The big fix

UCLA School of Public Affairs

“THE BIG FIX” Ending Animal Euthanasia in Los Angeles City Shelters

Shannon Baker-Branstetter & Peggy Trento APPLIED POLICY PROJECT

March 24, 2005

This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master in Public Policy degree in the Department of Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. It was prepared at the direction of the Department and of The City of Los Angeles Mayor’s Office as a policy client.

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department, the UCLA School of Public Affairs, UCLA as a whole, the animals, or the client.

Executive Summary In August 2003, Mayor James Hahn announced that he was backing a plan to make all of Los Angeles’ municipal animal shelters no-kill within five years – by 2008. We seek to answer the policy question: How can the City of L.A. implement a no-kill policy in all of its animal shelters by 2008? If no-kill is not feasible, how can L.A. City animal shelters become low-kill?

Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) euthanized 29,202 animals in fiscal year 2003-2004 (FY2003-2004), which is almost half (49.4%) of the number of animals impounded. This represents a 19.3% decline from FY2000-2001, when 68.7% were euthanized. There is a clear downward trend in euthanasia during the past four fiscal years. However, breaking the number of animals euthanized into cats and dogs reveals that the number of dogs euthanized has declined dramatically, while the number of cats euthanized has remained steady.

Young animals and a few specific breeds dominate the animal population that is euthanized.

Kittens constitute 85% of euthanized cats and the greatest number of cats killed. Kittens also have the highest age-specific kill rate (70%). Puppies are euthanized in the greatest absolute numbers and account for 45% of the dogs put down. While fewer in number, older dogs have at the highest age-specific euthanasia rate (44%) for dogs. Cats, German Shepherds, and Pit Bulls comprise 60% of animals euthanized.

LAAS’ sterilization programs are not demonstrably decreasing the kill rate, although similar programs have been very successful in other locations. The most likely explanation for LAAS’ weak results includes the following: (1) the number of animals fixed is relatively small compared to the total animal population, (2) the undocumented dog population in South L.A. may obscure program benefits, (3) data patterns and missing data prohibit conclusive outcomes, (4) narrow pet owner participation weakens the effects of sterilization programs, and (5) sterilization programs do not address the feral cat population. Finally, longstanding departmental shortcomings, such as a debilitating veterinarian shortage, a problematic request for proposal (RFP) process to run the SpayMobile, and contentious past relationships with area humane organizations, stall efforts to reach the no-kill goal.

Our recommendations on how LAAS can reduce its euthanasia rate are broken down into two main categories: (1) improve sterilization efforts and (2) address departmental deficiencies. To improve sterilization programs, we recommend that LAAS implement the following: “The Big Fix”, a large-scale effort to spay and neuter as many animals as possible; acquire a second SpayMobile; and target feral cats through increased trap-neuterrelease (TNR) efforts. We also recommend hiring a statistician and an analyst to comb policies for cost-effectiveness and to keep track of the animal population.

Given its current trajectory, LAAS is not on target to become no-kill by 2008. Focusing LAAS’ efforts on sterilization programs and education will ultimately be the most effective way to reduce its kill rate to low- or no-kill. In his short tenure, the new General Manager has taken large steps to turn LAAS’ policies in this direction, which bodes well for the future. Even if implemented immediately, however, the full effect of these programs will not be realized by 2008. Taking longer to become no-kill should not be viewed as failure, but as a function of the magnitude of the problem and the limited resources available to rectify it.

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Finding/Problem Dog euthanasia is declining while cat euthanasia remains constant.

Recommendation/Solution Focus SpayMobile more on cats; implement TNR/TTVNR and “The Big Fix”

Kittens and puppies are killed in the greatest Expand all sterilization programs; numbers. synchronize with heat cycles; educate pet owners Cats, German Shepherds, and Pit Bulls constitute 60% of animals euthanized.

Target SpayMobile sterilizations; implement “The Big Fix”; conduct regionally-specific education and outreach

LAAS sterilization programs are not demonstrably decreasing the kill rate.

Expand SpayMobile; implement “The Big Fix”; conduct TNR/TTVNR

Measure F funds (shelter construction and renovation) are insufficient to end euthanasia in L.A.

