Dog licensing serves multiple roles:

1) To track compliance to rabies vaccination where required for public health reasons. This is the reason California state law mandates dog licensing.

2) To provide a means of identification for dogs that is tracked in the municipality’s database in case they are picked up stray, so they can be returned to their owners. “Your dog’s license is his ticket home.”

3) To generate income for the municipality to operate its animal services programs.

Higher rates of dog licensing lead to higher return-to-owner rates (RTO) when dogs are picked up stray, because more dogs are wearing their identifying license tags.  Higher return-to-owner rates means fewer dogs need to be housed in public shelters. This reduces shelter costs and reduces the number of dogs euthanized, both important societal goals.

For the animal services authority,  return-to-owner is the lowest cost way to deal with dogs picked up stray.  Dogs that are quickly returned to their owners don’t consume limited resources in the municipal shelter.  Some animal services departments return licensed stray dogs directly to the owner, bypassing the shelter, reducing costs to the bare minimum.

Calgary animal services leads the way in North America, saving 95% of dogs they process thanks in large part to a return-to-owner rate for impounded dogs of 86%.   Key to Calgary’s success is a dog licensing compliance rate that exceeds 90%.  For a city of over 1 million people, Calgary has a relatively little public animal shelter space because their return-to-owner rate insures that most dogs are not housed in shelters for long.   Calgary achieves this success at no cost to its taxpayers, the costs are almost entirely covered by pet license fees.

In California, only 62% of dogs in public shelters are saved.   Return-to-owner for impounded dogs is a paltry 21%, in large part because only 22% of dogs are licensed in California.  The low return-to-owner rates means that stray dogs must be housed longer in shelters, until they are either adopted out or euthanized.  This increases costs.  The low rates for dog licensing means that California’s taxpayers must cover most animal services costs.

Over the years, Calgary has implemented policies to incentivize dog licensing, including quick and convenient licensing options, and discount perks at retailers.  Calgary’s pet owners know that many valued services are paid for with their pet licensing fees, including educational programs on responsible dog ownership, over 100 off leash dog parks in the city, a low-cost spay-neuter clinic,  returning stray dogs straight home rather than impounding them at the city shelter, and other valued services.   Calgary’s residents have a very positive opinion of their city animal services department, with 91% giving it high marks in a citizen satisfaction survey.   As a result, pet licensing rates have trended upward in Calgary over the years.

Over the same time, many California communities have implemented coercive policies that have had the opposite effect.  Among these coercive policies are mandatory spay-neuter laws. Mandatory spay-neuter laws are different than any other policy that governments impose on citizens. Instead of fees, fines, or even incarceration, mandatory spay-neuter laws impose forced surgical procedures. No other aspect of the US legal system mandates forced surgery. Reasonably so, many pet owners perceive mandatory spay-neuter laws as especially oppressive, whether lawmakers intend them to be or not. This negative public perception drives down pet licensing compliance.

California communities that have implemented mandatory spay-neuter ordinances have experienced significant declines in dog licensing compliance

Los Angeles Animal Services admits that mandatory spay-neuter has reduced their dog licensing income:

“the number of dogs for which unaltered licenses (and in many cases breeding permits) have been paid for and issued has dropped since implementation of mandatory spay/neuter. Because of the steep license differential, loss of higher priced licenses have resulted in lower revenue trends.”

Los Angeles Animal Services lost $440 thousand in annual licensing revenue since the 2008 MSN ordinance went into effect. That’s on top of the licensing income lost due to the downward trend in licensing compliance after Los Angeles enacted their 2000 MSN ordinance.

Sacramento County instituted mandatory spay-neuter on the 2nd impoundment in 1995.  There were proposals in during 2006 and 2007 to pass more comprehensive MSN in Sacramento County, but those efforts were defeated.  Note: the large gap in the data reflects Sacramento County’s lack of full reporting to the CDPH.

