My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Oak Harbor, WA considering repealing Breed Specific Regulations | Main | Misusing data to support personal agendas »

August 30, 2009

Comments

Jim Tucker

Calgary is a great study. Their results are incredible.

I am curious about the number of dogs and cats, however. The AVMA Pet Population Estimator, at http://www.avma.org/reference/marketstats/ownership_calculator.asp, (without taking into account the specific geographic area of Western Canada), would put the number of dogs at roughly 300,000. The articles I see from there talk about roughly 100,000 to 110,000 dogs, and they talk about licensing "compliance" at 90% to 92%. (the Kansas City MSA would be around half a million dogs). There is another demographic book by the AVMA which narrows this by location.

I would really like to know who is off on their numbers.

Either the licensing compliance isn't what they think, or the AVMA calculator is so far off as not to be believable, or Canadians just don't have that many pet dogs.

If it is the calculator, that would be interesting, because a _lot_ of jurisdictions use that to determine how many animals they have, and to push for more "policing", or for more laws, because it indicates licensing is really low, only 10% to 15% of pets in most jurisdictions.

So is it not only the great work that Bryce and his coworkers accomplish, but the incredibly low number of pets?

thanks again for the great weekly summary, brent

Brent Toellner

Jim,

Most estimates I've seen show their numbers at around 110,000 dogs or so now -- and you're right, that would be nowhere close to the figures they'd have based on US Census numbers.

Based on the AVMA census, 37% of US HHs own dogs with each HH having on average 1.7 dogs. If this applied to Calgary, I figure there would be about 270,000 dogs there.

I would suspect that Calgary could have a lot lower ownership numbers than other places -- in part because their licensing fees are fairly high. I know that Bill Bruce uses the number of animals that they intake being licensed as his way of determining licensing rates, so I would suspect his numbers are fairly close. But even if both numbers are off, it's a long way to the center between those two sets of numbers...and I have no explanation for it at all.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)