Begin foster home program; work with rescue groups; increase adoptions; host single day events

Longstanding departmental shortcomings stall efforts to reach the no-kill goal.

Fix vet shortage; fix RFP; fix data shortage; research best practices

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction_____________________________________________ 1 1. Problem Statement_____________________________________________________ 2. Overview of Los Angeles Animal Services__________________________________

2 2

II. Findings________________________________________________ 3 1.

2.

3.

4.

Dog euthanasia is declining while cat euthanasia remains constant_____________ 5 Kittens and puppies are killed in the greatest numbers_______________________ 5 Cats, German Shepherds, and Pit Bulls constitute 60% of animals euthanized____ 6 LAAS sterilization programs have not demonstrably decreased the kill rate______ 6 a. The dog population in South Los Angeles is especially overwhelming________ 7 b. Data patterns and missing data prohibit conclusive outcomes_______________ 8 c. Narrow pet owner participation weakens the effects of sterilization programs__ 8 d. Sterilization programs do not address the feral cat population_______________ 9 5. Measure F funds are insufficient to end euthanasia in L.A.____________________ 10 6. Departmental shortcomings stall efforts to reach the no-kill goal_______________ 10

III. Evaluative Criteria and Potential Policy Options_____________ 13 IV. Policy Recommendations and Implementation_______________ 14 1. Spay and neuter programs______________________________________________ 15 a. First priority: “The Big Fix”________________________________________ 15 b. Second priority: Expand the SpayMobile______________________________ 20 c. Third Priority: Single day events_____________________________________ 24 d. Fourth Priority: Sterilize feral cats___________________________________ 24 2. Departmental changes__________________________________________________ 26 a. First priority: Fill veterinarian vacancies_______________________________ 26 b. Second priority: Staff development___________________________________ 27 3. Public Affairs__________________________________________________________ 28 a. Improve relationships with local nonprofit humane organizations____________ 29 b. Increase animal adoptions from City shelters____________________________ 29 c. Improve the public’s perception of LAAS and its no-kill efforts_____________ 29 d. Increase donations and fundraising____________________________________ 30

V. Conclusions_____________________________________________ 31 VI. Appendices_____________________________________________ 33

"The greatness of a people can be measured by how well it treats its animals" --Mahatma Gandhi

Introduction In August 2003, Mayor James Hahn announced that he was backing a plan to make all of Los Angeles’ municipal animal shelters no-kill within five years – by 2008. Also, in 2000, voters in the City of L.A. passed Measure F, which allocated $152.1 million in General Obligation Bonds that will allow the City to increase shelter capacity by 300% by opening two new shelters and expanding the six current shelters by 2006.1 So far, the City has made an effort to increase the number of animals that are spayed and neutered. We seek to answer the policy questions: How can the city of L.A. implement a no-kill policy in all of its animal shelters by 2008? If no-kill is not feasible, how can L.A. City animal shelters become low-kill?

Killing millions of animals a year has no place in a developed and humane society. 2 Many people throughout the United States and in Los Angeles have become part of a growing movement to decrease the need to kill adoptable animals. Lowering the animal population to obviate such killing is politically and socially desirable. San Francisco led the way toward a no-kill philosophy, beginning back in 1989. The City of Los Angeles has good company in becoming no-kill, as other major cities have pledged to do the same, including Austin and New York City. Seattle has been considering the idea, and Chicago is currently taking steps to reduce its euthanasia rate. Sacramento and Charlotte (NC) were at one point considered no-kill, although their euthanasia rates have gone back up in recent years. Finally, the entire state of Utah is working to become no-kill. Being a no-

1

Unless otherwise stated, all statistics came from Los Angeles Animal Services’ internal documents and database.

Kass, Philip H. “Understanding Animal Companion Surplus in the United States: Relinquishment of Nonadoptables to Animal Shelters for Euthanasia.” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. Volume 4(4): 237–248.

2

1

kill shelter does not mean never euthanizing any animals; it means not euthanizing any adoptable animals. In the event of untreatable illness or behavioral problems (e.g., extreme viciousness), euthanasia may be the only reasonable course of action.

