Bills would place a $100 fee per year on pet food manufacturers that register each dog and cat food product sold in New Mexico
The New Mexico House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee this week unanimously approved House Bill 64, which would establish a spay/neuter funding mechanism identified by a 2011 independent Senate-requested study as the best feasible and most equitable source of funding for low-cost sterilization services in the state.
The bill was introduced by State Rep. Carl Trujillo from Santa Fe, and was cosponsored by State Rep. Debbie Rodella from Española and State Rep. Joanne Ferrary from Las Cruces, all Democrats. An identical version introduced in the Senate by Sen. Gay Kernan, a Republican from Hobbs, Senate Bill 51, passed the Senate Public Affairs Committee last week by a 6-1 vote.
Senate Bill 51 and House Bill 64 would place a fee of $100 per year on pet food manufacturers that register each product of dog and cat food and treats sold in New Mexico, added to the current $2 registration fee. The Fiscal Impact Report indicates that the fee will bring in more than $1 million annually to fund low-cost spay/neuter and reports that the impact on pet owners likely will be negligible, given the minimal nature of the annual fee to be imposed on pet food manufacturers, according to information from New Mexico Animal Protection Voters.
A 2017 version of Senate Bill 51 and House Bill 64 passed the House by a bipartisan 50-17 vote before stalling in the Senate.
Based on figures from the New Mexico Department of Agriculture and the American Veterinary Medical Association, Animal Protection Voters estimates that if pet food manufacturers pass the additional fee to consumers by proportionally raising dog and cat food prices, it will cost pet-owning New Mexicans an average of only $1.38 per year for each dog or cat.
Every year, approximately 135,000 homeless dogs and cats enter New Mexico’s animal shelters, and roughly 65,000 of those animals are euthanized annually. Pet overpopulation costs taxpayer-funded local governments and non-profit organizations more than $38 million per year. A robust statewide spay/neuter program is needed to stop the widespread waste of life and resources, the animal protection group stated.
“In my area, we are actually doing much better,” Kernan said. “Through the efforts of the local Humane Society and the city, we have a strong spay/neuter program. I want other parts of the state to reflect the commitment our area has made in eliminating euthanasia in most cases. Funding is the answer, and I understand that many parts of the state are unable to fund programs such as the program in my community. Therefore, passing this legislation will provide the dollars necessary to implement a spay/neuter program statewide.”
“House Bill 64 is a common sense solution to ask the pet food manufacturers to pay a minuscule amount of the approximately $190 million they collect in sales every year in New Mexico to assist with our efforts to increase spaying and neutering programs in order to stop the killing of so many innocent dogs and cats in our state,” Trujillo said. “Is this really too much to ask?”
“A lot of my constituents raise money from bake sales and donation jars to pay for spay/neuter services in our rural communitie, but it’s still not enough to tackle the magnitude of New Mexico’s pet overpopulation,” Rodella said. “This legislation is a desperately needed solution that will help New Mexicans who cannot access or afford spay/neuter services for their animals, which in turn will make the entire state safer, healthier, and more humane.”
“Until spay/neuter services are affordable and accessible statewide, tens of thousands of shelter pets will continue to die every year, and New Mexicans are already footing the bill through our tax dollars and charitable donations,” Jessica Johnson, chief legislative officer for Animal Protection Voters, said. “We are thankful for lawmakers’ support for the solution proposed by Senate Bill 51 and House Bill 64, which is proven to be effective in other states with no apparent impact on consumers or the pet food industry.”
