100 for a sterilized cat/dog, $200 for a reproductive cat/dog. The fee
for a reproductive pet is a combination of a $ loo impoundment fee and a $ loo
sterilization deposit. If the owner provides OCAS proof of sterilization in the form of a
veterinary record within 90 days of recovering his/her pet, the $100 sterilization deposit
will be refunded to the owner.
Fourth recovery: $200 for a sterilized cat/dog, $400 for a reproductive cat/dog. The fee
for a reproductive pet is a combination of a $300 impoundment fee and a $100
sterilization deposit. If the owner provides OCAS proof of sterilization in the form of a
veterinary record within 90 days of recovering his/her pet, the $100 sterilization deposit
will be refunded to the owner. (Note: The committee recognizes that the combined fee
of $400 may make it prohibitively expensive for some owners to recover their pets.
However, it should be stressed that most low - income households would qualify for low -
cost or no -cost sterilization services from the County's own program and thus pay no
more than $20 for the procedure. In addition, the fact that a reproductive animal has been
brought to OCAS as a stray four or more times should be taken into consideration when
deciding whether it is in the animal's best interest and in the best interest of the
community to be returned to that owner. The owner also would have had at least three
prior interactions with OCAS staff during which education regarding spay/neuter options
would have been provided.)
The committee decided to implement the deposit system only after the second dog /cat
recovery for these reasons:
c. The committee opted to keep impoundment fees low for first and second recoveries,
understanding that animal escapes can happen that do not necessarily reflect owner
negligence. After first and second recoveries, our hope is that the helpful information
provided by OCAS staff regarding spay/neuter benefits and options will encourage
most owners to spay/neuter their reproductive animals. By the third pet recovery, we
believe that stronger incentives are required. These include higher impoundment fees
and the promise of a returned sterilization deposit if proof of sterilization within 90
days is provided.
22
18
d. The deposit system will require increased time and effort from already overworked
OCAS staff members. The number of reproductive animals that are recovered more
than two times at OCAS is much lower than animals recovered once or twice, so the
staff will not be taxed by numerous collections and refunds of spay/neuter deposits.
(From OCAS data 2007 -2011, 53 reproductive cats were recovered one or two times,
but no cats were recovered three or more times. In the same data set, 894
reproductive dogs were recovered one or two times, but only 19 reproductive dogs
were recovered three or more times.) Note that the sterilization deposit was kept
consistent at a fixed $100 amount to simplify staff accounting.
Finally, the committee agreed that provision of information regarding low -cost fencing (e.g., the
program "Unchain Your Dog) would be important to provide to owners who come to OCAS to
recover their stray pets.
Planned future action:
1. Lynn to update draft committee proposal by next Friday for presentation to ASAB members
at the January 15, 2013 meeting. The draft will be shared with the committee prior to the
ASAB meeting.
2. Bob to work with staff to create a handout that includes information about the benefits of
spaying /neutering your pet, how you can save money by spaying/neutering your pet, low cost
options for spay/neuter services, individualized services for low - income pet owners, and
information about fencing options.
Meeting minutes were respectfully submitted by Lynn white.
■.
P.
Spay and Neuter and Microchip Requirements for Stray Recoveries;
Select Regulatory Review
Working Document
August 13, 2012
Recently, orange County Animal Services Director, Bob Marotto, obtained information from other animal welfare professionals regarding
sterilization and micro- chipping ordinances in their own or other jurisdictions throughout the United States, as they relate to the recovery of
animals. Answers are summarized on the following two tables, one for sterilization and one for microchipping requirements:
Original Question: I was wondering whether any of you are familiar with any communities that have ordinances that require the spaying or
neutering of dogs and cats that have been impounded more thanone time. or if you even happen to have a favorite model for this kind of
regulation. It may be an altogether different legislative item, but I am also interested in exploring the requirement for a microchip for dogs and
cats that have been impounded as a requirement of recovery. It doesn't address reproduction per se but it does help with recovery and ensure
the kind of identification needed to ensure accountability as well.
Sterilization Re uirements u on reclaim throughout US
Location
Jurisdiction
Local or
Level of requirement
Alternative
Recovery
notes
state
options
fee offset
by s/n
Arizona
All of state
State
Required s/n for all adoption or recovery
None?
