Canine Legislation for the United States and West Virginia

 Susan Hunter

Twelve bills relating to domestic animals were introduced during the 1995 state legislative session. Three of them were signed into law by Governor Caperton on March 10, 1995. One affects the owners of racing greyhounds (H.B. 2632), another enables county commissions and municipalities to pass leash laws for dogs not engaged in hunting, farmwork or lawful training activities (H. B~ 2233), and the third increases the penalties of those convicted for a second offense of cruelty to animals, and allows the judge to prohibit anyone convicted under the statute from owning any animals during a probationary period (H.B. 2298). A proposed kennel bill, which would have required breeders to maintain adequate conditions for their animals and to undergo annual inspections of their facilities, a bill making the poisoning or malicious maiming of a dog a criminal offense, and a bill that would have allowed people to kill any animal they saw attacking or "worrying" other animals or people all died in committee.

Despite the introduction of twelve bills relating to domestic animals, many of the major concerns of animal welfare groups were not addressed. For example, the legislature did not address the overpopulation of cats and dogs which currently forces extremely high euthanasia rates at many animal shelters. According to the Humane Society of the United States and local shelter personnel, seventy percent of all animals brought to animal shelters are euthanized due to lack of room at the shelter, as well as for severe health or temperament problems; 90,000 animals in West Virginia alone during 1994 (Greever 1995). The legislature also did not address the apparent growth of unregulated puppy mills (large facilities with poor breeding practices which produce dogs with behavior and health problems or vicious dogs) in the state.

This article documents the current status of canine legislation in West Virginia and other states, examines some of the major issues involving dogs, and makes some recommendations for resolving these issues.

Canine Legislation in West Virginia

The increased interest in canine legislation in West Virginia in 1995 was largely due to three incidents and the activities of a few concerned citizens. The first incident took place in 1991. At that time, a woman was fined $1,520 by the Monongalia County Court for keeping 32 unlicensed animals in her home, in extremely unsanitary and inhumane conditions (Randolph 1994). This contributed to the passage of a 1991 law allowing Humane Officers to confiscate abused or neglected animals. Then, in 1994, a Marion County woman was convicted of animal cruelty for the third time in four years, and the Monongalia County woman came into the news again when 45 unaltered dogs in various stages of malnutrition and disease were removed from her home. These incidents received extensive newspaper coverage and led to the formation of a citizen's group which is currently working for stronger anti-cruelty statutes and kennel inspections (Seiler 1994; Puskar 1995). Rumors that puppy mills in Pennsylvania were moving to West Virginia to escape that state's kennel inspection legislation also helped spur the group's formation.

Nationally, animal rights organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) have begun to organize and lobby across the United States for stronger legislation to prevent such abuses and to promote spay/ neuter legislation. For example, on June 3, 1995, the National Federation of Humane Societies held an organization meeting in Morgantown to organize their efforts to pass a statewide spay/neuter law during the 1996 legislative session.

Documentation of the extent of the animal welfare problems in West Virginia is difficult to obtain because many counties do not keep records of the number of animals picked up or what is done with them.' Although every county is required to have a Humane Officer, that person is designated by the county sheriff, and may have neither the training nor adequate facilities for that position. Two counties do not have a Humane Officer, so animals run loose until someone picks them up or kills them. At least 19 counties have no facility at all, so they routinely euthanize almost every animal picked up by their animal control officer (sometimes by shooting); one county uses an abandoned chicken coop to house up to four animals at a time; and most have only limited facilities. The cost of euthanasia differs according to method. Because veterinarians routinely tranquilize animals to be euthanized, they charge up to $20 per animal. Humane injections, administered by shelter staff, cost $2 to $3 per animal. Because the cost to tranquilize is so high, most facilities just use injections.

Leash laws, which can now be imposed by counties and municipalities, may exacerbate the euthanasia problem, as most counties have very limited facilities for keeping dogs and cats. If more dogs are picked up for running loose, it is very likely that the number of dogs euthanized will also increase.

Genetic health and temperament problems are also not well documented, either nationally or in West Virginia. No accurate reporting system exists on the number of dogs euthanized for severe genetic problems or vicious behavior. Veterinarians in West Virginia have reported what they believe to be increasing instances of severe hip clysplasia and other genetic problems. Canine training organizations also have reported an increasing number of poor temperaments among both purebred and mixed breed dogs brought to obedience classes. No reliable empirical documentation exists to support these assertions, however Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio and some midwestern states (especially Kansas and Missouri) have enacted more restrictive government regulation of large commercial breeders. For example, Kansas and Missouri have set minimum standards for commercial kennels, mandatory annual inspections, and penalties for noncompliance. Both states have also enacted spay/neuter laws to prevent the purchase of shelter animals for breeding purposes and to prevent accidental breeding of adopted animals. Kansas is now working on legislation to require annual inspections of hobby breeders as well. Commercial breeders have, in turn, looked for states where they can operate without government regulations. Although precise numbers are difficult to come by because no records are kept, some knowledgeable observers have noticed that several large commercial enterprises (puppy mills) have moved into West Virginia recently to take advantage of the state's lack of licensing requirements. For example, Monongalia County Humane Officer Pete Cristoff has stated that he knows of one such facility in the county with well over 2,000 dogs, and is aware of several other breeders who keep large numbers of dogs in unsanitary conditions. Moreover, ten people in Monongalia County have recently obtained kennel licenses, but no information is available about the size of these kennels or the conditions under which the animals are kept. Since kennels are grouped under small businesses, no information exists about the exact number of kennels in a county, and no inspections are required under current law. Inspections are not even allowed unless a complaint of neglect or cruelty is made. Humane investigators can only enter property to investigate abuse or neglect if a complaint has been filed. They must have a search warrant and can only conduct their search during daylight hours. They can enter property to seize a dog which has allegedly attacked someone. Although H.B. 2297, passed in 1991, increased the authority of humane officers and provided a definition of cruelty, many humane officers have continued to be very frustrated with the limits placed on their authority, which is why they want a kennel inspection bill with some standards. Although humane officers may suspect that a puppy mill exists, they have no authority to enter property without a search warrant to determine the number of animals or their condition. Even with a search warrant, they have no authority to examine records in order to determine whether a facility meets the criteria set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for a commercial dealer and, as a result, have no basis for referring any facility to them for inspections and/or licensing. According to USDA representative Steve Smith, "The USDA only licenses breeders who sell animals wholesale or to biomedical research labs. They classify such dealers as either A level, who breed and sell wholesale, and B dealers who buy wholesale and resell animals to retailers." A breeder of 500 litters per year would only be licensed and inspected if the litters were sold to brokers, pet stores, or medical researchers (Smith 1995).

Most counties currently have five to ten large facilities keeping and/or breeding dogs (Hunter 1995). Many of these facilities do not have licenses, and none are inspected. Only boarding kennels located in veterinarians' offices are inspected, due to laws governing the operation of those businesses. Kennel licenses are not based upon the number of dogs owned, but on the individual's desire to be listed as a commercial enterprise in the state. Although the American Kennel Club (AKC) reports that there are 78 breeders in West Virginia registering seven or more litters, there are only five facilities for dogs licensed by the USDA. Three others raise exotic animals, cats, and rabbits (Animal Welfare 1994). Pet stores, hobby breeders, and kennels which purport to only sell retail (directly to consumers) are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act. Hobby breeders with no more than three breeding females are exempt even if they sell their puppies wholesale.

