KC DOG BLOG

Los Angeles takes new approach (after Mandatory Spay/Neuter fails)

Well, this is a start.

This week, a series of advertisements for a group called No Kill Los Angeles has broken with the goal of raising awareness of the problem of high euthanasia rates in Los Angeles area shelters -- the advertising is hoped to facilitate adoptions and encourage people to spay/neuter their pets.

The advertising campaign is a new approach for LA -- made possible by Best Friends Animal Society that began operating a shelter in the Los Angeles area after the city built the shelter at a cost of more than $19 million -- but then lacked the funds to open the shelter and manage it. Yeah, really. Best friends turned the facility into and adoption center and plans to spend about $1 million a year running the shelter.

In 2008, Los Angeles passed a law mandating that all dogs and cats be spayed and neutered.  The results have been, well, disasterous.

The following are the numbers of DOGS impounded, and euthanized, over the past 11 years.  The numbers come from ShelterTrak and from the Los Angeles numbers published online:

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%)

In 2008, the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance was passed:

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

2009 Intake 31,869   Euthanized: 7,624  (+1.5%)

2010 Intake : 33,396  Euthanized: 8,210 (+7.7%)

2011 Intake: 35,589  Euthanized: 9,452 (+15.1%)

In 2011, 5 years after the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance was put into effect to try to DECREASE shelter euthanasia, 38% more dogs were impounded and 56% more dogs were euthanized than the year prior to the ordinance taking effect. Ouch.

The numbers for cats, equally poor:

2006 Euthanized: 12,277

2007 Euthanized: 8,960 (MSN begins after this year)

2008 Euthanized: 12,099

2009 Euthanized: 11,938

2010 Euthanized: 12,435

2011 Euthanized: 13,561

From the outset, the law was a failure. Shortly after passing the ordinance, the city became unable to offer low cost spay/neuter services because they ran short of money to meet the high demand. And in spite of insistence that the law was a good idea, an independent report noted that the city had "No Plan" for how to enforce the law, or get people into compliance.

So, with no plan or financial ability of how to HELP people get into compliance with the mandatory spay/neuter law, the city passed the mandatory spay/neuter law -- and with it, both intakes, and shelter euthanasia, have increased EVERY, SINGLE, YEAR since the law was passed 5 years ago.

Fail.

So after years of failure in trying to create a law to punish people for not spaying or neutering, finally, the folks at Best Friends, who are now running one of the city's shelters, are finally trying a different approach. This approach involves educating people on why spay/neuter is important, and why adoption is important, in the reality that if you ENCOURAGE the public to help you in your efforts to save lives, they will respond in a far more positive way than if you try to punish them into compliance.

For very real reasons like this, major national orgnaiztions like the AVMA, ASPCA, Best Friends, American Humane, Ally Cat Allies, and No Kill Advocacty Center are all opposed to mandatory spay/neuter laws -- joining a near national consensus opposed to such laws.

This doesn't mean there is opposition to spay/neuter -- but an opposition to mandating it for individuals when the laws have continued to fail, over and over, and targeted, voluntary, low cost spay/neuter programs continue to prove to be effective and efficient ways of generating positive results.

This hopefully is a good first step for Los Angeles -- whose punitive approach has proven to be a failure, and left thousands of dead animals in its wake.

Las Vegas Mandatory Spay/Neuter -- Year 1

In May of 2010, the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson and the rest of unincorporated Clark County passed laws mandating that all dogs and cats be spayed and neutered because the county animal shelter was killing more than 17,000 dogs and cats each year. The idea was, they hoped, to decrease the number of animals impounded, and thus killed, at the shelter -- never mind that this has never been an effective solution to the problem.

The results after year 1?  As one would predict, failure.

Below are the shelter impound and euthanasia rates for dogs  over the past three years. The county's fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30. I am starting with the base year of 08-09 as the first "clean" year. 09-10 would include 2 months with the MSN ordinance in existance. Experience has shown a typically sharp increase in shelter intake immediately after a law like this passes due to fear/confusion over the law and people surrendering their pets.  The numbers for 10-11 are with the first full year of MSN.

I've not included cats in the chart below because the impound numbers for cats have been very consistent over the past 7 years -- and their increasing kill rate for cats seems to be directly tied to lower adoptions.  None of this is a huge surprise because MSN laws tend to have less impact on cats because so many impounded cats are ferals that cannot comply with the law -- except in some instances where cities use the MSN to catch and kill all feral cats for being in violation -- but few cities have the resources to actually dedicate to this.

