NC DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES ANIMAL WELFARE STUDY
NO FURTHER INFORMATION ON STUDY RESULTS IS AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME.
Following the intense debate and defeat of SB 460 Commercial Dog Breeders, the General Assembly authorized a companion animal welfare study. See SL2010-31, Senate Bill 897. The study will focus on current laws and regulations pertaining to the welfare of dogs and cats; the oversight of public and private animal shelters; the state's spay/neuter program; the scope of commercial breeding operations; the protection of consumers who purchase companion animals; and options to reduce the number of unwanted dogs and cats that are euthanized in the state each year.
In addition to contacting animal advocates, law enforcement and other groups with an interest in companion-animal welfare, the department scheduled three listening sessions to gather public input.
The public may submit written comments to animalwelfarestudy@ncagr.gov or by mail to:
Animal Welfare Study Comments
c/o NCDA&CS Animal Welfare Section
1030 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1030
NCDA&CS will submit results of the study to the Chairs of the House Agriculture Committee, the Senate Agriculture, Environment, and Natural Resources Committee, and the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Natural and Economic Resources on or before May 1, 2011.
COMMENTARY
Animal rights groups are organizing again to demand state regulation and inspection of dog breeders. Their standard argument is that North Carolina is becoming the state of choice for unscrupulous breeders and is earning the reputation of being a puppy mill state. The argument in support of regulation continues with statements that puppy mills: cost taxpayers money; are responsible for filling up our shelters; do not pay their fair share of taxes; spread disease.
BREEDER REGULATION
No one supports substandard kennels or animal abuse. Laws for animal welfare and to prevent animal-cruelty are already in place and should be broad enough to protect all animals whether it is one dog or one hundred.
Lawmakers who write kennel bills aimed at preventing puppy mills leave the definitions up to those who lobby for the laws. As a result, publicity campaigns highlight kennels where dozens or hundreds of dogs are kept in poor conditions, but the bills themselves often target responsible hobby and commercial breeders with far fewer breeding dogs. Kennel owners should not have to comply with one-size fits all, complicated standards solely based on the numbers owned. The fact there are more dogs living in one place does not automatically equate to the need for intervention.
Increasingly, animal rights activists have broadened the term puppy mill until anyone who breeds a dog is fair game for attack. Even someone who only breeds an occasional litter is at risk of being labeled as a dreaded “puppy mill” by activists who do not approve of breeding or procreation in the first place. North Carolina does not have the reputation of being a puppy mill state. This propaganda is not based in reality and exists only in the minds of HSUS leaders and their followers. The same sound bites are distributed by HSUS in every state with a pending breeder bill. Riverside CA was dubbed the “puppy mill capital” of Southern California; Clark County was labeled the “puppy mill capital” of Wisconsin; HSUS even moved into Canada labeling the City of Quebec as the “puppy mill capital” of Canada.
Blaming puppy mills for the spread of parvo and giardia has no factual basis. A myriad of data information sheets are available through veterinary and shelter medicine sites concerning parvo, its method of transmission, containment, diagnostic testing, and treatment.
Parvovirus is highly contagious, incredibly durable in the environment, and capable of producing severe or life-threatening disease in dogs. Parvovirus can be spread on hands, feet, clothing, tools, rodents and flies traveling from kennel to kennel. Dogs may carry the virus on their fur and feet even if they themselves do not get ill. Dogs roaming in dog parks can shed the parvovirus in their feces which can be transmitted to other dogs.
Shelters are particularly vulnerable to outbreaks of parvo from the surrounding community as a result of accepting surrendered dogs and picking up strays. Shelter populations are primarily mixed breed dogs, and puppy mills purposely breeding mongrels do not exist.
Several of our North Carolina shelters have had parvo outbreaks this year, none associated with closing down alleged puppy mills. This summer a major outbreak occurred in a Florida shelter where 47 cases were reported, the majority being strays.
DOG BREEDING IMPACT ON SHELTERS
As the end goal of animal rights is to end breeding of companion animals, activists need to draw a straight line between breeding and euthanasia, whether or not the logic used to make a case is flawed or the information presented is inaccurate. Breeders are the scapegoat and the standard pitch by activists to legislators is that reducing breeding will reduce shelter intake and therefore cut costs. However, the majority of an animal control budget is fixed cost which is not changed by the numbers of animals entering the shelter. (1)
Clifton Merrit writes: “As shelters receive fewer surrendered and found animals, animal control personnel are able to spend more time responding to calls that require them to spend time afield. Staff time per animal handled shoots up. As killing decreases, moreover, impounded animals spend more days apiece in cages. The animal volume falls, but the number of days on which each cage is full tends to remain the same. Thus fewer animals require, cumulatively, the same amount of care. A parallel myth is that reduced shelter killing brings increased revenue associated with doing more adoptions. This may happen, for a time, as prospective adopters are demonstrably much more likely to visit shelters when they do not have the feeling that choosing one animal to adopt is condemning others to die, but as the numbers of incoming puppies and kittens fall, adoptions tend to follow killing in a downward trend. (2)
Activists cling to the myths that breeders are filling our public shelters with unwanted dogs when study after study proves that owner retention is the cause. Today, most professionals recognize that pet overpopulation is no longer an accurate catchphrase to describe the reasons for animals leaving their original homes, especially for dogs. Pet population is an extremely complex issue that involves not only the number of births, but whether these births are from owned or unowned animals. It involves reasons for relinquishment, income status, level of owner education, ownership rights, and the responsibilities of pet owners.
