This topic has been coming up a lot lately, and once again I feel that laws people mis-understand the cause and effect of mandating spaying and neutering.
First off, let me state, that I think most people who support Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws (MSN) want to do so because they believe it will save lives. I think they believe that if they pass the law, more people will sterilize their pets and thus, fewer pets will be born, and thus, fewer will end up at the shelter, and thus, fewer will die.
This is a logical progression.
Unfortunately, mandating sterilization doesn't have the same effect. I've seen it in action. And it's really horrific.
Yesterday, former Los Angeles Animal Services Manager Ed Boks posted a blog about why he plans to support MSN targeted at pit bulls in his new role at the Yavapai Humane Society. Previously, Boks had posted "statistics" about the situation, and then asked for people's thoughts and seems to support MSN targeted at pit bulls because that's the type of dog he sees most in his shelter. Then, based on the responses, deemed that most of the people that read his blog and responded supported MSN for pit bulls, it must be a good idea.
It's not.
Let's start with some of Boks' research. Boks relies heavily on national information provided by the magazine "Animal People". I've written a lot about the magazine's editor, Merrit Clifton, and how his information is egregiously inaccurate and misleading, including:
- Covering bites only based on media reports, which is not statistically reliable
- Somehow having more than 20% of all his "data" for his 29 year study occur purely within a 19 month window
- And blatantly using misleading data from several communities to support his desire for mandating spay/neuter of 'pit bulls' including such egregious ideas as comparing the live release rates of pit bulls in the Indianapolis shelter to other communities and saying Indy killed more pit bulls than the other communities because they DIDN"T target pit bulls. The fact was though, that Indianapolis had a policy against adopting out pit bulls, meaning they didn't save ANY, which drove up their kill rates.
- Clifton claims that pit bulls make up only about 3% of the overall population of dogs in the US -- however, when you add up the numbers for all of the breeds he includes in his report (which includes 18 of the 20 most popular AKC dog breeds + many more breeds) he only accounts for less than 42% of the total dog population.
Boks fails to really analyze this information though, and then uses the latter report to justify why targeting 'pit bulls' might be a solution. According to Boks:
"Is there a way to end this disproportionate killing? Three US communities have tried two different solutions. San Francisco, Denver and Miami have each enacted breed-specific legislation. San Francisco requires pit bulls to be sterilized; Denver and Miami prohibit pit bulls....Cumulatively, San Francisco, Denver and Miami kill about 40% fewer dogs of any breed than the US National Average."
The "data" here comes from Clifton, and the cities were interesting choices.
Denver, which re-enacted its ban in 2005, has long been criticized for its mass killing of pit bulls. During a 2 year period, nearly 1500 pit bulls were systematically rounded up and killed at the Denver shelter, and reporters in the area captured pictures of piles of dead pit bulls as a result of their ordinance (warning, the pics at the link aren't for the faint of heart).
Meanwhile, just yesterday, the city of Miami continued to look at passing a significant new tax in order to help fund low cost spay/neuter services as the community still is having very high intakes into the city shelter (btw, I'm not necessarily against this new tax, but just pointing out that things aren't all groovy in Miami).
These are interestingly two of Boks' success stories.
However, he also mentions San Francisco, and actually seems to prefer taking their approach of mandating the spay/neuter of pit bulls as his third case study. I do want to dive a little deeper into that one.
Why People don't spay/neuter their pets
First off, let's note that after years of education about the importance of spaying and neutering, most people spay/neuter their pets. According to HSUS numbers, 78% of owned dogs, and 88% of owned cats are currently altered. However, when you look at "under-served" communities, roughly 80% of pets are unaltered and of those people who say they haven't altered their pet, 53% of them have actually never taken their pet to a veterinarian before (usually because of lack of money, lack of veterinarians in their community, or lack of transportation to get to the veterinarian -- or a combination of the 3).
These numbers are similar to the numbers from a Petsmart Charities study that notes that only 34% of pets are unaltered. According to this research, the three most common reasons people haven't altered their pets is:
1) Pet is too young for this operation (41%)
2) It is too expensive (32%)
3) Haven't gotten around to it/haven't had time (21%)
So in other words, if you provide people with affordable options, and make it convenient for them, they will alter their pets once they are old enough. No law required.