Needs
more
research
Northglenn, Co
City of
Local
I ?
N
W
20
N
Northglenn
(city)
Illinois
All of state
State
All animals found running at large for second
time must be sterilized within 34 days of being
reclaimed
Utah
All of state
State
Any animal impounded twice within a 12-
Sterilization
All animals
month period must be sterilized prior to
deposit at time of
reclaim
reclaim, returned
if sterilized within
30 days
Westminster,
Westminst
Local?
Unaltered animals found running at large
All animals
Co
er (city)
cannot stay in unsterilized condition. Reclaim
fees for such animals are double and fees are
only reduced once proof of sterilization occurs
(if before court date)
Idaho Falls, ID
City
Local
Any unaltered dog that has been impounded
Yes-
Dogs only
on 2 previous occasions during a 12 -month
impound
period must be spayed or neutered prior to
and
reclaim
boarding
fees applied
toward cost
of
sterilization
Wichita, KS
City of
Local
All unaltered dogs must be sterilized within 30
owner may pay a
Wichita
days of redemption at owner's expense
fee to have dog
remain intact,
provided it is not
found running at
large again during
its lifetime
California
All of state
State
Unaltered animals require additional fines
Lake County, FL
County
Local
Email says
its
attached,
but
N
21
Microchi in Identification requirements upon reclaim throughout US
Location
Jurisdiction
Local or
Level of requirement
Alternative options
(Votes
nothing
state
Northglenn, Co
there- also
Local
All reclaimed animals must be microchipped
Providing proof of microchip
Cats and
Northglenn
working on
dogs
Kanakee
Kanakee
Local
microchip
Cats and
County, IL
County
of age and at time of rabies vaccination or
law
Jefferson
County
Local
Any animal that has bitten a person or animal
reclaim
County, MO
All of state
State
must be sterilized and microchipped prior to
All animals
reclaim
reclaim; Any animal impounded twice must be
sterilized prior to reclaim and an additional fee
must be paid to cover the cost of sterilization
Albuquerque,
City
Local
Any impounded animal must be sterilized prior
N NI
to leaving
Sacramento, CA
City
Local
Any animals impounded twice within a 3 -year
period must be sterilized before reclaim
Charleston
County,
Local
Animals found running at -large must be
County, SC
unincorpor
sterilized prior to redemption, with certain
ated areas
exceptions (vet recommendation that surgery
only
is not advisable due to health, proof of
national conformation or obedience show
within 12- months for purebred pets,
assistance /guide animals)
Charleston, SC
City of
Local
Has mandatory S/N ordinance in place, but
Look up?
Charleston
details not provided
Microchi in Identification requirements upon reclaim throughout US
Location
Jurisdiction
Local or
Level of requirement
Alternative options
(Votes
state
Northglenn, Co
City of
Local
All reclaimed animals must be microchipped
Providing proof of microchip
Cats and
Northglenn
dogs
Kanakee
Kanakee
Local
All animals must be microchipped by 9 months
Cats and
County, IL
County
of age and at time of rabies vaccination or
dogs
reclaim
Illinois
All of state
State
Any animal must be microchipped prior to
All animals
reclaim
IV
Cn
22
Westminster,
City Local?
Microchipping required for animals deemed
Co
Vicious or dangerous
Idaho Falls, ID
City Local
All animals must be microchipped, licensed
Cats and
and wearing a tag before reclaim
dogs
Wichita, KS
City Local
Any unaltered dog must have a microchip
implanted prior to redemption or provide
proof within 30 days of redemption
Turlock, CA
City Local
All animals impounded, adopted or reclaimed
must be microchipped
Northbrook, IL
city? Local
All animals must be microchipped prior to
reclaim and pay fees associated with its
registration
Citrus County,
County Local
Requires microchipping upon reclaim
FL
Volusia County,
County Local
??
Mentioned -
FL
look up?
