There is no short-cut to spay/neuter compliance

In 2004, Buncombe County, NC passed a law mandating the spay/neuter of all pets. The year following, Asheville, NC passed a similar law.

Their law seems to be very compassionately enforced (by comparitive standards) -- with people caught for non-compliance being fined $100 -- with the fine being waved if they get their pet altered within 30 days.

It should also be noted that several years prior to these laws passing, The Humane Alliance began providing low cost spay/neuter programs in the community. The established availability of low cost spay/neuter programs (20,000 spay/neuters a year in a county of 230,000 people is a huge number of surgeries) certainly had an impact on the success/failure of their MSN law.

A couple of years later, some students from North Carolina State University did an analysis of the impact of the laws. Their data appears to be pretty good, but I don't really agree with their conclusions from the study. But I will share the results here and let you make your own conclusions. The study includes impounds from the surrounding county and also from the city of Asheville (by far the largest city in the county).

The chart above shows the number of low cost spay/neuters that were provided from 2001-2006. As you can see, their aggressive low cost voluntary program began increasing dramatically from 2001 to 2004 -- but as the law was passed in the county in 2004, followed by the city law in 2005, the number of spay/neuters began to decline.

Meanwhile, in Asheville, the number of dogs impounded (left) was increasing significantly from 2001 to 2003, but in 2004, they finally began seeing the impact of their low cost spay/neuter efforts and saw a significant decrease in itake in 2004 -- but after the law took effect, the numer leveled back out again in 2005 and went back up in 2006. While euthanasia held flat and then declined a bit, the writers of the study conclude that this decrease (and separation from intake rates) is largely due to increased adoption efforts and not because of the law. So had intake not increased the euthanasia rate would have dropped even more significantly due to the increased adoption efforts.

For cats (left), the number of impounds in 2005 increased dramatically with the initiation of the mandatory spay/neuter law. The numbers did drop back down in 2006.

In the county, the numbers are a bit different. After flat intake and euthanasia numbers between 2001 and 2002 (for dogs), the number of impounds (and thus euthanasia) decreased dramatically in 2003 along with the high increase in spay/neuters. The declines continued post the spay/neuter ordinance being passed, but actually slowed compared to the 2002-2003 numbers. 

The results were similar for the cats in the county where declines in intake slowed after the ordinance passed.  The writers of the research paper even note that enforcement of the law in the country was less strict than it was in the city because people are more spread out (especially in the mountainous county) and people are less likely to run across animal control officers.  This is likely why declines decreased vs going all the way to increase impounds like they saw in the city.

Despite the increase in intake in the city, and despite the reality that fewer people were actually getting their pets altered after the ordinance vs before, the writers of the paper somehow conclude that the law might possibly be working an that it should continue.

But the reality is, they were having success just based on their low cost spay/neuter efforts prior to the laws being passed and their successes were SLOWED after the ordinance was past.

And this is even with their punishment being not as harsh as what most cities implement.

You may have your own takeaways on the data and after reading the complete study and feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments section.

As best I can see, it really points out that there is no shortcut to success. While many people WANT mandatory spay/neuter ordinances to work, they don't have the impact that people want. The solution is solely providing voluntary low-cost spay/neuter services and doing outreach into low-income neighborhoods and HELPING people to spay/neuter.

I really believe people want MSN to work because it would be a shortcut to doing the harder work of doing the necessary outreach and low cost spay/neuter programs. But there is no shortcut.  You have to do the things necessary to really make a difference.

Comments

[Joni]

>The solution is solely providing voluntary low-cost spay/neuter services and doing outreach into low-income neighborhoods and HELPING people to spay/neuter.

I totally agree with this. Spay/neuter help is what is needed the most! Most of the people that can afford to fix their pets are doing it. We need to help the ones that cannot afford the costs or don't know enough about spay and neuter and why it is good for their pets.

[MichelleD]

S/N only helps with one aspect of the homeless pet population - unwated litters. In KC we still see a lot of kittens in the shelter but people are getting on waiting lists for puppies.

What MSN is really about is punishing "irresponsible owners" which includes anyone that keeps their pet natural - regardless of why (money, health of pet, health implications of surgery, showing).

[Valerie]

Agreed, Michelle. Here in GA, the West GA Spay-Neuter Clinic has reduced the annual intake at the county shelter by over 17% annually since the clinic opened in 2007. That amounts to 1500 fewer animals being placed in harm's way each year. Last quarter, the kill rate was a sickening 85%-- higher than any annual average for the past five years. Obviously crucial components of the NKE are missing and the Carroll county shelter is not doing its part to save lives, even though a private organization is doing a significant part of the job for them. People are being more responsible and the killing continues unabated because of what passes for leadership at the shelter.

I look at the graphs in this article and see how the 'euthanasia' rate closely tracks the intake rate, and that reveals where the biggest problem lies.

[MichelleD]

Thanks for your hard work Valerie. Low cost s/n is SOOOO important. And money spent on enforcment of MSN could be used to actually PROVIDE s/n services!

That is sickening...intake reduced and killing going up!?

[Katie]

I recently learned that the shelter nearest to the veterinary clinic in which I work is now offering low-cost spay/neuter. Unfortunately, this information upset and almost seemed to anger some people at work. I cannot comprehend why. Like Joni said, most people who can afford to and who are interested in altering their pets are going to do so, and likely at their trusted veterinarian's office. How many people are not altering their pets (and cats are by far the biggest concern around here) would do so if it were more affordable? I'm thinking quite a few.

When somebody calls on the phone and asks how much it would cost to alter the friendly stray cat who has been hanging around their house having kittens, I cringe to tell them that exam + mandatory rabies vaccine + spay = over $200. The shelter will do it with proof of rabies vaccine for $50. Good for them. That is what this area needs.

[Rosemary]

I think the reason why the vet clinic is objecting to the shelter providing low cost spay/neuter may be partly because the shelter won't necessarily have a vet available if there are complications following the operation. That potentially leaves the normal vet with an ethical problem if the owner phones to say their cat's stitches are coming out because that's an emergency in the way the original spay wasn't.

On the other hand if the shelter just handed out part-payment vouchers to use at the vet clinic they'd still have the same problem so I can't see they really lose anything by having the shelter on their patch.