Here are the numbers:

For dogs,  09-10 saw an 8% increase in intake and an 18% increase in euthanasia, and 10-11 saw a 6% increase in intake and a staggering 33% in euthanasia vs the base year of 07-08.

Much of the reason for the higher increase in euthanasia vs intake appears to be that there was fairly large number of dogs that were "carried over" from 09-10 to 10-11 that appeared to still be in the shelter -- and in 10-11 not only having the 'carried over' dogs, but also seeing a pretty sharp decrease in owner reclaims -- possibly as a result of higher fines that resulted from the MSN. 

Here are the numbers:

Year	Dog Impounds	Increase vs 08	Dogs Killed	Increase vs 08
08-09	9,584		3,841
09-10	10,366	8%	4,551	18%
10-11	10,181	6%	5,099	33%

Las Vegas appears to be yet another situation where MSN has failed to do what it was intended to do -- decrease shelter killing -- and in this case, like so many, saw a sharp increase in canine killing following the passing of the law.

I support spaying and neuting animals. But consistently, low cost, VOLUNTARY spay/neuter programs have proven to be a more effective solution to lowering shelter intake and, thus, killing, than mandatory programs. 

Most people who do not alter their pets say they don't do it because of the cost. HELPING them to alter their pets through a low cost program is a far more effective solution than punishing them for not.  This has been particularly problematic in the Las Vegas area because their tourism-based economy has really been hit hard because of the economic downturn.

Las Vegas has joined other cities like Los Angeles and Memphis with their failed MSN policy and should once again

Links:

Here is an article from the News 3 in Las Vegas on the story. Unfortunately it's been taken down from their website, so the link is to a cached version -- so sorry for the funky formatting. Their numbers don't match the numbers from the Clark County Animal Control -- primarily because the report was done prior to the end of the county's fiscal year and used an incomplete year of data for the most recent year (and the numbers were still bad).

 Clark County Animal Control's Cat numbers 2004-2011

Clark County Animal Control's Dog numbers 2004-2011

Another ill-informed, well-meaning person pushes for MSN in Memphis

So, earlier today, I noted that the city of St. Louis is currently looking at Mandatory Spay/Neuter.

 On Sunday, a different well-intentioned, but poorly informed animal welfare person wrote a letter to the editor pushing for the same law in Memphis.   The writer says that not only should the city pass Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN), they should enforce it and force people to pay a 'huge yearly fee" to breed a dog. She promotes this as "the only solution for the problem".

However, the writer seems to not know that:

a) Memphis passed MSN 9 months ago

and

b) it has led to an 8% increase in impounds since it was passed

There is no excues to not understand the impact of MSN laws. The information is readily available to you. And virtually no animal welfare organization supports MSN any more.  Because it doesn't work.

 No one is going to inform you, and it's easier than ever to inform yourself. But the days of pushing for something that has been tried elsewhere and hoping for the best are over.  Or need to be.

St. Louis looks at passing Mandatory Spay/Neuter Legislation

Two weeks ago, St. Louis' Health and Human Services Committee heard a proposed new law that would require all dogs and cats in the city to be spayed or neutered and microchipped.  The law would also ban the sale of dogs and cats in pet stores.

Word is that several local animal welfare groups including folks at the city Health Department and at Stray Rescue are supporting this law --- although I my inquiry with Stray Rescue from 2 days ago has not been answered at this point.

I continue to be frustrated (angered may be a better word) by seemingly well-meaning animal welfare advocates that propose or support mandatory spay/neuter laws (MSN) without understanding that these laws have been enacted in other places, and almost universally lead to higher impounds.  The single #1 reason why people do not spay and neuter their pets is because of cost. The way around this is with targeted, voluntary, low cost spay/neuter efforts.  By making trying to partner with the low income communities, you can build bridges in these communities by HELPING them, vs punishing them for being poor. Making it mandatory just makes it illegal, which causes animals to unnecessarily end up in shelters - -and thus, dead.

In Memphis, they saw an 8% increase in impounds immediately after passing mandatory spay/neuter -- leading to roughly 750 additional animals being killed in just the first 6 months.

In Los Angeles, they had seen 7 consecutive years of decreases in impounds and euthanasia -- and has seen a steady increase in impounds since passing MSN in 2008 and in 2010, impounded 30% more animals than they did prior to passing the law. Kill numbers have reflected the increase in impounds.

