Matters relevant to pet laws

Please read this document carefully and also, if you have brushed past any previous messages on this subject, please read them now and stay informed. This will affect all of us. This matter is of great concern to all dog and cat owners whether breeder or pet owner. The extremely restrictive and draconian by laws drafted by the Jhb CityCouncil are very likely to be passed soon and if so will definitely result in great numbers of dogs and cats being impounded and destroyed. The laws will make it possible for your animals to simply be removed from your properties. In their present form the by laws make very little allowance for breeders and permits for extra animals (ie more than 2 or at most 6 on a plot) will be extremely difficult if not impossible to obtain. Your champions and imported stock will be at risk along with your pets and retired veterans. If Jhb City Council pass these laws the rest of Gauteng and other Provinces will quickly follow suit so do not take shelter in the belief that you do not live within the Johannesburg area so you are not affected. Do not take shelter either in the misguided belief that "it will not happen" and "if it does we will be protected because we are KUSA members and "breeders". It is now very evident that this will not be the case if the present draft goes through. DOGSPC has been very involved in all meetings with Jhb City Council from the outset through our representatives Roy Clarke and Joe Field who have worked tirelessly to put our views and input forward but all parties are now being actively blocked by the City Council. Presentations are blocked or refused and practically all of our proposals for amendments have been ignored. KUSA and DOGSPC are now taking steps to involve legal representation. We will keep you informed. Please read all updates from us on this subject and be forgiving if we repeat any updates in our haste to get all out to you quickly. If you feel you can assist in any way in your private or business capacity Contact Roy Clarke (011) 440 3320

 

The whole matter of pet bylaws is much wider than appears at first glance. Dogs and cats were domesticated many thousands of years ago by man for the benefit of man. Having pets has many benefits for individual people and the community. At the current time these include :

1. Security - animals reduce the incidence of theft, murder and rape; they lessen the load on the SAPS by preventing and lessening the effect of crime; they allow people to feel more secure and so contribute to their wellbeing.

2. Valuable services - bomb and drug detection, criminal apprehension, fire protection and investigation, guides for the blind, hearing aids for the deaf, medical and psychological health therapy, herding of farm animals and more.

3. Health protection - pets control vermin numbers and reduce the spread of disease.

4. Environmental protection - they help balance the eco system.

6. They create opportunities for sport and recreation so contributing to the benefit of man.

7. They create the need for veterinary services and research with spin offs for other animals, and resultant benefits for man.

8. They create major economic activity - food manufacturing, training, equipment, grooming, veterinary treatment, pet and animal publications, transport and more, thus generating employment, income tax, VAT, municipal rates and foreign exchange from exports.

9. Companionship.

10. National and metropolitan pride - e.g. a South African team of two people and three dogs from Gauteng, selected from national competitors in Kennel Union of Southern Africa competitions, has just won the World Agility Championships, held in Spain this year, for the second time running.

Pets have become a totally integrated part of all of our lives. Any proposals for pet bylaws must therefore include consideration of effects on the above.

Concerns by those in favour of pet bylaws distil down to one major factor and a couple of minor factors.

1. The major item propounds that there are too many pets resulting in the need to euthanase those that are not wanted.
2. The minor items propound that
a. pets create human health problems
b. pets are neglected and abused
c. pets create nuisances such as noise
d. pets can be dangerous to humans.

These items need to be considered in detail before any bylaws are proposed or adopted :

1. Too many pets?

Not everyone wants a pet or pets; the changing lifestyle of smaller properties and living in close proximity, very busy schedules, and increasing costs has changed the suitability and acceptance of some pets. However very many people still want pets - far more do than those who don't, including those prevented from having them by narrow minded body corporates, and pets are regularly bought and sold. It cannot be argued that having multiple pets contributes to excess numbers, in fact just the opposite, it reduces the unwanted numbers. Placing an arbitrary limit on pet ownership will not prevent the desire to have pets, just make it more difficult and expensive and so can only increase the number which are euthanased. It could be argued that not enough people have pets - if each household in the metro adopted one pet there would be no homeless pets.

Consideration must be given to why animals find their way to welfare organisations - are they the wrong pets for the owner's lifestyle, do they have behavioural problems, are they the result of owner's changed circumstances? These are educational and responsibility problems. Or are they simply unplanned litters that people have no idea what to do with? It is the stated and legislated function of anti-cruelty and welfare organisations to assist these people and care for and rehome these animals.

2. a. Human Health Problems?

