Education. It's the only truly effective weapon we have.

I think this is a perfect thread for Kristine to post the new statistics in.

I work in a field where we actually use data all the time. When I was a new examiner a report on the savings related to providing a certain service was published and i was dispatched to analyze it. well it turns out that the $1 spent =$7 saved used in the report was "creatively arrived at". This figure is still used as the gold standard - 15 years later and there is still no basis for it.

Respond to this topic here on forum.oes.org

If it's on the Web, it must be true :wink:

Let me state again that there is a HUGE pet overpopulation problem. There are dogs and cats euthanized in the millions every year. Most of these are because there are no homes for them. They have been dumped, and most of the time I suspect the owners got a new puppy right before or right after.

If that doesn't mean "too many pets" then I don't know what does.

Yes there are irresponsible owners...but those would be the ones who breed indiscrimantely. The owners who get a dog and then don't want it anymore I would class as "uneducated". Most of the time they did not do their research and made a mistake.

But the BYB's and the millers are the problem. They churn out the pups and don't care a hoot about what happens afterwards...Or the folks who own little Muppy and breed her to Simon down the street for various reasons (none of them good). They are the irresponsible folks...not responsible for what they bring into this world.

Why do other countires not have the same problem as in North America? And I am not talking about the coutries that don't ahev animal welfare laws...I mean the onese that don't promote spay/neuter and don't have a need for it. Are there less dogs around in those countries? Why are they not euthanizing dogs every day like we are?

The quesion was asked about the spay/neuter requirement when selling a pet puppy, and why it is needed. That was answered quite well, but the whole problem of too many people breeding dogs doesn't seem to be as big of an issue elsewhere. Why? How are the successful countires controlling it?

Yes, IF people were responsible enough not to breed thier pets, then spay/neuter would not be required. But folks do it because they can...and don't look at the result...or don't care. How can they be made to care? And yes, education is great, but there are many people who know but do it anyway, or they look the other way. Where the almighty dollar is involved things change.

In the meantime, spay/neuter is a feeble attempt to stop the flow...But any dog that is spay/neutered is not contributing to the "over population problem" and will never be stolen to make money with. It si all we haev right now, that we can do right now, and hope to make a small dent.

Bosley's mom wrote:

WHy do you say other countries don't have the same magnitude of problem - I have no idea how many animals are euthanized in other countries - or left to roam the countryside or disposed of in inhumne ways?

I think here is a difference between facts, dogma and emotion and we need to be sure we only base societal decisions on facts.

I have no statistics to back up my opinion, but I believe that in the US, we generally have a greater amount of discretionary cash to spend foolishly--and feel many of our luxuries are necessities. And we tend to have a culture of both instant gratification and thoughtlessly disposing of what we no longer want or are inconvenienced by.

One of the reasons I chose to get a male dog initially was because I didn't want puppies (well, I wanted them, but knew I wasn't equipped to do all the necessary stuff) nor did I want to deal with heats. Spaying is usually more expensive than a neuter. With a male dog, I knew I didn't necessarily 'have' to neuter and indeed, I wavered because I didnt' want to 'hurt' my beloved dog. What changed my mind was being approached by numerous random people who fell in love with Merlin (who was a very beautiful OES) and wanted their female to have puppies with him because they would be 'cute'. No matter what breed/no breed they owned. OMG. To me, there was no other responsible choice to make: I neutered him. I had already decided not to show, so there were no other reasons not to do so.

People are truly clueless. A coworker owns a beagle who is about 9 or 10 years old. She has seizure disorders, behavior problems, and a whole gamut of reasons she does not represent her breed well at all. But after Uno's win, my co-worker started talking about showing her dog. I told her she wouldn't be able to show because her dog had been (thankfully) spayed. She was shocked. She's an intelligent person with a college education, but totally clueless about a lot of things--including raising pets (and kids, but that's another topic).

Quote:

But folks do it because they can

"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
We live in a countries where we still have a lot of freedom. We sometimes have to balance that freedom with common sense... unfortunately not all humans come with this.

It might be interesting for ALL of us to contact our local shelters and animal control to see how many dogs they euthanize annually.

Our local Humane Society shelter is no-kill.

Animal Control in my town:
Estimated Population: 84,000
Annual Euthanasia (call to A/C): 100 dogs :8O:

"The number is much lower than people think... 80% of dogs (we take in) are returned to their owners."
* Note however that there is another rescue that specifically pulls sick dogs from our local animal control- http://www.petsaferescue.org

So Kristine is correct... at least about MY town :wink:

After reading Antoinette's post about the dog she rescued, it leads me believe that some of us simply live in better places that are at least a little better run. http://forum.oes.org/viewtopic.php?t=18010&start=0 I think a lot depends on where you live and the funding that area provides for the humane care of pets.

So call and post some numbers... it should be interesting to hear the numbers from the small rural towns and also the huge metropolitan areas. I do hope it doesn't dissuade people from doing the responsible thing by spay/neutering though... I still believe it's a big part of the solution.

tgir wrote:

She's an intelligent person with a college education, but totally clueless about a lot of things--including raising pets (and kids, but that's another topic).

Unfortunately you can't legislate against stupid.

Here's a more recent link with numbers...just the United states...

Link to hsus

Yes, many of those animals are not adoptable for various reasons...

These numbers do not include the animals that are turned away by a shelter, because the shelter is full, so euthanised by the owner..or a rescue group...but for the same reasons they would have ended up in the shelter in the first place...but didn't due to lack of space. Or are killed by being shot or drowned by the owner who doesn't want or cannot pay the drop off fee. Or the animals let loose in the country-side to fend for himself and gets hit by a car...No, road-kill is not counted.