In Kansas City, MO, the city passed a law requiring all 'pit bulls' to be spayed or neutered in 2006, and because of increased impounds for non-compliance, the city killed 38% more 'pit bull' type dogs in 2006 than in 2005 (with the ordinance in affect for only 5 months) and 75%  in 2007 with a full year of the ordinance. An estimated 2000 additional pit bull type dogs lost their lives after the passing of the ordinance while kill rates for all other non-pit bulls declined due to the successful low cost spay/neuter programs for them. Similar results were seen in Little Rock with an identical law.

At this point, almost no mainstream animal welfare organizations support MSN. The AVMA opposes MSN. So does the ASPCA, Best Friends, Alley Cat Allies and the No Kill Advocacy Center. Because it doesn't work. And in reality, has the opposite affect that is intended.

Voluntary, low cost programs are a better way to decrease the number of animals coming into the shelter. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel with MSN -- it doesn't work. Let's accept that and move forward with solutions that have proven themselves to work.

For more:

The Dark Side of Mandatory Laws -- No Kill Advocacy Center 

Facts about Mandatory Spay/Neuter Issues -- Animal Protective Association of Missouri 

Increasing the power to kill (and the story of a failing shelter)

In November, 2009, news began to trickle out about a horrifically abusive situation in the Memphis Animal Shelter.  The incident involved a puppy that was dropped off at the shelter on August 18.  A mere three weeks later, the puppy was starved to death at the shelter.

This wasn't the only problem at the Memphis shelter mind you. It was just a single story of that brought to life the story of a shelter that was failing on many levels -- including having an attrocious adoption rate.

The city of Memphis responded by firing the shelter directer -- and eventually hiring Matthew Pepper -- who also had a questionable track record of shelter management. 

In October of 2010, the city was still struggling with high impounds and a high kill rate -- with about 16,000 pets a year being killed at the shelter. So they passed a law that required all dogs and cats be altered. I noted at the time that it was doomed to fail, because, well, it always does -- but it was a particularly bad idea in Memphis.

See, most people spay/neuter their pets -- and for the ones that don't, they list price as the #1 factor why they don't. Memphis' problems are even worse, with over 25% of the population living below the poverty line.  Mandatory legislation in this case will do little except create a reason for more animals to be impounded -- and taken to a high-kill shelter. 

Meanwhile, the shelter is still failing. And over the last few weeks, Shirley over at Yesbiscuit! has done a phenomenal job of covering the shelter situation in Memphis.  Stories include a lot of visuals from the recently installed webcams and include visual footage of puppies being brought to the shelter and killed only a few days later -- having never even been put on petfinder, ACO's dragging dogs to the kill room on choke polls, failed pleas for help, dogs apparently lifted five feet in the air to be put in a kennel via their neck on a choke poll, cages being sprayed down with dogs in them, noting that 357 dogs died in their cages last year (a 40% increase) -- you get the idea -- all leaving Shirley with a lot of good, unanswered questions.

But today's post has a lot of numbers, even beyond the horrible anecdotal stories. 

Based on numbers she received from the shelter -- here are the Jan-April stats for 2010 and 2011:

MAS stats

Jan 2010/Feb 2010/Mar 2010/Apr 2010

Intake 877/996/1358/1290=4521

Adopt 133/165/142/109=549
Died 43/28/23/19=113
Euth 562/654/1083/1007=3306
Foster 4/1/4/22=31
Missing 2/0/20/57=79
RTO 50/55/95/96=296
Transfer 12/6/17/36=71

January – April 2010 rates:

Adopt 12%
Died 2%
Euth 73%
Foster less than 1%
Missing 2%
RTO 7%
Transfer 2%
———————————————————————-

Jan 2011/Feb 2011/Mar 2011/Apr 2011

Intake 1270/1033/1357/1233=4893

Adopt 130/183/168/107=588
Died 23/10/12/16=61
Euth 999/754/1150/612=3515
Foster/relocate/permit 2/2/2/5=11
Missing 40/?/?/? (not reported for Feb/Mar/Apr)
RTO 82/57/78/63=280
Transfer 28/24/47/154=253

January – April 2011 rates:

Adopt 12%
Died 1%
Euth 72%
Foster less than 1%
Missing (not reported for Feb, Mar or Apr)
RTO 6%
Transfer 5%

------

It should be noted, that Matthew Pepper has been talking about the improvements going on at the shelter -- because of their very modest 7% increase in adoptions this year vs the last.  It should also be noted that the shelter has had a 6% increase in euthanasia.

