---
title: "We’re not coming for your dogs and cats, says City over pet licensing uproar"
description: "Cape Town’s proposed animal bylaw promises stronger welfare protections, but raises difficult questions about permits, affordability, enforcement and the rights of pet owners and rescuers."
type: "NewsArticle"
publisher: "Daily Maverick"
site: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za"
section: "Enforcement Powers"
author: "Don Pinnock"
author_url: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/author/donpinnock/"
canonical_url: "https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-09-09-were-not-coming-for-your-dogs-and-cats-says-city-over-pet-licensing-uproar/"
published: "2026-09-09T20:56:14"
updated: "2026-09-09T22:01:04"
lang: "en-ZA"
word_count: 1370
---

# We’re not coming for your dogs and cats, says City over pet licensing uproar

> Cape Town’s proposed animal bylaw promises stronger welfare protections, but raises difficult questions about permits, affordability, enforcement and the rights of pet owners and rescuers.

By Don Pinnock · Published 9 September 2026, 22:56 SAST · Updated 10 September 2026, 00:01 SAST

## Key points
- “Don’t panic” – Cape Town’s safety MMC JP Smith insists the City isn’t out to licence every dog and cat, but the draft bylaw explicitly requires a permit for every animal over six months old; Smith admits the wording is poor and wants “unsterilised” inserted to limit scope.
- Big practical fears remain: compulsory sterilisation unless permitted, possible permit fees and no clear indigent exemptions.
- Rules on numbers (by property size), neighbour sign‑offs, stray definitions and a vague “sell or dispose of” clause risk punishing foster carers, free‑roaming cats and responsible owners while enforcement capacity in poorer areas looks thin.
- Critics wary of warrantless entry powers, yet the draft does include welfare wins (ban on glue traps and circuses, cart‑horse protections, tighter breeder rules).
- Public comment open until 29 Sept — email animal.bylaw@capetown.gov.za or comment online.

## Content

“Don’t panic. The City has no intention of gathering any kind of dog licence or permit. We have not before, nor do we now. And nobody is going to storm into your property.”

That was Alderman JP Smith’s response to a blizzard of comments and accusations about Cape Town’s draft Animal Keeping Bylaw, which is open for public comment until 29 September.

In a Facebook video surrounded by his dogs, before scooping up a tabby cat, Smith – who is Cape Town’s Mayoral Committee Member for Safety and Security – said clauses had been taken out of context.

“There’s absolutely no reason for the hysterics,” he said in a subsequent interview. “We do not intend to charge any licence fee. The licensing is only about breeders and keeping additional pets.”

The draft, however, says plainly that anyone keeping a dog or cat older than six months “must apply to the City for a permit” for *every* animal. In the case of dogs, the application must be accompanied by a prescribed fee and a rabies certificate.

However, Smith has said this was not correct and conceded it had been poorly worded.

He says the “wider structure” shows this is intended to apply only to unsterilised breeding animals and to people keeping more than the prescribed number. But he concedes that the City helped create the confusion.

“We allowed the provisions to be so poorly written that \[someone\] could make that claim plausibly,” he said. He has asked the relevant portfolio committee to insert the word “unsterilised” before the bylaw is adopted.

[**Find out**](https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-09-09-what-cape-towns-proposed-animal-keeping-bylaw-means-for-your-pets/?dm_source=blocks-category&dm_medium=card-link&dm_campaign=inform&dm_position=1&_gl=1*3r6x3o*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTQwNjI4Njk1NS4xNzg4OTgzODIx*_ga_Y7XD5FHQVG*czE3ODg5ODM4MjAkbzEkZzEkdDE3ODg5ODM4MjQkajU2JGwwJGg1OTY5NTMwNDgkZE9Hd1c1RFFsNWluSzdXUFZmRFRRUkVRODc1R3BkZ01NLXc.)**what**[Cape Town’s proposed animal-keeping bylaw means for your pets here](https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-09-09-what-cape-towns-proposed-animal-keeping-bylaw-means-for-your-pets/?dm_source=blocks-category&dm_medium=card-link&dm_campaign=inform&dm_position=1)

### **Other concerns**

That correction would calm one fear, but not the other concerns raised by rescuers and pet owners. Cape Town would still face the immense job of processing applications and enforcing sterilisation and identification rules across a deeply unequal city. How many applications are likely, and can the City cope?

Jaco Pieterse, an SPCA legal representative and former chief inspector, views the draft favourably. He says it largely reorganises controls already present in the 2021 bylaw and fills gaps around public health, breeding, strays and working animals.

Pieterse says registration is currently free, though better records could show how many animals live in Cape Town and where sterilisation programmes and welfare budgets should be directed.

[Media: "Chart: Cape Town's draft bylaw caps pets by property type — from 2 dogs in a flat to 6 on a farm"](https://charts.dailymaverick.co.za/chart/484fb3f75fa31891dea91849)

The draft as it stands allows permit fees and does not guarantee exemptions for people who cannot pay. However, Smith says there’s no ordinary pet licence tariff and that collecting such fees would probably cost more than it raises. So the final bylaw needs to state and be much clearer on which permits attract fees, and whether indigent owners will be exempt.

