Post in Elite (licensed) feline owners, unite!

Mar 23 22:10 UTC

Apparently the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) supports cat
licensing, as well as the American Humane Association, the National
Animal Control Association, [and] the National Association of State Public
Health Veterinarians.  Although I could not find a copy of the article on
their website, I found a pdf version of HSUSs position statement here:
http://spay-illinois.tripod.com/articles/licensing_hsus.pdf

The HSUS position, published in 1995, supports licensing as a form of
rabies prevention as well as a means by which lost pets may be returned
home rather than taken to shelters (and hence are less likely to be
euthanized).  They claim that cat licensing is a vital tool for rabies
control in rabies-epizootic areas. Cats have surpassed dogs as the number
one domestic rabies vector--or link between rabid wild animals and
humans.  The HSUS also claims that offering licensing discounts for
vaccinated pets actually encourages vaccination. (To my mind, this logic
makes sense only in the context of fines imposed on owners of non-licensed
pets; in most cases, vaccination is required for licensing.)

The Cat Fanciers Association (CFA) is opposed to coercive (mandatory)
licensing.  Read their arguments here:
http://www.cfainc.org/articles/legislative/cat-licensing.html

While the CFA supports the objectives of rabies protection and the return
of lost pets to their homes, it views city licensing initiatives as
motivated by a desire for city revenue, arguing that licensing has been
ineffective in reducing the rates of euthanized pets.  They argue that
mandatory licensing may in fact discourage people from feeding or caring
for homeless pets.

I have yet to find recent statistics in support of either
argumentsomething I sincerely hope the city staff will provide as part of
their research into the issue before Council votes on it.  So far, the
only research Ive seen by the city is a comparison of Minneapoliss rates
to the compliance rates in other cities that license pets.  If the city
hopes to sell this program to residents, it needs to justify licensing
from the perspective of animal or human welfare--or, perhaps, make it
clear that licensing is a way to defray the costs of running animal
shelters.

In any case, the city should consider reducing its licensing rates if it
wants better compliance.  In Minneapolis, the current fee for spayed or
neutered/vaccinated cats is $30/pethigher, I think, than the rates in
many other cities.  While the city is not likely to completely eliminate
licensing fees, lowering them (and offering discounts for multiple cat
households) may provide an incentive for people to license their felines.
My experience is that once you license your pets with the city, the city
bills you each year until the pet dies or passes to another owner
(presumably, you must provide proof of these situations). In short, you're
signing up for a yearly commitment (unless you opt to implant a microchip
in your pet).

Liz McLemore
Bancroft