Post by RealPitBull on Apr 28, 2009 15:03:12 GMT -5
www.aspca. org/about- us/policy- positions/ mandatory- spay-neuter- laws.html
Position Statement on Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws
Background
Nationwide, per capita shelter intake and euthanasia have been in a
steady decline for the past several decades and research indicates that
the main reason for this decline is the increasing incidence of spayed
and neutered animals in the pet population (Zawistowski et al., 1998;
Irwin, 2001; Clancy & Rowan, 2003). In fact, the veterinary community
recently formally acknowledged the importance of safe, efficient,
accessible sterilization programs as the “best antidote to the mass
euthanasia of cats and dogs resulting from overpopulation” (Looney et
al., 2008). There is, however, variation in the trend in shelter intake
and euthanasia decline across communities as well as a difference
between that for dogs and cats. As a result, many communities are
currently searching for methods to reach the segments of the
animal-owning population that are still contributing disproportionately
to companion animal overpopulation. Attempts to reduce shelter intake
and euthanasia through the passage of legislation mandating the spaying
and neutering of companion animals has recently garnered much attention
and debate.
To the knowledge of the ASPCA, the only method of population control
that has demonstrated long-term efficacy in significantly reducing the
number of animals entering animal shelters is the voluntary
sterilization of owned pets (Clancy & Rowan 2003; FIREPAW, 2004;
Secovich, 2003). There is also evidence that sterilizing very specific,
at-risk sub-populations of companion animals such as feral cats and
animals in shelters can also contribute to reductions in overpopulation
(Zawistowski et al., 1998; Clancy & Rowan 2003; Levy et al., 2003; Lord
et al., 2006; Natoli et al., 2006). In contrast, the ASPCA is not aware
of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant
enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result
of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law.
Caution must therefore be applied when interpreting existing claims
regarding the effects of local mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) laws. First,
because nationwide per capita shelter intake and euthanasia generally
are in decline due to voluntary spaying and neutering, it is impossible
to determine the effect of an MSN law without comparing a community’s
trends in shelter intake and euthanasia for several years before and
after the law was enacted to trends in adjacent, similar communities
without MSN legislation. Furthermore, to discern with confidence the
effects of any spay/neuter program on the animal population, which
naturally fluctuates somewhat from year to year, population trends must
be examined over a period sufficiently long to absorb those natural
fluctuations; claims based on one or two years of data can be misleading.
In addition, it is imprudent to generalize about the effects of MSN
laws. One reason is that the definition of “mandatory” varies greatly
across communities. In some localities, a citation may be issued for any
animal over the age of 4 months seen unaltered, while in other
communities a citation results only when another animal control offence
has been committed or if more than one unspayed female animal lives in
the household. Another complication is that it can be extremely
difficult for even a veterinary professional to visually determine if an
animal, particularly a female, has been sterilized; it would be
virtually impossible for an animal control officer to make those
determinations in the field. For these reasons, and due to variation
across communities in law enforcement funding and personnel support,
actual enforcement of MSN laws varies widely, making comparisons between
MSN laws or predictions about their impact very difficult.
Another reason for caution when interpreting the effects of MSN
legislation is that shelter intake and euthanasia statistics are often
presented as a total of dogs and cats. In some communities, the number
of dogs entering and being euthanized in shelters is dropping
significantly while the number of cats is declining more slowly or even
increasing. Therefore it is critical to examine population and shelter
statistics for dogs and cats separately, so that reductions in dog
intake and euthanasia do not mask increases in cat intake and
euthanasia. This issue is particularly critical in the analysis of the
effect of MSN laws, since feral and unowned stray cats continue to
represent a substantial proportion of the shelter population and
euthanasia. This major contributing factor is not addressed by MSN laws
that, by nature, target owned animals.
Even when an MSN law seems to have a positive effect on one aspect of
animal welfare, it may have a negative effect on another. For instance,
in at least one community that enacted an MSN law, fewer pets were
subsequently licensed, likely due to owners’ reluctance to pay either
the high fee for keeping an unaltered animal or the fee to have the pet
altered (Office of Legislative Oversight, 1997).
The ASPCA is also concerned that some communities may rely primarily or
exclusively on MSN legislation to reduce shelter intake and euthanasia
even though the animal shelter population is actually very
heterogeneous, with no single cause or source (National Council on Pet
Population Study and Policy, 2001). Many social, cultural and economic
factors as well as animal health and behavioral issues contribute to
shelter intake; therefore no single program or law can be relied on to
solve the problem.
