KC DOG BLOG

Expert opposition to Mandatory Spay/Neuter

It seems like seldom a day goes by that I don't come across a conversation somewhere via social media of someone promoting the idea that we should make spaying & neutering your pets mandatory.  

I get the logic, and the desire for it. I know many shelters are struggling with the number of animals that come into their shelters. I realize that it logically makes sense that if you mandate spay/neuter, you can stop the number of unwanted litters and thus lower shelter populations.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. By far the most common reason people don't alter their pets currently is because of cost or lack of access to low cost spay/neuter services. Making spay/neuter mandatory doesn't change this.  In fact, it often makes the situation worse, because by the time the law gets involved, the pet owners is often looking at a $500 fine (or more) that they can't afford, on top of the surgery cost they couldn't afford. 

The end result is almost always that animals with homes are forced into the shelter system because the law made their owners now longer able to afford them. Instead of HELPING owners to overcome obstacles -- like has been successfully done with low cost spay/neuter and target outreach programs across the nation -- mandatory spay/neuter laws are a punitive approach that actually punish people for being poor. 

It's an ideal that has failed repeatedly in actual practice -- so much so that respected national organizations now almost unanimously oppose mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) laws. So why, in spite of so much respected opposition, do some people still hold onto the idea that it just might work for them? 

I think part of it is because I don't think people realize just how diverse, and consistent the opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws is. So, today, I wanted to provide the position statements for many of the national organizations on MSN, and why they oppose the idea. Keep in mind that what many of these organizations are best at is disagreeing with each other -- yet, on this topic, they universally agree. 

So with that, I'm providing some quotes from these organization's MSN policies -- with links to the full policies online when available. Many of these statements contain a lot more info at the links and are worth checking out. Some things are bolded for emphasis by me.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)

“The ASPCA does not support mandatory spay/neuter laws, however, based on currently available scientific information, the ASPCA strongly supports spay/neuter as an effective means to reduce companion animal overpopulation. In particular, the ASPCA supports voluntary, affordable spay/neuter programs for owned pets, Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs for feral cats.”

http://www.aspca.org/nyc/mobile-spay-neuter-clinic/position-statement-on-mandatory-spayneuter-laws

Editor's note: The ASPCA write-up is particularly well documented, with more than a dozen citations, and well worth the read.

Best Friends Animal Society

“One of the goals of the city council should be to providing for public safety, in the most effective and comprehensive way possible. Everyone benefits from a safe society – both people and pets. Communities should be protecting against any dangerous dog, no matter the breed. Because breed discrimination fails to enhance public safety, Best Friends Animal Society opposes any breed “specific” of discriminatory measures, including mandatory sterilization for certain breeds.”

Letter submitted from Best Friends Animal Society, 2013

No Kill Advocacy Center

“Studies show that the primary reasons people do not sterilize their pets are cost and lack of access to spay/neuter services. The same is true for licensing. The higher the cost, the lower the rate of compliance. As a result, lower-income households with animals, those who are unaware of these laws and truly irresponsible people will not comply in significant numbers….furthermore, legislation may be worded so that the result of non-compliance is the impoundment… of the animal.”

http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/mandatorylaws.pdf

 Editor's Note: This writeup, "The Dark Side to Mandatory Laws" covers a lot of ground in terms of the impact of many different types of mandatory pet ownership laws and the impact they have on the ability for owners to keep their pets.  

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)

 “The AVMA does not support regulations or legislation mandating the spay/neuter of privately owned, non-shelter dogs and cats. Although spaying and neutering helps control dog and cat populations, mandatory approaches may contribute to pet owners avoiding licensing, rabies vaccination and veterinary care for pets and may have unintended consequences.

“Although spay/neuter is an important part of effective population control programs, and may benefit individual dogs and cats if performed at the appropriate time, whether and when to spay/neuter specific animals requires the application of science and professional judgment to ensure the best outcome for veterinary patients and owners.”

https://www.avma.org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/090515j.aspx

Editor's Note: For more details on the potential health impacts, begin reading here.

American College of Theriogenologists (ACT) & Society for Theriogenology (SFT)

“The ACT and SFT believe that companion animals not intended for breeding should be spayed or neutered, however, both organizations believe that the decision to spay or neuter a pet must be made on a case by case basis, taking into consideration the pet’s age, breed, sex, intended use, household environment and temperament. The use of generalized rules concerning gonadectomy (removal of overies and testes) is not in the best interest of the health or well-being of pets or their owners”

http://www.theriogenology.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=59