Problem Statement Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) euthanized 29,202 animals in fiscal year 2003-2004 (FY2003-2004), which is almost half (49.4%) of the number of animals impounded. This represents a 19.3% decline from FY2000-2001, when 68.7% were euthanized.

In spite of this decreasing

trend, LAAS still has much work to do before becoming no-kill, or even low-kill.

The main issue

is that LAAS remains nowhere near becoming even low-kill, and we are already halfway through the Mayor’s pledged time frame.

Measure F alone does not provide a sustainable way to become no-kill, or even low-kill. If present trends continue, the new shelters will fill to capacity quickly, providing only a temporary drop in euthanasia rates. LAAS is currently formulating a plan to become no-kill, but decades of departmental problems and a poor public image have formed many barriers to reaching the no-kill goal.

Overview of Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) LAAS is L.A.’s animal caretaker. It responds to calls regarding animal complaints (e.g., stray dogs) and investigates cases of animal abuse. LAAS is perhaps best known for running L.A.’s six municipal animal shelters, which house and care for unwanted and lost animals. Due to renovations done with Measure F funds, shelter capacity will increase from 248 to 1055 dog kennels and from

2

347 to 848 cat cages in the next fiscal year. LAAS will operate eight shelters beginning in 2007.3 By law, LAAS must hold an animal for seven days before putting it up for adoption. LAAS simply does not have the space to handle the volume of homeless animals that come through its doors.

Consequently, instead of being adopted out or kept in the shelter, thousands of animals are euthanized (“put to sleep�).

Findings The following analysis focuses on cats and dogs because they comprise most of the animals impounded and killed. LAAS organizes its data by fiscal year, which begins on July first, and our analysis adheres to the fiscal year format.

Data from years before FY2000-2001 were either

unavailable or incomplete. The most recent year for which we have complete data is FY2003-2004, although data from the current fiscal year do appear in graphs.

Dog euthanasia is declining while cat euthanasia remains constant There is a clear downward trend in euthanasia between FY2000-2001 and today, illustrated in the graph below.

3

The original Measure F timeline (opening the new shelters in 2006) has been pushed back one year due to construction delays.

3

Animals Euthanized (FY2000-2005) 5000

4500

4488 4328

4000 3717 3532

Animals Euthanized

3500

3000 cats and dogs euthanized

2500

trend line 2000

1500

1000

500

0 JUL 2000

Data source: LAAS JAN

JUL 2001

JAN

JUL 2002

JAN

JUL 2003

JAN

Month

However, breaking the number of animals euthanized into cats and dogs reveals that the average number of dogs euthanized every month dropped by more than half during the past four years.

In FY2000-2001, an average of 2,085 dogs were euthanized every month, whereas in

FY2003-2004, the monthly average was 925 dogs. Yet, the number of cats euthanized over the past four years has remained steady.

4

Comparison of Euthanization of Cats and Dogs (FY2000-2004) 3000

2500

Animals Euthanized

2000

dogs killed per month cats killed per month

1500

trend line (cats/month) trend line (dogs/month) 1000

500

Data source: LAAS 0 JUL 2000

JAN

JUL 2001

JAN

JUL 2002

JAN

JUL 2003

JAN

Month

The euthanasia rates for cats and dogs are moving in opposite directions, which is consistent with the overall euthanasia numbers above.

Kittens and puppies are killed in the greatest numbers.

The age distribution of incoming animals reflects a specific kind of shelter overpopulation: kittens and puppies (cats and dogs up to one year old).4 Kittens are dropped off at the shelter at an order of magnitude greater than cats of any other age, and they constitute 85% of euthanized cats. Puppies enter the shelter four times as fast as other age brackets. Although puppies are euthanized in the

4

See Appendix I for a detailed breakdown.

5

greatest absolute numbers and account for 45% of the dogs put down, the older dogs (those over nine years old) have the highest age-specific kill rate (44%) for dogs.5 Kittens comprise the greatest number of cats killed and have the highest age-specific kill rate (70%) for cats.

Cats, German Shepherds, and Pit Bulls constitute 60% of animals euthanized.

