KC DOG BLOG

Great Friday Reads

I usually try to add this as part of the weekly roundup, but there have been some great posts from around the internet the past 10 days or so and I just really want to put them out there for some excellent reading.  I really do encourage you to click through -- some great stuff out there.

Sam theDog Trainer has a very good new article on some of the causes for dogs biting young children. The keys are supervision children and dogs, providing proper training and exercise for your dog, and not creating a stressful environment for your dog.

Great news from Austin Pets Alive -- the Austin city council unanimously passed the resolution to make the necessary steps to make Austin a no-kill city. Here's a link to the shelter recommendations on how they plan to achieve no kill.

The folks at Animal Ark Foundation in Minneapolis have a great You Tube video they put together on how the animal welfare industry lost their way -- based on the book Redemption. It's very much worth watching -- it's 20 minutes long but goes very quickly.

Fred at One Bark at a Time has a really great article about dog bites.  The reality is that most dog bites happen for a reason -- and it is usually caused by something the human did wrong. The more we understand dog behavior, the more we can properly assess whether a biting dog is truly aggressive or not. Fred shares a couple of personal stories that provide great examples for discussion.  I'm a fan of Fred's writing (and photography), but I think his telling of personal stories like this are him at his best.

Christie had a great article in the San Franscisco Chronicle about why dog advocates aren't moving on when it comes to Michael Vick's unpaid dues.  Vick's actions went far beyond dog fighting and into nearly unspeakable animal cruelty...for which Vick has never shown even the slightest bit of remorse.

This one is seemingly a bit random, but this is an article by John Stossel one what he feels like is a double-standard that journalists seem to have about bias. When Stossel first started as a journalist, he mostly reported about companies that were trying to screw over consumers (he has some interesting thoughts on this), and when he was doing it, other journalist liked him. But now that he has turned his focus onto the government and media and its constant fear mongering.  I think it's a pretty good read following my series on the Science of Fear a few weeks ago.  For what it's worth, I did a write-up about Stossel's Series: Fear Mongering in America back in 2007 - -you can read those installments here, here, here and here.

PBRC has launched a new blog called Pitter Patter. The site is mostly really cute pictures of 'pit bulls' in really funny moments and with funny headlines. Think of it as the LOLcats for 'pit bulls'.  Nearly guaranteed to bring a smile to your face.

YesBiscuit has a good commentary on "What if we all neutered our pets today?" in response to the push for mandatory spay/neuter in Northeast Georgia.

Blog Postings from the No More Homeless Pets Conference in Las Vegas

Ok, first off hats off to some of the great folks who were live blogging and live tweeting from the conference. It was kind of like being there -- without being there. Thanks all -- particularly  Christie from the Pet Connection and jsibley on Twitter. Thanks all.

Christie had an awesome set of live blog posts. I'm going to link to all of them individually with a few comments about each of them. I have seen most of the speakers before so I feel comfortable about knowing what the basics of the presentations.  So please, go read Christie's posts - And some from the No More Homeless Pets Conference blog -- which are the links provided. And enjoy.  My thoughts included below.

Opening Panel Discussion

It is great to hear how much Best Friends has really embraced the No Kill movement. But what I think may be the most interesting part of this is just how many organizations (all the panelists except one) that are turning against Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinances. As recently as 4 years ago, it seemed like most everyone favored MSN ordinances -- but after seeing the devastating effects of these ordinances, most animal welfare orgs now do not favor them. The bottom line is that most people now currently alter their pets on their own. The most common reason people don't alter their pets is because they cannot afford to. Laws don't change that. And laws on their own only cause many animals to be confiscated for non-compliance with the law. Low cost spay/neuter programs -- programs that remove the #1 barrier for non-compliance - do work. While laws can seem to work when the low cost options are in place, they are unneccessary because the low cost options work without them. At best, the laws are unnecessary, at worst, catastrophic for animals.

I'm also amazed at how anyone could use Los Angeles as a model of "success" for this type of law.  Just because they have it, doesn't mean it's been successful.