In addition, a growing "underground" or "black market" in dogs exists. To avoid USDA licensing and inspections, and to overcome consumer opposition to puppy mills, many breeders are now using brokers, who sell entire litters from their homes. They claim to be either the breeders of the litter (with the sire and dam living on their country property) or to be selling the puppies for a relative who lives in the country (Cloud 1993). Several suspected brokers have been discovered by kennel clubs in West Virginia (Craig 1994).

Historical Background

Efforts to enact legislation concerning dogs have come about primarily because of changes in the way Americans think about animals. Under English common law and early American law, dogs had no intrinsic value, because they were kept only for pleasure. It was not illegal to steal a dog because they were not property, and they were not considered "useful domestic animals" because they could not be eaten or put to work. In England it was a felony to steal a dog's collar, but only a misdemeanor to steal the dog (Randolph 1994). Even though dogs were used for herding, hunting, and guarding of flocks for centuries, they were not given the value of horses, cows, or even chickens (Randolph 1994).

As urbanization occurred, however, so did the growth of property law and laws dealing with companion animals. There are now more than 50 million dogs in the United States, living in 36 million households, providing a diverse range of services, such as guiding the blind, guarding private property, serving as companions, and in the process, promoting human health. Over one million purebred puppies are registered each year with the AKC (27,000 puppies were registered in West Virginia during 1994), and an unknown number of mixed breeds and unregistered purebreds are born each year (Lemonick 1994). Dogs are now recognized as property with some value everywhere in the United States, although the value is often very low, especially for mixed breeds.

Although there have always been dogs which were valued very highly, either for their tracking, hunting, or work abilities or for their beauty and ability to reproduce, dogs have only become a very big business in recent years. Missouri, Kansas, and Pennsylvania, along with several other rural states, have huge puppy mill industries that produce puppies for pet stores and research laboratories. It is not uncommon in Kansas to have establishments with more than 300 dogs kept several to a small cage with chicken wire for flooring (Duncan 1994). Large enterprises are becoming more common in West Virginia as well. There are 78 dog breeders in West Virginia who register seven or more litters per year with the AKC (Robinson 1995a). Purebred, AKC registered dogs of almost any breed typically sell for $250 or more, regardless of their quality. Champion show or working dogs and their progeny often sell for more than $2,000 each. As their individual value increases, the temptation exists to mass-produce dogs as quickly as possible in conditions which are inhumane and unsanitary. Some dog farmers, for example, raise dogs only for sale to research labs. Since they are not going to a home, many of these dog farmers believe that there is nothing wrong with providing them with only the essentials necessary for survival. In states such as West Virginia, where the use of pound animals for research has been banned, these farms are the only source of research animals (Seiler 1995). This makes it very difficult for the buyers to demand that the sellers raise the animals in more sanitary and humane conditions. For states like Missouri and Kansas, the raising of animals for research has become a major industry (Duncan 1994). With only 87 inspectors to cover 7,500 licensed animal dealers and 500,000 puppies sold in pet stores, the USDA has to depend upon states to assist in regulating these "dog farmers" (McClintock 1992).

The general public has become concerned about the treatment of dogs, both out of concern for the animals' well-being and from a rising belief that many studies and experiments using animals are unnecessary and unnecessarily cruel. Also, many realize that mistreated puppies and their parents lead to sickly or aggressive pets. For example, Baltimore veterinarian Kim Hammond argues that 60 percent of the sick dogs he treats come from puppy mills (Neill 1992). Due to overbreeding and careless breeding, genetic problems are increasing in almost every breed. Although some critics allege that mixed breed dogs are smarter and healthier than purebred dogs (Lemonick 1994), the real issue is that people pay large sums of money for purebred dogs and feel cheated when the animal is unhealthy. Mixed breed dogs, of course, carry their parents'genetic faults, just as do purebreds. The primary differences are that the faults in purebred dogs can be traced through the pedigree, and their owners have a significant financial investment in the dog.

The AKC came under attack in 1994, with a 20120 presentation on national television, which contended that it was registering animals which were not purebred and which were bred in inhumane and unsanitary conditions. Investigations by their reporters found abused animals in overcrowded conditions, being bred in every heat cycle, and poor record-keeping regarding the parentage, Stories in Time magazine (Lemonick 1994), the New York Times (Hinds 1993) and Life (McClintock 1992) argue that the AKC registers sickly animals and, through its dog shows, which involve over a million dogs per year, perpetuates the breeding of animals for their appearance rather than quality. The articles contend that 25 percent of all purebred dogs suffer from genetic defects (Lemonick 1994). Although AKC representatives refused to be interviewed on camera for the 20120 report, due to their concern that they could not receive a guarantee that their response would remain unedited, their response was that the AKC is a registry, not a policing agency. It registers every puppy of purebred parents regardless of health, and has no authority to refuse registrations. The only rules are that records be kept to ensure the pedigree's accuracy, and that the owners not be convicted of cruelty to animals (Smith 1994). An AKC representative also noted that they were not contacted by either the New York Times or Life about their reports, and that Time magazine failed to mention that the AKC has funded research on genetic problems (Robinson 1995b). AKC spokesperson John Mandeville reported that the AKC had been subject to Federal Trade Commission Action for "allegedly treating one class (commercial breeders) differently" (Mandeville 1994). He also stated that the AKC inspects the facility of any person registering more than seven litters per year every two years, and those registering more than ten litters per year every 18 months. Although these inspections only investigate their records, AKC inspectors are required to report suspected neglect or abuse to local authorities immediately. However, there are only 12 AKC investigators for the entire United States, so state and USDA inspectors must shoulder the responsibility for closing down unsanitary facilities. Only if the owner is convicted of animal cruelty or neglect can registering privileges be revoked. However, even when registering privileges are revoked, puppy mills and abusive breeders can merely transfer title to another family member and continue breeding and registering their dogs.

Puppy mills and pet stores are not the only sources of problems concerning overbreeding and poor genetic quality. Approximately 25 percent of pet owners got their puppy from a friend (backyard breeder); 30 percent from a known breeder; 7 percent from a pet store; 16 percent from local animal shelters or pounds-, and 24 percent from other sources such as newspaper ads and strays (Sturla 1994). These figures suggest that owners of only one or two dogs also contribute to the canine problem.

