Stray dogs and cats: should the taxpayer foot the bill?

They're expensive things

The high cost of keeping a pet has been covered many times in the media. But who should pay for animals that don’t have owners? Feral cats and stray or unwanted dogs are a serious problem for society. Who should be responsible? Should government put funds into the issue, or should it be left to private individuals? If nothing is done, the bad consequences affect us all.

If feral cat colonies are left to their own devices, they multiply uncontrollably, with populations of hundreds of cats gathering in back alleys and side streets. The cats suffer from disease and a high mortality rate, and they cause a nuisance by raiding bins. It’s simple enough to control feral cats, and no, I don’t mean the trigger happy option of just killing them all (this doesn’t work: the “vacuum effect” kicks in, with feral cats from surrounding areas moving in to occupy the niche). The best answer is trap/neuter/release (TNR) schemes: these create a stable population of cats that quietly get on with their own lives without bothering humans. In the UK, TNR schemes are funded by charities and private individuals. In other countries, government funds are sometimes used, recognising that this is an environmental issue for all citizens. Meanwhile, thousands of unwanted pet cats in the UK are looked after and rehomed by private charities.

Stray dogs also present a potential problem for society, with packs of feral dogs causing serious problems in many countries. It’s easy to forget this in the UK, because there are such effective systems for controlling the problem. Local authorities have a duty to deal with all dogs that are found wandering the streets. Dog wardens collect them and taking them to local authority pounds: if no owner comes forward after seven days, the dogs are either euthanased or rehomed to one of the many animal rescue groups. The cost of stray dog control is funded by local authorities, with private charities covering their own costs of intervention to find homes for the unwanted animals.

It’s obvious that without privately funded animal charities, our society would have a much more serious problem on its hands. And in these economically challenging times, the charities are under increasing pressure. The number and value of legacies is falling significantly, as are the day to day donations from members of the public. Animal charities need to work harder than ever to stretch their diminishing resources to meet the demand, and they’re constantly seeking new and innovative ways to provide income streams.

One new fundraising initiative which will benefit a wide number of animal charities was launched by petcare brand Pedigree this week, in the format of a virtual dog walk.  Anyone can contribute to the campaign without the need to buy any pet food: just by taking a virtual dog on a walk across several web pages, the user will unlock a £1 donation from the company, to their annual Pedigree Adoption Drive scheme

Animal charities don't receive any public funding, although some argue that they’re all funded by the taxpayer because of the fact that donations are exempt from income tax. Effectively, the state donates the equivalent of the unpaid tax.

Should the state (i.e. the public, through taxation) contribute more to the care of unowned animals? Or less? My view? I think that the UK has the balance just about right.