Planning and Business Skills Save Lives

It is amazing to me how slow the animal welfare/rescue industry has been to adapt to change. While virually every other organization type is actively learning from other industries that will move them to the next level of success, it seems that many in animal welfare are horrible about goal-setting, and many even believe that success is not possible. It is time to abandon old ways of thinking about animal welfare and adopt new models that have proven succcessful.

What's New In Feral Cats?

I'm still fascinated by the number of cities that have laws that actively work against Feral Cats and feral cat caretakers.  Programs that actively seek to alter animals so the colony populations begin to stabalize and then dwindle are great. Barn cat programs are excellent. The idea that squirrels have more protrection under the law than cats is just odd to me.  And I know many people get upset about "outside" cats - but as Winograd pointed out at the conference, being outside is not the leading killer of cats in this country -- our animal shelters are.  It's time to re-think feral cats and give them a chance to live out their lives naturally vs prematurely killing them in our shelter systems.

Get Social, Save Lives

Sometimes it's important to think about "friend" raising, not just "fund" raising.  Social media outlets are excellent ways to make friends, and maintain connections, cheaply and efficiently. The more we can do to use these to our benefit the better we'll be able to reach out to others when we need homes for animals (which is always).

Building a No Kill Community -- Bonnie Brown of Nevada Humane Society

In three years, Bonnie Brown has taken the community of Reno, NV from essentially a city like most others than kills about 50% of the animals in their shelter, to a community that is essentially no-kill. It hasn't been just her thought -- it's taken an entire community of people (including animal control - yah Mitch!) to get them there.

Much of the success in Reno has been by avoiding the type of thinking that leaves animals in shelters and taking a proactive approach to marketing. While many shelters get upset about the idea of "impulse" adoptions, Bonnie points out that most of us in rescue have certainly "saved" an animal on impulse. Why would adoptions be different?  Just because a decision is made on "impulse" doesn't mean it isn't a lasting decision.

She also believes in using ideas from retail to save lives.  Auto dealers really work to get people to take cars for test drives because they know once someone drives a car, they are more likely to fall in love and buy it. Why don't we do more "trial adoptions" for people who are not 100% sure if they want a pet or not and let them take an animal home and fall in love. It's about creating an experience with the animal, not trying to get them to fall in love through a metal cage wall.

Nevada Humane also has some of the most innovative adoption promotions -- seniors for seniors,  Valentines Day Speed Dating, St. Patricks DAy, Mardi Gras, and even Arbor Day (some funny stuff here).  She also recommends taking the Wal-Mart approach to adopting out animals. While high end retailers may charge more, they move fewer items. In a shelter environment, we must move a large number of animals. Think Wal-mart, not Saks 5th Avenue. If you move a lot of animals, and do things the right way, you'll more than make up for the fees with more adoptions and more donations from people who see you're doing right by the animals.

A Tail of Two Cities - Calgary and New York

I've talked a lot about Calgary here in the past -- and there are a lot of great things going on in New York as well.  Some things though that I think are particularly relevant that are making Calgary a success where others are failing:

1) In Calgary, their main idea is that most people WANT to do the right thing, but often don't know what that is or don't have the resources to do it. There, they are all about educating people on the right things to do, and removing the barriers to doing them with things like low cost/no cost spay/neuter.

2) Their focus is also on education, not enforcement. Bill Bruce there firmly believes that laws and ticketing are not the way to gain compliance -- that education is. "Enforcement is always the last resort, not the first".  This is probably where most US cities go astray as we put way too much emphasis in this country on punishing people vs getting the right desired behavior.

3) Calgary has very high licensing rates -- which allows them to have very high Return-to-owner numbers. 30% of the animals they "intake" never even make it to the shelter -- but are driven directly home. Their focus is on getting the animal home, and not 'punishing" the owner for having the loose dog in the first place. If someone becomes a "habitual" offender, THEN they get fined. But free rides home are always available for first time offenses. This allows their animal control to be seen as a service, not as a punishing organization -- which increases licensing compliance. It also saves them a small fortune in sheltering costs by never having the animals come into the shelter.

