Laws

Australian’s have a very unique relationship with the law. Anyone whose travelled overseas, where there is often a ‘if you don’t bother me, I won’t bother you’ ideology, will have noticed the Aussie preference to legislate against every possibility. When someone presents yet another law addressing yet another issue, it’s the Australian way to think more is better. A law to right some wrong can’t be a bad thing, right?

But you only have to watch an evening current affairs show to see the conflict this brings in our personal lives. We demand more enforcement of road rules and higher penalties for people who drive dangerously, but think that a speed camera on our street is simply revenue raising. We call for police sweeps of nightclub areas and tough action against street drinkers, but feel wronged if we can’t have a beer on the foreshore on Australia Day, or get busted at a family park barbecue. We want strict laws against dog owners who in our eyes seem to be doing the ‘wrong thing’, but get huffy when they start to encroach on our right to have our dogs in public places or when our local off-leash park becomes leashed only.

We imagine that laws will only target the bad people. That laws are only designed to get the bad people who might hurt us now or in the future. And as we know that we’re not bad people we don’t think for a moment laws targeting bad people will effect us personally. The truth is that they undeniably do.

Every single advocacy group lobbying for every single kind of law in Australia has one thing in common. We all think ‘our’ chosen law is more pure, more worthy and more necessary than all the others. Unfortunately, the usual result of these well-intentioned drives is just another sporadically enforced piece of legislation that does little to improve the situation for anyone involved.

I’ve often blogged about the Calgary model, because I just think these guys have it so, so right. Rather than look to create extensive legislation targeting owners and building resentment in the community when good owners find themselves effected by some unrealised side effect of the law’s implementation, they have partnered with their community to realise voluntary compliance in responsible pet ownership.

Key to Calgary’s success

• no – mandatory spay/neuter
• no – breed specific legislation
• no – pet limit laws
• no – anti-tethering laws
• yes – providing valued services rather than simply punishing citizens into compliance
• yes – buy in and cooperation among community stakeholders thanks to an animal control director who is a professional mediator
• yes – extensive education and PR campaign to emphasize responsible pet ownership
• yes – low license fees and modest fee differential for intact pets

Bill Bruce, as the Director of Animal Services and Bylaws in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, took over a struggling program. He has had remarkable success, developing a program which now boasts a licensing compliance rate for dogs of 91%, a return to owner rate of 85% and a euthanasia rate of only 6%. A newly implemented licensing program for cats already has a licensing compliance rate of 54%, a return to owner rate of 56% and only an 18% euthanasia rate. A majority of those animals being humanely destroyed are for behavioral issues and poor health or injuries. Aggressive animal incidents are almost non-existent. With a population base of over 1 million people, those are staggering statistics. In addition, Calgary has no limit laws, no breed specific laws, no mandatory spay/neuter ordinances and no interference from animals rights groups.

Calgary’s phenomenal success depends on a sense of trust among pet owners that they will be treated fairly by and obtain good services from Calgary Animal Services. Trust makes for unprecedented high licensing compliance. High licensing compliance means that the taxpayers do not foot the bill for animal services, and it means that nearly all stray pets are quickly reunited with their owners which saves lives and keeps costs low.

There is no way to achieve this kind of licensing compliance in an environment where citizens feel they must hide their dogs and cats from pet limit laws, BSL, crushing differential licensing fees, or mandatory spay/neuter laws. Without the high licensing compliance, none of the rest of the success could have happened. – ‘Save our Dogs: Successes’

Calgary’s experience shows what happens when the community is engaged as a stakeholder on community safety and animal welfare. Reactionary laws, which treat the public as a enemy that needs to be coerced and punished simply build barriers between shelters and the very community they need to help them achieve their No Kill goals.