Furthermore, one of the main barriers to spaying and neutering of pets
is accessibility of services, which is not addressed simply by making
spaying and neutering mandatory. Cost is one of the primary barriers to
spay/neuter surgery in many communities (Patronek et al., 1997; Ralston
Purina, 2000; Frank, 2001). In fact, low household income and poverty
are statistically associated with having a sexually intact cat (Patronek
et al, 1997), with relinquishment of pets to shelters (Patronek et al.,
1996), and with shelter intake (Frank, 2003). As a result, the
proportion of pets from poor communities who are being euthanized in
shelters remains high; shelter euthanasia rates in the poorest counties
in states including California and New Jersey are several times higher
than those in the most affluent counties (Handy, 2002; Marsh, 2008).
Each community is unique, however, in terms of the particular sources
and causes of companion animal overpopulation and the primary barriers
that exist to having pets altered. No one-size-fits- all solution is
therefore possible. In examining communities around the country that are
having significant success in reducing companion animal overpopulation,
it appears that the common denominator is a multifaceted, targeted
community program that:
* Is based on careful research to determine which segments of the
animal population are actually significantly contributing to shelter
intake and euthanasia and then targets efforts to those segments of the
population;
* Focuses on the particular barriers to spay/neuter that are
predominant and strives to overcome them;
* Is well-supported and well-funded; and
* Has an efficient voluntary spay/neuter infrastructure in place to
service the populations it targets.
ASPCA Position
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 and the mandatory sterilization of shelter animals and of
certain individual, owned animals based on their or their owners’
behavior (such as animals deemed dangerous under local ordinances or
those repeatedly caught at-large). In order to assure the efficacy of
any spay/neuter program designed to reduce shelter intake and
euthanasia, the ASPCA believes that each community must conduct credible
research into the particular causes of relinquishment and abandonment
and the sources of animals in its shelters, including the barriers to
spay/neuter services that are faced by those populations contributing
disproportionately to the problem. Each community must address these
issues with a tailored, multifaceted approach as described below:
* The community should have in place an adequately funded, readily
accessible, safe, efficient, affordable spay/neuter program.
* Community research should identify the particular segments of the
population that are contributing disproportionately to shelter intake
and euthanasia, and the community should produce programs that are
targeted to those populations.
* The community should strive to maximize the accessibility of
spay/neuter services and provide compelling incentives to have the
surgery performed.
* The spay/neuter program should be developed with the guidance of
veterinary professionals who are committed to delivering high quality
spay/neuter services to all patients (Looney et al., 2008).
* The program must adequately address the contribution that feral
and stray animals make to overpopulation.
* The program must be adequately supported in terms of financing,
staffing and infrastructure.
* The efficacy of all aspects of the program must be monitored and
revisions made as necessary to achieve its goals.
In summary, the ASPCA recognizes that sterilization is currently the
best method to reduce companion animal overpopulation, and therefore to
reduce shelter intake and euthanasia. The most important step a humane
community can take to decrease companion animal overpopulation is to
make a safe, effective, voluntary spay/neuter program available and
readily accessible to the community, with programs and incentives
targeted to the populations known to be contributing disproportionately
to shelter intake and euthanasia.
References
Clancy, E. A., Rowan, A. N., 2003. Companion animal demographics in the
United States: A historical perspective. In: Salem, D. J. & Rowan, A. N.
(Eds.), State of the Animals II: 2003. Humane Society Press, Washington,
DC, pp. 9-26.
The Foundation for Interdisciplinary Research and Education Promoting
Animal Welfare (FIREPAW). 2004. Cross-program statistical analysis of
Maddie's Fund programs, Williamstown, MA.
Frank, J., 2001. Executive summary of research results for: the
economics, ethics, and ecology of companion animal overpopulation and a
mathematical model for evaluation of the effectiveness of policy
alternatives. Houston, TX: The Foundation for Interdisciplinary Research
and Education Promoting Animal Welfare.
Handy, G., 2002. Animal Control Management: A Guide for Local
Governments. International City/County Management Association,
Washington, D.C.
Irwin, P. G., 2001. Overview: The state of animals in 2001. In: Salem,
D. J. & Rowan, A. N. (Ed.), The State of the Animals 2001. Humane
Society Press, Washington, DC, pp. 1-19.