Thanks to all who attended this weekend that made getting the information out there possible.

Communities support successful organizations, but we need city support

Over the past 8 months, Kansas City, KS has ceased being a death trap for animals. In 2008, the KCK shelter killed roughly 4300 animals, but new leadership within animal control in KCK has at least led them to the decision to begin working with the Humane Society of Greater Kansas City to begin adopting out animals from the shelter -- instead of allowing the shelter to remain a death trap.  And adopt out animals they have done.

Since the first part of the year, the HSGKC has taken an abysmal kill rate of 56% to where only less than 4% of the adoptable dogs and cats in the shelter are being killed.  The success has been amazing -- and a true testimate that it IS possible to adopt your way to no kill.

However, two weeks ago, the Humane Society of Greater Kansas City sent out  a plea for money.  The costs of running the off-site adoptions, and for the staffing, and for the care of all the animals they were adopting out were starting to mount.

And the citizens in Kansas City responded in a big way -- as of Friday, the HSGKC had received nearly $100,000 in donations.

If you do things the right way, and work your butt off to save the lives of animals, the communities you serve will recognize it and step up to help you do it.  In Kansas City, they just did.

This is all great for the animals in KCK and for HSGKC.  But my fear is that unless the city government gets involved, their success will not be sustainable. The city animal control is still confiscating too many animals from home good homes because of laws that are on the books. They are still pulling every dog out of homes that even remotely looks like a 'pit bull' -- dogs like Brutus, Roscoe and Nikko  -- because of the city's breed ban. They are still confiscating animals from homes because they are unalterd due to the city's ordinance mandating spay/neuter -- instead of just encouraging them to use HSGKC's low-cost spay/neuter options and leaving the animals in the home.  They're still confiscating too many animals because of the city's overly restrictive pet limit law.

The city could really ease the burden on HSGKC by repealing some of the laws that are a) taking well-cared for, well behaved animals out of people's homes unnecessarily and b) removing some of the restrictions that make adopting animals into homes more difficult.

If the city government could get on board, the work they and HSGKC are doing will not only continue success -- but will be completely sustainable.

The citizens and taxpayers are clearly supportive. 

And the citizens throughout the

California Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill could mean death to millions of animals

I honestly have no idea how this bill has made it this far....or how anyone who has looked at it at all objectively supports it.

But in California, SB 250 was heard today by the California Assembly Business and Professional Committee.  The bill passed through the committee and will now go to the Assembly Appropriations committee. If this bill passes it would essentially require mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs and cats in the state of California....and will most likely cost hundreds of thousands of animals their lives.

Last year, the city of Los Angeles began enforcing its law mandating the spay/neuter of all pets.

In the first year of the ordinance, Los Angeles had a 24% increase in euthanasia for dogs and 35% for cats in their city shelter --reversing a six year long decline in shelter euthanasia. One of the many problems that was exposed by their ordinance was that there was less supply of low-cost spay/neuter options than there was demand -- a problem that caused the head of animal control, Ed Boks, to temporarily cease giving out low-cost vouchers because the city had exceeded its limit to what it could afford.  Boks eventually resigned as the head of LA Animal Control.

So, the state of California is now looking at bringing this same "success" to the entire state of California?  Never mind that because of the struggles in funding, Governor Schwarzenegger offered up a plan to decrease the amount of time animals needed to stay in shelters from a minimum of 5 days to a minimum of 3 days because of financial struggles faces by many city shelters.  If many cities in the state are under such financial dire straights that they cannot even afford to keep animals for 5 days so they can find their original homes or new homes, how would we ever expect them to up their resources for low-cost spay/neuter programs that would help citizens comply with this new law?

We can't. And instead of just seeing what happened in Los Angeles, where thousands of animals were killed because of their new law, the state of California will be adding a huge multiplier and will literally see tens ofs thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, more pets killed if this ordinance passes.

There is a lot more information out there on this topic from people who have been following it a lot more closely than me.  For starters, check out the Pet Conneciton -- who has covered the bill here and most recently here.  And more here from Save our Dogs.