An apparent rising tide of dog bites and the use of some breeds (especially Rottweilers and Pit Bulls) by drug dealers and other criminals to protect their supplies and aid them in criminal activities has caused municipal and county governments in other states to consider banning breeds they consider to be dangerous (Legislative Reporter 1994). Nationally, the most prolific growth in government regulation concerning dogs in recent years has concerned dangerous dogs. These range from statewide differential licensing fees for dangerous dogs ($25 in Pennsylvania, $50 in Ohio and Texas, for example), to laws banning certain breeds in local communities. Rottweilers and Pit Bulls are the most often banned, even though there is no evidence to support allegations that they are responsible for the majority of dog bites. In at least one region, according to AKC representative John Mandeville, Golden Retrievers were found to be responsible for the most dog bites per year (Mandeville 1994) .3 These "dangerous dog" bills allow for the confiscation and destruction of Rottweilers or Pit Bulls if discovered in the community. In some instances they can be kept if neutered and chained. Owners usually have to purchase a special permit to keep them. Several states have acted, at the urging of the AKC and breed clubs, to preempt such legislation by banning breed-specific legislation (Legislative Reporter 1994). Breed fanciers and canine experts, along with the AKC, have worked hard to prevent such legislation because it discriminates against animals due to their breed rather than their behavior. As Vicki Hearne notes, there is not a "pit bull" breed. American Staffordshire Terriers, Bull Terriers, American Bulldogs, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, and a variety of other dogs have been called pit bulls by uninformed people, and good family dogs have been confiscated and destroyed for simply belonging to what is generally known as the pit bull breed (Hearne 1991). The AKC's Policy Statement on Dangerous Dogs supports legislation to require special licenses and even destruction of animals which have proven to be vicious (Protection for Puppy Purchasers 1992). Although West Virginia has not had a serious problem with dogs biting humans, the problem of dog packs killing livestock has been serious enough to provoke lawmakers to introduce a bill allowing anyone to kill a dog chasing, worrying, maiming, or killing any person or animal (H.B. 2291).

The opposite side of this coin has been the increase in reports of animal cruelty. A member of the Greene County Pennsylvania Humane Society Board reports that their animal control officers routinely find the bodies of tortured and mutilated dogs and cats, which they believe to be victims of satanic rituals (Trader 1995). In one week, local newspapers reported the death of a dog shot with several arrows in Pittsburgh, the death of a Dalmatian by torture in Philadelphia, and the death of a Beagle, shot to death by unknown persons in Morgantown (Dominion Post 1995a; 1995b; Julian 1995). Also, on January 30, 1995, WDTV, Channel Five news in Bridgeport, aired a report on kennels in West Virginia where dogs are kept in small, wire-floored cages out of doors during snowstorms, and without adequate food or water. This suggests that neglect and cruelty to animals is a continuing problem across the United States and in West Virginia.

The urbanization of America and consequent overcrowding and overpopulation of pets has led to a series of pet-related problems. Indiscriminant breeding by puppy mills and backyard breeders, who think their children "should experience birth," or who want a little extra money, or who believe a neutered animal will be unhappy and overweight, has led to a situation where it is estimated by the American Humane Association that between 8 to 14 million dogs and cats are euthanized in shelters and pounds every year (Randolph 1994; Current City... 1994). Most of these dogs are mixed breeds, although from 5 to 25 percent are purebred. Overpopulation is not the only problem. Many of these animals have severe temperament or health problems, stemming from poor breeding practices, neglect, or abuse. One veterinarian in West Virginia reported that he had to euthanize six animals from one breeder in one year due to hip dysplasia, a disorderthat could have been prevented by careful breeding practices (Seiler 1995).

With crowded conditions, dogs are creating problems by barking, eliminating in public places or on neighbor's lawns, and roaming the streets threatening other pets and children. In recent years, nuisance laws, dangerous dog laws, leash laws, spay/neuter laws, kennel management regulations, and even lemon laws to protect buyers have become more prevalent.

Current Federal and State Legislation

The Federal Animal Welfare Act requires animal dealers and breeders who sell animals wholesale to research labs or to exhibitors such as zoos and circuses to be licensed by the USDA. It only requires facility inspections every other year, and that animals are confined in such a way as to avoid the spread of communicable diseases. Breeders who sell their animals directly to consumers are not covered by this legislation. Even when the federal government did consider the problems of sickly or aggressive dogs, their concern was with protecting consumers rather than the animals themselves. A Puppy Protection bill considered by Congress in 1991, for example, would have required sellers to refund consumers the purchase price for puppies sold with health or temperament problems. It said nothing about the animals' welfare. The Uniform Commercial Code does cover sales over $500. These sales must be made in writing and sellers may be held liable for misleading or false advertising.

Legislation directed toward animal welfare has occurred almost entirely at the state level. Backed by animal protection groups like the American Humane Association, virtually all states now have licensing requirements, although these requirements vary greatly from state to state (see Table 1). Pennsylvania, for example, offers a lifetime license for a tattooed dog, and provides a lower fee structure for neutered animals .4 This is the direction in which licensing regulations are going in many states. West Virginia has a $3 license fee, which applies to all dogs. No special fees are applied to unaltered or breeding dogs, and no breaks are offered for neutered dogs.

Many states also license kennels. Sometimes this merely means that a kennel license is substituted for in _ dividual licenses, as is currently the case in West Virginia. Michigan, Louisiana, and Wisconsin basically offer people the option of individual licenses or a kennel license, while West Virginia allows people who have a kennel license to obtain five free dog licenses. Some states require a kennel license if a certain number of dogs are sold, trans_ ferred, or bred (Pennsylvania specifies 26). Colorado , Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Massa_ chusetts, Kansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Vermont now inspect kennels for humane conditions. In Pennsylvania, if 26 dogs are transferred (sold or given away) in one calendar year, the breeder must obtain a kennel license, keep records of all breeding and transactions, and have kennels inspected every six months for sanitary and humane conditions. Vermont requires a kennel license and annual inspections for any facility in which two or more dogs are kept for sale or breeding. Rhode Island requires a kennel license for breeding purebred dogs, but does not require inspections. Maine requires a license and inspections for any "pack of dogs" not kept in human living quarters; and Massachusetts requires inspections if three or more dogs are housed in a facility (including the owner's home) (Bullington 1994).

Twenty-one states (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia) and the District of Columbia now have legislation requiring that animals adopted from shelters or pounds be spayed or neutered (Randolph 1994; Current City... 1994). Animal rights groups are currently lobbying for such legislation across the country. For example, California requires adopters to sign a neutering agreement and to leave a deposit, and Illinois requires shelters to either neuter or obtain a signed agreement and a deposit from adopters before releasing the dog. In Illinois, the dog can be seized if the owner does not comply.

The Marshall County Animal Rescue League, along with the Doris Day Animal League and the Humane Society of the United States, organized a forum in Wheeling in September of 1994 to establish a network for county spay/neuter legislation and to promote anti-breeding legislation statewide (Sturla 1994). The Federation of Humane Societies is now focusing on a statewide spay/ neuter law for 1996.

Some states have addressed the overpopulation issue by requiring differential licensing for unaltered animals. Oregon, Massachusetts, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Iowa have higher license fees for unaltered animals, and Ohio allows counties to add charges on the county licenses for unaltered animals (Bullington 1994; Dognet 1995). Several California communities have also been considering breeding restrictions and differential licensing for unaltered animals and the South Carolina legislature voted down a proposal to ban breeding of cats and dogs for a year (Current City... 1994).

