KC DOG BLOG

Los Angeles Mandatory Spay Neuter Report

Christie over at the Pet Connection has a post that highlighted an independent review of the Los Angeles Mandatory Spay/Neuter ordinance that has an explanation for why the ordinance is failing and recommendations on how to fix it. The document is fairly long, but well worth the read to get an inside track on why MSN is failing in Los Angeles -- similar to how it has failed everywhere else it has been tried.

The committed provided several recommendations centered around building compliance for the spay/neuter law. The committee acknowledges that the city cannot possibly enforce their ordinance -- and thus, recommends the city focus on outreach programs, primarily targeted in low-income neighborhoods where compliance is lowest:

Low income persons and low income areas are targeted because this is where the most people who are out of compliance are not out of compliance by choice, but rather because they are unable to financially afford the price of spay/neuter. Humane workers in the low income areas of the city report many people who want to comply with the law but who cannot due to the cost and lack of availability of affordable or free spay/neuter services.

This is what people who are opposed to mandatory spay/neuter ordinances have said for years -- that most people, when provided with the information as to why they should alter their animals, WANT to have the animal altered -- but finances are a big barrier for compliance. (At least one Los Angeles Shelter is still chargeing between $240 and $350 for a 70 lbs dog -- which is completely not affordable for many low or fixed-income people). If you remove those barriers -- with low cost VOLUNTARY programs -- people will usually comply, without the mandatory laws. Los Angeles just happens to not have enough low-cost options available for people to be able to comply.  This recommendation sounds like successful voluntary spay/neuter programs that have been done so successfully out east by Peter Marsh.

It should also be noted that even though the city passed a mandatory ordinance, the number of spay/neuters that were performed by the shelter system remained stagnate to the number of alterations that have been done in the previous three years, without the mandatory ordinance.

Many of the failure to increase the number of alterations is the lack of availability of low- cost options. The document features a wealth of great ideas for generating more veterinarian support, neighborhood support, budget resource allocation, and increasing alteration capacity.

Interestingly, the higher number of animals entering the shelter drove up the costs for the city -- with each animal costing an average of $211 when it comes into the shelter. With 5,000 more animals entering the shelter last than in 2007, that's over $1 million in increased spend on animals entering the shelter.  That type of money would fund a lot (about 14,000) of $70 spay/neuter vouchers.

Unfortunately, the city opted to make altering mandatory, even though the city lacked the resources available to allow low-income people the ability to comply with the law.  One of the drawbacks of having a mandatory law is that it has forced a lot of people -- many of whom want to comply but could not financially afford to do so -- to relenquish their animals (or have them confiscated by animal control) -- which led to a Los Angeles to having a 24% increase in shelter killings in the first year of the ordinance -- ending nearly a decade of declines.

As Christie points out (emphasis mine):

They went on to suggest programs to improve community relations, provide spay/neuter and animal care information in the languages used in the area the shelter serves, to make alliances with veterinarians instead of alienating them — pretty much every single program and policy that opponents of mandatory spay/neuter have always suggested instead of a law. The very programs and policies espoused by the no-kill movement. The exact approaches that have worked in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of communities across this country, instead of and without mandatory spay/neuter laws.

The irony is, of course, that all those programs and policies will not only work without laws forcing sterilization of owned pets, but will work better that way.

As we continue to make progress in ending the unneccessary killing of dogs and cats in our shelters, I think it's really important for us to not just mirror programs that other cities have done -- but actually mirror programs that other cities have done that have HAD SUCCESS.  Most people in the animal welfare community don't oppose mandatory spay/neuter laws because they of part of some big lobby group -- the oppose them because of results like what Los Angeles is seeing in that they simply don't work.  And that if we are to make an impact with spay/neuter programs in our communities, we need to do so with the targeted outreach of low cost/no cost programs that target those neighborhoods with the most need of those programs with high volume, low cost altering.  Those programs have been proven over time to work -- so let's emulate those. And forget the laws that are only creating problems for those who implement them.

You can read the entire report here.

And Christie's comments here.