Levy, J. K., Gale, D. W., Gale, L. A., 2003. Evaluation of the effect of
a long-term trap-neuter- return and adoption program on a free-roaming
cat population. Journal of the American Veterinary Association 222, 42-46.
Lord, L.K., Wittum, T.E., Ferketich, A.K., Funk, J.A., Rajala-Schultz,
P., Kauffman, R.M., 2006. Demographic trends for animal care and control
agencies in Ohio from 1996 to 2004. Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association, 229, 48-54.
Marsh, P., 2008. Analysis using data from New Jersey Department of
Health and Senior Services (1998) and the California Department of
Health Services (1995).
National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, 2001. Exploring the
surplus cat and dog problem: Highlights of five research publications
regarding relinquishment of pets. New London, MN. Online at
petpopulation. org.
Natoli, E., Maraglioano, L., Cariola, G., Faini, A., Bonanni, R.,
Cafazzo, S., Fantini, C., 2006. Management of feral domestic cats in the
urban environment of Rome (Italy). Preventative Veterinary Medicine 77,
180-185.
Office of Legislative Oversight, OLO Report 97-3: An evaluation of Bill
54-91, Revisions to the county's animal control law. June 24, 1997.
Montgomery County, MD.
Patronek, G. J., Lawrence, T. G., Glickman, T., Beck, A. M., McCabe, G.
P., Ecker, C., 1996. Risk factors for relinquishment of cats to an
animal shelter. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
209, 582-588.
Patronek, G. J., Lawrence, T. G., Glickman, T., Beck, A. M., McCabe, G.
P., Ecker, C., 1996. Risk factors for relinquishment of dogs to an
animal shelter. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
209, 572-581.
Patronek, G. J., Beck, A. M., Glickman, T., 1997. Dynamics of dog and
cat populations in a community. Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association 210, 637-642.
Ralston Purina, 2000. The state of the American pet: A study among pet
owners.
Secovich, S. J., 2003. Case study: companion animal over-population
programs in New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine and a new program for
Maine. Master's thesis, Public Policy and Management. University of
Southern Maine.
Zawistowski, S., Morris, J., Salman, M. D., Ruch-Gallie, R., 1998.
Population dynamics, overpopulation, and the welfare of companion
animals: new insights on old and new data. Journal of Applied Animal
Welfare Science 1, 193-206.
Position Statement on Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws
Background
Nationwide, per capita shelter intake and euthanasia have been in a
steady decline for the past several decades and research indicates that
the main reason for this decline is the increasing incidence of spayed
and neutered animals in the pet population (Zawistowski et al., 1998;
Irwin, 2001; Clancy & Rowan, 2003). In fact, the veterinary community
recently formally acknowledged the importance of safe, efficient,
accessible sterilization programs as the “best antidote to the mass
euthanasia of cats and dogs resulting from overpopulation” (Looney et
al., 2008). There is, however, variation in the trend in shelter intake
and euthanasia decline across communities as well as a difference
between that for dogs and cats. As a result, many communities are
currently searching for methods to reach the segments of the
animal-owning population that are still contributing disproportionately
to companion animal overpopulation. Attempts to reduce shelter intake
and euthanasia through the passage of legislation mandating the spaying
and neutering of companion animals has recently garnered much attention
and debate.
To the knowledge of the ASPCA, the only method of population control
that has demonstrated long-term efficacy in significantly reducing the
number of animals entering animal shelters is the voluntary
sterilization of owned pets (Clancy & Rowan 2003; FIREPAW, 2004;
Secovich, 2003). There is also evidence that sterilizing very specific,
at-risk sub-populations of companion animals such as feral cats and
animals in shelters can also contribute to reductions in overpopulation
(Zawistowski et al., 1998; Clancy & Rowan 2003; Levy et al., 2003; Lord
et al., 2006; Natoli et al., 2006). In contrast, the ASPCA is not aware
of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant
enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result
of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law.
Caution must therefore be applied when interpreting existing claims
regarding the effects of local mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) laws. First,
because nationwide per capita shelter intake and euthanasia generally
are in decline due to voluntary spaying and neutering, it is impossible
to determine the effect of an MSN law without comparing a community’s
trends in shelter intake and euthanasia for several years before and
after the law was enacted to trends in adjacent, similar communities
without MSN legislation. Furthermore, to discern with confidence the
effects of any spay/neuter program on the animal population, which
naturally fluctuates somewhat from year to year, population trends must
be examined over a period sufficiently long to absorb those natural
fluctuations; claims based on one or two years of data can be misleading.
