Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - [Homestead] Better Check Those Food Dishes

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Bill Jones <billj AT harborside.com>
  • To: Homestead mailing list digest <homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Homestead] Better Check Those Food Dishes
  • Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:21:47 -0800

Here's something amusing from the San Francisco Chronicle:

In San Francisco, where orphaned animals live in "pet condos" at the SPCA, pet parents are called guardians instead of owners, and well-heeled canines are enrolled in doggie day care, now comes a law mandating more creature comforts for the creatures.

The ordinance, expected to be approved by the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, spells out exactly what the city means by providing food, shelter and water to San Francisco's estimated 110,000 dogs.

The food: palatable and nutritious. The water: changed at least once a day and provided in a non-tipping bowl. The shelter: big enough for the canine to stand up and turn around in and with a raised floor and dry, clean bedding for when the "ambient temperature falls below that ... to which the dog is acclimated."

The law passed its first reading this week with an 8-2 vote, with Supervisor Chris Daly absent. Supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier and Aaron Peskin dissented.

"I was reading this, and I thought: Now we're treating dogs better than we treat the homeless," Alioto-Pier said.

Peskin was unavailable for comment Wednesday.

"It's a classic case of taking an issue we need to deal with and overcompensating," Alioto-Pier said. "It's one thing to say you have to have clean water for your dog, another to say you have to have it in a container that won't tip, or if it does, then you have to bolt it to the wall. I think it's too Big Brother."

But Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who sponsored the ordinance at the behest of the city's Commission of Animal Control and Welfare, said the law is a "commonsense approach."

The ordinance is designed to give teeth to the powers of animal control officers. Dufty, who isn't a dog guardian himself, said the officers complained that they are powerless to effectively punish people who neglect their dogs because the law doesn't define adequate food, water or shelter.

Dufty included an amendment to make sure the law won't be used to hassle homeless people who keep dogs on the street with them. It exempts "persons who, due to financial hardship, are unable to provide shelter for themselves."

Dufty said he recognizes that the law may come across as frivolous in a city where homeless people routinely bed down in places that would be deemed inadequate for dogs.

But, he said, "San Francisco is a city where people are very passionate about their animals. I'm fascinated at times that when it comes to issues involving dogs and elephants, legions of people will turn out ... but it's hard to get people to focus on youth violence.

"I don't view myself at all as being untethered or uninterested in day-to- day issues that affect people," he added, noting that at the same board meeting where the dog law was considered, he also called for an audit of community services in violence-plagued southeastern neighborhoods.

Speaking of being tethered, the new law highly discourages it as a means of keeping one's pooch in the backyard but outlines one acceptable type of apparatus, which includes a "pulley-like system" and non-choke collar or "body harness at least 10 feet in length."

The law resulted from a yearlong effort by the animal welfare commission, undertaken after the district attorney's office kept dropping neglect cases because it could be argued that the animal was receiving some kind of food, water and shelter, Dufty said.

"It will make our job a lot easier," said Carl Friedman, director of Animal Care and Control, which employs nine animal control officers.

Without the new law, Friedman said, "If we go to a home and a dog is in the backyard and they have plywood over some poles, it's not enough to arrest them. Without the ability to issue a citation, that really hampers us. What good is a roof if the dog is lying down in the mud?"

His department plans to print brochures explaining the law so the officers can distribute them on calls of neglect, which number about 2,000 a year.

"The whole idea is to get the animal to be in a better place, not to punish the people," Friedman said.

As for the dogs vs. homeless comparison, Friedman said he doesn't see it as an either-or situation.

"Just because we haven't solved the homeless problem doesn't mean we have to give up on animal welfare."

Laurie Kennedy, chair of the commission that drafted the ordinance, said much of the language was taken from a similar law in Los Angeles.

"In my opinion, it's just basic," said Kennedy, who also coordinates volunteers at the SPCA, known for its pet condos.

San Francisco resident Lee Walker, who has two Dobermans she takes to Fort Funston, said she supports any law that leads to better treatment of dogs.

"If you're not going to step up to the plate and take the responsibility of owning a dog, you shouldn't have one," she said. "I can't emphasize enough, they need as much care as a child does."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dog days in S.F.

Dogs in San Francisco: About 110,000

Reports of animal neglect per year : About 2,000

Animal control officers: 9

Municipalities with similar laws: City of Los Angeles and counties in Louisiana, Texas, Arizona and Arkansas

Plan's requirements: Dog must have full access to an enclosed building at all times. Structure must have five sides, including a floor raised off the ground free of spots where insects, rodents or parasite eggs could lodge. Dog must be able to stand up and turn around freely and have access to clean, dry bedding in cold weather.

Water container must be designed to prevent tipping or spilling and must be clean, kept out of the sun and changed at least once a day.

Food must be wholesome, palatable and sufficiently nutritious.

Tethering is highly discouraged and is acceptable only if tether is attached to a stake in the ground with a pulley-like system and to the dog with a non-choke collar or body harness at least 10 feet long.

Penalties: First offense, infraction, fine not to exceed $50. Second offense in a 12-month period, infraction, fine not to exceed $100. Third and additional offense in 12-month period, misdemeanor, fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment of no more than one year.

Source: Legislation, Animal Care and Control, Supervisor Bevan






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page