The missing piece of the spay/neuter puzzle
By Christie Keith
July 6, 2007
Why do people who love animals, who spend their lives with animals, who honestly have the best interests of animals in their hearts, stand on opposite sides of a vast chasm when it comes to mandatory spay/neuter legislation?
This article in USA Today has a little piece of that puzzle:
While California is in the spotlight for controversial mandatory-pet-sterilization legislation under discussion there, the rest of the country is hearing an insistent message that, although far short of compulsory sterilization, encourages and facilitates spay/neuters.
“We now know we can’t adopt our way out of the pet overpopulation problem. We’ve got to halt the problem at the source,” says Peter Marsh of Concord, N.H. His state allocates $2 of every mandated dog license to help low-income residents sterilize their pets. Since its passage, 70% fewer dogs and cats are being euthanized annually.
The simple math, experts say, is that far more animals are being born every year than can be placed.
Despite successful campaigns to persuade prospective owners to adopt shelter pets, about 7 million dogs and cats are euthanized in shelters every year, and there’s no evidence that adoptions will increase enough to close the gap, experts say.
I’m all for radical solutions. It’s in my nature. But first and foremost the “radical solution” has to actually be a solution, and its premise has to be accurate. And I don’t dispute — I’m sure no one on either side of this debate would dispute — that spay/neuter on a widespread basis is a fundamental piece of the puzzle when it comes to reducing shelter deaths.
The problem is that, like so many other things, it isn’t the whole story. Well, it would be the whole story if you could wave a magic wand and overnight sterilize every living dog and cat. Yes, then there would be no more shelter deaths. And the world would also be a pretty bleak place.
But the flaw in the “not enough homes so reduce the supply” solution is that, in fact, there are more people who want pets than have them.
Some of them live in housing that doesn’t permit pets. Programs that help renters get pets and keep them when they move, along with behavior and training support, would address the number one and number two reasons that people actually surrender their pets to shelters: landlord problems and housing problems.
Others want pets, they just don’t want the pets that are available in shelters. They don’t want hyper young Lab mixes or pit bulls, and other large, rambunctious dogs. They want small, quiet dogs, and they want young cats without health or behavior issues. This is also a problem that can be solved, although only in part, with education, support, and training — and adoption.
Some California shelters say they are routinely euthanizing kittens, puppies, and small dogs. Shelters in those areas could instead participate in transfer programs with shelters in areas like San Francisco where such pets are in huge demand and short supply. That, too, is definitely a problem that can and should be solved by adoption.
Which isn’t to say there’s no place for spay/neuter in solving the problem of shelter deaths.There is. But every successful program described in the USA Today article is a voluntary program. Some are funded with government dollars. Some are private efforts. Some are hybrids of the two. And all are flexible, small, and based on local conditions:
Experts point to New Hampshire as evidence that aggressive spay/neuter subsidy programs virtually eradicate pet overpopulation. Annual statewide shelter pet euthanasia has dropped from more than 11,000 before the program launch in 1994 to 3,000 now.
“If you make it accessible and affordable, spay and neuter will happen,” says Peter Marsh, who headed a coalition to get the law passed using such means as displaying 8,000 pet collars extending 1.5 miles to represent pets euthanized in New Hampshire shelters in the first seven months of 1992.
Utah, too, has made oft-cited strides.
Research in Utah showed that about 85% of pet owners were already sterilizing their animals. “A big overpopulation problem was traceable to just 15% of animals,” says Gregory Castle, who heads the No More Homeless Pets Utah program launched in 2000 by Best Friends Animal Society.
Now 20,000 sterilizations are performed annually at its clinics; 4,000 more dogs and cats are sterilized through voucher-program subsidies. Utah’s shelter euthanasia rate is now 57% lower than in 1999.
Those are impressive successes, and they aren’t limited to New Hampshire and Utah. Low cost or free spay/neuter, mobile clinics, even “bounty” programs such as those offered in San Francisco for people who bring in their male cats to be neutered — and yes, that means you not only don’t pay to have your male cat neutered, you get paid for having brought him in — have a proven track record and don’t trigger resistance in people the way mandates do.
You can say it many ways: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. The carrot is better than the stick. The clicker is mightier than the collar correction. However you say it, it’s a principle animal lovers should all be able to agree on.
I know this is off topic, but this is a good piece about knowing where our food comes from.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07.....4wed1.html
I agree that incentives to spay or neuter are a good way to go. In the poorer areas of the country, the cost is a reason people don’t spay pets.
Comment by Elaine — July 6, 2007 @ 6:28 am
Incentives are a great way to go. Also, there is educational work to be done. In Chicago we have lots of immigrants from countries where spay/neuter is nonexistent. Its not something that they are going to go out and research.
Many of our shelters have opened no cost/low cost spay/neuter clinics in mostly Hispanic neighborhoods to work on getting information to the public and overcoming the resistance to spay/neuter.
