Common ground: A public health approach to reducing shelter deaths
By Gina Spadafori
July 24, 2007
Now that California’s mandataory-spay neuter bill has been shelved for the rest of the year — and we’re proud to have been part of the effort to keep this misguided bill from passing – we here at Pet Connection have been thinking lots about the “what next?” If mandatory spay-neuter isn’t the answer then what will help?
In her phenomenally popular online column for the San Francisco Chronicle’s Web site, our Christie Keith offers a way through the emotion and disagreement:
Take two groups of people who mistrust and dislike each other. Take a law that one side wants and the other side hates, about an issue they don’t even agree exists, or if it does, what defines it.
That describes the recent battle over AB 1634, which would have mandated the sterilization of all California dogs and cats over the age of 6 months with the goal of reducing the number of these animals euthanized in state shelters. But what might surprise you if you take a closer look at those two diametrically opposed groups of people is that both are motivated by the same thing: A tremendous love of animals.
So despite the gaping chasm between us, I can’t help but wonder if we aren’t missing a pretty amazing opportunity to huddle together on the little patch of ground we share. Because let’s face it: Both sides of the mandatory spay/neuter war share the goal of reducing the deaths of dogs and cats in animal shelters. In other words, we want the same thing.
[...]
What if we treated this as a public health issue? I don’t mean that dogs and cats dying in shelters is literally public health issue (although that’s not as crazy as it sounds). I’m suggesting that we borrow some concepts from public health and use them in thinking about reducing the number of animals entering shelters.
Why will this work, and how? Check out Christie’s Your Whole Pet, over on SFGate.com.
***
Our Dr. Becker’s segment on “Good Morning America” this morning was full of lots of good advice and some squiggly pets as well. Yes, blog commentor Kathy F. – writing from underwater England — was right: Tranquilizers are not usually recommended for pets who are going to take an airplane ride. (But as always, check with your veterinarian.)
There’s a whole lot more. This link will take you there.
Great column and great ideas. If we had a low cost spay/ neuter program here it would help immensely, most people want to do the right thing, they just need some help. In my wilder dreams is a low cost training program, just the basics at a reasonable price would help too.
Comment by sb — July 24, 2007 @ 9:09 am
Christie’s article is excellent and well worth saving for future reference. The metro Phoenix area (where I live) has been reducing shelter deaths, but has a long way to go. Many of the elements Christie points to are in place, but need to be expanded and to be marketed better.
I’m trying to figure out where I could spend some personal volunteer time that would best further the progress. We have low-cost spay/neuter clinics, a lot of adoption avenues, training classes for puppies at Petsmart, but I think we need more work on reducing the entry into the pound/shelters. We have a problem with dumping of dogs/cats in parks as well as “out in the desert”, and temporary residents leaving them behind when they move, etc. I get so mad thinking about what some people do to their animals that I can’t talk straight — I need to get myself together enough that I can work on solutions without going ballistic when dealing with a clueless owner.
Comment by shadepuppy — July 24, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Comment by shadepuppy — July 24, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
“training classes for puppies at Petsmart”
Unless Petsmart is donating some/all of the revenues from these classes to local shelters/pounds, or giving shelter/pound adoptees a significant break in the class price, then this is just another “product” Petsmart sells. Good to have available (if well-taught), but not exactly done out of the goodness of their heart in any way.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 24, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
PetSmart gives a lot of money to animal shelters and charities. I think offering the classes is great regardless of whether they donate proceeds or not.
Sure its a product, but they are making the product convenient for many people who wouldn’t think about it otherwise. I’ve observed some of the dog classes and they seem to be good basic obedience and socialization exercises. Anything that helps owners to understand their animals increases the chances that they won’t be returned or dumped for behavioral problems -and that’s a good thing.
And at least in my town, PetSmart only offers shelter pets for adoption. Again, its much easier to adopt an animal from PetSmart than to have to find a tucked away animal shelter (many of them are in residential neighborhoods) that may have limited access hours. They provide the space, the food, the litter, toys, beds, etc. and receive none of the adoption fees which are set by the individual shelters.
Since the goal is get animals into good homes and keep them there, I think they deserve our support. After all, they could use the adoption space for other profit making activities.