There is no evidence that pets create any problems of consequence for humans. The existence of zoonoses is accepted but their incidence is not large and responsible ownership prevents them. There are many other factors in human lives that have far more serious consequences and require urgent attention (and funding which would be compromised by the costs of implementing pet bylaws). To name just a few - Aids, malaria, the recent typhoid outbreak, people living in abandoned factories with no ablution facilities and people living in informal areas without even running water. There is further no evidence linking the number of pets owned or kept on a property to health aspects. Walking/exercising/training pets doubtless has significant health benefits for their owners via exercise and stress reduction - these benefits would be reduced by limiting numbers. In fact number limits and permits will raise human stress levels and negatively affect health.

2. b. Neglect and Abuse?

Yes it exists, but what are the causes? Education, responsibility, culture, financial circumstances? No bylaw or permit can prevent it but creation of pride of pet ownership, education in care required and involvement in animal sports and activities will considerably reduce it. There is already legislation to take action against it and welfare organisations already provide assistance.

2. c. Nuisances?

We are accustomed to highways, heavy trucks, motor cycles, aircraft, discos, all night parties, house and car alarms, fireworks, even gunshots, and accept the massive noise from them. Noise from dogs and cats pales into insignificance. There are already noise control laws which allow for control of excess noise of all types. Pet bylaws cannot stop any noise but education and a sense of responsibility will have a positive effect.

2. d. Dangerous Animals?

Yes there are, and the high crime rate encourages having them. However it is a matter of personal responsibility to ensure that they are under control if in public, and with most properties being fenced or walled they are normally contained. Dog attacks are very small in number - one is more at risk from household falls, poor driving and criminal attack.

SO WHAT EFFECTS WILL PET BYLAWS HAVE?

a. They will reduce economic activity, reduce incomes for all concerned with pets and pet activities, the Council and State, and raise unemployment;

b. They will increase the number of unwanted or "illegal" pets which will then be euthanased, which must be seen as cruelty and is not the stated intention of anti-cruelty and welfare organisations;

c. They will increase rodent numbers;

d. They will negatively affect human health;

e. They will create the necessity for an expensive administrative bureaucracy which could reduce or even eliminate the funding available for welfare organisations;

f. They will create friction between the City Council and residents and portray the Council in a bad light;

g. They will open the way for bribery and corruption, and increased crime by bogus inspectors calling on residences;

h. They will potentially make it a criminal offence to own a pet;

i. They will portray welfare organizations, especially the SPCA, in a negative light;

j. They will of themselves have no positive effect on the well being of the pets;

k. They will disadvantage poorer communities which could create community friction and resentment and allegations of racism;

l. They will not be accepted or bought into by residents;

m. They will be unenforceable without a large budget and even then will only be followed by those who are already responsible pet owners.

 

A MORE POSITIVE APPROACH

These suggestions assume the bona fide intentions of the City Council and other involved parties, specifically the SPCA.

Unless a large and ongoing budget can be found no positive effects can be expected so other avenues are needed which will have little or no cost :

Pet ownership should be encouraged rather than discouraged which will reduce the unwanted pet numbers.

Working relationships should be formed between the Council, the SPCA, PDSA, AID, and animal organizations such as the Kennel Union of Southern Africa, the GSD and Boxer Federations, dog clubs (many of which have rescue schemes), the Cat Fancies, cat clubs, and private welfare and rescue people. Between them they can promote responsible ownership, pride in pet ownership, proper care, and migrate pet owners towards owning pedigreed and registered pets. Very few pedigreed dogs or cats find their way to welfare organisations so promoting ownership of pedigreed animals will reduce problems faced by welfare organisations. Also by encouraging pedigreed pets owners will then join the relevant organizations and commit to their codes of ethics. This will reduce the number of unplanned and crossed litters, reduce the "puppy mills" and reduce the number of pets going to shops. It will also increase the standard of care of animals and make sterilisation of pets not selected by their owners for breeding more likely.

It is accepted that compulsory sterilisation is unworkable - encouragement is the only way to achieve increased rates of sterilisation. Cost and accessibility are problems for many pet owners. The Council has many offices in many areas - it should be easy to make a small space available for use by welfare organisations as sterilisation clinics. These organisations could adjust their budgets to increase funds for sterilisation with resulting lower funding needs for euthanasing. Apparently mobile clinics have had great success and these should be expanded.

The same facility could be used for both educational classes and pet vaccinations and distribution of literature.

Many public parks are under utilised and Council has many grounds within the metro. It would be easy to set aside areas for exercising dogs and assisting clubs to run training classes/dog shows etc., and distribute information on health/welfare/sterilisation.

