Today's NY Times Magazine article on dogs in shelters

[ShoresDog]

In today's New York Times Magazine, there is a story about shelter dogs and how many fail to find homes. The story describes how the dogs are given temperament tests to help with a decision about which will have the opportunity to be adopted. In the scary environment of a large shelter, with strangers all around, I guarantee my BC would totally flame out or cower in a corner, and it's off to the eastern end (where the euthanasia rooms are) for her. This story's written about a specific shelter, Town Lake in Austin TX, but it applies way more widely. It's just so sad how many dogs end up unwanted and euthanized just for existing.

 

"According to Stephen Zawistowski, executive vice president for national programs for the ASPCA, about four million dogs enter shelters nationwide each year. Some two million of them end up being euthanized, about 5,000 dogs each day, one every 16 seconds."

 

New Tricks

 

This is just way too awful to do nothing. What kind of spay/neuter regulations could be put into place that would stop the breeders who need to be stopped, yet allow the breeding of truly wanted working dogs? I feel very puzzled.

 

What do you all want to see done by state legislatures?

[Eileen Stein]

This is just way too awful to do nothing. What kind of spay/neuter regulations could be put into place that would stop the breeders who need to be stopped, yet allow the breeding of truly wanted working dogs?

 

I agree that the killing of healthy dogs just because their owners don't want them is heartbreaking, but your question "assumes facts not in evidence," as lawyers say. It assumes that spay/neuter regulations are an effective way of addressing this problem -- that there IS a possible type of spay/neuter regulation that would stop the breeders who need to be stopped, yet allow the breeding of truly wanted dogs. But maybe that just isn't so. If nobody can think of one, then probably that just isn't so.

 

Here is a letter you might find interesting that was submitted by National English Shepherd Rescue in opposition to the current California spay/neuter bill.

[Deacon Dog]

I don't want states passing any kind of spay/neuter legislation.

 

For one reason it won't do any good. Certain types of breeders will supply dogs no matter the law, and those who let their pets breed indisciminately aren't any more likely to be affected by spay/neuter regulations. Even if the states successfully stop all breeding, what's to prevent people importing dogs from countries with even worse conditions? It's like the war on drugs; if there's demand, attacking supply is a huge waste of resources.

 

For another, it's usually not responsible pet owners pushing the legislation but so-called animal welfare organizations such as PETA, HSUS, etc. the more extreme of which believe that any domesttication of animals constitutes cruelty. They seek to accomplish abolition of pets by a combination of laws requiring spaying/neutering and laws mandating breeding practices so heinous it's not cost effective but for a few getting big bucks for puppies. I'm not given to conspiracy theories, but look at what's already happened in a some states like New Jersey, and there's a reason the proposed California legislation closely follows the Institute for Animal Rights Law model spay/neuter law.

 

Finally with respect to Border Collies, there's a certain mentality that wants to frame success of the breed in terms of rescue and health. Even if breeding restrictions could help these efforts, they're dangerously at odds with the aim producing the best working dogs. I guess in the end you have to choose which side you're on.

[Kyrasmom]

For another, it's usually not responsible pet owners pushing the legislation but so-called animal welfare organizations such as PETA, HSUS, etc. the more extreme of which believe that any domesttication of animals constitutes cruelty. They seek to accomplish abolition of pets by a combination of laws requiring spaying/neutering and laws mandating breeding practices so heinous it's not cost effective but for a few getting big bucks for puppies.

 

While that is a valid point, most responsible pet owners won't oppose it also as their dogs are most likely spay/neutered and the are PET owners who may not have a stake in breed preservation and/or breeding at all. They just know that milions of dogs are dying and something needs to be done.

 

Also, excluding the extremist contingent, you can't blame animal welfare organizations for wanting to attempt to find a solution when SO MANY are being put to sleep needlessly. And while the large puppy mills and prolific back yard breeders or simply bad breeders will continue to breed as they will find a way around it, irrisponsible pet ownership does play its part in pet overpopulation. Our county is a prime example of intact dogs being allowed to roam/breed and the county becomes responsible for the fall out. It's a small rural area and yet still puts to sleep over 5000 animals per year, we don't have major breeders or pet mills, we just have a multitude of irresponsible owerns..hence the mandatory spay/neuter policy that passed with overwhelming support and relief for Animal Control who is no longer obligated to return intact animals to owners when picked up as strays.

 

I'm not necessarily a strong supporter of the bill as I see its downside as well....and it impacts decisions I make with my dogs responsibly but yet I understand why people worked so hard to get it passed.

