Solving Pet Overpopulation

[Guest guest]

THE STRATEGY FOR TOMORROW

Solving Pet Overpopulation

 

by Peter Marsh

 

We've finally turned the tide in the century-long struggle against pet

overpopulation. Only thirty years ago, one family dog and cat in five

lost his or her life in a shelter every year. Now it's one in twenty.

 

Our mission, however, isn't to reduce overpopulation. It's to end it. But

how can we get any further ahead when most of us are already working flat

out, running only on adrenaline much of the time?

 

The answer lies in working smarter, not harder.

 

Part of working smart is to build on the work of comrades of the heart

who have come before us. Most of their progress came from the dramatic

increase in pet sterilization rates driven by an aggressive

Legislation--Education--Sterilization strategy. To go further, however,

we need to create a Second Generation LES program that builds on past

successes and all that we have learned in recent years.

 

I. UPDATING LEGISLATION -- USING REVENUE FROM A NEW GENERATION OF

DIFFERENTIAL LICENSING SURCHARGES TO ESTABLISH PROACTIVE PROGRAMS

 

Desperation drove shelters to the LES strategy. The tide of homeless and

abandoned animals rose relentlessly until by 1970 more than twenty per

cent of the household dog and cat populations entered shelters every

year. Shelters recognized that they couldn't stem this flood alone and

turned to legislators for help.

 

Neutering incentives became a staple of the LES program in the form of

licensing surcharges or " differentials " for intact pets. By now, the

fairness and effectiveness of differential licensing fees is widely

accepted. But two changes must be made to update these laws.

 

First, the amount of the surcharge--about $10 on average--is now too low.

It needs to be increased to reflect the true costs shouldered by

taxpayers in controlling and impounding intact pets. Recent studies have

consistently shown that while intact pets make up an increasingly smaller

minority of household pets, they still account for about two-thirds of

all animal control expenses. This comes out to be about $35.00 a year for

each intact dog compared to about $11.00 a year for each sterilized one.

Licensing surcharges should be increased to about $25.00 to reflect the

public expenses caused by intact pets, a type of user fee.

 

The second change that needs to be made is to earmark the revenue from

differential license surcharges to pay for programs to curb

overpopulation, not to just deposit it in the public treasury as we have

in the past. Using the money raised through differentials to pay for

solutions multiplies their impact. The most effective programs use the

revenue from differentials to provide neutering subsidies to low-income

pet guardians, like a program in New Jersey. This reaches two major

sources of pet over-breeding at the same time--those who can afford to

have their pets neutered (but won't) and those who want to but can't

afford it. This way, those who won't neuter their pets at least help

those who can't. Even at the low rate that people now license their dogs,

a $10 increase in the differential licensing fee would generate enough

revenue to fully fund a neutering assistance program for low-income

families.

 

 

II. UPDATING EDUCATION -- DEVELOPING COMMUNITY EDUCATION COALITIONS

 

The educational message of the original LES program could be easily

summarized: " The Problem Is Pet Overpopulation. The Solution Is

Spay/Neuter. " It has been remarkably effective. By 1990, more than 60% of

all dogs kept by Americans and more than 80% of their cats had been

sterilized. Only twenty years earlier, only 10% of each had been. As with

legislation, the most effective way to take advantage of the success of

the LES educational program is to build upon it. Both the message and the

targets of future educational initiatives need to be updated, however, to

take into account the changes that have taken place in the last 30 years

and the findings from recent research.

 

By now, the critical issue for many pet caretakers is not WHETHER to

neuter their pets by WHEN. Recent surveys have consistently found that

upwards of 85% of all household cat litters are not planned. Fully a

third of these accidental litters are " oops " litters that could have been

avoided if the pet's guardian realized how early cats become sexually

mature. Moving beyond the traditional " Prevent A Litter " campaigns to

incorporate a " Prevent A First Litter " message should become a top

priority of our spay/neuter community outreach initiatives.

 

We must also update our spay/neuter educational programs to take into

account the changing profile of pets now entering shelters. The success

of birth reduction programs has meant that relinquished adolescent or

adult pets have come to make up an increasing share of shelter

admissions, especially for dogs. Recent research has shown that intact

pets make up a disproportionately high percentage of the adult cats and

dogs who are surrendered to shelters, often due to troublesome behaviors

resulting from their intact status. Updated community educational

programs need to be broadened beyond their traditional emphasis on the

health benefits of sterilization to emphasize the behavioral benefits,

too.

 

Just as the content of our education programs must be updated, our

approach must, too. We need to get the message to pet owners that

behavioral problems are often correctable. Recent relinquishment studies

are greatly encouraging because they show that behavioral issues and

other risk factors that lead to relinquishment can often be effectively

addressed.

 

We need to broaden the sources of our educational message as well as the

message itself. It is unrealistic to expect many shelters to be able to

provide ongoing behavioral counseling to all pet caretakers in the

community, and by the time a pet reaches a shelter it is often too late.

