Dangerous and Disruptive Pets May Cost Taxpayers over $150 million/annum

Collaboration and Funding May be the the Key to better Animal Welfare according to British Parliament

Anna MacNeil-Allcock

InfoStream Staff Writer 

British Parliament has become increasingly aware of, and concerned with, dog-related issues. Whether about dangerous dogs, irresponsible breeding and trading or cruelty there have been numerous debates, meetings, parliamentary questions and petitions.

Dogs affect the economy both positively and negatively and aside from farm animals, are one of the most significant animals in relation to people with most individuals having some sort of contact with them on a daily basis.

To give an idea of the estimated costs to the taxpayer of irresponsible dog guardianship a British University was commissioned to carry out a study for the RSPCA in 2013. It is estimated that irresponsible dog guardianship can cost the British taxpayer just over £80 million per year ($146,707,380 Canadian dollars) due to attacks on livestock, attacks on humans, dangerous dog control, dog welfare issues, stray dog control, road traffic accidents and zoonotic diseases. This may be an important consideration in every country for reducing or eliminating a huge cost to tax payers.

In September 2014, an e-petition calling for an upgrade of dog legislation was brought to the House of Commons, triggering a debate and the creation of the ‘All-Party parliamentary group for animal welfare; sub-group for dogs’.

Not an easy feat, this group brought together politicians, humane, and animal control organizations, Veterinarians and others in the pet industry. It was acknowledged that key stakeholders had made numerous previous attempts to address individual problems but were hindered by the lack of a collaborative approach, lack of resources, insufficient legislation or inconsistent messaging and education.

The All-Party Parliamentary group believes that only with the involvement of all of these organisations and by combining resources, knowledge and expertise can progress be achieved. What is needed is a holistic approach to a clear vision for dogs that encourages responsible dog ownership. However, it is fundamental to set out exactly what responsible dog ownership and guardianship should look like.

In the end, twenty-one recommendations were made, which represent stage one in the process. The second stage will begin in  2015, to collaborate on more specific approaches to uphold the recommendations.

READ MORE: Review and Recommendations for Developing an Effective England-wide Strategy for Dogs 

North American leaders in the pet industry will notice two common and familiar themes woven throughout these recommendations. First, there is a need to find a regular and reliable source of funding for these initiatives, beyond donations. Second, there is a need for input and collaboration from all sectors of the industry.

As each sector recognizes these two needs, on a global scale, we will see forward movement on some of the most complex but important animal welfare initiatives.

Other important concepts touched upon in the recommendations include the need for evidence based legislation, clear and consistent messaging within and between the sectors, and animal welfare and behaviour training for all local authority officers.

READ MORE: Veterinary Record Abstract

U.S. County revisits spay neuter legislation

A small municipality in northwestern Indiana is reconsidering a mandate to enforce mandatory spaying an neutering in pets. 

In October, Tippecanoe County commissioners backed down from a proposed spay/neuter bylaw which required dogs and cats to be sterilized before they turned 9 months old. An exception would be made for pet owners who procure a free breeding permit. According to a local news article, the ordinance didn't make it past second reading because pet owners and advocates spoke up. 

But one of the County's attorneys says it is reconsidering some of the provisions of the ordinance. In addition to the spay/neuter item, the proposal included items about controlling one's animals, providing food and water and not allowing animals to harm people or other animals. After some discussion, County councillors removed the mandatory spay/neuter act from the ordinance but proposed that residents found violating the above provisions would be asked to microchip or sterilize their pet. 

READ THE ARTICLE 

Are Exotic Pet Bans an Appropriate Answer??

The New Brunswick python attack has stimulated Urban Animal conversations across North America. In an effort to make this conversation available across the industry, InfoStream will open a new conversation in the Urban Animal Group area of LinkedIn. Here are some of the ideas and thoughts collected so far:

• Talk of municipal bans aimed at exotic pets has prompted a PIJAC Canada Blog
• A conversation involving municipal enforcement has undertaken the review of exotic pet legislation to understand if dangerous animals may be removed from a premises without charging the pet owner.
• A conversation has developed around an 'amnesty program' to be delivered by members of the local community such as pet retailers, humane, rescue and veterinary organizations that would allow non-compliant or dangerous animals to be surrendered in a manner safe for both people and pets.

Please join the conversation as you are able. These contributions will be made available to Summit 2013 Directors, Dr. Jason Coe and Dr. Drew VanNiekerk so they can be included in the onsite conversations.