Although no state currently limits the number of dogs a person can own, many local communities have done so. Morgantown, for example, allows four animals per household, and hundreds of urban and suburban communities in the United States have similar restrictions (Bullington 1994). Because states define kennels according to the number of dogs housed, owners of several dogs may unknowingly violate local laws by operating a "kennel" without a license.

States have also begun to examine the possibility of extending Lemon Laws, commonly applied to automobile purchases, to dog purchases. A dozen states have lemon laws for dog purchases now, including Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia. Pennsylvania is currently considering a consumer protection bill (Keith 1994) and Maryland has recently tabled a similar bill. These laws typically cover only sales by commercial breeders or dealers and/or pet shops, but some states apply them to the sale of all puppies, even from hobby or backyard breeders (Florida and Minnesota). Although consumer protection legislation is designed to protect consumers rather than the animals themselves, a secondary effect of health guarantees is an improvement in the health of breeding stock. The AKC supports the concept of consumer protection legislation and legislation to protect dogs from inhumane conditions (Proper Care... 1992) but the strongest opposition to both kennel inspection and lemon laws has come from "hobby breeders" and AKC affiliate clubs. As one hobby breeder put it, "If I could only breed dogs free of hip dysplasia, I would go out of business." Another argued that buyers who treat the animals poorly after they are taken home are responsible for most of the dogs' health problems (Anonymous 1995).

Although it is not expected to be adopted, or even seriously considered in the near future, one delegate to the AKC has proposed a change in their registration system which would aid in the identification of health problems. They would continue to provide registration for all purebred puppies, but would require an additional registration to show the dog. The second registration would only be granted upon certification of the dog's good health and temperament. To breed the animal, a third registration with a DNA fingerprint would be required (Mandeville 1994). National breed clubs cannot require health certification for registration under AKC rules, but they can establish a code of ethics for members and can also establish registries for their breed, which list animals with health certifications. Several clubs are now considering such registries, including the Boston Terrier Club of America and the Portuguese Water Dog Club.

One of the most difficult tasks facing legislators interested in drafting legislation affecting dogs is how to define the target population. The definition of a commercial breeder differs widely among the states, and laws differ on whether they only cover commercial breeders or commercial kennels. Missouri, for example, only covers breeders who sell their puppies for resale, while Connecticut considers anyone who owns a collection of dogs to be a commercial kennel. New York requires a license for anyone selling nine or more dogs in one year, while California specifies the sale of 50 or more dogs as the separation between commercial and hobby breeder, and their laws only cover the commercial kennels. Most kennel club members consider themselves to be hobby breeders, because they breed animals primarily for show, and do not raise dogs as their primary source of income. They also argue that they engage in careful breeding practices and provide good care for their animals. Because their reputations would be seriously damaged by the sale of allegedly show-quality animals that developed problems like severe hip dysplasia or juvenile cataracts, it is in their best interest to maintain sound breeding stock. These breeders, however, rail against the backyard breeder (who may have an AKC registered dog), who does not show dogs and breeds to any available dog. Since only 7 percent of AKC registered dogs are sold through pet stores, it seems clear that pet stores are not the primary source of genetically defective dogs. Thus, legislation which covers only these facilities is unlikely to correct the problem of diseased, disabled, and aggressive purebred dogs.

Several cities, in an attempt to either control overbreeding or to raise additional revenues, are now requiring additional breeder's licenses. For example, Los Angeles requires anyone who sells or offers for sale any dog or cat to obtain a $25 annual breeder's license (Randolph 1994). It forbids advertising for sale unless the ad includes the breeder license number. Ohio requires a kennel license for anyone advertising dogs for sale (Dognet 1995).

Conflicting Points of View:

Animal Rights Organizations (PETA, Fund for
Animals, Animal Liberation Front)

The Animal Rights Movement's political agenda includes the abolition of (1) all animal research; (2) all animal agriculture; (3) all hunting, fishing, and trapping; (4) the use of animals in entertainment and sports; (5) the use of herbicides, pesticides, agricultural chemicals, or other forms of predator control; (6) the breeding of companion animals, including purebred dogs and cats; and (7) the genetic manipulation of species (Bartlett 1987; Sturla 1993). They support any effort that would transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the USDA . Director of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, describes her feelings about animals as "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" (Rucker 1994).

Humane Societies

The Humane Society of the United States and the American Humane Association both support legislation to reduce overpopulation through spay/neuter programs. They also support animal welfare legislation which would improve living conditions for dogs and other animals, including livestock. They do not support illegal activities, nor do they support a ban on hunting or fishing. The Humane Society of the United States opposes killing animals for their fur and the use of animals in research.

American Kennel Club

Although there is widespread support among animal lovers for a spay/neuter program in animal shelters, and even for the transfer of control of animal welfare legislation away from the USDA (the AKC strongly supports this position), animal fanciers generally do not want to see laws prohibiting animals from being raised for food, kept as pets, or bought and sold in a business. The AKC does support legislation to improve conditions for dogs in commercial facilities and encourages breeders to breed only sound animals with good temperaments (Protection for Puppy Purchasers 1992). It has lobbied Congress to remove the inspection and regulation of commercial breeders from the USDA. It supports legislation to support voluntary spay/neuter programs for all animals not appropriate for use in a breeding program; to license and inspect kennels at local and state levels; to require "curbing" and leashes; and to protect citizens from dangerous animals through nonbreed-specific dangerous dog legislation (Mandeville 1994; Proper Care... 1992). The AKC's support for spay/neuter programs extends beyond shelter animals, and "encourages breeders to breed only for the improvement of the breed and only when the product of the breeding can be assured proper homes and care" (Spaying and Neutering 1992).

Breeders and State Kennel Clubs

Local groups are much less likely to support any form of government regulation than are national animal welfare groups and even the AKC. Many local breeders do not want to be inspected; they do not want the type of facility they use to house their animals restricted; they oppose any restrictions on breeding their dogs; and they oppose consumer protection legislation unless it clearly specifies that the animal must be known to be ill or defective at the time of sale (Leonhart 1995). The definition of a commercial kennel is the greatest sticking point (Mountaineer Kennel Club 1995). Although three of the seven kennel clubs in West Virginia (Mountaineer, Magic Valley and Greater Clarksburg) have voiced support for a definition which sets three litters sold per year as the distinction between hobby and commercial kennels, many individual members oppose even this definition.

Veterinarian Associations

The West Virginia Veterinarian Association is now considering their position on kennel inspections, spay/neuter programs, and lemon laws. They have assigned the issue to a committee, but have not yet met to develop a letter of recommendations (Seiler 1995).

Policy Recommendations

1 . The state should enact legislation enabling local governments to consider mandating the spay/neuter of all dogs and cats adopted from pounds and shelters. This would enable local governments to respond to the overpopulation problem of dogs and cats in their communities and significantly reduce the need to destroy thousands of dogs annually.

