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:
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.
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
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.