Comments on: Spay/neuter in shelters: Does raising the bar mean raising the cost?

By: A.S.

A.S. — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 02:05:51 +0000

My female, (stray) yard cat died this month on a mobile spay-neuter clinic in NY. I will never use this method again. It is impossible to get a straight answer as to what exactly happened or anyone to talk to regarding the circumstances. I just wonder about the the pre-operative evalutaion that is done & by whom & with what type of credentials or experience they have and how equipped they are to handle complications during a sugery. I only wonder if she could have been saved in a hospital setting. I have searched on line looking for statistics of the number of deaths on mobile clinics but have not found any information. In the future, I will only have an animal spayed or neutered in a hospital setting. My first priorty is safety & to have an animal returned alive. It seems the rest of the world’s 1st priority is to have as many animals spayed & neutered at any cost & if a small percentage are lost with this convenient, quick, low cost service then so be it. This only will matter to you if your animal happens to be in the small percentage that is lost.

By: joy

joy — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:09:37 +0000

slt…you left out the part where I suggested they could get volume discounts and raise extra funds to offset lower adoption fees. That’s what I do. My vet charges me around (on average)$100 per spay/neuter which, with all the extra care provided to my fosters, often means the pets I have for adoption are costing me more than the adoption fee. Rather than look for those extra funds through free or discounted services through other nonprofits, I just do my own fundraising. So, if all I could find was a $500 surgery, I would charge the usual $100-$200 adoption fee and raise extra money to offset the rest.

I just think free or discounted spay/neuter services (assuming those resources are limited)should be reserved for the most needy and for the pets most likely to reproduce without intervention. Pets in my care will not reproduce no matter what….so, I don’t want to take away from the limited funds available in my commununity for pets that truly need to be altered because they are immediately at risk of producing a litter.(like feral cats and pets owned by people who simply cannot afford surgery)

I’m not sure about other commmunities but where I live there is much more need than there is money. A kitten in my care will be neutered no matter how much I have to pay…but a feral kitten in my community will not be neutered unless those funds are available.

By: slt

slt — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:53:02 +0000

“I think that rescues and shelters should budget for whatever the going rate is for spay/neuters in their area and transfer that expense to their adopters.”

Comment by Joy — July 14, 2008 @ 9:23 am

So a 5 year old, 98 pound Shepherd mix bitch is going to cost a potential adopter $500 or more in adoption fees? This is going to get fewer dogs into homes.

“I challenge Pet Connection to show some pictures(before and after) of euthanasia to the many cats and dogs in our “humane” kill shelters as a wake up call.”

Comment by Serijna — July 14, 2008 @ 2:47 pm

There are pictures of dead puppies and kittens on many AR websites already. I would rather work toward destroying the misconception that healthy, adoptable pets in shelters have to be killed due to lack of homes. This is the myth that is keeping shelter pets from getting into homes - the accepted idea that killing is a solution to a homeless pet problem. ADOPTING is a much better solution. There’s your wake up call.

By: Lis

Lis — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:31:38 +0000

Also pls keep in mind that many “no kill” shelters do take their unadoptable ones to “kill” shelters thereby maintaining the “no kill” accolade.

Cite, please. Evidence. With some specifics. No “we can’t name the guilty” evasions.

By: Joy

Joy — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:12:20 +0000

Gina, I just feel that if there are only x-amount of spay/neuter dollars available within a community they should be spent in a sort of needs-based or cost/benefit basis. Starting with animals most likely to reproduce and least likely to be altered without intervention. Ya know?