2. The state should require annual inspections of commercial kennels to prevent inhumane treatment of animals and to discourage the growth of puppy mills. Commercial kennels (facilities selling more than three litters per year, selling animals by the litter lot, or selling animals for resale) should be required to obtain an annual veterinarian's health certificate for each dog, to provide each animal reasonable room for exercise, adequate shelter from the weather, a healthy diet, clean water, and a comfortable sleeping area. Licensing fees should be used to fund the inspections, and to fund the building and upgrading of animal shelters in every county. Facilities already licensed by the USDA could be excluded, as they are inspected under Federal laws.

3. The state should preempt local government from banning certain breeds. Instead, they should be given the authority to make owners liable for any damage by a dog running loose, to define behaviors which would constitute a dangerous dog, and to describe appropriate actions for dealing with dangerous dogs.

4. The state should require pet owners to pay for euthanasia at shelters, with the funds used to support either a spay/neuter program or an adoption program.

5. The state should enact consumer protection/truth in advertising legislation which covers all sales of purebred or allegedly purebred animals, even by hobby or backyard breeders. It should require sellers to provide buyers with a veterinarian's certificate of health for the dog and a full refund, plus medical expenses for any disease or defect discovered within 14 days of sale. For severe genetic defects or illnesses, reimbursement for medical expenses up to the purchase price of the animal should be required. To protect sellers, claims must be accompanied by a veterinarian's statement that the problem was present when the animal was purchased. When the cause is in dispute (i.e. heart failure, which can be caused by overexertion or a genetic condition), a neutral veterinarian should determine culpability. Genetic problems which generally show up only after one or two years should not be covered if the parents of the dog were screened for these defects and certified clear. Hip dysplasia, PRA, and juvenile cataracts are examples of genetic defects for which parent animals can be screened.

Consumer protection legislation is likely to face tough opposition if it covers backyard and hobby breeders. However, the law would do little to reduce the problem if these groups are not covered. Hobby or backyard breeders who seek to profit from breeding their animals have a responsibility to learn about potential problems and work to avoid them.

Also, the law should allow the sale of defective animals as long as the contract clearly specifies the presence of the defect and who is responsible for medical expenses. The law should also be clear that problems caused by inappropriate treatment of the animal could result in claims filed against the owner by the breeder, and that the breeder could reclaim a neglected or mistreated animal with no reimbursement due the owner. A law which requires breeders to be honest with potential buyers, and buyers to provide adequate care after purchase gives protection to the buyer, the seller, and the animal.

Endnotes

1. No accurate figures exist on the number of shelters in the United States, the number of animals entering those shelters, or the placement rates, because many shelters are privately run.

2 Dr. Donald Patterson (1994) contends that veterinarians perceive an increase in genetic problems because nongenetic diseases have declined. This makes the proportion of genetic to non-genetic diseases appear to rise. Poor temperament is believed by many experts to stem from socialization and treatment more than genetics (Robinson 1995b).

3 Rottweilers are the second most popular dog in the United States today, second only to Labrador Retrievers. In June 1995, 11,915 Labs, 8,515 Rottweilers, and 5,474 Golden Retrievers were registered. The American Pit Bull is not registered by the AKC so no numbers exist for them (Dog and Litter Registration 1995).

'Pa. Stat. Ann., 3, 459-201. Tattooing is a method of identification which enable shelters and veterinarians to locate the owners of missing dogs. Tattooed animals are registered with National Dog Registry or Tattoo-A-Dog. This method is safer than ID tags on a collar so is gaining 'in popularity. Even more recently, the AKC and many Veterinarian Associations have begun to push for microchips. These fit under the animal's skin and can be located by anyone owning that brand of scanner. Both techniques prevent theft for resale, as research labs cannot purchase tattooed or microchipped animals.

References

Animal Welfare: List of Licensed Dealers, Fiscal Year 1994. 1994. Washington D.C.: USDA.

Brown, Wennona. 1994. President of Mountaineer Kennel Club, Interviewed by the author. August 10.

Bartlett, Kim. 1987. "Politics of Animal Liberation." Animal Agenda. November.

Bullington, Sandra R., Esq. 1994. "Do you Comply with Kennel Licensing Laws?" DOGworld. November, pp. 32-39.

Cawley, Linda. 1994. "Positively Pets." Dog Law.

Cloud, Dennis F. 1993. "Working with breeders on solutions to pet overpopulation." Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association 202:6 (March

15).

Craig, Jere. 1994. Interviewed by the author regarding puppies listed in paper as family dogs. November 12.

"Current City/County Ordinances." 1994. Washington, D.C.: Doris Day Animal League.

"Current State Spay/Neuter Legislation." 1994. Washington, D.C.: Doris Day Animal League.

Dognet. 1995. On-line information regarding state laws on dogs.

"Dog and Litter Registration." 1995. AKC Gazette. August, p. 125.

Dominion Post. 1995a. "Three Men Convicted in Attack on Dog that Outraged Community." Dominion Post. January 12, p. 1.

Dominion Post. 1995b. "Oakmont Residents Find Dog Killed by Arrows." Dominion Post. January 14, p. 3.

Duncan, Deborah. 1994. Kansas State Assistant Attorney General for Animal Welfare. Interviewed by the author.

Gannon, Deirdre E., Esq. 1994. The Complete Guide to Dog Law. New York: Howell Book House.

Greever, Kathryn. 1995. Representative of Monongalia County Humane Society. Interviewed by the author, May 22.

Hearne, Vicki. 1991. Bandit: Dossier of a Dangerous Dog. New York: Harper Collins.

Hinds, Michael G. 1993. "Amish at the Heart of Puppy Mill Debate." New York Times. September 20, p. Al 2.

Hunter, Susan. 1995. Telephone survey of West Virginia County Animal Shelters and Pounds. February/March.

Julian, Norman. 1995. "Man's Best Friend Betrayed." Dominion Post. January 15, p. 7.

Keith, Dotsie. 1994. Letter from Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs. September 15.

Legislative Reporter. 1994. Monthly Newsletter to AKC legislative liaisons. December.

Lemonick, John. 1994. "To the Dogs: The Shame of Overbreeding." Time. December 12, pp. 39-50.

Leonhart, Georgia Lewis. 1995. "Consumer Protection Acts." AKC Gazette. June, pp. 28-29.

Mandeville, John. 1994. Seminar by AKC Vice-President for Planning. Presented by the Western
    Pennsylvania Kennel Club, Greentree Marriott. November 12.

McClintock, Jack. 1992. "Not Fit for a Dog." Life. September. Vol 15, pp. 36-40.

Mountaineer Kennel Club. 1995. Consensus from discussion, Mountaineer Kennel Club meeting, May 17.

Neill, Michael. 1992. "A Life that No Dog Deserves." People Weekly. February 10. Vol 37, pp. 67-68.

Patterson, Donald. F. 1994. "The Problem of Genetic Defects in Pure-Bred Dogs." Presentation at the AKC Molecular

Genetic and Canine Genetic Health Conference. New York. October 7-8.

"Proper Care and Humane Treatment of Dogs." 1992. American Kennel Club Policy Statement. January. New York.

"Protection for Puppy Purchasers." 1992. American Kennel Club Policy Statement. January. New York.

"Puppy Mills and the Sale of Puppies Through Pet Shops." 1992. American Kennel Club Policy Statement. January. New York.