What is really scary is that those numbers might have reduced because of no-kill shelters that keep unadoptable animals caged up for years and years and years. No, they are not euthanised, but because of them they might be taking up space for a dog that is adoptable, but because the shelter cannot take it, the adoptable animal is killed.

And many shelters do not keep track. A friend of mine just came back from spending 10 days helping shelters in New Orleans where Tuesday and Saturdays all the dogs are gassed. And another place she was helping had over 100 dogs in a warehouse in crates. With only 1 hired staff, the volunteers could only walk a dog every few days. They stayed in their crates 24 hours each day. The people are begging for newspaper to line the crates with.

These caged dogs are not counted as euthanized. But no matter what the numbers say I would multiply it to get the real picture...not reduce it.

We have a no-kill Humane Society here that doesn't euth, but leaves the dying animals die a natural death, often letting intreatable cancer just eat the dog away. The vet staff is not allowed to euthanise, so that the kill numbers can stay small. Yes, the vet staff changes very frequently.

There is a HUGE problem, and those of us in rescue see and hear and feel it...and beg it to stop to put us out of business.

Unfortunately, those are all just estimates, too, which further complicates the issue. And its only the Humane Society of the United States so it sounds like they're creating statistics for a bunch of groups that have nothing to do with them, like the SPCA, individual humane societies, pounds, shelters and rescues. High estimates do tug heart strings and can mean more donations.

I've been doing a lot of reading on this since someone mentioned statistics and they're all over the place. The number of choice seems to be 8 million unwanted pets a year but, individually looking at different stats, it just doesn't seem to add up. I'm looking forward to seeing what resources Kristine has.

I wouldn't believe anything published by hsus, especially if it is labelled as their estimate.

Since they are well known for propagandizing, sensationalizing and exploiting situations for the sole purpose of raising funds that aren't used for the apparent purpose. How can you trust anything they say?

Quote:

Or are killed by being shot or drowned by the owner who doesn't want or cannot pay the drop off fee.

Don't believe for a second that THAT doesn't still happen. I received an email a couple of days ago about an owner requesting his friend shoot his dogs because they could no longer handle them.

Quote:

I'm looking forward to seeing what resources Kristine has.

Me too... I'd LIKE to be convinced. But in the end, I have to wonder how new figures can be any more accurate if there's no actual reporting system in place... won't they still be yet another guess? I wonder if there are any individual states that require reporting?

This is way off topic but I did come across an interesting brochure called, "Finding the Right Home For Your Companion Animal". Might be nice to forward to someone thinking of rehoming their own dog... it might give the dog a better chance.
http://www.helpinganimals.com/pdfs/BROfindinghome.pdf

What I want to clarify is going to have to wait a little longer. At work. Busy. Spent three hours on the phone last night bringing our new rescue coordinator up to speed - actually. since she's returning to the job ( :banana:

), she was also sharing her past experiences with me. It was an eye-opener

Her perception of where the bulk of the problem lies is very much in line with mine (overpopulation of irresponsible owners), so evidental nothing's changed there. But that's anectdotal and, like Kerry, I'm very suspicious of how data is collected and analyzed - how can you have good decision-making based on faulty data? (you can't) So I want the real deal.

And like Ron I take anything that comes from the HSUS at this point with about a truck load of salt....(how many of you know what their real agenda is - the info is right there in plain sight if you look beyond the fuzzy feelings - and how it will affect you?) And how do you go beyond parroting a few buzz words and concepts and determine the real situation and what actually works (and what does not)? That's what I want to talk about.

As soon as I'm done being paid to play with numbers. Love peeking in on the discussion though.

TGIF
Kristine

All statistics aside, it would seem from anecdotal evidence here on the forum that all the education in the world makes little difference in the decisions people make.

How many times over the years do we see people who come here for advice on breeding, or buying a puppy and in the end all the advice falls on deaf ears. People do what they WANT to do regardless of the statistics, facts or education.

And please don't jump on me and say I am making a unfounded global "generality". I know I am. But, this forum is a fairly good "cross section" of people and that statement is born out here frequently.

People will always buy from BYB, so they will continue to exist.

People will continue to aquire dogs (and other animals) on impulse without thought to the long term requirements so Rescues and Humane Societies will always be busy.

And ignorant people will remain ignorant, not matter how much advice is proffered, and continue to breed their animals because they want the "experience" of having puppies.

Quote:

All statistics aside, it would seem from anecdotal evidence here on the forum that all the education in the world makes little difference in the decisions people make.

That's the most frustrating part. Many of us have talked ourselves blue in the face over and over again only to have people still do the irresponsible thing. You can't teach if people aren't willing to learn.

Hmm... no one took time to call their local shelter/AC? :lmt:

It seems we could get a snap shot of what it's like in some places anyway. Probably more accurate than national numbers that can't be substantiated without a reporting system.

Did anyone read the details on the website below? An unpopular bill to many but it quotes some statistics on euthanasia in California... about 115,000 dogs were euthanized in 2005 if the report is indeed accurate. Lower than the national average- 2% compared to 5% (again, IF the figures can be trusted). But it also indicates the problem with getting shelters to report and HOW they calculate the numbers. If you read through the article you can see why there's a problem with obtaining dog euthanasia statistics. http://doggonecalifornia.org/index.html

While I'm supposedly (!!) busy working ( :oops:

) this is really worth the read to see how the problems we've been talking about are being reframed and reworked:

http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles ... fining.htm

KB

okay since I am also "working" I only skimmed the article. THANK YOU!! it was very illuminating and informative. Sometimes I get a little crazed when half truths are used to present an argument - a balanced thoughtful approach is always - to me- the most compelling.

