At the meeting on Tuesday I heard a claim that North Little Rock’s euthanasia figures have decreased since the onset of their similar program. This may well be true but I ask that consideration be given to the idea that there may be other factors affecting those numbers that have little to do with neutering animals. For example, is it not true that North Little Rock has increasingly been calling upon breed specific rescue organizations to remove purebred dogs from their care? I believe that an adoption program at Petsmart and local stores was instituted, which would also affect the numbers of dogs coming in to them. Further, over the last three years more people have obtained access to the Internet, where there is a wealth of information geared to providing the public the education they need to get over that crucial first year with their dog. I, personally, have assisted, via the Internet and by telephone conferences, several hundred people, nation-wide, with an assortment of behavior issues ranging from housebreaking to aggression. Careful counseling enabled those people to keep the dogs they had been ready to give up. I am one of only many trainers offering such a service. Visit http://www.wonderpuppy.net/canwehelp/

to get an idea of the kind of information that is available for free, with just a few keystrokes.

According to JM Gardner, The Canine Legislative Beat, DOGWORLD, February, 1996, only 2.5% of intact pets are bred.

According to the same source, nationally, there has been an 84% decrease in the number of animals euthanized during the same period that the number of animals owned increased 59%. (Animal Rights organization, The Humane Society of the United States [H.S.U.S] claims statistics to the contrary. Michael Fox, VP of H.S.U.S states, "It is human nature that is the problem, and the suffering of the animal kingdom and the destruction of the natural world under our inhumane dominion are symptomatic consequences." - Strand R&P. The Hijacking of the Humane Movement, page 5.)[It should be noted that H.S.U.S. should not be confused with the American Humane Society.)

Deidre E. Gannon, Esq. states:

If we ignore the real reasons animals are in shelters, more animals will be euthanatized. This is unacceptable.

"Animal shelters are the dumping grounds for millions of unwanted companion animals. For these animals, the 'bond' between animals and humans has not worked. A survey of 13 shelters traced the origins, costs, length of ownership, and reasons for disposal of 918 owner-surrendered dogs.

 . . . the owners had some regrets or guilt about relinquishing them: 58.8% said they would keep their dogs if the problem at hand could be resolved, but 30.6% said they would not."

"Today, the literature from the animal shelter community is still filled with doom and gloom stories about the 'Pet Overpopulation Crises' . . . and many animal shelters are proposing legislation to ban or restrict the breeding of companion animals in their communities or states. . . . The preliminary data that we report above raises questions about the seemingly widespread belief that the over population crisis is growing worse. . . .These figures indicate that considerable progress in reducing the number of unwanted animals has been made in the past 20 years."

"Even though the exact number is unknown, it is safe to say there has been a decline in both the number and proportion of unwanted pets that are euthanatized. This is remarkable because total pet ownership in the United States has increased from 60 million dogs and cats in 1970 to 110 million today. . . . During the past several years, surveys have consistently shown that 70 to 80 percent of all female dogs are spayed. . . .In the past twenty years the nature of the problem has changed, and it is no longer fair to characterize the dog overpopulation problem as a simple over breeding of pets.

Pet industry trade magazines have reported that mixed-breed puppies are so scarce in some communities that pet store owners have asked their suppliers to breed mixed-breed puppies. However, in the same communities, the euthanasia of unwanted 'teenage' and adult dogs continue and accounts for a large proportion of the animals killed. . . .It is also essential to recognize that excessive breeding reduction could have undesirable consequences, namely to shift the primary source of puppies in the community from family pets raised in households to large-scale commercial breeders or puppy mills, where even under the best conditions dogs are likely to spend most of their lives caged and without human companionship. . . .

Failure to retain an adult dog is both more common and more likely to lead to euthanasia than household breeding, at least on a national level. To put the role of household breeding as a contributor to the euthanasia problem in perspective, consider the following based on our model: Assuming 15 % of the dogs euthanized in shelters are puppies, the number of pet owners who relinquish or lose an adult dog is three times the number of owners who allow their dogs to breed. In addition, of the adult dogs that are not retained in the household, pproximately one-third are given to another home or relinquished to a shelter and two-thirds are lost as strays and not reclaimed. The proportion of owners of these unclaimed strays dogs that deliberately allow their dogs to run away or make no attempt to locate them is unknown.