There are a lot of things I could highlight here:  a horrible 12% adoption rate, a worse 6% Return-to-owner rate, virtually no attempt to work with rescues with a mere 5% transfer rate, no use of foster homes, and more than 100 animals dying in their shelters.

But I want to also note the increase in impounds. 

In October of 2010, the city passed a law mandating spay/neuter -- a law that has almost always led to an increase in impounds. In the first four months of this year, vs 2010, had an 8% increase in impounds from 4521 to 4893.

This goes back further than just the first four months of this year. If you look at the shelter's 2010 anual report, on page 3, you'll note that for the first 9 months of 2010, the shelter intake numbers were pretty consistently lower than the year prior -- with impound levels below the previous year's impound levels in 7 of the 9 months (and the two higher months were barely higher). Then, in October, the number went from three consecutive months of lower impounds by 200-300 animals, to almost even numbers, and then higher impounds (by 200-300 animals) in November and December 2010 vs the year prior.  The numbers are virtually identical for euthanasia as well (slide 5). 

So, almost like a spicket that got turned on, as soon as the MSN got passed in October, the shelter went from lower intake to higher intake -- now going on 6 consecutive months.  And this is higher intake at a shelter that is killing over 70% of the animals it impounds.  A little math shows about 700-750 incremental animals that have been killed in Memphis (beyond the normal high kill rate) since the introduction of Mandatory Spay/Neuter just 6 months ago.

It's results like this that is the reason a growing number of organizations -- including the AVMA, ASPCA, Best Friends, American Humane, No Kill Advocacy Center and many other local, no kill organziations are opposed to Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws - because they increase impounds, and increase killing.

And it's a shame that so many people still support such laws, in spite of their documented failure.

Memphis' shelter is failing. So is their law. And it is time for the city to undergo an extensive overhaul of all of its animal services...and fix this mess.

And it's time for the few of your who are not on board yet with promoting low cost/voluntary low cost spay/neuter programs over mandatory ones to learn from the failures of others and get on the bus FOR voluntary programs and AGAINST mandatory ones. 

Los Angeles MSN -- year 3 -- when can we expect it to start working?

In 2008, the city of Los Angeles passed a new law mandating that all dogs and cats had to be spayed or neutered.

Advocates of the law said that by forcing spay/neuter, we would decrease the number of unintentional litters, and thus, cause fewer dogs and cats to enter the shelter.  Three years into the ordinance, and intake numbers continue to increase.

The unfortunate part of Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN) laws is that they end up targeting the people with the lowest incomes. The #1 reason people say they do not alter their dog is because of the cost of the proceedure. The vast majority of owned cats are already altered (90% of the ones in households making $35,000+) but the ones that  aren't are owned by those with low incomes (only 51% of cats in HHs making less than $35,000 are altered).  And MSN cannot be met for community cats that have no owners.

Thus, when laws like MSN get passed, they almost always end up targeting low-income pet owners - -who we should be out trying to HELP comply, vs targeting them with hefty fines they cannot pay.

The end result of MSN is more animals get impounded into the shelter, and thus, more end up killed.

And the numbers in Los Angeles continue to reflect this.  This is a breakdown of the number of DOGS that were impounded and killed in the Los Angeles City Shelter over the past decade (older numbers come from Shelter Trak:

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%)

In 2008, the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance was passed:

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

2009 Intake 31,869   Euthanized: 7,624  (+1.5%)

2010 Intake : 33,396  Euthanized: 8,210 (+7.7%)

The numbers for Cats have also not improved:

2006 Euthanized: 12,277

2007 Euthanized: 8,960 (MSN begins after this year)

2008 Euthanized: 12,099

2009 Euthanized: 11,938

2010 Euthanized 12,435

There are some who are still clinging to the changes as being just because of the economy (and I admit there may be some economic factors involved) but Los Angeles is far from an isolated case in their failures with MSN. It is obvious failings like this, where  the city went from consistently declining impound and euthanasia numbers prior to the ordinance taking effect and immediately began seeing inclines in both categories that have virtuatlly all animal welfare organizations speaking out against mandatory spay/neuter laws -- including the AVMA, ASPCA, Best Friends, American Humane , Ally Cat Allies and the No Kill Advocacy Center.

So while there is a lot of consensus that targeted, voluntary, low cost spay/neuter programs are effective in gaining spay/neuter compliance - -and a large trackrecord of success, However, taking the next step to mandating the law is only a recipe to increase impounds, and thus, shelter killing.  Los Angeles is yet another example of the ongoing failure of these laws.