I have to admit that while I was reading the article I started thinking how typical that we are now seeking a legislative solution for a problem as it existed 30 years ago because those are the facts people have in the heads. (Can you tell I work in government?)

It is so much better to have actual facts (and to take the time to search them out) than to assume what you are being told by a group with a financial interest inthe argument is the truth. (not saying I have those yet just talking about the general approach to a problem) Its like the old joke about chocolate being good for you - according to a study done by Hershey (okay maybe that one did prove to be true :oops:

). Any way,

THANK YOU again.

Are these numbers accuarate?
__________________________________

It's a shame that it takes legislation to change cruelty. In my (dream) of a perfect world you wouldn't have to pass laws against gassing and for spaying and neutering. People would do these things out of caring for the animals. I hope it will get passed once introduced.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 8117.story

"Surrounded by cuddly and ugly pooches at the new Pets Are Worth Saving shelter in Lincoln Park, animal advocates and a state representative Sunday announced a proposal banning the use of carbon monoxide to euthanize dogs and cats.

"Illinois is one of the minority of states that allows this to be done," said state Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago), who introduced the legislation.

Animal rights advocates have found two animal shelters and one dog-breeding operation, all Downstate, that still use carbon monoxide as a way to euthanize unwanted animals, said Jordan Matyas, an attorney for the Chicago English Bulldog Rescue Group, which is pushing for the new law.

Although legal in Illinois, Matyas and PAWS founder Paula Fasseas said, the practice is widely viewed as inhumane and can be particularly cruel if performed by people who are not licensed to euthanize animals. PAWS itself is a "no-kill" shelter and only euthanizes animals when medical treatment would not alleviate pain and suffering.

Illinois is among eight states that still allow dogs and cats to be euthanized by pumping carbon monoxide into a special chamber, Matyas said. Four or five dogs are put into the chamber, which is about the size of a dumpster, along with a similar number of cats, which are separated from the dogs by a wire mesh, he said.

As the hissing gas seeps into the chamber, the dogs sometimes panic and begin fighting, Matyas said. It often takes more than 30 minutes for the animals to die—and there have been some cases of animals surviving, only to wake up in a freezer, he said.

Most shelters in Illinois perform euthanasia by injection, the animal advocates noted. But they also said there is no requirement to report methods of euthanasia, so it's difficult to tell how many shelters use carbon monoxide.

In Chicago, Fasseas said, the number of dogs euthanized has dropped dramatically over the last 10 years. She said 42,600 were put down 10 years ago, compared with about 19,000 in 2006. She said a main reason for the drop has been the campaign to get pets spayed or neutered.

"This legislation really makes a difference for animals," Fasseas said during the news conference.

"We all know about dogs being called man's best friend, and cats being a close second," Fritchey said. ". . . In a perfect world, pets would not have to be euthanized."

The ban on gas poisoning would make the best of what is at times an unfortunate necessity, Fritchey said.

"It is a cruel and inhumane way to put down a dog or a cat," he said. ". . . Animals at times need to be euthanized. We want to make sure it's done properly."

The law also restricts people who have been convicted of animal cruelty from getting a license to perform animal euthanasia, and it requires training for euthanasia technicians every five years—instead of once in a lifetime, as now required."

Quote:

In a perfect world, pets would not have to be euthanized.

I hope there is more to this statement - some pets are euthanized for a variety of reasons that need to be addressed (infirmity, terminal illness accompanied by great pain etc).

kerry wrote:

Quote:

In a perfect world, pets would not have to be euthanized.

I hope there is more to this statement - some pets are euthanized for a variety of reasons that need to be addressed (infirmity, terminal illness accompanied by great pain etc).

Wow, you guys have been busy. Yes, one presumes they understand that euthanasia is sometimes the humane alternative (in lower income areas people will bring their pets in specifically to have them euthanized humanely when their time comes) and what they meant to say is that in a perfect world no adoptable animals would be euthanized. In addition to the points the article I linked to makes, someone else in this thread already made the point that keeping some animals alive just for the sake of keeping them alive is in itself inhumane. Sometimes we get so carried away with trying to do good that we lose perspective.

Gassing is still used in some places as the Tribune article states. Usually more rural, lower income areas which still do have overpopulation problems and ineffective shelters. More on that in a minute.

There is a movement to change that - both the gassing and the shelters themselves when possible. The sooner, the better.

Kristine

6Girls wrote:

[

Quote:

I'm looking forward to seeing what resources Kristine has.

I should have been clearer up front. There is no grand new number that aggregates what is going on nationally for the very reason people have been citing - collection and reporting varies so greatly from shelter to shelter and area to area and are often fuzzy in terms of what they include (you need breakdowns to calculate how many ADOPTABLE DOGS are being euthanized, you can't just lump everything together or you can't begin to address whatever problem you're trying to address - feral cats are not the same as owner surrendered dogs are not the same as people who turn to the shelters to to euthanize their terminally ill animals etc) which is what make the HSUS numbers so curious - there is no explanation as to how they come to these numbers and they seem to increase annually (as fundraising drives necessitate?) even as local and regional studies - even in areas where problems still exist and change is coming much more slowly - all point to the trend going the other way: fewer dogs being turned in and in most (but not all) cases the rate of euthanasia is decreasing as well (i.e. more adoptable dogs are being placed). Notable exceptions being in places like San Mateo in CA where surrender and euthasia rates had already been decreasing, but both spiked immediately following the introduction of mandatory spay/neuter legislation.