..And no, I don’t work for them, I just think they deserve a little credit.
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 24, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 24, 2007 @ 2:10 pm “Unless Petsmart is donating some/all of the revenues from these classes to local shelters/pounds, or giving shelter/pound adoptees a significant break in the class price, then this is just another “product” Petsmart sells. Good to have available (if well-taught), but not exactly done out of the goodness of their heart in any way.”
Why do classes need to be pro-bono to be effective in keeping pets in their homes? Many people that pay big bucks for a pet store pup will dump it when it goes through adolescence and the novelty wears off. Puppy kindergarten type classes at Petsmart or local kennel clubs should be encouraged for these folks. It is a spring board for education and bonding. Why should we expect that it be free? I can see giving a discount for rescue dogs, and maybe they already do, but I can’t see offering free classes to those that impulse buy a $1,000 dog at the mall. It’s a fine line, I know but let’s not say that dog trainers, veterinarians or anyone else involved should not be paid for their work. Not everyone is low income and in need.
Public education is a huge part of this too. Around Christmas time those public service announcements on TV showing a dog chained in the back yard that was last year’s Christmas puppy goes a long way in encouraging people to stop and think about the commitment getting a dog really is. I’d like to see more of that message in the mainstream media throughout the year. Most if not all vets and trainers encourage spay/neuter and responsible ownership. We live in a capitalist society. Unless someone is on public assistance we should not expect services to be free.
Comment by trucorgi — July 24, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Comment by trucorgi — July 24, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
“Why do classes need to be pro-bono to be effective in keeping pets in their homes? “
They don’t. I only brought this up because shadepuppy had included it in a iist of things such as volunteering at shelters and providing low-cost spay/neuter that DO have a public-service component to them. That’s all.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 24, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
To add some additional helpful information, there are resources in addition to Petsmart for finding training classes (puppy and otherwise). A good place to start is to search trainers listed on the Association of Pet Dog Trainers website:
http://www.apdt.com/po/ts/default.aspx
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 24, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
Here’s another:
Find a trainer from the Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers:
http://www.ccpdt.org/rstr/index.html
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 24, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
And yet another for finding ciicker trainers:
Clicker Teachers List:
http://www.clickerteachers.net/
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 24, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
And here’s a good article on selecting a trainer:
http://www.apdt.com/po/ts/choose_trainer.aspx
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 24, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
And - of course - it’s always worth asking at your local shelter(s) whether they offer training classes.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 24, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
As I’ve said before, I think that when purchasing a dog, folks should consider the “whole price” of the dog to be “fee for dog” (whether from breeder or rescue) and “training for dog and family.”
That’s how we approached getting a dog — our total cost for Pepper (rescue fee + classes with the Penn Vet School’s Professor of Canine Behavoir) was about what we would have paid for a purebred dog.
By spending on both the dog AND the training, we ended up with a dog that we were patient through the “adolescent” months (was she ever a pain in the butt from 8 months to 18 months! ;-)) and now we have a dog that we can take anywhere and be off-lead much of the time.
Dog + Training — invest in both for the long-term peace of mind for both you and your dog! :-D
Comment by Dorene — July 24, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
You’re a smart woman!
The truth is, the purchase/adoption price is only a small part of the cost of getting a dog. Wish MORE people would figure that out!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 24, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
I’m sure there are some fine trainers listed on the APDT site, but all you have to do in order to be listed is send the APDT a $100 check and agree to be included in their online trainer search. I can think offhand of one “APDT trainer” who has never trained a dog to do much of anything — but who made a point of featuring the APBT membership on his old website.
The SFSPCA Dog Trainer Academy sounds awesome to me [and very rigorous]. Jean Donaldson is the director:
http://www.sfspca.org/academy/index.shtml
Here is their list of graduates:
http://www.sfspca.org/academy/referral.shtml
No guarantee all of these folks are outstanding, but they’ve all successfully completed some demanding, hands-on courses.
Topic. Great column by Christie! Hope Mr. Levine reads it. And comments for the most part were rational, yay.
Comment by Luisa — July 24, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
I actually prefer to send people to clicker trainers, but hey - I’m trying to be an “equal opportunity lister”! VBG!