Failure of BSL/MSN in Kansas City
In 2005, Kansas City, MO passed a law mandating the spay/neuter of 'pit bulls' in an attempt to reduce the killing of pit bulls at the shelter.
During the next 24 months, the city saw a 76% increase in the number of 'pit bulls' killed at the city shelter. And while the number of dogs of all other breeds being killed was dropping, the number of pit bulls killed nearly doubled.
While the Kansas City area was growing its low cost services, there wasn't nearly enough outreach resources available. People didn't know about the law and didn't know about the services. So when people were found with unaltered dogs, they were rounded up, and taken to the shelter, where they were, more often than not, killed. Because of the increase in pit bull impounds, the law caused more than 2,000 incremental pit bulls to be seized and killed over a 2 year period than had things remained static. It was tragic. It was slaughter.
Most of these dogs came from homes in the inner city where resources are limited and had people been given the opportunity for services, they would have willingly complied. Unfortunately, with the mandatory law, their dogs were seized, and destroyed.
Lest anyone think that Kansas City was alone in this, Fox 16 in Little Rock captured excellent footage a few years ago of Little Rock Animals services and police rounding up pit bulls for non-compliance where they were taken to the city pound, and also killed. In the first year of having the ordinance, pit bull killings in the Little Rock shelter increased by 44%.
San Francisco
So let's get back to San Francisco.
There has been a fair amount written about San Francisco's breed-specific MSN. Some places have called it successful, while others continue to say that it has been at best, mixed results (most everyone I talk to close to the scenes have reported that things are definitely not as rosie as the reports would indicate). Here are the numbers from the first 19 months.
Even if we were to take San Francisco as a "success" story, it would appear that it would be more of the exception than the rule -- and this is in part to a lot of other factors involved in San Francisco -- including, a poverty rate of 15% which is below the state average, combined with a median HH Income that is 20% higher than the state average. So, there is more money in the community than normal, and less poverty - -meaning fewer people needed the low-cost services, and there was more available money to help subsidize it. Meanwhile, it's worth nothing that because of no kill efforts going on in the community, San Francisco, at the time, had one of the most well-developed low cost spay/neuter programs in the country, as well as one of the best pit bull outreach groups in the country.
So the availability of resources in San Francisco helped keep the law from being the disaster it has been in other places.
From examining dozens of cities across the country, one thing becomes completely clear. If there are substantial enough low cost spay/neuter services in a community, people will comply. This works with, or without a law. A mandatory spay/neuter law will not necessarily fail if there are significant low cost resources available -- however, if there are not enough resources, then it will be a complete and udder failure. So there is no value in passing the law because if the services are available, there will be success without it.
This is something Ed Boks should be familiar with. When he was in Los Angeles, he helped pass a law mandating the spay/neuter for all pets in the community. The law has not been a success. And the lack of availability of low-cost options for compliance created a disaster in the community, and in part, led to Boks' firiing at that position.
Cause and Effect
Recently, many of us in Kansas City were discussing the enforcement of the mandatory spay/neuter law for pit bulls in Kansas City (which, unfortunately, still exists). And the sad thing is, there is no "good" way to enforce it.
If people who don't comply have their animals seized, then animals with homes end up in a shelter where they have to be rehomed -- that's no good.
If people are given tickets, well, the primary reason they likely didn't alter in the first place was because of lack of money, so giving them a ticket only makes that situation worse, and more likely they'll have to surrender their pet.
Then, there are a few people who simply, for whatever reason, don't want to alter their pit bull. So what then? Do we ticket them until they wrack up fines they can't afford and then end up with a warrant for their arrest? Or should the dogs eventually be seized and taken to the shelter? And if they are, does that stop their desire for having an unaltered pit bull as a pet? And is that driving up the demand (and price) for pit bull puppies causing more to be bred, not less?
In the end, the idea of seizing pets and bringing them to a shelter in the name of enforcing a law designed to limit the number of pets coming into the shelter is counter-productive.
There is no good solution to it. Which is why I oppose the law which has already proven itself to be a failure. It's also why nearly every humane organization in the country mandating spay/neuter, in any form.
The solution that has proven itself effective in every situation is to provide adequate, accessible and targeted low-cost spay/neuter programs. Until people start basing their support of legislation based on results, not on what they "think" might work, or what "a lot of people who responded to my blog post think" or based on misinformation provided by numnuts, then we will continue to have to fight this battle. We must do better.
