KC DOG BLOG

Los Angeles takes new approach (after Mandatory Spay/Neuter fails)

Well, this is a start.

This week, a series of advertisements for a group called No Kill Los Angeles has broken with the goal of raising awareness of the problem of high euthanasia rates in Los Angeles area shelters -- the advertising is hoped to facilitate adoptions and encourage people to spay/neuter their pets.

The advertising campaign is a new approach for LA -- made possible by Best Friends Animal Society that began operating a shelter in the Los Angeles area after the city built the shelter at a cost of more than $19 million -- but then lacked the funds to open the shelter and manage it. Yeah, really. Best friends turned the facility into and adoption center and plans to spend about $1 million a year running the shelter.

In 2008, Los Angeles passed a law mandating that all dogs and cats be spayed and neutered.  The results have been, well, disasterous.

The following are the numbers of DOGS impounded, and euthanized, over the past 11 years.  The numbers come from ShelterTrak and from the Los Angeles numbers published online:

2001 Intake: 40,442   Euthanized: 22,675

2002 Intake: 34,295   Euthanized: 17,335 (-24%)

2003 Intake: 30,605   Euthanized: 12,821 (-62%)

2004 Intake: 26,949    Euthanized: 9,985  (-22%)

2005 Intake: 25, 740   Euthanized: 8,127 (-19%)

2006 Intake: 24,999     Euthanized: 6,949 (-15%)

2007 Intake: 25,792    Euthanized: 6,051 (-13%)

In 2008, the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance was passed:

2008 Intake: 30,813     Euthanized: 7,518 (+24%)

2009 Intake 31,869   Euthanized: 7,624  (+1.5%)

2010 Intake : 33,396  Euthanized: 8,210 (+7.7%)

2011 Intake: 35,589  Euthanized: 9,452 (+15.1%)

In 2011, 5 years after the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance was put into effect to try to DECREASE shelter euthanasia, 38% more dogs were impounded and 56% more dogs were euthanized than the year prior to the ordinance taking effect. Ouch.

The numbers for cats, equally poor:

2006 Euthanized: 12,277

2007 Euthanized: 8,960 (MSN begins after this year)

2008 Euthanized: 12,099

2009 Euthanized: 11,938

2010 Euthanized: 12,435

2011 Euthanized: 13,561

From the outset, the law was a failure. Shortly after passing the ordinance, the city became unable to offer low cost spay/neuter services because they ran short of money to meet the high demand. And in spite of insistence that the law was a good idea, an independent report noted that the city had "No Plan" for how to enforce the law, or get people into compliance.

So, with no plan or financial ability of how to HELP people get into compliance with the mandatory spay/neuter law, the city passed the mandatory spay/neuter law -- and with it, both intakes, and shelter euthanasia, have increased EVERY, SINGLE, YEAR since the law was passed 5 years ago.

Fail.

So after years of failure in trying to create a law to punish people for not spaying or neutering, finally, the folks at Best Friends, who are now running one of the city's shelters, are finally trying a different approach. This approach involves educating people on why spay/neuter is important, and why adoption is important, in the reality that if you ENCOURAGE the public to help you in your efforts to save lives, they will respond in a far more positive way than if you try to punish them into compliance.

For very real reasons like this, major national orgnaiztions like the AVMA, ASPCA, Best Friends, American Humane, Ally Cat Allies, and No Kill Advocacty Center are all opposed to mandatory spay/neuter laws -- joining a near national consensus opposed to such laws.

This doesn't mean there is opposition to spay/neuter -- but an opposition to mandating it for individuals when the laws have continued to fail, over and over, and targeted, voluntary, low cost spay/neuter programs continue to prove to be effective and efficient ways of generating positive results.

This hopefully is a good first step for Los Angeles -- whose punitive approach has proven to be a failure, and left thousands of dead animals in its wake.

Los Angeles MSN -- year 3 -- when can we expect it to start working?

In 2008, the city of Los Angeles passed a new law mandating that all dogs and cats had to be spayed or neutered.

Advocates of the law said that by forcing spay/neuter, we would decrease the number of unintentional litters, and thus, cause fewer dogs and cats to enter the shelter.  Three years into the ordinance, and intake numbers continue to increase.

The unfortunate part of Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN) laws is that they end up targeting the people with the lowest incomes. The #1 reason people say they do not alter their dog is because of the cost of the proceedure. The vast majority of owned cats are already altered (90% of the ones in households making $35,000+) but the ones that  aren't are owned by those with low incomes (only 51% of cats in HHs making less than $35,000 are altered).  And MSN cannot be met for community cats that have no owners.