Just remember to check out the class, watch with a critical eye, and follow your instincts. If there’s anything about what you see that starts the alarm bells ringing, it probably means you should keep checking out other trainers.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 24, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
>Not true… it’s unlikely that either side want the same thing or share the same ground. The mandatory spay/neuter issue proved to be so heated not because of the overpopulation of unwanted pets, folks… It was about money… The almighty dollar and the bottom line… It is easy to ignore an issue when it’s coming out of tax dollars because most citizens pay their taxes and those dollars aren’t divided up into this project, that agency, this fund - to the point the citizen actually understands what portion of their tax dollars paid is actually going to what. But to a breeder? This law represented an actual hit to their incomes and when an issue hits that close to home - directly in one’s pocketbook - people are motivated to do just about whatever it takes to keep those dollars coming in.
I consistently heard this bill was ‘not fair’. Ironically what would be fair is if the bill for euthanasia of every unwanted dog and cat in California was directly levied against any owner with an intact dog or cat… currently EVERYONE in California has to foot this bill, whether they own a pet at all! How is that even close to ‘fair’?
Producing puppies and kittens is BIG business and if you don’t believe this is true, then answer why the Los Angeles area is the third largest marketplace for this product in the nation.
Once bred and born, NO breeder can control what his production will contribute towards the unwanted overpopulation problem in the future. It’s the same concept as when “The Anarchist’s Cookbook” was published… once the directions for building a bomb were published, what control did the author and publisher have over who used that information to blow things up with? Were the author and publisher liable for the damage and chaos this caused? But it certainly sold a lot of copies ($$$$), and many parts were published on the Internet in turn. The very same principle holds true - unregulated breeding has caused the unwanted overpopulation problem.
California took one step forward when they legislated dogs going into shelters by requiring them to be spayed or neutered prior to adoption. The rescued pets aren’t contributing to this problem… so who is contributing to this problem? Puppy millers, backyard breeders, pet stores, and irresponsible breeders - all motivated by that dollar sign again.
This isn’t about spaying and neutering your pet because California has tons of low cost and no-cost spay programs in place. It’s all about money… and because one side is motivated when they see their incomes being tampered with, and the other side is motivated by seeing the numbers of dead dogs and cats on the euthanasia table on a daily basis, frankly I don’t ever see a meeting of the minds on this issue.
If that were to occur, it would require those that oppose regulation go into their local shelters prior to 6AM every morning and watch the live dogs end up as dead carcasses and follow these dead carcasses to the rendering plants to be used in the many products we all are affected by - as well as those in favor of regulation understanding this loss of income is a highly motivating factor for the opposition.
Understanding will never be reached until we identify and acknowledge the underlying factor in all of this - money.
Comment by Linda Nelson — July 24, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
Linda said: “Puppy millers, backyard breeders, pet stores, and irresponsible breeders – all motivated by that dollar sign again.”
**
And all, surprisingly enough, exempt from California’s mandatory spay-neuter bill. Commercial breeders/puppy mills/ pet stores were given a pass from the beginning, for political expediency, according to the “woman behind the bill,” Judie Mancuso, who admitted as much to the L.A. Weekly.
“Just one litter” folks were given a pass later in the process, in order to get the bill out of the California state Assembly. Irresponsible back-yard breeders don’t give a fig about laws that are on the books now — including licensing, limit and leash laws — and there’s no reason to imagine they would pay attention to any additional legal requirements.
You didn’t mention reputable, responsible breeders. Are you lumping them in with “backyard breeders”? Because there is a big difference. (And one of them is that responsible, reputable breeders are the only ones who would have been hit by this bill!) If you are assuming that responsible, reputable breeders are the same as backyard breeders, and just in it for the money … well … you need to do some reading. It isn’t about the money for good breeders.
If you continue to insist that a “breeder is a breeder is a breeder,” then you’d better wake up and take a look around. Your new political reality is that we who care about our heritage breeds as well as shelter pets will not allow your animal-rights puppet masters to manipulate a tragic situation to help them deliver the ultimate goal of the eventual elimination of all domestic animals. (Doubt me? Read some Ingrid Newkirk some time.)
