Despite the provocative title of my most recent article on pet euthanasia the overall picture is not as grim as one might think. Yes, there will always be pets that must be put to sleep for humanitarian reasons, mainly to prevent unnecessary pain and suffering in cases of terminal health conditions of the pet.
But when we speak of euthanasia or about the 'kill rate', we refer most often to dogs that must be put down because shelters are overpopulated – even if the affected animals are quite healthy.
The key word here is “overpopulation”. In nature and without undue interference from humans animal populations tend to balance their numbers by controlling reproduction rates naturally to achieve the best possible survival chances for as many animals as environmental conditions can sustain. If food and other vital resources diminish, 'excess' animals die off and reproduction rates of the survivors drop until better conditions return. At that time reproduction increases to make up for losses during hard times.
This natural population control mechanism does not work with our pets. They live in human environments and, most importantly, they do not need to forage for food. It is presented to them in abundance. They are also well protected against other natural disasters and threats to their life. Therefore, the natural, instinctive reproduction control does no longer control the mating behavior of our pets.
Left alone they will happily produce litter after litter after litter at least twice a year. The result is the flood of dogs and cats that overwhelm even the best managed animal shelters.
This disastrous situation is further aggravated by human folly and prejudice. Examining shelter intake of dogs by breed we quickly find that in Los Angeles for example pit bulls make up almost half of all impounded dogs. They are now being challenged by Chihuahuas as the most abundant shelter dogs. Why?
There are many reasons for that: Human folly made Chihuahuas first a fashion accessory and then movie 'heroes'. Or vice versa. Thus they have become in many circles a must-have item that is discarded as quickly as it was acquired when the owners are getting tired of taking care of them or are disillusioned by their incessant noise and nastiness. Where do the useless Chihuahuas go? Well, to the shelter of course where they populate holding kennels in great numbers.
Before them we had waves of Dalmatians, Golden Retrievers, Saint Bernards as the result of other movies. This list, though incomplete, illustrates a fatal trend – fatal for the dogs. Only pit bulls did not gain notoriety as movie heroes, though one of them starred in 'Homeward Bound'. They are so popular but for more sinister reasons. That is in itself a sad story to be addressed maybe another day. Nevertheless, they make up over 40 percent of all dogs euthanized in Los Angeles animal shelters.
Together with the ubiquitous Chihuahua great numbers of pit bulls are created in anonymous backyards and alleys all over Los Angeles - many times completely at random. This is only possible because of the prejudice against spay and neuter programs by certain human communities as well as the lack of responsible pet ownership. (Note that I am using 'Chihuahua' also as a generic term for all small dogs of dubious ancestry that excel in barking, nipping and running uncontrolled all over the place.)
But not everything can be blamed on human ignorance and carelessness. Studies done in several states have shown a correlation between low income and pet surrender rates to shelters. Animals living with the elderly on fixed income and in households at or below poverty below are facing a significantly higher rate of surrender than those in families with incomes above , say, $ 50,000 per year. In fact, according to a study from Indiana dogs in households with an annual income of under $ 20,000 faced the highest rates of relinquishment.
In Los Angeles the lowest average annual household income is concentrated in South Los Angeles. The area is transitioning from a predominantly white to a black area of the City. It is now well on the way to becoming predominantly Hispanic. Socioeconomically the population of South LA ranges from upper middle class to middle class and to underclass.
The South Los Angeles animal shelter reflects this wide diversity in its animal population. Frequent visitors to the shelter know that its denizens can range at any time from pedigreed, expensive animals to the lowest of all street mutts. More often than not this shelter is operating at or beyond the holding capacity it was designed for. Any drop in income almost immediately results in an increase of surrender rate of dogs and cats.
Los Angeles has 195 zip codes; 15 of them comprise the Metro district served by the South Los Angeles shelter. In 2008/2009 over 54,000 animals were impounded in Los Angeles. South Los Angeles alone contributed 13,000. Since then impound rates have increased by about 20 percent. And with it kill rates increased correspondingly as we have seen in my previous articles.
