Supervisors are expected to
vote on the matter at their Nov. 10 meeting in Santa Maria, which is expected
to be just as long so as to give North County residents a chance to weigh in on
the contentious proposal.
The meeting in Santa Barbara
drew a deluge of passionate speakers, with many supporters of the ordinance
wearing wrist bands and opponents wearing green
stickers.
When the ordinance was first
proposed in May 2008, a similar flurry of opposition compelled the board to
shelve the proposed ordinance and create a task force of staff members and
local stakeholders to look at pet population issues.
The new draft ordinance,
recommended by the task force on a 6-5 vote, was watered down from the
original, which was written to punish pet owners with “fix-it” tickets for not
complying with the law.
If the board adopts the ordinance,
enforcement would begin early next year, county officials said.
A major point of contention
Tuesday centered on whether the new ordinance is still mandatory.
But unlike last year’s
version, the revised ordinance would not require owners to spay or neuter their
pets, if they discuss the purposes for owning the dog or cat with a
veterinarian and they obtain a veterinary certificate to purchase an “unaltered
animal license” — a $10 fee plus any costs for the visit.
At the latest meeting,
Michele Mickiewicz, interim director for the county’s Public Health Department,
reiterated staff’s recommendation that the ordinance was needed to curb an
overpopulation problem.
“There are not enough homes
for all of these animals, and there aren’t enough resources to continue to
expand the shelters to keep up with the demand and the intake of animals,” she
said.
Since 2003-04, dog and cat
intakes to county animal shelters increased by 16 and 17 percent, respectively,
and 70 percent of animals that were taken in were strays, almost all of which
were unsterilized, according to a PowerPoint presentation at the hearing.
The numbers didn’t sway
critics of the spay-neuter concept, who contended that the ordinance would be
ineffective and penalize pet owners. In general, they asked for a stripped-down
version of the ordinance that would focus solely on increasing outreach and
education on responsible pet ownership and licensing.
“I’m all for responsible
ownership, but if this ordinance is passed, it’s not going to affect us,” said
Santa Barbara resident Jean Averick. “It’s going to affect the people that are
already irresponsible. And I don’t think that it’s going to bring them in line.”
Los Alamos resident Chris
Rather also opposed the ordinance, saying it would backfire.
“Mandatory spay-neuter laws
have not been successful in reducing shelter populations in other
jurisdictions,” he said. “Perhaps this is because it forces people underground
who do not want to comply or cannot afford to comply, making the situation
worse. He added that he believes the ordinance would take away his rights
because of a few irresponsible pet owners.
Cathie Turner, executive
director of Concerned Dog Owners of California, representing about 330 members
in the county, did not mince words when expressing her opposition to the
ordinance.
“If you were all on the
board at a Harvard Business School, you wouldn’t go for an easy solution,” she
told the board. “And I don’t think if your tenure were based on whether the
solution before you was effective, you would pass it as it is.”
Supporters of the draft
ordinance, many of them veterinarians and animal-shelter workers, said it was
the only effective way to remedy pet overpopulation.
Angela Rockwell, president
of Animal Shelter Assistance Program, said this season her organization cared for a record 400 kittens “dumped on our doorstep by
irresponsible owners of unaltered pets.”
“We are reaching our limit,”
she said. “Our cages are filled, our resources are limited, and without your
help we can no longer continue to be a no-kill facility.”
Lee Heller of Santa Barbara
called the spay-neuter proposal “much needed and minimally intrusive.”
Heller said she is caring
for eight puppies rescued from a river bed and 11
kittens.
“We cannot do it forever,”
she lamented. “We are overloaded … and on the point of burnout.”
Santa Barbara resident
Tiffany Story, a professional pet sitter and dog walker, balked at some of the
complaints coming from the other side.
She pointed out that the
license fee would cost as much as two large cappuccinos at Starbucks and said
she would be “standing by the door for anyone wearing a green sticker to
volunteer to open their homes and bring in some foster animals.”
Dr. Toni Frohoff, an animal
behavior biologist, said while outreach and education were essential components
of the proposed ordinance, they were not a panacea.
“It’s clear that education
is not working, and I believe it’s naivety (to think)
that it will resolve this issue,” she said. “I respectfully ask that you do not
fall into the irrational trap of being concerned that people can’t afford to do
this, that they’re penalized.” Later she added: “Some people should not have
animals.”
The Santa Barbara County
Board of Supervisors meets Nov. 10 at the Betteravia Government Center at 511
E. Lakeside Parkway in Santa Maria.
jfoster@syvjournal.com