Domestic Short Hair cats, Pit Bulls, and German Shepherds accounted for 60% of the animal intake between FY2000-2001 and FY2004-2005.6 These breeds also have very high kill rates (Domestic Short Hairs 68%, Pit Bulls 71%, and German Shepherd 54%). Therefore, only a few breeds dominate LAAS’ concerns in reaching no-kill.

LAAS sterilization programs have not demonstrably decreased the kill rate.

LAAS runs a coupon program to subsidize sterilization surgeries for pets in low-income households.

LAAS also contracts with an operator to run a SpayMobile, which travels to low-income neighborhoods to spay or neuter animals in low-income households. We have data for the coupon program going back to FY2002-2003, although we have not been able to confirm how long this program has existed. We do have a complete data set for the SpayMobile, which has only operated since FY2002-2003.

LAAS’ programs have had no demonstrable effect thus far, while sterilization programs in Austin, San Diego, San Francisco, and Charlotte decreased local animal populations.7 The dog population was already decreasing before LAAS’ SpayMobile began and before we have data on the

5

Please see Appendix II and III for graphs.

See Appendix IV and V for a detailed breed breakdown.

7 We drew this conclusion from a survey of cities that reported a drop in animal populations and cited the reason as successful spay/neuter programs. While this methodology relies on anecdotal evidence and differs from our analysis of LAAS data, the other cities’ responses give support for the common sense concept that sterilizing animals stems otherwise exponential population growth.

6

6

coupon program. The rate at which euthanasia was decreasing slowed after the programs began (or after we have data for the coupon program).8 This could be due to a high rate of sterilization in licensed dogs (88%)9,10 or other preexisting and unknown factors.

The most likely explanation for the sterilization programs’ weak results is that they have not been running long or intensely enough to generate conclusive effects. We only have data for two years, and the number of animals fixed by the programs was small compared to the total animal population. Further reasons that we cannot conclusively attribute any decline in euthanasia numbers to the SpayMobile and coupon sterilization programs are the following:

1. The dog population in South Los Angeles is especially overwhelming.

2. Data patterns and missing data prohibit conclusive outcomes, 3. Narrow pet owner participation weakens the effects of sterilization programs, and 4. Sterilization programs do not address the feral cat population.

The dog population in South Los Angeles is especially overwhelming.

The South L.A. shelter has the highest euthanasia rate within LAAS, and LAAS knows that this area has a lower-than-average dog licensure rate. Dogs there are also less likely to be sterilized than in the rest of the city, which contributes to a higher euthanasia rate despite these programs. In addition, South Los Angeles has the densest concentration of dog breeds that have the highest euthanasia rates

8

Please see Appendix VI for details.

A study found that an 88% spay rate for the owned cat population stabilized the population, and another study achieved the same results with 85.7% of a citywide cat population spayed. Although cats and dogs have different breeding patterns, from these studies we can surmise that achieving similar sterilization rates in the dog population, such as exists in L.A. right now, could produce similar population stabilization effects. Information in this footnote was taken from Andersen, Mark C., et al. “Use of Matrix Population Models to Estimate the Efficacy of Euthanasia Versus Trap-NeuterReturn for Management of Free-Roaming Cats.� Journal of the Veterinary Medical Association. Vol. 225(12): 18741875.

10 Please see Appendix VII for more details.

9

7

at LAAS: Pit Bulls, Chow Chows, Rottweilers, Akitas, and German Shepherds. Although the SpayMobile focuses on this region, results may not be visible because the number of sterilizations remains low compared to the number of unsterilized dogs in the area. In addition, a large unlicensed dog population in South L.A. hides the true proportion of unsterilized dogs in this area.

Data patterns and missing data prohibit conclusive outcomes.

Any statistically proven link between the LAAS’ sterilization programs and the decline in euthanasia rates is likely spurious because the decline started before the SpayMobile and coupon sterilization programs began (in our data sets). While we suspect that the SpayMobile targeted dogs more than cats, an animal-specific breakdown was unavailable. Also, LAAS does not know the size of the animal population with which it is dealing, especially the cat population. Dogs are required to be licensed, so LAAS knows how many live in L.A. legally and that 88% of them are sterilized. LAAS does not track cats at all, feral or pet, so there is no way of knowing their population size or how many sterilizations are necessary to decrease their euthanasia rate.

