Be cautious about mandatory pet spay-neuter legislation
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Periodically, a number of facts seem to fall into place, revealing a truth that might not have been apparent previously.
Something like this happened to me this week. I had been wondering how it is possible for Americans to be so enchanted with dogs as pets, and at the same time, to hold beliefs that, if put into action, would actually eliminate the species in a relatively short time. Let me review the situation, and let's see if you agree with my conclusions.
Roughly 37 percent of American homes include at least one pet dog. Most people at least pay lip service to an appreciation of how much dogs add to our lives and to our culture. While dogs no longer have the job of warning cave dwellers of approaching danger, the jobs they do perform for us could be even more valuable.
Some very special dogs and their handlers search destroyed buildings seeking for survivors, and for the bodies of those who did not survive. Perhaps you noticed the news clips of search and rescue dogs working in the jumble of what used to be homes and businesses in Haiti?
If you ever fly, them perhaps you have seen bomb or drug detection dogs making us safer at airports? Military dogs are described by their handlers as their most valuable and reliable protection against roadside bombs.
The Dover Public Library is just one of many where dogs patiently help children learn to read. Dogs can also predict epileptic seizures, and locate and predict cancers in humans.
Certainly the tasks performed by dogs no longer fit their job description when they lived with prehistoric people, but an argument could easily be made that their modern jobs are even more important.
Studies show that dogs help us maintain good health. They encourage exercise and social contacts. I've been told that walking with a dog is the best way to meet new friends. I think it is safe to say that dogs have earned their place in our hearts and in our society. And yet ...
And yet laws requiring the mandatory spay and neuter of all dogs are spreading throughout the country. I wonder if people have given much thought to the only possible result if the MSN laws become universal? Logically, if all dogs are surgically neutered, then in about 10 years there will be no dogs.
If all breeding is stopped — where will you find the replacement for the dogs you love now? If you should want to add a purpose-bred dog to your family — will you still be able to in another 10 or so years?
James Serpell, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has said: "The thing about mandatory spay-neuter is that those who are most willing to have their dogs spayed or neutered tend to be responsible people. And often, their dogs also happen to be nice animals in temperament. So what you're doing essentially is taking those dogs out of the breeding population. What will become of dog ownership if only the ill-tempered puppies from disreputable breeding programs are available?"
Dog and cat owners have certainly grasped the idea that responsible pet ownership entails being responsible for the reproductive capacity of their pets. Somehow, the idea is pushed that vast numbers of dogs are roaming around the country, reproducing at any and every opportunity. In actual fact, the reverse is true. Nationally, over 87 percent of dogs have already been surgically neutered.
Our figures here in the northeast are even more impressive. Last August, I asked three friends to help me perform a survey of veterinary hospitals throughout New Hampshire. I was surprised to learn that 98 percent of owned cats and 95 percent of dogs had been surgically neutered. Yes, we have a population of feral cats. But our pet owners have taken their responsibility to heart, as do owners throughout the north-east.
Here is one example of the adage "no good deed goes unpunished." Since this area of the country has a dearth of available dogs, and especially shelter dogs — we have become the repository of dogs, many with physical or behavioral problems that make them difficult for novice dog owners to deal with, from third-world countries and from parts of our South — where laws and programs such as we have are not established.
So — should we welcome these imported dogs, even if in so doing we put some of our own dogs at risk? Or should we help other parts of our country to grasp the lessons we have learned?
Being a responsible dog owner does not mean that all of our dogs should be neutered. What it does mean is that instead of importing potentially problematic dogs here, those groups who are profiting from these imports should focus their attention on changing attitudes in the areas these dogs come from.
So — do you really want ALL dogs to be neutered?
Showing posts with label Overpopulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Overpopulation. Show all posts
Monday, March 1, 2010
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
PA: Shelters claim "too many dogs"- but import dogs from West Virginia
Coming forth to carry them home
Thanks to the Internet and an "underground rail-road" of drivers, dogs from high-kill shelters several states away are spared, delivered to loving families in the Northeast.
By Amy Worden
Inquirer Staff Writer
Buster spent the early spring on death row here, stuck in an outdoor kennel at the overcrowded county shelter.
The beagle-mix puppy was the last of a litter found starving and neglected under a barn. The next stop for him was the euthanasia room.
These days, Buster - now a lively 1-year-old - frolics in the quarter-acre backyard of his Hatboro, Pa., home.
Buster owes his sweet suburban life to what has been called the "canine underground railroad." This network of animal lovers plucks unwanted dogs from high-kill shelters in depressed areas of Appalachia and the South, and brings them to the Northeast, where there are more adoptive homes.
In Buster's case, five volunteer drivers, each taking a 75-mile leg of the trip, whisked him away from almost certain death in northwestern West Virginia last month and delivered him to his loving home in Montgomery County.
It's a story played out every day across the country as rescue groups comb animal-shelter lists on the Internet and then put together a string of drivers to save endangered dogs - and, when there's room, a crate full of hitchhiking cats.
"If we had to put down all the dogs that we would if we didn't send them out, no one would work here," said Theresa Bruner, vice president of the Federation of Humane Organizations of West Virginia. "It would be too depressing."
*
Too many unwanted cats and dogs, not enough homes. It's a familiar situation everywhere. In Philadelphia, shelters destroyed 8,369 dogs last year, about 60 percent of the dogs they took in, most because of age, injuries or temperament, according to the city's two shelters.
But a combination of factors conspire to make the crisis in West Virginia and elsewhere in Appalachia and the South particularly acute: widespread poverty, the absence of spay/neuter education programs, and a staggering number of stray animals.
Shelters in West Virginia took in 103,000 dogs and cats last year, and about 75 percent were destroyed, according to the Federation of Humane Organizations.
A decade ago, the state's numbers were even grimmer. But in recent years, animal shelters there and around the country have been using the Internet to find homes for dogs. The Net frees shelters from relying solely on the local population for adoptive homes - especially helpful to a poor state like West Virginia.
"The Internet is a godsend," said Rosy Cosart, director of the Wetzel County Animal Shelter, where volunteers work hard to place Buster and many others like him.
Libby Marquardt, a volunteer coordinator for Trucknpaws, which has 2,000 members and says it is the largest transportation network, estimates that thousands of dogs are being moved every week all over the country.
Marquardt, of Mount Airy, Md., spends hours each week combing shelter Web sites for adoptable dogs, screening rescue groups and drivers, and mapping out routes throughout the mid-Atlantic and Midwest.
There is a high demand for certain breeds and puppies in urban areas that rural shelters can fill, Marquardt said.
Still, there are plenty of unwanted dogs in the Philadelphia area that are needlessly destroyed, animal-care officials say. Of the 7,300 dogs euthanized last year by Philadelphia Animal Care and Control Association, the city's shelter, about half were unadoptable because of age, temperament or health, but the others were destroyed because of lack of space, said Jeff Moran, a spokesman for the agency.
Erik Hendricks, executive director of the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said there was a shortage of puppies in urban areas because many more people in those areas spayed and neutered their pets. To meet the demand in the group's Philadelphia shelter, he said, the SPCA ships in puppies from shelters in northern Pennsylvania.
Urban shelters also have large numbers of overly aggressive dogs that are not suitable for families, he said.
"There is the pit-bull factor," Hendricks said. "But there are a lot of dogs perfectly healthy and young, just not puppies anymore, who won't be adopted even though they may have 10 or 12 years of good life and love ahead."
*
Buster and his five littermates spent their first 10 months huddled under a barn in this hardscrabble area along the Ohio River in northwestern West Virginia on the Pennsylvania border.
"The person who called animal control said they'd been dumped on her property," said Cosart.
An animal control officer deposited them at the Wetzel County Animal Shelter in late March. "They were almost comatose," she said. "They were scared and hungry."
Three of Buster's littermates were adopted and saved, two by the group that helped Buster. One was destroyed because he fought with his kennelmate over food.
The shelter is in a small cinder-block building in a patch of lowland at the edge of the county fairgrounds. The shelter staff has brightened the place up with lavender paint and stenciled paw prints. Volunteers built a shed roof over the kennels, but it is so crowded lately that some dogs are tethered to stakes with doghouses nearby.
A Web-savvy volunteer maintains a list of the shelter's available cats and dogs, posting their pictures on the national pet adoption site, petfinder.com.
Buster's journey to Pennsylvania began when 17-year-old Pete Walton of Hatboro stumbled on the tricolored puppy with the floppy ears while surfing the Net in May.
The Walton family was looking for a younger companion for their 7-year-old poodle, Comet. They decided to explore adoption when they discovered the average puppy at the local pet store cost $1,000.
"Why buy a dog when you could save one?" Pete Walton said.
The Waltons contacted Animal Rescue and Referral, an all-breed rescue group based in Richboro, Pa., which arranged to transport Buster to the Waltons' home.
*
Just before dawn on June 5, Joe and Lou Rabel rolled up to the shelter in an SUV with their own ex-shelter dog, Buttons, a Saint Bernard/Great Dane mix.
The Rabels, a retired West Virginia couple, make regular 200-mile round-trip runs to Maryland with dogs from the Wetzel County shelter.
"It's the least we can do," said Lou Rabel, 62. "We see so many animals that are dumped."
Buster and his traveling companion, a spitz named Teddi who was heading for a home in Wilton, Conn., were spruced up for the road trip.
After a bath, a dose of Dramamine, and a round of goodbye kisses, Buster was packed up for the 400-mile ride ahead.
On the Saturday of Buster's journey, the rain was coming down in sheets in Hagerstown, Md., a hub of mid-Atlantic canine transport activity. The city sits at the junction of Interstate 70, a major east-west route, and I-81, a major north-south route through Pennsylvania that links the Northeast with the South.
It was a busy morning in Hagerstown. At one meeting point, volunteers put 23 dogs, mostly puppies of various stripes, into a van heading to a rescue group in Lancaster.
After a drink and a bathroom break, Buster was loaded up again for the next 75-mile leg to Harrisburg. By the time he reached his permanent home in Hatboro, Buster had traveled in five different vehicles and had spent a night at the Levittown home of rescue volunteer Anne Maghee.
*
On a recent summer evening in Hatboro the Walton family - Dave, Chris and Pete and his sister, Elizabeth, 10 - watched Buster gambol with his canine pal, Comet, in their fenced-in yard.
It took Buster a few days to figure out how to navigate the staircase, but now he sprawls out on the couch like he owns the place, says Chris Walton.
Carsickness may be Buster's only shortcoming.
"He doesn't travel very well," said Chris. "But that's OK, he's home now."
Contact staff writer Amy Worden at 717-783-2584 or aworden@phillynews.com.
Thanks to the Internet and an "underground rail-road" of drivers, dogs from high-kill shelters several states away are spared, delivered to loving families in the Northeast.
By Amy Worden
Inquirer Staff Writer
Buster spent the early spring on death row here, stuck in an outdoor kennel at the overcrowded county shelter.
The beagle-mix puppy was the last of a litter found starving and neglected under a barn. The next stop for him was the euthanasia room.
These days, Buster - now a lively 1-year-old - frolics in the quarter-acre backyard of his Hatboro, Pa., home.
Buster owes his sweet suburban life to what has been called the "canine underground railroad." This network of animal lovers plucks unwanted dogs from high-kill shelters in depressed areas of Appalachia and the South, and brings them to the Northeast, where there are more adoptive homes.
In Buster's case, five volunteer drivers, each taking a 75-mile leg of the trip, whisked him away from almost certain death in northwestern West Virginia last month and delivered him to his loving home in Montgomery County.
It's a story played out every day across the country as rescue groups comb animal-shelter lists on the Internet and then put together a string of drivers to save endangered dogs - and, when there's room, a crate full of hitchhiking cats.
"If we had to put down all the dogs that we would if we didn't send them out, no one would work here," said Theresa Bruner, vice president of the Federation of Humane Organizations of West Virginia. "It would be too depressing."
*
Too many unwanted cats and dogs, not enough homes. It's a familiar situation everywhere. In Philadelphia, shelters destroyed 8,369 dogs last year, about 60 percent of the dogs they took in, most because of age, injuries or temperament, according to the city's two shelters.
