|
Post by RealPitBull on Oct 6, 2008 13:42:31 GMT -5
Plus ways to help lessen the numbers of animals killed in shelters. I would love to open up a discussion on this, since I've been wrestling with these things for a while. Also, please see this interesting article on KC Dog Blog (just look for it in the Sept 22 entries, I don't have the direct link): btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/ September 22, 2008 Mandatory/Spay Neuter laws -- failed economic theory in stopping euthanasia
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Oct 13, 2008 12:53:53 GMT -5
Also related to this topic, any thoughts on Nathan Winograd? I need to read his book, still, so I don't know too much about him.
(Michele, I'll probably take you up on your book loan! LOL ;D)
|
|
|
Post by valliesong on Oct 13, 2008 13:09:21 GMT -5
I want to read this more carefully and do some more thinking before I give my response. It is a topic dear to my heart! Having assisted in euthanasia of hundreds of animals, my response will probably be different than many others.
One thought that I want to share off the bat: The dog overpopulation situation is actually more complicated even though there are fewer dogs euthanized every year. If we could simply spay/neuter the stray/feral cats that are out there, I can guarantee there would be a HUGE reduction in the number of cats euthanized every year.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Oct 13, 2008 13:25:43 GMT -5
I'd love to hear what you have to say, Val. Definitely all ears. (Or eyes, as the case may be! LOL)
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Oct 13, 2008 23:11:20 GMT -5
I don't know what "overpopulation" means. What does it matter how many dogs/cats there are in the US? What would be the "right" number? But to my mind, overpopulation can only mean "too many dogs/cats being killed in shelters". And THAT'S the problem that Winograd is addressing. There are many many ways to reduce the number of animals killed. Winograd is accused or being "angry" (is that bad?) and arrogant and simplistic. But his book and writing are fascinating and provocative and really "must reads". H
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Oct 14, 2008 13:58:57 GMT -5
In my mind, I think of over overpopulation in terms of killing them because there are not enough resources to keep them alive, healthy and happy. But resources aren't the entire picture now, are they. Lots of killing goes on that doesn't have to. The 'death' numbers used to justify things like mandatory S/N are misleading.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Oct 14, 2008 14:02:02 GMT -5
I wanted to add, if we had half as many dogs in the country today, I think lots of the problems would still exist in the shelters, because root causes aren't being addressed. It's not about 'too many' per se, it's about how the population is managed in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Oct 15, 2008 9:42:41 GMT -5
for me, the fact that there are very few puppy litters in shelters demonstrates that there is no "overpopulation". Most puppies that get born (yes, even those by BYB'es and your neighbor's "accidents") find a home. It's only LATER that they get dumped and killed... most dogs in shelters are adolescents (along with that contingent of "black" dogs and "difficult" breeds) So to me the problem is obviously uneducated/stupid/careless/cruel owners. But many of the reasons they dump their pets are solvable, if the right programs were available to help train the people. IF ONLY the PETA/HSUS types of the world focused on the owner rather than the pet, we'd kill fewer dogs. But of course we know what their ultimate agenda is, so we know why they're obsessed with mandating s/n.
|
|
|
Post by hammer4 on Oct 15, 2008 11:28:48 GMT -5
Though I haven't researched this topic, I'd venture a guess that it's mostly due to lack of owner responsiblity. In my mind those that let their dogs have liter after liter of pups then dump them when they can't find homes.
Then there are the a$$hats that leave their pets behind when moving, or they have $$$ issues ect. Then we have those that just don't care about dogs and cats and will do whatever it takes to get rid of them. Having said that I do think theres a bit of an over population of pets in the US. Also, I'm all for spay and nutering.
|
|
|
Post by valliesong on Oct 15, 2008 15:14:01 GMT -5
I don't know where everyone else lives, but there are still MANY places nationwide where litters of puppies and kittens arrive regularly at shelters and quite often are euthanized. Generally this occurs in areas where S/N is less common, and also animals are seen as "just a dog" or "just a cat."
You're right that it boils down to responsible ownership. If everyone who has a pet would be responsible AND obtain their pets from responsible sources (shelter, rescue, reputable breeder), animal shelters would only be needed in cases of death, disability, and natural disaster.
