The comment read as follows:

‘Hi there

I have 7 kittens of varying ages and 2 adult cats that I need to get rid of.  We have just been overwhelmed by them breeding etc.  What is the situation with the SPCA – I am more than happy to take them to the SPCA?  But is there a charge for them to accept them??’

Firstly this shows clearly that pet limit by-laws do indeed serve as inducement for people to get rid of their animals.

Secondly it shines a spotlight both on what is not being done and the way forward. Extensive public education with regard to our pet overpopulation crisis is required, along with guidelines for how each pet owner can ensure that they do not contribute to the problem. Free sterilisation, well advertised and widely available, must be provided.

Had such an option been available to this pet owner it may be that no cats would be seeking new homes, and even if some still needed to be rehomed, two sterilised cats looking for new homes is much preferable to nine cats all needing sterilising and homing. Especially if one considers that this is not an isolated case, but applies to hundreds of thousands of animals across the country, it is easy to see how important that difference in numbers is.

This can only be achieved with government support and funding. So to the Johannesburg City Council, as well as local and provincial government across the country; could you get with the programme and instead of ensuring that there are less homes for needy animals do something positive towards ensuring there are less needy animals wanting homes?

Breed specific legislation, or BSL, is legislation dealing with the banning of certain breeds of dogs which have been, for one reason or another, labelled ‘dangerous’.  ‘Dangerous breeds’ vary from state to state and include such breeds as Staffordshire terriers, American pit bull terriers, Rottweilers, Dobermans, German Shepherd dogs, Malamutes, huskies and many others.

While I don’t agree with every single stance that PetPAC takes, for the most part I am solidly behind them. They do excellent work in making pet owners aware of legislation that they need to take action against and in co-ordinating lobbying against laws that are bad for both pet owners and their beloved charges.

What I really like about PetPAC’s approach, however, is that they are not only reactive, in taking action against legislation that needs to opposed, they are proactive as well. They are involved in drafting, and lobbying for the enactment of, legislation that specifically protects the rights of pet owners and that ensures the welfare of their pets. This is, I think, a fantastic idea, and something we should be considering in South Africa, where, it seems, our governing bodies are determined to take every failed piece of legislation from other countries and implement it here.

PetPAC has drawn up a pet owners bill of rights, which can be seen on their website. The quotes below are taken from this bill of rights:

• We have the right to protection from Government interference into our privacy regarding decisions about our pets.

• We have the right to demand public resources be provided for the exercise and enjoyment of our pets.

• We have the right to require public information regarding pet safety and education be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community.

The San Fransciso SPCA is a highly respected organisation in the United States, involved not only in rescue but in training of pet professionals, they oppose pet limit laws
http://www.theanimalcouncil.com/files/SFSPCA_Limit_Laws_4_00_f.pdf

Quoted from the above link:

‘Many local jurisdictions enacting pet limit laws allow caretakers who have more than the allowable number of pets to apply for an “exemption” permit. Therefore, these jurisdictions claim, “responsible” pet owners need not fear the law. This view is shortsighted and would put multi-pet households in a Catch-22: choosing between not seeking a permit and violating the law on the one hand; or, applying for a permit, but risking exposure and confiscation of their pets if
they are denied. In other words, multi-pet households would fear applying for a permit, because to do so would expose them to penalties and possible loss of their beloved companions if denied a permit.’

The Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT), the world’s largest organisation of trainers, behaviourists and other pet professionals, opposes pet limit laws
http://www.apdt.com/about/ps/limit_laws.aspx

Pet limit laws declared unconstitutional and struck down in two cases in America
http://www.nokillnow.com/petlimitlawunconst.htm

Quoted from the above link:

‘Writing for the Commonwealth Court, Judge Friedman disagreed, holding that an ordinance limiting the number of dogs or cats a person could keep to five reached beyond the power granted to the Borough to prohibit a nuisance, absent any indication why more than five cats or dogs might constitute a nuisance or a risk to the public health, safety and welfare. The Court went on to add: “Even legitimate legislative goals (controlling nuisances) cannot be pursued by means which stifle fundamental personal liberty when the goals can be otherwise more reasonably achieved.”‘

The American Kennel Club (AKC) opposes pet limit laws
http://www.akc.org/pdfs/GLEG02.pdf

The International Cat Association opposes pet limit laws
http://ticaleg.org/understanding_the_limits_on_limi.htm