Thus, when laws like MSN get passed, they almost always end up targeting low-income pet owners - -who we should be out trying to HELP comply, vs targeting them with hefty fines they cannot pay.

The end result of MSN is more animals get impounded into the shelter, and thus, more end up killed.

And the numbers in Los Angeles continue to reflect this.  This is a breakdown of the number of DOGS that were impounded and killed in the Los Angeles City Shelter over the past decade (older numbers come from Shelter Trak:

2001 Intake: 40,442   Euthanized: 22,675

2002 Intake: 34,295   Euthanized: 17,335 (-24%)

2003 Intake: 30,605   Euthanized: 12,821 (-62%)

2004 Intake: 26,949    Euthanized: 9,985  (-22%)

2005 Intake: 25, 740   Euthanized: 8,127 (-19%)

2006 Intake: 24,999     Euthanized: 6,949 (-15%)

2007 Intake: 25,792    Euthanized: 6,051 (-13%)

In 2008, the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance was passed:

2008 Intake: 30,813     Euthanized: 7,518 (+24%)

2009 Intake 31,869   Euthanized: 7,624  (+1.5%)

2010 Intake : 33,396  Euthanized: 8,210 (+7.7%)

The numbers for Cats have also not improved:

2006 Euthanized: 12,277

2007 Euthanized: 8,960 (MSN begins after this year)

2008 Euthanized: 12,099

2009 Euthanized: 11,938

2010 Euthanized 12,435

There are some who are still clinging to the changes as being just because of the economy (and I admit there may be some economic factors involved) but Los Angeles is far from an isolated case in their failures with MSN. It is obvious failings like this, where  the city went from consistently declining impound and euthanasia numbers prior to the ordinance taking effect and immediately began seeing inclines in both categories that have virtuatlly all animal welfare organizations speaking out against mandatory spay/neuter laws -- including the AVMA, ASPCA, Best Friends, American Humane , Ally Cat Allies and the No Kill Advocacy Center.

So while there is a lot of consensus that targeted, voluntary, low cost spay/neuter programs are effective in gaining spay/neuter compliance - -and a large trackrecord of success, However, taking the next step to mandating the law is only a recipe to increase impounds, and thus, shelter killing.  Los Angeles is yet another example of the ongoing failure of these laws.

For more reading:

There is no need to reinvent the wheel with mandatory spay/neuter - KC Dog Blog

The Dark Side of Mandatory Laws - No Kill Advocacy Center

Why we join the national consensus against mandatory spay/neuter laws - Fix Austin

SB 250 Reactivated, and why the California state legislature could learn a lot from Los Angeles

Last week, the California State Legislature revived SB 250 - a bill that would require all pets in the state to be spayed or neutered.

The bill was killed last year by the legislature, and a year later doesn't make it any better of an idea.

Mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) is just an awful idea. While proponents of the law seem to want to say that only breeders are against MSN, the reality is that most mainstream animal welfare organizations oppose it too, including the AVMA, the ASPCA, Best Friends, American Humane Association, and the No Kill Advocacy Center.

MSN is bad on three fronts:

1) It creates blanket policies that doesn't take into the account the best health interests of the individual animal.

2) It often targets feral cat colonies and colony caretakers.

3) It targets low-income households. It has long been known that one of the primary reasons people don't spay/neuter their pet is because of the cost of doing so. This is why low cost spay/neuter options have been very successful in helping minimize the number of unwanted litters and thus, minimizing shetler killing.

And if the state of California needs further evidence of the failures of the legislation, it needs to look no further that its largest city, Los Angeles, which passed MSN 3 years ago and continues to fail.

Yesterday, the Los Angeles Daily News ran an article noting that many veterinary clinics have started refusing to honor the city's low-cost vouchers. While the city continues to hand out vouchers so people can comply with the law, but the city has a backlog of paying vets back for the vouchers -- to the tune of $130,000 in backlogged payments -- with some vets having not been paid in over six months.

While the city acknowledges that low-income people are the ones that are having the toughest time complying with the ordinance, they continue to enforce the law. And after making tremendous strides over the past decade in reducing shelter kill rates, the city has seen increases in shelter killing two years in a row following the passing of the MSN law.

This isn't the first time Los Angeles has had a problem with their voucher system.  In March, 2009, the city temporarily discontinued their voucher system because it was not affordable at a time when the city was facing a $500 million budget deficite. The decision to discontinue the voucher system led to public outrage and the program being re-activated.