But a combination of factors conspire to make the crisis in West Virginia and elsewhere in Appalachia and the South particularly acute: widespread poverty, the absence of spay/neuter education programs, and a staggering number of stray animals.
Shelters in West Virginia took in 103,000 dogs and cats last year, and about 75 percent were destroyed, according to the Federation of Humane Organizations.
A decade ago, the state's numbers were even grimmer. But in recent years, animal shelters there and around the country have been using the Internet to find homes for dogs. The Net frees shelters from relying solely on the local population for adoptive homes - especially helpful to a poor state like West Virginia.
"The Internet is a godsend," said Rosy Cosart, director of the Wetzel County Animal Shelter, where volunteers work hard to place Buster and many others like him.
Libby Marquardt, a volunteer coordinator for Trucknpaws, which has 2,000 members and says it is the largest transportation network, estimates that thousands of dogs are being moved every week all over the country.
Marquardt, of Mount Airy, Md., spends hours each week combing shelter Web sites for adoptable dogs, screening rescue groups and drivers, and mapping out routes throughout the mid-Atlantic and Midwest.
There is a high demand for certain breeds and puppies in urban areas that rural shelters can fill, Marquardt said.
Still, there are plenty of unwanted dogs in the Philadelphia area that are needlessly destroyed, animal-care officials say. Of the 7,300 dogs euthanized last year by Philadelphia Animal Care and Control Association, the city's shelter, about half were unadoptable because of age, temperament or health, but the others were destroyed because of lack of space, said Jeff Moran, a spokesman for the agency.
Erik Hendricks, executive director of the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said there was a shortage of puppies in urban areas because many more people in those areas spayed and neutered their pets. To meet the demand in the group's Philadelphia shelter, he said, the SPCA ships in puppies from shelters in northern Pennsylvania.
Urban shelters also have large numbers of overly aggressive dogs that are not suitable for families, he said.
"There is the pit-bull factor," Hendricks said. "But there are a lot of dogs perfectly healthy and young, just not puppies anymore, who won't be adopted even though they may have 10 or 12 years of good life and love ahead."
*
Buster and his five littermates spent their first 10 months huddled under a barn in this hardscrabble area along the Ohio River in northwestern West Virginia on the Pennsylvania border.
"The person who called animal control said they'd been dumped on her property," said Cosart.
An animal control officer deposited them at the Wetzel County Animal Shelter in late March. "They were almost comatose," she said. "They were scared and hungry."
Three of Buster's littermates were adopted and saved, two by the group that helped Buster. One was destroyed because he fought with his kennelmate over food.
The shelter is in a small cinder-block building in a patch of lowland at the edge of the county fairgrounds. The shelter staff has brightened the place up with lavender paint and stenciled paw prints. Volunteers built a shed roof over the kennels, but it is so crowded lately that some dogs are tethered to stakes with doghouses nearby.
A Web-savvy volunteer maintains a list of the shelter's available cats and dogs, posting their pictures on the national pet adoption site, petfinder.com.
Buster's journey to Pennsylvania began when 17-year-old Pete Walton of Hatboro stumbled on the tricolored puppy with the floppy ears while surfing the Net in May.
The Walton family was looking for a younger companion for their 7-year-old poodle, Comet. They decided to explore adoption when they discovered the average puppy at the local pet store cost $1,000.
"Why buy a dog when you could save one?" Pete Walton said.
The Waltons contacted Animal Rescue and Referral, an all-breed rescue group based in Richboro, Pa., which arranged to transport Buster to the Waltons' home.
*
Just before dawn on June 5, Joe and Lou Rabel rolled up to the shelter in an SUV with their own ex-shelter dog, Buttons, a Saint Bernard/Great Dane mix.
The Rabels, a retired West Virginia couple, make regular 200-mile round-trip runs to Maryland with dogs from the Wetzel County shelter.
"It's the least we can do," said Lou Rabel, 62. "We see so many animals that are dumped."
Buster and his traveling companion, a spitz named Teddi who was heading for a home in Wilton, Conn., were spruced up for the road trip.
After a bath, a dose of Dramamine, and a round of goodbye kisses, Buster was packed up for the 400-mile ride ahead.
On the Saturday of Buster's journey, the rain was coming down in sheets in Hagerstown, Md., a hub of mid-Atlantic canine transport activity. The city sits at the junction of Interstate 70, a major east-west route, and I-81, a major north-south route through Pennsylvania that links the Northeast with the South.
It was a busy morning in Hagerstown. At one meeting point, volunteers put 23 dogs, mostly puppies of various stripes, into a van heading to a rescue group in Lancaster.
After a drink and a bathroom break, Buster was loaded up again for the next 75-mile leg to Harrisburg. By the time he reached his permanent home in Hatboro, Buster had traveled in five different vehicles and had spent a night at the Levittown home of rescue volunteer Anne Maghee.
*
On a recent summer evening in Hatboro the Walton family - Dave, Chris and Pete and his sister, Elizabeth, 10 - watched Buster gambol with his canine pal, Comet, in their fenced-in yard.
It took Buster a few days to figure out how to navigate the staircase, but now he sprawls out on the couch like he owns the place, says Chris Walton.
Carsickness may be Buster's only shortcoming.
"He doesn't travel very well," said Chris. "But that's OK, he's home now."
Contact staff writer Amy Worden at 717-783-2584 or aworden@phillynews.com.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
CA- Local Battles- that need to be addressed on the local level
Laguna Woods, CA – The City of Laguna Woods is considering an ordinance requiring spay/neuter of all dogs over four months of age, with few exceptions. These exceptions include a dog “used to show, compete, or breed”, so long as the dog has competed in at least 3 events in a calendar year, earned a title from a purebred registry, or is registered with a purebred breed club. Service animals and dogs unable to be spayed/neutered are also exempted. The AKC wrote a letter to the Laguna Woods City Council expressing our opposition to mandatory spay/neuter laws. The ordinance will be discussed at a future meeting.
Laguna Woods, CA – The Laguna Woods City Council passed an ordinance to limit ownership to three dogs or cats per household in the community. While this is an increase on the previous limit of one dog or cat, the AKC still opposes laws that limit dog ownership, as they are difficult to enforce and do not address the issue of responsible dog ownership.
Riverside County, CA – The Riverside County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to enact an ordinance that will require an impounded dog be spayed/neutered, even on a first offense. Spaying/neutering will also be required if the owner is cited for three violations of the animal control ordinance. The ordinance further requires all dogs to be microchipped. The Government Relations Department posted a legislative alert, wrote a letter opposing these changes and worked to support local breeders, owners and fanciers in educating the Board of Supervisors on these issues.
The Board also established a committee to define “breeder” and evaluate the success of the ordinance over the next year. Responsible dog owners who are interested in serving on this committee, which will be comprised equally of supporters and opponents of the ordinance, should contact their representative on the Board of Supervisors.
Santa Barbara County, CA – In 2007, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors declined to pass a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance and created a task force to study animal control issues including shelter population issues in the county. A dedicated group of local fanciers, owners and breeders has been attending these meetings, but more help is needed! If you live in the Santa Barbara County area, please consider attending the task force meeting and speak up for the rights of responsible breeders and owners. AKC has sent a letter to the task force and a sample letter to all our constituents in the county.
Lancaster, CA – The City of Lancaster has adopted an ordinance which requires the mandatory spaying/neutering of all Rottweilers, and “pit bulls,” defined as American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, or any dog with the characteristics of these breeds. The legislation also enhances penalties for dogs deemed dangerous or vicious.
Ukiah, CA – The Ukiah City Council has passed an ordinance which will change the term “owner” to “guardian” in the city code. The AKC has sent a letter opposing the change and supporting the term “owner,” as it places responsibility on people for the care and actions of their dogs. AKC has also provided educational pamphlets to local residents to use in educating their elected officials.
Laguna Woods, CA – The Laguna Woods City Council passed an ordinance to limit ownership to three dogs or cats per household in the community. While this is an increase on the previous limit of one dog or cat, the AKC still opposes laws that limit dog ownership, as they are difficult to enforce and do not address the issue of responsible dog ownership.
Riverside County, CA – The Riverside County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to enact an ordinance that will require an impounded dog be spayed/neutered, even on a first offense. Spaying/neutering will also be required if the owner is cited for three violations of the animal control ordinance. The ordinance further requires all dogs to be microchipped. The Government Relations Department posted a legislative alert, wrote a letter opposing these changes and worked to support local breeders, owners and fanciers in educating the Board of Supervisors on these issues.
The Board also established a committee to define “breeder” and evaluate the success of the ordinance over the next year. Responsible dog owners who are interested in serving on this committee, which will be comprised equally of supporters and opponents of the ordinance, should contact their representative on the Board of Supervisors.
Santa Barbara County, CA – In 2007, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors declined to pass a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance and created a task force to study animal control issues including shelter population issues in the county. A dedicated group of local fanciers, owners and breeders has been attending these meetings, but more help is needed! If you live in the Santa Barbara County area, please consider attending the task force meeting and speak up for the rights of responsible breeders and owners. AKC has sent a letter to the task force and a sample letter to all our constituents in the county.
Lancaster, CA – The City of Lancaster has adopted an ordinance which requires the mandatory spaying/neutering of all Rottweilers, and “pit bulls,” defined as American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, or any dog with the characteristics of these breeds. The legislation also enhances penalties for dogs deemed dangerous or vicious.
Ukiah, CA – The Ukiah City Council has passed an ordinance which will change the term “owner” to “guardian” in the city code. The AKC has sent a letter opposing the change and supporting the term “owner,” as it places responsibility on people for the care and actions of their dogs. AKC has also provided educational pamphlets to local residents to use in educating their elected officials.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Proposed animal population law is a bad idea
Proposed animal population law is a bad idea
Editorial • March 4, 2009
A bill recently introduced by State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Bakersfield, would be bad law.
SB 250 would require mandatory spay and neutering of all animals unless the owner applied for and was granted a license to own an unaltered animal.
Don't have an animal and don't care? Well, you should because this law would hit you in the pocketbook if anyone decided to enforce it.
The state financial analyst estimated a similar bill that was defeated a year ago would cost millions, all of which would be borne at the local level. This law also would create more bureaucracy to review and decide on the licenses and would place a heavier burden on local shelters in terms of enforcement and housing animals who were surrendered when their owner could not pay the license fee or the spay/neuter fee.
The sad part about proposed laws such as this is they are not necessary. There are solutions that have worked in other places, and they could work in California.
One of those places is Canada's Calgary. The Calgary municipal shelter cut euthanasia rates from 50 percent to a handful of the 5,000 dogs picked up annually. It was done mostly by making spaying/neutering economically feasible, especially for poor people, and by educating people about pet ownership.
They started by focusing on dogs and are now focusing on cats.
The Calgary solution is one that should continue to be successful without heavy-handed enforcement.
It has succeeded in bringing together people who love mutts and people who love purebreds, and has reduced the problem with strays.
Animal control officers are viewed with respect and affection and referred to as Animal Courtesy Officers.
In contrast, bills such as the one introduced by Florez set up adversarial situations between pet owners and animal control. It is not clear how his unaltered animal licenses would be granted, or who would review applications and decide. The criteria could vary from city to city and between city and county.
It would require people to pay to have a pet altered without offering help. The only low-cost spay-neuter clinic in Tulare County charges from $30 to $50 to alter a cat and from $55 to $125 for a dog. Private vets can charge double or more those prices.
What would a family do if those prices were out of reach? Turn the dog over to a shelter for either adoption or euthanization, most likely.
That does not appear to be a good way to reduce the number of animals being euthanized in our shelters, nor does it respect the attachment the family may have to its pet.
Florez is off base with this one. Let's hope the other senators do not follow his lead.
Editorial • March 4, 2009
A bill recently introduced by State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Bakersfield, would be bad law.
SB 250 would require mandatory spay and neutering of all animals unless the owner applied for and was granted a license to own an unaltered animal.
Don't have an animal and don't care? Well, you should because this law would hit you in the pocketbook if anyone decided to enforce it.