The model predicts that, on a national level, most owners who allow their dogs to breed are able to place the puppies in homes, and most of the healthy puppies brought to shelters will be adopted. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that, in general, household breeding does not inevitably lead to euthanasia.

Of course, the argument has been made that each puppy produced takes a potential home away from an adult dog. The flaw in this logic is that it disregards basic human and consumer behavior. As much as we would like it to be otherwise, puppies and adult dogs are not interchangeable when most people decide to get a pet. At most, 16 % of dogs in the population were acquired as adults. If this proportion were to double (an unlikely possibility), it still would not eliminate the problem of euthanasia of adult dogs in shelters, given the current relinquishment rate.

To accomplish the latter two goals, we need to understand what makes some dog owners able to provide lifelong homes for their dogs when other owners relinquish their pets.

This is not as simple as it sounds, because there are myriad reasons for turning dogs in to animal shelters such as owner moving, dog behavior problems, or owner not being counseled about the best type of dog to get.

All these efforts mark a turning point in the fight against pet overpopulation because breeders, humane societies and animal welfare organizations, and academic researchers have recognized the advantages of cooperation and the merit of a scientific approach to uncover the root causes of pet overpopulation."

"Solutions to prevent relinquishment - a breaking of the human-animal bond - are less obvious than simply decreasing the number of animals bred. . . .reports suggest that the cost, source, and sterilization status of the pet, income and other household demographic factors, owners' attachment to the pet, and owners' expectations for the pet's role in the household, are associated with relinquishment to a shelter. It is also widely believed that pet behavior problems are an important predisposing factor for breaking of the human-animal bond. Even when other reasons are cited for the relinquishment of a pet (e.g., owner is moving, landlord will not allow a pet), behavior problems are often the underlying cause, and the stated reason merely provides a convenient excuse to dispose of a problem animal.

The frequency of these unwanted behaviors in dogs adopted from the Humane Society of Indianapolis was much greater than the frequency in owned dogs in St. Joseph County, Indiana, and closely resembled the pattern of behavior in dogs relinquished to a shelter. The similar frequency of behavior problems in adopted and relinquished dogs may explain why dogs acquired from shelters were at increased risk of relinquishment in the case-control study. More rigorous evaluation of shelter dogs could help shelter staff and owners anticipate the types of problems likely to occur after adoption. However, it is probably unrealistic to expect that owners will be able to correct these problems unassisted. It is essential for shelters to reinforce the importance of correcting unwanted pet behavior to clients. Prompt correction of behavior problems may help prevent routine pet care from becoming a chore. This, in turn, will allow owners to experience the positive aspects of pet ownership without the distraction and annoyance of unwanted behavior, and enhance development of a permanent human-animal bond.

The high proportion (>75%) of adopters who indicated that additional counseling related to pet care and behavior would be helpful was surprising. It is likely, however that these results are indicative of the need for additional consultation after acquiring a pet. Furthermore, 88% of persons that adopted a dog stated that it would have been helpful to visit a veterinarian specifically to discuss dog behavior and training."

"The records of dogs in an animal shelter in Chester County, PA, were analyzed for a 3 ½ year period to describe the canine population dynamics and to identify the risk factors for dogs' failure to be reclaimed and to be euthanatized. Dogs $ 1 year of age accounted for the majority (72.5%) of incoming dogs. . . . Nearly one fifth (17.2%) of the live surrendered dogs were brought in by their owners specifically to be euthanatized. A similar proportion (18.8%) of adopted dogs were returned to the shelter. . . .The reclaim rate was lowest (10.8%) for dogs < 4 months of age, and highest (68.8%) for dogs $ 10 years of age. Over two-thirds (67.7%) of purebred dogs were reclaimed by their owners, compared with 41.2% of mixed breed dogs. More purebred dogs were reclaimed the same day they were admitted than mixed breed dogs (46.2% v. 38.0%). Approximately 60% of all stray dogs $ 1 year old were reclaimed each month while only 23.2% of dogs less than 1 year were reclaimed. Mixed breed dogs were 1.8 times as likely to be euthanatized as purebred dogs.  . . . The risk of euthanasia increased with age for mixed breed dogs, but not for purebred dogs."