Because more and more places have enacted mandator spay/neuter legislation -- and we've seen the massive negative impact of such laws -- such legislation is now opposed by nearly every mainstream animal welfare organization -- including Alley Cat Allies, the AVMA, the ASPCA, and the No Kill Advocacy Center -- and this bill in particular is opposed by the California State Department of Finance. 

The laws don't work. They don't save animal's lives. If only it were that easy.

But given the current financial situation in the state of California, the passing of this ordinance in committee today makes it all the more concerning.

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.

New State laws are a reflection of canine policy moving in the right direction

We are nearing the end of the legislative session in most states, and a lot of states are passing some solid animal ownership laws, and deciding against some of the policies that have proven to be bad policy. While none of these policies is perfect, they at least are movements in the right direction because they are focusing on a) actual causes of dog bites, b) irresponsible pet owners and c) policies that have proven themselves to be effective.  I haven't read all of the wording of each of these laws, so if folks in these areas have read the entire laws, I'd love to hear your takes on them. But at least, on their face, they appear to be steps in the right direction toward how we deal with canine laws.

Here are a few of the policies and some pros and cons (mostly pros) of the passed state laws:

Nevada Anti-Tethering Law -- passed

The Law, SB 132, makes Nevada the 3rd state to specifically limit the number of hours a dog can be tethered or chained each day. Beginning October 1, 2009, a dog cannot be chained for more than 14 hours a day and a tether has to be at least 12' long. 

The good: most professional organizations that deal in canine behavior admit that tethering as a sole form of containment often leads to canines that are undersocialized and can lead to frustration which can build to aggression.  The statistics show that a fairly large number of major bites and attacks occur with dogs that either bite people that approach (often unwary children) or break free from their tethers and attack.  I think overall, minimizing the amount of time and the way a dog can be tethered is a good way to improve overall public safety.

The bad: I still worry about what happens to dogs that's owners are in violation of the law. Are they immediately confiscated to where they end up in the overcrowded shelter system where death is a likely option? Are there programs set up for low-income owners who cannot afford fencing and their landlord will not allow the dogs inside the rental home?  The devil is in the details with these as while I support the idea of laws that limit the amount of time a dog is tethered, I am always concerned about not creating situations where unware owners with good intentions lose their dogs, or where the laws are used as an excuse to confiscate animals that end up dead in our shelters. I'm not a believer that being on a chain (for most dogs) is a "fate worse than death".  If these laws can be enforced in a way that allows for the vast majority of dog owners -- even those with a first-time violation -- to keep their dogs, I'm in favor. If the laws are used to increase the number of animals killed in shelters, I am not.  I would prefer that any anti-tethering law preclude seizure for first time offenders.

Illinois "vicious dog" bill - passed

This bill  prohibit  people convicted of  violent or drug-related felonies from owning an unaltered dog for up to 10 years after being released from prison. It also prevents them from owning any dog legally declared vicious based on its behavior. Felons who are covered under the law include those that have been convicted of the sale or production of methamphetamine, marijuana, other drugs, deadly weapons offenses and dog fighting offenses.

The Good:  A lot of bad policies are created in an attempt to eliminate dog fighting and the use of protection dogs for drug houses. This type of law will put restrictions on people who would be considered 'high risk' of running illegal operations in the future, including owning dangerous or fighting dogs.  While some states have tried to pass similar laws to preclude any dog ownership to people who fall into this category, I think that this actually undermines the effectiveness of a lot of good prison dog programs where dogs are used to help many prisoners develop compassion and for rehabilitation before they are released. I think these programs are too valuable to undermine. But allowing them to own any dog, of any breed, as long as it is sterilized, is a good way to provide limitations on high risk dog owners, without undermining good, successful rehabilitation programs.

The Bad:  I don't see a lot of downside to a law like this, except I don't think anyone who has been convicted of felony animal cruelty or felony dog fighting should be allowed to own dogs again and that might be a way to tighten this law up in the future.