For more reading:

There is no need to reinvent the wheel with mandatory spay/neuter - KC Dog Blog

The Dark Side of Mandatory Laws - No Kill Advocacy Center

Why we join the national consensus against mandatory spay/neuter laws - Fix Austin

Dog Attack Fatality Report - why is intact status not part of the report?

Last week I posted a report detailing all of the dog attack fatalities in the US from 2010. There has been a lot of interest in the report, and a few questions that have popped up in personal emails or on chat room boards.

One question that has popped up in several places is the curiosity about intact status of the dogs involved in the attacks.

I left out information on whether or not the dogs were spayed/neutered on purpose for a couple of reasons.

1) It is impossible based on media reports to determine intact status for many of the reports. Usually the only time it is mentioned is if the dog is specifically used for breeding - -so the only time it's mentioned is if it is a positive confirmation that the dog is intact.

2) I am not convinced that a dog being unaltered has a direct causal relationship to the dog attacks.

This second reason may seem controversial to many who have often heard that unaltered male dogs are less aggressive than their altered counterparts.  And yes, there have been statistical studies done that do demonstrate a strong correlation between a dog being intact and bites. But I think we are often too quick to make correlation into causation.

Yes, it's true that many of the dogs involved in the fatal attacks are intact.

However, as I demonstrated in the report, there are several different environmental factors that lead to the attacks, some of which include:

1) A pack of stray/feral dogs -- which would not be altered because they are unowned

2) At least 1/3 of the attacks occurred in areas with very high poverty rates -- it's been well-documented that the #1 reason people don't alter their pets is because they cannot afford to have them altered -- so it should not be a surprise that many dogs owned in poverty-stricken areas would be unaltered.

3) Poor dog ownership practices on the part of the owner - and it should also not be a surprise to anyone that anyone who poorly treats, or neglegently treats their pet would also not go through the effort of having their dog altered (this is not to imply that anyone who doesn't alter their dog is neglegent).

So I have to question, is the fact that the dog is unaltered a reason the dog attacked? Or is it unaltered in part because of the other environmental factors that led to the attack? And the science seems to indicate that there can be increased aggression when a dog is spayed or neutered -- particularly among females.

Meanwhile, I think trying to make a causal relationship between altering and aggression ends up leading city officials down the road of irresponsible legislation like Mandatory Spay/Neter (which I oppose because it not only has potential health risks for the animals that cities shouldn't be impacting, but also leads to more killing in animals shelters in most cases) instead of focusing legislation on the core causes of dog attacks -- irresponsible pet ownership and irresponsible parenting. 

So by design I left out the information on spay/neuter status of the the dogs because until science becomes much more clear that leaving a dog intact causes aggression (or that neuting for sure decreases aggession), I don't want to push information on what, right now, appears to be a non-causal factor in the attacks.  Again, there are some very smart people out there who disagree with me on this -- but there are also a lot of smart ones who agree.

Meanwhile, the one piece of information that I'd love to know on these attacks is at what age the attacking dog was removed from its litter. I've posted before about the importance of bite inhibition in dogs.  While bite inhibition can be taught by humans, it is often best taught in a dog's natural way -- which is through play with its littermates and with its mother during its early developmental months. As I've noted before, it is unrealistic to take a dog from its litter at 6 weeks, chain it to a tree, leave it unsocialized and expect it to have bite inhibition. It won't.  The information isn't readily available (and let's face it, a lot of people would never know that information - particularly for rescued dogs), but it is information that if it were available I'd love to know.

Burning a bridge vs building one

The folks over in Kansas City, KS have begun doing door-to-door sweeps looking for unaltered dogs in order to get people to comply with the city's mandatory spay/neuter ordinance.

The city officers said they tried to go out and educate people last year about the city law that mandates that people spay/neuter their pets.

Now, the "education" is turning into tickets. With officers now leaving not only a low cost spay/neuter voucher on their door, but also a "hefty" fine. (I'm not sure what exactly "hefty" means and the fines for not altering your pets are not listed in the KCK bylaws -- however, they have two set fine amounts that other violations fall under -- one at $200 and one at $50....so it is likely that the $200 fine is the one being given out as I doubt news stations would use the word "hefty" over a $50 fine).