The state financial analyst estimated a similar bill that was defeated a year ago would cost millions, all of which would be borne at the local level. This law also would create more bureaucracy to review and decide on the licenses and would place a heavier burden on local shelters in terms of enforcement and housing animals who were surrendered when their owner could not pay the license fee or the spay/neuter fee.
The sad part about proposed laws such as this is they are not necessary. There are solutions that have worked in other places, and they could work in California.
One of those places is Canada's Calgary. The Calgary municipal shelter cut euthanasia rates from 50 percent to a handful of the 5,000 dogs picked up annually. It was done mostly by making spaying/neutering economically feasible, especially for poor people, and by educating people about pet ownership.
They started by focusing on dogs and are now focusing on cats.
The Calgary solution is one that should continue to be successful without heavy-handed enforcement.
It has succeeded in bringing together people who love mutts and people who love purebreds, and has reduced the problem with strays.
Animal control officers are viewed with respect and affection and referred to as Animal Courtesy Officers.
In contrast, bills such as the one introduced by Florez set up adversarial situations between pet owners and animal control. It is not clear how his unaltered animal licenses would be granted, or who would review applications and decide. The criteria could vary from city to city and between city and county.
It would require people to pay to have a pet altered without offering help. The only low-cost spay-neuter clinic in Tulare County charges from $30 to $50 to alter a cat and from $55 to $125 for a dog. Private vets can charge double or more those prices.
What would a family do if those prices were out of reach? Turn the dog over to a shelter for either adoption or euthanization, most likely.
That does not appear to be a good way to reduce the number of animals being euthanized in our shelters, nor does it respect the attachment the family may have to its pet.
Florez is off base with this one. Let's hope the other senators do not follow his lead.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
If Animals should be treated like people- then should people be treated like Animals?
“Animal Rights” organizations want animals to be treated like humans, then it is time we started treating humans like animals?????
Outline:
I. Overpopulation-
II. Abandonment
A. Shelters (animals)
B. Adoption Agencies (humans)
C. Children’s Services
D. Jail
III. Breeding
A. Who can breed?
IV. Zoning type laws
A. should children grow up in cities?
B. Should a parent need enough land to support the child they are raising?
V. “Dangerous” dog / people laws
A. should certain segments of our human population not be allowed to have children?
B. Should certain races of people be charged a higher rate of insurance?
1. Pet owners will certain breeds have to pay more for insurance
VI. Conclusion
A. Why should we hold animals to a higher standard?
A. It is preposterous to propose law on who should have children and who should not
B. It is preposterous to think that people who live in cities should not have children
C. It is preposterous to think that one race should be charged more for insurance than another
Outline:
I. Overpopulation-
II. Abandonment
A. Shelters (animals)
B. Adoption Agencies (humans)
C. Children’s Services
D. Jail
III. Breeding
A. Who can breed?
IV. Zoning type laws
A. should children grow up in cities?
B. Should a parent need enough land to support the child they are raising?
V. “Dangerous” dog / people laws
A. should certain segments of our human population not be allowed to have children?
B. Should certain races of people be charged a higher rate of insurance?
1. Pet owners will certain breeds have to pay more for insurance
VI. Conclusion
A. Why should we hold animals to a higher standard?
A. It is preposterous to propose law on who should have children and who should not
B. It is preposterous to think that people who live in cities should not have children
C. It is preposterous to think that one race should be charged more for insurance than another
Friday, February 27, 2009
Shelter animals transferred from one shelter to another to help fulfill a "wish list"
Shelter animals from Kern County transferred to SLO County
Nearly two dozen dogs from a Kern County animal shelter will be transferred to the San Luis Obispo County Animal Shelter because of continued higher than normal vacancy rates.
Local shelter staff will receive 21 puppies and small adult dogs from the Bakersfield Animal Shelter that will be available for adoption.
"This exchange of animals benefits residents of [SLO County] by providing them with the opportunity to adopt smaller dogs and puppies which are not commonly available in our local shelters which simultaneously helping neighboring Kern County avoid the unnecessary euthanasia of several savable animals" according to a news release from SLO County's Animal Services Division.
This is the third transfer of animals to the local shelter.
Many of the dogs were selected to fulfill a "wish list" left with the local Animal Services Dept. from residents who had been unable to find the specific type of dog they wanted to adopt.
Many of the animals, ranging from Chihuahuas to Shepherd mix puppies, will be available for adoption beginning today.
--Sona Patel
Nearly two dozen dogs from a Kern County animal shelter will be transferred to the San Luis Obispo County Animal Shelter because of continued higher than normal vacancy rates.
Local shelter staff will receive 21 puppies and small adult dogs from the Bakersfield Animal Shelter that will be available for adoption.
"This exchange of animals benefits residents of [SLO County] by providing them with the opportunity to adopt smaller dogs and puppies which are not commonly available in our local shelters which simultaneously helping neighboring Kern County avoid the unnecessary euthanasia of several savable animals" according to a news release from SLO County's Animal Services Division.
This is the third transfer of animals to the local shelter.
Many of the dogs were selected to fulfill a "wish list" left with the local Animal Services Dept. from residents who had been unable to find the specific type of dog they wanted to adopt.
Many of the animals, ranging from Chihuahuas to Shepherd mix puppies, will be available for adoption beginning today.
--Sona Patel
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
CA- Women gives birth to a Litter of 8 babies
What Gives Los Angeles? Didn’t pet sterilization become law in this California City because of a perceived dog and cat overpopulation problem? It was only 1 year ago that Bob Barker was jubilantly proclaiming, “The next time you hear me say, ‘help control the pet population, have your pet spayed or neutered’ I can add, ‘It’s the law in Los Angeles’.” And City Officials were saying “Los Angeles animal shelters took in 50,000 cats and dogs last year and euthanized approximately 15,000 at a cost of $2 million”- as if that is the measure of Overpopulation.
According to the quote above from the Los Angeles city officials, 30% of the animals brought to the shelter were euthanized (so 70% must have been adopted). Well according the National Data Analysis System, 81,174 children (in the state of California) were in “Out-of-Home Care”- in the custody of Child Welfare. Only 7,490 children (in the State of California) were adopted through a public agency- Less than 10% of the children were adopted. Well you didn’t euthanize them- so they are still costing money- are you calling this an overpopulation problem?
Mr. Barker and City officials- The number of human multiple births has increased over the last decades. According to the U.S. Natality Files in 1980, the total number of multiple births in the United States was 69,676 and increased to 101,709 in 1995, which represents a 46% increase in multiple births between these two time periods. Even though this evidence was for a study done in 1995, it still indicates that multiples have been increasing, and because of this the risks are becoming more of a concern for the mothers and fetuses of multiples. (From wikipedia)
Babies from multiple births are usually born premature, have a low birth weight, have and increased risk of cerebral palsy, and other health problems. These babies have extended hospital stays and often long-term heath care issues.
In the highly public case of Jon & Kate (plus 8), he lost his job because of the amount of work tending to a “litter of 6”. Good thing Americans are so voyeuristic and this family was able to make a living out of exploiting the family situation on Television.
Passing Spay/neuter laws for dogs and cats is a waste of time. Dogs and Cats are not the problem. Spend your time on issues that matter.
According to the quote above from the Los Angeles city officials, 30% of the animals brought to the shelter were euthanized (so 70% must have been adopted). Well according the National Data Analysis System, 81,174 children (in the state of California) were in “Out-of-Home Care”- in the custody of Child Welfare. Only 7,490 children (in the State of California) were adopted through a public agency- Less than 10% of the children were adopted. Well you didn’t euthanize them- so they are still costing money- are you calling this an overpopulation problem?
Mr. Barker and City officials- The number of human multiple births has increased over the last decades. According to the U.S. Natality Files in 1980, the total number of multiple births in the United States was 69,676 and increased to 101,709 in 1995, which represents a 46% increase in multiple births between these two time periods. Even though this evidence was for a study done in 1995, it still indicates that multiples have been increasing, and because of this the risks are becoming more of a concern for the mothers and fetuses of multiples. (From wikipedia)
Babies from multiple births are usually born premature, have a low birth weight, have and increased risk of cerebral palsy, and other health problems. These babies have extended hospital stays and often long-term heath care issues.
In the highly public case of Jon & Kate (plus 8), he lost his job because of the amount of work tending to a “litter of 6”. Good thing Americans are so voyeuristic and this family was able to make a living out of exploiting the family situation on Television.
Passing Spay/neuter laws for dogs and cats is a waste of time. Dogs and Cats are not the problem. Spend your time on issues that matter.
Friday, January 23, 2009
FL- Proposed House Bill HB451 Mandatory Spay/Neuter for dogs and cats and Licensing of Cats
Proposed HB 451
Is a MANDATORY spay/neuter bill and also requires the licensing of cats.
Page 2, Lines 31-35 make false health claims. This bill claims that spaying and neutering have "positive effects, including decreased aggression and temperament problems; reduced risk of cancer;" While the risk of certain cancers is reduced, the risk of other cancers has been shown to increase. Early sterilization dose not provide the body with the proper hormones for full development. Studies are now coming out that are proving an increase in certain cancers as a result. This broad and general statement is misleading to the point where it gives the public a false sense that their dog or cat will not suffer from cancer, where in fact they are more likely to suffer from cancer than if they were spayed or neutered at 12 months of age.
Behavior problems are widespread and have little to do with spaying and neutering. In today's society, most pet dogs are spayed or neutered, yet owners still seek dog trainers to address behavior problems.
Sterilization at 4 months of age (12 weeks) is dangerous to the growth and development of dogs and cats and laws such as these clearly demonstrate lawmakers lack of canine development.
It is proven that dogs that are spayed and neutered at young ages grow longer than dogs and cats that are spayed after physical development has occurred. Dogs are not reproductively viable until 6 months of age, and growth slows down at 5 months of age so 12 weeks is excessive and dangerous to the health of dogs and cats.
Take action now. If you are not a resident of FL- you should still contact your US Congressmen/women and US House Representative and let them know you are concerned with the laws being proposed around the country.
Is a MANDATORY spay/neuter bill and also requires the licensing of cats.
Page 2, Lines 31-35 make false health claims. This bill claims that spaying and neutering have "positive effects, including decreased aggression and temperament problems; reduced risk of cancer;" While the risk of certain cancers is reduced, the risk of other cancers has been shown to increase. Early sterilization dose not provide the body with the proper hormones for full development. Studies are now coming out that are proving an increase in certain cancers as a result. This broad and general statement is misleading to the point where it gives the public a false sense that their dog or cat will not suffer from cancer, where in fact they are more likely to suffer from cancer than if they were spayed or neutered at 12 months of age.
Behavior problems are widespread and have little to do with spaying and neutering. In today's society, most pet dogs are spayed or neutered, yet owners still seek dog trainers to address behavior problems.
Sterilization at 4 months of age (12 weeks) is dangerous to the growth and development of dogs and cats and laws such as these clearly demonstrate lawmakers lack of canine development.
It is proven that dogs that are spayed and neutered at young ages grow longer than dogs and cats that are spayed after physical development has occurred. Dogs are not reproductively viable until 6 months of age, and growth slows down at 5 months of age so 12 weeks is excessive and dangerous to the health of dogs and cats.
Take action now. If you are not a resident of FL- you should still contact your US Congressmen/women and US House Representative and let them know you are concerned with the laws being proposed around the country.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
An "Overpopulation" Problem? Maybe, but not with dogs
by Cadie Pruss
“The fact is the dog-breeding industry has led to a huge overpopulation of dogs in this country”- 2008 James E. Casorio, Jr. Pennsylvania state representative for the 56th District in Westmoreland County
Have dogs reached the point of Overpopulation in this country? No. “Overpopulation” occurs when a species has grown beyond its carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is the maximum population that can be sustained without depleting the resources necessary to maintain the population. When carrying capacity has been exceeded, overpopulation of that species has occurred and the subsequent changes in the environment begin to limit the population, thus causing a reduction in the population.
Some may argue that the mere fact that animals in shelters are put down is a sure sign that overpopulation has occurred, but that test dose not meet the accepted biological definition of Overpopulation. There are plenty of resources such as food, water and shelter, (the only true necessities of life) to sustain the current population of all dogs, including a feral population of Carolina Dogs living in remote areas of South Carolina and Georgia.