(see http://www.fanciers.com/npa/sanmateo.html for an anlysis of the San Mateo numbers and http://www.naiaonline.org/library/Appea ... ivists.htm)

Similar studies have gone on elsewhere, but I've cited CA numbers as they have probably received the greatest attention and the most hype. To look at trends, people have had to (in essence) do what Jaci did (smart move!!!) and start locally. That makes sense on several levels.

Bottom line as you go through these studies is fewer dead adoptable dogs. Yet to listen to organizations like the HSUS you'd think the situation is getting worse and worse and is about to spiral out of control. But the numbers do not bear that out in many parts of the country, and even in those were adoptable dogs are still being euthanized, in most cases rates are declining there too. So you then have to ask yourself what is their real agenda? And what have those areas that have the situation under control, in some instances to the point of importing dogs from other areas to fill local demand for rescued pets, done differently? That really is the key.

To be continued.

Kristine

If you ask the question what changes have attributed to the declining rates of euthanized dogs over the past few decades, you have to look at the areas that have been the most successful in doing so. What changes have been made?

Improving shelters

Successful shelters have

(1) instituted educational outreach programs; they offer training classes and counselling for behavioral issues that aim both at keeping the newly adopted dogs in their home, as well as keeping dogs from being surrendered in the first place. They teach responsible dog (pet) ownership.

(2) are better at getting the word out there about the adoptable animals and try to work with the public to faciliate adoption rates

(3) are doing a better job of screening applicants and matching them with appropriate pets (!!) Some of the shelter numbers you come across are inflated both by dogs being returned (some times multiple times,) as failed placements or as they are transferred from one shelter to another: e.g. dog enters Indiana shelter, dog transferred to SE Wisconsin shelter because we need placable dogs (evidently), dog effectively surrendered twice, thus inflating the number of dogs that are showing up in shelters - that's a reporting issue.

(4) make sure everything that leaves the shelter is spayed/neutered (even today, a number of especially rural shelters and even some rescues are adopting out intact animals.)

(5) work with breed rescues and other shelters to faciliate adoptable animals being placed rather than euthanized

(6) sponsor or direct people to low cost spay/neuter programs (yes, these programs work!! An OESCA member vet in the Carolinas volunteers her time there and says these programs can have a huge impact.)

All of this sounds common sense today, but once upon a time shelters were basically killing factories. Some still are. They would take strays, hold them for the requisite number of days, and, if not reclaimed, euthanize them with the surrendered dogs with minimal efforts to adopt dogs out. We revere these institutions for the hard work they do, generally rightly so, but the good ones worked hard to get where they are today.

How is your local shelter doing? Do they need help? Can you help?

And, as an aside, and I get as frustrated as the next person when I feel like I'm talking to the proverbial wall on certain issues, but anyone care to hazard a guess how many dogs this forum has contributed to keeping in their homes rather than surrendered out of complete frustration to a shelter or breed rescue? No, I don't know the number either. But think about what happens in the behavior section, especially.

To be continued.

Kristine

What sparked this thread centered not on shelters and such, but on spaying and neutering and the extent of overpopulation.

OK, how do we define overpopulation? Most typically as having more dogs (I've tried to stay solely on dogs as cats present a different type of situation) than there are homes for. We've been told that there are an excess of dogs in the millions killed every year. Then we start to whittle away at the numbers and realize things like those numbers include dogs whose time has come and whose owners are utilizing the shelters for humane euthanasia, dogs who cannot and should not be placed, cats, (feral and other). So we discover that we can't actually know the number nationally, so we need to look locally, and what we see is that there is a great deal of regional disparity.

From: http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/arch ... g_dogs.htm

On the increase, however, are transport programs that are literally cleaning out shelters in one part of the country and bringing dogs en masse for placement in another. This practice began about 10 years ago when New York's North Shore Animal League began retrieving mixed breed puppies from rural shelters in southern states and bringing them north for placement. There was, the shelter alleged, a shortage of puppies in New York thanks to aggressive spay/neuter programs and reduced breeding. NSAL provided financial grants in exchange for puppies so the shelters could establish their own spay/neuter programs. This philosophy soon spread to other large shelters in the northeast that began making treks down south to relieve their own shortages.

Although this activity created a lot of bitterness among non-participating shelters struggling to place less desirable adult dogs, it was somewhat hard to argue with the general principle at the time. People definitely do want puppies and routinely choose them over adult dogs, making placement easy. Most of the puppies were spayed and neutered before adoption ensuring they wouldn't reproduce, the southern pounds were relieved of great expense and trouble, and most importantly, the puppies were adopted rather than euthanized as was the common practice in these resource-poor facilities. It appeared to be a win-win situation. As the practice has spread to the Midwest and beyond in recent years and is being embraced by private rescue groups as well as shelters, small breeds and some young adult dogs are being included as well as puppies.

Flies in the ointment
But is everything as good as it sounds? Unfortunately not. Situations such as these are putting a spotlight on this growing activity and raising concerns:

In August 2003, a rescue transport volunteer in Connecticut was cited for animal cruelty when he was discovered with 69 dogs crammed into 12 crates in an overheated van. Eleven dogs died. The dogs had been gathered from a shelter in Kentucky. The van's driver said this was his seventh trip to Connecticut with dogs from southern shelters. According to the Hartford Courant, the shelter was paid $55 for each dog with most of them bound for a private rescue service in Fairfield that charges a $225 adoption fee and had received a warning last year from state animal officials for missing health and rabies certificates. The Kentucky shelter reported that it had sent 300 dogs to Connecticut previously and thousands more to New York, California, and Canada.