And as paranoid as I am, I don't even know if I am responsible enough to own an intact dog or cat. I know I would never want to take the chance.
More later...
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Oct 16, 2008 9:41:58 GMT -5
I don't know where everyone else lives, but there are still MANY places nationwide where litters of puppies and kittens arrive regularly at shelters and quite often are euthanized. Generally this occurs in areas where S/N is less common, and also animals are seen as "just a dog" or "just a cat.".... Any shelter that can't adopt out healthy puppies is a disgrace. They're not even trying. MSN isn't going to "solve" their problems.
|
|
|
Post by valliesong on Oct 17, 2008 12:49:34 GMT -5
Wow, I find that statement just a bit inflammatory and uneducated.
I suggest you take a look on petfinder at the states of WV, KY, TN, and GA for just a start. Shelters in many areas rely on out-of-area rescues to place as many animals as possible, because there simply aren't many adopters locally. Many of these shelters are also government-run and severely underfunded. Some only have doghouses and chains/kennels, and many can't even get government funding or mandates to have the animals they adopt out altered. Not to mention government often dictates the adoption policies, which means an adoption fee of about $25, with no screening.
Sending them out of state to rescue is also controversial, because many people in the receiving states (such as my native PA) feel that the rescues should be helping local dogs, and not just the most adoptable small breeds and puppies from down south. So a local older puppy/adult lab or pit bull may be euthanized while a small dog or puppy from out of state is saved.
I never mentioned MSN. I spoke of TNR for cats and responsible ownership, which in my opinion usually includes the choice of SN, for the sake of the owner, the individual animal, and the pet population at large.
|
|
|
Post by windowdog on Oct 20, 2008 15:24:15 GMT -5
To really look at the economics of the issue, if you want to apply economic theory to it that is, we're already screwing with the equation via supply destruction. By euthenizing dogs we keep them out of the community as strays. If there were dozens of strays in your neighborhood then no one, or very few people, would actually pay for a dog.
So we're already messing with the supply in an unhelpful way (in pure economic terms here, I'm not saying it'd be great to have packs of wild dogs roving your town.) So it seems to me that calling out mandatory spay/neuter based on basic economic tenants seems pretty wrong headed. Bad apple breeders like the one mentioned in the KC example aren't the problem. It's unintentional pregnancies from dogs whose owners never spay/neutered them for whatever reason. If you have a big push to reach folks that aren't trying to breed I believe that could fix a large part of the problem.
I don't see that happening for a variety of reasons, but I still think it makes the most sense.
|
|
|
Post by valliesong on Oct 21, 2008 16:23:52 GMT -5
To really look at the economics of the issue, if you want to apply economic theory to it that is, we're already screwing with the equation via supply destruction. By euthenizing dogs we keep them out of the community as strays. If there were dozens of strays in your neighborhood then no one, or very few people, would actually pay for a dog. So we're already messing with the supply in an unhelpful way (in pure economic terms here, I'm not saying it'd be great to have packs of wild dogs roving your town.) So it seems to me that calling out mandatory spay/neuter based on basic economic tenants seems pretty wrong headed. Bad apple breeders like the one mentioned in the KC example aren't the problem. It's unintentional pregnancies from dogs whose owners never spay/neutered them for whatever reason. If you have a big push to reach folks that aren't trying to breed I believe that could fix a large part of the problem. I don't see that happening for a variety of reasons, but I still think it makes the most sense. That is essentially how things are with cats right now. Packs of stray/feral cats roaming neighborhoods, and fewer people wanting to pay for a cat. But that hasn't helped to solve the cat overpopulation at all. Noboby wants to be bothered to help with stray cats, and why should you take care of the cat you have when you can just get another for free? And you can just shoot those stray cats or dump them off at your shelter to be killed. In the states I have mentioned, there is often the same mentality about dogs. Sure enough, their dog overpopulation problem is worse. There are packs of stray/feral dogs that gather around roadkill and attack livestock, pets, and occasionally people. I believe that education and free/low cost clinics are excellent approaches. Trap/neuter/return should be practiced for feral colonies. With cats, this has proved to be the most humane AND effective method. I can only imagine it would work similarly for