1
Changing our policy towards pets
05 abril 2011
How many cats and dogs are there in Collingwood? No one knows. In Canada, such statistics are not kept by Stats Can. But we can make an educated guess.
A recent survey done by Colin Siren of Ipsos Reid estimated there are 7.9 million cats and 5.9 million dogs in Canada. The survey also shows that 35% of Canadian households have a dog, while 38% have a cat, which is consistent with other surveys conducted in the developed nations. Based on a figure of 9,500 households* we should have around 3,040 households with dogs and 3,610 with cats.
The pet food industry has made several studies, many available online. An earlier this pet food industry study reported that more than 25% of all Canadian households own dogs and more than 32% own cats. It also showed that half of all Canadian households have at least one pet. Similarly, a late 1990s Ralston Purina survey found that 52% of Canadian homes have pets and 49% of those had cats. All surveys I read in the past two weeks show pet ownership has grown since then, so the Ipso Reid figure is likely accurate.
A 1996 American survey found more US households (31.6%) had dogs than cats (27.3%), but the average number of dogs per household was 1.69 and the average number of cats per household was 2.19. See this site for more statistics.
Based on US market studies and research by the American Veterinary Medical Association (most recent survey is from 2007) 37% of American households have a dog and 32.4% have a cat. The AVMA also says there are 2.2 cats per household.
It's reasonable to assume pet ownership in Canada, like so many other social trends, mirrors that in the USA, although Ipso Reid suggests a slightly higher percentage of cat-owning households here.
A similar survey in the UK said there was a lower average of cats per household: 1.66, and 29.3% of owners were likely to have more than one cat.
Given this range, we should expect about 3,000-3,600 households own cats in Collingwood. At 1.66 cats per household, that means between 4,980 and 5,970 cats total, but at 2.2 cats (the higher AVMA figures), it can be as high as 7,900 cats.
Either way, we have a lot of pets.
We should have 2,400-3,400 households with dogs. Based on an average 1.7 dogs per home, that’s 4,080 to 5,780 dogs in Collingwood.
In 2010, we sold 401 cat licences and 1,142 dog licences. So far in 2011, we have sold 333 cat licences and 882 dog licences.
Based on 1.66 cats per household, in 2010, about 240 households who bought cat tags out of a potential 3,600. Based on 2.2 cats per household, that’s only 182 households. These represent between a low of 5% and a high of 6.7% compliance. At 333 tags, it's even lower: 200 to 151 households out of about 3,600, or 4-5.5% compliance. That suggest to me that compliance with this bylaw is low enough to be insignificant. And if the numbers remain fairly static (is there any reason to expect a large influx of licence sales in the remainder of the year?), it suggests compliance is dropping.
Dog owners are more apt to get licences: between 20% and 28% compliance in 2010, but so far only 15-22% in 2011. In part this may be because our bylaws are enforced on a complaint-driven system. If a neighbour complains to town hall, a bylaw officer will come over and speak to the pet owner. Since dogs are easier to see and have to be outdoors more often, and many casts are actually indoors so will not be outside roaming, more dog owners have a visible presence so are aware they may be caught and fined if they don't comply.
But even so, we have less than one-in-three compliance, maybe lower than one-in-five.
If we achieved 100% compliance, for a $20 licence** we should expect a revenue of between $99,600 and $158,000 for cat tags alone (based on a range from 2,400 to 3,600 homes with either 1.66 or 2.2 cats per home) and assuming none micro-chippedwere neutered or microchipped. Even if they all were, it would still give us an income of around $50,000-$80,000 for cat tags. If we had 100% compliance with dogs AND cats, the revenue could easily top $300,000.
Our total animal-related revenue in 2010 was $46,478 and that included all dog and cat licences and bylaw fines. Total animal control expenses including wages was $165,203. Obviously we'd like to see that ratio improve: optimally, bylaw enforcement should be revenue neutral, or very close to it.
Total revenue for all animal licences combined is projected at $35,000 in 2011, roughly 75% of revenue in 2010. Bylaw expenses in the 2011 budget are $577,267, which means we pay $3.30 for every dollar of revenue the department brings in. Based on that, we will spend $115,500 to bring in $35,000 in revenue - or about $26,400 to sell 400 cat tags.*** That does not include front counter staff time to get the forms filled in and registered. I do not know if this also includes the cost of the forms, the licences, debit card machine, etc.