"Results - Potentially modifiable factors that explained the highest proportion of relinquishment were owners not participating in dog obedience classes after acquisition, lack of veterinary care, owning a sexually intact dog, inappropriate care expectations, and dogs having daily or weekly inappropriate elimination. Dogs obtained from shelters, kept in crates, or acquired at $ 6 months of age were at increased risk of relinquishment. Greater purchase price was associated with decreased risk of relinquishment, but relinquishment was not associated with the degree of planning to acquire the dog. Dogs with behavior problems and little veterinary care were at greater risk of relinquishment than were dogs with regular veterinary care, and behavioral problems were associated with inappropriate care expectations."

"Results - Potentially modifiable risk factors with the highest population attributable risk for relinquishment were owners having specific expectations about the cat's role in the household, allowing the cat outdoors, owning a sexually intact cat, never having read a book about cat behavior, cats having daily or weekly inappropriate elimination, and inappropriate care expectations. Frequency of inappropriate elimination and aggression toward people were not associated with declaw status, but these behaviors were more common among sexually intact cats, compared with sterilized cats. Owners of cats in case households were more likely than owners in control households to cite cost of sterilization as a reason a cat was sexually intact. Cats found as strays and cats acquired with minimal planning were at decreased risk of relinquishment."

SAN MATEO

"The San Mateo ordinance is a failure both in terms of fiscal and humane impact. After nine months in operation, members of the county task force there reported only 18 breeding permits had been sold, enforcement costs totaled $33,920, and revenues from dog licenses had fallen $18,000."

"(1) Year one of the San Mateo County Pet Overpopulation Ordinance coincided with an increase in euthanasia in the affected unincorporated county and a reversal of the prior downtrend, never returning to previous levels, (2) The downtrend continued in the unaffected cities, (3) The ordinance "findings" were never investigated or shown to exist and are of no significance, (4) Unavoidable euthanasia has been decreasing over the last 25 years and cannot be eliminated entirely if any animals are to live in the community, and (5) The responsible agencies refuse to use quantitative methods to reveal the actual cost of euthanasia. The report goes on to recommend in its summary: "(1) Repeal of breeding permits and unaltered permits, (2) Repeal cat licensing, (3) Repeal all noncommercial limit laws for dogs and cats, (3) Do not enact hybrid or feral cat amendments, (4) Emphasize basic, affordable dog licensing for rabies prevention, identification and reliable revenue, (5) Implement subsidy plan for private vet sterilization, and (6) Establish a public animal commission reflecting a broad spectrum of community values to act as an overseer of animal control, a forum for public complaints, an evaluator of animal control data, and advisor to the Board of Supervisors."

"Three of the County's five supervisors told The Chronicle yesterday that they will agree to drop the requirement that would force pet owners to have their dogs and cats neutered, the key feature of a law that brought wide attention to the County's attempt to cope with pet overpopulation."

"The Report Card gives a big "F" to the San Mateo effort. . . .  The major findings of the study include the following: Breeders' licenses for dogs are costly and not effective, Cat owners simply ignore the breeders' license requirement making the provision totally ineffectual with respect to felines, The moratorium has resulted in only a minimal increase in the number of owners licensing their pets . . .  Prior to the legislation, there had been a steady decrease in the handling of unwanted dogs and cats by shelters but this trend has been reversed . . .  There was a slight reduction in the number of adopted pets. . . . Euthanasia of pets have decreased in the County as a whole but it actually INCREASED in the unincorporated areas, the only place where the ordinance applies. Thus the ordinance seems to have a reverse effect, causing more euthanasia where it applies, contrary to the goal of decreasing euthanasia. . . . early returns are compelling. They suggest that a breeding ban or moratorium not only fails to solve the pet euthanasia problems, but actually increases the difficulties posed by unwanted dogs and cats. The San Mateo study is not alone in this respect. Evaluation of other measures, such as the one in Fort Wayne, Indiana, confirms this conclusion. In light of common sense, corroborated by empirical data, a moratorium (mandatory spay/neuter laws) is an inappropriate and ineffective way to respond to pet population problems."

