Animal Protection Minnesota

In fiscal year 2004, the city of St. Cloud spent $186,249 on animal control efforts. Pet licenses and fees, however, for that year in St. Cloud were only $47,858. The difference was $138,000, which taxpayers needed to cover. Local animal pounds in Minnesota handle many of the pet-related issues within our State. They are under-funded and under-staffed.

Only 25% of pet owners in St. Cloud license their dog, which is true of most other cities and counties in Minnesota. The national rate of compliance with dog licensing is 28%. By law, people are require to obtain a dog license; a majority don’t. If the public were made aware of this fact, this could be a potential revenue source to care for unwanted animals and help pay for animal protection efforts. (The average cost for a license varies by city and averages between $5 and $50, depending on whether the animal is sterilized.)

Dealing with pet-related issues require public resources

In 2001, it was estimated that “U.S. animal care and control strategy on exterminating homeless dogs and cats … was costing the U.S. approximately $600 million per year in tax-funded expenditures, and close to $2 billion a year when the diversion of charitable contributions to capturing and disposing of homeless dogs and cats is factored in.” (Merritt Clifton, editor, Animal People; see link)

No research has been conducted showing exactly how much animal care and control services are costing local governments, the State of Minnesota or private, nonprofit animal shelters. However, based on the example of St. Cloud, some rough calculations: Assume one city spends, on average, $180,000 per year for its animal control efforts — a low budget considering the problem and needs. (Larger cities with more animals will spend more; smaller cities, less. Some cities operate their own Animal Control; others contract the services.) Not all cities have Animal Control departments, so if we conservatively multiply $180,000 by 87 counties (not cities), the estimate is $15,660,000 yearly. Millions of dollars more must also be added to this figure to account for all the private money raised to support over 175 nonprofit animal shelters in Minnesota and millions more to account for volunteer labor. (Note: Local Animal Control budgets are difficult to obtain. Most of these budgets fall within a city’s main budget; many, if not all, are under-funded for the level of problem and need.)

Local agencies and shelters are left to handle the growing problems of animal overpopulation (through rescue and adoption or capture and euthanasia) and animal neglect and cruelty with no or limited State financial assistance. Enormous efforts are spent warehousing unwanted or abandoned dogs and cats, with little or no time left for addressing the root of the problem.

Animal Control and private animal shelters are not the only agencies dealing with pet-related issues. Animal rescue groups, local law enforcement and the courts (prosecutors, lawyers, judges) also participate in some way.

Without leadership from the State, however, efforts are not coordinated to make animal care and protection a priority. People will continue doing what they’ve always done.

In 2002 Minnesota attorney Corwin R. Kruse wrote: “Police and county sheriffs’ offices typically give low priority to animal cruelty cases, and seldom initiate prosecutions. Much of the enforcement of anti-cruelty laws thus falls to the local [humane societies] or a similar organization. Because most such groups are privately funded through donations, money is a continual problem. Even when investigations are begun, prosecutors often shy away from trying cruelty cases. “There is a tendency to avoid prosecution entirely, or, at best, to assign to the case the most junior assistant in the prosecutor’s office.” In many cases, prosecutors may view animal cruelty cases as a waste of resources. … In an age which prides itself on technology, enlightenment, education, good will, and justice, we still treat the majority of the earth’s living creatures in a manner which is, in most respects, worthy of a medieval torturers’ guild … ” (Baby Steps: Minnesota Raises Certain Forms of Animal Cruelty to Felony Status; 2002; see link)

The State of Minnesota can change priorities and attitudes

Various states are recognizing the importance of pets to people and the impact unregulated breeding is having on communities. Some states are creating new ways to govern and fund animal issues.

The Colorado State Legislature, for instance, established the Colorado Pet Overpopulation Fund (CPOF) in 2001. This is a specific charitable fund that educates the public about responsible pet ownership, funds spay/neuter surgeries, and works with animal care and control organizations, veterinarians and local communities to curb pet overpopulation in Colorado. The fund is supported, in part, by voluntary contributions through the income tax form, and making an appropriation. (This fund is for pet overpopulation only; not animal protection services.)

The federal government, too, is recognizing the need to help local law enforcement track animal cruelty crimes. New legislation in the U.S. Senate, introduced by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), directs the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to include animal cruelty crimes within the agency's crime data reporting system. All states have animal anti-cruelty laws but local police don’t have a place to report and enter the crimes, so these crimes are assigned to miscellaneous categories. Without accurate data and tracking, local governments and law enforcement aren’t able to set proper policy and allocate necessary resources to decrease animal cruelty or neglect. This FBI idea will help provide the tool to do so.