Some hope for Los Angeles Animals

In a press release yesterday, the author of Los Angeles' mandatory spay/neuter ordinance called for LAAS Director Ed Boks to no end the city's spay/neuter voucher program.  Ending the low-cost program would create a huge prolem for low-income families who would not be able to afford to comply with the city's mandatory spay/neuter laws.  Here's the press release:

Cardenas Says Voucher Program is “Key in Creating a No-Kill City and Saving Money"

Today, the co-author of the city’s new mandatory spay/neuter ordinance issued a letter to General Manager Ed Boks urging the Los Angeles Animal Services Department to continue the Spay and Neuter Voucher Program. Councilman Tony Cardenas, said the department would be “taking a step backwards in our efforts to see Los Angeles become a no-kill city if the discount program is canceled.” The discount voucher program helps lower-income families afford to alter their pets and comply with the law. In addition, Cardenas points out that it would be more costly to the city in both the short and long-term if the program is discontinued.

“The cost savings of cutting the voucher program is shortsighted at best and will only result in immediate and long-term higher costs to the city,” said Cardenas. “A dog or cat that is not spayed or neutered now can have six offspring within a matter of two months. Furthermore, with spring and summer right around the corner, this city could see an alarming increase in strays in our shelters. This will intensify the strain on the department’s already strapped resources.”

It’s estimated that it costs over $100 to house and euthanize one animal. This figure does not include vet care, which could significantly increase that cost. With the discount voucher program, the city pays about $30 per altered animal with the pet owner taking care of the rest. Depending on the vet, spay/neuter procedures can average anywhere from $100 to $150. The city also offers “free vouchers” to residents who qualify whereby the city takes care of the full cost of the operation.

“Giving discounts to help lower-income families spay/neuter their pets and comply with the law is far more fiscally sound than over-burdening our shelters and employees with animals that have no homes,” continued Cardenas. “When the ordinance was drafted, my focus was on drastically reducing the over 15,000 dogs and cats euthanized per year. Without assistance, lower-income families will be unfairly burdened and will be put at risk for non-compliance with the law. In these tough economic times, individuals should not be forced to choose between feeding their families and complying with the law.”

Cardenas will be introducing a motion on Friday calling for the continuation of the voucher program and a report on the success of the spay/neuter ordinance. The letter and motion are attached.

All emphasis was added by me.

While it isn't a call for a repeal of the ordinance (which would be ideal), I'm certainly supportive of the city not pulling back on the availability of the vouchers.  Meanwhile, I'll be intrigued by how the "report on the success of the spay/neuter ordinance" is done. The numbers don't make it appear as if it is working.

Best of luck to Cardenas in his motion tomorrow.

More on Los Angeles

On Wednesday, I noted that Los Angeles announced that they will be discontinuing their free/low cost spay/neuter voucher program for the remaining part of this fiscal year, and the cuts may be ongoing in FY2010.  The discontinuing of the voucher system is due to the city of Los Angeles seeing a $500 million deficite  due to current economic conditions.

While discontinuing the voucher system would be bad on most areas, the bar is raised more in Los Angeles where last year the city passed an ordinance that would require all residents to alter their animals.

The ordinance had a dismal first year, with dog intakes going up 19%, and euthanasia going up 24% - and euthanasia for cats was up 35%.

Obviously, the eliminating the low cost spay/neuter vounchers, but keeping the ordinance is a recipe for disaster.

I've been pretty please with how much national press this has received -- it really is a big deal.

TheLos Angeles Daily news had a great article about this development. Lisa Levell, a vet tech in the area, said she was surprised that the voucher distribution had been halted.

"It's really important for the people with no income or now especially with people who lost their jobs. Almost all pet owners that come from the pound have a coupon for the surgeries."

Last year, the department issued 22,000 $30 discount coupons, and 12,000 $70 coupons - about 65% of the vouchers were used.   So last year, 22,000 vouchers were redeemed.

Linda Barth, the assistant general manager for the shelter said that demand for the vouchers has been high since July (when they began enforcing the mandatory ordinance) - and because of the slow processing time between when the vouchers are given out, and when the vets are reimbursed -- the department is just now seeing a the rise in coupon usage.

The AP also picked up on this story -- which is great for the exposure of the problem -- but unfortunately left out a lot of the information about the failures of the mandatory law and how devastating the development may be.

Meanwhile, the Examiner.com folks have continued to miss the point on just about every issue. While the majority of the column is actually fairly good, they lost me with the second paragraph:

"In February 2008, the city council moved to make spaying and neuteringof pets mandatory in Los Angeles.  This legislation was heralded nationwide as a key step toward the goal of reducing shelter killing of homeless and unwanted animals in LA."

Whoa.  "Heralded"?  The ordinance was criticize by virtually every animal welfare organization in the country. But they ignored that -- as well as the reality that the ordinance has been failing.  Sigh.