If you want something to change, you will have to work with us on a solution that targets the complex issues involved in the surplus of pets. Because we’re not going to lose our heritage breeds and our working dogs without a fight. You thought we came out of nowhere and were surprised by our determination? You ain’t seen nothing yet. Now, we’re organized, and in our grassroots organizations we have dug deep to fund political groups. Because we have found out what the animal-rights groups already know: Money is how you play the political game.
Note that many of the people who have argued against the spay-neuter ban are NOT breeders, including the two primary bloggers here. (Not only have I never bred a litter, but I’ve run a breed rescue.) But we recognize the massive flaws in mandatory spay-neuter, and we joined the fight against it.
Open your mind, do your reading and join us on the common ground. We love animals, too, and we want to see shelter populations drop. We want to see those people who get to the shelter find homes. Many of us have shelter pets in addition to our heritage breeds. (Again, including the primary bloggers here.)
Do you really hate reputable, responsible breeders and those who fight for our heritage breeds and working dogs so much that you’ll let shelter pets die rather than work with us on solutions?
If so, then shame on you.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 25, 2007 @ 6:31 am
Comment by Linda Nelson — July 24, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
Linda, this bill exempted the puppy millers and pet stores from the beginning, wouldn’t have touched the backyard breeders who already don’t bother with picky legal details, and had an exemption added at the last minute for “just one litter” from the family pet, whose pups would be given away (couldn’t even recover costs, so what vet care would mom and pups receive?) to other families who would produce “just one litter”—if they didn’t get bored or frustrated with their new pet and dump it in the shelter, first.
The only people who would have been affected by this bill are the responsible breeders who DO make serious efforts to ensure that they’re not contributing to the shelter population—and who are at best breaking even on their breeding—not raking in the bucks you so fondly imagine.
This bill was not written by people who actually cared about solving the problem of unwanted animals dying ins shelters. The puppy millers and pet stores probably already had the champagne on ice, for the celebration they were planning if this bill passed.
Comment by Lis — July 25, 2007 @ 6:38 am
Linda, do you really believe this was about money, or is this just a convenient hot button arguing point?
I find it difficult to believe, after all of this time, that anyone can really believe something so ridiculous.
The people who fought this the most don’t have a money interest. The people who do have a money interest (commercial breeders and BYBs) really didn’t care - if you’re just a business, you pass the costs on. Besides, what MONEY issue was there? Nothing of any significance. It actually gave the money breeders a marketing advantage.
This isn’t about money. It’s about DESTROYING the gene pools of rare and working breeds. I don’t have a chance of making a profit in dogs, never have and never will. I will, if need be, mortgage my house to protect the breed I love.
If you really don’t get that, you all are going to lose a LOT - because I would never be this motivated over money. I am motivated by my love of my dogs and the breed of dogs I care about more than virtually anything else in the world.
I suppose, in some ways, I should be glad that the bill’s proponents are so clueless, except that I think their cluelessness and anger destroys any chance of actually finding useful solutions to help unwanted animals, which I happen to think is very important and achievable with more sensible goals.
This isn’t about “opposing regulation.” It’s about opposing an ineffective and counterproductive idea that would not help animals, but would destroy the breeds I care about. I won’t let you do that without fighting you with every resource I can bring to bear.
And there are a LOT of other people who feel the same way.
Comment by Sally — July 25, 2007 @ 7:51 am
Sally wrote:
“I would never be this motivated over money.”
***
Oh girl, you made me laugh. I just got off the phone with my most wonderful veterinarian, arranging for a couple thousand dollars of veterinary work for my 11-year-old retriever, Heather. Some preventive (ultrasound to complete her every-six-month old dog check-up), most not. She has a broken tooth that will need to be removed, plus some less critical dental work and a complete cleaning.
She’s one of the best dogs I have ever shared my life with, and NOT because she was the nation’s top 7-9 veteran at the national specialty (which she was, in 2004) and NOT because of her titles and NOT because of any money I every made selling puppies because she was never bred. For all her fine qualities, she didn’t “make the cut” for her co-owner, and so we spayed her. Closest I’ve ever come to breeding a litter, and it really wasn’t that close.