The new article in the Daily News alludes to many of the problems still remaining in Los Angeles, even after an audit of the department pointed out some much needed improvements. Those improvements have still not been made.  At the time of the audit,Christie keyed in on a couple of the audit's recommendations:

"They went on to suggest programs to improve community relations, provide spay/neuter and animal care information in the languages used in the area the shelter serves, to make alliances with veterinarians instead of alienating them — pretty much every single program and policy that opponents of mandatory spay/neuter have always suggested instead of a law. The very programs and policies espoused by the no-kill movement. The exact approaches that have worked in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of communities across this country, instead of and without mandatory spay/neuter laws.

The irony is, of course, that all those programs and policies will not only work without laws forcing sterilization of owned pets, but will work better that way."

But instead, Los Angeles continues to alienate the veterinary community -- the very people whose help they need the most - by not reimbursing them for their voucher program.

The MSN law in Los Angeles has been financial disaster for the city. It has led to the increase in shelter killing, and continues to alienate the people who are most in a position to help the city succeed in reaching its goal of ending shelter killing.

And based on this, the state seems to want to force this very same law on every other city in the state? 

And here is the State Department of Finance's reaction to the bill (and yes, they think it's a financial disaster in waiting also).

SB 250 remains a bad idea. It's bad for pet owners and it's bad for pets. And the state has to look no further than its largest city to see that demonstrated in every sense.

Los Angeles Mandatory Spay/Neuter -- Year 2

In February, 2008, the city of Los Angeles passed a bill mandating that all dogs and cats in the city be spayed or neutered. . The goal of the ordinance was begin to minimize the number of pets that were euthanized in the city shelters.  In theory, it makes sense. If you mandate that dogs and cats be altered, you decrease unwanted litters, and thus, you decrease shelter population and thus euthanasia.

In practice, it doesn't really work that way.

The reality is that the number one reason why people say they don't alter their pets is because they cannot afford the procedure. So without strong network of low cost/no cost spay/neuter programs, it is difficult or nearly impossible for people to comply with the law. With the increased number of new "lawbreakers", animal control confiscates more animals from homes, increasing intake, and increasing euthanasia.

You can read a lot more about that at the No Kill Advocacy Center -- The Dark Side of Mandatory Laws.

LA's numbers for year one were indicative of this. So how were things in year two?  Well, let's review. The following are the canine intake and euthanasia numbers for dogs over the past decade:

2001 Intake: 40,442   Euthanized: 22,675

2002 Intake: 34,295   Euthanized: 17,335 (-24%)

2003 Intake: 30,605   Euthanized: 12,821 (-62%)

2004 Intake: 26,949    Euthanized: 9,985  (-22%)

2005 Intake: 25, 740   Euthanized: 8,127 (-19%)

2006 Intake: 24,999     Euthanized: 6,949 (-15%)

2007 Intake: 25,792    Euthanized: 6,051 (-13%)

In 2008, the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance was passed:

2008 Intake: 30,813     Euthanized: 7,518 (+24%)

2009 Intake 31,869   Euthanized: 7,624  (+1.5%)

The numbers for cats have fortunately declined slightly (-1%) after being up 35% in 2008.

So after 8 consecutive years of decreasing shelter intake and euthanasia, Los Angeles reversed this positive trend after passing mandatory spay/neuter and has now created a situation where euthanasia has increased now two years in a row. Not good.

It is highly recommended that instead of pushing for mandatory spay/neuter policies, cities should invest money into low cost/no cost spay/neuter programs that DO help decrease shelter euthanasia by decreasing unwanted litters, without creating a new class of "outlaws" with dogs getting taken from owners and killed.

The numbers come from Brad Jensen at Sheltertrak.  Here's the entire table of stats.

Hat Tip: LA Animal Watch

Los Angeles Mandatory Spay Neuter Report

Christie over at the Pet Connection has a post that highlighted an independent review of the Los Angeles Mandatory Spay/Neuter ordinance that has an explanation for why the ordinance is failing and recommendations on how to fix it. The document is fairly long, but well worth the read to get an inside track on why MSN is failing in Los Angeles -- similar to how it has failed everywhere else it has been tried.

The committed provided several recommendations centered around building compliance for the spay/neuter law. The committee acknowledges that the city cannot possibly enforce their ordinance -- and thus, recommends the city focus on outreach programs, primarily targeted in low-income neighborhoods where compliance is lowest:

Low income persons and low income areas are targeted because this is where the most people who are out of compliance are not out of compliance by choice, but rather because they are unable to financially afford the price of spay/neuter. Humane workers in the low income areas of the city report many people who want to comply with the law but who cannot due to the cost and lack of availability of affordable or free spay/neuter services.