The National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA) opposes pet limit laws and suggests alternatives for pet friendly ordinances
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/PetFriendlyGuide.pdf

The Animal Council opposes pet limit by-laws
http://www.theanimalcouncil.com/LimitLaws.html

The Dog Owner’s Guide discusses pet laws and why it opposes pet limit laws
http://www.canismajor.com/dog/laws1.html

The No Kill Advocacy Centre opposes pet limit laws
http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/PetLimitLaws.pdf

Quoted from the above link:

‘Proponents of these type of laws claim that pet limit laws prevent animal hoarding. This assertion is undeniably false…And since these individuals are often mentally ill, they are hardly making a determined calculus about whether to hoard animals based on a pet limit law’

Article in the LA Examiner discussing pet limit laws and why they don’t serve animals
http://www.examiner.com/x-1779-LA-Pet-Rescue-Examiner~y2009m1d7-Do-petlimit-laws-make-sense

If you missed the show you can listen to it here:

http://www.702.co.za/podcast/podcast_wordonlegalmatters.asp

I wrote a post, with my responses to what was said on the show, which can be found on the Hopeful Homeless blog here:

http://hopeful.ws/2010/07/29/pitfalls-of-pet-limits/

Subsequently, I corresponded with Leigh Bennie via email. As a result of our conversation, I began looking to see if any hard figures about the effects of pet limit by-laws were available, and stumbled across a guide, written by the National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA), to creating pet friendly ordinances.

While I cannot by any means agree with every position that NAIA takes with regard to animals, I was impressed by the sound common sense displayed in this document, and I do think that the principles it lays out, although written for an American audience, have application to our situation.

NAIA’s document was compiled by a number of individuals representing a broad spectrum of expertise and is the result of 12 years of research.

The document can be found on NAIA’s website here:

http://www.naiaonline.org/resources/legislative.htm

Click the second link, entitled ‘NAIA’s guide to constructing pet friendly ordinances’ to download the pdf.

The first thing that struck me about this document, is that while NAIA explores the logical objections to pet limit laws, also listed at length by myself and others, the main reason given behind the failure of pet limit laws to achieve their objectives has to do with people’s emotional reactions to them.

I must admitt that this line of reasoning had not previously occured to me, but I completely agree. They state that pet limit laws fail because they make people feel insecure, which in turn leads normally law-abiding citizens to flout the law and regard enforcers of said law as the enemy. The need for public buy-in to pet laws and for co-operation between animal by-law enforcement officials and the pet owning public was stressed as a necessity for succesful implementation of pet laws.

This hit the nail on the head in terms of describing my own feelings; as the owner of five dogs I feel insecure and powerless in terms of keeping my pets safe, as a law-abiding citizen and responsible pet owner I feel betrayed and extremely angry to have been placed in this position. I most certainly regard the people who wrote, promulgated and who will enforce these by-laws, as the enemy and have no desire to co-operate with them. I know that many thousands of pet owners throughout the Council’s jurisdiction feel the same way. Both Council representatives and the media have been experiencing this first hand as they attempt to plough on regardless with justifying and implementing the by-laws against strong public opposition.

If Council pet by-law enforcement officials and the animal loving public stand united in terms of fighting against cruelty, neglect and irresponsible ownership, problems can be far more effectively dealt with. When there is mistrust between these two groups, pet owners, and any who sympathise with them, will be much less likely to call on law enforcement should troubles arise, making law enforcement less effective.

NAIA suggests minimum mandatory training in animal behaviour for enforcement officials and also that laws be drafted by a representative spectrum of individuals, rather than just by Council officials and their legal team, as is the case in Johannesburg.

NAIA also suggests that dog licenses, rather than pet limits, are the way to go. While I am against excessive government intereference in the lives of private individuals, if there must be additional legal control, I would prefer a licensing system such as that set out by NAIA.

Let me make it clear that I would much rather have neither, a licensing system would also be subject to abuse and would be difficult to implement, given large scale bureaucratic corruption, lack of manpower and widespread billing problems with existing Council bills, so pet owners would still need to be vigiliant. Fair periods of time would have to be given to obtain licenses, and penalities for not having licenses would have to be warnings and fines at first, rather than confiscation of pets. Allowances would need to be made should people not be able to obtain licenses due to back ups in the licensing system. Payment of licenses should be easy to do e.g. payments could be made at a local post office or shop, as with water and electricity bills, and payment plans should be available.