But in terms of brains, biddabilty, birdiness, drive and work ethic she is top of the class, a truly wonderful representative of a breed worth preserving. But the money I will spend tomorrow? It’s because I love her … and that love is returned in so many ways. I spend the same on my shelter pets, by the way. Because I am a loving, responsible pet-owner.
Fighting mandatory spay-neuter wasn’t about the money. It was about preserving the historic qualities of breeds we adore.
And by us … I do also mean the folks behind the Pet Connection. You know, the ones who ponied up somewhere between $5K and $10K to pay for rapid site improvements and bandwidth increases to cover the pet-food recall … the ones who passed on paying work in the interim.
Oh my no … it ain’t about the money at all. I’m laughing all the way not to the bank.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 25, 2007 @ 8:00 am
We need some help, so you all put your heads together on this one.
First, I an an animal lover, and have rescued, spayed and nutered My whole life. that’s why we have have way too many animals. I have also bred Bengals and shown them so i know how to breed for the best of the best. now I just rescue , for now.
But where I live now We do have the old fashion southern thinking. No one gets their pet[well some do] “fixed”. We have so many cats dropped off here, at the vets, beside the road, anywhere. The shelters are in poor shape. Paws just took over one and are helping as much as possible. But there are Not enough people to take this many animals.
and My friend just found 4 kittens coming out from under Her building out back. she already has a houseful, so what can She do? I see skiny dogs who were dropped off beside the road because they weren’t “good Hunters”. they will die of starvation.
We have so many and no place to put them.
I do My best to educate. I put things in the paper all the time. This breaks My heart right in two.
So what can a county like this one do? We probably have 20 animals to 1 person. If I could think of anything else I haven’t tried, i’ll do it.
This place needs help.
also, one more thing i just found out- This is very old- Some people are still drowning [like dropping a bag] of puppies or kittens in the rivers.
So, what can We do? Thanks
Comment by Trudy Jackson — July 25, 2007 @ 9:56 am
Comment by Linda Nelson — July 24, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
“Once bred and born, NO breeder can control what his production will contribute towards the unwanted overpopulation problem in the future.”
{snip}
“The rescued pets aren’t contributing to this problem… so who is contributing to this problem? Puppy millers, backyard breeders, pet stores, and irresponsible breeders – all motivated by that dollar sign again.”
Hey - at least she left Responsible Breeders out of that list. It might be because she knows that Responsible Breeders either sell their animals already spayed/neutered, or sell them on a contract which either requires it or stipulates the conditions under which they may be bred.
Okay. I admit it. That’s probably not the point she was trying to make at all.
But hey - she gave ME a nice opportunity to make that point! LOL!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 25, 2007 @ 10:06 am
Trudy - start an edcational program that in 100 years might make a difference - in the meantime - bury the dead.
Comment by Jamie — July 25, 2007 @ 10:18 am
None of these are magic solutions, but there are things that could help. Just a few -
1. Go to http://www.maddiesfund.org and look over the Maddie’s Fund grant possibilities. You may be able to get a grant to help with s/n.
2. Go to http://www.nokillsolutions.com for ideas - I especially like building a no kill community
3. Look into the transport possibility - isn’t it Petsmart that has the transport vans? They take animals from areas with too many to areas with more demand. You may be able to participate in this program.
4. Look into what you can do and how big the payoff is for your community. Adoption events at a nearby city or town? Petfinder listing of adoptables? grants? S/n outreach? S/n of ferals?
I’d focus on which ones appear to be likely to save the most, and start with those.
Comment by Sally — July 25, 2007 @ 10:24 am
Thanks, We need all the help We can get. i’ll check on all of those. We still have the gas chambers here, so I have to try all things.
Comment by Trudy Jackson — July 25, 2007 @ 10:35 am
Comment by Jamie — July 25, 2007 @ 10:18 am
“start an edcational program that in 100 years might make a difference – in the meantime – bury the dead.”