California Sheltering White Paper

“While finding people to adopt dogs and cats is crucial, reducing the supply of incoming animals is the only way to end the pet overpopulation problem. The stakeholder group discusses the pros and cons of changing state laws to increase fines and penalties for not altering pets. However, compelling evidence exists to show demand for affordable spay/neuter services is high, particularly in underserved areas. Failure to spay or neuter is more correlated with limited access to affordable and proximate services than it is with resistance to sterilizing pets.  Efforts to increase resources and outreach in communities where spay/neuter rates are low should be the focus."

http://www.cashelteringreport.org/whitepaper/

The American Kennel Club

Mandatory spay/neuter laws greatly increase the work load of animal control offices, many of which are already strained financially. Animal control offices also find they are euthanizing more animals at taxpayer's expense becasue some owners choose to leave their animals at the shelter rather than complying with the law. A mandatory spay/neuter law also communicates the message that the municipality is not "dog friendly."

https://images.akc.org/pdf/canine_legislation/toolbox_msn.pdf

 

More research on health impacts of spay/neuter -- where should we go from here?

Last week, more research came out about the health impacts of Spay/Neuter.

The newest paper specifically studies Vizslas -- and the health impacts of spay/neuter, and particularly juvenile spay/neuter on this breed of dogs.

You can read the paper in its entirety here, or the Reader's Digest Version with great commentary here. In a nutshell, the paper showed the following correlations:

-- 3.5x higher incidences of Mast Cell cancer in male & female dogs, regardless of age of neuter.

-- 9x greater incidence of Hamangiosarcoma in neutered females, regardless of age of dog at the time of neuter.

- 4.3x higher incidence in Lymphoma in both neutered males and females, indpendent of age at the time of neuter.

- 6.5x higher incidence of all cancers combined in neutered femal3, 3.6x higher incidence of all cancers in neutered males. Typically, the younger the age at which the dog was altered, the young the age at which the dog was diagnosed with cancer.

Also, the study notes that dogs altered before the age of 6 months had a higher-likelihood of developing a variety of behavioral issues including: separation anxiety, fear of noises, timidity and fear biting.  Altering after 6 months did not appear to create increased risk.

This study adds to the growing list of research on the negative health impacts of spay/neuter in large-breed dogs. The studies have specifically found similar results plus increased incidence of hip dysplasia and Cranial Cruciate Ligament Tears in Golden Retrievers, and osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in Rottweilers.  It also follows similar issues found in previous behavioral studies on the impacts of spay/neuter.

The results have been very consistent, and show that not only is spay/neuter more likely to cause negative health impacts long-term, but that juvenile spay/neuter (before 6 months) heightens the risk.

When Science gets in the way

For several decades, rescues and shelters have been reliant on spay/neuter to decrease the number of unwanted pets as a way of controlling animal populations, and thus the number of animals that end up in animals shelters. By decreasing total populations, the goal is to minimize the number of animals killed in shelters. 

However, if we are to really consider ourselves "animal welfare" professionals, we need to understand what science is telling us and to consider the trade-offs of the short-term and long-term impacts on our decisions on the pets we are responsible for.

Unfortuantely, in this case, it appears that the long-term health impact of spay neuter, particularly juvenile spay/neuter, is at odds with the short term goal of slowing pet population growth and minimizing the number of animals killed in our shelters every year. 

The two are seemingly at odds with each other. Certainly I've read the arguments that in spite of the potential health impacts of spay/neuter, the greater good of decreasing the number of pets killed at very young ages in shelters outweighs the pet-longevity issues that may exist by spaying/neutering early. I can certainly see this point, and in many cases completely agree. 

However, just because that is the case today, doesn't mean that we have to accept the status quo as the only solution and not be actively seeking out more viable alternatives. It seems clear that there is room for some middle ground here -- and I think it's up to the animal welfare community to acknowledge the issues and actively seek out that  middle ground.

There are a lot of different stakeholders to this -- and I think everyone has a role in trying to do what is best for the animals that are in our care. First and foremost, it means acknowledging that the science exists. We cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand - that's how you get to let other people address the issue for you.  And it's more than just the science that shows correlations -- but it makes biological sense that removal of growth hormone-producing gonads (especially at a very young age) would lead to long term growth and development issues.  This completely passes the sniff tests, and we should take it seriously.

Where do we go from here?

It's a complex problem to be sure, and there are a lot of people with a vested interest in coming to the table with their part of the solution. 

-- For the breeding community, I've seen a fair amount of talk about calling for the end of spay/neuter. Obviously this is self-serving to their needs. This community MUST acknowledge the sheltering realities that exist and that some form of population control is currently necessary in order to help maintain the drops in shelter euthanasia that have taken place over the last 2 decades.

-- For the lawmaking community, stop making laws mandating spay/neuter. It was never a good idea, but especially in light of the current research, there are many good experts in the field that are in disagreement with what the right solutions are. Please leave spay/neuter to the veterinary community so they may make judgment calls based on the best science available. Mandating spay/neuter does not do that. I've seen many a law that is requiring sterilization at very young ages and it seems evident that this is not in the best interests of the pets we claim to be protecting.