Nebraska Dangerous Dog Law -- passed

This law essentially is the three strikes law that targets habitually irresponsible dog owners. If a dog owner owns a dog that is responsible for a 2nd attack, the owenr could face up to 1 year in jail and a $1000 fine. If there is a 3rd attack by the owner's dog, the owner could face a felony penalty of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The dog just has to be owned by the same owner, it does not have to be the same dog.

The good: This is certainly targeted toward habitually irresponsible dog owners who repeatedly own dogs that attack. Many times the laws are written to target the dogs, but this one takes the "dog" out of the equation and really targets the owner who is at fault. This could really help get after the very tiny percentage of owners that cause a large part of the problem.

The bad: I don't know how "attack" is defined here. I hope there is some common sense in this definition that doesn't nail someone for having a "nippy" dog that ends up sending someone to jail for a couple of small nips. 

Florida Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill -- Failed

Wisely, the Florida state legislature killed a bill that would have mandated spay/neuter for all pets over the age of four months.  Mandatory spay/neuter ordinances have consistently led to an increase in shelter killing and science is indicating that juvenile spay/neuter may create long-term health problems, especially in large breed dogs.  It is great that these bills are falling out of favor at the state level.

It sounds like mostly this legislative session has been a winner for canine laws.  Thoughts?

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?

It's (way past) time to start being honest about spay/neuter

A coworker friend of mine had to euthanize her dog this weekend.

A couple of weeks ago, her dog was diagnosed with cancer and even though they tried to treat it, there came a time to do the humane thing and put the dog to sleep. Her dog was an 8 year old Rottweiler, that had been neutered at 5 months of age.

Over at Lassie Get Help, she's mentioned on numerous occasions about a study that links juvenile spay/neuter of large breed dogs and the increased risk of bone cancer.The studies have largely been done on Rottweilers, who appear to be most at risk, but apparently there is increased risk in all large-breed dogs. Here's an exert from the abstract:

"Male and female dogs that underwent gonadectomy before 1 year of age had an approximate one in four lifetime risk for bone sarcoma and were significantly more likely to develop bone sarcoma than dogs that were sexually intact."

None of this should be a huge surprise to humans. As a society, we KNOW that hormones affect our development. We inject hormones into cattle so they grow larger faster.  We inject dairy cattle with hormones so they produce more milk. Athletes even inject hormones in order to improve their overall performance in sports. And yet, many want to deny that the likelihood exists that removing a dog's gonads, which produce hormones used by the body for development, at a very young age may cause developmental problems that lead to major health problems later in life.

It really only makes sense.

Many organizations have followed HSUS's lead in promoting the benefits of spaying/neutering their pets (and there are many), but seem perfectly content to just never mention the potential drawbacks.  And those exist as well. 

In the conversations about "overpopulation" and "overcrowded" shelters, and the desperate attempt to end the killing in our shelters, we have (rightfully so) put a LOT of emphasis on spay/neuter. 

However, spay/neuter is NOT the end goal.  Spay/neuter is a tool that will help us not kill animals in shelters. Ending the killing is the end goal, not spay/neuter.

Somehow that has been forgotten.

Instead, many organizations that work so hard to get dogs and cats altered will risk animal's lives to ensure they are altered. I've heard too many stories about dogs with health issues being altered and having their lives put at risk. I had one dog that I brought to Kansas City from New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina that died having a spay surgery that was insisted upon by the head of the rescue even though she had a severe case of heartworms  and  a prolapsed uterus.

Even with Boomer, I feel like he was altered too soon. Because of the insistence of some of the folks in Oklahoma, he was altered in a mobile clinic, in adverse weather conditions with no comfortable area for recovery, while still very skinny.  He was going to a completely new environment, already scared -- but now also in pain.  The kicker here is that Boomer was going to a reputable rescue group (MABBR) that it would have been ILLEGAL for them to adopt him out without being altered. I would have much preferred him get healthy and back up to a good weight, before he underwent surgery.