According to the draft, all dogs and cats older than six months must be sterilised unless their owners obtain permission to keep them unsterilised. An official may also order sterilisation in several circumstances, with the cost recoverable from the owner.

Stephne Jackson of Watershed Animal Rescue supports compulsory sterilisation in principle. Her question is who pays.

Small rescue organisations already raise private funds to sterilise animals in poorer areas, she says, while private veterinary fees can be far beyond the reach of households living on the breadline. An unaffordable rule could punish responsible owners while backyard breeders hide their animals.

### About numbers

The numerical limits could create a difficulty. The draft allows two dogs in a dwelling unit, three at a dwelling house, four at a house on an erf larger than 600 square metres and six on agricultural property. Residential premises may keep four cats. Owners can apply to keep more, but the basic limits measure property size and category rather than the care, exercise, supervision and veterinary treatment an animal receives.

There’s no clear transitional protection for people who already have more animals than the new limits permit. Nor does the draft explain what happens to an existing “excess” pet if an application is refused. Owners need an assurance that animals will remain safely in place while applications and appeals are decided, unless there is evidence of cruelty, danger or a serious nuisance.

### Punitive neighbours

Applications for extra animals may require an inspection and written support from two directly adjacent neighbours. They may have useful evidence about barking, smells, safety or roaming animals, but their views should not amount to a veto, says Jackson. Should a personal grudge potentially decide whether a well-cared-for animal stays with its family?

The rules could also have unintended consequences for foster carers. Jackson says rescuers depend on households taking one or two animals while permanent homes are found. The draft doesn’t clearly say how temporary foster animals will be counted. Requiring an application for every placement could deter the volunteers who keep animals out of crowded shelters.

Pieterse points to a provision that could reduce that pressure. A rescuer who finds a stray would need to report it within 24 hours, have it scanned and advertise it through the City’s system. If no owner comes forward, ownership may pass to the rescuer. Under the present system, he says, rescued strays generally enter the pound, increasing overcrowding and euthanasia risk.

![One of the dogs at Wollies Animal Shelter on 8 March 2022 in Pretoria, South Africa. (Photo: Gallo Images/Beeld/ Deaan Vivier)](https://cdn.dailymaverick.co.za/i/moXy4DynFF7y8RVNVA3oH8ExtJk=/200x100/smart/filters:strip_exif\(\)/file/dailymaverick/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ED_368760-copy.jpg)

*One of the dogs at Wollies Animal Shelter on 8 March 2022 in Pretoria, South Africa. (Photo: Gallo Images/Beeld/ Deaan Vivier)*

Yet “stray” is defined widely enough to include any animal not under direct control or prevented from roaming. That could describe many healthy, owned cats moving between gardens, says Jackson. The final wording should distinguish a lost or abandoned animal from a free-roaming pet whose owner can readily be identified.

She says welfare organisations are already overwhelmed by strays, surrenders and confiscations. The City should say where seized animals will be housed, who will pay for their care and whether there is capacity to hold them humanely while disputes are resolved.

The draft requires pounds to scan animals, keep records, notify known owners and seek homes for adoptable animals where possible. Destruction of strays is restricted to serious disease or danger. But after a minimum holding period the City may “sell or dispose of” an animal. It may do the same if an owner claims a pet but cannot pay impoundment and care costs within 72 hours.

“Dispose of” needs a precise, humane definition, says Jackson, and poverty should not automatically separate an animal from an otherwise responsible owner.

### Enforcement

Enforcement powers have also alarmed critics. Officials would ordinarily need consent or a magistrate’s warrant to enter and search premises. They may act without one if they reasonably believe a warrant would be granted and delay would defeat the search. Smith says this is reserved for urgent cases, such as an animal being abused while an officer waits outside. Pieterse says comparable powers already exist and may be essential when an organised animal fight could be moved and the evidence could disappear.

Jackson fears compliant owners in formal suburbs will be easy to inspect while serious breeding and neglect continue where services are thinly stretched. Poorer owners could also be penalised for being unable to pay. The City should publish enforcement priorities and area-by-area figures, she says, so the public can judge whether the law is being applied fairly.

For all the anxiety, the draft contains substantial welfare gains. It bans glue traps and wild animals in circuses, protects cart horses and security dogs, regulates breeders and online sellers and sets standards for rescue facilities. Smith says the circus ban on use of wild animals, and cart-horse protections regarding harnessing and weight pulled, were the welfare sector’s main requests and the reason for the revision.

Public participation offers a chance to close the gap between the City’s intentions and its draft. If ordinary owners will not need permits, the bylaw should say so unmistakably. Sterilisation must be affordable, existing pets and foster homes need protection and enforcement powers need visible safeguards. A stronger animal bylaw could be a genuine safety net, but only if Cape Town writes the protections as clearly as the prohibitions. **DM**

*The bylaw was published for public comment on****28 August 2026****, with comments closing on****29 September 2026****. The email is*[*animal.bylaw@capetown.gov.za*](mailto:animal.bylaw@capetown.gov.za)*and the comments page is*[*here*](https://web1.capetown.gov.za/web1/newsandnotices/Home/Release/Comment-on-the-City-s-draft-Animal-Keeping-By-law?category=Issues+open+for+public+comment&utm)*.*