Narrow pet owner participation weakens the effects of sterilization programs.

LAAS’ sterilization programs are strictly voluntary, and they do not target stray animals. The coupon program requires a pet owner to come in to get a coupon and then take his or her pet to one of a list of specified veterinarians to be spayed or neutered. Although the coupon program motivates pet owners who may otherwise be unwilling or unable to pay to spay or neuter their pets, it still requires moderate effort and will likely be undertaken only by a more responsible set of pet owners.

Because the SpayMobile goes directly into low-income neighborhoods, it requires pet owners to

8

make less effort. Nevertheless, the least responsible pet owners will probably not take advantage of the SpayMobile, regardless of convenience.

Sterilization programs do not address the feral cat population.

Currently, LAAS does not actively engage in trap-neuter-return (TNR) or trap-test-vaccinate-neuterreturn (TTVNR) of feral cats,11 although the public may rent traps for this purpose. The SpayMobile does not sterilize feral cats. Therefore, barring efforts from other groups, the feral cat population only has mortality to limit its population growth. One study estimates feral cat population growth to be between 2.49 and 1.34 births per female.12 LAAS is completely ignoring this fecund population even though it contributes to the shelter population and euthanasia rates. In fact, unfettered feral cat populations may be obscuring gains in pet sterilizations made through the coupon or van sterilization programs.

Humane groups in L.A. and other cities have decreased feral cat colony populations by implementing TNR and TTVNR programs. Locations in which such programs have been successful include: Cape May, New Jersey; Key Largo, Florida; several locations in Pennsylvania; the HarborUCLA Medical Center in Torrance; and the UCLA main campus. LAAS has not yet taken part in such a program.

11

TNR has also been proven as an effective means to reduce the feral cat

TNR stands for trap-neuter-release, a methodology in which feral cats are trapped, sterilized and released in their original location. TTVNR is trap-test-vaccinate-neuter-release, a process in which feral cats are trapped and tested for fatal communicable diseases (e.g., feline leukemia or feline immunodeficiency virus). If they test positive, they are euthanized because these diseases are always fatal. However, if they test negative, they are vaccinated against the diseases, sterilized, and then returned.

12 Andersen, Mark C., et al. “Use of Matrix Population Models to Estimate the Efficacy of Euthanasia Versus TrapNeuter-Return for Management of Free-Roaming Cats.� Journal of the Veterinary Medical Association. Vol. 225(12): 1873.

9

population,13 although high rates of sterilization (greater than 75%) need to be achieved before any population decrease becomes apparent.14

Measure F funds are insufficient to end euthanasia in L.A. Angelenos expressed a strong desire to create a no-kill city when they passed Measure F in 2000.

However, in the face of unchecked reproduction, the total number of animals without homes will continue to exceed the number of people who want a pet, and the animal shelters will fill regardless of expanded capacity. The expanded capacity will initially provide animals with a longer window of time in which to be adopted. Once the shelters are filled to capacity, however, unadopted animals will still have to be killed to make room for the new animals that must be kept for at least seven days.

Given the intake rate during the spring and summer months, the new shelters will reach

capacity within their first year of operation.15 LAAS will need more than new shelters to fulfill the Mayor’s no-kill goal.

Departmental shortcomings stall efforts to reach the no-kill goal.

Many longstanding institutional problems burden Animal Services. The hiring freeze and attrition have left 52 unfilled vacancies, including five out of seven veterinarian positions, the result of an overly strict hiring policy that does not take the national vet shortage into account. Inadequate

13

Levy, Julie K., et al. “Evaluation of the Effect of a Long-Term Trap-Neuter-Return and Adoption Program on a FreeRoaming Cat Population.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Vol. 222 (1): 42.

14 Andersen, Mark C., et al. “Use of Matrix Population Models to Estimate the Efficacy of Euthanasia Versus TrapNeuter-Return for Management of Free-Roaming Cats.” Journal of the Veterinary Medical Association. Vol. 225(12): 1873-1874.