There is a woman interviewed in the video - and she said she was very grateful about receiving the $20 spay/neuter voucher because when she had called about getting her pet altered before it was $300 - which she couldn't afford.  However, with the ticket, she is now barely better off that she was before.

Study after study has shown that the #1 reason people don't alter their pets is because of cost -- and that if we as an animal welfare community HELP them comply (and let's face it, the desire to have pets spay/neutered is to help US, not necessarly the owner or the the pet) by offering low-cost services that they will do so. And not only will they do say, they will be HAPPY with the help.  However, this is not KCK's approach. In a county that has over 20% of the population living below the poverty line, they have taken the ticket and punish approach -- further building a wall and burning the bridge between pet owners and animal control officers and humane organizations.  And just in time for the holiday season no less.

And then, what happens if owners like the one in the video don't comply -- or can't afford to pay their fine?  What happens to the pets then?  Are they eventually confiscated and added to the shelter population?  Is the woman jailed for not paying fines, leaving her pets ownerless? 

This is why voluntary programs work better. They help pet owners and celebrate the human/animal bond...vs trying to destroy it. And they build bridges between the low-income pet owners and the people who are most able to help them (and their pets) vs burning the bridge.

KCK doesn't get that....and burn baby burn.

All options don't include "euthanasia"

So, today I'm going to write about what appears to be a growing trend when it comes to rationalizing killing animals in the shelter - - as I've now been hit with three different examples of it just this week. 

Last Friday, Nathan Winograd wrote in his blog about Proposition B in Missouri. I'm going to write a little bit more about Prop B at a later time, but there was a key element that Winograd brought up that was an issue I raised a few weeks ago -- the issue that if Prop B passes and IF it works (which is debatable), there is absolutely no plan in place for the canine victims of the closed puppy mills in the state -- and most will end up dead in the state's kill shelters (or other dogs will be killed to make room for them).

I've talked to a lot of people about this possible scenerio over the past month and have heard - unfortunately a surprising number of times -- comments along the lines of "well, if we have to kill them now, at least we won't have to kill their offspring later".

And I find myself taken aback. These comments aren't coming from cold-hearted people - they're actually coming from people who care so much about animals that they are fighting to get rid of the horrible conditions that exist in puppy mills.  Yet, the idea of KILLING the animals doesn't seem all that appalling to them.  Meanwhile, their logic "if we kill them now, we won't have to kill all of their offspring later" sounds rational enough -- if those were the only two options available.  But they aren't.  There are plenty of other options that actually involve saving the lives of the animals both now, AND later. And yet because killing has become so ingrained, many of those other options are not even considered.

The Missouri Puppy Mill issue is far from the only example of this.

On Monday I wrote a post about mandatory spay/neuter  for pit bulls in Ypsilanti, MI. I noted that there were several other examples (one in my own city) where this type of legislation had been tried and led to an increase in killing of 'pit bulls' in these communities.

I then watched several discussions about Ypsilanti's ordinance having noted that killing will likely increase with the new ordinance. And I heard the same sentiment again, from multiple sources "well, even so, if we kill a few of them now, it will save us from having to kill a lot of them later when they have puppies."

Again, if those were the only two options, maybe -- but they're not the only two options. And if the whole point is to try and decrease the killing because we find it unethical to kill healthy animals, then it seems as if killing our way to less killing is even more morally wrong -- especially when there are other options.  Besides, if killing a lot of animals is a method to get to no kill, it seems as if the past several decades of massive slaughter in our shelters would have gotten us to that goal a long time ago.

Then, today, Christie Keith over at The Pet Connection has a post about an ASPCA staffer who visited a shelter in Mississippi who saw a litter of sick puppies and recommended that the shelter kill the litter of sick puppies so that instead of using all of the resources necessary to care for them, they would be able to save more lives with the money if they would just 'euthanize' the puppies.  Again, rational enough -- if those were the only two options available -- but they aren't.

I have just found it amazing over the past week just how ingrained the idea that killing is the only option has become within our shelter system and rescue community -- to the point that 'killing them now to save them later' has become a popular montra for a variety of topics. It doesn't have to be that way. There are other options in most cases besides killing. 

Earlier this summer, Winograd did an interview with Valerie Hays that he made a statement that I think has resonated very strongly with me.  It involed the point where his wife was talking about whether it was ethical to kill animals or not, and Winograd argued that he thought there were too many animals and not enough homes.  She responded to him that "if we took killing off the table, human ingenuity and human compassion would find a way to make it work."