-- For the science community, we now have 3 studies that examine the impacts on dogs. All three have been on large-breed dogs. We need more research to also include small dogs, and cats, to determine if the risks are as severe with those as well. The more we understand about the scale and scope of the problem the better.

-- For the veterinary community, let's begin teaching other methods of sterilization. Zeuterin certainly seems to have its proponents and is one solution. But an even simpler one may be to begin performing vasectomies and tubal ligations instead of neuters & spays so that growth hormones can remain in place. However, most vets do not currently perform these proceedures. That needs to change and quickly.

-- For the shelter/rescue community, maybe we need to start waiting to alter puppies until they are older? Do we really need to alter 2 month old puppies? Would we be better off waiting until they were at least 6 months of age?  The same purpose would be served, but for every month you wait, the less of an increase in many of the health risks you have -- especially for large breed and giant puppies. It certainly seems like there is a happy medium here. 

This is a gnarly and complex issue -- and definitely a lot that is still unknown. But if all parties are willing to come together to acknowledge the risks, on all sides, I think a viable solution is out there. But it must first start with acknowledgment and open communication. 

Details about the new HSUS shelter report (which opposes Mandatory Spay/Neuter and has other good info)

Last week, the Humane Society of the United States launched a very detailed white paper with an overview of progress (and lack thereof) of sheltering under California law, with recommendations on needed legal and shelter activity improvements.

This is a study that HSUS seems to have gotten right in terms of research and perspective and you can read the report here in its entirety. Below is a quick overview, a few of the key "hits" and a a very key miss. While the focus of this paper was on sheltering and California Law, my plan is (with a couple of exceptions) to pull out things that I think are most relevant to the entire population.

Overview

The study is essentially an overview of 15 years worth of shelter data to evaluate the successes, and failures, of Hayden's law -- the governing law for shelters in California. The report analyzed data from reporting public agencies -- for an area that covered 87% of the population of California. It's definitely a large statistical area.

According to the report, the following is the disposition of the 459,000 dogs that come into California Shelters in 2010:

 - 38% euthanized

 - 33% adopted

 - 19% Reclaimed

 - 7% transferred to other shelter or rescue organizations

 - 4% "other"

The total number of dogs that entered into the shelter system, according to their reports, dropped 15% since 1998. Euthanasia of those dogs decreased 47%. A pretty substantial improvement. 

Things weren't quite so rosey for cats:

For cats, the total number that entered shelters actually increased 7% -- and euthanasia remained essentially the same.

Cats were much less likely to to make it out of the shelter alive. For the 393,000 cats that entered California Shelters, the following was their disposition:

- 71% euthanized

- 24% adopted

- 2% reclaimed

- 5% transferred

- 3% other

The report goes on to detail four key points that it felt needed to be addressed: Intake reduction, improving animal welfare for animals in shelter care, decreasing costs, and increasing revenue.

Hits

1) One key area of the report involves the recommendation for animal shelters to move toward taking appointments for owner-relinquished animals (which makes up roughly 1/3 of their shelter population). According to the report:

"Some shelters require an appointment to surrender pets, which has prompted a good number of owners to decide to keep their animals. Owners are responding to information they get about available resources and support, such as spay/neuter services, low cost medical care, training, food bank, etc to issues they are experiencing. Although most California communities have these types of resources available, many pet owners simply do no know that they exist. Owners may also be more inclined to keep a pet, in spite of any issues, when they find out how likely it is that the animal will not be released alive. Owners may also be in a better position than a crowded shelter to rehome their pet, as they know their pet's positive qualities and can exhibit the pet in a comfortable habitat."

Appointments have other benefits for the shelter too:

"Appointments enable agencies to control the flow of animals into their shelters based on their capacity to care for and place the animals.....if people can drop off pets at any time, a shelter may receive 30 animals in one day and only 2 the next. This creates staffing inefficiencies and can raise operational costs. Even within a given day, too many animals could come in at once, creating a hurried proces to manage them that stresses both pets and staff. If the agencies used appointments to spread surrenders over a reasaonable period, they can do more to work with owenrs to avoid the surrender and handle intake more smoothly."

2) A second key hit is that the report mentions the values of TNR. While HSUS used to denouce TNR, it has come around recently and this is another good sign. It also notes that feral cat colony managers should be aware of environmental impacts of the cat colony.

3) Hold times -- Based on their report, increasing the average hold time has had a minimal impact on the number of dogs reclaimed. The report notes that 80% of all dogs returned to their owners happen within four days (for our shelter, it's 3) and thus, there is not much net gain in increasing hold times beyond 4 days in terms of RTOs -- especially if a dog does not have identification. Holding the animals beyond the four days only increases sheltering costs and takes up space in the shelter because the dogs are unlikely to be reclaimed, yet unavailable for transfer or adoption, and increases the likelihood of disease exposure. 