Puskar, Johanna. 1995. Interviewed by the author. February 10.

Randolph, Mary. 1994. Dog Law. 2nd Edition. Berkeley: Nolo Press.

Robinson, Stephanie. 1995a. Legislative Liaison for the American Kennel Club. Interviewed by the author. February 8.

Robinson, Stephanie. 1995b. Legislative Liaison for the American Kennel Club. Interviewed by the author. July 10.

Rucker, Anna Lee. 1994. "Animal Rights You Say?" Good Dog. January/February, p. 50.

Schafer, Sylvia. 1995. Director of Kanawha County Humane Shelter. Interviewed by the author. February 9.

Seiler, George. 1995. Interviewed by the author. March 10.

Singer, Peter. 1979. Practical Ethics. New York: Random House.

Smith, James W. 1994. Letter to AKC members and delegates. August.

Smith, Steve. 1995. U.S.D.A., Animal Welfare Licensing and Inspection. Interviewed by the author.  July 10.

"Spaying and Neutering." 1992. American Kennel Club Policy Statement. January. New York.

Stanevich, Beckie. 1994. AKC Delegate Report to the Mountaineer Kennel Club. September.

Sturla, Kim. 1993. "Role of Breeding Regulation Laws in Solving the Dog and Cat Overpopulation
    Problem." Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association. Vol 202(6) March 15, pp.
    928-932.

Sturla, Kim. 1994. Lecture given to forum September 18. Wheeling WV.

Trader, Linda. 1995. Member, Board of Directors, Greene County Animal Shelter. Interviewed by the author. January 27.

Susan Hunter is an Associate Professor of Political Science at West Virginia University.

Privatization of Municipal Services in West Virginia

 Robert Jay Dilger, Randolph R. Moffett and Linda Struyk

West Virginia's cities, like most other cities across the United States, are experiencing fiscal stress (KIase 1994). Faced with increased demands for public services and strong resistance to further tax increases, city officials across the country, and in West Virginia, have been forced to reexamine the way they provide city services in an attempt to save money and find ways to "do more with less" (Dilger 1995). Echoing the themes raised in David Osborne and Ted Gaebler's now famous book, Reinventing Government (1993), local government officials are shifting away from a focus on what government should do toward a focus on how government can get things done more efficiently and effectively. This new focus has contributed to the increased use of strategic planning initiatives that utilize citizen surveys, public hearings and town meetings to help city officials define their city's longterm objectives and develop a strategy to achieve those objectives (Below, Morrisey and Acomb 1987; Streib 1990; Wheeland 1993). It has also contributed to the increasing use of contracting with the private sector to provide public services (Osborne and Gaebler 1993).

This article examines the privatization movement in the United States, presents a list of the pros and cons associated with the contracting out of public services to the private sector and reports the results of a survey of West Virginia's 15 largest cities concerning their experiences with privatization.

The Privatization Movement

The privatization of city services has long been touted as a means to help local governments make the most efficient and effective use of their limited resources. Privatization's theoretical underpinnings, for example, can be traced back to the writings of Adam Smith in the late 1700s, but most of its major themes were articulated by conservative economist Milton Freidman during the 1960s.

Friedman argued that government is a public monopoly, subject to the same tendencies toward inefficiency, unresponsiveness, and waste that private firms experience in non-competitive market situations (Freidman 1962). He argued that government should allow the private sector to supply most goods and services because the economic law of supply and demand and competition in the marketplace would ensure an adequate supply of most goods and services. Friedman acknowledged, however, that government had an obligation to assure an adequate supply of collective goods and services. Collective goods and services (e.g. national defense, police protection, fire protection) are consumed or enjoyed by many but private firms find it difficult to prevent consumers from enjoying them for free. Economists refer to consumers who refuse to pay for collective goods and services as "free riders." Friedman acknowledged that government had a responsibility to force people to pay for collective goods and services through the imposition of taxes and fees because the private sector is understandably reluctant to risk their capital on projects that are not likely to return a profit. However, he established a distinction between government's obligation to assure an adequate supply of collective goods and services and its role in providing them. He argued that instead of providing collective goods and services itself, government should contract with private firms to supply them or, when appropriate, should provide citizens with vouchers to buy them from the private sector. In this way, the provision of collective (public) goods and services would be moved from a noncompetitive environment marked by inefficiency, ineffectiveness and the lack of innovation to a competitive environment marked by efficiency, effectiveness and innovation. This, in turn, would enable policymakers to reduce the overall size of government, lower taxes and, at the same time, improve governmental services.

Although privatization became a hot topic for debate among academics during the 1960s, many government officials were reluctant to privatize public goods and services. Government revenues were growing and there was little demand from the general public for privatization. Moreover, many public employee unions, concerned that privatization would result in the loss of their members' jobs, were adamantly opposed to any effort to even discuss the privatization of public services (Starr 1987).

Interest in privatization began to grow among city officials during the 1970s. At that time, many cities were experiencing severe fiscal stress. The national inflation rate had increased to double digits, increasing the cost of providing public goods and services significantly. Moreover, many of the nation's larger cities experienced a serious erosion in their tax base as many businesses and middle and upper income taxpayers relocated to the suburbs. At the same time, local government revenues were restrained by a leveling off, and in some instances an absolute decline, in financial assistance provided by the federal government through its intergovernmental grantsin-aid programs. Also, the nation experienced a taxpayers' revolt, symbolized by California's Proposition 13 that significantly reduced property tax rates there, which, in most cases, prevented local governments from increasing their revenue by increasing local taxes. In addition, the national economy weakened. As economic activity slowed, so did local tax revenue. As a result, local government expenses continued to go up but their revenue stagnated or declined, creating fiscal stress. Privatization at the local government level arose as a practical, managerial response to this fiscal stress (Henig 1990).

Interest in privatization among city officials soared following the publication of two in-depth studies of municipal privatization in the early 1970s. In 1971, E.S. Savas reported in Harper's magazine that New York City's sanitation department spent more than twice as much to collect a ton of garbage as private hauling firms in the surrounding suburbs. He also reported that other city services, such as street repair, cost more than twice as much when compared to similar services offered by private firms in the suburbs. He concluded that New York City's inefficiency was not due to bad mayors, managers, workers or unions, but was "a natural consequence of a monopoly system" (Savas 1971). In 1973, Roger Ahlbrandt concluded that Scottsdale, Arizona, and its suburbs were able to provide fire protection to their residents at approximately half the per capita cost of cities of comparable size by contracting out its fire protection services to the Rural/Metro Fire Protection Company (Ahlbrandt 1973).

By the end of the 1970s, numerous studies of cities' experiences with privatization confirmed Savas and Ahlbrandt's initial conclusions that private firms were almost always more cost-efficient than government in providing a wide variety of services, from airport administration to zoo maintenance. Despite protests from municipal employees and their unions, the privatization movement moved into high gear as city after city moved to privatize service after service.