One thing people in animal welfare I think sometimes forget, because they do hundreds and thousands of spay/neuter surgeries, is that it is an invasive surgery that is hard on the dogs. Just because it is "routine", does not make it non-invasive.

Now I don't want to give off the impression that I don't support spay/neuter. I do.

I HATE mandatory laws. Mandatory spay/neuter laws usually force all dogs (regardless of breed) to be altered by four or sometimes 2 months of age, regardless of the long-term health problems that this may cause in larger breeds.  The laws also encourage animal control officials to confiscate dogs from owners if the dogs have not been altered -- causing the dogs to go into the shelter and often killed in the shelter. Again, spay/neuter is a tool, not the end goal.

I do still strongly support voluntary spay/neuter programs.  Programs that target high-risk areas with low-cost/no-cost spay and neuter programs like those promoted byPeter Marsh and Nathan Winograd definitely work to reduce shelter populations and help create no-kill communities. However, it is our responsibility to be HONEST with people about spay/neuter. We should not only include the information about the positive attributes of spay/neuter -- but we should also discuss the potential drawbacks.

If we don't, the animal welfare community risks shooting itself in the foot in the quest for reaching the end-goal of a no-kill country. If people were to ever get the sense that animal welfare advocates (who, by definition, care about the welfare of animals) are not only performing surgeries on dogs that may not be good candidates for the surgery, but also MANDATING that a surgery be performed that would could lead to long-term health problems in dogs, would be devastating to the long-term goals of spay/neuter. If you think that getting people to comply with spay/neuter is difficult now, wait until people rebel AGAINST the idea because they find out the people they trusted because they cared about the welfare of animals were not honest with them.

The results of a backlash would be pretty devastating.

I'm not saying we should quit what we're doing (outside of the pushing of MSN), but we MUST be honest with people about not only the health benefits of spay/neuter, but also the potential drawbacks of the procedure...ESPECIALLY for juvenile large-breed dogs.

If we don't, the rebellion AGAINST spay/neuter will completely kill our hopes of reaching the end-goal -- saving animal lives.

For more on the positives and negative impacts of spay/neuter, read more here.

Update:  Oy ve. Here's an article from a rescue person in Tacoma that is exactly what I'm talking about here.

Is BSL falling out of favor?

Folks, it appears people are starting to listen, and notice.

Yesterday, the state of Montana briefly listened to testimony about a bill that would have banned all pit bulls from the State of Montana. After hearing about an hour of testimony from some of the over 100 people who attended that were all apparently against the measure, the House Local Government committee quickly rejected the measure.

Meanwhile, in Oshkosh, WI, city health director Paul Spiegel asked that his measure that would put major restrictions on 'pit bulls' in the city be pulled. He sent his proposal out to various citizens and canine organizations throughout the city and the response was overwhelmingly opposed to his measure. Even the idea of mandating spaying/neutering of dogs in the city is off the table. After initially proposing the MSN ordinance, Joni Geiger of the Oshkosh Area Humane Society backed off her support of the ordinance.

"The more research we did it just seems as though it really doesn't work." She said that many people chose not to alter their dogs because they couldn't afford to.  "Plus, making it mandatory and then trying to enforce it would be even harder.  Making them do it is not actually going to make them do it."

Meanwhile, from Jodi Pries at Bless The Bullies, it appears that Molalla, OR has also chosen to go with a breed-neutral dangerous dog ordinance that would protect citizens from aggressive dogs, regardless of breed.

These cities have followed other cities like Lancaster, MA, Manchester, MI, Sumner, WA, Puyallup, WA, West Liberty, IA, and West Allis, WI as cities that have discussed breed specific language in the past month, but have opted for breed-neutral ordinances.

City administrators are starting to listen. And why shouldn't they?

The reality is that every single organization of experts on canines in this country OPPOSES breed specific legislation.  Meanwhile, even with 20 years of BSL legislation that has existed, there has yet to be one case study that has shown it to be effective at minimizing the number of dog bites and attacks in the community.  And there have been countless cases where the legislation has proven to be a complete failure.

I believe folks are starting to get it. They're starting to listen. Yay.