The report goes on to suggest limiting hold times to 4 days unless an animal is wearing identification, and to eliminate hold times for litters of puppies coming into the shelter (people almost never lose an entire litter of puppies). 

It also notes that cats without identification should be made available for adoption immediately (mostly for space reasons and so cats don't stay in the shelter long enough to get sick) unless a cat has identification given that only 2% of cats are ever reclaimed, and almost never without identification present.

My note: We've had a similar situation here in Kansas City and 80% of our RTOs happen within the first 3 days, yet Missouri Law is to hold for 5. For a shelter with very minimal space, it would make the transition faster if we could put animals up for adoption after 3 days instead of waiting for 5. While many fear that this would result in earlier killing for high kill shelters, the solution would be relatively easy. Allow animals to be adopted or transferred after the 3 day hold, but note that they cannot be euthanized (unless for severe medical reasons) until after 5 days. 

4) The report also pushed for shelters to have transparency in their numbers -- which is important.

5) In the final section, the study notes ideas that it considered, but did NOT recommend. In this, it issues a statement AGAINST mandatory spay/neuter. Over the years, I've dedicated a LOT of space on this blog to the adverse impact of mandatory spay/neuter.  And over the past several years, most national animal welfare organizations have denounced mandatory spay/neuter, including Maddies Fund, the ASPCA, No Kill Advocacy Center, and the AVMA. However, HSUS has never really taken a stance against it....until now.

According to the report, it did NOT recommend increasing penalties for failure to spay or neuter, and goes on to describe:

"While finding people to adopt dogs and cats is crucial, reducing the supply of incoming animals is the only way to end the pet overpopulation problem. The stakeholder group discusses the pros and cons of changing state laws to increase fines and penalties for not altering pets. However, compelling evidence exists to show demand for affordable spay/neuter services is high, particularly in underserved areas. Failure to spay or neuter is more correlated with limited access to affordable and proximate services than i is with resisance to sterilizing pets.  Efforts to increase resources and outreach in communities where spay/neuter rates are low should be the focus."

This is outstanding news that finally HSUS is on board with a proven, targeted outreach approach vs trying to mandate sterilization on those who cannot afford it.

 Misses

Overall, I thought the report was really solid and hit on a lot of key points and shelter best practices. However, while there was a huge amount of space spent to keeping animals out of the shelter (which is important), and proper care for animals in the shelter (also important), outside of one section on working with rescue groups, there was little information on how to get them back OUT safely. 

Through the course of their study, intake for dogs dropped 15%. However, euthanasia for dogs dropped 48%.  So some shelters, somewhere are saving more lives of animals that do make it into the shelters. 

How are they doing it?  Increased adoptions?  Increased transfers?  Increased RTOs?  There isn't much in here about programs that are doing that (and nothing, at all on adoptions).  I would have loved for them to have dived into the shelters that were increasing adoptions to see which programs had the biggest impact. Off-site adoptions? Adoption special events?  Open adoption policies?  Satellite adoption centers? 

I feel that while keeping animals out of the shelter is important (and would have been a greater influence on the legal angle, which was their key focus), a small section on SAVING those who came in would have been warranted. It's the biggest miss in what was overall a very solid report, that is worth checking out. 

Weekly Roundup -- Week Ending 7/14/13

I've obviously been light on posting the past couple of weeks. It's been really busy in my personal, and professional life and just haven't had time to get to the blog. I'll have a bit more on some of those things in the coming week or so. Meanwhile, I've been stockpiling blog posts, some that just won't ever get written, but some I plan to get out there shortly. 

Meanwhile, there are a lot of articles that I"m reading that I want to share in this week's roundup that I think you'll find interesting. Again, going to skip over the majority of bite stories (although there are a couple I want to share) and BSL fights (again, with exceptions). With that, sit back, relax, and enjoy some of the articles from the past couple of weeks.

Cities/States and Laws

Laws targeting specific breeds of dogs "not an option" for Great Bend, KS.

Mason City, IA approved a new dangerous dog ordinance that targets dogs based on behavior, not breed. The ordinance "promotes responsibility of the owner, supervision of the dog and safety to the public -- it does exactly what it was supposed to do" said Chairman Jay Urdahl.

Benton, AR passed a new dangerous dog law at a vote of 7-0. The law targets dangerous dogs based on behavior, not breed.

A Westwego, LA city councilman pulled his breed-specific law off the table after realizing there was no support for the law among his fellow city council members. The law was introduced as a form of panic policy-making after an attack in the community, but wiser heads have prevailed.