In California jurisdictions without mandatory spay-neuter ordinances, dog licensing compliance rates tend to be higher:

NO mandatory spay-neuter – dog licensing compliance rate
Contra Costa County – 34%
San Luis Obispo County – 34%
Orange County – 32%
Ventura County – 34%

Mandatory spay neuter – dog licensing compliance rate
Santa Cruz County – 13% [MSN since 1995]
City of Los Angeles – 13% [MSN since 2000, made stricter in 2008]
Los Angeles County – 20% [MSN since 2006]
Sacramento County – 14% [MSN on 2nd impoundment since 1995]

Contra Costa County does not have mandatory spay-neuter, and dog licensing compliance has held steady there.

Mandatory spay-neuter laws break the bond of trust between many dog owners and their government. Dog owners have seen what happens after mandatory spay-neuter laws go into effect. Licensing makes their dogs known to government, and dog owners fear that government will whittle away their right to make their own informed choices about responsible dog ownership. An increasing number of dog owners would prefer that their government not know about their dogs.

Dog owners have seen the City of Los Angeles implement increasingly strict mandatory spay-neuter ordinances over the years that have turned law-abiding citizens into targets of their government. Dog owners have witnessed the enormous multi-year battles in state legislatures that have been required to stop mandatory spay-neuter laws. They have watched the spread of mandatory spay-neuter laws despite a consistent track record of failure.

Dog licensing is not the only path to saving stray dogs in community animal shelters. Some communities have achieved success with a greater emphasis on comprehensive adoption programs for dogs picked up stray. But returning stray dogs to their owners is a proven way to save lives. Even dogs that would be difficult or impossible to adopt can be returned to their owners, and dog licensing enables that. But high dog licensing rates require a level of trust between dog owners and their government that does not exist in many communities, thanks in large part to the policies that elected officials have chosen to pursue.

Whether policy makers intend it or not, mandatory spay-neuter laws are perceived by the public as especially oppressive and drive a wedge between the public and animal services departments. This perception reduces dog licensing rates, reduces dog licensing income, reduces return-to-owner rates, increases costs, and kills more dogs. Fortunately there are successful models that build public confidence, save money, and save lives.

_____________________________________________

California dog licensing compliance rates are calculated using:

Number of dogs licensed in a jurisdiction
- Annual reports from the California Department of Public Health that include the number of dogs licensed in each county
- Reports by Los Angeles Animal Services that include numbers of dogs licensed, here and here

Total number of dogs in jurisdiction
- US Census Bureau data for county or city average household size and population as a function of year
- The average number of dogs per household from the APPA National Pet Owners Survey

Many thanks to the National Animal Interest Alliance for their assistance with this report.

MSN Diverts Limited Resources Away from Spay/Neuter Programs
In addition to being ineffective, MSN imposes a financial burden on taxpayers and existing government budgets.   MSN attempts to increase the spay/neuter rate by imposing penalties on pet owners. Generally, punishment is the most costly way to accomplish any legislative goal.  In the case of MSN, government agencies – and the taxpayers who fund them – may incur the expenses of monitoring owner compliance, issuing citations, collecting fines, or participating in court proceedings for disputed citations. Tax dollars, in other words, would be used largely for administrative activities and not on actual spay/neuter programs.

Here’s some comparisons (dogs+cats euthanized in 2007 in public animal shelters per 100,000 population)

• Lake County, CA: 4560
• USA national average: 1000-1300
• California average: 1066
• Nevada County, CA: 163
• Calgary, Canada: 44

Lake County’s kill stats are more than 4 times higher than the California state average.  Most jurisdictions in California do not have mandatory spay/neuter.

Lake County’s kill stats are 28 times higher than in Nevada County. Nevada County has made tremendous strides in reducing their shelter kill rates. Nevada County does NOT have mandatory spay/neuter.

Lake County’s kill stats are 104 times higher than Calgary’s, the best animal control program in North America.  Calgary does NOT have mandatory spay/neuter, BSL, an extreme differential license fee for intact animals, or pet limit laws.

One might think that animal lovers and policy makers would take note of Lake County’s dismal track record.