Related: Knowing what to expect from proposed animal control laws.
Sway Love - Ed Boks floating the idea of mandatory spay/neuter for pit bulls
Fabulous work, Mr. Toellner!
Posted by: Sharon | June 06, 2013 at 01:28 PM
"In 2005, Kansas City, MO passed a law mandating the spay/neuter of 'pit bulls' in an attempt to reduce the killing of pit bulls at the shelter."
I must take umbrage with you here good sir. They had no such altruistic intent. This was so they could "do something" in the middle of the great pit bull panic of ought-5 without going so far as to enact a ban. Or as one city official put it to me "this is so we can get those 'gangsters' who breed pit bulls in their back yards" (define the word "gangster" as you will).
but great article.
Posted by: anthony | June 06, 2013 at 03:37 PM
dammit...*aught
Posted by: anthony | June 06, 2013 at 03:43 PM
I agree that services Must be in place with a well planned timeline for implementing MSN thereafter.
I also know that unfortunately one size does not fit all and that there are communities were MSN is going to have to be given more weight.
Posted by: Bonnie Carollin | June 06, 2013 at 03:46 PM
Yes Anthony. You are correct from the city perspective. I think many in the animal welfare community supported it because of the more altruistic intent which made it harder for those of us who stood up against it at the time to win out on that too.
Bonnie, I want you to read through the "cause & effect" portion of this again. Unless you can come up with solutions that don't end up, when played out in the end, with pets being removed from homes and taken to the shelter in the name of implementing a law designed to keep dogs out of the shelter, then I'm hard pressed to believe that MSN will ever be effective....given that it never has been. I'm not a huge believer in trying things that have failed other places and thinking that I'm some how smart enough to make them work when others haven't.
Posted by: Brent | June 06, 2013 at 03:54 PM
Another very negative result of MSN for Pit Bulls (and likely all breeds) is that breed devotees, wanting to ensure the future for their breed and wanting to put their carefully selected and well-bred puppies on the ground are panicked into breeding that litter for fear of their bloodstock getting a desexing order.
These people likely would have waited until they had safe homes lined up and until they were financially ready for the significant cost of producing a healthy litter.
The puppy millers, on the other hand, don't give a toss about the breed since they are in it for the dosh not the dog and they will continue pumping out the breed on the back of the massive free global ad campaign courtesy of an irresponsible sensationalist media that makes these dogs desirable to the most undesirable owners.
Just bad news all round.
Posted by: Karen | June 06, 2013 at 04:08 PM
So - given the problem of growing rivers of pit bulls, not enough homes that want to adopt them and the public and elected officials getting tired of dog attacks of people and pets - what is the answer?
Judging the success or failure of Mandatory SN laws over the immediately following few months does not seem like a good test. Perhaps the increase is due to macho dog fighters dumping their dogs as they don't want neutered ones? Without knowing who dumped their dogs and why each owner made that choice you are not really assessing whether this was better or worse for the dogs - and as usual for pit folks - you don't even consider the possible human safety benefits.
So if this is not the solution - what is? Come up with one if you are so smart.
Posted by: Gwen Lebec | June 06, 2013 at 04:42 PM
There IS a solution: providing low cost or free spay neuter, to anyone whoi wants it. That's the solution. It's not really that hard to figure out. Why people keep trotting out the same ideas that aren't effective --like mandatory spay neuter-- is a mystery to me. In areas with poverty, providing low cost pet services is the key to keeping pets IN homes, and out of shelters.
Posted by: Elizabeth | June 06, 2013 at 05:52 PM
1. mandatory S/N and free S/N are not mutually exclusive
2. underlying the reasons/excuses people give for not altering their pets is their own personality flaws and issues which also correlate with poverty, you give these people too much credit, many are impervious to education, they simply don't care/on drugs/etc
3. you might be right that the data of others is flawed, in this context esp., but you counterpose that with stating that you saw something and it was awful, which is not data at all
4. to parse short vs. long term effects, and be rigorous, HSUS or others should hire a neutral statistician to construct a population model that can be run under various scenarios and information extracted from it. this is what is done when different practices are proposed for wildlife. a model like this would include parameters for dog population, dog birth rate, dog death rate, dog euthanasia rate, increase in abandonment if S/N is mandatory, etc. you could then play around with these parameters within best guess ranges and under extreme scenarios and get a much better handle on what will happen X number of years out and the aggregate suffering prevented or caused by any policy.
