-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following is the complete text of the 1998 evaluation of the Center for Animal Care and Control by the Humane Society of the United States [Part 9]. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEGISLATION DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (DoH) CODE - CITY OF NEW YORK 11.65 - Control of animals with zoonotic diseases. Currently, DoH regulates almost all aspects of animal bite investigations and procedures. Ideally, the CACC could assume a more active role in the investigation and record keeping of biting animals. The code dictates that owners of biting animals return post cards to the DoH after the quarantine period is completed. This procedure has the potential for lack of owner cooperation and the possibility of unnecessary recommendation of rabies series, especially due to the noted time restraints of post exposure rabies vaccinations. A recent bite victim reported the DoH recommended rabies series immediately after bite exposure by a stray cat, but in addition, the victim was instructed to rent a trap from CACC and attempt to trap the cat herself. Recommendation: DoH should invite CACC to share more of the responsibilities of bite cases. The field staff would be excellent additional manpower to enforce public safety for animal issues. The DoH should provide training for CACC on a regular basis to insure standards of excellence. Additionally, CACC field staff should be formally trained on investigations and report writing. CACC employees would also compliment the DoH by educating the public on animal safety, as well as doubly insure that no animals fall through the cracks and reduce the number of unnecessary rabies series given. 11.65 (f) States dogs unrestrained or restrained by chain over 6' shall be impounded and isolated 48 hours (two days), minimum. This conflicts with NY State law 374 (2) which states animal may be destroyed after five days. CACC field employee were observed twice impounding dogs confined on chains much shorter than 6'. Recommendation: Contradiction should be evaluated by legal counsel to insure CACC procedures comply with current laws. 11.65 Rabies- compulsory vaccination. Non residents traveling through for less than fifteen days are exempt from rabies vaccination requirements. Recommendation: Dog and cat show and field exhibitors, at least, should be required to have their animals currently vaccinated. Exhibitors should be held to the highest standards due to the high concentration of animals of unknown history. Theoretically, these animals could bring zoonoses (rabies) into an area where previously, there was none. 11.67 Acts Likely to Spread Disease. This is adequate and progressive but appears to contradict 11.65 (d) which exempts exhibitors and travelers. Recommendation: Legal review may clarify this confusion among CACC staff. An amendment or explanation may be in order. 161.02 (h) Definition of Attack or Guard Dog. This clause is too vague for effective enforcement. Almost any dog may qualify, depending upon circumstances. "Trained" may or may not mean professionally trained without proof of said training. Owner may train and deny or children may inadvertently "train" by teasing or encouraging certain behaviors. Recommendation: Clarify definition of "training" to include intent of trainer. 161.03 Control of Dogs to Prevent Nuisance. No specific definition of "nuisance" is included here, and there is a wide range of interpretation among the general public which makes it difficult to enforce. CACC is tasked with enforcement of "Dog At Large" but, due to manpower shortage, cannot effectively address this violation. Recommendation: Amend code to include specific definition of "nuisance" for more effective enforcement of violations. Include public awareness campaign. Increase CACC field staff according to need to effectively address at-large dog problem. 161.04 Dog Licenses. DoH presently only agency issuing licenses. CACC issues applications only. Recommendation: Amend code to allow CACC to issue pet licenses. This is a function of effective animal control agencies which not only allows the agency to establish a data base for the animals it "controls" it is also a source of revenue for that agency. Due to the fact that they specialize in the animals licensed and the limited funding, at CACC there is more motivation for keeping accurate records of pets and increasing the licensing of those pets than at the DoH. 161.05 Dogs to Be Restrained. Adequate and appropriate but rarely enforced due to shortage of manpower at CACC. Recommendation: Provide funding for additional field staff to effectively enforce. 161.07 Vicious/Dangerous Dogs. The words "menaces and threatens," although appropriate, need definition. It is difficult to enforce and prosecute without definition. Recommendation: Amend code to include definitions of "menace" and "threaten." 161.09 (h) Permits to Keep Certain Animals. Requires owners & employees of establishments selling animals to complete course in animal handling and care. Progressive and appropriate; however, due to limited manpower, and employee turnover at said establishments, difficult to enforce. Recommendation: DoH could train CACC Field Staff to assist in efforts to assure compliance. This could be especially effective when conducting unannounced visits and making reports of violation back to the DoH. 161.09 (l) States owner of attack trained or guard dogs shall report loss or theft of said dogs within five days. There is uncertainty among CACC staff as to why this states five days when, presently, the CACC holding time is 48 hours. Recommendation: Legal review of code to explain to CACC staff intent of five day limit on reporting loss or theft of attack trained or guard dogs. 161.15 (b)(c) Keeping of Small Animals for Sale. States establishments selling dogs must provide new owners with proof of dog license application and provide monthly reports of animal sales. Potential for noncompliance without incentive for sellers. Recommendation: DoH could offer some type of financial incentive to establishments providing license applications to promote compliance. 