Body corporates could be encouraged to allow suitable pets in complexes thus reducing unwanted numbers and improving security.

Currently the SPCAs do not have a central database nor is there a website or SMS facility where lost and found animals can be posted by the public. It would not be expensive to link SPCA's existing computer databases and include a website and SMS facility. It would be an excellent advertising medium and would easily attract a sponsor. It could also be used by dog club rescue schemes. More animals could be returned to their owners and rehomed without them even having to be taken to SPCAs thus reducing the SPCAs' costs of caring for the animals and the number euthanased and related costs.

SPCA pounds' current opening hours limit their effectiveness. This could be easily improved by extending their hours to evenings and weekends at no cost by using volunteer staff.

SPCA's educational efforts are currently largely invisible and need to be significantly expanded. By working with other organisations and sponsors this could be achieved at minimal cost.

While none of these suggestions creates an "instant fix" to any of the perceived needs it must be accepted that there is no possible "instant fix" even with bylaws (which might actually aggravate the situation) and a large budget, and these ideas will have a significant and growing positive effect.

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON CURRENT BYLAWS PROPOSALS

1. There is no evidence that limiting the number of pets allowed per household will have any positive effect on the welfare of pets. Someone with an interest in pets is likely to have more and is more likely to properly care for them.

2. Limiting the number of pets will have no effect on reducing so called unwanted animals. They will still be bred informally and unintentionally. In fact number limits will increase unwanted numbers on a continual ongoing basis.

3. Number limits create invidious situations - must an older pet be put down in order to replace it with a puppy or kitten?
- what must an owner do if a permit is refused? Put the pets down?

4. Permits will increase the cost and hassle of pet ownership, will only be applied for by responsible owners, will open the way to legal and constitutional arguments and potential expensive litigation, will be open to abuse, will be expensive to administer, will divert attention from more important matters, will open the way for malicious actions by neighbours and adversely affect neighbourhood harmony.

5. Number limits or permits will extremely severely affect dog and cat activities and sports with dangerous consequences for animal organisations and subsequently the animals themselves.

6. Number limits will adversely affect food manufacturers, the veterinary profession, trainers, groomers, equipment manufacturers etc. thus having adverse effects on the economy, employment, rates and income tax.

7. Number limits will adversely affect personal security and make crime easier.

8. Limitation of numbers or requirements for permits once instituted will be able to be varied by Council decree. This is a very serious and legitimate concern for pet owners. It would theoretically be possible to ban all pets. Permits are in fact more pernicious than licenses (already accepted as unworkable) as no basis for their issue or refusal can be fairly and equitably drafted and they will be controlled by many people the knowledge, qualifications, attitude and experience of whom is unknown. Any appeal process will be expensive and cumbersome.

9. Using number limits and permits in place of enforcing animal protection and public health and noise control laws defeats the object of these laws, would be extremely bad legislation, by-passing due process, open to question constitutionally and possibly infringing human rights. It could further be argued that it is potentially of itself cruel to animals as it does nothing to protect their welfare and promotes euthanasing them instead.

10. Limitation on numbers will make it very difficult for individuals to take in strays or rescue animals and try to find their owners or rehome them.

11. Requiring inspections of premises for the issue of permits creates major problems. While many responsible owners might not object to inspections by what standards would they be judged? It would be very difficult to draft a uniformly accepted standard. Such inspections could only be done by qualified and experienced people (veterinary/animal behaviourist/ethologist etc.). It would be a massive and expensive task requiring large funding and resources diverting such funds and resources from legitimate anti cruelty and health functions which could aggravate the situation. Unresponsible owners would not comply and disadvantaged owners would be compromised even though they are caring. Forgery and corruption would be rife. Refusal of a permit would result in more unhomed and euathanased animals and is cruel and inhumane.

12. International and local experience has shown that licensing and number limits do not work, are not practically enforceable and are abandoned by those Councils which instituted them.

13. Existing legislation allows for intervention in cases of cruelty. The bylaws as proposed do not help to prevent or correct cruelty.

14. The costs of introducing and enforcing bylaws could massively reduce the funding to SPCAs with the possibility of it being cheaper for Council to simply run pounds which will then simply become euthanasia centres rather than animal welfare centres.

15. SPCAs and other welfare organisations if involved in controlling numbers will lose their credibility as welfare organisations and the goodwill and confidence of the public resulting in the loss of public and corporate funding and donations making their function more difficult and threatening their existence.