But I'm idiot and don't understand anything, so you should ignore my differing opinion, and delete this comment, Brent.
Posted by: DubV | June 06, 2013 at 06:35 PM
Dub,
Again, reading comprehension eludes you:
1) As I mentioned in the post, if you have adequate, efficient, low-cost resources, you will solve the problem with or without the law. The law without the resources is disastrous and it can only work if the resources are in place. ergo, there no reason to pass a law as it can only hurt and, when enforced and followed to its end, can only result in homed animals being taken into the shelter, which is counter-productive.
2) Outside of being completely classist, your statement is inaccurate and out of touch with reality.
3) Yes, and then I proceed to provide very detailed information on what happened in Kansas City, where I live, with hard data that I witnessed happen.
4) Even if you could somehow prove there were significant long-term benefits to such laws, the idea of killing more animals now to avoid killing them later is unethical and immoral. So with such significant evidence showing that the short-term effects are overwhelmingly negative, and in light of short-term solutions that have proven themselves effective, the idea of commissioning a study to try to justify increasing short-term killing instead of other viable options is hardly worthy of study.
I at least agree with your concluding paragraph.
Posted by: Brent | June 06, 2013 at 07:12 PM
I agree with you. The main reason people don't have pets spayed or neutered is that they can't afford it. Any community that makes it mandotory should have available LOW cost spaying and neutering. Please have a spot on your column if possible to be able to email your column to others.
Posted by: Gwen Evans | June 06, 2013 at 09:11 PM
Brent, you should definitely delete this after reading it so as to create the impression you would like.
"The law without the resources is disastrous and it can only work if the resources are in place."
How could mandatory and free SN be disastrous? You would SN the animal and then give them back to the owner.
"Even if you could somehow prove there were significant long-term benefits to such laws, the idea of killing more animals now to avoid killing them later is unethical and immoral. "
Increasing euthanasia rates temporarily so as to decrease total euthanasia amounts over the long term is immoral?
We have different ideas of morality then.
It seems you aren't even interested in actually understanding the what will happen under various scenarios. Your mind is made up.
"Outside of being completely classist, your statement is inaccurate and out of touch with reality."
Brent, you honestly think that people with unaltered animals that answered the survey weren't relatively likely to be laboring under other difficulties besides lack of funds?
This part seems to back that up.
"People didn't know about the law and didn't know about the services."
I'll cope to being a classist, by your definitions. It seems stating anything about average tendencies among various socio-economic classes is a grave error. Wealthy people are more likely to be intelligent, responsible, and aware as those traits usually lead to resource accumulation. There. I've said it. I've stated the obvious.
Posted by: DubV | June 07, 2013 at 02:16 AM
Dub,
You're reading comprehension is really, really pathetic -- and I think, mostly, because you're mind is made up and you'd rather try to argue than actually have a conversation.
One more time:
The law, without the resources, is disastrous. If the resources exist, there is no need for the law, because it works wonderfully without mandating it. Under the mandate, if someone decides they don't want to comply, there is absolutely no form of enforcement of the law that doesn't lead to animals with homes being brought to the shelter. Bringing animals with homes into shelters is counter-productive to the goal and then increases demand for bred pups.
Increasing killing now, to lower killing later is immoral and unethical because THERE ARE OTHER PROVEN METHODS OF TACKLIING THE PROBLEM THAT DON'T INVOLVE SHORT TERM SLAUGHTER. So yes, if you think killing them now is ok, then we have a different idea of what is ethical.
I called your statement classist because of your decision to imply that people with low incomes were likely to be on drugs.
Given the fact that you continue to have such major reading comprehension issues, and clearly have a false sense of ethics, expect the rest of your follow-ups to be deleted.
Posted by: Brent | June 07, 2013 at 07:51 AM
Thank you so much for writing this blog I agree with you 100% they should not pass a msn. In my opinion it will also caus those who didnt have the mony to s/n to dump unplanned litters and /or dogs on the side of the road for fear of getting a ticket they cannot pay and going to jail. Also the other comment above stating that it would not increase the kill rate because if they animal is seized and S/N the animal would be returned to the owner,is wrong they are assuming the owner can afford to pay the fines,fees associated with the impound and s/n of the dog which many cannot. In addition I believe it will cause an overal increase in dog bites from pitbulls at large due to improper socialization and lack of exercise for those hiding their intact dogs away from authorities,and with an active breed like this it spells disaster. Overall I think in the end Mr Boks would like to outlaw the breed altogether.