A dog owner in Richland, MS has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the city's ban on pit bulls. The mayor of Richland says that the law doesn't deprive people of the right to own pit bulls, only the right to own them in the city. Um, yeah.

Speaking of panic policy-making, Garland County, AR passed a law targeting specific breeds of dogs which they refer to as "gripper breeds"  including Am. Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, Dogo Argentines (they're wording not mine), Persa Canarios (again, their wording, not mine), Can Corsos (yip, them again) and any mixes of those breeds.  The law applies only to rural Garland County, but doesn't apply to first class cities in the county.  Not to say that the law is a form of panic policy-making,  but the passing of the ordinance comes after a fatal dog attack in the area 2 months ago -- in which a Bull Mastiff (not mentioned in the ordinance) attacked a young boy and less than 8 months after a committee was formed to discuss breed-specific language and determined it would not be effective. Anyone who thinks that passing breed bans is a rational conclusion reached to solve a problem needs to look no further than Garland, AR for how these small communities really pass these laws. 

Collins, MS passed a ban on pit bulls and Rottweilers. The law was passed with no grandfather clause, so anyone who owns a pet of these breeds will have to lose their family pets. Collins, MS, a small community of about 2500 people. 

Pasadena, CA passed a law requiring pets to be spayed or neutered by four months of age. I'm just amazed at the number of animal advocates that continue to support these types of laws in spite of their lack of success in controlling shelter populations, in spite of the reality that nearly no animal welfare organization supports them any more, and in spite of the potential health impacts that such early spay/neuter can create. Keep reading for more...

Positive Press for the Bullies

The Racine Journal Times (WI) notes: Defending the pit bull: Experts say the animals no more aggressive or prone to attack than other breeds. 

Some positive press from Sioux Falls, SD on dog breed profiling.

Dog Bites/Attacks

A rural North Dakota man was tragically mauled by a pack of up to a dozen wild dogs that were roaming at large. While there were a dozen dogs believed to be involved, the media decided to single out "a rottweiler, a pit bull and several other dogs" -- as if those dogs didn't matter. In all likelihood, if they were wild dogs, they were all mongrels of unknown breed.

In Baltimore, a 7 year old boy was attacked by a 'pit bull".  According to witnesses, the boy was one of several kids that was playing on the block and "teasing" the dog, causing the dog to jump the fence and come after them. 

In Palmer, AK, a Husky is going to be allowed to live after it attacked a 2 year old girl back in May. The young girl was in the kennel yard with 52 huskies -- all of which were working dogs -- and this dog broke free from its chain and attacked the young girl. Authorities claimed the girl's mother, who was with her, took a "totall unnecessary assumption of risk" by bringing three children under the age of 5 to the center of a busy dog yard.

Three people in Sikeston, MO were attacked by a Japanese Akita -- two of them losing parts of fingers in the attack. You might remember that last fall, Sikeston Authorities were accused of going around neighborhoods and rounding up 'pit bulls' under the community's breed ban -- taking resources away from dealing with dogs that, regardless of breed, were a danger to the community.

A Des Moines area man was severely attacked by two dogs in his home. The two "Chow-Chows" were copulating and the man tried to break them up. When he tried to interupt them, they both turned on him and began to attack. 

I'm including these attacks because I think they show several things: #1, the variety of dogs that can be involved in significant attacks, #2, that the circumstances around the attack are what lead up to them and that most are preventable, but human error and misunderstanding of dog behavior helped spur the attacks and #3 breed specific legislation does NOT protect people from attacks.

When "helping" is not "helping".

Sometimes rescue groups aren't what they appear to be.  Raised with Wolves shares the story about a "rescue" that is simply a buyer of puppies from puppy mills and then redistributing them via "adoption".  This is not the norm, of course. Most rescues are great, helpful people. But I share the recommendation to always do your research before you donate, or adopt, so you know you're getting what you're intending to get.

Shelter Success

The Martinsville-Henry County SPCA (VA) is celebrating becoming "no kill" 2 years ahead of schedule. 

Los Angeles, CA under the No Kill LA Coalition is also seeing success. For several years, the number of animals killed in LA shelters was around 19,500 - 22,000.  In 2012-13, the number appears to be closer to 17,500, so roughly 4,000 fewer than in previous years. (It's worth noting that in 1971, the shelters killed 111,000 dogs and cats. By 2003, that number was decreased to 30,000 -- and has now nearly halved again).  LA still has a ways to go, but they are making progress pretty quickly and I wish them luck...

Miscellaneous

Law Enforcement Today article advised police not to kill family pets. Finally it seems that awareness of this as a police issue is becoming more popular.

However, a lot more work needs to be done in this arena. Police shoots man's dog in front of him, and then arrests him for recording it on video. In response, police in the community are being given more training on how to deal with dogs noting that the officer's response was a last-ditch response, with no other measures even tried.