We just need to take the time to explore the other options instead of insisting that there are only two - killing now or killing later - and quit accepting 'euthanasia' as the only alternative.

There is not need to reinvent the wheel with mandatory spay/neuter

Tomorrow night, the city of Ypsilanti, MI will be discussig the possibility of mandating spay/neuter for all "pit bulls" in the community.  While most in animal welfare should be highly upset by the proposal, the area's largest animal welfare organization, the Humane Society of Huron Valley, is actually supporting the proposed law.

Last week, the Executive Director of HSHV wrote a lengthy editorial for the Ann Arbor newspaper about why they support the law requiring altering of 'pit bulls' in the community. And yes, I agree with their overall premise that spaying and neutering outreach is extremely important, and I do believe that HSHV has good intentions with their pushing of the law, the last paragraph of their article is actually really disturbing on a lot of levels. Here's what it says:

A Risk Worth Taking

Frankly, we have no crystal ball that tells us this ordinance will work for certain and we are not so arrogant as to believe we are absolutely right. We are, however, 100 percent certain that only big acts will solve this big problem and we applaud the Ypsilanti Township for its leadership. Every public policy is initally a gamble....

What is so disturbing about this is it appears as if the Ypsilanti community, and the HSHV, think they are on their own little island of animal welfare policy.  Instead of going out and exploring what solutions to their problems others have tried and HAD SUCCESS with, they are going out and recreating policies that have actually FAILED in other places. There is no reason to recreate the wheel here. Most policies that you can think of in animal welfare have been tried before; some with great success, and others with great failure.  Your city's situation is not unique.  

By making decisions based on the SUCCESS of other communities, you can know with fair accuracy, that the policy will work for you. But making decisions based on policies that have failed elsewhere and hoping they will work out for you is either a) insanity or b) completely ignoring that it's been tried elsewhere.

And mandatory spay/neuter policies, whether for all breeds or breed-specific, have been failures everywhere.

**********

For about the past decade, animal welfare advocates have been trying to get the word out to the general public about the importance of spaying and neutering their pets. With so many dogs and cats dying in shelters, the idea of getting pets altered so we can prevent unwanted litters is certainly appealing.

The educating about spay/neuter – along with a large number of low-cost spay/neuter programs around the country -- has really helped. While shelters in this country used to kill 40 million pets annually as recently as 1978, we have successfully reduced that number to around 4 million today.  The success is great, but 4 million dead animals is still too many.

Out of desperation, many animal welfare advocates are looking to mandatory spay/neuter laws as the solution to end the killing. And rationally it makes sense. The logic is that if you can legislate spay/neuter, and force people to alter their pets, we can finally end the killing in our shelters.

It makes sense, logically. And six years ago I would have told you I supported mandatory sterilization laws.  But I’ve since changed my stance – because unfortunately, mandatory spay/neuter laws do not have a positive effect in decreasing the number of animals killed in shelters.  In fact, they tend to have the opposite effect. 

*******

In 2005, there were 4,026 dogs killed in the Kansas City, MO shelter – 981 of those (24%) were ‘pit bulls’.

In August of 2006, the city passed decided it need to pass an ordinance that mandated that all ‘pit bulls’ be spayed or neutered.  In 2006, the city ended up killing 4,531 dogs – 1,353 (30%) of them were ‘pit bulls’.

In 2007, the city killed 4,601 dogs, 1,722 of them ‘pit bulls’.

So from 2005 (no MSN ordinance) to 2007, the number of ‘pit bulls’ killed in the shelter increased 76% -- including killing more than 1100 more ‘pit bulls’ in just 18 months of the ordinance being in effect. This is an amazing number given that the supporters of the ordinance pushed it through with the idea and promise that it would DECREASE shelter killing. 

It didn’t.  In fact, it did just the opposite.  Meanwhile, through the work of the city’s low-cost VOLUNTARY spay/neuter programs, the city was able to reduce the killing of all non-pit bull breeds (who weren’t covered by the mandatory ordinance) by 5.5%.

In 2008, the number of dogs and 'pit bulls' dropped pretty dramatically, in large part due to a cut in animal control budget.  However, the number of 'pit bulls' killed was still higher than it was in the base year of 2005.

*******

These types of results are not unique to Kansas City.

In 2007, Little Rock, AR killed 2,540 dogs, 823 (32%) of them were ‘pit bulls’.