Jefferson
county Local
Any animal adopted or reclaimed from Animal
Fee may be paid in advance to
County, MO
Center must be microchipped or tattooed for
have animal microchipped or
identification
tattooed elsewhere
Albuquerque,
City Local
All animals must be microchipped or
NM
permanently identified prior to issuance of a
license
Prepared by Bob Marotto and Andi Morgan
Orange County Animal Services
Orange County, North Carolina
N
07
27
%I
Appendix C
Summary of Data Search
Microchips and Stray Cats and Dogs:
1. Lord LIB, Ingwersen W, Gray JL, Wintz, DJ. Characterization of animals with microchips
entering animal shelters. JAm Yet Med Asso 2009; 235: 160 -167.
2. "Microchips Result in High Rate of Return of Shelter Animals to owners." Research News, The
Ohio State University. (Both articles were about the same study.)
a. 7,704 microchipped animals entering 53 animal shelters between 512007 and 312008
were assessed. Of these, 4,083 (53 %) were strays.
b. In all, owners were found for 72.7% of microchipped animals. Among those found,
73.9% of the owners wanted the animals back in their homes.
c. Return to owner rates for cats were 20 times higher and for dogs 2.5 times higher for
microchipped pets than were the rates of return for all stray cats and dogs that entered the
shelters.
d. The ability to find owners was higher for dogs, animals that were purebred, and animals
that were spayed or neutered.
e. on average, only 1.8% of all stray dogs and cats taken to shelters have microchips.
f. Reasons why owners were not found for microchipped animals:
i. 3 5.4 %: incorrect or disconnected phone
ii. 24.3 %-, owner failure to return calls or respond to letters
iii. 9.8 %: unregistered microchips
iv. 17.2 %: microchips registered in a database that differed from the manufacturer
g. The U.S. is the only country in which the implantation of a microchip is often treated as a
separate process from registration with a microchip registry. we need to focus on not
separating the microchip implantation process from registration. when shelters implant
microchips, they need to tell an adopter how it works and make sure information is in the
registry before the animal leaves the building.
h. The highest percentage of owners was found through the use of information in the animal
shelter databases. This is largely attributable to the fact that personnel at animal shelters
were likely to have originally implanted most of the animals with microchips that enter
their facilities.
i. Emphasis on the importance of scanning animals more than one time for microchips.
Scanners do not have 100% sensitivity in detecting or reading microchips. Microchips
also migrate. Therefore, scanning protocols at animal shelters should include scanning at
various routine times during animal handling, such as at entry, during medical
evaluations, and prior to euthanasia.
j. The estimated cost to implant and register a microchip ranges from @$25.00-$75.00
(2009).
Wel
24
Mandatory Spay/Neuter Programs for Stray Dogs and Cats
1. ASPCA Position Statement on Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws (no date).
a. Research indicates that per capita shelter intake and euthanasia rate declines are due to an
increasing incidence of spayed and neutered pets.
b. The ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically
significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the
implementation of a mandatory spay /neuter law.
c. There is evidence that sterilizing at -risk populations of companion animals such as
animals in shelters can contribute to reduction in overpopulation.
d. Cost is one of the primary barriers to spay/neuter surgery. Low household income and
poverty are statistically associated with having a sexually intact cat, with relinquishment
of pets to shelters, and with shelter intake.
e. The ASPCA does not support mandatory spay/neuter laws for all cats and dogs. The
ASPCA does support the voluntary, affordable spay/neuter programs for owned pets.
2. New JC. Characteristics of shelter - relinquished animals and their owners compared with animals
and their owners in U.S. pet - owning households. Journal of 14ppl red ,4nmal Welfare Science
2000;3:179 -201.
a. Animal relinquishment was associated with physical and behavioral characteristics of the
animals and owner characteristics and knowledge. Relinquished animals were more
likely to be intact, younger, and mixed breed.
3. AVMA. News May 15, 2009. AVMA: Mandatory spay/neuter a bad idea.
a. The AVMA policy on "Dog and Cat Population Control" has been revised to express the
Association's non - support for regulations or laws mandating spay/neuter of privately
owned, non - shelter dogs and cats.
b. Prevention of unexpected litters, reduced incidence of some cancers and reproductive
diseases, and prevention and amelioration of certain undesirable behaviors have been
documented as benefits to spaying/neutering dogs and cats. However, potential health
problems associated with spaying and neutering have also been identified, including an
increased risk of prostatic cancer in males, increased risks of bone cancer and hip
dysplasia in large -breed dogs associated with sterilization before maturity, and increased
incidence of obesity, diabetes, urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, and
hypothyroidism.
