The Animal Planet

Council Waffles on Animal Ordinance

By Emily Esterson , 5-02-06

I managed to sit through a good portion of the Albuquerque City Council debate on the HEART Ordinance last night (I no longer go to meetings, but I do watch them on channel 16). The HEART Ordinance(Humane and Ethical Animal Rules and Treatment) may be nearly as controversial as the minimum wage law. The councilors sat through hours of testimony, by veterinarians, rescuers, breeders, pet lovers, and others who came out either for or against the ordinance.

By my count, it seemed professional dog breeders felt the most put out by the ordinance which would charge them $150 per intact (un-cut, unaltered male or female) animal and limit them to four. Breeders told the councilors that while that portion of the bill was meant to prevent backyard or "puppy mill" breeders, it didn't help that cause, only punished reputable breeders. The discussion is summed up here, in the Albuquerque Tribune. In Denver's model ordinance, you can't breed in the county. Period. End of Story. In Indiana, several communities have passed similar but less restrictive ordinances on breeding. Councilor Mayer's bill seemed to have take pieces of strong animal legislation and grafted them together.

To be sure, animal issues are some of the most intensely emotionally charged, and the lines incredibly blurry. For one thing, there's the rhetoric: There's a vast difference Animal Welfare (promotes humane stewardship of animals) and Animal Rights (political movement--think PETA), for example. And a political hot button is the use of the phrase "no-kill shelter." In reality, some "no-kill shelters" will not euthanize no matter how aggressive or in pain an animal may be, and some only accept animals they know they can place in a home leaving the rest for someone else to deal with and some fall somewhere in between. Would that then mean that a regular shelter should be called a "kill" shelter even though that is surely NOT what the operators want to accomplish? Yet another example is the actual renaming of the City Animal Control to the Animal Care Center. In fact, Animal Control and Enforcement is the city's job, unless it wants to contract those services out to someone else. Mayor Martin Chavez' determination to make the city a "no-kill" facility is noble if misguided and misnamed--the city, whose job it is to pick up strays and do something with them, will never be a "no-kill" in the strictest sense of the words. Denver, by example, has gotten closest to this goal with its strict ordinances and well informed citizenry.

While Mayer's ordinance certainly has some strength, one of the city's biggest problems isn't breeders or puppy mills or chained dogs. It is rhetoric, culture and enforcement. The city simply can't keep up, nor can the rescuers or the shelters, until we begin outreach on spaying, neutering and humane treatment. Every dime of excess city animal money should go to that goal.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.