NOTES FROM THE ANIMAL WELFARE TASK FORCE MEETING OF 10/18/2012
PLEASE NOTE: THESE ARE MY NOTES FROM THE MEETING, THEY ARE NOT THE OFFICIAL MINUTES. MY COMMENTS ARE IN ITALICS AND PARENS.
Attending: Senator Blevins / Senator Peterson / Rep. Jacques / Rep. Willis / Michael Petit de Mange, KC / Hal Godwin SC / Kristin Dwyer NCC / Anne Gryczon, Safe Haven / Jane Pierantozzi, Faithful Friends / Anne Cavanaugh, DELSPCA / Patrick , DHA / Kevin Usilton, KCSPCA / Andy Lippstone, Gov’s office / Jennifer Ranji / Hetti Brown, HSUS / (not a complete list, I missed some….)
After introductions around the room, the Task Force considered the minutes of 9/20/2012, which had just been distributed. Mr.Rago asked that they be amended to reflect that he advocated for services to be consolidated at the State level. Mr. Petit de Mange asked if approval of the minutes could be tabled until the next meeting, because they had just been distributed rather than sent out in advance, and he wanted to read them first. Senator Blevins agreed to table the minutes, but noted that they would be made available as a draft, because members of the public were asking for them.
She then announced that the topic for discussion was dog control, as required by Delaware statute Title 9. It was noted that this was not Title 3, shelter standards.
The contractual services provided for the counties pursuant to Title 9 were reviewed.
Dog licensing:
- NCC – on line with Pet Data, a web-based company; and at 6 retail locations.
- KC – currently at the KC Administrative Complex on an interim basis, but KC is considering Pet Data as well
- Sussex – Mr. Godwin noted that their contract was currently with the KCSPCA until the end of the year; an RFP for Title 9 services is currently out; licensing is also done at the Sussex Administration building.
- Wilmington – DE Humane Association handles the licensing currently; as of December 1 it would be through Pet Data and the DELSPCA
Representative Jacques asked if licensing could be done at veterinary offices, at the same time rabies vaccinations were given. He said that the customer-end of the service needed to be considered. Dr. Dawkins (I think) of the DVMA said that the veterinarians were against it – there was no compensation to them and it took staff time. Rep. Jacques said that it would provide a data base of licensed and vaccinated animals, and he felt it was a win-win situation. Further discussion noted that not everyone who vaccinates actually licenses their dogs. There was additional discussion regarding compensation to veterinarians for the service. Mr. Rago suggested letting licensing agents keep the revenue as an incentive – and suggested reaching out to vets who did not agree to providing the service when it was not revenue-based. Dr. Dawkins said it was not worth it at his veterinary service. Ms. Cavanaugh said that NCC allows the vendor to charge a fee over the license cost. Ms. Dwyer noted that NCC contacted 100 businesses, but only 6 agreed to license. It is a cumbersone process, with paperwork in triplicate. She further noted that when NCC did a big press outreach last year around January 1, there was a large volume of licensing done. Licensing is the only revenue from dog control.
It was suggested to get rid of licensing, using only rabies certificates. The problem is that the license paperwork has information that can return a dog to its owner; rabies certificates do not. Mr. Petit de Mange said that the March 1 deadline for licensing was confusing, and suggested matching it with the expiration of the rabies certificate instead. He felt it would spread out the licensing throughout the year, rather than have all licenses expire on December 1. Secretary Kee said that the rabies certificates, which are sent ot the Dept. of Agriculture, are not in a data base, and there is no way to break down the 98,000 rabies certificates done yearly into cats and dogs. Dr. Dawkins also noted that the difference in the 1-year and 3-year rabies vaccination would skew the dates. Ms. Dwyer suggested adjusting the reporting requirements to fit the needs of the county.
Ms. Brown suggested putting the same information on the license on the rabies tags. Secretary Kee said that in many cases, only a certificate was issued, not a tag. Ms. Dwyer noted that there was no cross-link between rabies certificates, licensing and microchip information. Rep. Jacques noted that hunting licenses were connected to driving licenses, so there had to be a way to come up with a better system for dog licensing. Ms. Cavanaugh thought an electronic database that was accessible was a good idea, but that start-up costs and labor might be an issue.