161.17 Small Animals Kept for Sale, Shelter facility maintenance. States each cat or dog over the age of three months must be housed in separate cages. Cages and animals vary in size. Many small breed dogs and kittens prefer the company of others of the same species of similar size & age, if adequate space is available. Also, states that "cages shall be disinfected when necessary" without definition of what is actually meant by "when necessary." There is a wide valiance in the interpretation of when it is necessary to clean, let alone disinfect, cages. Recommendation: We understand a recent amendment was made addressing the issue of requiring an individual cage for each and every dog or cat over three months of age. Also, a definition is needed of what "when necessary" means in reference to disinfecting cages. 17.345 (a) Dangerous Dog Regulation. Overall, adequate; however, the fees are somewhat minimal in comparison to the potential risk to public safety these animals present. There is no mention of annual or periodic inspections of owners kennels housing these dangerous dogs. Recommendation: Improve this code by increasing registration fees to offset DoH/CACC costs to process and handle these animals, as well as periodic (at least annual) inspection of dangerous dog kennels. There should be a requirement for annual renewal of registration based upon satisfactory inspection of kennels. Additionally, registration fees should be substantially reduced if the owner has the dog neutered, in an attempt to minimize aggression. 17.345 (b) Dangerous Dog Regulation. This clause is adequate but lacks some verbiage to insure security of facility holding dangerous dogs, as well as effective warnings (signs) to unsuspecting visitors Recommendation: Include wording stating that kennel must have secure top to prevent climbing in or out. This is especially important for fertile animals. Also, there should be a requirement for a dangerous dog sign at each entry point of the property to insure that anyone entering from any possible direction is aware that a dangerous dog is present. This is especially important where children are concerned. 17.345 (e) Dangerous Dog Regulation. States other remedies for control of dangerous dogs. Lacks "neutering" as a possible remedy when research indicates that neutering significantly reduces aggressive tendencies in pets. Recommendation: Amend code to include neutering as a remedy for the control of dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs. 17.349 Dangerous Dog Advisory Board. Excellent provision; however, according to DoH employees and CACC, rarely utilized. Mission appears to be only of an advisory nature where DoH Dangerous Dog policy and procedures are concerned. Recommendation: Re-evaluate the mission of the Advisory Board. Possibly Board could assist the DoH Commissioner on particularly difficult or controversial dangerous dog hearings. 17-350 Violations & Penalties. In the case of maiming or death of human by a dog classified as dangerous, the penalty is only a misdemeanor. Official classification of a dog as dangerous by the DoH gives the owner firm knowledge in no uncertain terms the potential risks, liability, and responsibility involved in owning such an animal. Recommendation: The penalty for severe maiming or death of a human by a dog classified as dangerous should be increased to felony status. STATE LAWS 374 Licensing. No provision for cat licensing exists. Cats are required to be vaccinated for rabies and, in NYC, are required to wear identification tags with owner information but are not required to be "licensed." Licensing, in essence, is a form of identification itself and could be a source of revenue for those counties or municipalities issuing licenses, as well as the state spay/neuter fund. Recommendation: Amend present laws to include, at minimum, the potential for cat licensing. Include the ability to use cat license revenue to assist in a statewide spay/neuter program. 109 (3) Licensing of Dogs. Requires applicants to present written proof of rabies vaccination as a contingency for a dog license. NYC DoH does not require proof of rabies vaccination prior to issuance of dog license. An application is completed, indicating "yes" or "no" as to whether or not the animal has been vaccinated for rabies. The application is submitted and a fee paid. The DoH reviews the application. On the application form there is no area to provide rabies vaccination information, just a "yes" or "no" check box. Therefore, upon receipt of the application, the DoH must do an investigation to determine proof of dogs rabies vaccination. Recommendation: Redesign the license form and do away with the application form. Rabies vaccination is a prerequisite to licensing; proof of vaccination, including administering veterinarian and name of clinic, date of issuance, expiration date of vaccine, vaccine lot #, as well as an accurate description and name of the dog, should be minimum information on a license. 110 License Fee. State law dictates license fees. Recommendation: License fees should be set locally, based upon local economy and the extent of the animal problems involved in a local animal control program. An amendment to state law should be considered which provides guidance in establishing licensing fees but allows individual counties or municipalities to establish local ordinances which enhance state guidelines as need be depending on local circumstances. 