“The 200,000 law,” refers to a little known law in Oklahoma that limits the ability of counties with populations under 200,000 to address animal welfare and animal control issues. 74 out of Oklahoma’s 77 counties have populations totaling under this number. Towns and cities within all 77 counties may have animal control facilities; however the surrounding county (unincorporated areas) may not. This law affects a large number of households across the state. For example, Creek County neighbors Tulsa on the west. Four towns in Creek County have public animal shelters (Bristow, Drumright, Oilton and Sapulpa) yet the populations of those towns represent only 40% of those living in Creek County; those who live, “in the county,” have no access to a shelter. Creek County has a population of 68,794. Almost 50% of Oklahomans do not have access to an open access shelter.
This arbitrary restriction on codifying animal welfare and control creates a tragedy that many Tulsa Pets Magazine readers, and certainly most rescue organizations, are familiar with—abandonment, shooting and neglect often become the norm. Unwanted dogs and cats are, literally, left out in the cold.
Abandoned dog in Creek County
And while shelters are a band-aid, not a solution, prohibiting 74 counties from “erecting needful pens…,” (as per the statute), is also not a solution; it creates a statewide mess. Dogs and cats starve, some become cruelty victims; most die unaccounted for. A lot of Oklahomans want that to change.
The difficulty in addressing animal welfare/control issues is exacerbated by the spirit of a law which prohibits taking the first step to deal with these issues. Adding to the conundrum are the facts that basic record keeping in animal sheltering is not mandatory, the state sterilization law actually lacks a penalty if it is violated and our humane euthanasia law exempts cities under 10,000 from mandatory compliance; this exempts over 80% of our municipalities from compliance with this statute. This means, in effect, that a county may not create infrastructure to assist a homeless dog, while a town within that county may impound and then shoot the dog, and it not even compelled to account for the action that was taken. This is unacceptable.
During the last legislative session the Oklahoma State Senate voted to eliminate the population restriction, but a one day lobbying blitz by the Association of County Commissioners of Oklahoma turned the success around, kicking homeless dogs and cats to the curb. If you feel that our legislators should remove the population restriction in the upcoming session, let them know. Let your county commissioner know how you feel. Currently all counties are members of ACCO.
If you have rescued an abandoned dog or cat (or other animal), if you have been the victim of a pack of dogs resulting from abandonment, or are familiar with any cruelty case involving an abandoned stray, please let your state senator and county commissioner know of your experience. Include pictures of the animal or damage. You can find your state representatives here: www.lsb.state.ok.us
Homeless pets need the safety net of a shelter and accountability; they do not deserve to be punished twice. Please feel free to share your thoughts or experiences with this blog.
| Title 4. Animals |
Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 4. Animals
Chapter 3 – Dogs
Section 43 – Counties With Population over 200,000
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __
The board of county commissioners of any county with a population of two hundred thousand (200,000) or more according to the last Federal Decennial Census may regulate or prohibit the running at large of dogs within said county, and cause such dogs as may be running at large to be impounded and disposed of as otherwise provided for by law or sold to discharge the costs and penalties provided for the violation of such prohibition and the expense of impounding and keeping the same for such sale; and may also provide for the erection of all needful pens, pounds and buildings for the use of said county at any place within said county. It shall be the duty of the board of county commissioners of any county undertaking the regulation and taxation of dogs in said county under this act to establish and enforce rules governing the same, and they shall enter into a definite cooperative agreement with the sheriff of said county prescribing said rules and regulations and the manner and terms of enforcement thereof, and for the financing and compensation therefor. The board of county commissioners may also regulate and provide for taxing the owners and harborers of dogs, and authorize the humane killing or disposal of dogs, found at large, contrary to any ordinance regulating the same. Any person, firm or corporation who violates any rule or regulation made by such board of county commissioners under the authority of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided by the laws of this state in any court of competent jurisdiction, provided that in the case of continuing offenses, each day on which the offense occurs shall constitute a separate offense.
