| December 17, 2010 Hearing of the New York City Council Health Committee On A Bill To Increase the Dog Licensing Surcharge Fee |
The State’s Agricultural & Markets Law (Ag & Mkt) was recently amended, allowing New York City to keep the
surcharge fees for licensing of unaltered dogs. Previously, those surcharge monies were sent to Albany. Under
the amended law, the City’s Department of Health (DOH) will collect and keep those fees to support spay/neuter
(S/N) surgeries available to the public. The monies would be help in a newly created Animal Control Population
Fund (ACPF).
The City Council’s Health Committee held a hearing to invite comments on a bill to increase the licensing
surcharge fee (which was long due for an increase). The bill’s sponsor, Councilperson Jennifer Lappin,
explained that this increase would provide an excellent source of additional revenue to support the City’s S/N
efforts.
Various organizations spoke in support of the surcharge increase, including Animal Care & Control (AC&C) the
ASPCA, the Mayor’s Alliance, the Humane Society of the U.S., the Humane Society of N.Y., P.E.T.A, and Shelter
Reform Action Committee. All were unanimous that the key to combating pet overpopulation is providing S/N
surgeries at little or no cost to low income New Yorkers.
In both his opening statement and then in his answers to the Committee’s questions, the DOH’s representative
(Daniel Kass) demonstrated the DOH’s indifference to animal welfare.
SRAC’s representative, Esther Koslow, was the last person to testify at the December 17th Health Committee
hearing. She summarized what some of the other speakers had previously alluded to: the DOH has an abysmal
track record of encouraging and enforcing dog licensing.
However, Ms. Koslow went further. She said that, given the DOH’s long-time indifference to animal care issues,
it should be removed from having any power or authority over the AC&C. With that, Ms. Koslow requested the
Committee to launch an investigation of the DOH’s control over the AC&C, with the ultimate goal of severing that
relationship. What’s certain is that the Department of Health is singularly unhealthy for our City’s companion
animals. Ms. Koslow also submitted a prepared statement.
surcharge fees for licensing of unaltered dogs. Previously, those surcharge monies were sent to Albany. Under
the amended law, the City’s Department of Health (DOH) will collect and keep those fees to support spay/neuter
(S/N) surgeries available to the public. The monies would be help in a newly created Animal Control Population
Fund (ACPF).
The City Council’s Health Committee held a hearing to invite comments on a bill to increase the licensing
surcharge fee (which was long due for an increase). The bill’s sponsor, Councilperson Jennifer Lappin,
explained that this increase would provide an excellent source of additional revenue to support the City’s S/N
efforts.
Various organizations spoke in support of the surcharge increase, including Animal Care & Control (AC&C) the
ASPCA, the Mayor’s Alliance, the Humane Society of the U.S., the Humane Society of N.Y., P.E.T.A, and Shelter
Reform Action Committee. All were unanimous that the key to combating pet overpopulation is providing S/N
surgeries at little or no cost to low income New Yorkers.
In both his opening statement and then in his answers to the Committee’s questions, the DOH’s representative
(Daniel Kass) demonstrated the DOH’s indifference to animal welfare.
 | The DOH’s Mandate: In his opening statement, Mr. Kass stated that the DOH has a duty to protect | |
| people from dangerous animals and animal disease. At no time did he mention care of animals. This omission is in line with the DOH’s website, which lays out its various mandates, none of which are care for animals. | ||
| ||
| Encouraging Compliance with Dog Licensing Law: Mr. Kass stated that there are 500,000 dogs in | |
| NYC, and that the DOH issued licenses for 100,000 of them -- a 20% compliance rate. (Later in the hearing, Ed Sayres, President of the ASPCA, challenged the DOH’s estimate of the dog population, saying it was far below what is generally believed to be the number. (Some critics estimate that there are at least a million dogs in NYC.) But even assuming the DOH’s 500,000 figure is accurate, a 20% compliance rate is nothing to brag about. Mr. Sayres noted that when the ASPCA was still responsible for dog licensing, it issued 270,000 licenses. In contrast, during the past 20 years when the DOH has been responsible for licensing, it has overseen a dramatic decline in compliance. | ||
| ||
| Enforcement of Dog Licensing Law: In response to the Committee’s questions about how to enforce | |
| the dog licensing law, Mr. Kass said that 3 City agencies are responsible for issuing citations: the DOH, the Department of Parks, and NYPD. (Failure to license your dog comes with at least a $120 fine.) When asked how many citations were issued last year, Mr. Kass said he didn’t have the numbers. The Panel did: less than 2 dozen in the past year by the NYPD and Parks combined. As for the DOH, Mr. Kass had no information at his disposal. What was clear is that the DOH has no interest in enforcing licensing laws. When asked how the DOH would improve compliance, Mr. Kass responded “We’re thinking about it.” | ||
| ||
| Lost Revenues: The Committee Members were clearly focused on the monies the DOH has lost over | |