4 Paws Pet Transport, a private rescue group in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has been bringing van loads of dogs to the state from small rural shelters in Kentucky and Indiana for over two years. Adopters responding to the rescue's website's emotional pleas for homes meet the transport vans on arrival in Milwaukee, pay an adoption fee, and take home unaltered dogs that have not been vet-checked and sometimes have contagious diseases and parasites like parvo, coccidia, and hookworm.

Recently, the Wisconsin Humane Society, the most visible animal shelter in my state, also in Milwaukee, has begun going south for dogs, claiming a shortage of adoptable pets here. WHS says their adoption program is so successful that the average dog in their facility is placed within 24 hours. Sponsored by Nylabone, WHS's "Operation Puppy Shuttle," began importing dogs from the City of Indianapolis pound in April 2003, while at the same time rejecting as many as 75 percent of the dogs in the Milwaukee county pound as "unadoptable."

Indianapolis animal control officials said in March that the pet overpopulation problem there was so severe that there simply weren't enough homes available locally, prompting their arrangement with WHS. Ironically, though, Indianapolis has a much larger human population than Milwaukee - 818,000 vs 600,000 - with a significantly greater market for potential adoptions.

I might add, since I know the Milwaukee situation somewhat first hand, that the unadoptables include a large % of pit breeds/mixes. I stopped volunteering for a shelter just north of Milwaukee when we basically went in under the Wisconsin Humane Society (the small shelter was supporting itself, quite frankly, by these imported puppies up until then - which made the board rather uncomfortable because that was not our mandate - with exceedingly low dog intake/euthanasia rates - only unadoptables - severed aggression and severe health problems were euthanized - we had few enough dogs we could focus efforts on adopting out the less desirable ones - (older, larger, mixed breed) and a waiting list of homes that wanted to adopt (that's dogs - cats are a depressingly different matter!). The shelter, like any good shelter should, basically put itself out of business thorough heavy duty educational efforts (successful in terms of dogs only), except for dealing with strays.

The shelter now mainly functions to hold strays, any adoptable animals were, last I checked, sent to WHS, and we received their unadoptable pit/mixes (thanks!) because we were rural and they "didn't want them rehomed in the urban environment they had mostly come from". Hm.

Kind of an upside-down, topsy-turvy world, eh? I believe there is merit to some of these efforts, especially those where a region with an apparent shortage will adopt dogs from regions that continue to experience problems AND sink the adoption "fee" "profits" back into those shelters where they could be used for the outreach and low-cost spay-neuter programs we already have and they need. Heck - we should be helping our Northern Wisconsin rural shelters too.

The entire piece deserves to be read. It's an eye-opener.

Need to get the crew out for a good run before you next find me in the behavioral section, begging for help (they ate my living room - what do I do??!!) :lol:

Kristine

kerry wrote:

I have to admit that while I was reading the article I started thinking how typical that we are now seeking a legislative solution for a problem as it existed 30 years ago because those are the facts people have in the heads. (Can you tell I work in government?)

You're right. And if it was just a matter of government being behind the times...but there is something much more complex, and, in part, sinister going on that's driving it.

The sinister part is the animal rights drive to end breeding altogether to effect their publically stated goal of no more companion animals. Not overpopulation, people, but zero population.

They do so in two ways:
Part I: propaganda based on partial truth (always more convincing): we have a terrible overpopulation problem that's getting worse by the minute!!!

Never mind that that the dog surplus, such as it is in certain areas, has been dwindling for years and the people genuinely in the trenches (also known as animal welfare advocates - there's a diffference) have made tremendous strides.

Part II: ironically by taking the same approach I suggested taking to examining data: start local. Little by little, across your neighborhood, your town, you county, your state, across the country, they whisper in the ears of local legislators: we have this terrible problem! Overpopulation!!! Our shelters are overcrowded! It's costing a fortune to euthanize all of the excess dogs that evil breeders wantonly produce!!! Legislate, legislate, legislate!!!!

How does this happen? You start by playing with well-intentioned and compassionate peoples' emotions, by feeding them some half-truths. You need money to fund further campaigns and hire political lobbyists and so on (see http://www.activistcash.com/organizatio ... cfm/oid/21 andhttp://www.activistcash.com/organiza ... fm/oid/136 for financial and operations information regarding PETA and the HSUS) and then, having drummed up this terrrible crisis - you present your quick fix "solution" (no matter how simple-minded or how many times it has proven to NOT work as intended elsewhere - i.e. the mandatory spay/neuter proposals, and then you ignore what HAS worked elsewhere - better educational efforts and low-cost spay/neuter programs, because that takes intelligent thought and hard work!!!!) and voila! You're off and running.

Dog limits, mandatory spay-neuter, breed specific legislation, the list does on and much of it seems to have some merit on the surface. We're softhearted dog people. We want to end animal suffering, whether it's in the commercial puppy factories or needless slaughter in humane societies. And so we go along. Maybe we support it enthusiastically. Perhaps apathetically. Most likely most of us wait until it's too late and we wake up one day and realize that they were able to legislate dogs out of existence and we stood by and watched it happen, or we actively helped them do so. That certainly solved the overpoulation problem.

"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."
Wayne Pacelle, HSUS

In case you missed that: one generation and out means spay/neuter EVERYTHING - and that is what they ultimately want; and every time you give them an inch, they keep pushing and pushing for more.

Tell me then, where does your next dog come from? Exactly.

Problem solved.

Kristine

In Virginia 57,000 dogs either picked up as strays or surrendered by their owners....In other words, no homes.....

