KC DOG BLOG

I need your best spay/neuter promotions

I need your best ideas.

Kansas City is very lucky to have a couple of great low-cost spay/neuter facilities that target low-income areas of the city.

Like many cities, Kansas City has an over-abundance of bully-breeds entering our shelters -- which is even more problematic here because about 35% of our metro population cannot adopt the bullies because they are illegal in those communities.

One of our spay/neuter facilities is a stand-alone spay/neuter facility. It's not a rescue, shelter or affiliated with any adoption facility. All they do is spay/neuter.

So what types of programs can we implement to encourage people of hard-to-adopt breeds to alter their dogs?  And what is the best way to get the word out to these owners of our promotion?

Money and resources are of course options here....but I know other communities have been successful with this, so I'm just trying to get a handle for the ideas that people have had that have been most successful in helping get dogs altered. 

Bring 'em. 

And thanks.

Spay/Neuter Kansas City Opens New Facility

Last week, Spay/Neuter Kansas City had an open house for their new facility at the corner of 59th and Troost in Kansas City.

For those of you not family, SNKC is largest (I believe) of several low cost spay/neuter programs in the Kansas City area, and serves mostly the lower-income areas of Kansas City, MO.

Last year, SNKC altered 5,600 dogs and cats. This year, with the help of the new facility, their goal is to alter 8,000.  They are currently altering about 35 animals a day on normal days with their 2 on-staff veterinarians, and about 100 once a month at their large MASH clinics.

Last week, the folks at thePet Connection posted numbers on who alters and doesn't alter cats by income.   At least 70% of the unaltered cats that live in homes live in homes with less than $35,000 income. While their numbers are specific to cats, most statistics would indicate that the numbers are similar for dogs as well. With over 17% of the residents of Kansas Ctiy, MO currently living below the poverty line, their services are very much needed.

Two of the main reasons people say they do not alter their pets are because 1) they really don't understand benefits to altering and 2) they cannot afford the proceedure. SNKC provides a huge resource for both of these - by not only providing the low cost spay/neuter proceedures, but also providing an outreach program where they go into the city's urban core and talk to owners about better ways to take care of their dogs, proving food, proper collars, straw and dog houses for warmth in the winter, and information on their low cost services.

About a year ago, they found out that they were going to be kicked out of their former building at 35th and Main because the landlord there was going to convert the building into condos. With the help of the city, they were able to find a new location -- a former auto-repair building that was owned by the city that has been retrofitted nicely for their operation -- I think the pictures tell a good story. 

On top of being a great new facility, I think the location is going to serve SNKC well. The location is now even closer to the community that they are serving, and is an equally high-visibility site right along Troost (which has the city's 2nd busiest bus line).

There was a lot of community support that made this possible -- from the city, to free-lance architect design work, to countless volunteers and donations from throughout the city.  This remains another good example of what can be done when different groups of people unite to do the right thing in the city.  The multiple low-cost spay/neuter options in the KC area are a big part of the overall picture in making Kansas City more humane for the dogs and cats in our community. There is more work to be done, but there is a lot of good progress being made.

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.

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.