If an Overpopulation problem was occurring nationwide, feral populations such as the Carolina Dogs would be subject to pressure from domestic dogs. This pressure would include fighting for resources such as food and suitable shelter. With increased pressures on limited resources, the Carolina Dog, and all domestic dogs vying for the resources would suffer from an increase in disease outbreaks. This is not occurring and to date, the Carolina Dog has not hybridized with other domestic dogs, indicating that this population has remained isolated. In an Overpopulation scenario, no contiguous population would remain uneffected.
Money is not one of the true necessities of life, but it seems that there is no shortage of that either when it comes to dogs in America. According to WikiAnswers, the average American dog owner spends $2000 per year on their dog, and charitable organizations working to “save unwanted dogs” are raking in donations. According to statistics from the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA), pet ownership is at an all time high with 63% of all households owning a pet (“pets” refer to more than just dogs in the APPMA statistics). Nope, there is no shortage of the “resource” money when it comes to dogs.
But seriously, lets talk about Overpopulation. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, population division, as of December 1, 2008 there were 6,740,604,309 people in the world with 305,786,924 of those people in the United States. The APPMA estimates there are 73,000,000 dogs in the United States, which is only 1 dog for every 4 people in this country. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the average life expectancy in the United States is currently 77.8 years. The average life expectancy of a dog living in North America is 12.8 years. One person’s life span is equal to the life span of 6 dogs.
The average American (over the age of 4) needs about 2,350 calories per day. To determine the number of calories a dog needs, they are generally grouped into 3 categories of small, medium and large. In general, a small dog needs about 40 calories per pound of body weight per day, while a medium sized dog needs about 30 calories per pound per day and a large dog only needs about 20 calories per pound per day. So using a thirty-pound dog (considered “medium” size) as an example, 30 calories/ pound/ day x 30 pound dog= 900 calories a day, so the average thirty pound dog needs about 900 calories per day. Strictly from a calorie consumption standpoint, each day 1 person = 6 small dogs, 3 medium dogs or 2 large dogs. Over a lifetime, 1 person = 35 small dogs, 16 medium dogs, or 13 large dogs. According to the Center For Science in The Public Interest, food is still considered abundant in the United States. The Center For Science in The Public Interest claims there are 3,800 calories available in the food supply for each person each day. That is an extra 1,450 calories per day, per person (or an extra 1.6 medium dogs, per person). The amount of “available calories” we just calculated didn’t even take into account the food sources that are “available” to those 73 million dogs, because what they are fed is generally not considered fit for human consumption. So, if we added the 1.6 “extra” dogs/per person (305,786,924 x 1.6= 489259078.4) and then add the existing 73 million dogs, we get 35,715,912,723,200,000- and this is the number of dogs we have enough calories to feed in the U.S. currently. That is a lot of dogs. It appears that in the U.S., food is not the dog limiting resource.
Average lifespan in years: Person 77.8 Dog 12.8 1 person = ? medium size Dogs 6
Calorie needs per day: Person 2,350 Dog 900 1 person = ? medium size Dogs 35
Water use in gallons per day: Person 123 Dog 0.25 1 person = ? medium size Dogs 492
trash produced in pounds per day: Person 4.6 Dog 0 1 person = ? medium size Dogs 4.6
Dogs don’t need to live in houses. The Carolina Dogs and a thriving population of Coyotes and foxes prove that dogs can do just fine with the shelter that Nature provides, but if we feel that dogs do need to live in a human home, then according to the U.S. Census Bureau American Housing Survey in 2001, there are 119,117,000 housing units in the United States. Although this number has increased since 2001, it won’t match the thirty-five quadrillion, seven hundred fifteen trillion, nine hundred twelve billion, seven hundred twenty-three million, two hundred thousand dogs we can caloricly care for in this country- so our dog carrying capacity has been reduced by the availability of shelter, but even still, 119,117,000 homes is still greater than the 73,000,000 dogs in this country. So shelter is not the limiting factor so far.
The average American uses about 123 gallons of water each day! People use water for more than just drinking, people shower (15-30 gallons), wash the dishes (9-12 gallons if you use a dishwasher, 20 gallons if you wash them by hand), flush the toilet (5-7 gallons) and the list of uses goes on and on. Dogs typically drink about 1 quart of water a day (depending on size of the dog of course). So once again we convert people to dogs, and we get 1 person equals 492 dogs. Water is not the limiting factor either.
An outbreak of Zoonotic Diseases from dogs to humans has not occurred in recent U.S. history, nor has a dog-dog outbreak occurred. Disease outbreaks are typical in populations reaching carrying capacity. It is one of natures ways of limiting populations. Clearly Overpopulation of dogs is not occurring in this country. How ever, people may need to begin to limit the human population expansion.
In 2002 the National Wildlife Federation stated the population of the United States was 282,000,000 and that equated to 31 people per square Kilometer (sq. Km) (or 50 people per square mile). According to consumption figures distributed by the National Wildlife Federation in that year, for every 100 humans in the United States, there are 489 cars. Americans consumed 1,688 liters of motor gasoline per capita each year. The average American household produces 100 pounds of trash each week and our demand for wood and forest products has resulted in the loss of 96% of our country’s original forests. Dogs don’t buy cars, use gas, produce trash, or use wood and forest products. Even 100 dogs don’t equal the resource consumption of 1 American. People might do all of these things FOR their dog, but feral dogs do not do any of those things themselves.
The land area of the United States is 9,158,960 sq. Km (or 5691,114sq. miles), so in 6 short years the American population expanded 23,786,924 people, while the United States land area expanded 0, and we now have 33 people per sq. Km (or 54 people per sq. mile).. At this rate, American’s may be experiencing an Overpopulation problem- but not dogs.
Sources:
National Wildlife Federation, Population & Consumption https://secure.nwf.org/globalwarming/pdfs/popandconsumption2002.pdf
Center For Science in The Public Interest Nutrition Policy- http://www.cspinet.org/nutritionpolicy/food_advertising.html
ABC News: What’s Your Dog’s Eating Habits http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=1905511&page=4
Pimentel, D. et. al, 1999 Will Limits Of The Earth’s Resources Control Human Numbers?
http://www.dieoff.org/page174.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations
http://www.fao.org/es/ess/faostat/foodsecurity/index_en.htm
Decline in Pet numbers blamed on shrinking backyards
http://www.vetclick.com/news/view_article.php?ArticleId=272
Netscape Home & Living- It’s Reigning Cats and Dogs: How many pets are in the U.S.?
http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/homerealestate/feature.jsp?story=rainingcatsanddogs
US Census Bureau American Housing Survey
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahsfaq.html
Science Fact Finder- How much Water Does An Average Person Use Each Day
http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/energy/how-much-water-does-an-average-person-use-each-day
Yukon Quest Sled Dogs
http://www.yukonquest.com/site/water-water-everywhere/
“The fact is the dog-breeding industry has led to a huge overpopulation of dogs in this country”- 2008 James E. Casorio, Jr. Pennsylvania state representative for the 56th District in Westmoreland County
Have dogs reached the point of Overpopulation in this country? No. “Overpopulation” occurs when a species has grown beyond its carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is the maximum population that can be sustained without depleting the resources necessary to maintain the population. When carrying capacity has been exceeded, overpopulation of that species has occurred and the subsequent changes in the environment begin to limit the population, thus causing a reduction in the population.
Some may argue that the mere fact that animals in shelters are put down is a sure sign that overpopulation has occurred, but that test dose not meet the accepted biological definition of Overpopulation. There are plenty of resources such as food, water and shelter, (the only true necessities of life) to sustain the current population of all dogs, including a feral population of Carolina Dogs living in remote areas of South Carolina and Georgia.
If an Overpopulation problem was occurring nationwide, feral populations such as the Carolina Dogs would be subject to pressure from domestic dogs. This pressure would include fighting for resources such as food and suitable shelter. With increased pressures on limited resources, the Carolina Dog, and all domestic dogs vying for the resources would suffer from an increase in disease outbreaks. This is not occurring and to date, the Carolina Dog has not hybridized with other domestic dogs, indicating that this population has remained isolated. In an Overpopulation scenario, no contiguous population would remain uneffected.
Money is not one of the true necessities of life, but it seems that there is no shortage of that either when it comes to dogs in America. According to WikiAnswers, the average American dog owner spends $2000 per year on their dog, and charitable organizations working to “save unwanted dogs” are raking in donations. According to statistics from the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA), pet ownership is at an all time high with 63% of all households owning a pet (“pets” refer to more than just dogs in the APPMA statistics). Nope, there is no shortage of the “resource” money when it comes to dogs.
But seriously, lets talk about Overpopulation. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, population division, as of December 1, 2008 there were 6,740,604,309 people in the world with 305,786,924 of those people in the United States. The APPMA estimates there are 73,000,000 dogs in the United States, which is only 1 dog for every 4 people in this country. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the average life expectancy in the United States is currently 77.8 years. The average life expectancy of a dog living in North America is 12.8 years. One person’s life span is equal to the life span of 6 dogs.
The average American (over the age of 4) needs about 2,350 calories per day. To determine the number of calories a dog needs, they are generally grouped into 3 categories of small, medium and large. In general, a small dog needs about 40 calories per pound of body weight per day, while a medium sized dog needs about 30 calories per pound per day and a large dog only needs about 20 calories per pound per day. So using a thirty-pound dog (considered “medium” size) as an example, 30 calories/ pound/ day x 30 pound dog= 900 calories a day, so the average thirty pound dog needs about 900 calories per day. Strictly from a calorie consumption standpoint, each day 1 person = 6 small dogs, 3 medium dogs or 2 large dogs. Over a lifetime, 1 person = 35 small dogs, 16 medium dogs, or 13 large dogs. According to the Center For Science in The Public Interest, food is still considered abundant in the United States. The Center For Science in The Public Interest claims there are 3,800 calories available in the food supply for each person each day. That is an extra 1,450 calories per day, per person (or an extra 1.6 medium dogs, per person). The amount of “available calories” we just calculated didn’t even take into account the food sources that are “available” to those 73 million dogs, because what they are fed is generally not considered fit for human consumption. So, if we added the 1.6 “extra” dogs/per person (305,786,924 x 1.6= 489259078.4) and then add the existing 73 million dogs, we get 35,715,912,723,200,000- and this is the number of dogs we have enough calories to feed in the U.S. currently. That is a lot of dogs. It appears that in the U.S., food is not the dog limiting resource.
Average lifespan in years: Person 77.8 Dog 12.8 1 person = ? medium size Dogs 6
Calorie needs per day: Person 2,350 Dog 900 1 person = ? medium size Dogs 35
Water use in gallons per day: Person 123 Dog 0.25 1 person = ? medium size Dogs 492
trash produced in pounds per day: Person 4.6 Dog 0 1 person = ? medium size Dogs 4.6
Dogs don’t need to live in houses. The Carolina Dogs and a thriving population of Coyotes and foxes prove that dogs can do just fine with the shelter that Nature provides, but if we feel that dogs do need to live in a human home, then according to the U.S. Census Bureau American Housing Survey in 2001, there are 119,117,000 housing units in the United States. Although this number has increased since 2001, it won’t match the thirty-five quadrillion, seven hundred fifteen trillion, nine hundred twelve billion, seven hundred twenty-three million, two hundred thousand dogs we can caloricly care for in this country- so our dog carrying capacity has been reduced by the availability of shelter, but even still, 119,117,000 homes is still greater than the 73,000,000 dogs in this country. So shelter is not the limiting factor so far.
The average American uses about 123 gallons of water each day! People use water for more than just drinking, people shower (15-30 gallons), wash the dishes (9-12 gallons if you use a dishwasher, 20 gallons if you wash them by hand), flush the toilet (5-7 gallons) and the list of uses goes on and on. Dogs typically drink about 1 quart of water a day (depending on size of the dog of course). So once again we convert people to dogs, and we get 1 person equals 492 dogs. Water is not the limiting factor either.
An outbreak of Zoonotic Diseases from dogs to humans has not occurred in recent U.S. history, nor has a dog-dog outbreak occurred. Disease outbreaks are typical in populations reaching carrying capacity. It is one of natures ways of limiting populations. Clearly Overpopulation of dogs is not occurring in this country. How ever, people may need to begin to limit the human population expansion.