"Stringent, punitive legislation, such as mandatory spay and neuter laws, do not reduce the number of euthanasias.  . . . enactment of such laws result(s) in increasing euthanasia rates." and "The law has no overall effect on the number of animals handled or euthanatized . . ."

"(3) Target educational programs to address the realities of . . . early spay and neuter benefits, and debunk the myths surrounding the altering of dogs, particularly male dogs, (4) Immediately enact shelter policies to ensure all adopted animals are altered prior to release, and (5) Punitive, coercive, bureaucratic solutions are not appropriate for San Diego County, they have been shown to be ineffective in other communities. Restrictions on breeders of purebred animals are unnecessary. These types of proposals should be rejected."

". . . We doubt it is realistic, possible or fair to implement ordinance 91-335 in this area without considerable tax expenditures or additional enforcement personnel."

"Investigation has proven that Ordinance 10423 is an exercise in . . . punitive government over-regulation. . . . The ordinance also has had an adverse affect of creating a "siege" mentality between hobby breeders/pet owners and animal control. The mandating of yet another government function has created resentment and mistrust of the legislative process.

The Council and the people of King County were swayed by emotion generated by ordinance proponents through an emotionally laden campaign. The campaign used misleading figures and hyperbole, then fueled the fire with newspaper ads showing barrels of dead dogs and cats and television commercials featuring an appealing dog being killed by lethal injection in front of unsuspecting viewers. . . .

. . . (the) report shows Ordinance 10423 was never needed; the "crises" that propelled it simply did not exist.

. . . Does anyone really believe there are only 4,971 unaltered dogs and 182 unaltered cats in all of King County, an area with a population of over one million people, including Seattle?

. . . In 1992, the proponents of this ordinance stated that 12,000 - 14,000 healthy, adoptable pets were killed in King County each year. . . .There will always be animals which cannot be placed in homes because of extenuating circumstances, i.e. extreme old age, owner-requested euthanasia, disease, irreparable injuries, aggressive behavior, etc. However, unadoptable animals artificially inflate the euthanasia numbers. . . .it is important to understand that almost 70% of those totals were unadoptable!"

"The majority of dogs euthanatized in shelters today are "teenage" and adult animals - dogs that were deliberately acquired as pets and subsequently relinquished. About 3.5% of the U.S. pet population is relinquished to animal shelters each year."

"The concept of pet overpopulation and the impact of purpose breeding has been grossly exaggerated. Euthanasia in city shelters nationwide are down dramatically (Tufts University and Animal People Shelter Surveys), due to education as to the health benefits of neutering and spaying and the advent of low-cost clinics.  . . . The problem to be addressed now . . . is lost, unwanted and unowned/feral animals."

"It's a wonderful idea, if it would work, but it is not workable."

In July of 1973, the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy organized to investigate why pets end up unwanted and euthanatized in shelters. The group consists of the following organizations:

American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA)

American Humane Association (AHA)

American Kennel Club (AKC)

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)

Association of Teachers of Veterinary Public Health and Preventative Medicine (ATVPHPM)

Cat Fanciers Association (CFA)

Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

Massachusetts Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA)

National Animal Control Association (NACA)

According to Council President, Thomas H. Dent, "the mission of the NCPPSP is to finally use a scientific approach to collect the information needed to make a real difference in the lives of our nation's companion animals. Specifically, the Council will gather and analyze reliable data that further characterize the number, origin, and disposition of dogs and cats in the United States, promote responsible stewardship of these companion animals, and based on data gathered, recommend programs to reduce the number of unwanted pets in the United States." Dr. Gary Patronek with Tufts University and Dr. John New with University of Tennessee at Knoxville are conducting studies for NCPPSP on why animals end up in shelters and, in addition, attempting to compile data sufficient to allow an accurate national accounting of such animals. Although the final figures are incomplete, both Dr. Patronek and Dr. New state do not advocate breeding bans, breeder licensing or similar restrictions. Dr. Patronek states, "The reason animals end up in shelters is because they are unwanted and they are usually unwanted because a behavior problem."