In the same year 18,500 adoptions...Not hard to do that math...

http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bi ... search.cgi

Bosley's mom wrote:

In Virginia 57,000 dogs either picked up as strays or surrendered by their owners....In other words, no homes.....

In other words they had homes, and something went wrong. What went wrong is the bigger question.

In the same year 18,500 adoptions...Not hard to do that math...

http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bi ... search.cgi

Nice record keeping on the part of VA. But where's the rest of the math?

You don't say which year you used, so I'll use the most recent (2007):

Dogs

On hand 1/1: 2517
Strays: 33211
Seized: 891
Bite Cases 766
Owner surrendered: 24092
Transfered in 4808
Other 423
Total 66708

Reclaimed by Owner 11116
Adopted 18522
Transferred within Virginia 7946
Transferred our of State 3759
Died in Facility 428
Euthanized 22512
*Miscellaneous On Hand 2324
Total 66708

That means 41343 dogs were either reclaimed, rehomed, or transferred either within VA or to out-of-state agencies for placement (one assumes placement, with no guarantee of success, of course, because only a presumed adoptable dog would be given that opportunity).

Of the 22512 euthanized dogs, where is the breakdown of how many where euthanized per owner request or because they were unadoptable?

OK, so we don't really know the true magnitude of the problem. But what the numbers do suggest is that some appreciable number of adoptable dogs were probably euthanized. That's a problem. What's your solution?

Kristine

Admitting there is a problem is the first thing that needs to be done. You are either part of the soultion or part of the problem.

Education is key. Here is a place to see adoptable dogs that are actually scheduled to be euthanised, and how long they have. Dogs that are not help at all are not here...Many people do not realize that in many, many shelters, the dogs that are surrendered are marched immediately to the back room and euthanised. There is only place to hold strays for the lenght of time that they need to be help.

These dogs are obviously in KillShelters with a due date attached to them....They are not a figmant of amyone's imagination.

http://www.dogsindanger.com/

Bosley's mom wrote:

Admitting there is a problem is the first thing that needs to be done. You are either part of the soultion or part of the problem.

Would you care to expand upon that statement? It's a little unclear exactly what and whom you're addressing.

Education is key.

Yes, I agree. That's the topic of this thread. Whom are we educating about what?

Here is a place to see adoptable dogs that are actually scheduled to be euthanised, and how long they have. Dogs that are not help at all are not here...Many people do not realize that in many, many shelters, the dogs that are surrendered are marched immediately to the back room and euthanised. There is only place to hold strays for the lenght of time that they need to be help.

These dogs are obviously in KillShelters with a due date attached to them....They are not a figmant of amyone's imagination.

http://www.dogsindanger.com/

Yes, there are still shelters that operate that way. I believe we already established that. How do you propose we change that?

Kristine

Nicole,

I think you may be discounting the possibility that many of the ones in custody (2,200, or less than 5% of the annual "volume") are being held as adoptable or pending adoption (adoptions don't happen immediately as you know), may be awaiting euthanasia due to illness, are being quarrantined for some reason, etc., etc. We don't know how many of those may be in "no kill" shelters.

Maybe we should lobby our state governments to mandate uniform classification and reporting? Maybe the hsus will lobby for that for us!

Ron wrote:

Nicole,

Maybe the hsus will lobby for that for us!

do i detect some cynicism?

I am not a supporter of the HSUS. BUT, like PETA, they do a great job of bringing awareness to the puplic...Yes, they use a lot of propaganda, but I wouldn't discount completely the numbers they gather and use. That is my opinion. It is better than nothing at all.

The over-population pet problem is very clear to me. And people can either help by working towards a solution or they cannot help at all. Those who do nothing I see as being part of the problem. But help can be as little as discussing with their neighbor why they should re-consider breeding thier poodle-mix with the studdly Brutus down the street. It will not go away by itself.

Whether the numbers ofof dogs euthanised is 15 million, or 8 million or 2 million...it is too much. And I don't buy that suggestion that there are many brought to the shelters to be euthanised due to sickness etc. People who have pets that they care for will bring them to a vet to be euthanised. If they cannot afford to, then I guess a shelter would do it,,,But I do not see that as being a large number.

Even if the numbers of animals killed are less than we think, which I highly doubt because so many are not reported, there are millions living in shelters. The no-kill and rescue movements have made people feel better, because the animals are not killed...But they are still homeless...Costing tax-payers a lot of money to keep alive...in often awful conditions. And shall we talk about the thousands of puppy mills that house hundreds of puppies each, in squalor conditiosn to produce many ill and sick puppies with behavioral problems that fill up those same shelters? Or are euthanised at these shelters because of their health, mental or physical?

There are too many dogs and cats being produced every year.....far too many.....And folks can skirt the issues and say "oh, its not that bad" or "Prove it to me." all they want. The question came up as to why spay/neuters are demanded by good, responsible breeders, and the answer is "Because it is the responsible thing to do". A breeder is responsible for the dogs they breed, and the dogs they allow thier dogs dogs to breed. A good breeder attempts to minimise the health problems in the breed they study.

All those millions of dogs dead or alive, in shelters and rescue groups, all came from someone. They were all puppies at one time, that someone allowed to be produced. In a perfect world all those dogs could be traced back to the individual responsable for creating them...and then the individual could be help accountable for the costs of their care.

My solution:
First and foremost- acknowledge that there is a problem. Sitting and waiting for the perfect form of proof is fine, but dogs will continue to die while one waits, Petfinder and sites like Dogs in Danger and the rescue people I work with who pull dogs from kill shelters, and the shelter workers that I know are well aware that there are too many dogs,

Second- I would legislate breeders, and limit the breeding stock only to those animals that have passed a previously established health standard.