In 2002 the National Wildlife Federation stated the population of the United States was 282,000,000 and that equated to 31 people per square Kilometer (sq. Km) (or 50 people per square mile). According to consumption figures distributed by the National Wildlife Federation in that year, for every 100 humans in the United States, there are 489 cars. Americans consumed 1,688 liters of motor gasoline per capita each year. The average American household produces 100 pounds of trash each week and our demand for wood and forest products has resulted in the loss of 96% of our country’s original forests. Dogs don’t buy cars, use gas, produce trash, or use wood and forest products. Even 100 dogs don’t equal the resource consumption of 1 American. People might do all of these things FOR their dog, but feral dogs do not do any of those things themselves.
The land area of the United States is 9,158,960 sq. Km (or 5691,114sq. miles), so in 6 short years the American population expanded 23,786,924 people, while the United States land area expanded 0, and we now have 33 people per sq. Km (or 54 people per sq. mile).. At this rate, American’s may be experiencing an Overpopulation problem- but not dogs.
Sources:
National Wildlife Federation, Population & Consumption https://secure.nwf.org/globalwarming/pdfs/popandconsumption2002.pdf
Center For Science in The Public Interest Nutrition Policy- http://www.cspinet.org/nutritionpolicy/food_advertising.html
ABC News: What’s Your Dog’s Eating Habits http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=1905511&page=4
Pimentel, D. et. al, 1999 Will Limits Of The Earth’s Resources Control Human Numbers?
http://www.dieoff.org/page174.pdf
Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations
http://www.fao.org/es/ess/faostat/foodsecurity/index_en.htm
Decline in Pet numbers blamed on shrinking backyards
http://www.vetclick.com/news/view_article.php?ArticleId=272
Netscape Home & Living- It’s Reigning Cats and Dogs: How many pets are in the U.S.?
http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/homerealestate/feature.jsp?story=rainingcatsanddogs
US Census Bureau American Housing Survey
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahsfaq.html
Science Fact Finder- How much Water Does An Average Person Use Each Day
http://www.enotes.com/science-fact-finder/energy/how-much-water-does-an-average-person-use-each-day
Yukon Quest Sled Dogs
http://www.yukonquest.com/site/water-water-everywhere/
Monday, December 1, 2008
Good Pet colum gets bad comments from a Law Maker
This good article was pulished in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette
Pet Tales: Shelter dog or purebred puppy? Either can be a responsible choice
Thursday, November 13, 2008
By Linda Wilson Fuoco, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A puppy is coming to the White House! Official confirmation of this came on election night and during the president-elect's first press conference Friday.
"Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House," president-elect Barack Obama said during his victory speech in Chicago.
Those little girls beamed and smiled as they appeared with their parents on that historic night. I'm guessing that at their age (Malia is 10 and Sasha is 7), the puppy is the best part of the election victory.
Won't it be wonderful to have young children in the White House again? Amy Carter lived part of her childhood there, but we didn't see too much of her.
It's been decades since the Kennedy era brought two young children and a menagerie of pets to the presidential residence, including a pony named Macaroni and a Welsh terrier named Charlie.
Now thousands of individuals and dozens of organizations are weighing in on what kind of canine the Obama family should choose, and where they should obtain the soon-to-be-high-profile puppy.
Animals rights and animal welfare groups are lobbying for adoption from a shelter or a rescue organization that finds new homes for dogs whose owners are unable or unwilling to continue caring for them. Those groups include People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Humane Society of the United States, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Best Friends Animal Society.
Those organizations and animal shelters across the country generally urge people to give a second chance, and a new home, to adult dogs that may otherwise be euthanized.
Puppies are a relatively rare and precious commodity in the shelter and rescue world. There is often a waiting list for puppies, especially purebred puppies. But when your daddy's the president, you can probably move to the top of the adoption list.
The soon-to-be first family has expressed an interest in a purebred pup because one of the girls has allergies. Some breeds, including poodles and some of the terrier breeds, have hair, rather than fur, that is less likely to cause an allergic reaction.
The bottom line is this: The Obama family, like all pet-seeking families, needs to find the pet that will fit their lifestyle, needs and desires. It sounds like they have been doing some research and giving this a lot of thought. When they pick their puppy and bring it into their new home, I hope everyone respects their decision and is happy for Malia and Sasha.
We all have the right to choose the pet we want. And those who have their heart set on a puppy should not be condemned for getting one, even if the puppy comes from a "responsible" breeder.
PETA and other animal rights groups say there is no such thing as a responsible breeder. They say that when someone buys a puppy from a breeder, a shelter dog is euthanized. That's not necessarily true because some people don't want to adopt from a shelter, for whatever reason.
Some animal rights groups and individuals say that all breeding should stop. If they get their way, there would be no more dogs or cats in 15 or 20 years.
What is a responsible dog breeder? Here's my opinion and definition. Their dogs and puppies live in their house, where they are well-socialized and much-loved. Only the best, the brightest and the healthiest dogs are used for breeding. While there's no guarantee that all puppies will live long and healthy lives, many genetic tests can be administered to the adults used for breeding. Dogs that "flunk" should not be bred because they will pass on genetic conditions, including hip and knee problems, to their puppies.
The best breeders don't allow a litter to be conceived until prospective buyers are lined up. Responsible breeders don't make a profit on their puppies because the genetic testing and veterinary care for the breeding dogs and puppies will exceed the price charged for the puppies.
Here's the bottom line: If you take a puppy or dog into your home and care for it until the day it dies, you're part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Linda Wilson Fuoco can be reached at lfuoco@post-gazette.com or 412-263-3064.
First published on November 13, 2008 at 12:00 am
Washington Letters to the Editor
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Lawmaker disagrees with pet columnist
In her Nov. 16 Pet Tales column ("Shelter dog or purebred puppy? Either can be a responsible choice"), Linda Wilson Fuoco missed a great opportunity to reinforce the importance of adopting pets from shelters as opposed to purchasing them from pet stores or breeders. Instead, she used the column to chide those who are encouraging the president-elect's family to adopt their new dog, arguing that either choice is responsible as long as the dog is well cared for. She is wrong.
Ninety-five percent of puppies sold in pet stores come from large-scale breeding operations. These mass breeders produce puppies for profit with little regard for demand, health or any other factor. The notion that ending these mass-breeding operations would lead to the disappearance of dogs and cats within 15 or 20 years is nonsense. The fact is the dog-breeding industry has led to a huge overpopulation of dogs in this country, and many of these dogs eventually end up abused, abandoned or in shelters. People who purchase from pet stores -- even with the best intentions -- support this breeding industry and, therefore, are part of the problem.
Besides saving a dog's life -- nationally, about half the animals in shelters are euthanized because a home cannot be found for them -- adopting a pet from a shelter is the more responsible choice for a number of reasons. Animal shelters evaluate each dog for health, temperament, behavior and other issues and will work with a family to help determine what type, breed and age of dog is right for them. Many shelters also provide adoption counseling and follow-up services, such as training classes and medical assistance. You won't find that at a pet store.
Shelter adoption fees are usually a lot less than the price tag at a pet store, and pets adopted from shelters are much more likely to be vaccinated, de-wormed and spayed or neutered. Finally, plenty of purebred dogs are available for adoption. On average, 25 percent to 35 percent of dogs in shelters are purebreds, so the Obamas and other families should have no problem finding the puppy they desire through adoption.
JAMES E. CASORIO JR.
Editor's note: The writer is a state representative for the 56th District in Westmoreland County and the prime sponsor of House Bill 2525, which placed more stringent regulations on dog kennels and commercial breeders.
Dear James E. Casorio Jr.
Your comments clearly belie your alliance to the very Animal Rights groups which Ms. Fuoco talks about when she stated, “PETA and other animal rights groups say there is no such thing as a responsible breeder.” Further, your use of the traditional sound-bites that these organizations expound also demonstrates that you feel that not everyone should have a choice in where they get the next family pet.
I am sorry sir, but it is you who is missing the point and it is you who is wrong. First of all, Ms. Fuoco never mentioned Pet Stores as a viable place to purchase a pet. She was very clear that if purchasing a pure-bred dog, it should come from a “responsible breeder”. In your published comments, discussion of “mass breeders” and pet stores- changes the point of her article. You have removed the responsible breeder from the equation and instead only discuss Pet Stores as places to purchase purebred dogs. Again, it reinforces Ms. Fuoco’s statement that animal rights members/organizations say there is no such thing as a “responsible” breeder.
Mr. Casorio, please re-read the article Ms. Fuoco wrote, and pay particular attention to what she says about “responsible breeders”. They do exist, and they are not part of the problem. Mr. Casorio, the problem is abandonment, not overpopulation.
Pet Tales: Shelter dog or purebred puppy? Either can be a responsible choice
Thursday, November 13, 2008
By Linda Wilson Fuoco, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A puppy is coming to the White House! Official confirmation of this came on election night and during the president-elect's first press conference Friday.
"Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that's coming with us to the White House," president-elect Barack Obama said during his victory speech in Chicago.
Those little girls beamed and smiled as they appeared with their parents on that historic night. I'm guessing that at their age (Malia is 10 and Sasha is 7), the puppy is the best part of the election victory.
Won't it be wonderful to have young children in the White House again? Amy Carter lived part of her childhood there, but we didn't see too much of her.
It's been decades since the Kennedy era brought two young children and a menagerie of pets to the presidential residence, including a pony named Macaroni and a Welsh terrier named Charlie.
Now thousands of individuals and dozens of organizations are weighing in on what kind of canine the Obama family should choose, and where they should obtain the soon-to-be-high-profile puppy.
Animals rights and animal welfare groups are lobbying for adoption from a shelter or a rescue organization that finds new homes for dogs whose owners are unable or unwilling to continue caring for them. Those groups include People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Humane Society of the United States, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Best Friends Animal Society.
Those organizations and animal shelters across the country generally urge people to give a second chance, and a new home, to adult dogs that may otherwise be euthanized.
Puppies are a relatively rare and precious commodity in the shelter and rescue world. There is often a waiting list for puppies, especially purebred puppies. But when your daddy's the president, you can probably move to the top of the adoption list.
The soon-to-be first family has expressed an interest in a purebred pup because one of the girls has allergies. Some breeds, including poodles and some of the terrier breeds, have hair, rather than fur, that is less likely to cause an allergic reaction.
The bottom line is this: The Obama family, like all pet-seeking families, needs to find the pet that will fit their lifestyle, needs and desires. It sounds like they have been doing some research and giving this a lot of thought. When they pick their puppy and bring it into their new home, I hope everyone respects their decision and is happy for Malia and Sasha.
We all have the right to choose the pet we want. And those who have their heart set on a puppy should not be condemned for getting one, even if the puppy comes from a "responsible" breeder.
PETA and other animal rights groups say there is no such thing as a responsible breeder. They say that when someone buys a puppy from a breeder, a shelter dog is euthanized. That's not necessarily true because some people don't want to adopt from a shelter, for whatever reason.
Some animal rights groups and individuals say that all breeding should stop. If they get their way, there would be no more dogs or cats in 15 or 20 years.
What is a responsible dog breeder? Here's my opinion and definition. Their dogs and puppies live in their house, where they are well-socialized and much-loved. Only the best, the brightest and the healthiest dogs are used for breeding. While there's no guarantee that all puppies will live long and healthy lives, many genetic tests can be administered to the adults used for breeding. Dogs that "flunk" should not be bred because they will pass on genetic conditions, including hip and knee problems, to their puppies.
The best breeders don't allow a litter to be conceived until prospective buyers are lined up. Responsible breeders don't make a profit on their puppies because the genetic testing and veterinary care for the breeding dogs and puppies will exceed the price charged for the puppies.
Here's the bottom line: If you take a puppy or dog into your home and care for it until the day it dies, you're part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Linda Wilson Fuoco can be reached at lfuoco@post-gazette.com or 412-263-3064.