Science is studying the strikingly similar relationship that adult dogs have with their owners vs the way human children interact with these same adults. In another report of the same study: Your creepy friend who acts like their dog is a child is actually pretty normal.

A collar that acts as a fitness tracker for your pup.

Blogs

The Tragedy of Wolf Dogs -- some interesting thoughts from Patricia McConnell.

Kennel Cough: Natural Prevention of the Canine Cold -- Dogs Naturally has a potential solution to kennel cough -- something that is a neussance for sure in almost every shelter environment. Has anyone tried this as a way to stop kennel cough in their shelter?

The Plot Thickens: Spay Neuter Effects and the Health of our dogs -- There isn't much new research here that I haven't covered elsewhere on this blog, but more and more the impact of the health impact of spay/neuter is coming to the forefront. This time from Patricia McConnell.

Your Dog Needs to be Spayed or Neutered, Right? -- Dogs Naturally also tackles the subject of the health benefits, and negative impacts, of spay/neuter. 

"Raising them right" and "bad owners" -- Beyond Breed askes what message "it's how they were raised" sends about shelter dogs....

Reactive Dog: Foundation Exercises for your Leash-Reactive Dog --- a great training guideline for a popular problem of leash reactivity in dogs -- from Dr. Sophia Yin.

The dog bit me -- a New York Times Magazine writer talks about the day her dog bit her child and many of the circumstances that led up to the bite. It's interesting how important the circumstances become when you take "breed" (which is never mentioned in the article) out of the equation.

I was bitten by a dog as a kid and nobody freaked out -- I love this article because I think it represents a similar situation to when I was bitten as a child. No one freaked out. No one blamed the dog. Nobody blamed me. When rational judgment replaced hysteria....

Speaking of hysteria, a family in Salem, MO is struggling to keep their pet from having to be killed by local officials after the Labrador "nipped" a 7 year old child. In spite of passing a local professional's behavior evaluation, local authorities are insisting the dog should be killed.

Understanding Cause & Effect when it comes to Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws

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

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.

Las Vegas Mandatory Spay/Neuter -- Year 1

In May of 2010, the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson and the rest of unincorporated Clark County passed laws mandating that all dogs and cats be spayed and neutered because the county animal shelter was killing more than 17,000 dogs and cats each year. The idea was, they hoped, to decrease the number of animals impounded, and thus killed, at the shelter -- never mind that this has never been an effective solution to the problem.

The results after year 1?  As one would predict, failure.

Below are the shelter impound and euthanasia rates for dogs  over the past three years. The county's fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30. I am starting with the base year of 08-09 as the first "clean" year. 09-10 would include 2 months with the MSN ordinance in existance. Experience has shown a typically sharp increase in shelter intake immediately after a law like this passes due to fear/confusion over the law and people surrendering their pets.  The numbers for 10-11 are with the first full year of MSN.

I've not included cats in the chart below because the impound numbers for cats have been very consistent over the past 7 years -- and their increasing kill rate for cats seems to be directly tied to lower adoptions.  None of this is a huge surprise because MSN laws tend to have less impact on cats because so many impounded cats are ferals that cannot comply with the law -- except in some instances where cities use the MSN to catch and kill all feral cats for being in violation -- but few cities have the resources to actually dedicate to this.

Here are the numbers:

For dogs,  09-10 saw an 8% increase in intake and an 18% increase in euthanasia, and 10-11 saw a 6% increase in intake and a staggering 33% in euthanasia vs the base year of 07-08.

Much of the reason for the higher increase in euthanasia vs intake appears to be that there was fairly large number of dogs that were "carried over" from 09-10 to 10-11 that appeared to still be in the shelter -- and in 10-11 not only having the 'carried over' dogs, but also seeing a pretty sharp decrease in owner reclaims -- possibly as a result of higher fines that resulted from the MSN. 

Here are the numbers:

Year	Dog Impounds	Increase vs 08	Dogs Killed	Increase vs 08
08-09	9,584		3,841
09-10	10,366	8%	4,551	18%
10-11	10,181	6%	5,099	33%

Las Vegas appears to be yet another situation where MSN has failed to do what it was intended to do -- decrease shelter killing -- and in this case, like so many, saw a sharp increase in canine killing following the passing of the law.

I support spaying and neuting animals. But consistently, low cost, VOLUNTARY spay/neuter programs have proven to be a more effective solution to lowering shelter intake and, thus, killing, than mandatory programs. 

Most people who do not alter their pets say they don't do it because of the cost. HELPING them to alter their pets through a low cost program is a far more effective solution than punishing them for not.  This has been particularly problematic in the Las Vegas area because their tourism-based economy has really been hit hard because of the economic downturn.

