New Yorkers for Companion Animals
|
|
Currently, more than 100 million cats and dogs reside in American homes.
Each year, a certain percentage of these animals will inevitably become homeless due to variable human circumstances. Unless there can be available new homes for these "mostly adult" cats and dogs, the vast majority will be condemned to death, either in shelters, or on streets.
This is not just a problem in pet overpopulation, per se. It is, rather, a complex problem of cultural irresponsibility (as marked by transient lifestyles or casual "throw-away"? attitudes toward companion animals) as well as trends in consumer attitudes of rejection and demand (i.e., "rejection"? of adult, previously owned, mixed-breed or stray animals; "demand"? for newly created puppies, kittens, small dogs and purebreds.
Current theory among some leaders in the animal protection movement suggests that given enough spay/neuter operations across the United States, elimination of pet overpopulation could become a reality. While an admirable goal, it is nevertheless debatable whether elimination of pet overpopulation, per se, would necessarily signify a home for every healthy and adoptable cat or dog in a shelter and thus, the end to the killing of millions of these animals annually. This is because "euthanasia" of shelter animals is not just a result of "overpopulation" alone, but perhaps more significantly, a problem in consumer attitudes, as reflected by current trends in rejection, demand and human circumstances.
To understand this concept, we need only imagine (or research) a typical day in a typical shelter in Anytown U.S.A. On a particular Saturday in Anytown, there were 100 people interested in acquiring a cat or dog. At the same time, there were 100 available and adoptable cats and dogs at the Anytown shelter. As it appears there was no real problem in "overpopulation" there; every animal should have been assured a home, right?
Wrong. Because of the 50 people looking to adopt a cat, 30 wanted "little kittens" no more than four months old and 16 people sought long-hairs or exotic breeds. Of the 50 cats up for adoption at the Anytown shelter, only six were kittens and four were pedigrees. Of the 50 people seeking dogs, 20 were demanding of "small puppies" and 25 were specific of "breed." Of the 50 dogs at the shelter, there were 10 purebreds and no puppies.
Result? Only 10 cats were adopted from the Anytown shelter that day -all the kittens, two pedigrees and two young adults. Of the 50 adoptable dogs, nine were adopted - six purebreds and three young mixed-breeds (at 3, 4, 6 and 8 years of age, the remaining purebreds were considered "too old").
Of the 80 people who did not adopt from Anytown that busy Saturday, 50 eventually bought from breeders and pet stores, while 30 decided to "wait it out" until the "perfect pet" came along. On Monday morning the remaining 80 animals at the Anytown shelter were "euthanized" to make room for the 80 new cats and dogs arriving over the weekend - animals who, for the most part, were not the direct result of "overpopulation" (as represented by new litters of kittens and puppies), but rather, victims of throw-away attitudes or human circumstance (i.e., caretaker died, moved, was arrested, became pregnant, allergic or simply lost the animal who was then deemed a "stray").
The point of all this is simply to illustrate common scenarios in shelters across the country, where the majority of animals die, not because of overpopulation, but because of myopic consumer tendencies in preference and rejection. Actual proof of these assertions may be witnessed in some of the following:
For a number of years, a popular no-kill shelter in New York claimed a "puppy shortage" in New York based on New York's strong spay/neuter programs. To meet "public demand" for puppies, this well known shelter imported thousands of animals from other states. Meanwhile, New York State shelters killed tens of thousands of young adoptable dogs annually! Can those deaths truly be attributed to "pet overpopulation? Or are they a result of consumer demand, spurred by dubious shelter practices which placate such "demands" rather than challenging them through aggressive educational programs?
According to figures from the American Humane Association, dog euthanasia in shelters has steadily risen since 1990 and cat euthanasia has been on the rise since 1988 by 35% despite numerous national campaigns promoting spay/neuter and increased attention to the tragedy in our shelters. Ratios of shelter killings to shelter adoptions have remained a fairly consistent 80% to 20% (like the imaginary "Anytown" scenario) even in areas where spay/neuter efforts have been successful in lowering actual numbers of animals received and handled by shelters.
On the last two points, it perhaps could be said that the approximate 8 to 10 million cat and dog shelter deaths that occur annually are a sad testament to a spay/neuter battle largely won, but a war lost. One is forced to wonder, what is really wrong?
