Dear Mr. Henderson,
In 1920, a precedent was set by a decision handed down by the
United States Supreme Court in the case Nicchia vs New York. This
precedent recognized the unique public health risk posed by keeping pets, and
allowed the state to regulate those pets by requiring licensing tied to rabies
vaccinations. Keeping licensing tied to vaccinations is of utmost importance
even today. However, it is all too often forgotten in misguided attempts to
solve all animal-related issues with pet licensing legislation.
The provisions in the 8th Draft of the animal control ordinance
that will undermine the primary reason the courts allowed states to regulate
animals in the first place (to ensure that those animals are vaccinated for
rabies) are seen in the following sections: 91.023 (B), which requires
veterinarians to turn over documentation of rabies vaccinations to the designee
(MAS) of the Health Department, and Appendix A, Fees, which sets a higher
licensing fee for dogs that have not been spayed or neutered. If this 8th Draft
is passed into law with these two provisions, the Louisville Metro area will be
at a greater risk for a rabies outbreak than at any time in its past. Why?
Section 91.023 (B) requires veterinarians to turn over their
records of every animal vaccinated for rabies at their clinics to Metro Animal
Services (MAS). There has already been an attempt to enforce this provision
under current law: veterinarians have received letters from the Health
Department requiring them to send documentation of rabies vaccinations to the
Health Department's designee, MAS. You are probably aware that not all persons
who have their pets vaccinated against rabies also have those pets licensed.
Some simply cannot afford to spay or neuter their pets, and thus choose to
ignore the licensing requirement because they cannot afford the higher licensing
fee for unaltered pets. These people are the ones who will be hardest hit by the
new requirement for veterinarians to act as "Big Brother" for MAS. As they begin
to be cited and fined for lack of compliance with licensing, based on rabies
vaccination records, word will spread that MAS is able to obtain such records.
Those who cannot afford to alter their pets will either go out of county for
rabies vaccinations, or will simply forego those vaccinations entirely.
A recent article in the Courier-Journal (published 8/25/06)
discussed the public health risk associated with rabies.
http://www.courier-
I am writing therefore, to ask that you support instead lower
licensing fees that are not tied to reproductive status, but which are instead
linked only to whether or not the pet owner has obtained the necessary rabies
vaccination. Doing so will put the primary purpose of Animal Control--protecting
the public against rabies by requiring and enforcing rabies vaccinations-
Sincerely,
Karen Brinkley