Pets & people

There’s been some hullabaloo in Dallas over a proposed pet ordinance that would restrict the number of pets allowed per property to six dogs and cats and would require mandatory spay/neuter or a $500 breeder permit (pets in poor health and conformation animals would also be exempt from the latter ordinance). Some pet owners have offered the “if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns” argument—that is, backyard breeders or pet hoarders will continue their practices no matter whether there is a law in place.

I have no beef with the intent behind these ordinances—to reduce the number of abused and neglected animals that flood the city’s animal shelters. According to the WFAA, 80 percent of the animals that find their way into shelters are euthanized. And the majority of the shelter animals are not sterilized when they enter the shelter. Stray dogs have been an ongoing problem in Dallas; clearly, we need a humane way to reduce the unwanted-animal population.

But…are these ordinances the way to reach that goal? Has the city budgeted for additional animal control officers to answer the deluge of “my neighbor’s dog isn’t neutered” calls? And will those types of calls draw resources away from more overt cases of animal cruelty and neglect?

How will the city educate pet owners about spaying and neutering? Will the city provide additional funds toward free/reduced-cost sterilization for pets, even for residents who are not low-income? Will the city offer/subsidize a mobile neutering service?

Will owners of 7+ animals be “grandfathered” in, or will they be forced to give up a pet?

Los Angeles, the first major municipality to pass a mandatory pet sterilization law, added 4 animal control officers and additional clerical staff at a cost of $400,000 to cope with the change in law.

Unless the city plans to allot major funds toward education, sterilization and enforcement, these ordinances seem little more than a heartfelt but empty gesture.

—Bellapoison