In cases where owners cannot afford licenses, or indeed basic pet care, these should be waivered, and licensing revenue used to assist these people. This obviously would apply to cases where the owner simply does not have the means to provide optimum care, not in cases of abuse. Unfortunately this does again lead to responsible pet owners being the bearers of costs.

As with pet limit laws, time required to process licenses may prove a problem, but as no intial or routine inspections are required, some processing time at least is saved. On Leigh Bennie’s show, the problems of collecting license fees were discussed. The idea of adding them to rates bills for ease of payment was brought up, and this might be a solution.

NAIA emphasises that public support is key to the success of licensing programmes, where this is lacking, they are destined to fail. NAIA stresses the importance of getting public support by clear communication with the public at every stage, by inviting public involvement, by ensuring that license fees are reasonable and by offering incentives, in the form of decreased license fees, for behaviours associated with responsible pet ownership such as microchipping, sterilisation, provision of training and secure confinement of pets to the owner’s property.

This allows licensing officials to communicate with the public on the topic of responsible ownership, allows responsible pet owners to be reinforced rather than discriminated against, and gives pet by-law officials time to hopefully address actual problems rather than wasting time policing innocent people.  An increase in responsible pet owning behaviours will also make the job of officials that much easier and will benefit the public as a whole.

While some may grumble about the cost of licenses, the advantage is that at least each person is free to determine how many animals they can comfortably care for and this removes the fears that limit laws create. Any person who can afford to purchase a license may have one. Malicious neighbours cannot use the licensing process to harrass pet owners and a new pet can also easily be added; the new owner has simply to purchase another license, rather than go through a grueling application and inspection and still face the prospect of being turned down. Kennel owners, people in rescue etc. would purchase a single license for this purpose, which would allow for the fluctuating number of animals in their care.

Public support for licensing can also be enhanced by ensuring that collected funds are channelled into improving the lives of animals and letting the public know what their money is being spent on. Suggestions could be enhancing enforcement of reasonable pet laws, such as dangerous dog control, taking legal action against puppy millers, being used to offer free sterilisation in poorer areas, trapping and sterilising of feral cats or donations to animal welfare organisations, as well as ensuring a well run pet by-law enforcement department made up of educated individuals.  For this to work, however, the Council would have to be accountable to the public in terms of how licensing money is spent.

While naturally, not every person will comply with licensing requirements, if responsible pet owners regard enforcement officials as their allies, they will be that much more likely to call on them in cases where cruelty or other issues are present. Irresponsible pet ownership gives all pet owners a bad name, and, if they are not unfairly criminalised by the system, responsible pet owners should be only too happy to assist in efforts to combat irresponsible pet ownership.

NAIA also sets out clear definitions of hazards, nuisances, risky and dangerous dogs and suggests measures for dealing with these issues. I emailed this, and other documents, to several Council health officials for consideration, but as yet, have received no reply, and do not expect to do so. It seems that anything other than support for their high-handed decisions is destined to be stonewalled.

I’d be interested to hear other people’s thoughts in terms of whether licensing might be preferable to pet limits.

(As an aside, please save us from NSPCA officials when it comes to pet by-law enforcement. Sound scientific education in animal management, care and behaviour should be necessary criteria for such a position, not the ability to repeat old wives tales such as this strikingly ignorant comment published in a Cape Times article yesterday. I quote: ‘Cape of Good Hope SPCA chief executive Allan Perrins said they were concerned about an increase in pitbull numbers on the Cape Flats. “Owners must be aware that most strive to dominate and at the first sign of weakness they may react.” ‘)

In reply, I sent out the following email:

‘Good day

I thank you for your prompt and detailed response, for which I am grateful.

However, there is one aspect of this response with which I must dissagree, I quote:

‘Please note that the Bylaws were already enacted in 2006 after an extensive public participation process as is legally required’

Although the public were asked to participate in the process, the large number of objections which were received were disregarded and the by-laws enacted anyway, more or less unrevised from the original. This is not, I’m afraid to say, a true public consultation process, rather, it is paying lip service to the concept of one. The result of this is that law-abiding, rate and tax-paying citizens are suffering unwarranted government interference in their private affairs, with respect to their own private property. In the process the Constitutional property rights of these citizens are being violated. This is an unnacceptable state of affairs and one to which I for one, must strenuously object.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely’

Text received from the Johannesburg City Council official:

ANSWERS TO REQUESTS RECEIVED FROM SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WITH REGARD TO THE DOGS AND CAT BY LAWS

(Please note that the Bylaws were already enacted in 2006 after an extensive public participation process as is legally required)

Request 1 : A detailed description of the permit process and the location of the requisite documents.