First published on November 13, 2008 at 12:00 am
Washington Letters to the Editor
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Lawmaker disagrees with pet columnist
In her Nov. 16 Pet Tales column ("Shelter dog or purebred puppy? Either can be a responsible choice"), Linda Wilson Fuoco missed a great opportunity to reinforce the importance of adopting pets from shelters as opposed to purchasing them from pet stores or breeders. Instead, she used the column to chide those who are encouraging the president-elect's family to adopt their new dog, arguing that either choice is responsible as long as the dog is well cared for. She is wrong.
Ninety-five percent of puppies sold in pet stores come from large-scale breeding operations. These mass breeders produce puppies for profit with little regard for demand, health or any other factor. The notion that ending these mass-breeding operations would lead to the disappearance of dogs and cats within 15 or 20 years is nonsense. The fact is the dog-breeding industry has led to a huge overpopulation of dogs in this country, and many of these dogs eventually end up abused, abandoned or in shelters. People who purchase from pet stores -- even with the best intentions -- support this breeding industry and, therefore, are part of the problem.
Besides saving a dog's life -- nationally, about half the animals in shelters are euthanized because a home cannot be found for them -- adopting a pet from a shelter is the more responsible choice for a number of reasons. Animal shelters evaluate each dog for health, temperament, behavior and other issues and will work with a family to help determine what type, breed and age of dog is right for them. Many shelters also provide adoption counseling and follow-up services, such as training classes and medical assistance. You won't find that at a pet store.
Shelter adoption fees are usually a lot less than the price tag at a pet store, and pets adopted from shelters are much more likely to be vaccinated, de-wormed and spayed or neutered. Finally, plenty of purebred dogs are available for adoption. On average, 25 percent to 35 percent of dogs in shelters are purebreds, so the Obamas and other families should have no problem finding the puppy they desire through adoption.
JAMES E. CASORIO JR.
Editor's note: The writer is a state representative for the 56th District in Westmoreland County and the prime sponsor of House Bill 2525, which placed more stringent regulations on dog kennels and commercial breeders.
Dear James E. Casorio Jr.
Your comments clearly belie your alliance to the very Animal Rights groups which Ms. Fuoco talks about when she stated, “PETA and other animal rights groups say there is no such thing as a responsible breeder.” Further, your use of the traditional sound-bites that these organizations expound also demonstrates that you feel that not everyone should have a choice in where they get the next family pet.
I am sorry sir, but it is you who is missing the point and it is you who is wrong. First of all, Ms. Fuoco never mentioned Pet Stores as a viable place to purchase a pet. She was very clear that if purchasing a pure-bred dog, it should come from a “responsible breeder”. In your published comments, discussion of “mass breeders” and pet stores- changes the point of her article. You have removed the responsible breeder from the equation and instead only discuss Pet Stores as places to purchase purebred dogs. Again, it reinforces Ms. Fuoco’s statement that animal rights members/organizations say there is no such thing as a “responsible” breeder.
Mr. Casorio, please re-read the article Ms. Fuoco wrote, and pay particular attention to what she says about “responsible breeders”. They do exist, and they are not part of the problem. Mr. Casorio, the problem is abandonment, not overpopulation.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Save a Life!- Adopt a CHILD- Over population is NOT a dog and cat problem
There is a website called: Save a Life! Adopt a Pet. The catchy little phrase they use is "Don't Breed or Buy While Shelter Animals Die".
I can only hope that NONE of these people have had children of their own. Overpopulation is NOT a dog and cat problem. It is a HUMAN problem. Every year new children enter the Child Welfare system. Every year, children who have "aged out" of public assistance end up in JAIL due to our lack adoption into loving homes.
PEOPLE need loving homes. Animal shelters may euthanize unwanted animals at rates that are distressing- but it is MURDER to euthanize unwanted children. Every year more JAILS are erected to house the results of our failed social efforts.
Adoption of humans is fraught with problems. Every year MILLIONS of dollars are spent by THOUSANDS of Americans on fertility treatments while THOUSANDS of children need to be adopted.
Please visit: http://www.childwelfare.com/ and donate your TIME, MONEY and LEGISLATIVE efforts on the REAL overpopulation issue.
I can only hope that NONE of these people have had children of their own. Overpopulation is NOT a dog and cat problem. It is a HUMAN problem. Every year new children enter the Child Welfare system. Every year, children who have "aged out" of public assistance end up in JAIL due to our lack adoption into loving homes.
PEOPLE need loving homes. Animal shelters may euthanize unwanted animals at rates that are distressing- but it is MURDER to euthanize unwanted children. Every year more JAILS are erected to house the results of our failed social efforts.
Adoption of humans is fraught with problems. Every year MILLIONS of dollars are spent by THOUSANDS of Americans on fertility treatments while THOUSANDS of children need to be adopted.
Please visit: http://www.childwelfare.com/ and donate your TIME, MONEY and LEGISLATIVE efforts on the REAL overpopulation issue.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Myths from the Animal Rights organizations
MYTH One cat and its offspring can produce 420,000 cats in seven years (source: PETA and multiple humane society websites)
FACT After a six-year study and daily observation of a feral cat colony, it has been documented that stray female cats start cycling when they are 4 - 6.9 months old, (2) or as soon as the days are long enough. January and February are the start of the kitten season, with the litters born in March and April. These cats have an average of 2.1 litters per year of 4.25 kittens.(3) Forty-two percent of the kittens will die by the age of two months of natural causes.(4) Many more will end up at the shelter. Those who escape early death and the shelter go on to be prolific bearers of kittens over their short life span of approximately three years.(5)
Taking the mortality into account, along with birth and death rates, the average stray female will have 5.25 litters in her lifetime, encompassing 22.3 kittens. At age two months there should be 12.9 survivors, roughly six females and seven males (at maturity, roughly 2/3 of the stray cat population is male,(6) due to the high mortality of females during first pregnancy and birth), which will decrease to four females over time. These six females will go on to have their 22 surviving kittens each.
Realistically, over 12 years one unspayed female with all her unspayed female offspring can reasonably be expected to be responsible for over 3200 kittens if there is no human intervention. cfa.org/articles/trap-alter-release.html
MYTH One female dog and her offspring can produce 67,000 dogs in six years. (source: PETA and multiple humane organization websites)
FACT This projection for production of dog offspring is just as absurd as the projection for a cat and its offspring listed above. The 67,000 projection is dependent on the presumption that every animal concerned becomes pregnant and reproduces each cycle through its life, that each of its progeny lives, and also reproduces each and every cycle through its life, and that all progeny are female.
MYTH Altered animals are less likely to contract deadly, contagious diseases spread through bodily fluids, such as feline AIDS and leukemia. (source: PETA website)
FACT Altering does not create an immunity to a retrovirus.
Feline leukemia virus (FeLV), a retrovirus, is a common infection of cats. It is the cause of more cat deaths, directly or indirectly, than any other organism and is widespread in the cat population.
How is FeLV transmitted? Large amounts of feline leukemia virus are excreted in the saliva. Therefore, the most common mode of transmission is through nose-to-nose contact, mutual grooming, and shared food and water bowls. Bites are a very efficient way to transmit FeLV. FeLV can also be found in lesser amounts in tears, urine, and feces. To a lesser degree transmission can also take place through the shared use of litter boxes and feeding dishes.
For more information visit these websites:
Cornell University FeLV Brochure
Veterinary Partner, FeLV
FIV stands for feline immunodeficiency virus, just as HIV stands for human immunodeficiency virus. FIV is a cats-only infection. FIV is shed in the saliva of infected cats, so the disease is primarily spread through bite wounds. Casual, non-aggressive contact does not appear to be an efficient route of spreading FIV; as a result, cats in households with stable social structures where housemates do not fight are at little risk for acquiring FIV infections. The only sure way to protect cats is to prevent their exposure to the virus. Cat bites are the major way infection is transmitted, so keeping cats indoors-and away from potentially infected cats that might bite them-markedly reduces their likelihood of contracting FIV infection.
For more information visit these websites:
Cornell University FIV Fact Sheet
Veterinary Partner, Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV)
MYTH The Crisis of Pet Overpopulation. Three to four million dogs and cats in shelters are euthanized because there are not enough homes for them. Too many companion animals competing for too few good homes is the most obvious consequence of uncontrolled breeding. (Source: HSUS website)
FACT In State of the Animals 2001 HSUS stated: There was, however, general consensus among most animal related organizations that the term pet overpopulation was not only difficult to define, but that it was also probably no longer an accurate catchphrase to describe the reasons for animals leaving their original homes, especially for dogs."
Uncontrolled breeding is no longer the primary reason dogs and cats end up in shelters and has been replaced with a pet retention problem. A 1991 study from Tufts found that 87.8% of female dogs were spayed and 91.5% of female cats were spayed.
The most recent surveys by the National Council on Pet Population Study & Policy (NCPPSP) identified the top reasons for relinquishment common to both dogs and cats are: moving, landlord issues, cost of pet maintenance, inadequate facilities, no time, and personal problems. According to NCPPSP it is quite clear that many pet owners lack the knowledge to solve problems with their pets. Animals, who otherwise might remain happily in their home are relinquished to shelters across the country. Exploring the Surplus Cat and Dog Problem. Highlights of Five Research Publications Regarding Relinquishment of Pets
MYTH Pit Bulls have locking jaws
FACT The "pit bull" does not have a "locking jaw". On this topic Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia wrote: "The few studies which have been conducted of the structure of the skulls, mandibles and teeth of pit bulls show that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure and thus its inferred functional morphology, is no different than that of any breed of dog. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind of "locking mechanism" unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier." Dog Watch
MYTH Pit Bulls have more bite pressure per square inch (PSI) than any other breed.
FACT Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia states, "To the best of our knowledge, there are no published scientific studies that would allow any meaningful comparison to be made of the biting power of various breeds of dogs. There are, moreover, compelling technical reasons why such data describing biting power in terms of `pounds per square inch' can never be collected in a meaningful way. All figures describing biting power in such terms can be traced to either unfounded rumor or, in some cases, to newspaper articles with no foundation in factual data." (From the ADBA booklet, Discover the American Pit Bull Terrier.)
MYTH The public health epidemic of dog bites is due in part to uncontrolled breeding of pets. (Source: HSUS website)
FACT ---The incidence and frequency of dog attacks has remained relatively consistent over the last century, regardless of the popularity or involvement of certain breeds of dogs. National Canine Research Council
---Dogs bite kids. Why? Most often it is because children unknowingly demonstrate inappropriate behavior toward dogs that frightens or upsets them, and the dogs instinctively react to protect themselves. Many children have never been taught that there is a polite and safe way to approach and pet a dog. Many parents have never considered that children must be taught that correct behavior around pets matters. NCRAOA
---The supposed epidemic numbers of dog bites splashed across the media are absurdly inflated by dubious research and by counting bites that don't actually hurt anyone. Even when dogs do injure people, the vast majority of injuries are at the Band-Aid level. Dogs Bite: But Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous by Janis Bradley
MYTH Mixed-breed dogs are healthier. They aren't as likely to have inherited problems.
FACT Dog breeds were created, selected and bred to perform specific functions. Selecting desirable traits and eliminating others, breeders created their ideal appearance and behavior. Isn’t it therefore logical that mixed-breeds resulting from purebred crosses carry the same faults and virtues, and to some degree the same inherited disorders?
All animals carry genetic defects, and all genetic departures from health are not equal. All are not life threatening; some genetic faults can be corrected with minor surgery or controlled by good management and medication.
George Padgett, DVM, a leading canine geneticist, lists genetic diseases in his book, Control of Canine Genetic Diseases published by Howell Book House, 1998, ISBN: 0-87605-004-6. Appendix 1 of the book "Genetic Disease Predisposition by Breed, (page 189)" provides some interesting information regarding mixed breeds vs. purebreds.
1. There are 532 genetic diseases listed in the book, which are spread out among fifteen diagnostic categories
2. There is however some difficulty in differentiating diseases with more than one mode of inheritance.
3. The number of diseases per breed varies strikingly
Quoting from the text regarding instances of genetic diseases:
"The largest number of dogs in the United States consists of those of mixed breeding (mutts, curs, crossbreeds and so on), and as would be expected since they contain mixtures of most, if not all, breeds, they have far and away the most diseases. These dogs are reported to have 220 diseases."