Historical Data
Laws 1959, p. 25, § 1.
Citationizer© Summary of Documents Citing This Document
| Cite | Name | Level | |
| Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Cases | |||
| Cite | Name | Level | |
| 1993 OK CIV APP 38, 849 P.2d 1106, 64 OBJ 1112, | Hass v. Money | Cited | |
Citationizer: Table of Authority
Companion Animal
Sheltering In Oklahoma
Population of Oklahoma: 3,523,553
Total population served by animal control: 2,372,182
- Ruth Steinberger
Population served with Tulsa and Oklahoma counties removed: 1,122,219 (2,372,182- 1,249,963)
Population served by animal control in the Oklahoma panhandle: 14,467
LeFlore, McCurtain, Marshall, Pontotoc, Pushmataha counties): 241,257
Population served by animal control in southeastern Oklahoma: 86,892
Osage, Ottawa, Wagoner, Washington, counties): 358,301
Population served by animal control in northeastern Oklahoma: 153,239
Harmon, Jackson, Jefferson, Kiowa, Love, Murray, Stephens, Tillman, Washita counties): 426,339
Population served by animal control in southwestern Oklahoma: 259,549
Harper, Kingfisher, Logan, Major, Roger Mills, Woods, Woodward counties): 300,347
Population served by animal control in northeastern Oklahoma: 156,757
and each town within that county that has a mechanism for
handling unwanted dogs, or “animal control”; the population of each
town with “animal control” is included beside the name of the town.
When added together, the populations of the towns reveal the
number of residents of the entire county that can humanely release
an unwanted animal. When divided by the overall population, that
figure reveals the percentage of the population that has such
access and the percentage that does not.
This information was gathered by contacting county clerks and
sheriff’s offices, and following those calls with calls to individual
municipalities. Despite our best efforts, we estimate that some
facilities were missed.
In rural places the information can be rather fluid. Animal control
services may be interrupted when an animal control officer vacates
their job. A few officers without shelters simply take animals home.
Contractual live animal removal services range from apparently
legitimate private services, to a, “man who comes and gets dogs.”
Between one third and one half of the municipal facilities collect
strays only, refusing owner surrenders. Outside of large shelters,
very few accept cats. Limited accurate euthanasia records may be
available (based on method, or combination of methods, and
therefore payment), but accurate records of animals entering and
leaving the shelters alive are actually rare outside of shelters in
larger municipalities.
We estimate less than one fifth of rural shelters comply with the
state law requiring sterilization of shelter animals. A lack of
shelters causes some officers to rely on unacceptable “rescue”
channels, an issue tied to several large-scale removals in the last
two years, including notorious ones in Stigler and Vici.
Animal disposal in places without shelters (which includes over half
of rural Oklahoma) includes abandonment, shooting and drowning.
A limited number of unwanted, but “adoptable,” animals go into
private shelters. For older, large, sick, or ugly dogs, and cats, there
is virtually no place of refuge.
Most importantly, the focus of most rural services is to eliminate
nuisance animals. Animal welfare is occasionally significant to
individual officers; this seems to be strengthened if the officer has
the assistance and support of local humane volunteers.
Thank you very much for your interest in this information.