Third- Just like a car warrenty, every pup produced wuld be able to be identified to exactly where he/she was produced. The producing breeder would be help responsible within a certain limit, for that dog's care.

Fourth- Seeing as the two items above are not going to happen anytime soon, spay/neuter programs need to be in place, and legislated as need be.

In any event, legislation is required. People are not going to do it on thier own...Well, some will, but it is the ones who won't who are the problem. THere are many people who will say "I shold be able to do as I please!", which is fine, but why infringe on those folks who are left picking up the pieces and cleaning up the mess? I am actually quite surprised that people aren't more vocal. Taxes that can help communities are used to house dogs that someone else bred and made money on. Yet society pays for it....

I don't do figures. I deal with the every day reality, Maybe I should lift my head up out of the gutter and look around. Maybe there is some light out there, but I am not seeing it...

From the ASPCA Website

Fast Facts: Pet Overpopulation in the United States
It is impossible to determine how many stray dogs and cats live in the United States; estimates for cats alone range up to 70 million.

The average number of litters a fertile cat produces is one to two a year; average number of kittens is 4-6 per litter.

The average number of litters a fertile dog produces is one a year; average number of puppies is 4-6.

Owned cats and dogs generally live longer, healthier lives than strays.

Most strays are lost pets who were not kept properly indoors or provided with identification.

Only ten percent of the animals received by shelters have been spayed or neutered. About 75 percent of owned pets are neutered.

The cost of spaying or neutering a pet is less than the cost of raising puppies or kittens for a year.

Five out of ten dogs in shelters and seven out of ten cats in shelters are destroyed simply because there is no one to adopt them.
All data are ASPCA estimates.

quote="Bosley's mom"]There are too many dogs and cats being produced every year.....far too many.....And folks can skirt the issues and say "oh, its not that bad" or "Prove it to me." all they want.

No, the issue is not prove it to me. The issue is what is the real situation?

The question came up as to why spay/neuters are demanded by good, responsible breeders, and the answer is "Because it is the responsible thing to do".

That was me answering that question.

A breeder is responsible for the dogs they breed, and the dogs they allow thier dogs dogs to breed. A good breeder attempts to minimise the health problems in the breed they study.

Again, me.

All those millions of dogs dead or alive, in shelters and rescue groups, all came from someone. They were all puppies at one time, that someone allowed to be produced. In a perfect world all those dogs could be traced back to the individual responsable for creating them...and then the individual could be help accountable for the costs of their care.

That someone bought and dumped. If you're talking responsibility, where is the puppy purchaser in this? The innocent bystander? Someone held a gun to their head to buy that puppy? If you're talking breeders and not oopses, these puppies were wanted once. The bigger question to me is "what went wrong?"

My solution:
First and foremost- acknowledge that there is a problem.

Already established. Also established that the problem is nowhere near the extent of what the organizations you refer to as awareness raisers purport. Accuracy and a clear understanding of the issue is not a trivial thing. You can't come up with a good solution to a problem based on bad data - i.e. without understanding what the true problem is.

Sitting and waiting for the perfect form of proof is fine, but dogs will continue to die while one waits, Petfinder and sites like Dogs in Danger and the rescue people I work with who pull dogs from kill shelters, and the shelter workers that I know are well aware that there are too many dogs,

Sitting? Waiting? I have two foster dogs asleep under my desk as I speak (much to my own dogs' chagrin :wink:

). As it happens, they have homes waiting for them pending home visits and we have requests for dogs we don't have so are referring people to other rescues.

Second- I would legislate breeders, and limit the breeding stock only to those animals that have passed a previously established health standard.

Legislate how? Based on what standards? Yes, it's important to be specific. Legislation is not a trivial thing either. Can you design legislation that actually does what it was intended without merely stripping more rights away from those who are already law-abiding to begin with? And which doesn't cost a fortune to enforce?

Third- Just like a car warrenty, every pup produced wuld be able to be identified to exactly where he/she was produced. The producing breeder would be help responsible within a certain limit, for that dog's care.

You and Wisconsin both, because we have similar legislation pending. It is meant to criminalize breeding, but, of course, will only affect those breeders who actually try to do the right thing. We import puppies from out of state shelters so we have something to rescue, but try to criminalize our legitimate breeders, a number of whom, by the way, are the main driving force behind OES breed rescue in this state. Congratulations, Wisconsin.

Fourth- Seeing as the two items above are not going to happen anytime soon, spay/neuter programs need to be in place, and legislated as need be.

Low cost spay neuter programs are in place in many, many areas. See my San Mateo link to get an idea of why mandatory spay/neuter doesn't work. It's been tried and failed on the East Coast and elsewhere as well. Results? Short term: immediate spikes in euthanasia rates and a slowing of the already downward trend of both shelter intakes and euthanasia rates there after compared to nearby communities. It has the opposite effect of what was intended. Why waste time proposing or supporting legislation that simply does not work as intended, kills more dogs rather than less, and only truly affects responsible owners and breeders alike?

In any event, legislation is required. People are not going to do it on thier own...Well, some will, but it is the ones who won't who are the problem.

Here's the irony: the ones who will, the ones who are not the problem, are the very ones who will be adversely affected. You can legislate responsible breeders out of existence. Piece of cake. We're already discussing this in Wisconsin. If certain legislation goes through, we breed only for ourselves if at all. What does that leave you with?

THere are many people who will say "I shold be able to do as I please!", which is fine, but why infringe on those folks who are left picking up the pieces and cleaning up the mess?