The National Council on Pet Population Study & Policy determined that nearly a third of the dogs and cats entering shelters were animals that did have homes but whose owners had relinquished them to an animal shelter. Anecdotal evidence was that most of these animals were not kittens and puppies, but adult animals whose chances of adoption from the shelter were not great. It was clear that if these animals could be kept in the home, and the human/animal bond strengthened, then the euthanasia rate could be reduced significantly. (3)
Reasons for relinquishment common to both dogs and cats included moving, landlord not allowing pets, too many animals in household, cost of pet maintenance, owner having personal problems, inadequate facilities for a pet, and no homes available for littermates. Other reasons for cats were allergies in the family, house soiling, and incompatibility with other pets while other reasons for dogs were lack of time for them, illness of the dog, and biting.
Because most of the people surrendering animals reported personal issues as one of the causes, this second paper examined the Shelter Survey results to learn more specifically what those personal issues are and how they might be addressed so that owners could keep their pets. When all the various reasons for relinquishment that dealt with health or personal issues are grouped together they become the most prevalent cause of relinquishment for cats and the third most common for dogs. These issues were surpassed by behavior and housing concerns for relinquishment of dogs. Examples of the type of health and personal issues cited by those relinquishing pets included a birth or death in the family or a new job or other change that would require the owner to be away from home more. Allergies to the pet, primarily to cats, were also cited.
It is disturbing to find that people had poor general knowledge about the animals they own. Significantly more of those relinquishing dogs and cats.
It is this lack of knowledge that might contribute to unrealistic expectations or inappropriate actions on the part of the owner. People need to know more about why animals behave the way they do, and more general knowledge about the animals they take into their homes to make for successful relationships. The authors suggested that education of pet owners about the general biology and behavior of dogs and cats might lessen the possibility of relinquishment of their pets. Veterinary clinics, animal shelters, pet stores, trainers and breeders could all be involved in proactive educational efforts to prevent the development of problems or to deal with existing ones. Data from these surveys suggest that the window of opportunity for intervention and education is a narrow one based on the length of ownership prior to relinquishment.
The majority of pets are obtained from acquaintances and family members while only 15 to 20 percent of dogs are purchased from breeders. In summary, the anti-breeder sentiment has been kept in the forefront of discussion for decades and breeders labeled as the root of all pet population problems. The true problem of owner retention is not properly addressed by government at any level.
REDUCING SHELTER EUTHANASIA
Continual, blind focus on blaming breeders for shelter populations and high euthanasia rates will never lead to measurable reduction in shelter euthanasia rates. It is estimated that at a minimum 75% of shelter dogs are mixed breed. There are no kennels purposely breeding lab/collie crosses or boxer/beagle mixes, and turning them loose to roam or dropping them off at the local shelter.
Communities, local and state governments must move away from punitive legislation tactics to shelter reform and solving owner retention problems.
Quoting Nathan Winograd: To reach [these] goals, duties translate into several key program areas including working with rescue groups, providing access to low cost spaying and neutering, developing a community-based volunteer, foster care and offsite adoption program, providing options and solutions to overcome medical, behavioral and environmental issues that may cause caretakers to relinquish their pets, medical and behavioral programs and rehabilitation, disease control and socialization, and a proactive and positive public relations and marketing campaign. All these programs are essential to a well run shelter. And a well run shelter requires an ethical, highly motivated team with an emphasis on accountability, responsibility, and good judgment.
PET RETENTION
While many of the reasons animals are surrendered to shelters are unavoidable, others can be prevented, but only if shelters and the community are willing to work with people to help them solve their problems. Saving all healthy and treatable pets requires us to develop innovative strategies for keeping people and their companion animals together.
Have fact sheets available in the shelter and on the shelter website. Address topics like preventing allergies and what people should expect when they get a new pet so there are no unwelcome surprises! Other pet retention programs include free in-home dog behavior problem-solving by volunteers, low-cost dog training, pet friendly rental programs, dog daycare centers, dog walker referrals, and pet behavior classes.