Today, thousands of cities are contracting virtually every type of local government service to the private sector (Fixler and Poole 1987). More than one-third of all city services are either totally or partially contracted out to other governments, private firms, nonprofit organizations or neighborhood associations. The extent of contracting out (the most frequently means employed to privatize public services) is related to population size, with larger cities contracting out significantly more services than smaller cities (Stein 1990). According to one estimate, municipal governments contracted out a total of $22 billion in 1972, $65 billion in 1982, and passed the $100 billion mark in 1987. Trash collection and storage is among the most frequently contracted-out city services, as are vehicle towing and storage, maintenance of buildings and grounds, and various administrative services such as data processing and debt collection (Nelson 1989; Stein 1990).

The Argument for Privatization

Proponents of the privatization movement point to numerous success stories, such as Phoenix's estimated $3 million annual cost savings from contracting out bill processing, water-meter repair and landfill operations; Chicago's $4.3 million annual savings from contracting out its janitorial services in municipal buildings; and Kansas City's 55 percent cost savings when it privatized its fire fighting and rescue services, as proof that privatization works (Fitzgerald 1988; Kemp 1991; Mahtesian 1994). They argue that there are at least nine major advantages to contracting out public services to the private sector. Specifically, privatization: saves taxpayer money because competition among private firms for the government's contract encourages them to provide the service in the most cost-efficient manner possible; improves service performance because competition among private firms for the government's contract encourages them to provide the service in the most effective manner possible; allows government officials to provide services that require specialized skills, such as mental health care and other social services, that are used infrequently, therefore reducing costs; limits the growth of government by reducing the number of government employees; provides government an opportunity to avoid large, initial, up-front costs for facilities, equipment, and personnel training; permits greater flexibility to increase or decrease program operations because it avoids the necessity to negotiate with public employees and their unions when making these decisions; provides government policyrnakers an opportunity to make comparisons between the performance of government employees and the private sector; produces better management by allowing city managers to focus their attention on planning and monitoring rather than day-to-day operations; and provides government managers, through their performance monitoring activities, with the information necessary to improve government performance (Fisk, Kiesling and Muller 1978).

The Argument Against Privatization

Opponents point to several horror stories such as the mismanagement of Baltimore's Convention Center, where private contractors incurred an $800,000 deficit, as proof that privatization is being over-sold as a cure-all for city fiscal problems. They argue that contracting out public services to the private sector has at least six major disadvantages when compared to keeping these services in the public sector. Specifically, contracting out: may result in poorer service for citizens because the objective of private firms is to maximize profits, which encourages them to "skimp" on services whenever possible (or when they are not being monitored closely); increases the probability of corruption as private firms are tempted to offer bribes and other favors to obtain government contracts; displaces public employees, which can incite serious labor-management strife that, in turn, can result in strikes, walk-outs, legal challenges and other labor unrest that could end up costing government far more than the cost savings offered by privatization; raises the problem of what happens if a contractor goes bankrupt or is otherwise unable to complete the terms of the contract; reduces the flexibility to respond to rapid changes in circumstances because contracts have to be written in very specific terms and renegotiation of contracts can be time-consuming and costly; and requires very close monitoring to ensure that the private sector is fulfilling the terms of the contract. Oversight is a much smaller problem and is more easily accomplished when the government provides the service itself with its own employees (Fisk, Kiesling and Muller 1978).

Academic research has indicated that the advantages and disadvantages presented by the proponents and opponents of privatization vary somewhat depending on the type of service being considered for privatization. Contracting out, for example, has proven to be particularly successful at saving money and maintaining or improving service performance when it involves services that the private sector has had a long tradition of performing on its own, such as trash collection, servicing vehicles, reading utility meters and cleaning offices (Katz 1991). It has been somewhat less successful in other areas, such as social services, where it is more difficult for government policyrnakers to specify service requirements and to quantify service performance (Savas 1987). Moreover, academics have pointed out that privatization in larger cities has had a disproportionate impact on minority groups, particularly blacks, because they hold a disproportionately higher number of jobs in service and maintenance areas that have proven to be the most amenable to privatization (Mahtesian 1994).

Privatization in West Virginia's Cities

The privatization movement has had its greatest impact on cities with populations exceeding 100,000 primarily because they have, in general, experienced more severe fiscal stress than less populous cities and they are more likely than smaller cities to have several private firms that are both interested in making a responsible bid for the city's services and are capable of handling those responsibilities. The smaller the city's population, especially if it is not within relatively easy driving distance of a larger city, the more difficult it is to find enough private firms to generate the competitive bidding process necessary to ensure that the private sector has the market incentive to provide the service in a cost-efficient and effective manner.

The privatization movement has not been as strong in West Virginia as in many other states primarily because West Virginia does not have any large, metropolitan cities. There are only fifteen cities in the state with populations exceeding 10,000, and Charleston, the state's most populous city, has fewer than 60,000 residents. Nevertheless, West Virginia's city officials, like their counterparts across the nation, are increasingly looking at the privatization of municipal services as a means to save money and to maintain or improve the quality of city services.

A survey of the mayors/city managers of West Virginia's fifteen largest cities (population exceeding 10,000) was administered in April and May 1995 to determine the extent of privatization in West Virginia's cities and the level of satisfaction with their privatization experiences. All fifteen cities completed the survey.

Number of Services Privatized

The number of privatized services varies widely among West Virginia's cities. When presented with a list of over forty services divided into five categories (public works/ transportation; public safety; health and human services; parks, recreation and culture; and support functions) two of the fifteen cities reported that they had privatized only one service (solid waste collection/disposal). Most of the cities (ten) had privatized from three to nine services. Only three cities had privatized ten or more services (Beckley reported 10, Vienna 11 and Huntington 17). The average for the fifteen cities was six privatized services.

The extent of privatization also varied across service types. Only one of the fifteen cities (Huntington) reported that they had privatized services in all five categories presented on the survey. Four cities reported that they had privatized services in four of the categories, seven had privatized services in three categories, one had privatized services in two categories and two had privatized services in only one category (public works/transportation).

The most-privatized service in West Virginia's cities is vehicle towing/service (twelve cities), followed by printing services (nine), solid waste collection/disposal (seven cities) and ambulance services (seven cities).

Satisfaction with Privatization

West Virginia's cities are relatively satisfied with their privatization experiences. As Table 1 shows, six cities indicated that they were very satisfied with their privatization experiences, five indicated that they were satisfied, four indicated that they were neutral and none indicated that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied.

The extent of West Virginia cities' satisfaction with privatization varied somewhat among the five service categories. As Table 2 indicates, they were most satisfied with their privatization experiences in the public works/ transportation and health and human services categories, satisfied with their experiences in the public safety and parks, recreation and culture categories, and somewhat less satisfied with their experiences in the support category.

Their satisfaction with the privatization of specific types of services also varied. As Table 3 indicates, they were very satisfied with the privatization of solid waste collection/disposal, printing, legal and ambulance services. They were satisfied with the privatization of emergency medical services, drug/alcohol treatment and mental health services. They were somewhat less satisfied with vehicle towing and insect/rodent control services.

Why Privatize?

