(.lin|itcr 10 fovetf; on 1 v t li'isc f fw r;iif]tois lli.-il a i c operated by lliimnne Soc 1 o t 1 or . 

 It rpquJic^ thfm lo be lircnscd, to Vroy ,nrc-urntp toccM ilf. , anil to maintain minimum 

 slniidaids of cnin and lioiiriinj',. Rcrpon'. 1 1. i 1 1 I v fm ciif or roriirn t i <^ delcp.ated lo Llie 

 I»o|>,ii tmoiit of Afi icu 1 [ III <• , l.iit thoio is no lim<liii|-, for en f o rconif lU and what monilorinc, 

 IS avallalilp is dono bv ai'.cnt r wIio'o prlninry rcT.pons 1 li i 1 i t y is ]ivcsL<>rk inspertion — 

 not ptottTtion of poo[ilc;,' pots. If \'lo]alious occur, the only provisions for 

 piosc'ciil ion under tlie Act ]ny such a heavy Inudcn of I'loof on tlie IlcparLmcnt llint. 

 effectively license revocation i:; all I he piini siinicnl to be had. 



Around 230,000 dop.s and cats are impounded in North Carolina each year, a lot 

 of Lhem beinv'. pets. With no provlj.ion for a central rccord-l'cepinc system lo IdcnLlfy 

 mipsinR pets, no fundinc ff"' enforcement of the law, and witli R3 °i of the animals in 

 facililies wlilcli are not mider I lie Animal Welfare Act and whose main purfioso is not 

 animal protection hut rabies control, the interests and concerns ef those several 

 million tax-pay 1 np, citizens who own niid love doc,s and cats appear not to be boinf; 

 served. 



It is for this reason that the tJorth Carolina Network for Animals, aloilR with 

 other concerned individuals ntid fioups, will provide such information as it can, witli 

 the hope that p.lvcn evidence of need for amendment and enforcement in animal protective 

 legislation, the Study Commission will have a better perspective from which to decide 

 what must be done. 



27 