Answer:

The application documentation is available at the Environmental Health Offices in the seven Regions of the City – please refer to Annexure ‘A’ attached for contact details – the Application process is clearly outlined in Section 3 of the the By laws attached as Annexure ‘B’ for ease of reference.

Request 2 : A list of the Inspection criteria as well as a clear description of the process and duration of such inspections.

Answer:

Inspection will be carried out of your premises on receipt of the documentation as contemplated in Section 3 of the By laws attached as Annexure ‘B’ – Property will be assessed with regard to:
· Cleanliness and Hygiene,
· Fencing capable to restrict access to public areas or adjacent properties
· Previous history with regard to complaints received by Council, whether with regard to hygiene and/or noise will be taken into consideration with the approval or rejection of applications for permits
· Objections from neighbors received during the advertising period of 14 days as contemplated in Section 3(2)(b) of the Bylaws attached as Annexure’B’ will be heard, assessed for validity and if necessary negotiations between parties will be facilitated to find an amicable solution
· Only one inspection will be carried out initially to assess the property – please however note that should a permit be granted to keep a greater number of pets than prescribed by the Bylaws the premises will be entered into a database and routine inspections will be carried out to monitor compliance with all aspects of the Bylaws.

Request 3 : A detailed description of the appeal process as well as the conditions under which an appeal will be considered.

Answer: Any person who feels aggrieved by a decision taken by an Environmental Health Practitioner with regard to the assessment of the property or refusal to issue a permit has got the right to appeal in writing to the Executive Director :Health of the City of Johannesburg. A responsible Director: Environmental Health or Deputy Director : Environmental Health will be assigned to in conjunction with the Regional Environmental Health Management re- assess the application in consultation with the Environmental Health Practitioner and the aggrieved party where after a final decision will be made.

Dr. Bismilla was not present at this meeting and it seems progress has stalled, with Council officials being defensive and unhelpful. Promises of information to be sent out, to help the public through the permit application process, have been reneged on, emails and requests are ignored.

In addition, after promising that pet owners would be assisted with arbitration, should there be objections to their permit applications, one application has already been turned down, on the basis of a single, uninvestigated objection. It is indeed as we feared, it only takes one neighbour with an objection, regardless of whether that objection has any grounds other than that this neighbour dislikes animals, to get your application refused, at which point you are either forced to flout the law or must attempt to rehome your pets.

Once again the Council proves that is is not to be trusted…and why should we be surprised considering this is the same local council who is so incompetant that they cannot even supply correct electricity and water bills to their clients. The billing department at the City of Johannesburg should be renamed the extortion and fraud department, but that’s another matter entirely.

The two issues have one thing in common however, they both illustrate the absolute disregard of the City for the rights, wishes, well-being or concerns of their constituents. In both cases complaints, requests for information and attempts to resolve issues in a sane manner are ignored or greeted with hostility. This is simply not acceptable.

Please read the Hopeful Homeless blog here for the latest information on the meeting with the Council:

http://hopeful.ws/2010/07/15/no-joburg-we-will-not-put-up-with-this%E2%80%A6/

Also sign up to receive updates and action alerts and add your voice to the objections by emailing derek@hopeful.ws

http://hopeful.ws/2010/05/24/by-laws-not-cast-in-stone/

This all sounds very promising and I must commend Derek on an extremely succinct presentation which clearly demonstrates the negative effect the by-laws will have and also, very importantly, suggests measures which will actually be useful in addressing the animal welfare issues that we face. I was very happy to hear that this seems to have been well received and deserving of serious consideration.

See the Hopeful Homeless forum for the presentation made to Dr. Bismilla, the objections compiled by Derek and by the Concerned Animal Group (CAG), as well as the application forms for permits to keep additional pets here:  http://hopeful.ws/arf/viewthread.php?tid=14

If all goes well, these forms may not be necessary, I hope this will be the case!