Meanwhile, Winograd has some great suggestions at his place for additional provisions that any animal welfare group should insist on if they are pushing for mandatory spay/neuter laws with the idea that it will eliminate shelter killing.  The suggestions only make sense.

Los Angeles Animal Services Discontinues Dicounted Spay/Neuters

LA Animal Watch just reported that due to some budget cuts, LAAS is discontinuing their low cost spay/neuter certificates.

Last year, Los Angeles passed an ordinance that mandates that all animals in the community must be spayed or neutered, and yet, now, they are making it more difficult for people to comply with the law.

Nationwide, the most common reason people give for not having their animals altered is that they say they cannot afford the proceedure. Cities that have been successful at decreasing the homeless animal populations in their cities have been successful by eliminating this most common barrier to spay/neuter -- cost -- through low cost/no cost alteration programs targeting low-income neighborhoods.

So now, LAAS has gone from having the largest barrier to spay/neuter put back in place -- and yet mandated it -- causing a whole new set of people who cannot afford to comply with their mandatory law.

Successful animal control programs have shown that they are successful by removing barriers to responsible dog ownership -- not creating them and punishing non-compliance.

Last year, after passing their mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, Los Angeles saw a 24% increase in euthanasias in the city -- after 6 straight years of steady declines in dogs killed. Keeping a mandatory spay/neuter policy in place, with no low cost spay/neuter program, is setting up the shelter up for a bloodbath -- especially with dogs coming in from low-income neighborhoods.  If LAAS cannot afford to offer low-cost vouchers, they should at the very least suspend enforcment of their MSN law to avoid an even harsher increase in shelter killings.

LAAS continues to struggle with their mandatory spay/neuter law -- and one more thing for other cities to consider before enacting such an ordinance.  Are you listening Chicago?

Los Angeles Mandatory Spay/Neuter - Year 1

In February, 2008, Los Angeles passed their ordinance mandating the spay/neuter of all dogs and cats in their city with the intent on minimizing the number of animals killed in their shelter. They began truly enforcing the law in July (giving people adequate time to comply).

Like many cities that pass such laws, the number of dogs & cats impounded went up after passing the ordinace -- and with the number of impounds increasing, the number of dog and cats euthanized did also. And like many cities, their impounds started going up almost instantly, even before they began enforcing the ordinance.  This appears to be a problem in a lot of places as most people don't pay enough attention to know the ins and outs of all of the laws, and it sounds like the general public may not have been informed all that well.

So with that, here is a look at the intake and euthanasia stats for DOGS for LA Animal Services for the past 8 years:

2001 Intake: 40,442      Euthanized: 22,675

2002 Intake: 34,295      Euthanized: 17,335 (-24%)

2003 Intake: 30,605      Euthanized: 12,821 (-62%)

2004 Intake: 26,949       Euthanized: 9,985  (-22%)

2005 Intake: 25, 740      Euthanized: 8,127 (-19%)

2006 Intake: 24,999        Euthanized: 6,949 (-15%)

2007 Intake: 25,792       Euthanized: 6,051 (-13%)

2008 Intake, 30,813 (+19%)      Euthanized: 7,518  (+24%)

I won't get into as many specifics, but the numbers for cats are very similar, reflecting a 22% increase in impounds and a 35% increase in euthanasia.

Many, including shelter head Ed Boks, will point to the struggling economy and large number of home forclosures as the reason for the huge increase (after at least 7 consecutive years of double digit % decreases). I won't completely dismiss that that may have played a role. But given that these results seem to mirror the results from other cities that pased identical laws NOT in a bad economy, I think it's worth considering that both were likely a negative factor.

In order to end the killing of animals  in our shelters, we must minimize the number of animals we intake (and then increase adoptions on the back end). Creating mandatory spay/neuter laws that create more reasons for animal control to seize animals out of people's homes and bring them into the shelter only increases intake, and thus, shelter killing.

Hat tip: LA Animal Watch

Los Angeles Update

It's been awhile since I've given an update on Los Angeles. LA passed their mandatory spay/neuter ordinance in February and has had a really tough time since then.   Two months ago, thecity auditor accused animal control of having no clearly defined strategy for educating the public about their mandatory spay/neuter ordinance or for enforcing the ordinance.

Meanwhile, back in July, I'd noted that after nearly a decade of consistently falling euthanasia rates at the city shelter, that euthanasia rates for dogs were up 32% through  May of 2008 -- following the passage of the ordinance (although admittedly, enforcement has officially just begun this month -- however, it doesn't seem as if the general public knows or understands this).

