RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SERVICES ISSUES
CITATIONS IN EXCESS OF $1,000 TO INDIO RESIDENTS FOR FAILING TO
COMPLY WITH LAWS ABOUT WHICH THE RESIDENTS HAD NO NOTICE
Draconian measures implemented by Riverside County Animal Services have resulted in increased killing of pets whose owners love them, but have been issued citations with outrageous fines they cannot afford to pay. The owners are instructed to relinquish their animals to the County if they cannot pay the fines.
INDIO, California -- Indio pet owners and other concerned Coachella Valley residents will gather in the Special Events Center at Fantasy Springs Casino on Thursday, May 29, from 6:00 - 9:00 p.m. for a community meeting to discuss the targeting of low income residents of the City of Indio by Riverside County Department of Animal Services. Without warning, animal owners in Indio are being cited for violations of laws that they did not know exist.
When the City of Indio closed its animal facility last summer, city officials contracted with Riverside County Department of Animal Services to provide services to Indio residents. Since then, Riverside County animal control officers have been canvassing neighborhoods, particularly those in lower income areas, issuing citations for violating the County ordinances that require proof of vaccination for rabies, current licenses, microchips, and surgical sterilization (spay/neuter). When the City of Indio had its own animal control division, it was charged with enforcing its laws related to animals, not those of Riverside County.
The fines add up quickly at $100 for each violation per animal. The charges are $400 per animal. In cases where a family has more than one dog, the fines are astronomical, well over $1,000. The citations give people 20 days to correct the violations, without giving any information whatsoever about how to go about making the corrections. According to its website, Riverside County Department of Animal Services is committed to educating the public about solutions to pet overpopulation. Forcing animal owners to relinquish their animals does not seem like the most effective way to educate people.
The last thing that Riverside County Department of Animal Services needs is more animals in its facilities, so why have they chosen a course of action that results in more animals impounded and killed? Is this tactic really in the best interests of animals or is it more likely bullying and intimidation by government officials? Singling out specific segments of the population for enforcement of laws is nothing short of discrimination and it is worth noting that Animal Services appears to be focused on those people least able or willing to defend themselves.
If the purpose of the county ordinances is truly to promote responsible pet ownership and animal welfare, Riverside County Department of Animal Services would be providing information to help people to locate resources for low cost spaying and neutering of animals, and for getting them microchipped, licensed and vaccinated. Animal Services could just as easily issue notices to comply to animal owners, accompanied by information about how to comply with county ordinances. At least that way, people would be notified of the existence of the legal requirements and they would have the information they need to avail themselves of the services they need to comply with the laws. Those services, especially spaying and neutering can be very costly. There are a handful of low cost alternatives, but because of high demand, the wait times may well exceed the 20 days that the County gives to comply after a citation is issued. Animals and their owners are in a no-win situation. It is a no-win for the County and taxpayers as well given the increased expense of unnecessary impound of animals who are taken from their homes.
Instead of educating the public, Riverside County Department of Animal Services is threatening and intimidating animal owners by forcing them to choose between paying huge fines and keeping their animals. That is not a fair choice and it is not one anyone should have to make. In fact, under the circumstances, where a person is threatened and coerced into giving up his pet, there is an element of extortion which is not only unethical, but unlawful. It is all the more reprehensible when it is being done by an agency that is paid by taxpayers to protect animals and that claims to provide services to the animal owning public.
In fact, this new system of enforcement runs afoul of rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States. Government officials cannot deprive people of property, including money and/or pets, without due process of the law. In this case, due process requires that animal owners have notice of the laws that they are allegedly violating. The County cannot simply demand compliance, particularly where the penalties involve substantial fines and forfeiture of animals, without at least giving people information about what the laws are and how to avoid the consequences of non- compliance.
According to a staff member at the Riverside County Coachella Valley Animal Campus, if an animal owner cannot pay the fines, he or she can pay the County $50 per animal to possibly find a home for the pet or $25 per animal for the County to take in the pet and kill him or her. A County official told a local resident that people will have to pay the fines even if they relinquish their animals.
This is an unintended consequence of mandatory spay/neuter legislation when it is poorly implemented, by imposing requirements without education and resources for compliance. The goal of spay/neuter ordinances is not bad in and of itself, but this is definitely not the way to enforce such an ordinance, or any other for that matter.
Marla Tauscher is a Los Angeles based attorney practicing animal law throughout California, particularly as it relates to animal control agencies and animal shelter issues.