4. AVMA Policy: Dog and Cat Population Control (no date).
a. The AVMA does not support regulations or legislation mandating spay/neuter of
privately owned, non- shelter dogs and cats. Although spaying and neutering helps
control dog and cat populations, mandatory approaches may contribute to pet owners
avoiding licensing, rabies vaccination, and veterinary care for their pets, and may have
other unintended consequences.
29
25
b. The AvM.A believes that state and local governments must evaluate their needs and
resources to develop appropriate and effective dog and cat population control programs.
This would include:
i. Strict enforcement of existing animal control laws
ii. Licensing of all dogs and cats
iii. Prohibiting the sale or adoption of intact dogs and cats by humane organizations
and animal control agencies
iv. Promoting surgical and nonsurgical sterilization of intact dogs and cats.
v. Requiring rabies vaccination
vi. Requiring permanent identification through microchipping.
5. Sharon Seltzer, January 25, 2010, www. eare2 a eoin. Do Mandatory Spay and Neuter Laws work?
a. Successful spay and neuter programs must be comprehensive and take into consideration
the needs of every type of pet owner. If they are seen as strictly punitive then people tend
to `go underground' with their animals and do everything they can to avoid the law.
6. American Fennel Club, Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws (no date).
a. Mandatory spay/neuter laws have not proven an effective solution to animal control
concerns and punish responsible breeders. Points of consideration include that these laws
are difficult to enforce, are costly to the community, restrict pet owner rights, and may
result in a decrease in the number of dogs licensed.
7. Save our Dogs, Dog Licensing and Mandatory Spay - Neuter.
a. Result of mandatory spay- neuter laws in California were reviewed. The authors note that
mandatory spay - neuter laws resulted in a decrease in animal licensing in CA, with
resultant decrease in licensing revenues. The authors conclude, "whether policy makers
intend it or not, mandatory spay - neuter laws are perceived by the public as especially
oppressive and drive a wedge between the public and animal services departments. This
perception reduces dog licensing rates, reduces dog licensing income, reduces return -to-
owner rates, increases costs, and kills more dogs."
8. Animal Protection Association of Missouri, The Facts about Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws.
a. Numerous organizations listed that are opposed to mandatory spay/neuter laws, including
the ASPCA, Alley Cat Allies, FixAustin, Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, American
Veterinary Medical Association, and the Nevada Humane Society,
30
26
UTIIJM�Kll
FREQUENCY OF STRAY DOG AND CAT RECOVERIES, 2007 -2011
Orange County Animal Services
Rec Felines Canines Number Percent
Frency
Reproductive Sterilized Reproductive Sterilized
7 0
0
1
1
1
0
6 0
0
2
2
2
0
5 0
0
0
2
2
0
4 0
0
5
4
9
0
0
0
11
11
22
1
2 1
5
41
49
96
5
1 52
124
853
641
1670
93
Number 53 129 910 710 1802 99%
Prepared by Drew Brinkley and Bob Marotto August 2012
27
Rec
FREQUENCY OF STRAY DOG RECOVERIES
AND STRAY CAT RECOVERIES, 2007 -2011
Orange County Animal Services
Felines
Canines
Reproductive Sterilized N % Reproductive Sterilized N
7 0
0
0
0
0
1 (0)
1
0
6 0
0
0
0
0
2 (0)
2
0
5 0
0
0
0
0
2 (0)
2
0
4 0
0
0
0
5 (0)
4 (0)
9
0
3 0
0
0
0
11 (1)
11 (1)
22
1
2 1 (0)
5 (3)
6
3
41(3)
49 (3)
90
5
1 52 (29)
124 (68)
176
97
X53 (53)
641 (40)
1494
94
Total 53 (29) 129 (71) 182100% 910 (56) 710 (44) 1620100%
Prepared by Grew Brinkley and Bob Marotto August 2012
31