This is what people who are opposed to mandatory spay/neuter ordinances have said for years -- that most people, when provided with the information as to why they should alter their animals, WANT to have the animal altered -- but finances are a big barrier for compliance. (At least one Los Angeles Shelter is still chargeing between $240 and $350 for a 70 lbs dog -- which is completely not affordable for many low or fixed-income people). If you remove those barriers -- with low cost VOLUNTARY programs -- people will usually comply, without the mandatory laws. Los Angeles just happens to not have enough low-cost options available for people to be able to comply.  This recommendation sounds like successful voluntary spay/neuter programs that have been done so successfully out east by Peter Marsh.

It should also be noted that even though the city passed a mandatory ordinance, the number of spay/neuters that were performed by the shelter system remained stagnate to the number of alterations that have been done in the previous three years, without the mandatory ordinance.

Many of the failure to increase the number of alterations is the lack of availability of low- cost options. The document features a wealth of great ideas for generating more veterinarian support, neighborhood support, budget resource allocation, and increasing alteration capacity.

Interestingly, the higher number of animals entering the shelter drove up the costs for the city -- with each animal costing an average of $211 when it comes into the shelter. With 5,000 more animals entering the shelter last than in 2007, that's over $1 million in increased spend on animals entering the shelter.  That type of money would fund a lot (about 14,000) of $70 spay/neuter vouchers.

Unfortunately, the city opted to make altering mandatory, even though the city lacked the resources available to allow low-income people the ability to comply with the law.  One of the drawbacks of having a mandatory law is that it has forced a lot of people -- many of whom want to comply but could not financially afford to do so -- to relenquish their animals (or have them confiscated by animal control) -- which led to a Los Angeles to having a 24% increase in shelter killings in the first year of the ordinance -- ending nearly a decade of declines.

As Christie points out (emphasis mine):

They went on to suggest programs to improve community relations, provide spay/neuter and animal care information in the languages used in the area the shelter serves, to make alliances with veterinarians instead of alienating them — pretty much every single program and policy that opponents of mandatory spay/neuter have always suggested instead of a law. The very programs and policies espoused by the no-kill movement. The exact approaches that have worked in dozens, perhaps hundreds, of communities across this country, instead of and without mandatory spay/neuter laws.

The irony is, of course, that all those programs and policies will not only work without laws forcing sterilization of owned pets, but will work better that way.

As we continue to make progress in ending the unneccessary killing of dogs and cats in our shelters, I think it's really important for us to not just mirror programs that other cities have done -- but actually mirror programs that other cities have done that have HAD SUCCESS.  Most people in the animal welfare community don't oppose mandatory spay/neuter laws because they of part of some big lobby group -- the oppose them because of results like what Los Angeles is seeing in that they simply don't work.  And that if we are to make an impact with spay/neuter programs in our communities, we need to do so with the targeted outreach of low cost/no cost programs that target those neighborhoods with the most need of those programs with high volume, low cost altering.  Those programs have been proven over time to work -- so let's emulate those. And forget the laws that are only creating problems for those who implement them.

You can read the entire report here.

And Christie's comments here.

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.

More on Los Angeles

On Wednesday, I noted that Los Angeles announced that they will be discontinuing their free/low cost spay/neuter voucher program for the remaining part of this fiscal year, and the cuts may be ongoing in FY2010.  The discontinuing of the voucher system is due to the city of Los Angeles seeing a $500 million deficite  due to current economic conditions.

While discontinuing the voucher system would be bad on most areas, the bar is raised more in Los Angeles where last year the city passed an ordinance that would require all residents to alter their animals.

The ordinance had a dismal first year, with dog intakes going up 19%, and euthanasia going up 24% - and euthanasia for cats was up 35%.

Obviously, the eliminating the low cost spay/neuter vounchers, but keeping the ordinance is a recipe for disaster.

I've been pretty please with how much national press this has received -- it really is a big deal.

TheLos Angeles Daily news had a great article about this development. Lisa Levell, a vet tech in the area, said she was surprised that the voucher distribution had been halted.

"It's really important for the people with no income or now especially with people who lost their jobs. Almost all pet owners that come from the pound have a coupon for the surgeries."

Last year, the department issued 22,000 $30 discount coupons, and 12,000 $70 coupons - about 65% of the vouchers were used.   So last year, 22,000 vouchers were redeemed.

Linda Barth, the assistant general manager for the shelter said that demand for the vouchers has been high since July (when they began enforcing the mandatory ordinance) - and because of the slow processing time between when the vouchers are given out, and when the vets are reimbursed -- the department is just now seeing a the rise in coupon usage.