 

Maria

[ShoresDog]

I didn't mean to convey that I assumed that spay/neuter regulations would actually work. I'm not certain they would. But I fully understand the strong motivation to do SOMETHING. The existing situation is simply not acceptable.

 

I was thinking about it as I swam this morning (I swim Masters: back and forth, back and forth -- it's a great time to ponder things). We pay a huge amount of taxes, and local, state and federal government spend huge amounts of money on things I totally disagree with. If a whole lot more were spent on public interest advertising campaigns and free spay/neuter programs, I do think it could make a big difference, and yet the $$$ spent would still be comparatively minor. I wonder if there is any evidence to support this? Think I'll write some letters.

 

ETA: What is happening in New Jersey?

[Black Watch Debatable]

Jan, you beat me to it. The video clip is pretty funny --- dude totally loves his new dog

 

The article highlights how dramatically euthanasia rates can drop when shelters are able to offer socialization classes, training classes and dog behavior programs:

 

Shelters in a number of states across the country are now employing a multifaceted, proactive approach, specifically to address these behavioral issues, taking their cues from surveys like Mo Salman's, or another, similar study done by The Journal of the American Veterinary Association back in 1996 that concluded that dogs whose owners reported having received helpful behavior advice were at a 94 percent lower risk for abandonment. A shelter in Denver known as the Dumb Friends League began a dog behavior program back in the mid-1990s, teaching "shelter manners" to their abandoned dogs to make them more adoptable and offering behavior-training classes for dog adopters and other dog owners in the community. In four years' time, the number of dogs returned to the shelter decreased by 23 percent and those returned for reasons of misbehavior by 38 percent.

A number of shelters that have broadened their scope in this way have reported similar improvements. At the Humane Society in Minneapolis, puppies that graduated from socialization classes were found to be far less likely to be returned after adoption. At the Town of North Hempstead Animal Shelter on Long Island, a volunteer shelter-dog training program initiated in 1999 cut the euthanasia rate by 50 percent in just six months. According to a 2006 survey of shelters in Ohio conducted by Ohio State University's College of Veterinary Medicine, the outlook for dogs in shelters has greatly improved in the past 10 years, thanks partly to spay/neutering programs and also to a big increase in the number of shelters that have an established partnership with a veterinary practice. There has been a 16 percent decrease statewide in the number of dogs taken in each year and a 39 percent decrease in the number of dogs euthanized.

 

What seems to work? Here are some proven approaches, and some new ones ---

 

From the NY Times article:

*Puppy socialization classes and training programs for dogs and owners

*Partnership with veterinary practices to provide behavior advice and low-cost spay/neuter

 

From Santa Cruz County in CA:

*NO pet shop sales

*Mandatory spay/neuter the second time a loose dog is picked up by AC

*Strictly enforced leash laws

 

From Illinois:

*"Illinois passed a law effective January 1, 2007 that will bar certain felons from "knowingly own[ing], possess[ing], hav[ing] custody of, or resid[ing] in a residence with", "unspayed or unneutered dog or puppy older than 12 weeks of age" or "any dog that has been determined to be a vicious dog" under the State's new dangerous or vicious dog law."

 

From Luisa:

*Educational programs

*Billboards and commercials -- PSAs

*If you're on probation/parole, no intact dogs and no dogs over 25 pounds for you.

 

 

I'd repeat the message over. and over. and over, in schools, on billboards and on TV:

 

1. Dogs are not easy to care for. They are a big, inconvenient, messy, expensive responsibility.

2. If you're sure you want a dog, sign up now for socialization and training classes.

3. People who love their dogs and care responsibly for them are terrific. People who don't are stupid, ugly, uncool losers.

[Pippin's person]

3. People who love their dogs and care responsibly for them are terrific. People who don't are stupid, ugly, uncool losers.

 

I see bumper stickers, t-shirts, etc. Now, that could be an effective campaign. Cafe Press anyone?

[Bill Fosher]

Luisa,

 

Are you saying that I can't get my new puppy next week unless I have already signed up for socialization and training classes? To be honest with you, the last time I was in a socialization and puppy obedience class, I was aghast at the nonsense being ladled out by the instructors (who were of the "pawsitive" training school). If your puppy growls or nips at another puppy, you "redirect it" by offering it a toy. Heaven forefend that we either a.) allow puppies to work things out a little bit on their own or b.) correct them when they cross boundaries.

 

My puppy will be socialized and trained, but it sure as shoot won't be in any of the classes that I've seen offered through our local humane society.

[Black Watch Debatable]

Bill, you must sign up for classes immediately, and send that good-looking pup to me.

