KC DOG BLOG

Links to what I'm reading today

Doing a little catching up, and here are some links to some of the articles I'm finding interesting this morning:

A new report from the Koret Shelter Medicine Program shows that the average adopter coming intoa  shelter to interact with cats is NOT a large risk factor for transmitting disease between animals. Meanwhile, the ability to interact with cats is a major factor in getting people to adopt. So in other words, the potential benefit of potential adopters interacting with cats greatly outweighs the risks that are posed.

 

Fox Files: Area Shelter Euthanasia Rates

This story is done just down the road, in St. Louis, and it is done by Chris Hayes, who has been doing a lot of VERY good animal reporting lately including breaking the news about the Sikeston Pit Bull Roundup back in December., this article about how many shelters hide behind the word "adoptable" at shelters, this story about how a family pet was threatened to be killed due to how it looks, among others.

If only all reporters were as well-informed on these topics as Hayes seems to be.

This article shows how Stray Rescue in St. Louis is helping save lives at the city shelter, how the county shelter is improving even though they are still killing 1/2 the animals in their care, and how the Humane Society of Missouri, probably the wealthiest organization in the state with a budget of around $18 million a year, is one of the shelters killing the most animals in the community.

Naming Shelter Dogs: The Framing Effect

Animal Farm Foundation has an interesting article about the framing effect that comes with how shelters name animals. Positive associations are good. Negative ones can harm an animal's ability to be adopted.

Analyzing the Analysis: Wisdom Panel DNA Tests and Mixed Breed Dogs

Patricia McConnell takes a look at DNA tests, and concludes that after a fair amount of research, she has more confidence in the results than she did previously. The test makers note that the test is about 90% accurate at this point (which means, it's 10% wrong, which is still signicant, and mostly likely why some very rare breeds seem to crop up in distant histories of the test -- advice, take these with a grain of salt). I also think it's interesting that dogs with a heritage of being bred for looks have more reliable markers than breeds with a closer history to function -- such as Jack Russell Terriers and Catahoula's.

Are dog rescue groups too picky?

An interesting read from Vet Street. While there is obviously a huge variance from group to group, there certainly seem to be a lot that side with being overly particular. 

 

The Silent Killer

An interesting read from "Balanced Trainers". You may or may not agree with this, but it's an article calling out 'aversive free" dog trainers for sometimes not using all the tools available that might help rehabilitate shelter dogs -- leading to their deaths in shelters. I think it's important to note that the author here claims to be very pro-positive training (as am I), but also willing to use aversives if that is the only way the dog responds (and sometimes it is).

I think it's also interesting to note that they note there is even a difference in philosophy when dealing with shelter dogs vs owned dogs. As they note: "Even in situations where an aversive free only approach can work, it often takes a very long time, and time is something that many shelter dogs just don't have".

I'm certainly not going to defend everything in the article (and I think the article is a bit too hasty to group all positive trainers into their term 'aversive free', and there is a differenc), but I think it's worth a read and would love to hear your thoughts.

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