In addition, it is imprudent to generalize about the effects of MSN
laws. One reason is that the definition of “mandatory” varies greatly
across communities. In some localities, a citation may be issued for any
animal over the age of 4 months seen unaltered, while in other
communities a citation results only when another animal control offence
has been committed or if more than one unspayed female animal lives in
the household. Another complication is that it can be extremely
difficult for even a veterinary professional to visually determine if an
animal, particularly a female, has been sterilized; it would be
virtually impossible for an animal control officer to make those
determinations in the field. For these reasons, and due to variation
across communities in law enforcement funding and personnel support,
actual enforcement of MSN laws varies widely, making comparisons between
MSN laws or predictions about their impact very difficult.
Another reason for caution when interpreting the effects of MSN
legislation is that shelter intake and euthanasia statistics are often
presented as a total of dogs and cats. In some communities, the number
of dogs entering and being euthanized in shelters is dropping
significantly while the number of cats is declining more slowly or even
increasing. Therefore it is critical to examine population and shelter
statistics for dogs and cats separately, so that reductions in dog
intake and euthanasia do not mask increases in cat intake and
euthanasia. This issue is particularly critical in the analysis of the
effect of MSN laws, since feral and unowned stray cats continue to
represent a substantial proportion of the shelter population and
euthanasia. This major contributing factor is not addressed by MSN laws
that, by nature, target owned animals.
Even when an MSN law seems to have a positive effect on one aspect of
animal welfare, it may have a negative effect on another. For instance,
in at least one community that enacted an MSN law, fewer pets were
subsequently licensed, likely due to owners’ reluctance to pay either
the high fee for keeping an unaltered animal or the fee to have the pet
altered (Office of Legislative Oversight, 1997).
The ASPCA is also concerned that some communities may rely primarily or
exclusively on MSN legislation to reduce shelter intake and euthanasia
even though the animal shelter population is actually very
heterogeneous, with no single cause or source (National Council on Pet
Population Study and Policy, 2001). Many social, cultural and economic
factors as well as animal health and behavioral issues contribute to
shelter intake; therefore no single program or law can be relied on to
solve the problem.
Furthermore, one of the main barriers to spaying and neutering of pets
is accessibility of services, which is not addressed simply by making
spaying and neutering mandatory. Cost is one of the primary barriers to
spay/neuter surgery in many communities (Patronek et al., 1997; Ralston
Purina, 2000; Frank, 2001). In fact, low household income and poverty
are statistically associated with having a sexually intact cat (Patronek
et al, 1997), with relinquishment of pets to shelters (Patronek et al.,
1996), and with shelter intake (Frank, 2003). As a result, the
proportion of pets from poor communities who are being euthanized in
shelters remains high; shelter euthanasia rates in the poorest counties
in states including California and New Jersey are several times higher
than those in the most affluent counties (Handy, 2002; Marsh, 2008).
Each community is unique, however, in terms of the particular sources
and causes of companion animal overpopulation and the primary barriers
that exist to having pets altered. No one-size-fits- all solution is
therefore possible. In examining communities around the country that are
having significant success in reducing companion animal overpopulation,
it appears that the common denominator is a multifaceted, targeted
community program that:
* Is based on careful research to determine which segments of the
animal population are actually significantly contributing to shelter
intake and euthanasia and then targets efforts to those segments of the
population;
* Focuses on the particular barriers to spay/neuter that are
predominant and strives to overcome them;
* Is well-supported and well-funded; and
* Has an efficient voluntary spay/neuter infrastructure in place to
service the populations it targets.
ASPCA Position
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 and the mandatory sterilization of shelter animals and of
certain individual, owned animals based on their or their owners’
behavior (such as animals deemed dangerous under local ordinances or
those repeatedly caught at-large). In order to assure the efficacy of
any spay/neuter program designed to reduce shelter intake and
euthanasia, the ASPCA believes that each community must conduct credible
research into the particular causes of relinquishment and abandonment
and the sources of animals in its shelters, including the barriers to
spay/neuter services that are faced by those populations contributing
disproportionately to the problem. Each community must address these
issues with a tailored, multifaceted approach as described below:
* The community should have in place an adequately funded, readily
accessible, safe, efficient, affordable spay/neuter program.
* Community research should identify the particular segments of the
population that are contributing disproportionately to shelter intake
and euthanasia, and the community should produce programs that are
targeted to those populations.