Of course, this unfortunate interdependence of pet relinquishment, socioeconomic structures and the overall state of the economy is not confined to Los Angeles. Other American cities struggle with identical issues created by pet overpopulation. New Jersey data found a kill rate of 10.8 dogs and cats per 1,000 residents in the poorest and of 2.9 in affluent areas. In 1995 in California 10.14 percent of dogs and cat populations in the poorest counties were euthanized while only 3.39 percent suffered this fate in the richest counties. (Animal Control Management: A Guide for Local Governments, a 2002 publication of the International City/County Management Association)
Recognizing the correlation between family income/poverty and surrender of pets to shelters and streets, the State of New Hampshire developed a successful program for lowering surrender rates by concentrating spay and neuter efforts on low income households. The goal was to spay or neuter five dogs or cats per year per resident on Public Assistance. Doing so reduced municipal shelter intake rates by 33.6 percent between 1993 and 2000. Euthanasia rates dropped by 75 percent in the same period of time. Since then kill rates in New Hampshire hovered around 2.4 dogs and cats per 1,000 residents. This rate remained stable at this level despite 11.6 percent more human residents. (ANIMAL PEOPLE: 16th annual ANIMAL PEOPLE evaluation of the most recent available shelter data, 2008)
Though a county in Florida achieved similar results using this program, not all communities had decisive success with the procedure. One of the reasons for this lies undoubtedly in target identification.
Given the strong relationship between income/poverty and pet surrender (and subsequent euthanasia) efforts to reduce overall kill rates must be concentrated on people on public assistance and the elderly on fixed income. Ethnic groups that associate altering animals with interfering with or taking away the manhood of the male head of household must be an essential part of these programs. Doing so would without doubt reduce the number of Chihuahuas in animal shelters decisively.
Breed statistics of dogs in shelters give another clue to the nature of more successful programs to reduce kill rates in shelters. We know from statistics I cited in this report and in my previous articles which breeds contribute disproportionately to shelter overpopulation: Pit bulls and Chihuahuas.
Pit bulls were traditionally the breed most frequently found in animal pounds. But bully breeds are now increasingly replaced by the ever increasing flood of Chihuahuas. These dogs live predominantly in low income areas. They are hardly ever trained, spayed, neutered or restrained from roaming wild at will because they mystically embody the affirmative, defiant strong 'male element' without which some members of certain ethnic groups find it hard to exist.
Impound rates and the number of dogs and cats destroyed in animal shelters can be successfully controlled with well targeted spay and neuter programs. Successful programs must target:
Low income pet owners (public assistance),
The elderly on fixed income,
Ethnic groups with a quasi-taboo on dog and cat alteration,
Backyard for 'profit' breeders.
These programs must be complemented by generous assistance with veterinary care, spay and neuter procedures, reduced license fees and educational programs in pet training and care. Many communities already provide pet owners with more or less generous assistance programs for their pets. Unfortunately, many pet owners either do not know about these programs or are reluctant to ask for assistance because they loathe the aspect of sterilization of their pets.
In extreme situations and if all else fails, lawmakers should consider making sterilization a mandatory prerequisite for pet licensing in conjunction with more vigorous enforcement of animal related laws by the affected communities.
Animal Rescue groups too have a much greater role to play in this better and improved concept than in the past. In my humble opinion they should invest a percentage of their annual income in educating potential and actual pet owners about the need for sterilization. Teaching pet owners about the disastrous effects of uncontrolled procreation of pets on life or death of surplus animals could go a long way towards higher sterilization rates. The big question then becomes: Will anyone attend these classes? Unfortunately I have my doubts!
Nevertheless, rescue groups should be eager to take on a leading role in overcoming objections based on cultural beliefs to spay and neuter programs and to become more active in fighting backyard breeding.
Look at it this way, my rescue friends: One female spayed prevents over 200 more Chihuahuas and pit bulls being born. That beats rescuing 20 adult dogs – and it is cheaper.
It is also a convincing argument when asking donors for contributions or when writing that winning grant proposal. Better yet, it makes for publicity and better photo ops than the successful rescue and placement of one tiny Chihuahua.
PJJ