"Mandatory spay/neuter is not a panacea. To date, no mandatory spay/neuter ordinance has proven to be effective. The issue has proven to be divisive within the community; it is steeped with emotional whim and acrimony; and it fails to achieve a principal objective of educating people to be responsible animal owners. Experience has clearly demonstrated that increased public awareness achieves the desired result. Furthermore, the data verifies that the number of unwanted animals in shelters is decreasing."

The National Animal Control Association supports the idea of voluntary early spay/neutering, stating, "All unaltered animals adopted or claimed from the shelter or animal control agency should be considered for spaying/neutering. . . ."

". . . the animal rights movement is based not on logic but on strong feelings and emotional convictions. It is essentially religious in nature, similar to Hinduism in its view of animals. There is nothing wrong with religion, of course, as long as it does not seek to force its values on others. The evidence is that animal rights activists are doing just that.

At first glance, these people and their celebrity promoters seem to be harmless animal lovers. Upon closer examination, it is evident that they are neither harmless nor pet lovers. If these people controlled abortion policy, abortion would be mandatory to prevent dying."

"(We) are urging the public to reject a ban on dog and cat breeding recently proposed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). HSUS is an animal rights organization. . . . The first victims of the HSUS breeding ban would be American families who want to purchase a healthy purebred pet.  . . . HSUS Chief Executive Officer John Hoyt . . . told consumers, 'Don't breed (dogs), don't buy, don't even accept giveaways.' HSUS is telling Americans that it's wrong to buy the family poodle, wrong to breed her, and wrong to give away even a single member of her litter. The truth is that HSUS is using the pretext of pet overpopulation to advance an animal rights agenda that calls for an end to the purchase of pets. This approach is well outside the mainstream of public opinion and the vast majority of Americans will reject it."

"Amid this kind of demagoguery, problem focus and solutions are lost. Encouraging hysteria and costly coercive legislation will not solve the problem of surplus animals.  . . . Many animals are euthanatized because of aggression or behavioral problems involving injury, age and illness. Every animal species has individual that are unfit to survive; in the wild population they are eaten or driven off to starve. In the pet population they are humanely destroyed. Thus, we can never have a zero death rate."

"The animal rights agenda calls for the eventual abolition of all use of animals, for any reason whatsoever, by human beings. This means the end of eating all animal products, including fish, poultry and honey; the end of using animals in biomedical research; the end of horse racing, fox hunting, rodeos, horse shows, dog shows, cat shows; the end of having pets in our home.  . . . the list goes on and on."

"Enough is enough. For months now the animal rights activists . . . have kept us all tied to an emotional roller-coaster. With expert media coverage, (they) have made sure we have seen a kitten killed in our Sunday paper, have looked at barrels of dead dogs and cats, and have read articles and letters-to-the-editor that twist the facts into such an emotional whirlwind that all reason is overshadowed. (They) defend this assault on our senses by saying drastic measures are needed to stop the killing at our animal shelters. The truth is: Drastic measures are being used to get the King County breeding ban passed and one has nothing to do with the other."

"When all was said and done, Sacramento County did not adopt the breeding ban or "spay or pay" ordinance that the animal rights activists wanted. But that hasn't stopped the animal rights activists from claiming the county did. . . . That kind of misinformation has become all too common as the activists move from one targeted country to the next.  . . . In fact, the San Mateo ordinance is a failure both in terms of fiscal and humane impact. After nine months in operation, members of the county task force there reported only 18 breeding permits had been sold, enforcement costs totaled $33,920, and revenues from dog licenses had fallen $18,000. The King County ordinance hadn't even been enacted when activists were touting its success here. And, as for Sacramento County, mandatory sterilization under the new ordinance applies only to animals adopted from shelters.