110 License Fees. States fee amounts for dog licenses, including a scale of fees for purebred dog owners based upon number of animals harbored. The difference in fees for fertile versus sterile dogs is nominal ($5) and the fees for purebred dog licenses are nominal ($25 - $100), as well, considering the average selling price for a purebred pup is approximately $300. Recommendation: Amend law to allow counties to establish license fees and increase differential licensing fees. This would encourage more pet sterilizations and reduce pet overpopulation. Considering the number of purebred dogs that, not only add to the pet overpopulation problem, but also end up at animal shelters, the breeders of purebred dogs should be part of the solution to those problems. Breeders should contribute more to the state spay/neuter fund by paying kennel license fees that reflect the average sale of one purebred dog which is at least $300. 111 Disposition of License Fees. States that agencies collecting license fees shall remit 47% to the state to be placed in the spay/neuter fund to be used throughout the state. The remainder to be used for controlling dogs and subsidizing spay/neuter of dogs. There are no provisions for cats, which now rival dogs in popularity as pets and are more likely than dogs to be a vector of rabies from wildlife to humans. Recommendation: Given that cat ownership has significantly increased nationally, especially in urban areas, and that a greater percentage of cats run at large than dogs, increasing the possibility of contact with rabid wild animals, legislation relating to the ownership of cats and a desire to keep them safe and supervised is now an essential part of an effective animal control & public safety program. Amendments to existing New York laws should be considered in the future to reflect this need. 117 (a) 4 Animal Population control program. Very complex and progressive law. Necessitates an extraordinary amount of accounting & manpower. CACC employees feel distribution of funds is unbalanced. Recommendation: Amend law to allow NYC to keep all revenue generated from sales of NYC licenses to be placed in a spay/neuter fund for NYC dogs & cats. 118 Seizure of Dogs, redemption periods, impoundment fees, adoption. Difficult for a lay person to understand, according to CACC employees, including employees enforcing this. States that promptly upon seizure of an animal, the owner shall be notified. This is not being done in the field by field staff. Employees explain that this is due to strict time limits, the number of priority calls for which they are responsible, and, to a lesser degree, the parking constraints. The strict time frames of this law and the sheer number of animals impounded at CACC necessitates the use of a time clock to document the time an animal is received until a disposition is made. In some cases, where there is a possible owner (IE: possible abandonments, evictions, hospitalized owners) the owners are sent a certified letter rather than a field officer on scene leaving notice or dispatching an officer the next day. Recommendation: Increase field staff to effectively respond to and handle emergency rescues. As a result of the increase in manpower, field staff should be instructed to notify owners (or possible owners) of the impoundment of their pets as soon as possible. This is best accomplished by a written notice (with a copy kept by the field officer) left at the residence of the possible owner. A certified letter may still be necessary in some cases; however, notices of impoundment left on the scene will generate an increase in the number of pets reclaimed within 48 hours. High impoundment fees should consider the opportunity for payment plans, to be negotiated on a case by case basis when appropriate. 121 Dangerous Dogs. States that if an owner fails to euthanize or confine as ordered, any authorized officer may destroy a dog, on or off property. Additionally, there is no provision for an appeal process. Recommendation: Understanding the need for public and officer safety, officers should, however, give priority to working with CACC and capturing dog alive (whenever possible) and removing to another location where the dog may be humanely euthanized. CACC and NYPD should conduct ongoing training to establish policies and procedures regarding dangerous dog situations. Amend law to provide for an appeal process for the owners of dogs declared dangerous. Chap. 115 (s.6) States cats without collars and owner identification tag may be seized. Recommendation: Require licensing of cats and accomplish the same end result plus generate revenue to fund spay/neuter efforts. ADDITIONAL HSUS RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO LEGISLATION: Mandatory statewide professional training of field officers. A restriction on the number of pets owned, with exceptions requiring special permits, within the City of New York is also needed. Special Patrolmen authority to enforce a pet store permits, deworming requirements, and many other Dept. Of Health procedures relating to animal care and husbandry. A state law requiring formal training in chemical capture for animal control officers, police officers, and other applicable personnel (such as zoos and wildlife managers). An analysis relating to the various agencies involved in the handling of general animal care and control duties (including dangerous dog pickup), with a resulting law, regulation, or agreement signed by NYPD, CACC, and Dept. of Health, in order to double enforcement powers for most animal issues. It is always advisable to revisit any and all laws every five years or so (or on an "as needed" basis) to determine what changes, if any, are warranted. Such review should be done by an ad hoc committee which is largely made up of people involved in the enforcement and interpretation of the law. Animal control personnel who regularly enforce leash laws, animal cruelty ordinances, licensing ordinances, etc. should be integral to that process as should county attorneys, prosecutors, other law enforcement and judicial representatives. The HSUS stands ready to assist with any legislative revisions the CACC wishes to implement. GENERAL BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS Note: this evaluation is not in any manner to be construed as an audit of the budgetary accountability of CACC operations. Copies of the current operating budget for CACC were provided and these documents appeared clear and reasonably easy to understand. While it is a fact that the CACC currently has a multimillion dollar operating budget, there are numerous service areas that need additional budgetary consideration. For example, eight animal control officers for the entire City of New York is woefully inadequate. It is a fact that, annually, thousands of requests for services received by CACC must go unanswered. Because of the unavailability of staff to respond, the public perception of this agency is one of not caring. The recent financial audit of CACC stated that: At the end of each calendar year, two independent audits are performed by certified public accounting firms on the financial practices of CACC. The first audit determines whether CACC's financial statements fairly present the financial position of CACC. The second audit is performed at the request of DoH. Specifically, DoH contracts with a CPA firm to review CACC's financial position and verify that the records support the expenses reported to DoH during the year. CACC has adequate controls over its revenue collection and reporting functions. City funds were deposited timely in a money market account, in accordance with terms of its contract. In addition, all revenue was accurately posted to the general ledger. Daily cash receipts at the shelters were calculated accurately, reconciled to cash register tapes, and deposited into CACC's bank accounts in a timely manner. Restricted grants were properly deposited and recorded in accordance with grant terms./63 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FN63/ Audit Report on the Financial Practices of the Center for Animal Care and Control; City of New York Office of the Comptroller, Bureau of Financial Audit, FM98-093A, June, 1998. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommendations: A good animal control program is a community responsibility and should be budgeted as any other program or service available to citizens. The budget and space necessary to adequately operate an animal shelter depends on a number of significant factors, including, but not limited to, the types and levels of services the shelter provides to the public, the number of hours open to the public, and the number of animals received. Recognizing that budgets vary widely for many reasons, including within similar demographic settings, The HSUS estimates that, typically, the cost for handling animals within a community to be between $3 and $5 per person. The primary costs for municipalities falls within those services offered in the housing of animals. Many agencies, however, fall short of that funding level. The most common obstacle when coordinating an effective animal care and control program--as it is to some degree for virtually all governmental programs--is the problem of funding. In this era of perennial budget deficits, city and county officials are often tempted to strip down animal control programs to the point of total ineffectiveness. But, in this area of governmental responsibility so vital to public health and safety, local officials should avoid shortsighted decisions. Cities and counties can manage animal-related problems in a fiscally responsible way. Animal control can be funded partially through user fees--a deficit reduction strategy that governments apply to everything from parks to motor vehicles. Licenses for dogs and cats are the user fees of animal control, and should be promoted to both the stray animals and the County's advantage. Dog and cat owners should shoulder much of the burden of animal control costs; furthermore, irresponsible dog and cat owners should be assessed the largest part of that burden. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) stated in 1980 that every $1.00 invested in spay and neuter programs over a ten-year period prevents $9.79 in future animal control costs. It is estimated that these savings are even greater now./64 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FN64/ International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Management Information Service (MIS) Report, Volume 25/Number 7, "Local Animal Control Management," September, 1993. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the local government focuses only on operating a skeletal shelter and catching and destroying thousands of cats and dogs, animal problems will create constant headaches for local government officials. An effective animal control program not only saves cities and counties on present costs--by protecting citizens from dangerous dogs, for instance--but it also helps reduce the costs of animal control in the future. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SRAC RESPONSE TO HSUS REPORT |
| Shelter Reform Action Committee (SRAC) ShelterReform.org: Everything you ever wanted to know about the AC&C, but were afraid to ask. |