Senator Blevins asked if there was any good reason for licensing. Senator Peterson noted that it was necessary to identify the owner; Ms. Dwyer said revenue.
There was discussion that a license was an identification data base not linked with rabies or spay neuter; identified pets do not burden the shelter system. It was suggested that calling for cat identification could get the message out that id would reunite pets with owners, with less emphasis on rabies and more on a centralized data base pet id system.
Mr. Usilton said the West Chester, PA had a “lifetime” license that required a microchip. The one-time license was an incentive to microchip.
Senator Peterson asked if a license tag is identification, why not a rabies tag, since proof of a rabies vaccination is needed to get a license. Mr. Lippman said the higher cost for a combined rabies/license could be a deterrent.
Mr. Petit de Mange noted that some pet owners would vaccinate their dogs for rabies, but not license them.
DVMA -There was discussion concerning the fact that rabies tags from vet offices are particular to that vet, they are not numbered for a statewide database. Any costs for a centralized data base would be passed on to the dog owner.
Mr. Usilton said that it could work if the State took over licensing. He said that Wicomico County MD took over rabies and licensing; the Wicomico shelter supplies tags from a centralized data base and it is managed by the county.
Senator Blevins asked how the veterinarians would take that type of management, pushing microchipping and centralize everything? Would there be enough benefit to compensate for all that data management – to do everything all at the same time – rabies then license?
Mr. Usilton said that Wicomico County was cats and dogs.
Ms. Brown felt that was a cumbersome process. She said that Calgary, Canada, has about 1 million people – similar to Delaware. They removed the barriers to rabies and licensing and have 90% compliance. 87% of dogs lost or impounded were returned immediately to owners; resulting in decreased costs to shelters. The microchipping was billed as “your pet’s ticket home.”
Mr. Rago asked if Calgary required proof of rabies vaccinations; Ms. Brown said that it was not rabies control; she added that 55% of cats that ended up at shelters were also returned to their owners.
Mr. Rago asked how the public health concerns of rabies were handled if proof of vaccination was not required.
Ms. Brown said she would look into that, and noted that licensing was also decoupled from the number of animals a resident could have; there are no limits.
Senator Blevins noted that the group had discussed two different ways to handle this, “and ours, which doesn’t work at all.” It was said that Delaware only has about 10% compliance. Ms. Dwyer reiterated that advertising helped.
Ms. Brown discussed Calgary’s program again (in my own research it keeps coming up as one of the best in North America). She noted that the license entitles pet owners to discounts at vendors; there are customer benefits. It is also the only animal welfare/control program that gives back to the city. The program funds itself and gives surplus monies back to the city.
Mr. Godwin reported that Sussex County has 5,798 dogs licensed for 90,000 people. He had no information on a percentage of non-compliance, saying that in the County’s rural areas farmers did not see the point of licensing a dog when they had hundreds of acres of property.
There was discussion about a formula using population figures that can give an idea of how many dogs are in an area; Senator Blevins asked that the formula and the information from the counties be given to Ms. Ryan for the next meeting. Mr. Petit de Mange reported that Kent County also had a low percentage of dogs licensed. He said that dog-bite information is necessary, and asked how Calgary gets that information.
Dr. Moyer noted that rabies status is not an issue in Delaware, because an animal is quarantined for a minimum of 10 days regardless.
Mr. Petit de Mange asked for some clarification; Mr. Usilton said it varies, depending on whether or not the animal doing the biting was wild or domestic, where the bite on a human occurred. Senator Blevins asked where the quarantine occurs; Mr. Usilton said at the shelter, or at home. Mr Rago volunteered the information that when his dog bit someone, the dog was quarantined at home. There was a discussion of how the location of a bite could determine whether or not a person could wait to see if the animal displayed symptoms of rabies before having the series of injections.