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 6, 2007 @ 7:13 am
S/N services here are popular and busy. And they have been expanding since the city decided to work on a lower kill rate. What I like about voluntary S/N is it encourages responsible ownership and education.
The city also works with the lower income in the area of pet ownership. they have pet limits, but pets are allowed in city housing and they make sure S/N is available. I think the pets may have to be altered to live in city housing.
i just checked our numbers. Intakes are about the same 5yrs later, but adoptions are up by 10, 000.
Comment by straybaby — July 6, 2007 @ 7:16 am
This is also off topic, however I think it’s important to keep the pet food poisonings from being just another fleeting story in the media…
There are new recalls of Chinese products in the article:
“Made in China, recalled in U.S.
Every Washington product warning so far this month from Asian giant”
“WASHINGTON – Despite promises by China to clean up its act with regard to unsafe exports, every product recalled by the federal government so far this month is a Chinese import.
Last month, 17 pf 28 products recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission were Chinese imports.
The latest consumer product recalls come in the wake of a series of scandals involving Chinese imports – ranging from pet food to seafood intended for human consumption to children’s toys and counterfeit electrical products.
Following the pet food poisoning that killed or maimed an estimated 39,000 cats and dogs in the U.S., WND embarked on an investigation of other Chinese imports. What it has found to date: …
Whole article:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n.....E_ID=56533
Comment by Aunt Granny — July 6, 2007 @ 7:30 am
I support AB 1634. I am willing to personally suffer to go along with regulations in the hopes of reducing the number of animals euthanized in our shelters and also those abandoned to a horrible existence on the streets.
If the bill doesn’t pass out of committee on July 11th, then I do hope all the programs that are mentioned by so many people here will begin to work as it is a weary task cleaning up hurt, dying, and dead pets.
Comment by Jamie — July 6, 2007 @ 9:07 am
Off topic but about poisoned food:
Moveon.org sent me a survey asking what next project the organization should work on. I sent them an e-mail telling them about the banned antibiotics, Chinese imports, pet food that is unsafe, etc. and that the FDA could not recall these foods except under severe threat of mass poisoning.
I threw in everything (except the “kitchen sink”) that I could think of at the present time).
Comment by Evelyn — July 6, 2007 @ 9:09 am
Comment by Jamie — July 6, 2007 @ 9:07 am
why do you support it? exactly which part of it do you think will reduce the euth numbers?
Comment by straybaby — July 6, 2007 @ 10:44 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PibAfogtbT4
Comment by Schnauzer — July 6, 2007 @ 10:55 am
Comment by Jamie — July 6, 2007 @ 9:07 am
“I support AB 1634. I am willing to personally suffer to go along with regulations in the hopes of reducing the number of animals euthanized in our shelters and also those abandoned to a horrible existence on the streets.”
How about the horrible existence they suffer in the USDA breeding facilities which are expressly *ALLOWED* under AB1634?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 6, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Also, there is educational work to be done. In Chicago we have lots of immigrants from countries where spay/neuter is nonexistent. Its not something that they are going to go out and research.
Given the massive illegal immigration of the last six or seven years this is likely to true throughout the country-not just in traditional places of immigrant settlement like Chicago, NYC and California.
Comment by expat — July 6, 2007 @ 11:44 am
Christie,
*WONDERFUL* article. You did a commendable job that really puts it into perspective.
Thank you!
Comment by Ann H — July 6, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
Thanks!
Comment by Christie Keith — July 6, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
You want the best law, the perfect law, you want a law that addresses what you consider the worst situation and if the law doesn’t address the “worst” infraction, then the law is not worth supporting. It is already illegal to raise dogs in filth and/or mistreat them.
Comment by Jamie — July 6, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Wrong. I don’t want a law that affects non-commercial breeders at all. It’s too problematic trying to deal with the grey areas, and good people and good breeders (and healthy dogs) will be negatively impacted by every attempt I’ve seen so far.
Education has already been a powerful force in reducing euthanasia numbers. Education is far, far harder than passing a law, but it has the best chance of actually succeeding in a meaningful way.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 6, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 6, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Yup. education is *KEY*. We had 10,000 more adoptions last year than 2002. That came from everyone getting on the same page and getting out there. We now have a youth program in our city shelter where kids volunteer with the animals. We have more S/N available at low cost (grant from Maddie’s fund helps). Adoption events are held in the city parks (high traffic for us city folks). More training programs/availability. A lot of other new services have been put into place to help educate and also help pet owners keep their pets. Even ‘little’ unrelated things help, like the off leash park hours going official after 25yrs help. It’s all about making the public aware and also helping foster good, responsible pet ownership.
We are still putting down too many, but there is a process in place and as much as we all would have loved it to happen overnight, the reality is, we/they knew it would take time.
10,000 more adopted means 10,000 less killed.