dogs, but more studies would have to be done to determine the public safety factor. The approach I would follow, based on the research I have done and my experience, is a moderation. I don't believe that we can simply stop killing dogs and cats, and allow strays to build up in our neighborhoods and shelters to warehouse animals. I also don't believe in the catch-hold-kill approach. What we need to do is to cut down on the number of animals arriving in shelters and increase the number leaving shelters alive. Proactive adoption programs that still sufficiently screen, public and adopter education, free/low cost S/N and rabies clinics, strict animal cruelty and licensing enforcement, shelters working with REPUTABLE rescues, shelters and rescues S/N and microchipping everything before it leaves their doors, TNR for strays/ferals, etc. A lot of these things are what the no-kill movement recommends, but at the same time we cannot warehouse the extra animals indefinitely. We have to make a commitment to become "no-kill" (excepting severely ill or temperamentally unsound animals) without keeping everything alive to the detriment of human and animal lives in the meantime. The problem is that we will not make progress without public support. This includes funding along with the willingness to be educated, and to actually USE that education rather than falling back on selfishness and the mentality that everything is disposable. Some legislation may also be necessary, to cover animal cruelty, dogs bites, licensing, dog-at-large, and incentives for responsible ownership (reduced licenses for altered dogs to start with, hopefully more creative ideas to follow).
|
|
apbt4me
New Member
"It's All About the Big Dogs"
Posts: 17
|
Post by apbt4me on Oct 27, 2008 20:46:31 GMT -5
I went and saw Nathan Winograd when he came to speak in Austin, TX two weeks ago. I bought his book and just started reading it; he doesn't believe there is a "overpopulation" problem in the US. What there is are shelters who don't use their full potential or resources and use "overpopulation" as an excuse for killing animals. He said time and time again he has gone into shelters only to find rows and rows of empty cages. His belief is how is there an "overpopulation" problem if cages are empty? Here is his philosophy for "no kill" he calls it the "No Kill Equation". He has proved time and time again that if shelters adopted his program they would become "no kill" in a very short amount of time but people don't want to believe it will work. - Feral Cat TNR (Trap, Neuter, Return) Program - Improves animal welfare, reduces death rates and meets obligations to public welfare and neighborhood tranquility. - High Volume, Low-Cost Spay/Neuter - High volume, low cost spay/neuter will quickly lead to fewer animals entering the shelter system, allowing more resources to be used towards saving lives. - Rescue Groups - A transfer to a rescue group frees up cage space, reduces expenses for feeding, cleaning, killing & carcass disposal. Improves a community's lifesaving rate. - Foster Care - Is crucial; without it saving lives is compromised. - Comprehensive Adoption Programs - The quality and quantity of adoptions is in shelter management's hands, making lifesaving a direct function of shelter policies and practices. - Pet Retention - Saving all healthy and treatable pets requires communities to develop innovative strategies for keeping people and animals together. The more a community sees the shelter as a place to turn to for advice & assistance the easier this job will be. - Medical and Behavior Rehabilitation- Public Relations/Community Involvement - Rebuilding relationships with the community starts with redefining the shelter as a "pet rescue" agency. - Volunteers - are the backbone to a successful "no kill" effort. - A Compassionate Director - the most important of all, without this all other efforts will fail. There is tons of information on his website No Kill Advocacy Center.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Oct 28, 2008 7:21:29 GMT -5
I see time and again, private shelters or rescues hanging onto dogs that have serious aggression issues and are very difficult to adopt out; these dogs take up space, when multiple easier-to-adopt dogs could have been run through those cages - I know I have to read the book, but where does Winograd stand on this issue?
Also, I think 'no kill' is a loaded phrase, and has multiple meanings, so it needs to be better defined. Or perhaps a new phrase needs to be coined, one that defines savvy shelter practices where sometimes killing *is* necessary, but not because of 'overpopulation'. I do not believe there is a home for every single dog, and life in a cage is no life at all.
|
|
|
Post by valliesong on Oct 28, 2008 13:17:19 GMT -5
PACCA/PAWS in Philly and the Humane League of Lancaster County ARE following Winograd's suggestions and have been for several years now. Their save rates have improved, but they are still killing a lot of animals, particularly cats.