| the years by failing to encourage and to enforce licensing. When asked by a Committee member what plans the DOH has to encourage higher compliance, Mr. Kass had none to offer. He volunteered that “It’s been sometime since we did a campaign about licensing.” | ||
| The Committee noted that the combination of increased licensing compliance and the higher surcharge | |
| fee could potentially bring in millions of dollars to the ACPF. | ||
| ||
| Animal Control Population Fund: Increasing licensing compliance has added importance now that | |
| New York City can retain the surcharge fees in the new Animal Control Population Fund (ACPF) to provide low cost S/N. The Health Committee members asked Mr. Kass to describe the DOH’s plans to spend the ACPF monies. Mr. Kass responded: “We’re in a learning mode,” and that the DOH’s plans would depend on how much monies were brought in. | ||
| ||
| Yet, back in April 2010 the DOH offered some grand plans if the ACPF were created. When testifying | |
| before another Council Committee, Mr. Kass said that “the [DOH] and AC&C would be able to reestablish and expand mobile clinic operations to provide thousands of spay and neuter operations each year using this sustainable funding stream that is currently unavailable for these purposes.” | ||
| http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/public/testi/testi20100428.pdf | |
| ||
| For anyone familiar with the AC&C’s dire financial crisis, it is highly unlikely that AC&C will be able to | |
| assume the responsibility of buying, staffing, and operating mobile S/N vans. In light of the DOH’s drastic cuts to the AC&C’s budget, the AC&C is barely able to provide even minimum care for the animals already in its shelter. | ||
| ||
| It is undisputed that making low cost S/N services widely available to low income residents is THE way to | |
| reduce the City’s pet overpopulation. However, assigning the DOH responsibility for anything to do with animal care, including the ACPF, is an exercise in futility and waste. |
SRAC’s representative, Esther Koslow, was the last person to testify at the December 17th Health Committee
hearing. She summarized what some of the other speakers had previously alluded to: the DOH has an abysmal
track record of encouraging and enforcing dog licensing.
However, Ms. Koslow went further. She said that, given the DOH’s long-time indifference to animal care issues,
it should be removed from having any power or authority over the AC&C. With that, Ms. Koslow requested the
Committee to launch an investigation of the DOH’s control over the AC&C, with the ultimate goal of severing that
relationship. What’s certain is that the Department of Health is singularly unhealthy for our City’s companion
animals. Ms. Koslow also submitted a prepared statement.
| Statement to the Members of the City Council Health Committee DECEMBER 17, 2010 Dear Council Members: Thank you for considering an increase to the licensing surcharge fee for unaltered dogs. An increase is long overdue. However, the surcharge monies will stay with the Department of Health. That’s a problem, even though the DOH will be required to use those monies to fund spay/neuter. Unfortunately, entrusting the DOH with anything having to do with the welfare of companion animals doesn’t work. The DOH is the reason why Animal Care & Control (ACC) has always been dysfunctional, why our City’s homeless animals continue to suffer as they are jammed into contagion-ridden former factories serving as animal shelters, and why every one of these animals gets sick from diseases they catch AT the shelters. Back to the licensing issue: You may already be aware that the DOH has an embarrassingly poor record of securing compliance by dog owners. It’s estimated that only between 5 to 10% of NYC dogs are licensed. The problem lies deeper than the DOH’s refusal to encourage compliance. The problem is that the DOH has no mandate to be concerned about the welfare of animals. The DOH faces a built-in conflict of interest. The DOH’s mandate is to protect people’s health. It has no mandate to protect and care for animals. Rather, it must protect people from animals. My name is Esther Koslow, and I am on the board of Shelter Reform Action Committee. For as long as the AC&C has existed, Shelter Reform has argued that the DOH should never have been given control over the AC&C. To my knowledge, the last time this Committee gave substantive attention to the AC&C was in 2002, when (under its then chairperson, Christine Quinn) the Committee granted Mayor Bloomberg’s request for an additional four years to comply with the City Council law requiring full service animal shelters in the Bronx and Queens. The due date was extended to 2006. 2006 came, and went, and no animal shelters. This Committee did not object or investigate. You could change that. You could launch an incisive investigation of the DOH’s disastrous control over the AC&C. You could expose how the DOH’s recent 18% cut to the AC&C’s already pathetic budget has devastated the AC&C’s ability to provide even minimal care for its animals. You could expose how the DOH and Mayor Bloomberg pack the AC&C Board with Directors whose allegiance is to the DOH and the Mayor – and not to the AC&C and its animals. You could lay the groundwork to create: a new city department, whose sole mandate is the care and well being of animals. But you must take the first step. Please, launch an investigation of the AC&C and the DOH. Will you? Thank you. Esther Koslow |
| Shelter Reform Action Committee (SRAC) ShelterReform.org: Everything you ever wanted to know about the AC&C, but were afraid to ask. |