I'm left picking up the pieces and cleaning up the mess. I want solutions that work.

I am actually quite surprised that people aren't more vocal. Taxes that can help communities are used to house dogs that someone else bred and made money on. Yet society pays for it....

And they pay even more when trying to enforce untenable laws. Again, see San Mateo. As for the dogs, I believe we are in agreement that they shouldn't be housed. They should be placed. Or destroyed humanely if unplacable. But if you want to assign responsibility, why place the blame solely on the breeders? They sold a commodity someone wanted and then disgarded. Where is that person's responsibility in this?

I don't do figures. I deal with the every day reality, Maybe I should lift my head up out of the gutter and look around. Maybe there is some light out there, but I am not seeing it...[/quote]

Look, we are not on opposite sides of this issue. we just have differing views on how to arrive at a solution. Because when you start to look at the bigger picture, you realize that the reality is different than what is being portrayed. And do take a look up, because in places you do see some of that light. The question is how to make that more uniformly so. You can't ignore that the number of dogs who are being given up and euthanized is decreasing year by year and has been for the past 30 years. People worked hard to attain that. Yet we ignore their progress and what they've proven works in favor of often draconian measures that have unfortunate unintended (or, as we see from the groups that support them, actually intended) consequences. What does it solve? Nothing. In fact, quite the opposite.

Kristine

I do get concerned, as Nicole probably does too, that some self-serving people will skim through this thread and leave thinking ALL the euthanasia stories were simply lies. (You know how some of us in the USA love conspiracy theories :wink:

) This just isn't true. I think we can all agree that there are some areas that euthanize weekly and owner turn-ins immediately. Areas that have to import pets from other shelters might pair up with a shelter that euthanizes weekly. They could fulfill each other's needs. Maybe find someone who does the drive once a week anyway and see if transporting can be arranged. I imagine something is already in place.

I can see a BYB or the owner who wants to breed "just once" churning around this information and using it for their own benefit. "I don't know what all the fuss is about... most of the dogs euthanized are sick or dying or have bad personalities... they're dogs that can't be placed anyway. Surely MY puppies will find homes.". They already don't care whether their breeding dogs meet the breed standard or that they'll pass the "gift" of genetic defects to their offspring.

I also get concerned that people might think this... "
"If the problem isn't so bad, why should I give up my time and weekends to volunteer? They should have things under control especially if there aren't enough dogs to go around and shelters are importing them."

Some information can be just as dangerous as inaccurate numbers. There just aren't enough facts to substantiate or refute how prevalent this problem actually is in the USA. I'm not claiming to have ANY answers... only some serious concerns.

Some areas are getting better, and some are getting worse....

All those puppies getting moved into adoptable places is great for the puppies. Too bad for the adults, though. The young, cute dogs get homes...the adults, not so cute ones sit or die. That movement in itself is very contraversial among rescues groups....I am sort of sitting on the other side of the fence....but not 100%. I see both sides.

I anticipate that with sites like Kijiji and other free online classifieds the backyard breeders and puppy mills will flourish...The internet has opened up more avenues to sell puppies, by brokers, and folks who make money off their pets. They are easily shipped so boundaries are no longer an issue. People can post for studs or even post to find a dog to breed thiere with...why not? The doodles and mixes are going for over $1000. I do not see that stopping anytime soon. Hey, folks can go to a shelter that doesn't spay/neuter and get a cute puppy imported from an area that does, wait a few months and breed that cute dog to make a few bucks! That doesn't happen in places with pediatric speuters.

Some breeds are not found in rescue often, so there are not many around. They are often transported some distances and that si a good thing. That is not the reason to bring more into rescue. Quite the opposite. The OES is one of those. Look at the numbers on Petfinder, compared to the labs, and the German Shepards.

It is up to the breeder to sell an appropriate puppy to the right family. First time dog owners often do not have a clue, and who should be the people to educate them? The person selling them the "product". That is being responsible. And as for identifying where the pups come from, in Canada every puppy born and registered with the Canadian Kennel Club is tattoed or chipped so the breeder can be traced. A good breeder is very happy with that as they do not want thier dogs to end up in shelters or rescues.

Anyway, I am done with this thread. I thoght it was a discussion but turned into an arguement that I don't want to have.

I lost.

Bosley's mom wrote:

Anyway, I am done with this thread. I thoght it was a discussion but turned into an arguement that I don't want to have.

I don't see anyone yelling here...

Bosley's mom wrote:

And I don't buy that suggestion that there are many brought to the shelters to be euthanised due to sickness etc. People who have pets that they care for will bring them to a vet to be euthanised. If they cannot afford to, then I guess a shelter would do it,,,But I do not see that as being a large number.

I disagree with this. MANY people bring their pets to Angell Memorial Hospital (run by the MSPCA) here to be euthanised... Angell is also a shelter. Are their numbers included? I know that I don't know.

While I believe there is a problem, I don't KNOW that there is one. We can't possibly decide how to handle a problem until we understand the scope and causes of the problem.

If there was 1 dog being euthanized due to overpopulation, a $1 million effort might be a little bit over an overkill. If the number is 10 million or 100 million, $1 million doesn't begin to address the problem.

Besides, how can we tell if programs are working or failing, or WHICH approaches work and which don't if we don't have the numbers??? The first step in fixing any problem is understanding the problem and the scope.

Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:

Custom Search

Please contact our Webmaster with questions or comments.

Please read our PRIVACY statement and Terms of Use

Please contact our Webmaster with questions or comments.
Please read our PRIVACY statement and Terms of Use
Copyright 2000 - 2012 by OES.org. All rights reserved.