The West Virgina Public Affairs Reporter has an article in their June 2007 journal entitled Animal Welfare and Control Issues in West Virginia and the United States: Old Problems with New Answers, by Susan Hunter. The article begins with a survey of Animal Control and Animal Welfare laws in West Virginia compared to other states and covers a broad range of animal law related issues. Then the article goes into issues specific to West Virginia.

In a section titled "Overpopulation and Feral Cats", the author states what seem like mixed pieces of information conflating feral cats and cat overpopulation. Clearly, feral cat colonies are a significant problem. But the potential solutions that Hunter describes include policies and legislation that can only be directed at owners of cats.

Spay/Neuter legislation that establishes low cost options and mandates that animals released from shelters and rescues be altered has worked in other states, as Hunter says. But then she makes this statement without substantiation: "Both spay/neuter low cost clinics and mandatory spay/neuter have an impact, although it appears that mandatory spay/neuter may be more effective." This is in a section where the only mandatory spay/neuter laws discussed are those concerning animals released from shelters. I would like to see Hunter explain why she believes mandatory spay/neuter of animals released from shelters is more effective at reducing shelter intakes than low cost clinics.

The next solution discussed is licensing, specifically differential licensing for altered vs. unaltered cats and dogs. Hunter admited earlier that a major problem with licensing is compliance. But then she states "Licensing by itself, does not address the feral cat problem, even if owners license their feline companions (Kalet, 2000). The serious problem in most communities is overpopulation by cats that have no identified owner. Differential licensing of altered and unaltered cats, however, might reduce the number of abandoned cats who become feral or produce feral kittens." I am at a loss here. How can licensing, which has a very poor compliance rate, help with cat overpopulation (which Hunter does not prove exists in West Virginia) or with feral cats? Someone who would abandon a whole cat that eventually produces generations of feral cats will not stop to get a license first. This solution is a big stretch.

The only worthwhile solution offered is state support for TNR, which Hunter mistakenly terms as Trap Neuter Release. Effective TNR is Trap Neuter Return, where the colony is monitored. "Release" implies no further human intervention with the colony. As Hunter says, veterinarians have some concerns over Trap Neuter Release, as do I. Before advocating a TNR policy, Hunter should describe the policy in a little more detail.

Puppymills are listed as a Consumer Protection Problem. Hunter states that a puppymills are "large commercial enterprises in which dogs are bred to produce puppies to sell to research labs, pet stores or individual buyers" and notes that West Virginia is not known for puppymills since there is only one USDA licensed breeder in the state. It seems getting a USDA license makes the breeder a puppymill. Hunter further states that "Puppymills are so well-known for abusive, unsanitary, and inhumane conditions, that Governor Rendell in Pennsylvania recently fired his entire Dog Advisory Board for failing to improve conditions in the state’s mills and Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania introduced legislation in Congress to force more oversight of puppymills." Apparently to Hunter, being a commercial enterprise makes a breeder a puppymill, and puppymills are abusive, unsanitary, and inhumane. Her solution? Differential licensing. "Differential licensing reduces puppymill profits. The higher the difference between fees for unaltered animals vs. spayed or neutered animals, the more likely commercial breeders would be to move to another state." This flies in the face of all reason and logic! Hunter's solution to the puppymill problem is to move them to another state. I am at a loss for words.

In the final section on recommendations, Hunter suggests something that I am appalled would even be considered. She suggests that "One effective tool for reducing pet overpopulation is differential licensing, which establishes one license fee or tax for spayed or neutered animals and a much higher tax or license fee for unaltered animals." Again, Hunter acknowledges that compliance is a problem. Her solution?

"1. Dogs and cats are required to be vaccinated for rabies. If veterinarians were given the authority to issue cat and dog licenses, and did so at the time of vaccinations, a differential fee could be collected as easily as a set fee, and owners would be encouraged to spay/neuter their pets. Compliance would increase as well. This adds work for veterinary clinics so they must be able to collect an additional processing fee.

2. Fines for noncompliance should be significant and minimum fines could be established to ensure that they are applied. If animal control officers received the revenue from these fines, they would have an incentive to check animals for proof of registration."

Turning veterinarians into an arm of animal control will mean people will be less likely to take their pets to the vet. This idea is obscene! Significant fines and giving animal control officers the revenue from those fines will mean more people will just forfeit their pet rather than pay up. Shelter numbers will increase! Again, this idea is just obscene!

And since many cats in shelters are not returned to their owners because the owner cannot be determined, Hunter's solution is "To improve the identification of owned cats, a cat registration program would be invaluable. Several states have voluntary programs in which cat owners can register their cats and receive licenses to identify them. A mandatory system would include cats in the definition of personal property and tax them at the same level as dogs. Again, giving veterinary clinics the authority to collect these taxes would increase compliance." Again, I am at a loss for words.

Hunter's final conclusion regarding funding and enforcement is "Funding is always an important concern in any policy area. Because current taxes and fines are very low, a significant increase in the dog tax, extension of the tax to include cats, a significant increase in kennel license fees, and a high minimum fine for noncompliance on all current animal control and welfare laws would provide an increase in revenues. To provide an incentive to animal control officers to enforce the laws, these increased fines and funds must go to animal control efforts in each county."

I fear for the pets in West Virginia if Hunter's policy recommendations ever become law.