Ms. Pierantozzi asked how Calgary licensed cats; Ms. Brown said it was via tattoo or microchip. She also said that they push the microchipping – it is not meant as stray management, but to return cats to their owners. Calgary doesn’t round up strays and take them to a shelter.
There was additional discussion concerning the formula of population to dogs. There was discussion concerning cats – Dr. Dawkins/DVMA said that cats are not seen as often in his veterinary clinic, and he felt that was an untapped revenue re rabies; Ms. Pierantozzi noted that if a cat looks and acts okay, most people don’t bring them to a vet.
Mr. Usilton said that there is a lack of resources for cats. Senator Blevins said that the TF needed to get a handle on dogs, licensing and rabies. Cats were another subject. Mr. Carroll noted that a pet owner didn’t need to see a vet for a dog to be licensed.
Ms. Brown reported that Calgary has a 55% compliance rate for cat licensing, with 55% of the stray/lost cats being returned to owners.
There was discussion concerning the Title 9 requirements for commercial and retail kennels, and how they were inspected. The differences in how the kennels are handled and when/how inspections are allowed were discussed. Mr. Godwin said that in Sussex County, after a kennel applies for a license, they are inspected before the license is issued. Ms. Dwyer said it was the same in NCC. Mr. Petit de Mange said it was not being done in Kent County at this time. Senator Peterson asked about puppy mills. Ms. Brown said that Major Brian Whipple (KCSPCA/DEACC) was concerned because he had no authority to inspect this type of breeder – they are not licensed or registered as a kennel, so ther was no way to know if someone was breeding dogs.
There was some discussion as to owners of more than 4 dogs not applying for a kennel license, since it was self-reported. Senator Blevins said that if they weren’t selling, it doesn’t matter.
There was discussion concerning owners with multiple hunting dogs or show dogs. It was reported that NCC had a property requirement for this type of kennel, and there are exemptions. Kennels for hunting dogs are given a reduced price, but the kennel must be inspected, and a kennel license is not required. Senator Peterson asked if the requirements were based on land use or humane treatment; kennels were not for business or sales, but an inspection was required. There was no number limit specified.
Mr. Petit de Mange noted that Kent County has a 4 domesting animal limite, but there have been complaints.
It was agreed that puppy mills need to be noted, but how to deal with them was not resolved.
Secretary Kee noted that licensing – neutered vs. intact animals – may provide a chance of regulating puppy mills. Ms. Brown said that the Calgary program has a difference in fees for neutered animals, but it is based on the honor system.
Mr. Usilton initiated a discussion concerning permitting requirements and yearly inspections for rescue groups and pet stores; Senator Blevins asked if that was required in Delaware; it is not. Senator Blevins said that the TF may want to consider that. Mr. Usilton said it would give the State authorization to inspect when complaints are made, as well.
There was a discussion of rescue grups vs. commercial kennels, and whether or not inspections were allowed. Secretary Kee said that shelters are exempt from the commercial kennel inspections by the counties; only the Department of Agriculture could do that. The comm’l/retail requirements do not apply to home-bred, single litters of puppies.
Enforcement/inspection of humane handling for commercial/retail kennels and outlets were discussed. NCC uses the KCSPCA/DEACC officers for this work.
Senator Blevins asked Mr. Usilton to discuss this – definitions in Title 7, 9, 11 are unclear who does what. It was also unclear who should be called when. Mr. Petit de Mange asked about Title 9, commercial kennels again – he noted that the legislation says the counties are authorized to inspect, but not mandated, or obligated to do so, the way it is written. Mr. Rago said it could be done if there was funding for it; Mr. Petit de Mange said the public thinks this is “shall”….Senator Blevins asked what happens if the County gets a call – Mr. Petit de Mange said that over the summer there was an incident that appeared to be cruelty, and the KCSPCA was called. However, the KCSPCA said no, it was a county issue of humane conditions for a private owner.