West Virginia's mayors and city managers were asked to indicate which one of seven listed reasons (reduce costs, improve service, reduce the number of public employees, limit legal liability, raise revenue, reduce union influence and existing employee skills were inadequate) was the single, most important factor in their decision to privatize services in each of the five service categories. As Table 4 indicates, their responses suggest that (1) reducing costs and improving service were the two most important factors for privatizing services in West Virginia, (2) reducing the number of public employees, raising revenue and reducing union influence were not cited by any of the respondents as the primary reason for privatizing services in West Virginia and (3) the reasons for privatizing services vary by service category, with reducing costs being the single most important factor in the public works/ transportation category and the lack of existing public employee skills being the most important factor in the public safety category. The remaining categories show no clearly identifiable response patterns.

Privatization's Impact on Service Costs and Service Delivery in West Virginia

West Virginia's mayors and city managers indicated that privatization does, in most instances, reduce service costs and improve service delivery. For example, all but one of the cities that privatized solid waste collection/ disposal services reported that privatizing that service resulted in lower service costs. The reported savings ranged from 10 to 38 percent, with an average savings of 18 percent. The city reporting no savings from the privatization of its solid waste collection/disposal services indicated that their costs had stayed about the same as before privatization took place. Also, all of the cities that privatized their solid waste collection/disposal services reported that privatization improved service delivery. They indicated that the improvement ranged from 20 percent to 50 percent, with an average improvement of 35 percent. The same pattern of reduced costs (from 10 to 35 percent) and improvement in service delivery (ranging from 5 percent for utility billing in one city to 100 percent for vehicle towing in two other cities) emerged in the other service categories as well, but the number of responses in these other categories was relatively small (typically only three or four cities for each category) making generalizations difficult to justify.

Compensation Under Privatization

Some of privatization's opponents concede that privatization may decrease city expenses in the short term, but they argue that privatization actually increases city expenses in the long term. They point out that many private firms are able to provide services for less money than public employees because they rely heavily on parttime employees who do not receive health care benefits and rarely qualify for overtime pay. Although these firms claim that privatization will save the city money, when these employees require medical care the city and state government end up paying for their health care expenses , either through the state's share of Medicaid expenses or through the city or county's share of expenses in operating the local public hospital. They argue that these "hidden" health care expenses, which are rarely, it ever, considered by public officials when they make the decision to privatize a public service, make privatization a bad deal for many cities.

In an attempt to determine if privatization results in the displacement of full-time public employees with health care and other benefits by part-time employees without benefits, city officials in West Virginia were asked to compare the total compensation package (salary plus benefits) received by privatized employees to those received by their city's employees. The results suggest that privatization does not result in a significant change in the total compensation package received by employees. None of the cities reported that their employee's total compensation package was significantly better than those received by privatized employees. Six cities reported that their employees'total compensation package was somewhat better than that received by privatized employees. None of the cities reported that the compensation packages were about the same. Three cities reported that the total compensation package received by privatized employees was somewhat better than their employee's compensation package. None of the cities reported that the total compensation package received by privatized employees was significantly better than the total compensation package received by their employees. Six cities did not answer the question.

Conclusions

West Virginia's city officials are relatively pleased with their privatization experiences. Privatization has, in most instances, saved West Virginia's cities money without sacrificing the quality of city services. Moreover, although privatization does create anxiety among public employees, in most instances West Virginia's cities have been able to make the transition from public to private easier for their employees by negotiating contracts with the private sector to guarantee their displaced employees first preference in hiring and/or by making a good faith effort to find employment for their displaced employees in other city departments.

Although privatization seems to be working in West Virginia, it should be noted that West Virginia's cities' experiences with privatization are still fairly limited and focused in those service areas, like solid waste collection/disposal, that are most amenable to privatization. As West Virginia's cities' privatization efforts broaden in the future, their relatively high rates of satisfaction with privatization may become somewhat less positive. Also, not every privatization effort in West Virginia has been a success. When asked to indicate what lessons they had learned from their privatization experiences, one city official reported that they had privatized the operation of their city's pools but were dissatisfied with the results and took back that responsibility to gain greater control over the pools' operation and to reduce costs. Moreover, the survey of mayors/city managers presented here reflect management's view of privatization. A survey of city employees may have resulted in a somewhat less positive evaluation of privatization in West Virginia's cities. Nevertheless, the privatization of city services in West Virginia is now an accepted means of delivering city services and is likely to be used much more often in the future.

References

Ahlbrandt, Roger S. Jr. 1973. Municipal Fire Protection Services: Comparison of Alternative Organizational Forms. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Below, Patrick J., George L. Morrisey and Betty L. Acomb. 1987. The Executive Guide to Strategic Planning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Dilger, Robert Jay. 1995. "Citizen Evaluations of Municipal Services in West Virginia." The West Virginia Public Affairs Reporter 12:1 (Winter): 12-16.

Fisk, Donald, Herbert Kiesling and Thomas Muller. 1978. Private Provision of Public Services: An Overview.  Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Fitzgerald, Randall. 1988. When Government Goes Private:  Successful Alternatives to Public Services. New York: Universe Books.

Fixier, Philip E. Jr., and Robert W. Poole, Jr. 1987. "Status of State and Local Privatization." in Prospects for Privatization. Ed. Steve H. Hanke. Proceedings of

the Academy of Political Science 36:3 (Spring): 164-178.

Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism, Freedom and Democracy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Henig, Jeffrey, R. 1990. "Privatization in the United States." Political Science Quarterly 104:4: 649-670.

Katz, Jeffrey L. 1991. "Privatizing without Tears." Governing (June): 38-42.

Kemp, Roger L. Editor. 1991. Privatization: The Provision of  Public Services by the Private Sector.  Jefferson, N.C.:  McFarland Company, Inc.

Klase, Kenneth A. 1994. "Meeting Fiscal Challenges in the 1990s: Local Government Fiscal Trends in West Virginia." The West Virginia Public Affairs Reporter

11:2 (Spring): 2-7.

Mahtesian, Charles. 1994 "Taking Chicago Private." Governing (April): 26-31.

Nelson, Robert H. 1989. "The Privatization of Local Government: From Zoning to RCAs." in Residential Community Associations: Private Governments in the

Intergovernmental System? Washington, D.C.: U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.

Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler, 1993. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Savas, E.S. 1971. "Municipal Monopoly." Harper's (December): 55-60.

Savas. E.S. 1987. Privatization: The Key to Better Government. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House Publishers, Inc.

Starr, Paul. 1987. "The Limits of Privatization." in Prospects for Privatization. Ed. Steve H. Hanke. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 36:3

(Spring): 124-137.

Stein, Robert M. 1990. Urban Alternatives: Public and Private Markets in the Provision of Local Services. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Streib, Gregory. 1990. "Dusting Off a Forgotten Management Too]: The Citizen Survey." Public Management 72:7 (August): 17-19.

Wheeland, Craig M. 1993. "Citywide Strategic Planning: An Evaluation of Rock Hill's Empowering the Vision." Public Administration Review 53:1 (Jan/Feb):

65-72.

Robert Jay Dilger is a Professor of Political Science and Director of the Institute for Public Affairs at West Virginia University. Randolph R. Moffett and Linda Struyk are Ph.D. candidates in the Department of Political Science at West Virginia University.