Why is compliance so low? Perhaps it's because people begrudge what is seen as just another tax grab. Pet ownership should be seen as a responsibility and in theory licensing should contribute to that. But our animal control bylaws do not address either responsible pet ownership or animal welfare - both big components that humane societies recommend be part of any legislation or bylaw.
There is also no clear policy on how the revenue from licences is spent. Right now it merely helps offset the costs of running the bylaw department. I believe some, maybe all, of the revenue from animal tags and fines should be spent in an ongoing campaign to educate people on responsible pet ownership: picking up after dogs, spaying and neutering, discouraging backyard breeding, advising on illnesses, care and vaccinations, nutrition, outdoor conditions and so on. And some of it could be used to help offset spay and neuter costs for people on fixed incomes like seniors or minimum-wage earners.
Simply taxing them does not contribute to anything other than making the cost of pet ownership more expoensive, thus discouraging compliance with the bylaws. We should be pro-active, not merely reactive, and look at the bigger picture: which path provides longterm solutions: education or taxation?
As of Monday, the cat tag bylaws are repealled, although they don't come off the books until January 1, 2012. Town staff have until the late fall to work with the humane society to craft a new policy and bylaw that deals with pet ownership and the responsibilities of pet owners. I believe this is an opportunity for Collingwood to move to the forefront of pet legislation.
~~~~~~
* We actually have more than 10,000 households, according to our planning department, but since no one can be sure if a home is occupied full or part-time, I've used a lower number.
** DOG LICENCE FEES: EACH DOG $30.00; Spayed/Neutered OR Micro-chipped $25.00; Spayed/Neutered AND Micro-chipped $20.00
CAT LICENCE FEES: EACH CAT $20.00; Spayed/Neutered OR Micro-chipped $15.00; Spayed/Neutered AND Micro-chipped $10.00. Source: Town of Collingwood website.
*** If all cats were spayed/neutered and microchipped, we would spend $13,200 to get back $4,000.
A recent survey done by Colin Siren of Ipsos Reid estimated there are 7.9 million cats and 5.9 million dogs in Canada. The survey also shows that 35% of Canadian households have a dog, while 38% have a cat, which is consistent with other surveys conducted in the developed nations. Based on a figure of 9,500 households* we should have around 3,040 households with dogs and 3,610 with cats.
The pet food industry has made several studies, many available online. An earlier this pet food industry study reported that more than 25% of all Canadian households own dogs and more than 32% own cats. It also showed that half of all Canadian households have at least one pet. Similarly, a late 1990s Ralston Purina survey found that 52% of Canadian homes have pets and 49% of those had cats. All surveys I read in the past two weeks show pet ownership has grown since then, so the Ipso Reid figure is likely accurate.
A 1996 American survey found more US households (31.6%) had dogs than cats (27.3%), but the average number of dogs per household was 1.69 and the average number of cats per household was 2.19. See this site for more statistics.
Based on US market studies and research by the American Veterinary Medical Association (most recent survey is from 2007) 37% of American households have a dog and 32.4% have a cat. The AVMA also says there are 2.2 cats per household.
It's reasonable to assume pet ownership in Canada, like so many other social trends, mirrors that in the USA, although Ipso Reid suggests a slightly higher percentage of cat-owning households here.
A similar survey in the UK said there was a lower average of cats per household: 1.66, and 29.3% of owners were likely to have more than one cat.
Given this range, we should expect about 3,000-3,600 households own cats in Collingwood. At 1.66 cats per household, that means between 4,980 and 5,970 cats total, but at 2.2 cats (the higher AVMA figures), it can be as high as 7,900 cats.
Either way, we have a lot of pets.
We should have 2,400-3,400 households with dogs. Based on an average 1.7 dogs per home, that’s 4,080 to 5,780 dogs in Collingwood.
In 2010, we sold 401 cat licences and 1,142 dog licences. So far in 2011, we have sold 333 cat licences and 882 dog licences.