Not 100 years. The following is from the Comments section from Christie’s article:
“It works in the south too - I have friends in Charlottesville, Virginia. The Charlottesville SPCA - which is an open admissions shelter used for the whole community, inclucing animal control - used Winograd’s model to go from 50% or so adoptions to 92% adoptions - and no kill of adoptables - IN ONE YEAR - without any s/n laws and without breeder licensing. This is a college town in a rural part of Virginia. Taking a whole community in the South to 92% adoption and no kill of adoptables is truly remarkable. The No Kill Solutions approach works. I’ve seen it work. It works FAST, well, and without dividing the animal community.”
One year, she said. One year. Not 100.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 25, 2007 @ 10:52 am
Gina, not only that, but I’m pretty sure I read that the airlines will not even place a dog on board who appears to be sedated. And also, you can’t fly a pet when the temperature is over a certain degree (90?), which excludes a lot of cities in the South for several months a year. For good reason—a friend lost her dog flying him to Saudi Arabia in the summer.
Comment by KathyF — July 25, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Trudy says: “We need some help, so you all put your heads together on this one.”
Sounds like the situation when I was a kid (over 50 years ago). Things have changed for the better in lots of places, and I believe that there are probably lots of people living near you who would like to make things better for “unwanted” companion animals just as you do.
Those shelters that are in poor shape could perhaps be improved with the help of volunteer time and money. Do you know one or more friends that would have a spare hour or two each week? G o to the shelters and see if they have a volunteer program — join and see if you can help make it a better place, and maybe you’ll be able to get some “dumped” animals in there once in a while also.
Take a look at the ASPCA website for info on animal protection laws, lists of authorities in each state, and lists of shelters in each state — http://tinyurl.com/ysd4a2 — perhaps there are some shelters you don’t know about that could help take in some of your overflow. Find a group to join so you can use your knowledge about the problems in your area and work with like-minded people to find solutions together. This problem is huge, and one person’s kind heart can’t solve it - but your desire to make things better can work wonders when teamed with lots of other folks who agree with you, and you’ll feel so much better when you’re able to work on solutions rather than only be surrounded by the problems.
Comment by shadepuppy — July 25, 2007 @ 11:02 am
The Other Pat:
How many pets make it into the shelter and how many are dumped by the side of the road to die never rescued? Trudy wrote about a long-standing problem with people dumping dogs that are not good hunters until they starve to death and die. I pity the poor dogs.
The south seems entrenched with many red-neck solutions to their can’t be bothered doing what’s right attitude - dog dumping is one small part of it.
Wild Boar fighting, dog fights, dog dumping, puppy mills - to change these hard core attitudes will require stiff penalties (legislation) and then there’s the problem of enforecement. Maybe 100 is too short of a span.
Any statistics Trudy on how many dogs make it into the shelter?
Comment by Jamie — July 25, 2007 @ 11:19 am
Jamie “Wild Boar fighting, dog fights, dog dumping, puppy mills – to change these hard core attitudes will require stiff penalties (legislation) and then there’s the problem of enforcement.”
The vast majority of puppy mills are in the Midwest, not the south and dog fighting is illegal in all 50 states, so exactly what legislation do you propose that will prevent “dog dumping”? Seems to me you are the one with the “hard core attitude” since facts are not on your side. Education works.
Comment by trucorgi — July 25, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Trudy,
Don’t know if this is kosher or not (to suggest another site), but the Best Friends network (not forum) has a community for every state and lots of other groups/individuals interested in helping animals. Perhaps you could post your concerns, ideas, etc on the community for your state. It might bring others in your area into your effort to make life better for the animals in your area. Just a thought . . . Bless you for getting involved in what must be an emotionally devastating situation.
Comment by catmom5 — July 25, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
It doesn’t matter what’s against the law. you have to have someone to enforce it. haha. Yes, we have a huge puppy mill right here, and everyone complains and does nothing. We have deer hunting, and bear hunting with dogs. what a mess. i’m not sure how many end up in the shelters, but i’ll find out. Thanks,
Comment by Trudy Jackson — July 25, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Trudy, I’m not a big fan of using dogs to hunt big game (where it’s legal), but I very very much doubt that the dogs hunters use are the ones filling the shelters. (of course some do)
Remember, that in almost all places, the largest single source of dogs in shelters is owners turning them in for (mostly) irresponsible reasons.