Las Vegas has joined other cities like Los Angeles and Memphis with their failed MSN policy and should once again

Links:

Here is an article from the News 3 in Las Vegas on the story. Unfortunately it's been taken down from their website, so the link is to a cached version -- so sorry for the funky formatting. Their numbers don't match the numbers from the Clark County Animal Control -- primarily because the report was done prior to the end of the county's fiscal year and used an incomplete year of data for the most recent year (and the numbers were still bad).

 Clark County Animal Control's Cat numbers 2004-2011

Clark County Animal Control's Dog numbers 2004-2011

Another ill-informed, well-meaning person pushes for MSN in Memphis

So, earlier today, I noted that the city of St. Louis is currently looking at Mandatory Spay/Neuter.

 On Sunday, a different well-intentioned, but poorly informed animal welfare person wrote a letter to the editor pushing for the same law in Memphis.   The writer says that not only should the city pass Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN), they should enforce it and force people to pay a 'huge yearly fee" to breed a dog. She promotes this as "the only solution for the problem".

However, the writer seems to not know that:

a) Memphis passed MSN 9 months ago

and

b) it has led to an 8% increase in impounds since it was passed

There is no excues to not understand the impact of MSN laws. The information is readily available to you. And virtually no animal welfare organization supports MSN any more.  Because it doesn't work.

 No one is going to inform you, and it's easier than ever to inform yourself. But the days of pushing for something that has been tried elsewhere and hoping for the best are over.  Or need to be.

St. Louis looks at passing Mandatory Spay/Neuter Legislation

Two weeks ago, St. Louis' Health and Human Services Committee heard a proposed new law that would require all dogs and cats in the city to be spayed or neutered and microchipped.  The law would also ban the sale of dogs and cats in pet stores.

Word is that several local animal welfare groups including folks at the city Health Department and at Stray Rescue are supporting this law --- although I my inquiry with Stray Rescue from 2 days ago has not been answered at this point.

I continue to be frustrated (angered may be a better word) by seemingly well-meaning animal welfare advocates that propose or support mandatory spay/neuter laws (MSN) without understanding that these laws have been enacted in other places, and almost universally lead to higher impounds.  The single #1 reason why people do not spay and neuter their pets is because of cost. The way around this is with targeted, voluntary, low cost spay/neuter efforts.  By making trying to partner with the low income communities, you can build bridges in these communities by HELPING them, vs punishing them for being poor. Making it mandatory just makes it illegal, which causes animals to unnecessarily end up in shelters - -and thus, dead.

In Memphis, they saw an 8% increase in impounds immediately after passing mandatory spay/neuter -- leading to roughly 750 additional animals being killed in just the first 6 months.

In Los Angeles, they had seen 7 consecutive years of decreases in impounds and euthanasia -- and has seen a steady increase in impounds since passing MSN in 2008 and in 2010, impounded 30% more animals than they did prior to passing the law. Kill numbers have reflected the increase in impounds.

In Kansas City, MO, the city passed a law requiring all 'pit bulls' to be spayed or neutered in 2006, and because of increased impounds for non-compliance, the city killed 38% more 'pit bull' type dogs in 2006 than in 2005 (with the ordinance in affect for only 5 months) and 75%  in 2007 with a full year of the ordinance. An estimated 2000 additional pit bull type dogs lost their lives after the passing of the ordinance while kill rates for all other non-pit bulls declined due to the successful low cost spay/neuter programs for them. Similar results were seen in Little Rock with an identical law.

At this point, almost no mainstream animal welfare organizations support MSN. The AVMA opposes MSN. So does the ASPCA, Best Friends, Alley Cat Allies and the No Kill Advocacy Center. Because it doesn't work. And in reality, has the opposite affect that is intended.

Voluntary, low cost programs are a better way to decrease the number of animals coming into the shelter. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel with MSN -- it doesn't work. Let's accept that and move forward with solutions that have proven themselves to work.

For more:

The Dark Side of Mandatory Laws -- No Kill Advocacy Center 

Facts about Mandatory Spay/Neuter Issues -- Animal Protective Association of Missouri 

Increasing the power to kill (and the story of a failing shelter)

In November, 2009, news began to trickle out about a horrifically abusive situation in the Memphis Animal Shelter.  The incident involved a puppy that was dropped off at the shelter on August 18.  A mere three weeks later, the puppy was starved to death at the shelter.

This wasn't the only problem at the Memphis shelter mind you. It was just a single story of that brought to life the story of a shelter that was failing on many levels -- including having an attrocious adoption rate.

The city of Memphis responded by firing the shelter directer -- and eventually hiring Matthew Pepper -- who also had a questionable track record of shelter management. 