Based on 1.66 cats per household, in 2010, about 240 households who bought cat tags out of a potential 3,600. Based on 2.2 cats per household, that’s only 182 households. These represent between a low of 5% and a high of 6.7% compliance. At 333 tags, it's even lower: 200 to 151 households out of about 3,600, or 4-5.5% compliance. That suggest to me that compliance with this bylaw is low enough to be insignificant. And if the numbers remain fairly static (is there any reason to expect a large influx of licence sales in the remainder of the year?), it suggests compliance is dropping.
Dog owners are more apt to get licences: between 20% and 28% compliance in 2010, but so far only 15-22% in 2011. In part this may be because our bylaws are enforced on a complaint-driven system. If a neighbour complains to town hall, a bylaw officer will come over and speak to the pet owner. Since dogs are easier to see and have to be outdoors more often, and many casts are actually indoors so will not be outside roaming, more dog owners have a visible presence so are aware they may be caught and fined if they don't comply.
But even so, we have less than one-in-three compliance, maybe lower than one-in-five.
If we achieved 100% compliance, for a $20 licence** we should expect a revenue of between $99,600 and $158,000 for cat tags alone (based on a range from 2,400 to 3,600 homes with either 1.66 or 2.2 cats per home) and assuming none micro-chippedwere neutered or microchipped. Even if they all were, it would still give us an income of around $50,000-$80,000 for cat tags. If we had 100% compliance with dogs AND cats, the revenue could easily top $300,000.
Our total animal-related revenue in 2010 was $46,478 and that included all dog and cat licences and bylaw fines. Total animal control expenses including wages was $165,203. Obviously we'd like to see that ratio improve: optimally, bylaw enforcement should be revenue neutral, or very close to it.
Total revenue for all animal licences combined is projected at $35,000 in 2011, roughly 75% of revenue in 2010. Bylaw expenses in the 2011 budget are $577,267, which means we pay $3.30 for every dollar of revenue the department brings in. Based on that, we will spend $115,500 to bring in $35,000 in revenue - or about $26,400 to sell 400 cat tags.*** That does not include front counter staff time to get the forms filled in and registered. I do not know if this also includes the cost of the forms, the licences, debit card machine, etc.
Why is compliance so low? Perhaps it's because people begrudge what is seen as just another tax grab. Pet ownership should be seen as a responsibility and in theory licensing should contribute to that. But our animal control bylaws do not address either responsible pet ownership or animal welfare - both big components that humane societies recommend be part of any legislation or bylaw.
There is also no clear policy on how the revenue from licences is spent. Right now it merely helps offset the costs of running the bylaw department. I believe some, maybe all, of the revenue from animal tags and fines should be spent in an ongoing campaign to educate people on responsible pet ownership: picking up after dogs, spaying and neutering, discouraging backyard breeding, advising on illnesses, care and vaccinations, nutrition, outdoor conditions and so on. And some of it could be used to help offset spay and neuter costs for people on fixed incomes like seniors or minimum-wage earners.
Simply taxing them does not contribute to anything other than making the cost of pet ownership more expoensive, thus discouraging compliance with the bylaws. We should be pro-active, not merely reactive, and look at the bigger picture: which path provides longterm solutions: education or taxation?
As of Monday, the cat tag bylaws are repealled, although they don't come off the books until January 1, 2012. Town staff have until the late fall to work with the humane society to craft a new policy and bylaw that deals with pet ownership and the responsibilities of pet owners. I believe this is an opportunity for Collingwood to move to the forefront of pet legislation.
~~~~~~
* We actually have more than 10,000 households, according to our planning department, but since no one can be sure if a home is occupied full or part-time, I've used a lower number.
** DOG LICENCE FEES: EACH DOG $30.00; Spayed/Neutered OR Micro-chipped $25.00; Spayed/Neutered AND Micro-chipped $20.00
CAT LICENCE FEES: EACH CAT $20.00; Spayed/Neutered OR Micro-chipped $15.00; Spayed/Neutered AND Micro-chipped $10.00. Source: Town of Collingwood website.
*** If all cats were spayed/neutered and microchipped, we would spend $13,200 to get back $4,000.