(I contacted several people about this after the meeting; it seems that the humane conditions section of Title 9 is not just for commercial/retail kennels, but for private owners as well. However, a violation of humane conditions can fall into animal cruelty…)
Ms. Gryczon noted that Safe Haven (also Faithfull Friends and DE Humane) has no authority for cruelty investigations (that is reserved only for the two SPCAs by law). Mr. Usilton said that since the KCSPCA only has one animal control officer in Kent County now, they have no resources to investigate in KC. It was noted that that law gives this authority to the SPCAs, not the shelters.
(this makes it very clear that the KCSPCA was using KC dog control funds for their State mandate to investigate and enforce animal cruelty violations.)
Ms. Ranji noted that there are 3 different organizations carrying out services. There was a discussion to consider a state dispatch service, where operators would know exactly who to refer a caller to; this would give DE residents one number to call, rather than searching/calling around to find out who would handle an issue.
There was discussion concerning animal abuse and cruelty – what should it encompass? (sheep, pigs, horses, cats, dogs…)
Name recognition issues were brought up (DE SPCA, KCSPCA) and the need for a state-wide animal control phone number.
Ms. Gryczon supported the idea of a centralized data base and resource center, but not one contractor for the State. Further discussion concerning a centralized public information phone line, with a network to the appropriate agency.
Senator Blevins then moved on to dog-at-large and dangerous dogs. Mr. Usilton referenced the Dangerous Dog Panel (actually named the Dog Control Panel in the law). Mr. Usilton said that the panel had been active for many years, but not in the 10 months he has been with the KCSPCA. Ms. Dwyer noted that NCC has a dangerous dog ordinance; when a dog has been declared dangerous, it is signed over for euthanasia.
It was noted that a very aggressive dog on its owner’s property is exempt from the dangerous dog laws.
Mr. Petit de Mange asked to know more about the Panel – he wanted to know how it worked and who the panel members are, who convened the panel. There was further discussion of the panel and questions as to how it worked. Mr. Rago was concerned because he was trying to have breed-specific language repealed, and replacing it with clear language that would determine a dog to be dangerous without citing its breed.
Senator Blevins and Ms. Ranji asked that, before the November meeting to discuss shelter standards, certain information be provided: shelter capacity; # of animals coming in; any contracts providing funding; # of animals coming in vs. owner relinquished/strays. It was also noted they would be looking into best practice information from other states. In turn, Ms. Ryan would send out the information before the meeting.
Mr. Usilton suggested that the Task Force visit each of the shelters to see for themselves. Some members expressed interest, and Ms. Ryan was asked to set up some times and see who wanted to do this. It was noted, though that the information asked for was needed, especially from the shelters that had contracts.
Senator Blevins asked if the members wanted to discuss shelter standards next, or animal control officers. Mr. Usilton asked for shelter standards; no one else had a preference.
A date for the public hearing was then discussed. Senator Peterson asked what the purpose of the hearing would be, and if the TF members would have to attend; Senator Blevins said that it was to let the public know what was being discussed; that at the October meeting members asked that a hearing be held earlier rather than at the end of the process. She also said that she would be attending, and the TF members would be invited to attend. The meeting will be held on Thursday, November 29 at Legislative Hall from 7-9 PM.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were five comments from the public.
Debra ????? (sorry, missed her last name) from the Mid Atlantic ASPCA commented that the shelter standards law had removed specific language prohibiting “gassing” for euthanasai, and asked that it be reinstated. Senator Blevins said that was already being looked at.
Before I read my prepared statement concerning the municipalities and small rescues that were not being represented on the Task Force, I responded to the comments concerning cats not being vaccinated because they were not showing up in the vets’ offices: I noted that there were rabies clinics available, and it was not necessary to take a healthy cat to the vet. I also responded to Mr. Usilton’s statement that the Dog Control Panel (repeatedly referred to as the Dangerous Dog Panel) had not been convened, saying that in my personal experience, the dog owners were not aware that THEY had to request the panel when their dogs were impounded. My prepared statement is attached.