Better education BEFORE people acquire dogs and better education WHILE people have their dogs, as well as providing more options to prevent people from giving up their dogs, will solve most of the owner-surrenders,
Christie’s column is brilliant.
It’s always best when tackling a big problem to go after the low lying fruit, and to find a way for everyone to work together. So avoid mandating s/n or any other ownership/stewardship conditions. Focus on owner retention.
Comment by EmilyS — July 25, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
When I think of the kinds of entrenched attitudes Trudy is describing, what I immediately think of next is “Can we get to them in the schools?”
There are some nice in-school programs available - I’ll see if I can look up some references later - to begin to introduce kids to the idea of responsible dog ownership while they’re still young.
Of course, you have to get school district buy-in. But that’s where donating the programs helps - most school systems are strapped for cash, so if you can bring them an educational program that won’t cost them a thing, it’s usually pretty appealing.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 25, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Here’s one:
http://www.akc.org/public_educ.....groups.cfm
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 25, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
EmilyS -
No, the ones that hunt big game well are not in the shelters… but the ones that don’t hunt well are.
Jaime -
It doesn’t take 100 years. In 1985 the euthanasia rate - lets call it what it is, the kill rate - was estimated to be around 17 million. Today it’s estimated to be around 9 million. A difference IS being made, we just have to do better.
Trudy - Best Friends has a great section on applying No-Kill at:
http://tinyurl.com/2dzsys
I would happily outlaw all breeding - factory, breeder, backyard and otherwise - if it would make a dent in that 9 million number. I feel badly for the responsible breeders, but they are a small number compared to the irresponsible ones, and they can’t control what happens to an animal once it’s left their care. An unspayed female dog can have 2 litters a year of 6-12 puppies. By very conservative estimates, an unspayed female can have thousands of descendants in just a few years. Having said that, I don’t think outlawing breeding or mandatory s/n is going to happen anytime soon, or be effective legislation even if it was - but education and low/no cost spay/neuter programs are here today and have a definite impact.
Between the Menu Foods debacle and the Vick scandal, pets are more in the public mindset and the news than anytime in recent memory. We can use this raised awareness as an opportunity for education.
Comment by John — July 25, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
I’ll read all that you all wrote to Me [the links] and Thanks. I also thought the schools were the place to start too. I taught all my grandchildren how to care for animals.
I’ve tried My best telling all my neighbors, to no sucess.
Comment by Trudy Jackson — July 25, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Schools are a great place to start - especially the little ones. Small children are naturally empathetic and senitive. Teach a child from a ‘normal’ home to love animals and he’ll never abuse them.
Of course you also have to hope the child lives in a home where animals aren’t abused or where they themselves aren’t abused or treated like they’re garbage. Everytime I read something about a child abusing an animal, I have to think that there’s something seriously wrong in their homes.
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 25, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
John, a few quick comments. First, euthanasias are at around 4 million (latest estimate I saw from Merritt Clifton was 4.7 million, HSUS estimates between 3 and 4 million), not 9 million.
Second, it isn’t a matter of feeling badly for the responsible breeders. It’s a matter of feeling badly for destroying breeds and gene pools.
Third, while no one can absolutely control what happens to a dog one does not own, the “error rate” with responsible breeders is extraordinarily low - low enough that some are concerned that gene pools in many breeds are actually getting too tight.
Finally, your calculation for the output of an unspayed female dog is way too high for a number of reasons, most notably because for each litter, for each generation, on average, 75% or better of those puppies are going to get spayed.
Comment by Sally — July 26, 2007 @ 9:50 am
Sally, as I’m sure you know, the HSUS’s estimates are based on surveys that rely on the self-reporting of shelters with somewhere around a 20% response rate to the survey. The ASPCA says “between 5 and 9 million” for 2005, the latest year that numbers are available. Estimates elsewhere go as high as 15 million. Sadly, truly accurate numbers are not available, so let me simplify my statement a bit. There are a lot of numbers floating around, pick any one you like: the fact remains that based on available data, while the rate of shelter euthanasia is a declining trend, the work isn’t done until every pet is adopted that does not have to be euthanized for humane reasons.