SHELTER AND RESCUE ADOPTION
Every effort should be made by city/county/state shelters to require that all adult dogs and cats being placed are altered before adoption. This is a critical factor in reducing irresponsible reproduction.
While pediatric spay/neuter has been promoted for decades, studies are now showing dogs are at increased risks for distorted bone structure, bone cancer, and hip dysplasia from early spay/neuter. (4) However, young dogs can be placed with contracts requiring spay/neuter at a specified age and shelter staff must be diligent with contract follow-up. The shelter must be able to confirm at least 90% of its adopted animals are sterilized to ensure that the shelter itself is not contributing to the pet overpopulation problem.
Animals leaving shelters should be microchipped. The best reason to have animals microchipped is the improved chance to get the animal back if it becomes lost or stolen. Studies have shown that the return rate of dogs with microchips is more than 2 times that of dogs without microchips. (5)
APPROPRIATE ANIMAL CONTROL STAFFING
The service spectrum in each Animal Control department varies according to the management style and philosophy of the director, polices of government and community expectations. Where cities or agencies only count the calls for service within a community to determine optimum staffing, officer safety, citizen safety and major types of service delivery are not factored into overall staffing needs. In Animal Control work, enforcement responsibilities, population density and diversity, along with coverage area need also be a consideration for future planning.
Staffing which is determined solely on the ability “to respond quickly to a call” does not address a basic Animal Control responsibility - protection of people and animals. Increasing the scope of services Animal Control is expected to perform requires evaluation of current staff and may mean more staff is needed. (6)
The NCDA study should include a survey of current animal control staff measured by population to determine adequacy before recommending legislation that may impact animal control duties and responsibilities.
SPAY/NEUTER
Spay/neuter is the cornerstone of a successful lifesaving effort—the single most effective place to direct shelter resources. High volume spay/neuter will quickly lead to fewer animals entering the shelter system, allowing more resources to be allocated toward saving lives. Easy access to low cost spay neuter is essential for all communities.
STATE SPAY/NEUTER FUND
The NC Spay/Neuter Program was developed to provide reimbursement of direct costs of spays and neuters of cats and dogs owned by low-income persons. Cities and counties may contract with a private veterinarian(s), a spay/neuter clinic operated by the county or city, or a spay/neuter clinic operated by a private organization(s). These contracted entities may be located within the jurisdiction or outside of the jurisdiction.
Currently the law states that the city or county must provide a year-round program to reduce the cost of spaying or neutering dogs or cats owned by low-income people. The law defines the term low-income person as “an individual who qualifies for one or more of the programs of public assistance administered by the Department pursuant to Chapter 108A of the General Statutes.
In order to be eligible for reimbursements, “Every county or city animal shelter, or animal shelter operated under contract with a county or city or otherwise in receipt of State or local funding shall prepare an annual report setting forth the numbers, by species, of animals received into the shelter, the number adopted out, the number returned to owner, and the number destroyed. The report shall also contain the total operating expenses of the shelter and the cost per animal handled. The report shall be filed with the Department of Health and Human Services by August 1 of each year.”
Suggested revisions to SN Fund management
Spay neuter reimbursements should be available to counties for service to citizens other than low income, but reimbursed on a sliding scale. Proof of citizenship and residency should be required.
Shelters should be required to report statistics. This should not be optional, and substantial penalties should be assessed for noncompliance. The statistics should be designed by NCDA for uniformity. (7) Statistics and definitions give an organization an objective standard for measuring results. They provide the tools to determine how well the shelter is doing compared to others or compared to its own accomplishments in prior years. As statistics and definitions are published, they provide the organizational transparency and measuring stick the public is looking for.
A shelter needs basic statistics: number of animals coming in, reason for surrender, adopted, transferred, returned to owner and deaths by category (healthy/adoptable, treatable, non-adoptable).
FOOTNOTES
(1) Annual Spay/Neuter Report Summary, 2002-2008
(2) Numbers test conventional wisdom on "pet overpopulation" by Merritt Clifton
(3) National Council on Pet Population Study & Policy (NCPPSP) Exploring the Surplus Cat and Dog Problem.
(4) Revisiting The Idea Of Early-Age Neutering
(5) AVMA Microchipping FAQ
(6) NACA. Calculating staffing requirements
(7) How to Implement the Asilomar Accords
RELATED ARTICLES
(NCPPSP) Development of a Shelter Population Index (SPI) for Cats and Dogs: A Multi-Institutional Feasibility Study Phase I
Frequently Asked Question on Pet Overpopulation
Building a No Kill Community. Top 10 Strategies for Saving Lives
|