Killing Animals For Convenience; Killing Animals For Furs Different Issues; Similar Causes
In many ways, the companion animal issue is comparable to that of fur in the sense that both represent issues of consumer attitude and demand. During the 1960s and 1970s a variety of errors were made in the humane movement's initial battles against fur. Primary focus was directed toward attempts to outlaw the steel-jawed leghold trap through legislation, while failing, for the most part, to connect this brutal instrument to the popular garment many people purchased and wore. As the law of "supply and demand" dictates, it is virtually impossible to outlaw something that supplies a product that people want ” when it comes to legislation, the bottom line is, "cruelty ends where profit begins." Despite well-intentioned campaigns against trapping, purchases of fur reached all-time peaks throughout the mid-1970s.
With the onset of the mid 1980s, however, the humane movement, spurred by activism from the newly formed animal rights movement, finally woke up and took the fur issue to the streets in forms of public protests against the wearing of furs (not just the "cruelty of the trap"). The connection was made between consumer demand for a product and injustice toward animals, thus resulting in what now appears to be a death knell for the fur industry.
Unfortunately, the same activism seems not to have occurred on the "other" consumer issue: companion animals. Campaigns on spay/neuter and attempts to legislate against "puppy mills" may, in some ways, be compared to former campaigns to outlaw the leghold trap: while productive of some good and heightened public awareness toward certain aspects of the problem, they nevertheless fail to address the problem at its core. That is, consumer demand for kittens, puppies, small dogs and purebreds, as well as public stigmas against adult animal adoptions, mixed-breeds, strays and previously owned pets.
* Like furs, the battle to save companion cats and dogs must be taken to the streets in forms of:
* Organized protests against breeders, dog and cat shows, pet shops, etc.
* Stigmatization of public demand for kittens, puppies and breeds (i.e., the connection must be made between what people "want" and cruelty to animals as represented by over-breeding to meet "demands and massive killings).
* Greater emphasis on educational issues such as humane training and upbringing of puppies/dogs. Greater promotion of medium-sized dogs and mixed breeds. Greater emphasis on the advantages of adopting adult cats and dogs.
The public image of strays, mixed-breeds, adult and shelter animals must be upgraded, as the public's image of non-fur coats has been upgraded.
Presently, shelters (and even some purebred "rescue" groups) argue that unless they promote and advertise "kittens, puppies and purebreds," people will simply buy these animals from pet stores and breeders. Unfortunately, while this may largely be true now, it is merely testament to our movement's failure to properly address the issues, not vindication for such dubious actions on the part of shelters, rescuers, etc.
In truth, arguing for shelters to promote or advertise "kittens, puppies and breeds" is like arguing for a "more humane trap" for fur, rather than challenging the issue itself! Those of us who appease the breeding industry and allow a mostly naive and uneducated public to dictate to us become part of the problem rather than its solution.
It is time for the animal protection movement to take the same activism and dedication it has demonstrated for the fur issue and direct it toward a battle to save these millions of defenseless cats and dogs needlessly dying in shelters and on streets for want of simple promotion.
Spay/neuter campaigns are, of course important, but (like anti-trapping campaigns) they simply aren't enough. As long as there's demand for a product (kittens, puppies, small breed dogs), somebody's going to supply it, thereby diluting ultimate success for spay/neuter campaigns, essentially fought in a vacuum.
The Ultimate Power Broker Some years ago, in his "Until There Are None, Adopt One introductory speech, former President of the Humane Society of United States, John Hoyt said, "The consumer is the ultimate power broker of good and evil in our society." Unfortunately, as an issue, companion cats and dogs have neither benefited from those wise words, as animal lovers and the humane movement have seemingly, neither reacted to, or even heard them.
Talking "spay/neuter" out of one side of the mouth, while feeling compelled to "give the public what it wants" - more kittens, puppies and purebreds out of the other, is simply incompatible. One doesn't solve a problem by placating its source.
The 1980s activism has long since past, leaving companion animals in its wake. Today, the count still goes on and on and on ...and on.
Patty Adjamine is Director of New Yorkers for Companion Animals
(212) 427-8273
or email to NYFCA@aol.com