Los Angeles Update

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

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

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

The results:

2007 Jan- Sept

Impounds: 19,375

Euthanasia: 4,544

Adoptions: 7,897

2008 Jan- Sept:

Impounds: 22,921 (up 18.3%)

Euthanasia: 5,569 (up 22.6%)

Adoptions: 10,140 (up 28%)

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

The law is not helping.

Hat tip, LA Animal Watch.

Comments

[Rinalia]

The fact is impounds and euths are up everywhere in the US and a lot of that increase can be linked to the massive foreclosure crisis, not a spay/neuter law.

The number of foreclosed homes in California is up 327% in 2008 since the same time in 2007. In LA county, new foreclosures are up 75% since 3rd quarter last year. People get rid of animals for a lot of reasons but moving is up there. Increasing the likelihood of a significant move b/c of foreclosures probably is a likelier reason for an increase in impounds than a spay-neuter law.

[Brent]

Rinalia,

You >could< be right. I have certainly read the stories about people turning their pets in in record numbers -- but I've never seen some actual statistical evidence of it. Keep in mind, that owner reliquishment only makes up about 17% of animals that come into a typical shelter. 19% in LA County.

http://sheltertrak.com/stat_lacacc001.php

At 19%, LAS's owner relinquish numbers would be about 3700 per year -- so if that DOUBLED, we'd make up the differrence in impound numbers. That could be the case. However, Ventura has only seen an 11% increase in owner relinquish and an 8% increase in total impounds.

http://sheltertrak.com/stat_ventura001.php

I would suspect there is much more at work here than the economy. And the numbers in LAS seem to resemble those from other places that have passed this type of ordinance. If other cities have the same issues at the end of the year when their numbers come out -- or if LAS can prove that their owner relinquish numbers are way up -- but call me skeptical.

[Selma]

Since they keep the data, they can come up with just about anything they like.

Mandatory neutering is something people 'believe' will help. People 'believe' that neutering is a positive thing for dogs. These are the same people who 'believe' there is a pet overpopulation problem.

Not one of these beliefs is supported by actual facts and data. The Pet Overpop thing and the MN thing are just a very easy sell to the general public, which the animal liberation groups well know. They also provide excuses for a shelter culture that is geared to death for dogs and cats.

I doubt there is any difference statistically in the number of dogs available in shelters since I was a kid. If anything, more people seem to adopt from pounds and shelters than in the past. Certainly, more people neuter their pets than in the past.

No, it's all about forced extinction and about irrational fanatics pushing their personal beliefs onto others with no hard evidence to support them.

[Brent]

Selma,

I don't believe that most of the people who support MSN laws are proponents of forced extinction. Certainly, there are AR radicals that have that with the end goal in mind. However, I think we do ourselves a huge diservice if we group everyone who supports MSN into that category.

The reality is that there are about 5 million animals that die in the shelters in this country...and there are a whole host of reasons why. And it KILLS me (and thousands of other people) that it happens.

Rationally, it makes logical sense that mandating spay/neuter would help this problem. And I think there are thousands of well-meaning people who think it is a solution to help solve the problem.

What is difficult to get a handle on is how these types of laws end up being enforced. That if a dog is not altered, and someone is noncompliant, the dog ends up becoming a part of the already overcrowded shelter system -- and usually ending up dead.

Meanwhile, the dog owner is free to go out and get another dog (which increases the demand for bred, unaltered dogs) and start the whole process over again.

It's the darn law of unintended consequences at work.

That doesn't get into all the other personal property/health issues that come into MSN laws (and laws that require dogs to be altered at 8 weeks, which FAR too young for most dogs, particularly large breeds) - the reality is that it just doesn't solve the problem people hope it solves. In fact, it does the opposite in most cases by providing yet another reason for animal control officers to seize animals that are in homes and bring them into the shelter system.

[Selma]

No, I don't believe that people who enact these laws are all on the animal liberation bandwagon. What I know is that they are being very intensely lobbied by those groups, behind the scenes.

It is not rational to believe that passing laws to neuter people's animals will in any way contribute to reducing shelter killing.

The animals in shelters are not litters with dams, nor are they young pups except occasionally.

Neutering compliance is already at an all-time high.

As we have found, mandatory neutering has the exact opposite effect to that intended, much like breed bans - unless your intent is to render dogs extinct directly through mass killing and sterilization, or by making dog ownership so difficult (and in some cases, impossible) that fewer and fewer people want dogs at all.