Pet limit laws, why we don’t need them

The City of Johannesburg has instituted new pet by-laws, whereby the number of cats and dogs which may be kept on a property are limited.  These by-laws came into effect as of January 2010.

As far as I can ascertain from reading the by-laws, published on the City of Johannesburg’s website (www.joburg.org.za), people living in flats and townhouses are limited to two dogs and two cats per household and people living in separate houses are limited to four of each. There appears to be some confusion as to the exact definitions regarding properties.

Council officials seem also to be either unaware of the by-laws or unsure as to the exact strictures of the by-laws. When local press contacted Johannesburg city council officials for information they received answers ranging from being unaware of the by-laws to stating the the limit is two pets per property or four pets per property.

To my mind these by-laws are objectionable, and probably also unconstitutional…

Protests from the public and welfare organisations, made at the time pet limits were originally discussed, in 2005/6,  were completely disregarded.

The by-laws were applied willy nilly, without any concern for the people who will be affected by them, and without consulting with them. They allow for one particular group, pet owners, to be legally discriminated against.

The by-laws fail to take into account people’s attachment to their animals. Many people love their animals as members of their family or ‘furry kids’. No-one would  consider implementing a law stating that parents may only keep a particular number of children and that additional children must be given to friends or left at a state orphanage. Separation from the owner is not only stressful for the owner, but also for the animal. Our pets often form deep attachments to us.

It also needs to be considered that, with the huge numbers of animals in our shelters already looking for homes, owners forced to give up extra animals may have no choice but to leave them at the SPCA, an effective death sentence. The vast majority of animals left at SPCA’s around the country are euthanased rather than homed. This is in part due to lack of homes, but also largely due to the draconian and unreasonable adoption polices applied by the SPCA (See The SPCA in South Africa in need of reform).

The ostensible reason for the creation of these laws is to reduce animal cruelty and the number of unwanted animals. In practice however, this law will produce just the opposite effect.

This is because the limit applies only to pet owners. Breeders and pet shop owners may keep an unlimited number of dogs and/or cats. In other words, irresponsible breeding may continue unchecked, but the number of homes which may be offered to dogs and cats is reduced. This will increase the number of homeless animals and the number of animals euthanased.

The number of homes and foster homes which may be offered to rescue animals is also reduced, decreasing the number of animals which may be accomodated by shelters and again increasing our euthanasia figures.

The only concern of significance with regard to pet welfare is whether the owner is able to provide quality care for their pets. I.e. that the owner is able to provide adequate space and activity for their pets, as well as nutrition, shelter and veterinary care. This view is supported by the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, the largest association of animal professionals in the world. Their position statement can be found here: http://www.apdt.com/about/ps/limit_laws.aspx

When pet limit by-laws were first proposed for Johannesburg, pet owners were promised that those who had more than the limit in terms of pet numbers would be allowed to keep their pets, provided they weren’t ‘replaced’ after the death of a pet. This would only be humane in ensuring that animals who are well cared for and loved can continue to live in their homes. The city has reneged on this promise.

The by-laws state that owners wishing to keep additional animals may apply for a license to do so, however, neither I nor anyone else I know has had any success in getting the prescribed application forms from the council and its seems that they have not yet been created.

The cost and application process also seem to be excessively onerous. The prescribed fee at this stage is, as was reported in the local press, R485 per pet. It therefore seems likely that the council is introducing these licenses in order to obtain another revenue stream, rather than for any genuine concern for animal welfare.

The by-laws state that anyone wishing to apply for a license must complete the prescribed form (the one no-one can get a copy of) and display this notice, outside of their property, no more that one metre away from a public road, for a period of two weeks, so that neighbours may voice their objections if any. In other words, it only takes one neighbour who hates dogs or cats, and your beloved pet is destined for euthanasia at the local SPCA.

Assuming this all goes to plan, the applicant must then, along with proof that the notice has been displayed, go to the police station and create a sworn affidavit stating that the requirements have been complied with. The completed documentation and payment must then be submitted, at which point the council may or may not grant the license. Property inspections may also be done.

This process seems designed to encourage people to either flout the law or to dump their animals in despair, at the very least, this application needs to be made a lot easier.

Anyone found to be in violation of this by-law is threatened with fines, up to six months imprisonment and the confiscation and euthanasia of their pets. Considering, due to the lack of forms, that no-one can even comply with the by-laws yet, one has to question the legality of this or whether the penalties can in fact apply.

In addition, the city’s bureaucracy is overloaded. It seems senseless to add extra functions to a system that is already barely functional. We have existing by-laws dealing with nuisance barking and dangerous dogs, which would allow the community to report problem dogs and for appropriate action to be taken. These additional laws serve no valid purpose.

While the by-laws make provision for breeders and pet shop owners, they do not make any provision for those who are in the front line of ensuring the welfare of the pet population; those who work for animal welfare organisations, those who are involved in rescue and those who take in and provide either permanent or temporary (foster) homes for rescue animals. It is for this group that pet limit by-laws should not apply.

Anyone wishing to object to the pet limit by-laws in Johannesburg please send your contact details to  Vivienne Tothill on vivt@mweb.co.za

Advertisement