A Message from Karel Minor, Executive Director

The Death of the Dog Catcher

While it might be premature to pronounce the era of the dog catcher dead, across the nation animal welfare organizations are steadily handing the responsibility for being the dog and cat catcher back to the municipalities who are, and should be, responsible for that service.  Although animal control is a government function, for decades animal welfare organizations have taken on the job.

Often this role started out in a well meaning enough way.  SPCA's and Humane Societies voluntarily took over animal control rather than see the cruelty and abuse often suffered at the hands of private and municipal animal control.  Before long, many States and municipalities began to rely almost exclusively on non-profit, charitable organizations to provide these services in place of police or municipal employees- and to subsidize the expense.  You may not be aware of the fact that in Pennsylvania the average animal shelter providing animal control services subsidizes 75% or more of the cost of that service.  Local and State government quickly figured out that they could count on us to foot the bill and direct tax dollars to other "more important" services.

We are not talking small sums here.  The estimate provided by a national municipal management association to provide proper animal control services to a community is $4 to $10 per person, per year.  That means that in Berks County the bare minimum that should be getting spent by government is 1.2 million dollars a year, based on our population.  Between State and municipal funds devoted to animal control in Berks County, less than $200,000 a year (at most) is provided by government for these services.  That's only about 15% of what municipal managers themselves say should be spent at the very least.

Where does the rest of the money come from?  From you and from all the charitable donors who give to animal welfare organizations who provide animal control.  It also comes from the animals.  Those hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to keep townships and cities from having to spend money on animal control and public safety could be getting spent to sterilize animals, adopt animals, provide veterinary services and education, and more.

That's why the big conversation at animal shelters around the country and at national animal welfare conferences is about finding the best way to help animals and place the burden for paying for government services where it belongs- on the government.  Increasingly, the conclusion being reached is that it is time to divest ourselves of the job of dog and cat catcher for local government and for the State.

That is the conclusion reached by many, many shelters.  Large and well respected shelters like the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in New York City and the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Philadelphia.  Small and well respected shelters like the York County SPCA right here south eastern Pennsylvania.  And now, by the Humane Society of Berks County.

We couldn't just dump all our animal control contracts without ensuring that the animals had someplace to go.  But we couldn't go on aiding and abetting a failed system that, in the end, results in more death and misery because it lets our government off the hook for a societal problem.  So, we declined the State dog control contract in 2008, choosing to take no money rather than taking fifteen cents on the dollar- and being treated like we should be grateful for that.  We offered services at rates closer to the real cost (but still only 25 to 30 cents on the dollar), knowing that penny pinching governments would finally face the real cost.  And knowing that our time offering animal control would swiftly end when they did. 

That's why we didn't even include any animal control funding in our 2008 operating budget when our Board of Directors passed it last fall.  We knew that most local governments still wouldn't buy the cow, even if the milk stopped being free.  Some governments choose to go the way of offering their own services.  Some find new partners at other organizations that are more comfortable with the status quo.  We're happy to allow them to do whatever makes sense for them.

What we will do is fulfill our mission by continuing to create innovative, award winning adoption programs that are being modeled around the country and right here at home.  We will continue to develope nationally recognized emergency programs that help more animals and people.  We will continue to use the best academic research to determine and attack the root causes of pet overpopulation, abuse, and homelessness.

Many organizations struggle with this decision, as we have.  Is it the right thing to do?  Where will that displaced income come from?  What will people think?  We know the answers, if we just have the courage to admit it.  We know we shouldn't be bailing out the government at the cost of animal lives.  We know people don't give us money to subsidize animal control services, they give us money to save lives.  We also know that if people really knew the cost in lives and resources they'd demand to know why we waited so long.

And because we won't be taking the financial scraps offered by the government, we can be even more active in fighting for good animal welfare legislation like the dog tethering bill and fighting against bad legislation, like Reading's Dangerous Dog Ordinance.  We can ask hard questions of those in power.  For example, if we care about our dogs so much in Pennsylvania, why is the Bureau of Dog Control part of the Department of Agriculture, as if our companions animals were chickens or cattle to be farmed and harvested?  Why can't dog wardens cite kennels for animal cruelty?  Why doesn't the State put one penny of tax money toward dog control work that protects our pets and our people, instead choosing to nickel and dime the effort through dog license sales?  It's hard to ask these questions of the government- if you rely on it for a pay check.

We'd rather find our resources elsewhere and seek our aid from those who truly care about animals.  Not politicians trying to find the lowest bidder, cheapest services, the best sound bite, or the most politically expedient approach.  We know that this might come with some hard feelings or maybe a sudden rise in "surprise" inspections, but it's worth it.  We know who our friends are and we know who it is who's really helping us to make a difference.

In other words, we'll keep turning to you to help us change and save even more lives.  We know that people who really care about animals don't want to do what is easiest and cheapest, they want to do what is best, even if that's hard.  And we're right there with you.

Your partner in animal welfare,
Karel I. Minor
Executive Director

Previous Director's Messages may be found by clicking here.