Public Policy
Pinacolada23
PublicPolicyAnalysisExample.pdf
Public Policy Analysis Example
Your Name: Susan Enrico
Policy Analysis of Sec. 3.6 from the Code of the city of Miami Beach, Florida, 1950.
Cats that roam outdoors are often a nuisance to wildlife and the public, particularly those who keep chickens or other poultry. In 1950, the city code of Miami Beach required that cats who roamed outside must wear a bell. The code said, “No cat should be permitted to be outside of any residence or storeroom in the city unless such cat wear a bell, the sound of which may be heard at least fifty feet.” The code continues in the next section 3.7 to say that cats found outside of residences and storerooms not wearing a bell would be disposed. These sections were part of a larger general policy on animal control in the city, a policy geared toward maintaining the safety and health of its residents.
Wildlife enthusiasts and other members of the public support the code as a defense against the problems of feral or stray cats and their hunting and killing of small animals. They say the sound warns small animals to the cat’s presence. They say it is helpful to cat owners for locating a lost or hurt cat and establishes the cat as a beloved pet rather than a stray. Cat lovers rail against the code as a danger to the cat and an unproven safety measure for wildlife. Studies conflict as to the effectiveness of a bell in warning a bird or mouse in time to save its life. One study in the United Kingdom found that cats wearing bells killed 33 percent fewer small animals while another found no significant difference. The latter even suggested that bells might make cats even better hunters—increasing their stealth ability to avoid jingling the bell. Some cat owners want a cat around outside precisely to attack vermin that could damage their property. They also note that a bell or collar can become caught in a fence or other structure, trapping or injuring the cat.
The city code required cat owners to outfit their cats with a collar and bell. The bell had to be loud enough to be heard 50 feet away, so it could not be a gentle tinkling thing. This expense for the owner was not the only impact of the policy. Law enforcement would have had to respond to complaints about non-bell wearing cats. The cat would have to be captured and then destroyed at a cost to the city’s taxpayers for work hours, equipment for capture and holding, and then disposal. To have been worth these costs the outdoor cat population must have been significant and generating many complaints from citizens. At the time it is conceivable that many residents kept a small chicken coop to support their family’s nutritional needs, and a cat on the prowl taking an uninvited share of Sunday’s dinner would have been sufficient cause for complaint.
Yet cat owners had sufficient cause to be concerned about the law too. The stakes were higher for them—not in the cost of the collar and bell but in the consequences. Those who felt the code endangered their beloved pet would have been forced to keep their cats indoors, accept the risk of the bell, or accept the risk of breaking the law. Supporters may have noted
the benefits of marking the cat as owned. As a concentration of loose cats in a city can cause sanitation problems, it would make sense that officials would want to remove stray or feral cats. A cat with a bell would not only be less of a threat to wildlife and less likely to increase sanitation issues, but also be easily identifiable as not a target for removal.
While animal control policy still exists today in Miami Beach, the particular sections on cats and bells does not. In 1950 this may have been the policy most acceptable to the city’s residents. Yet given that cat owners worried for their pets’ health and neighbors feared for their own, the best policy is one that treats cats the same as dogs. Cats, like dogs and other pets, should be under the owner’s control at all times. This includes outside. If a cat is to be outside, the owner should have control of its movements through fencing, leashing, or other means acceptable to the owner. This would protect the interests of both parties and the public at large. Cat owners could confine the animal to their property, allowing the cat to hunt within its confines to satisfy its instinct and the owner’s wish for pest control. In choosing to obtain a pet, the owner is responsible for the financial costs of that choice. The poultry, pets, or plants of neighbors would not be affected, unless by those who violate the law in which case, as before, law enforcement would step in. Requiring a bell is simply not proven to eradicate the problems associated with cats that roam freely in a city. It is a potentially costly and possibly wasteful policy. In addition, the policy is fair in the treatment of pets overall. The policy should have been repealed and replaced with language that places cats and dogs in the same category of “pets” in the city’s animal control policy.
Works Cited
"Cats and collars." FAB Information Sheet. Feline Advisory Bureau (UK), 2009, Web.
http://www.fabcats.org/owners/safety/collars/info.html
Hartwell, S.L. "Domestic Cats – Wildlife Enemy Number One or Convenient Scapegoats?" Messy-Beast.com Cat Resource Archive, 2004, Web.
http://www.messybeast.com/cat-wildlife.htm
"Section 3.6 Cats to wear bells." Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, 1950. University of Florida Digital Collections, 2011, Web.
http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00053718/00001/182j