Yet in late 2007, the City of Los Angeles was considering an MSN ordinance. The Los Angeles Times reported:

Smith, the veterinarian [and president of the California Veterinary Medical Association], said he supports mandatory spay/neuter legislation. “It’s worked in our county,” he said, referring to Lake County in Northern California.

“It’s worked” for whom, the purveyors of Euthasol euthanasia solution? Up is down, and right is wrong, if Lake County’s MSN ordinance “worked”.

Los Angeles followed Lake County’s terrible lead, and passed MSN in late 2007. The result? Reversing many years of steady progress, in 2008 dog deaths increased 24%, while cat deaths increased 35% in LAAS shelters. The deteriorating economy no doubt played a role. But the economy deteriorated just as much in tourism-dependent Washoe County (Reno) NV, and their public animal shelter save rates actually improved in 2008.

Sources: 2007 data from California Department of Public Health, Calgary Animal Services, US Census Bureau

the ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law.

and

in at least one community that enacted an MSN law, fewer pets were subsequently licensed, likely due to owners’ reluctance to pay either the high fee for keeping an unaltered animal or the fee to have the pet altered

• Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are higher than those in nearby counties such as Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Marin — none of which have mandatory spay/neuter laws
• Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are 44% higher than San Diego County’s, which does not have mandatory spay/neuter
• Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are more than 4 times higher than Nevada County’s, which does not have mandatory spay/neuter
• Santa Cruz County’s euthanasia rates are 16 times higher than Calgary’s, the best animal control program in North America, where they also do not have mandatory spay/neuter

Sources: 2007 data from California Department of Public Health, Calgary Animal Services, US Census Bureau

Animal control costs in Santa Cruz County have doubled since they passed mandatory spay/neuter in 1995. More than 10 years after passing their MSN ordinance, “spiraling animal control costs” are causing cities within Santa Cruz County to cancel or threaten to cancel their animal control contracts with Santa Cruz County, according to an investigative report by the Santa Cruz Sentinel.

Santa Cruz County spends a very high $11.92 per citizen for animal control, 74% higher than for California as a whole. If all of California spent that much, the cost of animal control to the state taxpayers would skyrocket; from $249 million to $433 million. California cannot afford the high cost of mandatory spay/neuter.

—Ed Boks, General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services, testifying before the California Senate in support of mandatory spay/neuter — admitting it doesn’t save lives

Leaders in the shelter reform movement have been saying for years that mandatory spay/neuter laws backfire. Instead of saving animals lives as advertised, these laws actually increase the killing.

Despite the warnings, the city of Los Angeles passed a draconian mandatory spay/neuter ordinance in early 2008. No Kill movement leader Nathan Winograd explains the tragic result here:

Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) General Manager Ed Boks made headlines in his support last year of Assembly Bill 1634, California’s mandatory spay/neuter bill when he admitted that the legislation was more about expanding the bureaucratic power of animal control than saving animals. During a legislative hearing, a Senator asked Ed Boks, the General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) and one of the bill’s chief proponents: “Mr. Boks, this bill doesn’t even pretend to be about saving animals, does it?” To which Boks responded: “No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats.”

Not content to wait for the state (which did not pass the measure), Boks convinced the City of Los Angeles to pass its own version. He also demanded more officers to enforce it. The end result was predictable. Almost immediately, LAAS officers threatened poor people with citations if they did not turn over the pets to be killed at LAAS, and that is exactly what occurred. For the first time in a decade, impounds and killing increased—dog deaths increased 24%, while cat deaths increased 35%.

And here:

Since the Cardenas pet killer bill was passed, Los Angeles City shelters have increased the rate of animal killing, the first such increase in better than a decade. And killing is not only up, it is skyrocketing with 35% more cats and 24% more dogs losing their lives. In effect, Cardenas is asking for something that is not possible to do—there is no “success” to report. Instead, the law has been an abysmal failure, something that was not hard to predict.

Here’s the Los Angeles Animal Services – 2008 Statistical Report with the hard data.

San Mateo County, California

Los Angeles, California

Montgomery County, Maryland

Fort Worth, Texas

King County, Washington

Aurora, Colorado

Pinellas County, Florida