15 For example, assuming a crowded shelter situation next fiscal year, LAAS’ total animal capacity will be 2544 cats (three cats per cage and 848 cages) and 6330 dogs (six dogs per kennel and 1055 kennels). In FY2003-2004 LAAS euthanized 11,102 dogs and 14,707 cats. (These numbers do not include total intakes, only intakes that were euthanized for any reason.) Even assuming a slight decrease in intake for FY2005-2006, LAAS will have shelter space for less than half of the animals it will take in over the course of the year. Therefore, LAAS’ new shelter space will fill up the same year that it opens up, providing no more than a temporary drop in euthanasia rates.

10

staffing leaves LAAS’ two stationary veterinary clinics closed.

The need for a SpayMobile

contractor also significantly hinders the Department’s ability to fulfill its no-kill goal. The request for proposals (RFP) for the SpayMobile has been poorly written and inadequately circulated. As mentioned above, the SpayMobile is not allowed to spay feral cats – a group of animals that reproduce prolifically and become irrevocably unadoptable if they are not socialized before eight weeks of age.16 Currently, LAAS pays private vets a minimum of $28 per surgery. Based on spay and neuter costs alone, private vets cost approximately 12% more than in-house staff to sterilize the same number of animals.17 Non-sterilization vet services carry much higher hourly costs than spay/neuter services. LAAS pays far more for a private vet contracted on a per procedure basis than it would for a salaried LAAS veterinarian and vet tech. Even when LAAS has a full vet staff, contracts with private vets will still be necessary in situations requiring emergency or highly specialized services.

When private vet contracts are used strategically instead of routinely, they will be more efficiently priced.

The stationary clinics are much cheaper to operate than the SpayMobile, but because the SpayMobile goes directly to specific low-income neighborhoods, which have the lowest spay/neuter rates, it sterilizes animals that would otherwise keep reproducing. However, when the SpayMobile serves pet owners who would otherwise go to a stationary clinic, this substitution effect results in an economic inefficiency. Therefore, allowing the stationary clinics to languish diminishes the gains that would come from operating the SpayMobile and stationary clinics in tandem.

Other than euthanasia, the Department has not devised an effective policy for handling the influx of kittens and puppies during the birthing season. Unfortunately, LAAS staff have not noticed 16 17

Adult feral cats cannot be domesticated with any training method.

Please see Appendix VIII.

11

many best practices in other cities and humane groups. For example, unlike in other cities, LAAS does not have a foster program to help relieve the shelters of kittens and puppies and animals needing medical or behavioral rehabilitation. In addition, the Department does not comb policies for cost-effectiveness and has a concerning dearth of statistics on the number of animals in L.A. Such a glaring lack of program analysis greatly impedes the Department’s ability to estimate effectiveness or know how close (or far) it may be from becoming no-kill.

Adoption rates for shelter animals also have room to improve, and increased demand for shelter animals will reduce the pressure on shelters. During the past few months, LAAS has initiated a few events to stimulate adoptions. The Save-A-Sweetheart event at the South L.A. shelter was an example of a successful targeted adoption effort. LAAS has also participated in Best Friends’ Super Adoptions, which have been a terrific success in attracting potential pet owners to adopt animals that might otherwise need to be put to sleep.18 However, such events are recent phenomena and are not indicative of past efforts to stimulate demand for adoptions.

The public still lacks faith in LAAS, which is viewed more as a killing machine than as an animal saver. Hostility from animal rights extremists – personal threats to staff and vandalism of private homes – damage the Department’s morale and motivation. This also contributes to high turnover. No one in the Department wants to kill animals, but its inability to devise alternatives damages internal morale and public perception.

18

Best Friends is a humane group committed to the no-kill goal. Super Adoptions are public events with multiple humane groups. They pool humane groups’ resources and provide family-friendly adoption fairs to encourage potential pet owners to adopt homeless animals.

12

Evaluative Criteria and Potential Policy Options Any recommendation we make must be both politically and technically feasible.

All

recommendations that fit those a priori requirements will be evaluated further, based on their costeffectiveness in lowering the number of animals euthanized.