16. Compulsory sterilisation will be impossible to enforce and will therefore not resolve any numbers concerns. It would also be open to massive forgery. Giving Council the power to sterilise animals at owners' expense will simply create more unaffordable expense and unrecoverable debt and therefore more euthanasia.

17. Although not drafted in those terms current proposals imply a major euthanasia campaign. This will obviously be cruel to both animals and people and will not resolve numbers concerns as it will never be possible to prevent breeding and repeated euthanasia campaigns will take place.

18. Current proposals do not enhance the provisions of existing legislation for the benefit of the animals and if the Animal Protection Act cannot be enforced the bylaws will not benefit animals.

19. Properties in many suburbs are now fully fenced or walled and pets are largely contained. Stray dogs are not common in these suburbs so collection of strays or escaped dogs is small and traffic accidents involving dogs are not common. Requiring fencing in bylaws will make the legislation elitist for areas where properties are not normally fenced and therefore place the bylaws in question. Only socio-economic development can resolve this but education can have positive effects.

20. Requiring residents to register dogs with the Council will be expensive and achieve nothing.

21. It is not possible for a dog to determine if anyone entering residential premises is authorised to do so. Given the current total breakdown in law and order it is totally reasonable for an owner to expect his dog(s) to protect him, his family and his premises. Any authorised persons should identify themselves to the owner who can then confine/control the dog(s).

22. Animals creating excessive noise are currently covered by existing legislation, but there is already so much suburban noise that animals are not actually a problem.

23. Infectious animal diseases are not a problem with responsible owners and not a problem in most areas. There are doubtless pockets of disease in less advantaged areas and welfare organisations do their best to eradicate the problem. It would be impossible for inspectors (municipal or SPCA) to check every dog and cat in the metro so the solution is again education and support for welfare organisations.

24. Control of dogs in public places is a matter of owner's responsibility. It is difficult to define what dogs are dangerous and owners must take suitable precautions and be held responsible for their dog's actions. Many dogs are simply not exposed to public places and therefore not sure of acceptable behaviour. Making it easier for owners to socialise their dogs by being in public places (providing designated areas in parks and Council land would facilitate this), plus training will reduce problems. Muzzling is an extreme measure which will itself disturb a dog and should not normally be required. Cleaning up any faeces is a matter of common courtesy, difficult to enforce and therefore education and generation of a sense of pride and responsibility are the solutions.

25. Self regulation, a generation of a sense of responsibility, education, visible encouragement and assistance from animal organisations and the Council are the keys to achieving positive results.

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON NSPCA FINAL SUBMISSION

1. It is not the NSPCA's or pound master's responsibility to approve a cat or dog breeders' association.

2. Restrictions on numbers : All the above comments on number restrictions in bylaws apply. In addition :

a. Preventing dogs from being on business or industrial premises prevents having guard dogs with obvious consequences for crime, security companies, and even the Metro Police and SAPS;

b. Allowing for "any condition" to be specified to allow dogs on business or industrial premises is so broad as to be interpreted as a blanket ban;

c. Not only breeders require multiple dogs; anyone showing or competing in dog sports does too;

d. The SPCA's already have the powers to react to cruelty or neglect; it is not their jurisdiction to approve pet ownership on a numbers basis as it has no validity in terms of neglect, abuse or health;

e. Enforced sterilisation has already shown to be unworkable and unacceptable. Allowing confiscation of unsterilised animals is inhumane, cruel, and a euthanasia licence;

f. Prevention of cats on business or industrial premises can be construed as a licence for mass euthanasia, hardly in keeping with animal welfare organisation aims; it will also exacerbate rodent problems; only a trap/neuter/release policy has been shown to have positive results;

g. The presumption that a dog or cat is over six months and unsterilised is unconstitutional - it presumes guilt unless innocence can be proven;

h. The NSPCA's credibility in the community could be compromised thus negatively affecting their legitimate functions and they would carry the additional, possibly untenable, burden of policing pet owners which would also divert limited resources and funding from their proper functions and actually threaten their funding.

i. A lost dog or cat which is claimed may be a valuable breeding animal. It is ridiculous to enforce sterilisation of such an animal.

j. Provisions to prevent provocation, harassment, teasing, frightening dogs especially by fireworks are excellent.