Doug Beatty made a statement referencing the comments by Mr. Petit de Mange and Mr. Usilton, saying that he was not as diplomatic as Mr. Petit de Mange and that the KCSPCA had behaved badly during the summer when called about tethered dogs suffering in the heat; regardless of the humane standards in Title 9, this was animal cruelty and the KCSPCA should have responded. Mr. Beatty also commented on the KCSPCA disparaging political candidates and that he believed they were violating their 501(c)3 IRS regulations concerning lobbying.
Carol Furr then made a statement (attached) concerning the posts and e-mails from one shelter commenting on alleged CAPA violations of other shelters.
Donna Watson of NCC then made a statement concerning her experience in trying to find her missing dachsund, and that she hoped the Task Force would consider a central registry for missing pets.
My name is Cathy Samardza and I live in Kent County.
My activism in this issue – specifically the lack of oversight of animal control officers - and the lack of response by my state senator – has resulted in my running against him in this election cycle. As part of my campaign, I have attended council meetings in 4 of the small towns in my district. Interestingly enough, animal welfare – specifically cat colonies and dog control and licensing - came up at two of them.
The point being that, even when jobs and health care insurance are priorities, small town leadership is looking at some of the same issues being considered here. Yet these small town governments are not represented at this table, except indirectly by their counties. Some of these towns have their own animal ordinances; some simply adopt those of the county where they are located. I ask that you all keep this in mind when looking at coordination of services – because otherwise anything recommended will be done TO these towns, not FOR them. They should be considered integral pieces of this puzzle.
I have also reached out to a number of rescue groups asking about their statistics. Some of that is reflected in the Dept. of Agriculture’s Spay/Neuter program statistics, but not all, because most of the rescues use other monies as well. However, I have been told that they have concerns about reporting these statistics, because they are afraid it will place their fosters and colony caretakers in jeopardy of being visited as hoarders or by Kent County in violation of the 4 domestic animal ordinance.
So whatever statistics you have, you need to realize they do not reflect the full scope of the abandoned and feral cat problem in Delaware – or how much is being done by the small rescues that are not represented here. One rescue does not publicize their address – yet they have had over a dozen cats dropped on the doorstep since July. Not feral cats. Abandoned cats.
By far the most common suggestion to address problem is more money for spay/neuter. But other help is needed, too; more vets to do the surgeries, more traps, or finding a safe location for cats that can’t be released back to where they were. I am aware of Ms. Brown’s work with communities on this issue – but this type of outreach and assistance is needed on a larger scale than she is able to accomplish as one person. So I would ask that you consider building on what the small shelters and community programs are already doing when you make recommendations to the General Assembly.
My name is Carol Furr, and I live in Kent County.
I understand that the shelters have opposing philosophies and management styles. But I do not believe that one shelter should be posting complaints about the others on their website, or sending e-mails to other directors telling them they are in violation of CAPA – especially when that shelter has been vocal in its opposition to CAPA. At best, it is petty; at worst, it means that sitting at this table together is a waste of time.
Those who have talked to us – a group from throughout the State who have been working for accountability for issues concerning animal welfare and dog control from last October until now - know that we have been calling for inspection and enforcement of humane conditions for the animals for ALL SHELTERS. And for a process to complain about violations to an UNBIASED panel - for both shelter violations and animal control officer complaints. And while we make no secret of the fact that we were galvanized by problems at one particular shelter, much of our focus there has been because the majority of the complaints we have received have been about that organization.
We are aware that people are reporting issues with the other shelters. And we offer assistance in documenting those complaints and help that person get the complaint to the appropriate place. When complaints are brought to us about ANY shelter, we proceed in our usual way. We interview the complainant, documenting times and dates and the names of anyone involved, including witnesses and collecting any and all back up materials. When you put people on the spot, it can get interesting; when questioned, one person admitted they had not witnessed any problems, just “heard” about them. Another, when asked for details and clarification of what they were saying, never got back to us. We believe that if you have a complaint - against any shelter – it should be documented in a thorough manner and referred to the appropriate agency and elected officials, along with this Task Force. And we understand that this Task Force is not going to look into complaints. But complaints are an indication that the current system isn’t working, and if those complaints aren't documented and sent to those who can make a change, we can't expect change to happen.