Its seems to me also that there is a definite legal precedant for questioning the consitutionality of the pet limit by-laws. We do not, as far as I know, have any legal precedent in South African case law. There have however, been at least two cases in in America in which residents took their local councils to court questioning the consitutionality of pet limit by-laws, as a violation of constitutional property rights, and in both cases won.

In one of these cases the judge held that the local municipality had overstepped its authority in creating pet limit by-laws as they are indeed in violation of constitutional property rights, and that further, the constitution takes precedence over municipal by-laws.

More details on this can be read here:

http://www.nokillnow.com/petlimitlawunconst.htm

As we in South Africa have similar property rights enshrined in our constitution, it seems to be this would be a relevant argument against their legality in Johannesburg.

In addition, in terms of the application to keep more than the limit number of pets, neighbours are allowed to object to these applications. In other words, the neighbour’s wishes with respect to the pet owner’s property are given preference over the wishes of the owner of that property. This is a clear cut case of discrimination against a particular group, pet owners. If I read the constitution correctly, this also seems to me to be unconstitutional.

There was finally an update from the Northcliff Melville Times of today on the pet limit by-laws. The council official who responded to their queries stated that no grandfather clause applies for people who had an over the limit number of pets before the by-laws came into effect, and that all pet owners who wish to keep more than the limit stipulated in the by-laws must apply for a permit. This seems to me, at the very least, highly unfair.

John Robbie interviewed Nicky van Niekerk, assistant director of evironmental health with the City of Johannesburg, on his show this morning. It seems that the pet limit is four pets per property, if you live in a normal house, and not four cats as well as four dogs, as reading of the by-law seems to imply.

He says that inspectors will not be visiting properties to check compliance with the by-laws, but will only inspect reactively should there be a complaint. As we already have by-laws in place to deal with nuisance barking and dangerous dogs this begs the question as to why these by-laws are being implemented. The answer surely must be as a source of revenue.

The good news is that the payment of R485 for a license will cover all extra pets, so owners need not pay per pet, and is a one off payment, not an annual one. You may also obtain your license for free if you apply before the first of July 2010.

The bad news is that the detailed application process remains in place, and I still think this needs to be looked at. Mr. van Niekerk did say however that the council would try to help mediate on the applicant’s behalf should there be an objection from a neighbour to an application.

He also said that the required application forms could be obtained from any of the seven environmental health offices around the city.

The podcast of this morning’s interview can be found on 702′s website here: http://www.702.co.za/podcast/podcast_bestofjohnrobbie.asp

You can also contact Nicky van Niekerk on nickyv@joburg.org.za for further information.

This week’s Northcliff Melville Times contained a statement from Christine Kuch of the SPCA saying that there is a grandfather clause allowing pet owners who have had pets over the limit number before the by-laws were implemented to keep them, but as this is not mentioned in the text of the dog and cat by-laws I wouldn’t count on this.

The NMT has emailed further questions regarding by-laws to the council, so look out for more news from them as well this week.

(Correction: On Leigh Bennie’s show, ‘A Word on Legal Matters’, which went on air on Monday 26th July, it was confirmed by Nicky van Niekerk that it is indeed four cats AND four dogs which may be kept at a private house and two of each in a dwelling unit, not four or two pets as was previously stated)

Hagan gets hold of all the bones in the house

After a number of serious posts, on issues close to my heart,  over the last two days (and there will be more of those), I thought it was time to share something that, while being close to my heart, is not serious at all….my Lab Hagan, the ever happy dog.

I bought some rawhide bones for all of my dogs, and the photo above shows what happened.

On re-reading my post however, I can easily see that it could be construed as an attack on breeders and so I would like to set the record straight.

I most certainly do not believe that all breeders are irresponsible, nor do I believe that there is no place for breeders. Good breeders are custodians of their particular breeds, preserving and enhancing the best traits of their breed and working for the love of the breed, and not for profit. I know very well there is little to no money in this kind of breeding, and that breeders often take a loss. I am very grateful that people like them exist and I would not encourage or support any laws which discriminated against such breeders.

On the other hand we are faced with ‘breeders’ who are pumping out as many puppies as possible, in order to profit, with no concern for the health or welfare of their breeding stock, the resultant puppies or for the people they sell the puppies to.

I feel that a law that was genuinely concerned with the welfare of animals would be seeking to address this problem, among other problems contributing to pet overpopulation, rather than discriminating against pet owners.