The AP also picked up on this story -- which is great for the exposure of the problem -- but unfortunately left out a lot of the information about the failures of the mandatory law and how devastating the development may be.

Meanwhile, the Examiner.com folks have continued to miss the point on just about every issue. While the majority of the column is actually fairly good, they lost me with the second paragraph:

"In February 2008, the city council moved to make spaying and neuteringof pets mandatory in Los Angeles.  This legislation was heralded nationwide as a key step toward the goal of reducing shelter killing of homeless and unwanted animals in LA."

Whoa.  "Heralded"?  The ordinance was criticize by virtually every animal welfare organization in the country. But they ignored that -- as well as the reality that the ordinance has been failing.  Sigh.

Meanwhile, Winograd has some great suggestions at his place for additional provisions that any animal welfare group should insist on if they are pushing for mandatory spay/neuter laws with the idea that it will eliminate shelter killing.  The suggestions only make sense.

Los Angeles Animal Services Discontinues Dicounted Spay/Neuters

LA Animal Watch just reported that due to some budget cuts, LAAS is discontinuing their low cost spay/neuter certificates.

Last year, Los Angeles passed an ordinance that mandates that all animals in the community must be spayed or neutered, and yet, now, they are making it more difficult for people to comply with the law.

Nationwide, the most common reason people give for not having their animals altered is that they say they cannot afford the proceedure. Cities that have been successful at decreasing the homeless animal populations in their cities have been successful by eliminating this most common barrier to spay/neuter -- cost -- through low cost/no cost alteration programs targeting low-income neighborhoods.

So now, LAAS has gone from having the largest barrier to spay/neuter put back in place -- and yet mandated it -- causing a whole new set of people who cannot afford to comply with their mandatory law.

Successful animal control programs have shown that they are successful by removing barriers to responsible dog ownership -- not creating them and punishing non-compliance.

Last year, after passing their mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, Los Angeles saw a 24% increase in euthanasias in the city -- after 6 straight years of steady declines in dogs killed. Keeping a mandatory spay/neuter policy in place, with no low cost spay/neuter program, is setting up the shelter up for a bloodbath -- especially with dogs coming in from low-income neighborhoods.  If LAAS cannot afford to offer low-cost vouchers, they should at the very least suspend enforcment of their MSN law to avoid an even harsher increase in shelter killings.

LAAS continues to struggle with their mandatory spay/neuter law -- and one more thing for other cities to consider before enacting such an ordinance.  Are you listening Chicago?

Los Angeles Mandatory Spay/Neuter - Year 1

In February, 2008, Los Angeles passed their ordinance mandating the spay/neuter of all dogs and cats in their city with the intent on minimizing the number of animals killed in their shelter. They began truly enforcing the law in July (giving people adequate time to comply).

Like many cities that pass such laws, the number of dogs & cats impounded went up after passing the ordinace -- and with the number of impounds increasing, the number of dog and cats euthanized did also. And like many cities, their impounds started going up almost instantly, even before they began enforcing the ordinance.  This appears to be a problem in a lot of places as most people don't pay enough attention to know the ins and outs of all of the laws, and it sounds like the general public may not have been informed all that well.

So with that, here is a look at the intake and euthanasia stats for DOGS for LA Animal Services for the past 8 years:

2001 Intake: 40,442      Euthanized: 22,675

2002 Intake: 34,295      Euthanized: 17,335 (-24%)

2003 Intake: 30,605      Euthanized: 12,821 (-62%)

2004 Intake: 26,949       Euthanized: 9,985  (-22%)

2005 Intake: 25, 740      Euthanized: 8,127 (-19%)

2006 Intake: 24,999        Euthanized: 6,949 (-15%)

2007 Intake: 25,792       Euthanized: 6,051 (-13%)

2008 Intake, 30,813 (+19%)      Euthanized: 7,518  (+24%)

I won't get into as many specifics, but the numbers for cats are very similar, reflecting a 22% increase in impounds and a 35% increase in euthanasia.

Many, including shelter head Ed Boks, will point to the struggling economy and large number of home forclosures as the reason for the huge increase (after at least 7 consecutive years of double digit % decreases). I won't completely dismiss that that may have played a role. But given that these results seem to mirror the results from other cities that pased identical laws NOT in a bad economy, I think it's worth considering that both were likely a negative factor.

In order to end the killing of animals  in our shelters, we must minimize the number of animals we intake (and then increase adoptions on the back end). Creating mandatory spay/neuter laws that create more reasons for animal control to seize animals out of people's homes and bring them into the shelter only increases intake, and thus, shelter killing.

Hat tip: LA Animal Watch

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.