MATTERS SPECIFIC TO THE KENNEL UNION OF SOUTHERN AFRICA AND OTHER SIMILAR DOG BODIES

1. Members of the KUSA and other bodies belong to the organisation because they are interested in dogs and dog activities. They actively promote responsible ownership and breeding and with few exceptions adhere to the codes of ethics and conduct of these bodies. They are highly committed and put in an immense amount of work for the benefit of dogs and dogdom. They contribute greatly to research and dog health. While their emphasis is to promote pure bred dogs they also get involved with supporting organisations such as the SPCA and so significantly impact on the well being of all dogs and dog owners. Where appropriate (excessive breeding, cruelty, neglect, dishonesty, misconduct) these bodies take disciplinary action against offending members.

2. Most members are involved with dog activities - showing, obedience, agility, jumping, tracking, carting, etc. To do this they require multiple dogs - dogs competing at senior level and junior level, and young dogs and puppies being trained. Any limit on numbers would therefore seriously impact on them and their sport. A top level working dog cannot simply be replaced by a similar dog. It takes considerable time (and effort) to reach top levels. It would be ridiculous to have to put a dog down because it has passed its working career and cannot be replaced within an allowed number.

3. All dogs shown at dog shows are judged according to the standard for their breed. These standards are largely internationally uniform. All standards for male dogs world wide require the dog to have two normal testicles (after all what is the point of a male dog which cannot reproduce?). Any requirement for sterilisation would have an unbelievably disastrous effect on the showing of dogs.

4. Breeders of necessity require multiple dogs, both male and female. Many breeds are small in number with very few breeders who maintain the future of the breed and therefore require multiple dogs. Bitches are not bred every season and so a number are required. In addition there should not be a limited gene pool as breeders continuously strive to improve their breed again requiring a number of dogs from different genetic backgrounds. Any arbitrary number limit or permit requirement would seriously hamper responsible breeding - a breeder should not be prevented from acquiring a top quality dog or puppy because it would breach the permit number. Nor should a dog at the end of its breeding career but with a long and healthy life still ahead of it be doomed to be put down because it cannot be replaced due to number or permit limitations. For most breeders their dogs are not just breeding stock - they are also pets and family members and their breeding activity is a hobby and not commercial.

5. The KUSA and other bodies monitor breeders' practices and conditions and take action to ensure best practice, high quality care and responsible selling of puppies.

6. The KUSA and other bodies register all litters bred, dogs imported and exported, and maintain extensive records of transfer of ownership of dogs thus eliminating any need for any Council to register members' dogs.

7. The KUSA is a full member of the Federation Cynologique International, the international controlling organisation of dog bodies, also with extensive internationally accepted behavioural standards for its members.

8. The KUSA is recognised world wide by all dog associations as the accepted national dog body in South Africa. It must therefore be recognised by the Council in any dog matter. Other similar federations should similarly be recognised as they have the same aims and functions.

9. All members of KUSA and similar bodies must therefore be automatically exempted from number and permit requirements if any are even considered despite them being unworkable.

 

ITEMS WHICH COULD BE OF VALUE IN PET BYLAWS

If bylaws are considered essential, to be of any value they must promote, and be seen to promote, animal and human welfare. If they are not perceived as such they will not be accepted or followed. The following items could fit these requirements :

1. Permission for residents of townhouses/flats and similar residential complexes to have suitable pets should not be withheld without proper reason by body corporates.

2. Harrassment, teasing, frightening of pets should be strictly banned, especially by fireworks, and owners be given suitable avenues of recourse with legal penalties in addition to the powers of the SPCA.

3. Owners of dogs should be responsible for their actions in public places including civil damage claims.

4. Cleaning up dog defecations in public places should be a requirement.

5. A clear mechanism for resolving disputes between neighbours should be specified.

6. A clear mechanism for investigating alleged neglect or abuse by properly qualified people with a background in animals (veterinary/animal behaviourist/ethologist) should specified, together with defined courses of action. Penalties to be oriented towards public service such as working at SPCAs but backed up by education and assistance from welfare organisations.

7. Animal breeding associations and pet trading associations could be empowered to have stronger sanctions against any offending member.

8. Pet shops and all breeders could be required to obtain vaccination certificates from a veterinarian for all animals sold and the public educated to demand them.

9. Theft of pets, poisoning of pets, dog fighting should be made serious crimes and have severe penalties.

10. Council should include the relevant sections of the Animals Protection Act and Public Health and Noise laws so that owners know their obligations and penalties for contravention. These laws already apply and if implemented would resolve the issues the proposed bylaws intend doing by other, questionable, means which have other severe consequences and could make the situation worse.

11. Anyone finding a stray animal should be obliged to report it to a central lost/found database immediately and either care for it adequately until claimed or take it/have it taken to a welfare organisation.