In May of 2008, Little Rock began enforcing its ordinance that mandated the spay/neuter of ‘pit bulls’. In 2008, the total number of dogs killed was 2.847, of which 1,188 were ‘pit bulls’.  So again, while the total number of dogs killed in the shelter of non-targeted breeds dropped by 3%, the total number of ‘pit bulls’ – the targeted breed who they once again were promised they would limit the killing of – increased by 44% -- 350 total dogs.

So how’d this happen?

Studies show that the number one reason people don’t alter their animals is because they cannot afford to do so. This is why low cost sterilization programs are so important. 

When laws are put in place to mandate altering, often people with lower or fixed incomes are most impacted by the ordinances. When they get caught not complying with the ordinance, they receive a heavy fine and are required to alter their dog. Often, they cannot afford the fines and the sterilization and are forced to give up their dog.  The dog then gets added into the shelter system and eventually euthanized.

Other people – for a variety of reasons – do not want to have their dogs altered. When they fail to comply, they end up with their dog confiscated – entering the shelter system and eventually killed.  Meanwhile, this owner wants to own a dog, so goes out and buys a new one (unaltered) and further encourages the backyard breeding market.

So in essence, the ordinance mandating sterilization, gives animal control a reason to seize animals, bring them into the shelter, where they get caught up in the system, and are eventually killed. Meanwhile, the people who still want a dog end up buying a new dog and create further demand for the dogs that are being bred – the exact opposite effect that the law was intended to have.  In 2009 -- four years after the MSN ordinance was passed, 25% of all 'pit bulls' that made their way into the Kansas City, MO shelter made their way into the shelter solely because of the ordinance.

*******

Given the results of Little Rock and Kansas City’s MSN ordinances, the results in Los Angeles should not be at all surprising. 

 In 2001, the city of Los Angeles euthanized 22,675 dogs. Over the next 6 years, with a steady stream of double digit declines in euthanasia, they were able to get the number of dogs killed in their shelter down to 6,051. That’s six straight years of double digit declines in euthanasia.  In January 2008, the city passed an ordinance that mandates that all dogs be spayed or neutered. Similar to what happened in Little Rock and in Kansas City, the number of dogs brought into the shelter increased (by 19%) and the total number that were killed went up to 7,518 – a 24% increase. 

So a city that had seen steady declines in shelter euthanasia for nearly a decade, passes an ordinance, and it reversed that trend to cause it to go up by double digit percentages.

In 2009, the trend continued, with another 1.5% increase in shelter killing following the passing of the ordinance.

*******

There are better alternatives that actually do work. Many, many organizations have had strong success by offering targeted, low-cost sterilizations for people in low-income areas. By targeting this outreach, they are able to help those most in need, and get dogs altered. By becoming a partner in the community to HELP, not punish, low-income owners, these groups have been able to not just solve problems with short-term altering, but have also had a positive impact in changing the overall attitude in these neighborhoods toward sterilization.  And that has long-term benefits.

However, mandatory laws have never had the desired impact.  Because of this, virtually every national organization is opposed to breed-specific laws.  Here are what these organizations have to say:

AVMA - "The AVMA does not support regulations or legislation mandating spay/neuter of privately owned, non-shelter dogs and cats. Although spaying and neutering helps control dog and cat populations, mandatory approaches may contribute to pet owners avoiding licensing, rabies vaccination and veterinary care for their pets, and may have other unintended consequences"

ASPCA -  "In contrast, the ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law"

Best Friends - "Best Friends does not support mandatory spay-neuter legislation as a method of pet population control"

American Humane -  "We believe in general that expenses associated with mandatory spay/neuter legilsation would be beter spent on low-or no-cost spay/neuter programs"

No Kill Advocacy Center - At a time when shelters are killing a majority of the pets they are taking in they are successfully seeking legislation that gives them even more authority to impound even more animals. Since they claim to have little choice than to kill most animals, the animals now in violation of the new law or ordinance have little hope of getting out alive. It is hardly surprising that many of these juristictions actually see impound and kill rates increase after passage of these laws.

**********

There is no need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to animal welfare legislation. There are plenty of case studies out there to show us solutions that will work -- vs trying to rehash policies that have failed in virtually all incidences.  My hope is that the folks at the HSHV and in Ypsilanti will seek out alternatives from other cities vs trying to reinvent the wheel on their own. Advocate Stephanie Feldstein has provided a lot of options based on programs that have worked in other places that would be a great starting point for the folks in Ypsilanti.  Meanwhile, Change.org has a petition set up that will also send a message to the city and to HSHV.