Stilwell, 3,276
Westville, 1,596
Served, 22%
Atoka City 2,882
Served, 27%
Beaver, 1,570
Forgan, 532
Served, 38%
Elk City, 10,510
Eric, 1,023
Sayre, 4,114
Served, 74%
Watonga, 4,658
Served, 41%
Durant, 13,648
Calera, 1,739
Served, 41%
Anadarko, 6,645
Apache, 1,616
Hinton, 2,175
Served, 34%
El Reno, 16,212
Union City, 1,375
Mustang, 13,156
Yukon, 21,043
Piedmont, 3,650
Okarche, 1,110
Calumet, 535
Geary, 1,258
Served, 61%
Tahlequah, 14,458
Served, 32%
Hugo, 6,638
Served, 43%
Boise City, 1,483
Keyes, 410
Served, 65%
Norman, 95,694
Moore, 41,138
Lexington, 2,086
Noble, 5,260
Served, 64%
Coalgate, 2,006
Served, 33%
Lawton, 92,757
Served, 84%
Walters, 2,657
Served, 40%
Vinita, 6,472
Ketchum, 286
Blue Jacket, 274
Served, 47%
Bristow, 4,325
Sapulpa, 19,166
Drumright, 2,905
Oilton, 1,099
Served, 39%
Arapaho, 748
Clinton, 8,833
Weatherford, 9,859
Served, 74%
Grove, 5,131
Served, 13%
Shattuck, 1,274
Arnett, 520
Gage, 429
Fargo, 326
Served, 64%
Enid, 46,436
Served, 81%
Paul’s Valley, 6,256
Served, 23%
Chickasha, 15,850
Served, 32%
Granite, 1,844
Mangum, 2,924
Served, 83%
Hollis, 2,264
Served, 75%
Stigler, 2,731
Served, 22%
Holdenville, 4,732
Served, 33%
Altus, 21,447
Served, 78%
Waurika, 1,988
Served, 30%
Tishomingo, 3,182
Served, 30.2%
Ponca City, 25,919
Fairfax, 1,666
Served, 57%
Kingfisher, 4,380
Served, 31%
Hobart, 3,997
Mountain View, 880
Served, 49%
Wilburton, 2,972
Served, 28%
Panama, 1,362
Poteau, 7,939
Spiro, 2,227
Talihina, 1,211
Served, 59%
Stroud, 2,758
Chandler, 2,842
Served, 17%
Guthrie, 9,925
Served, 27%
Marietta, 2,445
Served, 27%
Fairview, 2,733
Served, 37%
Madill, 3,410
Served, 16%
Adair, 704
Pryor, 9,000 (+/-)
Salina, 1,422
Served, 28%
Purcell, 5,571
New Castle, 5,434
Served, 38%
Idabel, 6,952
Broken Bow, 4,230
Served, 33%
Checotah, 3,481
Eufaula, 2,639
Served, 31%
Davis, 2,610
Sulphur, 4,794
Wynnewood, 2,367
Served, 77%
Ft. Gibson, 4,054
Muskogee, 38,310
Porum, 725
Porter, 574
Served, 55%
Perry, 5,230
Served, 46%
Nowata, 3,971
Delaware, 456
Lanapi, ?
Served, 50%
Okemah, 3,038
Served, 26%
Okmulgee, 13,022
Henryetta, 6,096
Served, 48%
Hominy, 2,584
Pawhuska, 3,629
Skiatook, 5,396
Served, 26%
Miami, 13,704
Served, 42%
Pawnee, 2,230
Served, 13%
Cushing, 8,371
Perkins, 2,272
Stillwater, 39,065
Served, 71%
Ada, 15,691
Served, 45%
Shawnee, 28,692
McLoud, 3,548
Tecumseh, 6,098
Served, 57%
Antlers, 2,662
Clayton, 678
Served, 28%
Cheyenne, 778
Served, 24%
Claremore, 15,873
Served, 20%
Seminole, 6,899
Wewoka, 3,562
Served, 42%
Sallisaw, 7,989
Vian, 1,362
Muldrow, 3,104
Served, 30.7%
Duncan, 22,505
Served, 53%
Guymon, 10,472
Served, 52%
Frederick, 4,637
Grandfield, 1,110
Tipton, 916
Served, 76%
Wagoner, 7,669
Coweta, 7,139
Porter, 574
Served, undetermined
Burns Flat, 1,782
Cordell, 2,867
Canute, 524
Sentinel, 859
Served, 51%
Alva, 5,288
Served, 62%
Woodward, 11,853
Served, 63%
74,859, has a shelter and is
located partially in Tulsa
County and partially in