Veterinarians are well suited and well situated to help provide timely

behavioral counseling programs. Their participation is critical to other

important components of our updated community education campaign, such as

the " Kittens Have Kittens " campaign and counseling pet caregivers about

the importance of providing permanent identification for their pets as an

essential part of responsible pet care. The ultimate success of our

educational efforts will depend on more effectively engaging community

veterinarians in our work so that they use their skills and training to

take a leading role in ending shelter overpopulation, as they have with

all other epidemic-scale threats to companion animals.

 

While veterinarians are the most important partners in the needed

education coalition, others are in a position to make great

contributions, too. Pet behavioral experts and dog trainers must be

enlisted to help with preventive and remedial programs. Breeders and pet

shop owners must be part of the coalition, too, so they can help with

microchipping initiatives and behavior training programs. One of the

coalition's major goals should be to provide all new pet guardians in the

community with a comprehensive, up-to-date package of information about

proper companion animal care and local behavioral and neutering

assistance programs.

 

The development of community coalitions is not only vital to the success

of our community outreach efforts, it's the only way to achieve a

century-long goal: to transform small local humane groups into a

community-wide Humane Society.

 

 

III. UPDATING STERILIZATION -- THE ENORMOUS POTENTIAL OF TARGETED

NEUTERING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

 

Sterilization dominated the original LES strategy. While times now

require a more comprehensive approach, as described above, sterilization

programs still deserve to play a primary role. As with legislation and

education, the best way to maximize the impact of future sterilization

programs is to build on earlier successes. In the same way and for the

same reasons, we also need to update our approach to neutering programs.

 

The original LES program promoted the establishment of discount neutering

clinics open to all pet owners, often subsidized with public funds. When

pet sterilization rates were much lower, open access programs were

necessary to popularize neutering. With the current high sterilization

rates, however, more than 75 cents of every dollar spent on untargeted

subsidies is wasted to help pay for sterilizations that would have been

done without them.

 

To be effective, neutering programs must reach pets in the breeding

population and result in sterilizations that wouldn't have been occurred

otherwise. Because they are not cost-effective, untargeted programs are

prohibitively expensive.

 

Not only are untargeted programs expensive and ineffective, they

understandably alienate veterinarians, who deserve to be our main

partners in this struggle. Experience across the country has shown that

the veterinary community will actively support neutering assistance

programs if subsidies are provided only to those who truly need them.

 

Two unavoidable facts placed a ceiling on the effectiveness of the

combined education-and-discount-neutering strategy of the original LES

program: sterilization procedures necessarily involve significant expense

and low-income pet guardians usually cannot afford them without subsidies

of 80% or more. As a result, fewer dogs and cats kept by low-income

caretakers are now sterilized. This is especially true for cats. A 1994

study found that cats living in low-income households were more than

twice as likely to be sexually intact as those living in a middle- and

upper-income households.

 

It has become increasingly clear that our failure to develop affordable

neutering programs for low-income pet guardians has put a brake on the

effectiveness of first-generation LES programs. The victims of pet

overpopulation are increasingly from poor communities. In California, for

instance, the shelter euthanasia rate in the 11 poorest counties in 1995

was almost three times higher than that of the 12 richest counties. In

New Jersey, the disparity between rich and poor counties was even greater

in 1998. Ending pet overpopulation will require making neutering

procedures as affordable for low-income pet guardians as they now are for

all other people.

 

The importance of establishing affordable and accessible neutering

subsidy programs can be seen in the dramatic impact they have once they

are established. In New Hampshire, the shelter euthanasia rate dropped

75% in the first six years after an affordable neutering assistance

program was established for low-income families. As a result of this

program, New Hampshire has now achieved the lowest statewide shelter

euthanasia rate in the country: less than 2.4 dogs and cats killed per

thousand people.

 

Targeted neutering subsidy programs are so cost-effective that they are

presently affordable in every part of the country. The total yearly cost

of the New Hampshire low-income program has been less than 15 cents per

resident, including all administrative costs. Taking into account the

moderate cost of living there and the low poverty rate, comparably

effective programs can be established in any part of the country for 30

cents per person per year. Animal control, impoundment and sheltering

expenses typically cost taxpayers about $3 per person every year, so a

targeted neutering subsidy program could be established by reallocating

about ten percent of the amount now spent for reactive programs to

impound and shelter the victims of overpopulation. Or, as mentioned

earlier, the full cost of such a program could be paid for through a $10

increase in the differential for intact-dog licenses.

 

These programs are a good investment. They more than pay for themselves.

Every dollar spent on the New Hampshire low-income program, for instance,

has saved $3.22 in reduced impoundment expenses.

 

Not only are proactive programs like this cost-effective, in the end they

are our only hope to end pet overpopulation. Bitter experience has shown

that we cannot adopt our way out of pet overpopulation or build our way

out.

 

A system that continues to spend upwards of 95% of its resources on

reactive programs is doomed to failure and frustration. On the other

hand, effective preventive programs reverse this debilitating dynamic.

Investing in proactive programs allows the increasing reallocation of

resources to proactive programs, building momentum to the day when

shelters will realize their century-long mission -- to rescue and

rehabilitate homeless animals and find a loving home for each and every

one.

 

Peter Marsh

Solutions to Overpopulation of Pets

24 Montgomery Street

Concord, N.H. 03301