* The community should strive to maximize the accessibility of
spay/neuter services and provide compelling incentives to have the
surgery performed.
* The spay/neuter program should be developed with the guidance of
veterinary professionals who are committed to delivering high quality
spay/neuter services to all patients (Looney et al., 2008).
* The program must adequately address the contribution that feral
and stray animals make to overpopulation.
* The program must be adequately supported in terms of financing,
staffing and infrastructure.
* The efficacy of all aspects of the program must be monitored and
revisions made as necessary to achieve its goals.
In summary, the ASPCA recognizes that sterilization is currently the
best method to reduce companion animal overpopulation, and therefore to
reduce shelter intake and euthanasia. The most important step a humane
community can take to decrease companion animal overpopulation is to
make a safe, effective, voluntary spay/neuter program available and
readily accessible to the community, with programs and incentives
targeted to the populations known to be contributing disproportionately
to shelter intake and euthanasia.
References
Clancy, E. A., Rowan, A. N., 2003. Companion animal demographics in the
United States: A historical perspective. In: Salem, D. J. & Rowan, A. N.
(Eds.), State of the Animals II: 2003. Humane Society Press, Washington,
DC, pp. 9-26.
The Foundation for Interdisciplinary Research and Education Promoting
Animal Welfare (FIREPAW). 2004. Cross-program statistical analysis of
Maddie's Fund programs, Williamstown, MA.
Frank, J., 2001. Executive summary of research results for: the
economics, ethics, and ecology of companion animal overpopulation and a
mathematical model for evaluation of the effectiveness of policy
alternatives. Houston, TX: The Foundation for Interdisciplinary Research
and Education Promoting Animal Welfare.
Handy, G., 2002. Animal Control Management: A Guide for Local
Governments. International City/County Management Association,
Washington, D.C.
Irwin, P. G., 2001. Overview: The state of animals in 2001. In: Salem,
D. J. & Rowan, A. N. (Ed.), The State of the Animals 2001. Humane
Society Press, Washington, DC, pp. 1-19.
Levy, J. K., Gale, D. W., Gale, L. A., 2003. Evaluation of the effect of
a long-term trap-neuter- return and adoption program on a free-roaming
cat population. Journal of the American Veterinary Association 222, 42-46.
Lord, L.K., Wittum, T.E., Ferketich, A.K., Funk, J.A., Rajala-Schultz,
P., Kauffman, R.M., 2006. Demographic trends for animal care and control
agencies in Ohio from 1996 to 2004. Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association, 229, 48-54.
Marsh, P., 2008. Analysis using data from New Jersey Department of
Health and Senior Services (1998) and the California Department of
Health Services (1995).
National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, 2001. Exploring the
surplus cat and dog problem: Highlights of five research publications
regarding relinquishment of pets. New London, MN. Online at
petpopulation. org.
Natoli, E., Maraglioano, L., Cariola, G., Faini, A., Bonanni, R.,
Cafazzo, S., Fantini, C., 2006. Management of feral domestic cats in the
urban environment of Rome (Italy). Preventative Veterinary Medicine 77,
180-185.
Office of Legislative Oversight, OLO Report 97-3: An evaluation of Bill
54-91, Revisions to the county's animal control law. June 24, 1997.
Montgomery County, MD.
Patronek, G. J., Lawrence, T. G., Glickman, T., Beck, A. M., McCabe, G.
P., Ecker, C., 1996. Risk factors for relinquishment of cats to an
animal shelter. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
209, 582-588.
Patronek, G. J., Lawrence, T. G., Glickman, T., Beck, A. M., McCabe, G.
P., Ecker, C., 1996. Risk factors for relinquishment of dogs to an
animal shelter. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
209, 572-581.
Patronek, G. J., Beck, A. M., Glickman, T., 1997. Dynamics of dog and
cat populations in a community. Journal of the American Veterinary
Medical Association 210, 637-642.
Ralston Purina, 2000. The state of the American pet: A study among pet
owners.
Secovich, S. J., 2003. Case study: companion animal over-population
programs in New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine and a new program for
Maine. Master's thesis, Public Policy and Management. University of
Southern Maine.
Zawistowski, S., Morris, J., Salman, M. D., Ruch-Gallie, R., 1998.
Population dynamics, overpopulation, and the welfare of companion
animals: new insights on old and new data. Journal of Applied Animal
Welfare Science 1, 193-206.
I look forward to learning much here