 

Sorry I wasn't clear. I should have written, "Getting a dog from the shelter? Sign up now for our socialization classes" etc.

 

According to the NY Times article, a number of shelters have lowered their overall numbers and euthanasia rates by offering free or low-cost classes in socialization, training and dog behavior to those adopting a dog from the shelter. As far as I know, these classes are not mandatory, but many people do sign up, and I think inexperienced owners with new shelter dogs should be encouraged to do so. "Pawsitive" training/socialization is better than none, given "the general public's boundless, staggering ignorance about dogs." [tm Susan Conant]

 

Reminds me of the Straight Dope motto: "Fighting ignorance since 1973. (It's taking longer than we thought.)"

[Bill Fosher]

Well, I'm not sure I agree that some of the shite I've seen passed off as dog training is better than nothing. I think some of the methods do affirmative harm to dogs. And you're not getting my puppy. But I see your point.

[justdogs]

Hi all,

 

I was wondering if any one knows how well the Canadian Animal Pedigree act works in keeping purebred dogs out of shelters?

 

I was just thinking that is every pup produced had to be sold with a microchip or Tattoo registered to the breeder-stud dog and new owner, that if said dog ended up in a shelter, then one of the three would get the dog back. Make it so that if a breeder sells a dog to a person who then tries to re-home it, the breeder will be informed about the change of hands. If a rescue ends up with the dog, then the breeder can help find it a new home. This should go for cross bred pups as well.

 

Some breeds (like working dogs and gun dogs) change hand as a matter of training and not because of bad homes, so I wouldn't want a law that makes it illegal for a dog to be sold after its first home, but the idea would be that pups could be tracked back to the breeders.

 

The key here is that every dog/cat is 'registered' to ONE place. On the other hand I would hate for that registry to be a way to Persecute people for owning 4 dogs in a town that only allows 3 dogs, etc. It would need to be a way to get dogs out of shelters and rescues and makes the people who produced them involved in getting them new homes (since they got them into the wrong home in the first place). In addition, breeders would know if they produce pups with health problems, if there was a way to get the information back to them. And pedigrees would stay with the dogs/cats. And if a breeder is identified with 100s of dogs/cats in shelters, then maybe a red flag could go up on them with the other registries (like ABCA, etc.).

 

In addition, I really would like to see veterinarians getting up to date with “morning after pills” for dogs and cats. There are better ways to terminate a pregnancy these days with steroids. We need vets to work with people with intact pets and not make them feel like bad guys, make it so people will not go to them. A bit off note: I always like to say that owning a dog should not only be for the rich, so breeeding dogs needs to be a reasonable cost so a lower class wage earner can still have the right to the pursuit of happiness (i.e. owning a pet, not paying $1500 for one, instead of being lonely).

 

Finally, there are DUMB people out there. I just met one who has had 2 accidental litters in the first two heats of her bitch (age 2). The first litter arrived because she did not know that her bitch came in to heat. Okay, but only one in the litter is worth anything as a working dog at a year old just started. Now same cross has been made. It is a person like this that needs to be stopped from being stupid. The female was kenneled next to the male and they dug under the wire to get to each other. Neither dog has made a name for themselves; the male is 5 and not anything special. But no one goes and neuters male working dogs. I think that is a problem. Certainly she could wait and see if the bitch turns out to be a great herding dog, but why keep the male intact, when you know he can’t produce good offspring? As it was the female can’t either.

 

But who am I to talk, I have a male and female as well and am still debating to fix either (age 3 and 4). The bottom line is secure housing a vigilance training manuals:) Or maybe low cost kenneling instead of low cost spay-neutering?

 

What do you think?

 

Mary

[Northof49]

I was wondering if any one knows how well the Canadian Animal Pedigree act works in keeping purebred dogs out of shelters?

 

The Animal Pedigree Act does not prevent registered dogs from ending up in Shelters. What happens is that the tatoo number or microchip number is identified. For a breed that is registered with Canadian Kennel Club, the shelter would contact the CKC had advise them of either the tatoo number or the microchip number and the CKC can advise of who the BREEDER is, not the owner. THe shelter should then contact the breeder who would be able to look at their records and know who the owner was. However, just because that is done does not been that the Shelter would relinquish the dog over to the breeder. There have been numerous incidents where the Shelter has refused to have any dealing with the breeder at all.

 

QUite often breeders have written contracts that state that the dog must be returned to them in the event the owner no longer wants them, or the breeder gets first chance at buying the dog back, but that doesn't mean that the owner is going to honour that. As well, there are lots of registered dogs out there that the breeder has no interest of ever hearing of again once it is sold and they have the money in their grubby little hands.