In October of 2010, the city was still struggling with high impounds and a high kill rate -- with about 16,000 pets a year being killed at the shelter. So they passed a law that required all dogs and cats be altered. I noted at the time that it was doomed to fail, because, well, it always does -- but it was a particularly bad idea in Memphis.

See, most people spay/neuter their pets -- and for the ones that don't, they list price as the #1 factor why they don't. Memphis' problems are even worse, with over 25% of the population living below the poverty line.  Mandatory legislation in this case will do little except create a reason for more animals to be impounded -- and taken to a high-kill shelter. 

Meanwhile, the shelter is still failing. And over the last few weeks, Shirley over at Yesbiscuit! has done a phenomenal job of covering the shelter situation in Memphis.  Stories include a lot of visuals from the recently installed webcams and include visual footage of puppies being brought to the shelter and killed only a few days later -- having never even been put on petfinder, ACO's dragging dogs to the kill room on choke polls, failed pleas for help, dogs apparently lifted five feet in the air to be put in a kennel via their neck on a choke poll, cages being sprayed down with dogs in them, noting that 357 dogs died in their cages last year (a 40% increase) -- you get the idea -- all leaving Shirley with a lot of good, unanswered questions.

But today's post has a lot of numbers, even beyond the horrible anecdotal stories. 

Based on numbers she received from the shelter -- here are the Jan-April stats for 2010 and 2011:

MAS stats

Jan 2010/Feb 2010/Mar 2010/Apr 2010

Intake 877/996/1358/1290=4521

Adopt 133/165/142/109=549
Died 43/28/23/19=113
Euth 562/654/1083/1007=3306
Foster 4/1/4/22=31
Missing 2/0/20/57=79
RTO 50/55/95/96=296
Transfer 12/6/17/36=71

January – April 2010 rates:

Adopt 12%
Died 2%
Euth 73%
Foster less than 1%
Missing 2%
RTO 7%
Transfer 2%
———————————————————————-

Jan 2011/Feb 2011/Mar 2011/Apr 2011

Intake 1270/1033/1357/1233=4893

Adopt 130/183/168/107=588
Died 23/10/12/16=61
Euth 999/754/1150/612=3515
Foster/relocate/permit 2/2/2/5=11
Missing 40/?/?/? (not reported for Feb/Mar/Apr)
RTO 82/57/78/63=280
Transfer 28/24/47/154=253

January – April 2011 rates:

Adopt 12%
Died 1%
Euth 72%
Foster less than 1%
Missing (not reported for Feb, Mar or Apr)
RTO 6%
Transfer 5%

------

It should be noted, that Matthew Pepper has been talking about the improvements going on at the shelter -- because of their very modest 7% increase in adoptions this year vs the last.  It should also be noted that the shelter has had a 6% increase in euthanasia.

There are a lot of things I could highlight here:  a horrible 12% adoption rate, a worse 6% Return-to-owner rate, virtually no attempt to work with rescues with a mere 5% transfer rate, no use of foster homes, and more than 100 animals dying in their shelters.

But I want to also note the increase in impounds. 

In October of 2010, the city passed a law mandating spay/neuter -- a law that has almost always led to an increase in impounds. In the first four months of this year, vs 2010, had an 8% increase in impounds from 4521 to 4893.

This goes back further than just the first four months of this year. If you look at the shelter's 2010 anual report, on page 3, you'll note that for the first 9 months of 2010, the shelter intake numbers were pretty consistently lower than the year prior -- with impound levels below the previous year's impound levels in 7 of the 9 months (and the two higher months were barely higher). Then, in October, the number went from three consecutive months of lower impounds by 200-300 animals, to almost even numbers, and then higher impounds (by 200-300 animals) in November and December 2010 vs the year prior.  The numbers are virtually identical for euthanasia as well (slide 5). 

So, almost like a spicket that got turned on, as soon as the MSN got passed in October, the shelter went from lower intake to higher intake -- now going on 6 consecutive months.  And this is higher intake at a shelter that is killing over 70% of the animals it impounds.  A little math shows about 700-750 incremental animals that have been killed in Memphis (beyond the normal high kill rate) since the introduction of Mandatory Spay/Neuter just 6 months ago.

It's results like this that is the reason a growing number of organizations -- including the AVMA, ASPCA, Best Friends, American Humane, No Kill Advocacy Center and many other local, no kill organziations are opposed to Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws - because they increase impounds, and increase killing.

And it's a shame that so many people still support such laws, in spite of their documented failure.

Memphis' shelter is failing. So is their law. And it is time for the city to undergo an extensive overhaul of all of its animal services...and fix this mess.

And it's time for the few of your who are not on board yet with promoting low cost/voluntary low cost spay/neuter programs over mandatory ones to learn from the failures of others and get on the bus FOR voluntary programs and AGAINST mandatory ones.