For me, it IS a matter of feeling badly for responsible breeders. I don’t have a problem with mutts and I think the gene pool could do with a dose of diversification. If the number could be zero by outlawing breeding (which wouldn’t work) and the collateral damage was purebreds declining to near-extinction, I’d support it, and I think it would do more good than harm. However, that won’t work and its a thoroughly unrealistic legislative tack to pursue.
As I believe we’ve beaten to death, responsible breeders are not really the issue here, and I have no idea what you mean by “error rate”, but I assure you that when gene pools get REALLY tight, whatever you mean by that rate is going to go way up.
The “output calculation” is intended to be an estimate of what is theoretically possible with a single unspayed female and I acknowledge that most real-world cases will be different - but I suggest you take a look at some backyard breeding operations or places where dogs openly roam and there is no s/n before you dismiss it as an unrealistic possibility. My point is that a single irresponsible breeding operation, intentional or not can be responsible for MANY unwanted dogs down the line for generations.
Comment by John — July 26, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
I want to comment on the “output calculation.” A few months ago I asked Carl Bialik, the Wall Street Journal’s “Numbers Guy” to look at the reality of those numbers.
His findings are interesting. He traced the oft-repeated “one cat and her offpring” can produce 420,000 more cats back to what most credit as being the source (the HSUS, which, when interviewed, said they weren’t the source, admitted the number was questionable and agreed to take it off their Web site … must run to check).
The WSJ then looked at a more realistic estimate for one cat’s potential outlook, and came up with numbers starting as low as 100!
Check out the story, from last October.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 26, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
I just searched the HSUS Web site. Although they took it off their main pet overpopulation statistics page, the reference to 420,000 cats is still there, in multiple places on the site. (I manage multiple Web sites, so I know it can be tough to find and clean up errors, but still … I found the pages. They can, too.)
Why does this matter? Because as we have asserted here time and time again, you cannot fix a problem until you’ve defined exactly what the problem is.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 26, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
Gina, the link to the WSJ piece is no longer active, is there some way to access the original article they prepared?
Thanks!
Comment by Jennifer J — July 26, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
The theoretical descendants of a single animal is a pretty easy exponential calculation. Take the average number of descendants per litter, call that number A. The theoretical number of possible descendants is A^X, where X = the number of generations.
In the end, is that number meaningful? I’m not sure. Just because something is theoretically possible doesn’t mean it happens. But I am sure that it’s a great way to illustrate the potential damage, the worst-case scenario, if there was zero population control, hopefully in the form of s/n or carefully selective breeding.
Comment by John — July 26, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
Try this for Carl Bialik’s cat column:
http://online.wsj.com/public/a.....80726.html
Hope it works —- reached it via his blog:
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/
Comment by Luisa — July 26, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
HSUS’s estimates factor that in. The 15 million estimate is from approximately ten to fifteen years ago.
The best estimate, and the one I use as a bellweather, is Merritt Clifton’s Animal People estimate, which is nicely done. He pegs it currently at 4.7 million, a slight uptick after many years of steadily going down. He believes that this is due to problems with pit bull overproduction.
He discusses the numbers, in detail, in an interview on the Best Friends web site. It’s worth looking up.
As for hurting responsible breeders, personally, I believe the collateral damage of eliminating purebreds and working dogs is unacceptable in and of itself.
Comment by Sally — July 27, 2007 @ 5:07 am
John, that isn’t a remotely realistic calculation, and is off a few orders of magnitude. It assumes no deaths, no s/n, doesn’t allow for needing animnals of both genders to reproduce, and includes a whole raft of other extremely unrealistic assumptions.
The WSJ debunking is good and you may want to look it up.
Sally (who has a pretty solid math and mathematical modeling background)
Comment by Sally — July 27, 2007 @ 5:10 am
“I have no idea what you mean by “error rate”, but I assure you that when gene pools get REALLY tight, whatever you mean by that rate is going to go way up.”
Error rate - dogs placed as pets who eventually get bred against their breeders’ wishes and spay neuter contract. Rate for truly responsible breeders is very close to zero.
I’m not sure what you thought I meant, but it obviously must have been something else.
Comment by Sally — July 27, 2007 @ 5:12 am