The bread and butter of animal activism is fomenting a perception of crisis. To promote their current interest in breeding control ordinances, activists seek to create an impression that the pet population is exploding and the death toll at shelters is escalating out of control. But, in July 1992, the Animal Agenda, published by the Animal Rights Network, reported that there had been a drop from 20 million to less than 6 million shelter kills in the last 10 years. The American Humane Association presents similar statistics confirming this report. The Animal Agenda notes that many activists feel it is better not to mention this dramatic reduction to the public. . . . Ingrid Newkirk of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 'equates pet ownership with the enslavement of Africans and demands that we serve only as 'guardians' until the 'companion animal' population has been eliminated.'"

To illustrate the effectiveness of enforcing existing laws, without enacting mandatory spay/neutering and/or breeder permits, we turn to Jerry Aschenbrenner, Supervisor, Animal Services Section, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, who has achieved incredible results simply by enforcing leash and rabies control laws.

From 1984 to 1996, Calgary's human population rose from approximately 625,000 to almost 775,000. According to a 1995 Civic Census, 143,395 dogs and cats are owned by Calgarians. Their animal shelter has 34 employees, of which 18 are animal control officers. Calgary has 850 square miles of jurisdictional area. There are no restrictions on the number of animals one can own, they do not license breeders, nor do they have a mandatory spay/neuter law.

Since 1984, Calgary Animal Services has, by an aggressive campaign of law enforcement and public education, effected incredible changes. The number of dog bites in Calgary dropped from a high in 1984 of 650, to less than 400 in 1995. The number of aggressive encounters involving dogs (Including damage to property, bites and reported chases) dropped from a high in 1985 of almost 2000 to around 875 in 1995. Adoptions and owner reclaims have fluctuated since 1984, but generally are on the upturn. The most amazing statistic is the reduction in the number of animals euthanatized, which went from 2000 in 1984 to less than 100 in 1995.

Aschenbrenner attributes this difference to public education and enforcement of the existing leash and rabies laws.

Calgary Animal Services has a budget of approximately 2.5 million dollars per year, and, therefore, has the resources to enforce laws and promote public education. In addition, their laws relating to irresponsible animal ownership are stringently enforced, with a focus on penalizing the owner rather than the animal. If an animal is picked up in Calgary and can be identified, Calgary Animal Control returns it to the owner at the owner's home and fines the owner then. Dogs and cats impounded by the Calgary Shelter are immediately vaccinated (Vanguard 5) and given a health check. Calgary has around 500 off-leash "Dog Parks."

"(San Francisco) sends a new message about ending the killing: It says that animal shelters themselves are responsible for saving the lives that come to them. Until now, the focus of many communities' efforts to reduce shelter deaths has been on getting others to change their behavior. Spay/neuter ordinances, cat licensing laws, and other legislative measures, for instance, all seek to compel the pet-owning public into caring, and caring responsibly, for animals through government mandates. But little attention has been paid to shelter policies and priorities and how these can work to save - or sentence - the lives in each shelter's care.

(San Francisco's Adoption Pact) challenges all this: It focuses not on what others should do, but on what …an animal shelter can do to save lives. And, because of it, without any government restrictions, controls or enforcement mechanisms, our community is saving more lives than ever before and stopping the killing faster than any other county in the nation."

After an extensive investigation into alternatives, The Responsible Animal Owners of Tennessee, Inc. found the best results were obtained, without coercive legislation, when caring citizens and shelters worked together to effectuate positive changes by and implementing some or all of the following recommendations. Therefore, I respectfully include their recommendations, in addition to the ones I have made previously, for your consideration:

15. A redefinition, and revitalization, of the shelter "oversight" committee's role in shelter management to facilitate implementation of these recommendations.