"The breed with the most diseases reported is the Poodle (all three sizes), with 145, and as you will see, there are many breeds with over 100." (Breeds and their diseases are listed in the appendix.)
MYTH Every puppy or kitten born costs a shelter animal its life. (Multiple Sources including Best Friends Forum and Pet Finders Forums)
FACT This statement has many variations, such as “breeders kill shelter animals” and “don’t breed don’t buy while shelter animals die”.
The purpose of the statement is to vilify breeders and to instill guilt in anyone who prefers to buy from a breeder rather than adopt from a shelter. While purchasing a surrendered dog or cat from a shelter is worthy, it might not be the best route for everyone. Plenty of shelter animals are happy and trainable, but there are also some that come with ‘baggage’ and need either an experienced or a determined owner. Purebred dogs and cats have specific and predictable traits. Knowing these and selecting the right match can be a better fit.
According to Gary Patronek VMD, PhD - Center for Animals and Public Policy at Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine - the reluctance to shift from an emphasis on alleged overpopulation to a multi-faceted strategy to prevent shelter euthanasia is based on several factors, including:
* Regional imbalances in puppy numbers — although some areas of the country import puppies to meet the demand, others do have a surplus;
* An inability to abandon the idea that the breeding of a puppy that was wanted is somehow linked with the death of that dog in a shelter when it became unwanted;
* A lack of recognition that dog and cat problems are different, and a tendency to equate the huge number of unwanted kittens with a dwindling number of unwanted puppies;
* Deeply held beliefs that breeding is wrong.
(this post came from the http://www.ncraoa.com/myths.html website.)
FACT After a six-year study and daily observation of a feral cat colony, it has been documented that stray female cats start cycling when they are 4 - 6.9 months old, (2) or as soon as the days are long enough. January and February are the start of the kitten season, with the litters born in March and April. These cats have an average of 2.1 litters per year of 4.25 kittens.(3) Forty-two percent of the kittens will die by the age of two months of natural causes.(4) Many more will end up at the shelter. Those who escape early death and the shelter go on to be prolific bearers of kittens over their short life span of approximately three years.(5)
Taking the mortality into account, along with birth and death rates, the average stray female will have 5.25 litters in her lifetime, encompassing 22.3 kittens. At age two months there should be 12.9 survivors, roughly six females and seven males (at maturity, roughly 2/3 of the stray cat population is male,(6) due to the high mortality of females during first pregnancy and birth), which will decrease to four females over time. These six females will go on to have their 22 surviving kittens each.
Realistically, over 12 years one unspayed female with all her unspayed female offspring can reasonably be expected to be responsible for over 3200 kittens if there is no human intervention. cfa.org/articles/trap-alter-release.html
MYTH One female dog and her offspring can produce 67,000 dogs in six years. (source: PETA and multiple humane organization websites)
FACT This projection for production of dog offspring is just as absurd as the projection for a cat and its offspring listed above. The 67,000 projection is dependent on the presumption that every animal concerned becomes pregnant and reproduces each cycle through its life, that each of its progeny lives, and also reproduces each and every cycle through its life, and that all progeny are female.
MYTH Altered animals are less likely to contract deadly, contagious diseases spread through bodily fluids, such as feline AIDS and leukemia. (source: PETA website)
FACT Altering does not create an immunity to a retrovirus.
Feline leukemia virus (FeLV), a retrovirus, is a common infection of cats. It is the cause of more cat deaths, directly or indirectly, than any other organism and is widespread in the cat population.
How is FeLV transmitted? Large amounts of feline leukemia virus are excreted in the saliva. Therefore, the most common mode of transmission is through nose-to-nose contact, mutual grooming, and shared food and water bowls. Bites are a very efficient way to transmit FeLV. FeLV can also be found in lesser amounts in tears, urine, and feces. To a lesser degree transmission can also take place through the shared use of litter boxes and feeding dishes.
For more information visit these websites:
Cornell University FeLV Brochure
Veterinary Partner, FeLV
FIV stands for feline immunodeficiency virus, just as HIV stands for human immunodeficiency virus. FIV is a cats-only infection. FIV is shed in the saliva of infected cats, so the disease is primarily spread through bite wounds. Casual, non-aggressive contact does not appear to be an efficient route of spreading FIV; as a result, cats in households with stable social structures where housemates do not fight are at little risk for acquiring FIV infections. The only sure way to protect cats is to prevent their exposure to the virus. Cat bites are the major way infection is transmitted, so keeping cats indoors-and away from potentially infected cats that might bite them-markedly reduces their likelihood of contracting FIV infection.
For more information visit these websites:
Cornell University FIV Fact Sheet
Veterinary Partner, Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV)
MYTH The Crisis of Pet Overpopulation. Three to four million dogs and cats in shelters are euthanized because there are not enough homes for them. Too many companion animals competing for too few good homes is the most obvious consequence of uncontrolled breeding. (Source: HSUS website)
FACT In State of the Animals 2001 HSUS stated: There was, however, general consensus among most animal related organizations that the term pet overpopulation was not only difficult to define, but that it was also probably no longer an accurate catchphrase to describe the reasons for animals leaving their original homes, especially for dogs."
Uncontrolled breeding is no longer the primary reason dogs and cats end up in shelters and has been replaced with a pet retention problem. A 1991 study from Tufts found that 87.8% of female dogs were spayed and 91.5% of female cats were spayed.
The most recent surveys by the National Council on Pet Population Study & Policy (NCPPSP) identified the top reasons for relinquishment common to both dogs and cats are: moving, landlord issues, cost of pet maintenance, inadequate facilities, no time, and personal problems. According to NCPPSP it is quite clear that many pet owners lack the knowledge to solve problems with their pets. Animals, who otherwise might remain happily in their home are relinquished to shelters across the country. Exploring the Surplus Cat and Dog Problem. Highlights of Five Research Publications Regarding Relinquishment of Pets
MYTH Pit Bulls have locking jaws
FACT The "pit bull" does not have a "locking jaw". On this topic Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia wrote: "The few studies which have been conducted of the structure of the skulls, mandibles and teeth of pit bulls show that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure and thus its inferred functional morphology, is no different than that of any breed of dog. There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any kind of "locking mechanism" unique to the structure of the jaw and/or teeth of the American Pit Bull Terrier." Dog Watch
MYTH Pit Bulls have more bite pressure per square inch (PSI) than any other breed.
FACT Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia states, "To the best of our knowledge, there are no published scientific studies that would allow any meaningful comparison to be made of the biting power of various breeds of dogs. There are, moreover, compelling technical reasons why such data describing biting power in terms of `pounds per square inch' can never be collected in a meaningful way. All figures describing biting power in such terms can be traced to either unfounded rumor or, in some cases, to newspaper articles with no foundation in factual data." (From the ADBA booklet, Discover the American Pit Bull Terrier.)
MYTH The public health epidemic of dog bites is due in part to uncontrolled breeding of pets. (Source: HSUS website)
FACT ---The incidence and frequency of dog attacks has remained relatively consistent over the last century, regardless of the popularity or involvement of certain breeds of dogs. National Canine Research Council
---Dogs bite kids. Why? Most often it is because children unknowingly demonstrate inappropriate behavior toward dogs that frightens or upsets them, and the dogs instinctively react to protect themselves. Many children have never been taught that there is a polite and safe way to approach and pet a dog. Many parents have never considered that children must be taught that correct behavior around pets matters. NCRAOA
---The supposed epidemic numbers of dog bites splashed across the media are absurdly inflated by dubious research and by counting bites that don't actually hurt anyone. Even when dogs do injure people, the vast majority of injuries are at the Band-Aid level. Dogs Bite: But Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous by Janis Bradley
MYTH Mixed-breed dogs are healthier. They aren't as likely to have inherited problems.
FACT Dog breeds were created, selected and bred to perform specific functions. Selecting desirable traits and eliminating others, breeders created their ideal appearance and behavior. Isn’t it therefore logical that mixed-breeds resulting from purebred crosses carry the same faults and virtues, and to some degree the same inherited disorders?
All animals carry genetic defects, and all genetic departures from health are not equal. All are not life threatening; some genetic faults can be corrected with minor surgery or controlled by good management and medication.
George Padgett, DVM, a leading canine geneticist, lists genetic diseases in his book, Control of Canine Genetic Diseases published by Howell Book House, 1998, ISBN: 0-87605-004-6. Appendix 1 of the book "Genetic Disease Predisposition by Breed, (page 189)" provides some interesting information regarding mixed breeds vs. purebreds.
1. There are 532 genetic diseases listed in the book, which are spread out among fifteen diagnostic categories
2. There is however some difficulty in differentiating diseases with more than one mode of inheritance.
3. The number of diseases per breed varies strikingly
Quoting from the text regarding instances of genetic diseases:
"The largest number of dogs in the United States consists of those of mixed breeding (mutts, curs, crossbreeds and so on), and as would be expected since they contain mixtures of most, if not all, breeds, they have far and away the most diseases. These dogs are reported to have 220 diseases."
"The breed with the most diseases reported is the Poodle (all three sizes), with 145, and as you will see, there are many breeds with over 100." (Breeds and their diseases are listed in the appendix.)
MYTH Every puppy or kitten born costs a shelter animal its life. (Multiple Sources including Best Friends Forum and Pet Finders Forums)
FACT This statement has many variations, such as “breeders kill shelter animals” and “don’t breed don’t buy while shelter animals die”.
The purpose of the statement is to vilify breeders and to instill guilt in anyone who prefers to buy from a breeder rather than adopt from a shelter. While purchasing a surrendered dog or cat from a shelter is worthy, it might not be the best route for everyone. Plenty of shelter animals are happy and trainable, but there are also some that come with ‘baggage’ and need either an experienced or a determined owner. Purebred dogs and cats have specific and predictable traits. Knowing these and selecting the right match can be a better fit.
According to Gary Patronek VMD, PhD - Center for Animals and Public Policy at Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine - the reluctance to shift from an emphasis on alleged overpopulation to a multi-faceted strategy to prevent shelter euthanasia is based on several factors, including:
* Regional imbalances in puppy numbers — although some areas of the country import puppies to meet the demand, others do have a surplus;
* An inability to abandon the idea that the breeding of a puppy that was wanted is somehow linked with the death of that dog in a shelter when it became unwanted;
* A lack of recognition that dog and cat problems are different, and a tendency to equate the huge number of unwanted kittens with a dwindling number of unwanted puppies;
* Deeply held beliefs that breeding is wrong.
(this post came from the http://www.ncraoa.com/myths.html website.)
Friday, March 28, 2008
Overpopulation is not a dog and cat problem- adopt a child
While it is true, dogs and cats in shelters, waiting for adoption is sad- far more children are experiencing the same fate- yet the Animal Rights movement will attempt to convince us that people who have a litter of puppies are "bad" because they are contributing to "over population". Well- Overpopulation is NOT a dog and cat problem. It IS a human problem. Telling people they can not have children will never happen. Neither should telling people they can't have puppies or kittens. A look at the trends of children in Foster Care should open someone's eyes to the fact that PEOPLE need help- Adopt a child!
The data show that the estimated number of children in foster care on the last day (September 30) of each federal fiscal year has decreased steadily from 552,000 in FY 2000 to 514,000 in FY 2005. After remaining relatively stable from FY 2000 through FY 2003, the number of children entering care increased in both FY 2004 and FY 2005. The estimated number of children exiting foster care increased between FY 2000 and FY 2005 from 272,000 to 287,000.
Each year, the number of children entering care has exceeded the number of children exiting care. Concurrently, the number of children in care on the last day of each fiscal year has been declining. Based on extensive review of the data, the Children's Bureau is confident that the data depicted in the chart for entries into foster care and for children in care on the last day of the fiscal year accurately reflect national trends. However, the Children's Bureau continues to examine the data and explore programmatic issues to resolve the apparently conflicting trends.
