I'm in the process of writing a story for Change.org that discusses homeless pets (and their homeless owners) because there are a number of pros and cons that accompany pet companionship while living homeless. One thing I know for sure however, is that I'm sick of seeing abandoned and abused homeless critters that endure hellish existences and if caught, are then unceremoniously slaughtered and disposed of.
My friend and colleage Laurie Green, the ED of SAAW, has done much to open my eyes to the necessity of spaying and neutering one's pet, although I must say that in my own experience as a homeless pet owner, I lost a dog because she labored to death in childbirth as a result of my inability to get her spayed. That dog - Little Bear - was a huge part of my life and I've never forgiven myself for not being able to properly care for her because of my situation.
Those who know me know that I will do whatever I can to rescue and assist a critter in need and that will always be the case. But the collective need is so large that every single animal lover combined wouldn't be able to care for the vast number of strays and abandoned pets running feral and suffering terribly on our streets.
Spaying and neutering those pets is the single most effective way to slow this horrific suffering and I can't thank people like Laurie enough for getting out there every day and helping homeless pet owners get this done....Providing low-cost spay/neuter reduces shelter deaths by large percentages
Peter Marsh/Best Friends Animal Society
The only qualifier on those numbers are the surgeries must be performed on pets owned by guardians who are at or below the federal poverty level and the surgeries must be performed at that rate for five years in order to see the difference in the number of deaths.
Those numbers were presented at the conference by keynote speaker Peter Marsh, founder and president of Solutions to Pet Overpopulation.
Marsh, a New Hampshire attorney, spearheaded New Hampshire's campaign for a publicly funded spay/neuter program. The initiative he helped push through the state legislature is a model of what can be achieved in order to provide a statewide, low-cost program.
Marsh's presentation focused on "Ten Principles of Effective Shelter Overpopulation Program."
NUMBER ONE: "The progress we've made over the years in reducing the shelter death toll has mostly come from reducing shelter intakes."
According to Marsh, in 1973, 20 percent of the entire household pet population was put to death in U.S. animal shelters every year. By 2007, the death toll had been reduced six-fold to one in 30.
This progress, according to Marsh, comes from reducing the number of animals coming into shelters. Adoptions have very little impact on the number of animals killed because of overpopulation.
"We can't adopt our way out of shelter overpopulation," Marsh said. "Even well-funded and aggressive shelter adoption program can't keep up with the reproductive capacity of intact cats and dogs."
NUMBER TWO: "A community's pet sterilization rate largely determines its shelter intake rate."
Statistics presented by Marsh compare Los Angeles' animals impounded rates to licensed dogs' sterilization rates. In 1970-71, Los Angeles impounded 144,000 dogs and had five percent of licensed dogs sterilized. In 1982-83, 72,454 animals were impounded and sterilization rates of licensed dogs had climbed to 49 percent.
Intact cats and dogs are more likely to enter shelters either as strays or relinquished pets, according to information Marsh presented.
NUMBER THREE: "Programs that increase a community's pet sterilization rate are the most effective way to reduce its shelter euthanasia rate."
Marsh presented information that showed that low pet sterilization rates equal high shelter intake rates and high shelter intake rates equal high shelter euthanasia rates. Conversely, high pet sterilization rates equal low shelter intake rates and low shelter intake rates equal low shelter euthanasia rates.
NUMBER FOUR: "Well-designed neutering subsidy programs are cost-effective."
According to Marsh, well-designed neuter assistance programs reduce shelter euthanasias at a cost of less than $100 per reduced shelter intake, less than the average cost of impounding and sheltering one cat or dog.
Shelter adoption programs reduce shelter euthanasias at an average cost of $500 per adoption.
Sanctuaries reduce shelter euthanasias at an average cost of more than $5,000 per animal throughout the animal's life.
NUMBER FIVE: "Pet sterilization programs only increase a community's pet sterilization rate if they accomplish additional sterilizations."
Subsidy programs, according to Marsh, have no impact unless they lead to surgeries that would not have been performed without the subsidy.
Examples of ineffective programs Marsh presented include: those that give vouchers to everyone who lives in an area regardless of their income, programs that do not control the amount of co-payment paid by the pet caretaker for the sterilization, programs that allow clinics to require the caretaker to pay for supplemental veterinary services, and programs that do not limit the amount of reimbursement paid to participating veterinary clinics.
NUMBER SIX: "Once a high percentage of pets in a community have been sterilized, the most effective sterilization program target previously under-served populations."
These populations include pets living in low-income households, cats and dogs that enter shelters, and free-roaming cats, according to Marsh.
NUMBER SEVEN: "To have a substantial impact on shelter intake and euthanasia rates, neutering programs must achieve a significant volume of effective surgeries."
Programs in which virtually 100 percent of intact shelter pets have been sterilized at their time of placement are associated with a 10 percent drop in shelter intakes over a five-year period, Marsh stated.
Subsidy programs limited to cats and dogs living in households of indigent caretakers that have sustained rates of sterilizing five pets per 1,000 residents are associated with a 20 percent drop in shelter intakes over a five-year period.
NUMBER EIGHT: "To maximize the impact they have on shelter intake and euthanasia rates, neutering programs must sustain a significant volume of effective surgeries over a substantial period of time."
Pet caretakers in the U.S. usually have their pets sterilized at an early age or not at all, according to the information Marsh presented.
More than 80 percent of all cat and dog sterilization surgeries are performed before the animal is two years old. On average, household dogs and cats in the U.S. have a life expectancy of 12 years. This means programs to increase pet sterilization rates can take 10 years to have their full impact.
NUMBER NINE: "No single pet sterilization program can eradicate shelter overpopulation."
There are several major sources for shelter intakes, according to Marsh. These include pets from low-income households, free-roaming cats, relinquished pets and lost pets. "Programs that address a single source of shelter intakes can reduce pet overpopulation," he said, "but not end it."
According to Marsh, shelter euthanasia rates in New Hampshire dropped by 75 percent over an eight-year period after programs were established to reduce relinquishment rates and neutering subsidy programs were established to increase pet sterilization rates of low-income caretakers and shelter adopters.
NUMBER TEN: "Shelter overpopulation can be eradicated in every community in America."
Most communities now spend $3 or more per resident per year on reactive programs to impound and shelter homeless cats and dogs. A comprehensive set of programs to address the major sources of shelter intakes would cost $1 per resident per year, Marsh said.