Posted by: Jennifer | June 07, 2013 at 08:21 AM
Sooner or later we'll legislate our way to a risk-free utopia!
Posted by: anthony | June 07, 2013 at 10:50 AM
There's another downside to MSN that I haven't seen mentioned yet. ACO's are part of a beaurocracy. They are expected to produce a certain amount of work to justify their position, and being human, they will pick the low hanging fruit if it is available. Why would a probably lazy government employee spend their time running, sweating, chasing down a dog running loose, (that may be a real danger to the public) when they can just grab a dog contained in a yard because they saw a set of testicles? This is pretty much how it works in KCK.
Posted by: Woody | June 07, 2013 at 03:03 PM
The citizens of Prescott and Yavapai Humane Society donors should be outraged that the Board of Directors hired Boks, who is a complete and utter fucktard. They should all be kicked off and replaced with people who don't have their heads completely lodged up their asses.
Posted by: PAMM - People Against Murdering Morons | June 07, 2013 at 04:08 PM
Thank you for another easy to follow and logical blog - I refer lots of people to read what you have to say. I like the comments too, even the self-described "idiot"...your response to the "idiot" show once again what a kind and patient man you are.
Posted by: mary mahoney | June 07, 2013 at 05:02 PM
A very general fact about laws: Coercive measures almost NEVER deliver the promised benefits and often create other problems.
My shelter euthanizes more Pit Bulls and Pit Mixes than dogs of any other breed or mix. We also adopt out more Pit Bulls and Pit Mixes than dogs of any other breed or mix. More Pit Bulls and Pit Mixes are reclaimed than dogs of any other breed or mix. And more Pit Bulls and Pit Mixes go to rescue than dogs of any other breed or mix. Pit Bulls are really common. Cats even more so. We'd all like to see the numbers moderate, but if you can't come up with a better plan than the mere incantational magic of passing laws that are almost impossible to enforce in the most serious cases and which create other problems besides, you frankly don't belong in the discussion.
Posted by: John Richardson | June 07, 2013 at 07:45 PM
This is a great post. I'm surprised to still hear shelter directors promoting the idea of mandatory spay/neuter.
A shelter director in my area suggested mandatory s/n when I asked her for ideas on how to save more shelter cats. She had good intentions but did not understand the actual effects these laws have on pets and their owners.
This post be a good resource to share. Thanks for writing it.
Posted by: Lindsay | June 10, 2013 at 12:48 PM
So tired of the "can't afford it" excuse. If you are not prepared or capable of the expense of having a pet you have no business having one. It is not a t.v. or cellphone, it's a living thing that will require medical attention at times.
Posted by: Brom | June 11, 2013 at 12:53 PM
Brom,
And I'm tired of the elitist attitude.
While I don't have statistical data for this, based on the people I talk to both in low-income neighborhoods and who do outreach in these neighborhoods, many of the folks who own pets there didn't just run out and buy their pets. Most obtained them either by finding them as a stray, from a friend who could no longer care for them, or because they were abandoned in a home in the neighborhood. They took them in because it was the right thing to do.
It seems very appropriate to me to help these folks who are actually HELPING the problem by taking animals in and caring for them.
Meanwhile, several years ago, one of my dogs tore both of her ACLs. The cost for the surgery, and rehab, cost about $7000 for both knees. There are a LOT of people who can't afford this type of medical attention. In fact, most can't.
Pets bring value to our lives. They bring companionship to us and prevent loneliness. They encourage us to get outside. And people with pets are generally healthier than those without. Kids also learn compassion from pets (as do adults, as evidenced by many of the successful prison programs).
And remember, we're just talking about altering here -- which is only about $300 or so -- but it's completely elective and not required to have a healthy/happy pet. We WANT them to spay/neuter -- but that's not to be confused with a necessary pet expense like paying for food.
I'm tired of the attitude that the privilege of pet ownership should only be available to people of means. It's elitist. And wrong.
Posted by: Brent | June 11, 2013 at 01:13 PM
Thank you, Brent. Your response to Brom was much appreciated.
Posted by: Diane | June 20, 2013 at 01:23 PM