Can Pet Ownership Laws Hurt You?

Proposals to ban animal sales in pet stores or to ban ownership of certain animals should probably grab your attention. It's not hard to imagine how an ordinance banning all pythons and boas or certain dogs for example, could hurt you.

But other local or state laws that may seem to have little to do with your pet can have just as far reaching, if less obvious impacts. Such laws are routinely proposed and often enacted.

Take tethering laws, which the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (Washington) tracks alongside all the bills and regulations pertaining to pet store warranties, breeding limits, pet store and kennel licensing, and other pet trade concerns.

Laws that stipulate how owners may secure their animals outdoors can pose undue restrictions and make pet ownership harder.

So can laws that require owners to sterilize their pets, cap the number of pets they can own or target certain dog breeds.

That ultimately affects your rights.

Bills that adversely affect responsible pet owners have a significant economic impact on local communities .Collectively, they spend thousands, sometimes millions of dollars in their local communities each year on basic dog care, grooming, supplies and so on.

Perhaps paradoxically, even laws that allow pet owners to collect damages for pain and suffering when a pet dies could have a detrimental impact on pet ownership.

Here's a closer look at common types of laws regulating pet ownership that could affect you in perhaps unexpected ways.

Mandatory spay or neuter laws

What this type of bill does or says:

It requires dog and cat owners, with certain limited exceptions, to have their animals spayed or neutered.

Some laws apply only to dogs.

Most require owners to obtain a special license for an unaltered animal if it is not exempt for medical or other reasons.

Mandatory spay or neuter is often considered a solution to animal control concerns in communities.

Typically, proponents espouse it as a way to reduce shelter impounds and euthanasia.

Opponents, however, say it does nothing more than punish responsible pet owners.

Basically mandatory spay or neuter laws targets the wrong people, those who are already responsible and wish to breed dogs or cats, not people who allow their pets to randomly reproduce.

Is a blanket law built on the false premise that reducing the source of animals equals reducing shelter intake. There are no stories of success anywhere that mandatory spay or neuter has been enacted.

For example, San Antonio, Texas, in 2007 passed a law requiring every dog over 6 months of age to be spayed or neutered unless its owner bought an intact dog permit. It rescinded the law two years later as unenforceable.

Why you should care

No one disputes that the increasing level of pet sterilization in this country has resulted in fewer unwanted and unanticipated litters.

But when you mandate spay or neuter, you go a step beyond simply reducing unintended litters and limit people's ability to breed.

As the availability of dogs continues to shrink, as it inevitably will, the price of pet dogs will increase.

That is a concerns as well. Ultimately, mandatory spay or neuter laws will reduce the supply of high quality family pets. Increased demand could result in pricing above what ordinary families can afford. This could create a downward spiral where fewer and fewer people can afford to own a quality, pure bred dog. This in turn will have a significant impact on dog ownership and allied businesses.

Also my I point out that mandatory spay or neuter laws prevent responsible dog owners from participating in AKC conformation events, which require dogs to be intact.

That has economic ramifications for local communities. Show dog owners travel all over the country and stay three, four, five days in a row, and frequent local businesses and stay at local hotels and motels.

Mandatory spay or neuter laws also can force potential pet owners to go outside their community to get their pet and perhaps the pet's gear and necessities, as well. You're pushing purchasing power away from where the pet owner lives.

Pet Limits

What this type of bill does or says

Sometimes a response to nuisance complaints or shelter population concerns, it caps the number of pets a person may own. In addition, it usually requires owners to obtain a permit to keep animals over the established limit.

Some go further. A lot of these laws not only say you can only have, say, three dogs or three dogs with five acres, they say after three nuisance or dangerous dog violations, your dog has to go.

San Antonio has been trying to get Bexar County, Texas, to adopt all the provisions of it's onerous city ordinance with permits and fees for owning every type of animal, including more than three feathered friends of any type.

The permits allow animal control officers and code compliance to enter private property without a search warrant.

Why you should care

These laws focus on how many animals a person owns rather than the quality of the care and training they receive.

Limiting to a specific number of animals is arbitrary and does not address responsible dog ownership issues.

When enacted, dog owners may be forced to give up dogs to a local shelter in order to comply with an ownership limit.

These dogs are then cared for and or euthanized at taxpayer's expense, rather than continuing to be kept in a loving home.

Ultimately, the reduction in the number of pets will have a significant impact on demand for pet supplies and services.

Breed-Specific Legislation and Dangerous Dog Laws

What this type of bill does or says

Often proposed in response to an attack in the community, it targets owners of certain dogs, commonly Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, Bull Mastiffs and Presa Canarios.

These laws can take a number of different forms, including outright ownership bans or mandatory spay or neuter of specific breeds. Or they may require owners to register their pets as "dangerous dogs," often accompanied by insurance requirements and or higher license fees. Such measures can affect people's ability to own these dogs.

In one well known example, Denver has fought off numerous legal challenges to its 1989 Pit Bull ban, including a lawsuit brought by the state of Colorado in 2004. After the lawsuit was resolved, the city resumed enforcing its ban.

In 2005 and 2006 combined, it confiscated and euthanized more than a thousand Pit Bull type dogs. Beyond the obvious loss of the dogs themselves was the loss of dog ownership.

With legislation like this, you had pets that were already living in the community, using local businesses, and now they're gone.

Why you should care

When breed specific laws are implemented, their immediate impact is similar to that of a limit law.

Responsible dog owners may be forced to give up beloved pets to a local shelter or move to an area where they have the freedom to responsibly own their dog.

Noneconomic Damages

What this type of bill does or says

It allows courts to award damages to pet owners for intangible things like emotional distress and loss of companionship when a pet is injured or dies as the result of actions by a third party.

They are called non economic damages because they do not have a monetary value readily attached to them, whereas economic damages, like loss of wages, medical bills and damage to property, have specific values attached.

Some state legislatures, such as Illinois and Tennessee, have allowed noneconomic damages in limited types of pet cases and with recovery caps.

Why you should care

Laws that permit noneconomic damages could subject retailers, breeders, groomers and pet products manufacturers to excessive claims and drive up the costs of pet ownership, according to PIJAC.

AKC shares that view. Promoting litigation and larger awards and settlements in turn drive up care and insurance costs. This should be especially worrisome to veterinarians, animal food supply chain stores and products manufacturers, who all suffer the risk of significantly increased operational and insurance costs should noneconomic damages be generally permitted.

American consumers will suffer as well, ultimately bearing the brunt of increased costs for animals and the services and products needed to adequately care for them.