The estimated number of children waiting to be adopted declined between FY 2000 and FY 2005 from 131,000 to 115,000. The estimated number of children whose parents have had their rights terminated shows no distinct pattern. Between FY 2000 and FY 2005 the number of children whose parental rights had been terminated ranged from 73,000 to 65,000. The estimated number of children adopted annually from FY 2000 through FY 2005 remained relatively constant in the low 50,000's. After having remained relatively stable from FY 2000 through FY 2002 at between 811,000 and 813,000, the number of children served declined in FY 2003 through FY 2005 to approximately 800,000. (source: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm)
The data show that the estimated number of children in foster care on the last day (September 30) of each federal fiscal year has decreased steadily from 552,000 in FY 2000 to 514,000 in FY 2005. After remaining relatively stable from FY 2000 through FY 2003, the number of children entering care increased in both FY 2004 and FY 2005. The estimated number of children exiting foster care increased between FY 2000 and FY 2005 from 272,000 to 287,000.
Each year, the number of children entering care has exceeded the number of children exiting care. Concurrently, the number of children in care on the last day of each fiscal year has been declining. Based on extensive review of the data, the Children's Bureau is confident that the data depicted in the chart for entries into foster care and for children in care on the last day of the fiscal year accurately reflect national trends. However, the Children's Bureau continues to examine the data and explore programmatic issues to resolve the apparently conflicting trends.
The estimated number of children waiting to be adopted declined between FY 2000 and FY 2005 from 131,000 to 115,000. The estimated number of children whose parents have had their rights terminated shows no distinct pattern. Between FY 2000 and FY 2005 the number of children whose parental rights had been terminated ranged from 73,000 to 65,000. The estimated number of children adopted annually from FY 2000 through FY 2005 remained relatively constant in the low 50,000's. After having remained relatively stable from FY 2000 through FY 2002 at between 811,000 and 813,000, the number of children served declined in FY 2003 through FY 2005 to approximately 800,000. (source: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm)
Monday, August 6, 2007
The Myth of Pet Over-Population
by Cherie Graves
The Animal Rights Myth of Pet Over-Population
May 23, 2007 01:00 PM EST
We have all heard, and seen HSUS, and PeTA promotions to stop pet over-population. Many people accept without question that there really is a pet-overpopulation crises in the United States. They cite the numbers of animals that are killed in shelters as their proof. That "proof" will increase dramatically in shelters across the county that took in animals that were "rescued" from the areas hit by the Hurricanes Katrina, and Rita. These animals will considerably add to the shelter's kill numbers, and will lead to legislation to quell the crisis. California Shelters are importing plane loads of dogs from China, Romania, the Carribean, and with these animals come their diseases. In California there was the recent death of an 11 year old boy attributable to a strain of rabies that is not indiginous to the United States. The boy did not respond to standard rabies protocols. In order to prove "pet-overpopulation" the animal rights movement has a huge animal transport system in place that rapidly moves animals from one area to another in order to stack intake, and euthanasia figures in areas targeted for introduction of their legislation of removing pets from our ownership. One such shipment was videotaped in Las Vegas. A van bearing the logo of an AR group from Utah, and Utah license plates pulled into the night deposit of the animal shelter and dropped off numerous dogs. More will come out on this incident at a later date. Let us take a real look at over-population. It is usually caused by an environmental situation that affects the whole population, such as drought, or crop failure, or even war. It means that there are no life sustaining resources to keep the populace alive. Over-population affects every living thing within the confines of the afflicted area. It would mean that there is no food, no potable water, no shelter, no medical supplies, no clothing, nothing to keep the whole population alive, and thriving. If we truly had a pet-overpopulation here in the USA, we wouldn't just be talking about the sterile killing of animals for disposal in so-called shelters. We would be eating those animals to save ourselves from starvation. If there was truly an overpopulation, there would be empty super- market shelves. No medical supplies, or services. Lines for potable water. We would all look like the people who have honestly suffered from the real situation of no sustaining resources available. We wouldn't be a diet conscious nation, we would be in serious nutritional trouble. Over-population doesn't play favorites. It affects the entire population. We live in the richest nation on the face of the earth. We lack for nothing. We as a society are so spoiled we do not value life. We get an animal on a whim, and dispose of it just as readily. That irresponsibility has nothing at all to do with over-population, and everything to do with our throw-away mentality. The animal rights movement relies upon our gullibility to foster their agenda. Look back about forty years, and see that before the manufactured crisis, there was not the huge need for shelters. Animal rights groups basically built the shelters, and told people that they didn't have to be responsible for their animals anymore. Just dump them at the shelter. It's become big business, and the shelters are not only thriving, but they are getting bigger, and better multi-million dollar facilities. Interestingly the Humane Society of the United States operates no shelters at all, and uses a large portion of it's donations to make even more money. They recently have come under investigation by the Louisiana Attorney General for misuse of funds obtained after Hurricane Katrina, some $30,000.000.00. PeTA with all of it's millions in revenue operates one shelter where it kills 83% of all the animals that it brings in. We need to question what we are being told by these animal rights groups, and not be so quick to accept what they tell us as truths. Look at their real agenda. They post it on their websites. That agenda is to liberate all animals from our ownership, use, and care. No more pets. If we can't own pets, there can't be an "over- population". No more domesticated animals of any kind. Associated Press, Dec. 30, 1991) "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding" (Animal People, May, 1993)
Cherie Graves is chairwoman of Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
The Animal Rights Myth of Pet Over-Population
May 23, 2007 01:00 PM EST
We have all heard, and seen HSUS, and PeTA promotions to stop pet over-population. Many people accept without question that there really is a pet-overpopulation crises in the United States. They cite the numbers of animals that are killed in shelters as their proof. That "proof" will increase dramatically in shelters across the county that took in animals that were "rescued" from the areas hit by the Hurricanes Katrina, and Rita. These animals will considerably add to the shelter's kill numbers, and will lead to legislation to quell the crisis. California Shelters are importing plane loads of dogs from China, Romania, the Carribean, and with these animals come their diseases. In California there was the recent death of an 11 year old boy attributable to a strain of rabies that is not indiginous to the United States. The boy did not respond to standard rabies protocols. In order to prove "pet-overpopulation" the animal rights movement has a huge animal transport system in place that rapidly moves animals from one area to another in order to stack intake, and euthanasia figures in areas targeted for introduction of their legislation of removing pets from our ownership. One such shipment was videotaped in Las Vegas. A van bearing the logo of an AR group from Utah, and Utah license plates pulled into the night deposit of the animal shelter and dropped off numerous dogs. More will come out on this incident at a later date. Let us take a real look at over-population. It is usually caused by an environmental situation that affects the whole population, such as drought, or crop failure, or even war. It means that there are no life sustaining resources to keep the populace alive. Over-population affects every living thing within the confines of the afflicted area. It would mean that there is no food, no potable water, no shelter, no medical supplies, no clothing, nothing to keep the whole population alive, and thriving. If we truly had a pet-overpopulation here in the USA, we wouldn't just be talking about the sterile killing of animals for disposal in so-called shelters. We would be eating those animals to save ourselves from starvation. If there was truly an overpopulation, there would be empty super- market shelves. No medical supplies, or services. Lines for potable water. We would all look like the people who have honestly suffered from the real situation of no sustaining resources available. We wouldn't be a diet conscious nation, we would be in serious nutritional trouble. Over-population doesn't play favorites. It affects the entire population. We live in the richest nation on the face of the earth. We lack for nothing. We as a society are so spoiled we do not value life. We get an animal on a whim, and dispose of it just as readily. That irresponsibility has nothing at all to do with over-population, and everything to do with our throw-away mentality. The animal rights movement relies upon our gullibility to foster their agenda. Look back about forty years, and see that before the manufactured crisis, there was not the huge need for shelters. Animal rights groups basically built the shelters, and told people that they didn't have to be responsible for their animals anymore. Just dump them at the shelter. It's become big business, and the shelters are not only thriving, but they are getting bigger, and better multi-million dollar facilities. Interestingly the Humane Society of the United States operates no shelters at all, and uses a large portion of it's donations to make even more money. They recently have come under investigation by the Louisiana Attorney General for misuse of funds obtained after Hurricane Katrina, some $30,000.000.00. PeTA with all of it's millions in revenue operates one shelter where it kills 83% of all the animals that it brings in. We need to question what we are being told by these animal rights groups, and not be so quick to accept what they tell us as truths. Look at their real agenda. They post it on their websites. That agenda is to liberate all animals from our ownership, use, and care. No more pets. If we can't own pets, there can't be an "over- population". No more domesticated animals of any kind. Associated Press, Dec. 30, 1991) "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding" (Animal People, May, 1993)
Cherie Graves is chairwoman of Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States
Should Pet Owners be Required to Spay/Neuter?
Spaying Animals (1 Letter)
DiggFacebookNewsvin ePermalinkPublished: August 3, 2007
To the Editor: Editorial Observer: Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals? (July 30, 2007)
The real thrust of the American Kennel Club's opposition to California Assembly Bill 1634 as stated in "Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?" (Editorial Observer, July 30) is not economic but rather that creating a one-size-fits- all law such as mandatory spay and neuter is not a workable, enforceable solution to reduce the diverse demographics of the state's shelter population.Lawmakers, animal control officers and animal welfare organizations need to work together and delve into the origins of shelter subgroups — such as stray, feral or surrendered pets — to address the issues that bring them to the shelter.California's shelter populations have declined in recent decades, and most pet owners (70 percent dog, 84 percent cat) are acting responsibly and spaying/neutering their pets without government involvement. Targeted programs that address specific segments of the companion animal population and broad public education programs have been and can continue to be effective.
Lisa PetersonDirector of Club Communications,
American Kennel ClubNew York, July 31, 2007
DiggFacebookNewsvin ePermalinkPublished: August 3, 2007
To the Editor: Editorial Observer: Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals? (July 30, 2007)
The real thrust of the American Kennel Club's opposition to California Assembly Bill 1634 as stated in "Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?" (Editorial Observer, July 30) is not economic but rather that creating a one-size-fits- all law such as mandatory spay and neuter is not a workable, enforceable solution to reduce the diverse demographics of the state's shelter population.Lawmakers, animal control officers and animal welfare organizations need to work together and delve into the origins of shelter subgroups — such as stray, feral or surrendered pets — to address the issues that bring them to the shelter.California's shelter populations have declined in recent decades, and most pet owners (70 percent dog, 84 percent cat) are acting responsibly and spaying/neutering their pets without government involvement. Targeted programs that address specific segments of the companion animal population and broad public education programs have been and can continue to be effective.
Lisa PetersonDirector of Club Communications,
American Kennel ClubNew York, July 31, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Pet Overpopulation Is a Myth
There is not a link between breeding and shelters. In isolated areas (LA) you'll see breeding populations of pit bulls on the street. That is quite rare country wide. The causes of surrender have to do with circumstances and training, mostly. It's a people situation, not a dog situation. MOST euthanasias are feral cats. Show breeders very rarely have an animal go into a shelter. Whether or not the general public alters their pets is probably a minor factor. If your local shelter is euthanizing huge numbers of animals, look to shelter management and shelter ideology for the primary causes. Here is a quote from Nathan Winograd of No Kill fame: "In order to achieve No Kill, these animal advocates believe they must attack the problem of pet overpopulation. And, to them, that means addressing the issue of public irresponsibility through a series of punitive laws like cat licensing, pet limits, and mandatory spay/neuter which, as their logic goes, will force people with pets to be more responsible. But this approach has never worked, and never will. As a result, positive results they seek have not been forthcoming. And they will never be forthcoming, because pet overpopulation is a myth and public irresponsibility is not why animals are being killed in shelters. The real problem, the real reason we are not closer to a No Kill nation today, even though San Francisco and Tompkins County have shown us how to achieve it, the reason why people's desire for a No Kill nation is continuously being thwarted, is because those in power-the directors who run the shelters, the health department bureaucrats who often oversee them, the local governments which fund them (often inadequately), and the large, national non-profit animal welfare agencies which provide them political cover, are failing. They are failing to learn from the past. They are failing to implement the programs and services with a demonstrated track record of saving lives and/or to demand that shelters do. They are failing because they lack the vision to see the possibilities. In short, it is easier for them to kill than do what is necessary to stop it, even though stopping it requires no more money and no more staff than the status quo. In some cases, it is actually less expensive to save lives."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)