Well, the numbers for LA are now available through the end of September.

The results:

2007 Jan- Sept

Impounds: 19,375

Euthanasia: 4,544

Adoptions: 7,897

2008 Jan- Sept:

Impounds: 22,921 (up 18.3%)

Euthanasia: 5,569 (up 22.6%)

Adoptions: 10,140 (up 28%)

The net result of increased legislation is almost always increased impounds. The law becomes yet another reason to confiscate someone's pet.  Since the beginning of this year, impounds are up over 18%.  Even with additional work and adopting out 28% more dogs (and bravo to the adoptions group for pulling that off), euthanasia rates are up over 22% -- after consecutively dropping in euth rates for 6 years prior to 2008.

The law is not helping.

Hat tip, LA Animal Watch.

Los Angeles, No Kill confusion and choosing role models wisely

On Tuesday, a group of Los Angeles shelter workers submitted a proposal to the City Council that seeks to remove Ed Boks as the head of animal control in Los Angeles.

The petition was signed by 30 of the 32 animal care supervisors at the Los Angeles shelter, and 105 of the 216 animal control officers for the city.

According to the staffers, in an effort to achieve no-kill status, the shelter has been warehousing dogs in order to decrease their euthanasia rates. As they've warehoused animals, shelter conditions have worsened.

"They're warehousing animals -- four and five and six per cage," said Victor Gordo who represents the union of shelter supervisors. "That's not good for the animals and that's not good for the public. These animals are tearing each other up." 

These conditions may be one of the reasons the shelter has seen over 730 animals die (uneuthanized) over the past 2 years -- a 22% increase vs the 2 years prior.

The group also claimed that Boks has allowed the number of  field enforcement officials to fall to dangerously low levels.  Boks disputed this claim saying "Impoundments are also up, demonstrating field operations are functioning better than usual."  This is a very interesting claim given that Boks has previously blamed the economy and owner-surrendered animals for the reason behind the city increasing its euthanasia rates after a decade of declines...but now he has confessed that impounds by officers have gone up following the passing of their mandatory spay/neuter ordinance last winter.  So far this year, euthanasia rates for dogs are up 31% in the Los Angeles Animal Shelter system.

This sounds like quite a mess. Now I've never met Boks, or anyone involved in the situation in LA for that matter, so I'm not really qualified to speak to who's right and who's wrong here. Obviously, the increased shelter killing, the increased deaths in the shelter, and increase in the number of dogs impounded are all signs that the system is pretty broken right now.  And having 30 of the 32 supervisors in the shelter calling for their boss's job is never a good sign. 

This also also sounds like they are creating some more confusion over the idea of "No Kill". Not only did the Los Angeles Times article note that Boks was warehousing because of his efforts to make Los Angeles into a No-Kill shelter, but the San Jose Mercury News (never one to let facts get in the way of a good headline) "LA's no-kill shetler policy allegedly harm animals."

I will repeat, nowhere in the No Kill philosophy does it call for warehousing animals.  It calls for ADOPTING animals. Los Angeles was NOT, and was in no way, no kill.  Seriously folks, read the book.

Meanwhile, this also should send a loud signal to cities looking at instituting their own canine policies to be sure they know who their role models are. Last week, Houston, TX had discussions about following Los Angeles' lead and implement a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance similar to the one in LA.  The article even cited Boks in the article.  I'm wondering if they really feel like Los Angeles is the model that should be followed here.

Meanwhile, there is a group in Seattle (Families and Dogs against Fighting Breeds)  that is pushing for a ban on "fighting breeds" (I'll note that they think a lot of dogs are fighting breeds).  They even announce on their website that they want to follow the model established in the UK with the UK Dangerous Dogs Act. They seem to ignore the fact that over the past decade, the UK has seen their total number of dog bites and attacks go up by 50%, while Scotland has seen the number of bites and attacks go up by 150% with the ordinance.

I think it has never been more important to find cities with SUCCESSFUL animal controls, laws and shelters and work hard to emulate those case studies.  Just because someone else did it does NOT mean it was successful. Some day I hope we'll get to the point that we focus on these successful cities.

For more about the SEIU 721 and the Animal Control Alliance's complaints about LAAS and Ed Boks you can read their report here.

More from SEIU 721 on the hearings.

For more on the hearings, LA Animal Watch has had a lot of details this week.