By: Serijna

Serijna — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:47:08 +0000

I donot want to see any changes that could result in a decrease to the current spay/neuter practices for mainly cats but also dogs. Unless ofcourse the current practices result (so far unproven IMO)in many preventable (due to questionable standards) deaths.
I donot support “the pay for spay” though. Some sicko individuals might see an opportunity for making some bucks.
I also think it is totally unrealistic to expect veterinarians to donate their services or even more stupid to finance such procedures out of their own pocket just because they happen to be a veterinarian. Do you expect that from your pediatrician, lawyer, plumber, electrician, landlord, IRS etc. ? Do you ,yourself, provide free services or even pick up the additional expenses in your own profession.
I admit, I am a fanatic when it comes spaying/neutering for all feral, stray and house (those allowed to roam outside) cats. Will even make a pact with devil to get positive results.
I challenge Pet Connection to show some pictures(before and after) of euthanasia to the many cats and dogs in our “humane” kill shelters as a wake up call. Also pls keep in mind that many “no kill” shelters do take their unadoptable ones to “kill” shelters thereby maintaining the “no kill” accolade.
I pity the shelter workers, quite often volunteers, who have to endure euthanasia to perfectly healthy, and quite young or even babies as a result of unspayed/unneutered mamas.
Another experience I had with some local animal clinics I encountered for my ferals(as a normal paying client) is that they wanted at least two appointments. First one for initial shots/examinations/tests and a later one for actual spaying/neutering. Probably very prudent/STANDARD(love that word) for a tame house cat but totally unrealistic for a feral.
And Gina, I am sure that some people use the low cost spay and neuter eventhough they can easily afford vet. clinic’s still very reasonable spay and neuter services. However, by hook or by crook, just grateful their animals were spayed/neutered regardless of the method. But no spay for pay. My goodness, many rescue groups will pick up/trap the animal and deliver it to the front door afterwards, all for free. How much more could they do.

By: Gina Spadafori

Gina Spadafori — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:31:45 +0000

I disagree. I do not believe spay-neuter surgeries should be “needs-tested.” There’s a definite benefit to society to having more pets spayed and neutered, especially feral cats. Who owns or who brings in these animals is a side-issue to me.

I do NOT think veterinarians should be forced to donate services, staff time and supplies to cover the need to society to have more pets altered.

Instead, I would prefer to see fund-raising focus on spay-neuter efforts, providing low-cost, free and even pay-to-spay programs (especially for feral cats) that get people off the dime with regards to getting more animals altered. If getting a feral spayed puts $10 in your pocket, that’s to the benefit of all.

I don’t have a problem with someone who makes a good salary getting a low-cost or free spay-neuter, as long as 1) the cost isn’t unfairly coming out the veterinarian’s pocket; and 2) it gets an animal who needs to be spayed or neutered done.

The point is to get more animals spayed and neutered, not to put up barriers to that getting done.

By: Joy

Joy — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:23:03 +0000

I agree surgeries offered to low income pet owners should be offered with the exact same care being given to the client paying full price …or else they should not be offered at all. If it’s a $200 operation at that clinic, the veterinarian needs to donate a $200 surgery, not do a $50 job.

In human medicine, when we read about these great hospitals and physicians offering everything from cleft palate surgeries to heart transplants for disadvantaged children, are those surgeries being performed any differently than the ones offered to children whose families can pay? I’m not sure but I certainly hope not.

Either way, is it really fair to automatically consider rescues, shelters and their adopters “low-income” and in need of greatly reduced prices? High-volume (or high demand/need) doesn’t necessarily mean the organization can’t afford the services and choosing a rescue/shelter does not necessarily mean the adoptive family is poor. Right?

I think that rescues and shelters should budget for whatever the going rate is for spay/neuters in their area and transfer that expense to their adopters. If the rescue or shelter can negotiate volume discounts, great!: that is good business sense and creates funds for an increased numbers of surgeries. Likewise, if some otherwise qualified adopters cannot pay, the organization can fund raise and budget for some discounted adoptions as needed.

Otherwise, I think “low income” spays/neuters should be reserved for truly low-income pet owners whose pets might not otherwise ever be altered. And when those are offered, they should be subsidized with donations, not by lowering the standard of care.

By: Dr Patty Khuly

Dr Patty Khuly — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:02:10 +0000

Ah, the *will* to change things. Sometimes it comes down to the *push ‘n shove*. I hope this set of standards gets vets talking AND feeling squeezed to improve their practices. For my part I’ll be writing about this issue for September’s Veterinary Practice News: “High” Standards, “Good” Medicine, and YOUR Practice (working title, needs some jazz, right?).

By: Christie Keith

Christie Keith — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:26:51 +0000

Patty, I agree — in practice. But I feel all squirrelly about the argument (not being made by you) that asepsis doesn’t matter because most animals are fine after surgeries not done to the highest standards of asepsis (and anesthetic protocols, analgesia, etc).

I mean, there are “standard of care” guidelines in human medicine for field amputations, battlefield triage and first care, emergency C-sections — all kinds of situations where asepsis takes a backseat to lifesaving.

The problem is not those kinds of battlefield decisions, it’s the institutionalization of bad medicine when it’s not really necessary to save lives.

I certainly don’t question your judgment about an individual case; I question the systemic acceptance of low standards of medicine on an institutional scale, using “need” as a justification.

And of course, my nagging sense that many of the compromises aren’t really necessary, if people just had the will to change things.