Why?
A continuation of irresponsible ownership, irresponsible breeding, and an indifferent public.
Shelters can't do it alone. The animal welfare community does not exist in a vacuum. You can't force people to be responsible, and you can't force people to care.
Honestly I don't know what the answer is, but I DO know that we need to work together. Rather than "no-kill" advocates villianizing shelters that do euthanize, they should be working to help these institutions develop better policies. If that fails, they should be willing to create adjunct S/N and other programs in the area.
Less finger-pointing, more cooperation. Villianization only serves to polarize people, and further decrease a shelter's willingness to try innovative approaches. It also decreases donations and funding (and volunteers!) that "kill" shelters desperately need to develop and implement innovative programs.
And Mary, I agree about animals with temperament problems, etc. I have a friend who works in a strictly no-kill shelter in New England. They have dogs who have lived there for years, and are up for adoption even though they have bitten multiple times - including pit bulls.
The dogs get out of their kennels for some play time every day, but even staff members have been bitten. Having worked animal control and at other shelters previously, this drives her crazy. She can't help but be upset over the multiple dogs that could have been saved with the kennel space these unadoptable and dangerous animals are using.
|
|
|
Post by emilys on Oct 28, 2008 14:30:15 GMT -5
Wingrad's definition of "no kill" is 90-95% dogs saved (this is my biggest issue with him.. for most people, "no kill" means "no kill", not 90-95% saved. That high a save rate is extraordinarily positive and a good thing. I don't like using "no kill" for that goal). He accepts that dogs with serious temperament and/or health issues need to be killed.
|
|
apbt4me
New Member
"It's All About the Big Dogs"
Posts: 17
|
Post by apbt4me on Oct 28, 2008 17:30:30 GMT -5
I see time and again, private shelters or rescues hanging onto dogs that have serious aggression issues and are very difficult to adopt out; these dogs take up space, when multiple easier-to-adopt dogs could have been run through those cages - I know I have to read the book, but where does Winograd stand on this issue? From his book: ""No one wants hoplessly ill or injured dogs and cats kept alive while irremediably suffering, because that is cruel. No one wants truly vicious dogs placed into the community, because that is dangerous. But over 90% of dogs entering shelters are neither hopelessly suffering nor vicious, yet they are being labeled as such." Also, I think 'no kill' is a loaded phrase, and has multiple meanings, so it needs to be better defined. Or perhaps a new phrase needs to be coined, one that defines savvy shelter practices where sometimes killing *is* necessary, but not because of 'overpopulation'. I do not believe there is a home for every single dog, and life in a cage is no life at all. I agree; "no kill" is a bit misleading but since I haven't finished reading his book I don't know how well it is defined in there. I know during the seminar; the 90% to 95% is not made clear up front. I actually spent part of the seminar trying to figure out how exactly 100% "no kill" is achieved. Towards the end I finally figured out that the 100% refers to 100% of the "adoptable" dogs and cats. Perhaps that's the part that needs to be explained more giving it a better definition.
|
|
apbt4me
New Member
"It's All About the Big Dogs"
Posts: 17
|
Post by apbt4me on Oct 28, 2008 18:11:09 GMT -5
Shelters can't do it alone. The animal welfare community does not exist in a vacuum. You can't force people to be responsible, and you can't force people to care. Reaching out to the community, recruiting volunteers and education is very much a part of Nathan Winograd's equation. The problem isn't the shelter itself; it's the shelter managers, they have to be willing to make the necessary changes. Here in San Antonio we used to euth. on average 50,000 dogs and cats a year, the numbers have dropped in the last few years but not enough. Last year I think it was somewhere around 35,000; last December our city council implemented the "No Kill by 2012" plan. Our shelter director who is an extremely Animal Rights did not want to adopt Nathan Winograd's plan. So instead we have a bunch of new laws to contend with and still have an animal shelter that the average citizen doesn't trust; it's even worse since they implemented the new laws.
|
|