|
 PIJAC Perspectives Headlines Don't Tell the Story -- More Than "Exotics" are at Risk By Marshall Meyers
Across the nation, PIJAC witnessed increased pressure by activist groups to adopt more controls over the breeding or ownership of dogs and cats. Their calls for action spawned restrictive proposals that, if adopted, would significantly impact dog and cat ownership. Their goal - impose sufficient disincentives and ownership will begin to wane. And with static or decreasing ownership, major industry segments are faced with a host of challenges. These campaigns, often justified by inflated claims as to the numbers of unwanted adoptable dogs and cats, are cloaked in a variety of forms to make them palatable and mask the underlying intent to curtail ownership. In fact most initiatives miss the mark - stray or feral animals - and end up impacting responsible owners, owners that properly house and care for their pets. From California to Virginia, North Carolina to Illinois, Florida to Washington, PIJAC is dealing with a host of initiatives reflecting a shift from focusing on pet stores and mid-west commercial breeders to hobby breeders and general pet owners. Their solutions include a cookbook of remedies that include mandatory identification systems (micro-chipping), mandatory spay/neuter, limits per household, kennel and cattery licenses, breeder permits and individual licenses per animal. In response to public outcries over outright bans, mandatory spay/neuter proposals are softened by inclusion of "exemptions" or "safe harbors" for "responsible breeders." Responsibility, apparently tied to financial wherewithal, is reflected in "exemptions" that include excessive licensing schemes, such as $100 annual license fee for each unaltered dog or cat over four months, a $100 to $500 annual "breeders' licenses," plus a $100 per litter fee! In one instance, it was proposed that the owner would also have to obtain written permission from the mayor each time they planned to breed their pet. And if that is not a sufficient disincentive to owning an altered pet, some communities seek to impose limits on the numbers of dog and cats per household (i.e. 3 animals). Ann Arbor Michigan went so far as to include birds, hamsters, mice and guinea pigs! One proposal would include reptiles in the spay/neuter mandate! In the wake of several hundred proposals aimed at regulating dogs and cats, 2003 finally came to a close with a number of proposals left on the drafting boards for introduction in early 2004. And as 2004 progresses, PIJAC expects that we will have to deal with more proposals than ever seeking "guardianship" vs. ownership, mandatory spay/neuter, excessive pet and breeder license fees, and more pet limit laws. With the movement focusing more and more on county and city governments, it is incumbent on our industry to expand its leadership role by assisting local groups and promoting broad-based coalitions. Because local initiatives often surface and are adopted without any advance warning -- computerized monitoring systems don't cover counties and cities - everyone in our industry needs to keep an eye focused on local activities. Just because dogs and cats are not always in the headlines does not mean they are not at the top of someone's local agenda seeking restrictive regulation. This is a major challenge that PIJAC needs to address as part of its strategic planning. Marshall Meyers is the executive vice president and general counsel for PIJAC (Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council). Visit the PIJAC web site (www.pijac.org) for more information about PIJAC's ongoing mission and objectives, and for the latest news in companion animal regulatory and legislative issues. |
|
