Sunday, August 18, 2013

Editorial: Solano grand jury report raises questions about dog licensing

Published by The Reporter
POSTED: 08/18/2013 01:04:58 AM PDT

Representatives of Solano County and its seven cities have said they will get together during the next six months and work on addressing a grand jury report criticizing the disjointed way that animal control services are provided. That's all well and good, but the report raises a more fundamental question that ought to be addressed by the community at large: Should the county and cities continue to require licenses for dogs?

One of the grand jury's findings is that approximately 72 percent of dogs in Solano County are unlicensed. That means only 28 percent of dog owners follow the law -- about the same number as in 2002, when Solano County outsourced licensing duties to Texas-based PetData, in hopes of improving compliance rates.

For a while, it did. A 2009-10 grand jury report noted that PetData had managed to increase compliance to about 40 percent. Now the numbers have dropped again. Part of that fall-off, no doubt, is linked to the recession.

But there may be another contributing factor: The most recent grand jury report notes that only 20 of the 37 veterinarians in Solano County are filing required reports about the dogs that they vaccinate for rabies. The information on those reports is used, among other things, to send dog license notices to pet owners. Without knowing where the dogs are, the county, via PetData, can't send out those notices.

It's hard to know if noncompliance by so many veterinarians is new, but it's troubling. For one thing, it's required by state law -- as are dog licenses, for that matter. And the rabies vaccination reporting law isn't new. It's been around for decades. One would think that the veterinarians' own licenses to practice might be made contingent upon complying with the rabies reporting law.

But back to the dog licenses. The funds raised from licensing dogs -- it costs $60 in Vacaville and Benicia, and $40 in the county and other Solano cities -- help pay for animal care services: shelters to house lost or stray animals, officers to pick up wandering pets or carcasses in the streets, investigators of animal abuse or dog bites, etc.

The license fees don't cover everything, but they contribute a substantial amount. If every dog actually were licensed, it might even be possible to lower the current fees and still cover more of the costs. Given the experience of the past decade, though, it doesn't seem likely that the county will get close to 100 percent compliance any time soon. Besides, the matter of dog owners flouting the law isn't unique to Solano County. It's been estimated that, statewide, only about 40 percent hold them.

If that's true, it may be time to reconsider the whole licensing issue. After all, why should dog owners bear the entire responsibility? Animal control deals with plenty of stray cats on a regular basis, and other animals, large and small, periodically. It might make more sense to pay for those services with a tax on veterinary care or pet supplies and do away with dog licenses. That would require changes to state law.

For now, Solano County and its seven cities have to deal with the laws that are in effect. The Solano County Sheriff, who now runs the county's Animal Care Services, has agreed to lead a discussion with the cities to address the grand jury's concerns, including its criticism that the public is confused about who provides services in various jurisdictions.

Judging from the city responses to the grand jury report, it will be a timely discussion. In northern Solano County, Vacaville, Rio Vista, Dixon, Fairfield and Suisun City are part of a consortium that contracts with Humane Animal Services, a division of the SPCA in Vacaville, to handle its animal control. While Vacaville and Suisun City -- which spend $293,000 and $80,000, respectively, each year for the service -- are content with that arrangement, Fairfield and Rio Vista have indicated that they are not. Noting that their annual costs are $280,000 and $51,000, respectively, Fairfield and Rio Vista officials stated that the company "has failed to provide upon request an accurate accountability of funding and expenses for over two years."

With the county's PetData contract coming up for renewal at the end of this fiscal year, this seems to be an ideal time for the cities and the county to come together to see how they might help each other provide quality animal care services for all of Solano County.

http://www.thereporter.com/editorials/ci_23887277/editorial-solano-grand-jury-report-raises-questions-about

No comments: