© Patricia Lambert
Letter From The Editors
"WOW! FUN! INFORMATIVE! FUN! WOW!" This is a quote from one of the many notes of thanks and congratulations that we received after the CHAMP conference. It was exciting to bring together such a wealth of knowledge and experience in one place, to watch the level of enthusiasm spread, and to witness the sharing of skills and expertise by CHAMP participants from around the country. On behalf of The Pet Savers Foundation staff, we’d like to thank our sponsors who made the event possible and the many speakers and exhibitors who so generously shared their skills and services. We were delighted to see so many first time attendees at CHAMP this year. We look forward to each one of you being regulars at future CHAMP conferences. We hope that you will continue to communicate with us on how we can improve our educational opportunities at the CHAMP conference. This year’s new tracks – Shelter Medicine, Animal Control and SPAY/USA – were hits! We plan to offer them again and expand each along with our tracks on Management and Policy, Operations, and Development. So, send us your ideas. Our feature article in this edition of Paws focuses on the successful New Hampshire spay program . . . while we do not believe that there is one right way, there are right and wrong ways to structure statewide spay programs to ensure results. The correct way institutes a mechanism to ensure continuous funding, targets those in need first, dedicates the funding exclusively to spay/neuter, and sets up an effective oversight committee to ensure that funds do not disappear from view and that the program functions well. Several states in a rush to set up programs made mistakes in these critical areas, mistakes that will be tough or nearly impossible to rectify. We suggest contacting our office to find out who may already be working on a program as well as the best practices and references.
Esther Mechler Co-Director of The Pet Savers Foundation
Teresa Dockery Co-Director of The Pet Savers Foundation
Paws to Think • Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
1
Paws to Think contents Letter From The Editors .......................................................................... 1 What’s News? .........................................................................................3 CHAMP Photos ...................................................................................... 8 CHAMP Audio Cassette Order Form...................................................... 10 Why People Do Not Spay/Neuter .......................................................... 13 Neutersol . . . Cause For Celebration ......................................................17 The New Hampshire Spay/Neuter Program .............................................19 Letters To The Editors ............................................................................25 Investing In Prevention ...........................................................................27 From New Hampshire . . . to Maine........................................................30
The Pet Savers Foundation proud parent organization of SPAY/USA • host of the annual Conference on Homeless Animal Management and Policy
Headquarters 2261 Broadbridge Avenue Stratford, CT 06614-3801 203-377-1116 • 203-375-6627 fax info@petsavers.org www.petsavers.org
Administrative Office 59 South Bayles Avenue Port Washington, NY 11050-3728 516-883-7767 • 516-944-5035 fax info@petsavers.org www.petsavers.org
all inquiries should be directed to the administrative office CHAMP Administrative Office: 59 South Bayles Avenue Port Washington, NY 11050-3728 516-883-7767 • 516-944-5035 fax www.champconference.org • info@champconference.org Teresa Dockery, Director
1 (800) 248-SPAY
2
SPAY/USA Administrative Office: 2261 Broadbridge Avenue Stratford, CT 06614-3801 203-377-1116 • 203-375-6627 fax www.spayusa.org • alwaysspay@aol.com Esther Mechler, Director
Autumn 2003 Volume 2, Issue 4 www.petsavers.org
Paws to Think is an official publication of The Pet Savers Foundation, a nonprofit organization located at 59 S. Bayles Avenue, Port Washington, NY 11050. The Pet Savers Foundation advocates for humane organizations to improve their management skills while developing effective working relationships with other animal welfare organizations. Paws to Think is published quarterly and distributed to more than 30,000 animal caregivers, veterinarians, and animal welfare organizations around the world. You can receive Paws to Think four times each year for a suggested minimum donation of $20 each year. Animal welfare organizations, animal caregivers and animal control agencies may reprint articles published in Paws to Think magazine. The articles may be reprinted in whole or in part, without prior permission, provided that the reprinting serves education purposes in keeping with the magazine's intent. We request that credit be given to the article's author as well as Paws to Think and The Pet Savers Foundation and that a copy of the publication containing the reprinted material is sent to The Pet Savers Foundation. The Pet Savers Foundation does not endorse or guarantee any products, services, or vendors mentioned in the Paws to Think magazine, nor can it be responsible for problems with vendors or their products or services. Also, The Pet Savers Foundation reserves the right to reject, at its discretion, any advertising. Views expressed by guest authors are not necessarily those of The Pet Savers Foundation.
Special Thanks to The Kenneth A. Scott Charitable Trust, A KeyBank Trust, for their generous support!
Paws to Think •Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
Wh
a
e ws? N s ’t In each issue of Paws to Think, we will feature developments in animal welfare that are taking place around the country and the world. Contributions are welcome and encouraged, and may be submitted to Esther Mechler at alwaysspay@aol.com or Teresa Dockery at teresad@petsavers.org planning for public spay/neuter and humane educational programs within the next year.
News From Georgia The Southern Hope Humane Society was recently awarded the contract to manage Fulton County Animal Services, which is the animal control for Atlanta, GA. The previous management of the animal control shelter had been widely criticized for its euthanasia rate and because it would not allow the public into the shelter to adopt animals. Southern Hope has already implemented an adoption program and has drastically reduced the euthanasia rate. The organization has also implemented a web site at www.fultonanimalservices.com, is spaying and neutering all adopted animals before release, and is
News From Illinois You'll know the Chicago Wolves Animobile when you see it. This traveling adoption and free spay/neuter clinic is sleek and white with the Wolves' logo displayed on the side. Inside, it is both heated and air-conditioned, has room for several vets to perform surgeries, and provides animals a place to recover. Chicago's Commission on Animal Care and Control has teamed up with the Wolves to offer these services. "We're focusing on troubled areas and going to the community, not waiting for the communi-
ty to come to us," said Nikki Proutsos, Executive Director of Animal Care and Control. Wolves owner Don Levin, a longtime animal crusader, was inspired to buy the moving clinic for Chicago after seeing one in New York City. "I saw a truck parked on the street with a white picket fence surrounding it," he said. "I asked them about it and they said it did really well." Between periods at Wolves games, animals are brought out and adopted. Levin's next project is to take the roaming clinic to city sporting events so more animals can be adopted. For more information, contact Animal Control's David R. Lee facility at 312-747-1406. Also from Illinois The animal cruelty and protection laws of Illinois
have been revised to broaden the responsibilities of the Animal Control Administrator and require that adopted dogs and cats be spayed or neutered and micro-chipped. The new statute gives the Department of Agriculture the authority to revoke the license of an animal shelter or animal control agency that fails to comply with these provisions. The new provisions also require cat & litter registration fees (feral cats are exempt) and mandates that dangerous & vicious dogs be spayed or neutered and micro-chipped. Rep. Skip Saviano spearheaded the drive to get House Bill 184 passed after hearing that a dog mauled Ryan Armstrong two years ago. Rep. Saviano and Senator Don Harmon worked with the ASPCA, the Humane cont’d on page 5
Paws to Think • Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
3
4
Paws to Think •Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
What’s News? – cont’d from page 3
Society of Central Illinois, the Animal Protective League, the Illinois Department of Agriculture, and the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association to totally overhaul the antiquated animal control act to start addressing the tragedy of dog and cat overpopulation in Illinois. Governor Blagojevich has signed the bill into law.
News From Kentucky Volunteers from Louisville, Kentucky's Alley Cat Advocates altered their 3000th unowned cat at their monthly BIG FIX clinic in July. Using three to five volunteer veterinarians and approximately 40 lay people each month, the organization traps cats on Saturday, neuters them on Sunday, and releases them on Monday. The popular TNR program has grown from 12 surgeries in October 2000 to an average of 145 a month today. For more information contact Karen Little at contactus@alleycatadvocates.org.
News From Michigan
New Jersey’s governor James McGreevey, through an executive order on July 25, 2002, established a Governor’s Animal Welfare Task Force charged with: • Making recommendations for updating state cruelty statutes;
C-SNIP, the Community Spay/Neuter Initiative Partnership, headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan has been operating a reduced-fee mobile spay/neuter clinic since March of 2001. From that date to August 1, 2003, 8,500 cats and dogs were sterilized. The van visits low-income neighborhoods in Kent County and adjacent counties and attracts clients from another 18 counties in western Michigan. Fees range from $25 to $45. No one is refused service because of an inability to pay. For more information, contact Pam Olsen, C-SNIP, phone (616) 3647132, fax (616) 364-5519, or email polsen@sirus.com.
News From New Jersey
• Studying the shelter system in NJ and recommending improvements; • Finding humane ways to reduce the surplus of cats/dogs, including feral cats. The panel consists of 30 members divided into the above three subcommittees and includes veterinarians, attorneys, grassroots activists, animal control officers, shelter managers, and humane society representatives. SPAY/USA representatives Esther Mechler and Chancy Luby met with several panelists in August, including attorney Elaine Kaufmann, activist Lisa Handel, and veterinarian Dr. Gordon Stull. Recommendations will be summarized and presented to Governor McGreevey in the spring of 2004.
News From Texas The 1st Annual "Strumming for Spay/Neuter" benefit was hosted by Austin realtor Elaine Byrne who brought in traditional bluegrass and gospel musicians from as far away as Fort Worth. These talented musicians provided an entertaining afternoon while raising money for Austin Pets Alive's spay/neuter program. The entertainment lasted from 2-5 Sunday afternoon, while a raffle and silent auction helped raise money and awareness about the importance of spaying/neutering. "The money raised at the APA benefit will go directly to sponsor spay/neuters for low income families," says Austin Pets Alive President, Steve Poole. For more information contact Poole at austinpetsalive@hotmail.com.
News From Australia cont’d on page 7
Paws to Think • Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
5
6
Paws to Think •Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
What’s News? – cont’d from page 5
The Animal Welfare League of Queensland is making progress toward creating zero euthanasia (of adoptable pets) on the Gold Coast. In January 2001, a new act allowed shelters to open their clinic doors to the public. The A.W.L. started with only one vet working half days but now employs seven vets, and the clinic doors are open seven days a week. The clinic offers low cost services to everyone and, most importantly, desexing (spaying/neutering). In the first year and a half, the clinic has performed approximately 2000 spay/neuter surgeries! In addition, the A.W.L. is lobbying the local government for compulsory desexing.
News From Italy Italy is getting tough on animal cruelty with a new law that promises hefty fines and imprisonment for anyone caught abandoning pets, organizing dogfights, or making illegal furs. Parliament
was expected to approve the groundbreaking legislation before the start of the summer holidays when thousands of dogs are traditionally dumped on the roadside as their owners head off to the beach. While many other European Union countries provide legal protection for animals, Italy has, until now, ignored the problem. Italian animal rights groups estimate that up to 150,000 dogs and cats are deliberately abandoned every year. Activists also believe that hundreds of animals are deliberately injured, tortured, or maltreated each month in Italy. Under the new legislation, anyone found guilty of killing animals unlawfully will face up to 18 months in jail. People who organize dogfights could be jailed between one and three years and fined up to 160,000 euros. People involved in illegal fur trade involving cat and dog pelts face up to a year behind bars and fines that climb to 100,000 euros.($119,600).
News From Turkey The Fethiye Association of Friends of Animals President, Perihan Agnelli, met with the Minister of Environment and Forestry Osman Pepe, as well as the Ministers of Agriculture and Health, to request the implementation throughout Turkey of the model work carried out at present in Fethiye. "In our meetings with the three ministers, we presented our method of inoculation, sterilization and restoration to normal living conditions of stray dogs in Fethiye which we wish to be implemented throughout Turkey. I am convinced that our attempts will be successful." Agnelli said. Undersecretary Sutluoglu said: " The work carried out at Fethiye is remarkable. I have witnessed it with my own eyes. As long as these efforts are carried out, the ministries will continue to support them as much as possible. Naturally, we are in agreement with Perihan
Agnelli’s proposals. We are determined to resolve this problem in the most satisfactory manner. Stray dogs are the subject of complaints all over Turkey. The work in Fethiye is the best example of resolving this matter throughout Turkey. The matter is being dealt with presently and a very positive approach is noted. All three ministers are in favor of the work carried out."
Sit Up And Get Noticed! Paws to Think is distributed to more than 30,000 animal caregivers, veterinarians, and animal welfare organizations around the world. Drop a note to Amanda Alio at amandaa@petsavers.org and ask for a free media kit detailing classified and display rates, sizes, and all you need to know to place your ad in the next issue of Paws to Think!
Paws to Think • Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
7
8
Paws to Think •Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
Paws to Think • Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
9
10
Paws to Think •Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
Paws to Think • Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
11
12
Paws to Think •Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
Why People Do Not Spay/Neuter by Joshua Frank, Ph.D. and Pamela Carlisle-Frank, Ph.D. Spay/neuter is one of the most important tools, perhaps the most important tool, available to reduce companion animal overpopulation. Much progress has been made to increase spay/neuter rates across the nation, with some regional programs making particularly impressive strides. But there is still a large segment of society resistant to spaying or neutering their animals. What barriers keep these people from spaying or neutering and what can be done to overcome these barriers?
Money as a barrier One of the premises of many spay/neuter programs is that money is a major barrier keeping people from getting their companion animals altered. Subsidized spay/neuter programs providing free or reduced rate services have had great success at attracting customers. Some critics of low-cost or no-cost spay/neuter have argued that these programs cause consumers to merely switch the source of the procedure to a lower cost supplier rather than creating new users of the procedures. This criticism was particularly strong in the early days of subsidized spay/neuter programs and
often came from some members of the veterinary community who viewed the programs as a threat to an important revenue stream. However, over time the success of these programs has proved difficult to dispute. The success of a wide range of programs across the country (for example New Hampshire and various projects nationwide funded by Maddie’s Fund) have demonstrated that low-cost spay/neuter works at attracting new animal guardians who would not otherwise have spay/neutered their animal. A FIREPAW study of dog guardians in upstate New York found that about a quarter (27%) of respondents who did not spay/neuter their dogs reported that cost was a factor in their decision. Although this study did not cover cats, other studies have found that cost is more often cited as a factor for cats than for dogs. Of those for whom cost was a factor in the FIREPAW
Figure 1
study, about half said they would spay/neuter their animal if they only had to pay $50 (see Figure 1). However, even at a cost of $20, about a fifth of these people stated they would still not spay/neuter their animal due to the cost. Low-cost spay/neuter programs then have two difficult questions. (1) How cheap to go, and (2) How to avoid "bargain hunters". As Figure 1 suggests, the cheaper the procedure, the better the response. But cheaper procedures require larger subsidies and therefore additional resources that could be used for other projects. Cheaper procedures also increase the chance that "bargain hunters" will utilize the program. By "bargain hunters" we are talking about people who would spay/neuter their animal anyway, but take advantage of the low-cost program because of its price. Obviously, money spent on people who would spay/neuter anyway wastes valuable resources that could better be spent on other projects addressing companion animal overpopulation. One common solution is some sort of "financial needs" test such as requiring Medicaid or public assistance eligibility to participate in the program. These policies have been demonstrated to
Paws to Think • Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
cont’d on page 15
13
14
Paws to Think •Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
Why People Do Not ... • cont’d from page 13
reduce the number of bargain hunters in the program, but they also reduce the number of people participating in general. The fact is that there are some people who are not "low income" by any measure but who simply are unwilling to spend much to spay/neuter their animal. These people truly would not spay/neuter their animal without a low-cost spay/neuter program that includes them. Though one might disagree with their personal value system, the fact remains that giving these people a discount makes a difference in reducing overpopulation. Ultimately, each program must evaluate its own unique situation to decide how to strike a balance regarding these issues. The proper balance depends on program resources, the particular profile of that community, and the precise mission of the program. Money Is Not The Only Answer Reducing costs for spay/neuter can reach enough people to have a significant impact on overpopulation and euthanasia. However, money is not the most important factor for most people who do not spay/neuter their animals. In a national study done by Ralston Purina in 2000, cost of the procedure was not the most common reason given for either dogs or cats. The most common reason given for not spaying or neutering both dogs and cats was that the respondent simply hadn’t "bothered to do it yet". For dogs, the second most
common response was a desire to breed the animal. As mentioned previously, cost was mentioned more frequently for cats than dogs and 8-10% of dog and cat guardians didn’t spay/neuter because they thought it was "cruel" or "not natural". In a regional study of dog guardians, FIREPAW found similar reasons. This study also found that the best predictors of which dog guardians leave their dogs unfixed were sex and education level in that order. In fact, 92% of respondents who did not fix their dogs were either male or did not have a bachelor’s degree (compared to 75% of the total population of respondents). It should be noted that income was one of the variables measured in the study, and education was found to be a better indicator than income of who will spay/neuter. The FIREPAW study also found some other interesting trends: ■
People who did not spay/neuter their animal were more likely to be male than their counterparts who did spay/neuter their dog.
■
People who did not spay/neuter their animal were more likely to have lower levels of education relative to their counterparts who did spay/neuter their dog.
■
People who did not spay/neuter their animal initially paid a lower average price for their dog relative to their counterparts who did spay/neuter their dog.
■
People who did not spay/neuter
their animal were more likely to live in a single-family home than their counterparts who did spay/neuter their dog. ■
Respondents who did not spay/neuter their animal were much less likely to license their dogs.
■
Single-family home dwellers most frequently gave "breeding" as their primary reason for not spay/neutering their animal (43%).
■
The percentage of people who cited "breeding" as their primary reason for not spay/neutering their dog went up with the level of education, while those without any college were more likely to give "the dog does not go out" as their reason for not spay/neutering their animal.
■
Urban respondents were more likely to say that "concerns about mutilation" (29%) was the primary factor in their decision not to spay/neuter. They were less likely to report that "breeding" (14%) or "wanting to have puppies"(0%) were the important factors in their decision.
■
The frequency of breeding being cited as the primary reason for not spaying/neutering a dog went up as family size increased.
■
For higher income people, breeding was the most common primary reason cited for not spaying/neutering a dog while for low income people, cost, concerns about mutilation, and wanting puppies were the most common cont’d on page 16
Paws to Think • Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
15
Why People Do Not ... • cont’d from page 15
primary reasons cited. ■
Of those who did not spay/neuter their dog, 58% reported that they were likely to change their decision if they had the option of a chemical spay/neuter process that involved an annual shot rather than surgery.
On a positive note, the FIREPAW study also found that the public seemed to be open to education on the topic of spay/neuter and its link to euthanasia. When FIREPAW provided a short informational paragraph on this topic, people expressed a much higher willingness to spay/neuter their animal in the future. In fact, after providing the additional information, the only major remaining objection
16
people had was cost. In other words, low-cost programs combined with some basic public education quite likely is enough to turn the people around who still do not The Pet Savers Foundation wishes to spay/neuter their animal.
g
FIREPAW (THE FOUNDATION FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH AND EDUCATION PROMOTING ANIMAL WELFARE) 228 Main Street, #436 Williamstown, MA 01267-2641.
thank the generosity of Andrea R. Konci who during her life provided loving care for many animals. Upon her death, Ms. Konci provided for a lasting tribute to the animals that she cared for deeply by remembering The Pet Savers Foundation in her Will.
Phone (518) 462-5939 Fax: (518) 658-0979 Email: firepaw@earthlink.net Website: www.firepaw.org
If you too would like to make a lasting gift to help the animals, our planned giving staff is available to discuss with you the confidential options without obligation. Call us today at 516 -883-7767.
Paws to Think •Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
Neutersol . . . Cause For Celebration! We received several letters from animal care givers expressing concern about the use of Neutersol, so we went to Brenda Griffin, DVM, MS, Diplomate ACVIM with the College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, who is considered one of the country’s leading experts in immunocontraceptives. Below are the responses from Dr. Griffin. Question: Were you involved in the Neutersol trials for dogs? Answer: No. Question: Are you currently using Neutersol? Answer: Yes. Question: Have you been asked by Neutersol to speak about this product? Answer: No one is paying me to say this, and no one has asked me to say this. Question: What is your opinion of Neutersol? Answer: I am extremely excited about Neutersol. It is the first permanent, non-surgical method of sterilization for companion animals, a huge benchmark! Certainly, surgical sterilization is the gold standard; but in order to increase the number of pets sterilized, we must develop faster, easier methods of sterilization--methods that do not require technical expertise, anesthesia and other equipment. Question: Does the AVMA support the use of Neutersol?
Answer: Yes, the AVMA policy statement on pet population control states that veterinarians must develop and use non-surgical methods of sterilization that are faster and can be used by more segments of society. Question: How will we identify dogs sterilized by Neutersol if their testicles are intact? Answer: For Neutersol, yes, we need ID for these animals (because they will still have their testicles, albeit smaller ones due to atrophy/shrinkage over time)... but shouldn't we be tattooing or, better yet, microchipping all the animals anyway? Providing pets with permanent identification is an important population control strategy in and of itself. Question: Can Neutersol be given without sedation? Answer: Yes, in most cases, no problem. It is given via an insulintype syringe (tiny, tiny needle and small volume). Question: Does Neutersol reduce testosterone production and will hormone dependent diseases and behaviors prevail in these animals? Answer: We do not know if hormone dependent diseases and behavior will be reduced in dogs sterilized by Neutersol, but my own feeling is that the reduction in testosterone that does occur postNeutersol injection will very signifi-
cantly reduce these diseases and behaviors. Studies have revealed a decrease in prostate size in Neutersol injected dogs versus controls. We need long term follow up of these dogs, but preliminary evidence would suggest that prostatic hyperplasis and infection may be reduced in Neutersol dogs in my opinion. (The Neutersol package insert states: "Mean serum testosterone levels were 41-52% lower in the groups treated with Neutersol".) Note: In a statement recently released by Addison Biological Laboratory, producer of Neutersol, Director of Technical Services Dr. Larry Brown states, "There’s a great misunderstanding in veterinary medicine about the effects of testosterone. Most of the veterinarians who have been in practice for more than 10 years were taught in veterinary school that testosterone leads to prostrate cancer. The scientific research presented in the textbooks now shows there is no relationship to testosterone." Question: There is disappointment in the animal welfare community that Neutersol is not inexpensive. Do you share this concern? Answer: The cost is $49.95/vial. 1 vial can do 1 large dog or 2 smallmedium sized dogs or a litter of small puppies. Multiple dosing is extra label use, however may products intended for a single use in vet medicine are split between patients cont’d on page 18
Paws to Think • Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
17
Neutersol . . . cont’d from page 17
for economic reasons The litter price is very economical! The company does not recommend this sort of extra-label use, but I am using it this way. I know it is a bit pricey, but use it or lose it!!! We need to support this product – then, pharmaceutical companies will develop and market others!!! And, that will be a great day!!! Question: So you recommend that the animal welfare community embrace Neutersol? Answer: There are several promising products under development... immunocontraceptive vaccines and others . . . if Neutersol, the first such product, fails, how will pharmaceutical companies be convinced to take the financial risk and make the investment to bring other products to market? We need these products!!!! Yes, Neutersol is expensive now, but it was a very expensive process to bring this drug to market... in time, the price will come down, especially if the market becomes competitive (i.e.: other contraceptive products are marketed). I know I can inject many more animals than I can surgically sterilize...and to me, the
18
value of sterility is great! Neutersol is cause for celebration. In reviewing the results of the Neutersol trials we found that the reactions to Neutersol and the procedure were minimal, with the most common being neutrophilia, vomiting, anorexia, and lethargy. The most severe reaction occurred when dogs bit or licked the scrotum following injection. These severe reactions were seen in less than 1% of the 270 dogs tested. The injection itself was painful in 2.6% of the 270 animals treated. The packaging insert for Neutersol states, "As with surgical castration, secondary male characteristics (roaming, marking, aggression or mounting) may be displayed." And, in a recent report from Addison, a team of staff veterinarians concluded that "the behavioral modification effects of surgical castration have demonstrated only modest effects on a limited set of unwanted behaviors and are far from absolute. Fears and aggressiveness have consistently demonstrated little or no effect as the result of surgical castration. This is consistent with the research that has been
conducted assessing the behavioral effects of surgical castration." The report references a study conducted by Nielsen, Eckstein and Hart (JAVMA, July 15, 1997) as perhaps the best data available on the subject. Their conclusions were that surgical castration had a significant effect (at least 90% improvement) on 39% of the dogs exhibiting urine marking, 25% of dogs that were mounting, 40% on roaming, and no significant effect on fears. When looking at five different kinds of aggression (toward family dog, toward family member, toward unfamiliar dog, toward intruders, toward unfamiliar people), there was some effect (less than 30%) with relation to other dogs but little or no effect in aggression toward people. Even though the research shows little or no effect from surgical castration and modulating aggressive behaviors toward humans, Addison is recommending that dogs presented for neutering because of aggression be surgically neutered and serious behavior problems should be referred to an animal behavior specialist for detailed evaluation.
Paws to Think •Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SPAY/NEUTER PROGRAM: Lessons From The First 10 Years by Peter Marsh In New England, we sometimes speak of people who didn't know each other growing up but went through the same changes as having gone to different schools together. All of us working to bring about a world where every companion animal has a loving home are going to different schools together. We go through many of the same things, with the same dream, just in a different place. The more we are able to learn from each other, the faster our dream will come true. The New Hampshire spay/neuter program is a good example. In the early 1990s, a group of us worked to put together programs that would end the killing of healthy or rehabilitatable cats and dogs in our shelters. After speaking with advocates from one end of the country to the other, we found a New Jersey program that had been among the most successful in reducing shelter overpopulation. So we contacted the people who had worked to put this program together and designed our program to take into account all they told us about what had worked well for them and what had not. This article itself is an example of building on the work done by colleagues because it adopts the same "What Worked, What
Didn't" format. It is written to share with others what we've learned from operating our program for the past ten years. WHAT WORKED 1. Targeting a Program for Low-Income Pet Caretakers. The best decision we made was to target our program to a population that had not been served in the past: cats and dogs living in very low-income households. In part we did that because this approach had
succeeded in New Jersey. Even more important to us, in the 1980s we had operated statewide open access programs through which anyone could get his/her cat or dog sterilized for about half of the usual cost. While these low-cost programs seemed to keep the problem from getting worse, they weren't able to make it a whole lot better, which is what we were determined to do. Year in and year out, we continued to put about 12,000 cats and dogs to death in our shelters. Now we know why a low-income program is so important. It turns out that if you don't provide a way for people living in poverty to be able to sterilize their pets, a much higher percentage of their cats and dogs remain sexually intact, which ultimately leads them to be admitted to shelters or migrate to freeroaming colonies. Even if you have good low cost programs, the copayment remains beyond the reach of the very poor and, at some point, you "hit the wall" and can't make any more progress. That's what happened to us. As soon as we provided poor caretakers with a program they could afford in 1994, the drop in shelter admissions and deaths was dramatic (see graph 1).
Graph 1 cont’d on page 20
Paws to Think • Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
19
NH Spay/Neuter Program • cont’d from page 19
Targeting helped us in two other ways that proved critical to the program's success. First, it made the program cost effective, which in turn has made it possible for us to secure and maintain public funding. And it allowed us to gain the broad support of local veterinarians, who had told us for some time that they would work with us on any program that helped people who genuinely needed it. 2. Using Dog License Fees as a Source of Revenue You learn a lot when you have to generate enough revenue to keep a program operating month in and month out. Not only does the revenue source have to provide enough funding for the program, it has to
provide it in a steady stream. Any time that a program has to be cut back or shut down due to a lack of funds -- which has happened to us for several months over the years -it suffers a setback. Almost all of the funding for our program comes from a small surcharge on dog licenses issued throughout the state. Dog licenses have to be renewed every year in New Hampshire, so the license surcharge gives us a steady and predictable source of income. The main disadvantage is that the program's income becomes dependent on how many caretakers comply with the licensing laws. At first, the $2 surcharge didn't bring in enough revenue to operate our program
throughout the year. Instead of trying to get the surcharge increased, the Pet Overpopulation Committee that oversees the program took steps to have veterinarians send copies of all the rabies certificates they issued to local licensing officials. This simple procedure has increased the number of licenses issued by more than fifty percent. The $2 surcharge generates about 25 cents for each resident of the state every year, enough revenue for us to operate our program yearround. The other revenue source we considered, a specialty license plate, typically generates about 5 cents per resident each year. A dog license surcharge, then has provided us with an adequate and cont’d on page 21
20
Paws to Think •Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
NH Spay/Neuter Program • cont’d from page 20
LET THE PET SAVERS FOUNDATION HELP SAVE YOU MONEY, SO YOU CAN SAVE MORE LIVES! Join our FREE cooperative buying programs! Prevent Behavioral Problems Which Lead To Adoption Returns! Sell training cages to your adopters! Get the lowest prices through our program! Plus, ask about our new Direct Ship Program!
annualized source of revenue. But our situation is not ideal. Applying the surcharge across the board, to both sterilized and unsterilized dogs, allows us to keep the amount of the surcharge small (an important consideration in New England) but it is not very progressive. A more sensible design would be to increase the amount of the surcharge substantially -- say to $10 -and apply it only to unsterilized dogs. This procedure would not only provide enough revenue for the program, it would also give people an incentive to have their dog sterilized. 3. Establishing An Oversight Committee
Full line of nylon collars and leashes, rawhides, toys, and much more! Exclusive starter kits for your adopters!
Veterinary products and pharmaceuticals at the lowest prices possible! FREE SHIPPING on orders over $100 To receive your FREE, no obligation, introductory packages about our unique programs, call Pet Savers at (800) 233-7544, or visit our Web site at www.petsavers.org
A legislative committee was set up to oversee the program. I had real doubts at first that the committee would accomplish a great deal. There was concern that the diverse makeup of the committee -- which by law included groups that had opposed setting up the program in the first place -- would create a legislative gridlock. I was dead wrong. Over the years, the Pet Overpopulation Committee has become the program's champion and advocate. A good example is the work of municipal officials and veterinarians on the committee to increase the rate of compliance with dog licensing laws, mentioned above. More than that, the committee has become a place to address problems that arise and help the program adapt to changing times. Every program may need such a benefactor, if it is to thrive.
4. Using Public Assistance Programs to Determine Eligibility. As soon as you begin to operate a neutering assistance program (if not sooner), you become jealous of the funds spent to administer it. Every dollar spent is not available to pay for sterilizations. So it's important that the program's eligibility criteria be easy to understand and apply. It also needs to reliably identify the people who genuinely need help and not saddle participating veterinarians with a great deal of paperwork. We've found that the best way to accomplish all of the above is to use people's eligibility for public assistance programs as the way to decide if they are eligible for our program, too. Using the New Jersey program as a model, we selected seven public assistance programs with very lowincome limits, which has worked out well for us. It has allowed us to "piggy-back" on the work that the administrators of human service programs have already done. Over the years, the state veterinarian has streamlined the administration of the program to the point that administrative expenses take up less than fifteen percent of the program's budget. In recent years, targeted low-income programs operated by Maddie's Fund have simplified the eligibility determination process even more by selecting eligibility for a single program -- Medicaid -- as the standard, allowing their programs to be administered even more cost effectively than ours. 5. Establishing A Dedicated Account for Program Revenue. cont’d on page 22
Paws to Think • Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
21
NH Spay/Neuter Program • cont’d from page 21
Looking back, I believe the second most important developmental milestone that our program passed, after its birth in 1993, was the establishment of an earmarked or dedicated account for program revenue three years later. Before that, all the revenue from the dog license surcharge was deposited into the state's General Fund and the program was dependent on periodic appropriations through the legislative budget process. Any funds that were not spent by the program at the end of a fiscal year were returned to the State Treasury. All of this made the program's financial base very shaky. Getting legislation passed to put the dog license revenue into a dedicated fund changed everything. The law sheltered the program from changes in the economic and political climates. It's a two way street, though. The independence of being "off-budget" means that the program must be shut down if the funds in the account are depleted. So far, though, having dedicated funds has been a good trade off for us and probably should be the goal of every publicly funded program.
the program, making it much more accessible to caretakers than if the services were delivered through widely-scattered low cost clinics or a mobile unit. And accessibility is critical to the success of a lowincome program because transportation to and from the veterinary hospital is often a great barrier.
investment. Neutering subsidies have more than paid for themselves. Every dollar spent on the neutering program in its first seven years has saved $3.15 in reduced impoundment costs (see graph 2).
Using a network of existing veterinary hospitals has also proven to be cost effective, in large part because it takes advantage of the infrastructure that is already in place instead of paying to duplicate it by creating new clinics. The average subsidy paid by the program is about $60.00 per surgery, almost exactly the same as that achieved by Maddies' Fund low-income programs, which are also operated through a network of private veterinary hospitals.
From the beginning our neutering program attempted to reduce the shelter death toll by attacking it from two directions: neutering subsidies for low-income pet caretakers were designed to reduce the number of cats and dogs coming into shelters while subsidies for shelter adopters aimed to increase the number going out. We hoped that our shelter adoption rate would increase substantially if potential adopters could get shelter animals sterilized for a $25 (now $30) copayment.
Taken together with the targeted design, which has steeply driven down the number of shelter admissions, and the low administration costs, operating our program through private veterinarians has helped our program be a good
6. Operating the Program Through a Network of Private Veterinarians. Veterinary services are delivered in our program through a statewide network of participating veterinary hospitals. This has proven to be one of its greatest strengths. More than 70% of all the veterinary practices in the state have joined Graph 2
22
WHAT DIDN'T WORK 1. Offering Neutering Subsidies to Encourage Shelter Adoptions.
Unfortunately it hasn't worked out that way. While the shelter adopter's program has proven to be very popular with adopters and veterinarians, the shelter adoption rate has only increased by about 20% over the past ten years. Subsidies for the low-income program have proven to be a much better investment. While each program costs about the same to operate every year, more than eighty percent of the drop in shelter deaths has come from a steep decline in shelter admissions and less than twenty percent from an increase in placements. cont’d on page 23
Paws to Think •Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
NH Spay/Neuter Program • cont’d from page 22
Not only has the shelter adopter's program proven to be not very cost effective, by now it is somewhat regressive. It is designed to provide funding only for sterilizations that take place after an animal has been adopted. When our program was set up ten years ago, neuteringbefore-adoption programs were quite rare. By now, they have proven to be the best practice. And they are probably a better investment than a shelter adopters' subsidy program. 2. Not Subsidizing the Cost of Presurgical Immunizations in our Original Low-Income Program In its original design, our low income program subsidized only the cost of the surgery. If presurgical immunizations were required for any cat or dog that was sterilized through the program, the caretaker had to pay the full cost. This proved to be a significant barrier. We discovered that almost a third of those who had applied to the program and been found eligible failed to follow through and have the animal sterilized. When we followed up with them to find out why, many said they could afford the $10 co-payment for the surgery but the extra $25 - $30 for required shots had put the surgery out of reach. Once we recognized this barrier, we modified the program to include the cost of shots in the subsidy and increased the co-payment to $15. This has increased the average subsidy by about fifteen percent but has put the program within the
reach of those caretakers that we need to reach the most. 3. Using a Complex Fee Structure for Payments to Veterinarians In our program, participating veterinarians are paid eighty percent of their usual and customary fee for all services they provide through the program, as long as the resulting charge is below the annual fee caps set by the State Veterinarian. To set the caps, each participating veterinary hospital submits a fee schedule every year and the statewide average becomes the cap. The fee structure was designed this way so that we could take into account the variation in costs that veterinary hospitals in different parts of the state had to pay for expenses such as labor and rent. Now it seems to be a needless administrative expense and an extra burden for participating veterinarians. While a wide variation of veterinary expenses may make a design like this necessary in a large state, a small state or county would probably be better served by a single fee structure such as the one used in the Maddies' Fund program. CONCLUSION: I wish I could say that we knew all along how successful our program would be. It didn't happen that way, perhaps because so many other things we tried had not worked out as well as we had hoped, perhaps because so many animals had been put to death in our shelters for so long.
I can't say, either, that we decided to try to get funding for a targeted low-income program because we thought the veterinary community would support us. We hoped so, but that wasn't the main reason. We were interested only in saving lives and would have worked to get this program started even if the vets hadn't been behind us. And I can't say that we wanted to have the program because it would save tax dollars. It just worked out that way. A targeted low-income program allowed all of these things to come together for us and it can for any community. Perhaps it's luck, perhaps Providence, but all the pieces of a low-income program fit together. A targeted program allows you to get the support of veterinarians, which makes it possible to get public funding. This allows you to provide big enough subsidies to make the program affordable for the people you need to reach the most and to pay vets fairly, which encourages their broad participation and makes the program accessible. All of which makes the program effective in reducing the number of animals who entered shelters and saves tax dollars. But best of all it saves lives. August 25, 2003 Peter Marsh Solutions to Overpopulation of Pets 24 Montgomery Street Concord, NH 03301 (603) 224-1877 pmarshlaw@hotmail.com
Paws to Think • Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
23
24
Paws to Think •Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
Letters To The Editors We want to share these two letters from groups in different parts of the world that are making great progress in providing medical care and sterilization for animals in need. Keep up the good work! Teresa,
Esther,
I just wanted to thank you for the opportunity to put an article out there about the Virginia Beach SPCA’s medical clinic. We have had about 10 inquiries from Michigan, Kansas, California, and even Winchester.
Dr. Andres Tello from McKee visited Panama on July 12-14, 2003. Dr. Tello, together with Dr. Anabell, Dr. Andres Bailey and Dr. Itzel from Spay/Panama, sterilized 2 female dogs, 12 female cats and 5 male cats, all homeless animals. The two dogs and 3 of the cats were placed for adoption. The rest were released.
This has been a real learning curve, but we are so excited to have the opportunity to treat some of these animals who otherwise would not receive treatment. We are getting referrals from local veterinarians, which is great. And of course, we keep sterilizing as many animals as possible! Thanks again, Sharon Q. Adams, Executive Director Virginia Beach SPCA
We love to hear from our readers! Please write to Esther Mechler at 2261 Broadbridge Avenue, Stratford, Connecticut 06614, email: alwaysspay@aol.com, or Teresa Dockery at 59 South Bayles Avenue, Port Washington, New York 11050, email: teresad@petsavers.org
Currently, Spay/Panama performs sterilizations on Sundays only and in a loaned private clinic. Very soon we will have our own place, and we plan to sterilize 7 days a week. We want to thank each one of you, especially Esther, Christine, Dr. Tello, Dr. Alan, Dr. Vicente, Dr. Tishman, and Dr. Young for inspiring/coaching/helping us help the homeless animals in Panama. Pat Chan
Paws to Think • Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
25
Pet Photo Contest
Entry Form
Pet Savers is looking for a special dog and cat to feature on future covers of Paws to Think.Your creativity in capturing that special expression of your pet could win you a spot on the cover of our magazine.The winners will receive recognition in the Paws to Think magazine and a free registration to either the CHAMP conference or the SPAY/USA Southern Regional Leadership Conference. Contest Rules: • The photos must be non-professional. • Each photo must include no more than four animals. • The photos must be a minimum of 8" x 10". • The photo resolution must be a minimum of 300 dots per inch. • Photos should be clear with no "red eye." • Photos must be mailed to Pet Savers but can be submitted on a CD. • Photos or CDs will not be returned. • Each photo must accompany an entry fee of $10.00 and a completed and signed entry form for each photo (see Entry Form below). • Photos submitted will become the property of The Pet Savers Foundation and The Pet Savers Foundation may use the photo in future publicity. • Entries must be received by December 1, 2003. Include a $10.00 check or money order, for each photo, made payable to The Pet Savers Foundation. Mail to: The Pet Savers Foundation, 59 South Bayles Avenue, Port Washington, NY 11050-3728.
Name: __________________________________________ Address __________________________________________ City/State/Zip: ____________________________________ Country__________________________________________ Phone __________________________________________ E-mail____________________________________________ Pet’s name ________________________________________ ❑ Male ❑ Female Age ____ Breed
__________________
Owner/Guardian’s Signature: ________________________ As the owner/guardian of the pet and the individual that has the rights to this photo I grant The Pet Savers Foundation full and complete rights to the use of this photo for use in the future. I understand that I will receive no compensation for any use of this photo.
“Spay/Neuter ... Made Accessible”
Adoption Trailer with Easy-to-Clean Viewing Glass
al as nim Are A get tion Tar pula o erp Ov
Spay & Neuter Mobile Clinics or Adoption Mobile Clinics
“Helps break the reproductive cycle – even in remote locations” For More Information: call 800-776-9984 • fax 623-581-2922
www.laboit.com 26
Paws to Think •Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
Investing In Prevention: The Way Home by Peter Marsh Recently, I asked a group of shelter executives two questions: Question #1: Over the years, which of the following programs has proven to be the most effective in reducing the number of cats and dogs put to death in American shelters: shelter adoption programs, pet sterilization programs, the construction of more public and private animal shelters, or the creation of animal sanctuaries? Answer: To a person, they said pet sterilization programs had been the most effective. Question #2: What percentage of your community's companion animal-related budget is spent to prevent animals from becoming homeless, e.g., on pet sterilization programs? Answer: Eight percent was the average. Adding up the answers to those two questions gives us the answer we have been seeking for over a century . . . The Big Question: How can we end the killing of companion animals in our shelters? Answer: We can end the killing by dedicating a larger share of the funds we spend on homeless cats and dogs to programs that prevent them from becoming homeless in the first place.
A community that spends twelve times more to impound and shelter homeless animals than to prevent them from becoming homeless has doomed itself to endless frustration and failure. It's like fighting an epidemic by only providing treatment for its victims. In the past decade, advocates in two parts of the country have taken a different path. They've invested a greater share of their resources in preventive programs. The results have been remarkable. SAN FRANCISCO'S INVESTMENT IN PREVENTION San Francisco now has the lowest shelter euthanasia rate of any major American city. Many people attribute this success to the San Francisco SPCA's decision in 1989 to discontinue animal control services to the City. At that time, it was costing the SPCA about a million dollars more to provide animal control services than it received from the City each year. Ending the contract allowed the SPCA to stop this subsidy. The most important decision the SPCA made, though, was not to end the contract and the subsidy. The critical decision was to take the money it saved and invest it in preventive programs. Throughout the 1990s, the SPCA performed about 10 targeted steril-
izations per 1000 residents in its spay/neuter clinic every year. It was a remarkable commitment. It took all the money the SPCA saved by giving up the animal control contract. Here's what happened: INTAKE
EUTHANASIA
(dogs & cats)
(dogs & cats)
1990
13,189
8,072
2002
7,836
2,136
CHANGE:
5,347
(-41%)
5,936
(-73%)
As these figures show, the dramatic drop in shelter deaths was almost totally driven by a drop in shelter admissions. 5,936 fewer dogs and cats were put to death last year than in 1990 mostly because 5,347 fewer ended up in the city's shelters. Ed Sayres, former Executive Director, puts the lesson this way: "Everything starts with spay/neuter. It's the fundamental first step toward saving homeless dogs and cats.". THE DRAMATIC IMPACT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE'S NEUTERING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Before low-income neutering subsidies were offered in 1994, shelters in New Hampshire were putting to death about 10 cats and dogs per thousand people, the 1990 baseline in San Francisco. At the time, this shelter euthanasia rate was the fourth lowest of the six New cont’d on page 29
Paws to Think • Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
27
You’re thinking love, warmth and companionship. We’re thinking fleas, heartworms and intestinal parasites.
We all want moments like this to last forever. That’s why protection from fleas, heartworms and parasites is so important. With SENTINEL® (milbemycin oxime/lufenuron) Flavor Tabs,™ dogs get the most flea, heartworm and intestinal parasite protection available in a pill. And there’s no pesticide residue, no odor, no drying time and no messy application. So ask your veterinarian for SENTINEL® Flavor Tabs™. And preserve the moments that matter. Dogs must be tested for heartworm prior to use. In a small percentage of treated dogs, digestive, neurological and skin side effects may occur.
For dogs with kids. 1-800-332-2761 www.petwellness.com Only available from your veterinarian.
SENTINEL® (milbemycin oxime/lufenuron) Flavor Tabs ™ Brief Summary: Please consult full package insert for more information. Indications: SENTINEL Flavor Tabs are indicated for use in dogs and puppies, four weeks of age and older, and two pounds body weight or greater. SENTINEL Flavor Tabs are also indicated for the prevention of heartworm disease caused by Dirofilaria immitis, for the prevention and control of flea populations, the control of adult Ancylostoma caninum (hookworm), and the removal and control of adult Toxocara canis and Toxascaris leonina (roundworm) and Trichuris vulpis (whipworm) infection. Lufenuron controls flea populations by preventing the development of flea eggs and does not kill adult fleas. Concurrent use of insecticides may be necessary for adequate control of adult fleas. Precautions: Do not use SENTINEL Flavor Tabs in puppies less than four weeks of age and less than two pounds of body weight. Prior to administration of SENTINEL Flavor Tabs, dogs should be tested for existing heartworm infections. Mild, transient hypersensitivity reactions manifested as labored respiration, vomiting, salivation and lethargy may occur after treatment of dogs carrying a high number of circulating microfilariae. Adverse Reactions: The following adverse reactions have been reported in dogs after giving milbemycin oxime or lufenuron: vomiting, depression/lethargy, pruritus, urticaria, diarrhea, anorexia, skin congestion, ataxia, convulsions, hypersalivation and weakness. Caution: U.S. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. How Supplied: SENTINEL Flavor Tabs are available in four tablet sizes: 2.3/46 mg, 5.75/115 mg, 11.5/230 mg and 23/460 mg. They are formulated according to the weight of the dog. Each tablet size is available in color-coded packages of six tablets each. Storage Conditions: Store in a dry place at controlled room temperature, between 59° and 86°F (15-30°C). ©2003 Novartis Animal Health US, Inc. SENTINEL is a registered trademark and Flavor Tabs is a trademark of Novartis AG. NAH/SEN-T/BS/3 10/00
28
Paws to Think •Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
Investing in Prevention • cont’d from page 27
England states. Over the next nine years, more than forty thousand targeted surgeries were performed. As in San Francisco, the shelter death rate dropped by three-quarters to become the lowest statewide euthanasia rate in the country. Most of this drop, like in San Francisco, came from a forty percent drop in shelter admissions. In both San Francisco and New Hampshire, the shelter death rate has been maintained for several years at or below three dogs and cats per thousand people through continued investments in their neutering programs. Every community can make a similar commitment to fund preventive programs. A recent survey found that public and private shelters spend at least $1,400,000,000.00 every year to impound and shelter homeless animals. That amount divided by the total population, works out to five dollars a year for every man, woman and child in the country. A low-income neutering assistance program like New Hampshire's costs about 7% of that (thirty-five cents per person per year). Programs to sterilize every adopted shelter pet before placement can be added for another fifteen cents. And comprehensive programs to address the other major sources of companion animal homelessness – such as pet retention and identification programs – can be added for another fifty cents a year for every resident (see chart below). The lesson is clear. Every program for homeless companion animals
should be measured by its Prevention Quotient: Money spent on proactive programs (for example, targeted pet sterilization programs, pet retention programs, and pet identification programs)
August 25, 2003
= Money spent on reactive programs (impoundment, sheltering, adoption and euthanasiarelated expenses)
ing home for every animal that becomes homeless. We know the way home.
Prevention Quotient
This is not to say that we don't have an obligation to help those animals that have become homeless. Surely we do. But we also have an obligation to help those animals at risk for becoming homeless. Increasing a program's Prevention Quotient to 20 will still leave 80% of its funds to shelter and rehabilitate those animals who have become homeless and do a much better job to help the ones at risk. At first glance, it may seem like a radical idea to invest this much money in preventive programs. It's not. Spending more than 90% of our resources on purely reactive programs is what's radical. Continuing to put five million homeless cats and dogs to death every year--when their deaths are preventable-- is what's radical. Our comrades of the heart have been fighting shelter overpopulation for more than a century. Many despaired that the killing of homeless animals would never end, that the way to stop it would never be found. But it has. We now know the way to find a good, lov-
Peter Marsh Solutions to Overpopulation of Pets 24 Montgomery Street Concord, N.H. 03301 (603) 224-1877 pmarshlaw@hotmail.com
Join Our Team! Now is the time to get in on the ground floor and represent your state as a Pet Savers’ Ambassador. As a Pet Savers’ Ambassador you’ll have the opportunity to get involved in all sorts of projects – projects like Paws to Think, SPAY/USA, and the CHAMP conference. In return, you’ll have access to a variety of resources, a network of support people, plus discounts, special meetings and presentations at CHAMP. If you’re interested in learning more about this unique opportunity to affect change in the animal welfare world, please send an email to info@petsavers.org or call 516.944.5025.
Paws to Think • Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
29
From New Hampshire . . . to Maine Using the successful model created by their neighbors in New Hampshire, animal welfare advocates in Maine have convinced the state government to pass legislation that would require the state to institute a low-income spay/neuter (S/N) program. Spearheaded by Susan Hall, the group called Spay Maine developed a statewide grassroots base of support, solicited and gained the support of the Maine Veterinary Medical Association, and was enthusiastically embraced by the State’s Animal Welfare Program, which agreed to implement the program if the bill passed. The program will provide funding to targeted low-income dog and cat owners and will cost each only $10. Initially, the program will receive only 2/3 of the requested funding because of Maine’s current budget woes. Like that of New Hampshire, Spay Maine’s program will be funded by a license fee subsidy through a $2 increase per dog license sold. Unlike New Hampshire, Maine did not require veterinarians to forward information on each animal vaccinated for rabies to the town clerk. Because the compliance rate is approximately 60%, work is underway to increase the dog licensing so the program can be fully funded. In addition, in the next legislative session, Maine’s Speaker of the House, Patrick Colwell, plans to introduce
a tax check-off totally dedicated to spay/neuter. The idea to implement such a program in Maine was conceived by Hall when she heard Peter Marsh speak at a SPAY/USA conference about the 75% reduction in New Hampshire’s euthanasias. The population of the two states is about the same, but Maine has more poverty. Maine’s shelter intakes for the year 2000 were 23,457, while New Hampshire’s were 12,800. Maine’s shelter euthanasias for the year 2000 were 8,445; New Hampshire’s were 2,575. Hall began her mission by approaching Marsh for guidance and direction. As a longtime animal advocate and animal welfare lobbyist, Marsh helped Hall develop a plan for Maine and learn the lobbying process. Fortunately, Maine law gives the Animal Welfare Program the statutory authority to implement a spay/neuter program. Therefore, the group did not have to introduce a bill to receive authority. It did however have to fight hard for funding. "The funding is really the most difficult part of getting any program. What convinced legislators to provide funding during these difficult financial times was some very important information from New Hampshire. For every $1.00 New Hampshire spends on its program, the state saves $3.15 in reduced impoundment
costs," said Hall. Even armed with that information, Hall and the other supporters worked hard convincing legislators to increase the dog license fee. The effort involved many hours of calling and emailing supporters, shelter boards, and executive directors to persuade them to contact their local legislators. Hall offers the following tips for anyone considering the introduction of such a plan in his/her state. • Do your homework! Research every successful program and learn what has worked and what has not. • Seek guidance from the experts – those who have successful S/N programs and those who have been successful in their legislative process. • Form a core group of people who will be committed to doing most of the detailed work. • Write a Fact Sheet that outlines your proposed program and why it will work. • Use reliable facts to back up any claims. Use the intake and euthanasia numbers from the shelters in your state and use studies from respected journals. • Learn your state’s animal welfare laws. Determine if your state already has the authority to implement a S/N program. This way you will know where you cont’d on page 31
30
Paws to Think •Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
From NH to Maine • cont’d from page 30
must start. • Hold introductory and follow-up meetings in key areas of your state to involve as many people as possible. Remember, this is a statewide effort and you will need statewide support to achieve your goal. Most shelters will give you space for these meetings. • Solicit the help of as many individuals and groups as possible, such as shelters, animal control associations, cat/dog rescue groups, and other animal welfare groups. This united effort is very important, as these people will be the ones who will contact your legislators when your program comes up for discussion. • Solicit the support of your state veterinary medical association. Without the support of the veterinarians, you will not have a program. Most veterinarians will support a program for low-income households. • Find a legislator who will help you understand your state’s legislative process. He/she will help dissolve a great deal of the intimidation you might feel dealing with the legislature. • Impress upon your legislators that spaying and neutering saves money. In NH, for every $1 spent, $3.15 in
reduced impoundment costs was saved. • Keep the communication lines flowing. You will make many telephone calls and send a lot of emails when important legislative votes or committee meetings occur. You can keep costs to a minimum by using email for much of your communication. • Be prepared to travel to the state capital to discuss your program with legislators and to support the measure every time it comes up for discussion and/or a vote. • Don’t let any one or two people discourage you. Instead, focus on the incredible support that you will be given. Don’t try to hurry the process. If you take your time you won’t be overwhelmed. Hall credits the support of many volunteers (including Sharon Secovich, Suzanne Carr, Esther Mechler, Peter Mosher, Norma Worley) whose hard work and dedication have made the Maine S/N program a reality. She also praises Peter Marsh for his guidance and the State of New Hampshire for setting the example.
What! I Can’t Do That!! Yes, You Can! By Susan Hall A few years ago, I went to an animal welfare conference and heard Peter Marsh speak about a statewide, low-income, spay/neuter (S/N) program that New Hampshire implemented in 1994. I thought, "Someone should start a program like that in Maine. If it works like it did in New Hampshire, then thousands of euthanasias could be prevented each year." I continued my thought, "I should try to start one in Maine, but who was I? I am a nobody in a very large and a very poor state. Convincing state government to implement a S/N program was a job for a very high energy and very influential person, a person not afraid of public speaking and an organized person—a mover and a shaker." Not me. I waffled on a decision for so long as to whether or not to attempt to implement this program that my indecision annoyed me into the decision to try! I figured if I failed, the animals would be no worse off; but if I succeeded, then thousands of deaths would be prevented. (As a quick note, I don’t like all this "I" talk. I may have started this process, but this was the effort of many dedicated people.) The reason I am relating all of the above is not to talk about myself, but to impress upon you that if you really want to help stop the tragically unnecessary killing of our cats and dogs, you should not think that you are too small or too insignificant to undertake this task. Once you start a project such as this, you will be amazed at the numbers of people who will come forward and who want to help the animals as much as you do. For more information you may contact Susan at shall1@maine.rr.com.
Paws to Think • Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
31
The Pet Savers Foundation THANKS YOU For Your Generous Support! I. Bennet S. Burroughs E. Butscher P. & K. Campbell H. Canfield N. Crossen J. DeBroka M. Detwiler G. DeWolfe M. Elkin V. Gliwa L. Goff Davis M. Hall N. Hinkle E. Homberston H. Johnson V. Karstaedt
32
T. Leja K. O'Neil M. Petrone M. Pets S. Salas N. Sanoff L. Saylor P. Shore C. Smalley B. Sochor M. Spollito R. Stoll W. Sylvia I. Uksa A. Zacche C. Zimmer
Paws to Think •Autumn 2003 • Volume 2, Issue 4 • The Pet Savers Foundation • www.petsavers.org
Committed to building long, healthy relationships.
Our dedication begins with the superior nutrition of Science Diet®® at every stage of life. The mission of Hill’s Pet Nutrition is to help enrich and lengthen the special relationship between people and their pets by providing the best pet nutrition in the world. This includes the many animals waiting to be adopted into good homes nationwide. Hill’s, in partnership with The Humane Society of the United States, is furthering its commitment by supporting the shelter community with the superior nutrition of Science Diet®.
Vets’ #1 Choice to Feed Their Own Pets™ ©2002 Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc. ®/™ Trademarks owned by Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc.
The Pet Savers Foundation 2261 Broadbridge Avenue Stratford, CT 06614-3801
CHANGE SERVICE REQUESTED
Non-Profit Org. US Postage PAID The Pet Savers Foundation