Comment by straybaby — July 6, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Comment by straybaby — July 6, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
“help pet owners keep their pets”
This one is HUGE - particularly once you take the time to understand the demographics of most dogs who get turned in to shelters (young dogs just entering their most problematic adolescence).
Having programs in place to help people over this “terrible teens” hump is one of the single most effective things that can be done to reduce euthanasia numbers.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 6, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
So true Pat. Those ‘handful’ pups that just need a little guidence. 8mos-1.5 yrs is the most common age if I remember correctly. What I do remember is what great shape I was in walking and training them 5-6 days a week!! lol!~
In the last 5yrs in my ‘hood alone, we’ve gotten a couple of trainers here and a lot more doggie day care facilities. I’m sure that helps. My ‘hood is pretty dog friendly, but getting a dog to training class was a challenge until recently. And having somewhere for them to go for play (aside from the park) or boarding was also a problem. Going on vacation was/is actually a turn in excuse at the city shelter. We know why pets are turned in, and some (all) of them can and should be dealt with in a positive manner. It works for all involved and for the long haul.
Comment by straybaby — July 6, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
You believe “Education” is the key. You believe that we do not need AB 1634 because one’s goals to help will be solved through education. I am a firm believer in education and also in its limits.
To educate the poor and ignorant and those that don’t care into not breeding their defective dogs is a noble task and one of which I wish you much success.
Comment by Jamie — July 6, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
To legislate the the law-breakers and the ignorant and those that don’t care into not breeding their defective dogs is a hopeless task and one of which needs to be abandoned.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 6, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
Jamie, are you the same Jamie with the 6 new lab puppies? If so, why did you breed your Labs?
Comment by straybaby — July 7, 2007 @ 5:28 am
You believe “Education” is the key. You believe that we do not need AB 1634 because one’s goals to help will be solved through education. I am a firm believer in education and also in its limits.
To educate the poor and ignorant and those that don’t care into not breeding their defective dogs is a noble task and one of which I wish you much success.
What’s your alternative, the dispatch of SWAT teams into the barrios and trailer parks to forcibly neuter the “pets” of gangbangers and low-IQ “trailer trash”?
Comment by expat — July 7, 2007 @ 11:44 am
A very good, balanced article. Yes, carrots work better than sticks and there are no carrots in AB1634. No spay/neuter funding (unless the local governments fund it themselves), no ownership education for the “terrible teens”, no assistance for the true reasons for pet abandonment.
People will continue to get pets. They’ll just choose other sources (like pet shops, internet or the street corner), instead of a good local breeer.
Comment by Janet — July 7, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
The US is a major throwaway society. People who throw away their pets at shelters will not stop whether or not they are s/n. They will get a puppy, s/n it, then throw it away when it gets too big, unruly, etc and get another one and start all over again. How will AB1634 solve that problem?
Comment by Paula — July 7, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Responsible breeders will want references for whom is buying their puppys , many mark limited on the AKC papers that the dog is being sold for non breeding purposes. They have contracts that the dog is to be spaded or neutured.
Puppy mills don’t care what happens to the dog after it leaves their mill. They only want your dollar. the dogs imprisoned their receive minium standards of care . Many of these animals are sold for research or to pet stores. Many are licensed inder the federal APHIS program which require minium standards of care.Many times the inspectors look at a few of the dogs in these hell holes and the rest are ignored. I am not for mandatory spaying and neuturing resposible breeders should not be penalized for for the uncaring , gotta make a buck of puppy mills.Here are 2 web sites that tell some of the story on puppy mills . one is a newspaper article , one is for an exhibit.
http://www.local.lancasteronline.com/4/206585
http://www.puppiesarebiodegradeable.com/
Comment by thomas — July 8, 2007 @ 6:17 am
Good article. Many hobby breeders/exhibitors already require spay/neuter of their puppies/adults sold to pet homes, and insist that if the dog can not be kept, that it be returned to the breeder. As a result a buyer that has no clue about genetics and breeding often aquires breeding stock from the local pet shop or back yard breeders. Why not have the pet shops include the spay/neuter in the sale price? And, require that they sell all pet shop dogs on limited registration? Even better, get the pet shops out of the Malls! There are too many cute puppies bought on impulse. So many options to explore before resorting to AB1634, which only serves PETA’s goal of eliminating all pets. I own intact males and females, My last litter was over a year ago, I have a planned litter about every other year. When I die, I would gladly come back as a dog in any of the homes I have sold my puppies to, as I screen them very carefully. There are many breeders of all breeds just like me! AB1634 will NOT solve anything.
Comment by Andria — July 8, 2007 @ 6:37 am
Many pups sold through pet stores are not AKC. There are many registries and not all offer limited registrations. Here is an article that speaks volumes on pet stores and puppy mills.
http://www.arcamax.com/dearabby/s-208852-24582
Comment by thomas — July 8, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
oops the above link should be
http://www.arcamax.com/dearabby/S-208852-24582/
Comment by thomas — July 8, 2007 @ 4:39 pm