Potential Policy Options Despite its slightly decreasing trend in the last five years, Los Angeles will not reach its no-kill, or even low-kill, goal by 2008 if the status quo is maintained. Therefore, we considered the following potential policy options.

(1) Develop LAAS’ community relationships and partnerships.

(2) Improve data collection and analysis so the Department can monitor its success or identify shortcomings. a. Lobby to pass a law requiring pet owners to license their cats. b. Estimate the existing animal population in L.A. c. Aggregate sterilization and adoption data from municipal, county and privately-run shelters throughout Los Angeles County.

(3) Remove restrictions on the number of animals private humane organizations can take from LAAS’ shelters.

(4) Make a concerted and public push to sterilize and adopt a slew of animals in a short period of time.

(5) Increase or expand existing spay/neuter programs throughout the year.

(6) Promote the importance of spay/neuter through education and outreach.

13

Some of these options do not fit the criteria. Licensing cats is politically impractical.19 Removing restrictions on the number of animals humane organizations can take from LAAS’ shelters is feasible, but a bad idea because of “hoarding.�20 Finally, LAAS does not have the technical capacity to estimate the number of stray dogs, feral cats, and pet cats in L.A. If LAAS someday acquires the staff to undertake this large and important task, it should do so through sampling and calibration with dead animal pick-ups and the shelter population. Knowing the size of the animal population that LAAS is trying to control will be a valuable asset for any program analysis or evaluation undertaking.

Policy Recommendations and Implementation We recommend implementing the following policies, which satisfy all of our criteria and best address each previously identified problem related to becoming no-kill.

19

The cat humane community is a well-organized and vocal constituency that is completely against this idea for inexplicable reasons. When the issue was put before City Council, Council members acknowledged that it was a good idea, although supporting it was seen as political suicide.

20 There are many passionate people working in humane organizations, and hoarding animals (i.e., keeping dozens, even hundreds, in together in a house) can be a problem on the fringe. Limiting the number of animals an entity can take within a specified time helps mitigate hoarding.

14

Summary of Findings and Recommendations Finding/Problem

Recommendation/Solution

Dog euthanasia is declining while cat euthanasia remains constant.

Kittens and puppies are killed in the greatest numbers.

LAAS sterilization programs are not demonstrably decreasing the kill rate.

Focus SpayMobile more on cats; implement TNR/TTVNR and “The Big Fix” Expand all sterilization programs; synchronize with heat cycles; educate pet owners Target SpayMobile sterilizations; implement “The Big Fix;” conduct regionally-specific education and outreach Expand SpayMobile; implement “The Big Fix;” conduct TNR/TTVNR

Measure F funds (shelter construction and renovation) are insufficient to end euthanasia in L.A. Longstanding departmental shortcomings stall efforts to reach the no-kill goal.

Begin foster home program; work with rescue groups; increase adoptions; host single day events Fix vet shortage; fix RFP; fix data shortage; research best practices

Cats, German Shepherds, and Pit Bulls constitute 60% of animals euthanized.

Recommendations Part 1: Spay and Neuter Programs First Priority: “The Big Fix”21 LAAS’ new motto, “Saving Animals’ Lives,” is a call to action. If LAAS is to become no-kill by 2008, it needs to make a big push to sterilize as many animals as possible because, euthanasia aside, sterilization programs are the only way to ultimately reduce the unwanted animal population. The cornerstone of “The Big Fix” is sterilization en masse. An overwhelming majority of animals euthanized are kittens and puppies under one year old. LAAS sees a large increase in euthanasia every year in the spring and early summer months – kitten and puppy season – and an overwhelming

21

“The Big Fix” is a name used by several cities (such as Chicago, IL and Columbus, OH) for spay/neuter events and outreach.

15

majority of animals euthanized are kittens and puppies.22 These two indisputable trends point to timed and targeted sterilization programs as the most effective way to curb animal population growth and lower the euthanasia rate. Therefore, our most important recommendation is a large-scale push to spay/neuter as many animals as possible in a short period of time, an effort we call “The Big Fix.” Its timing and outreach components would address the seasonal influx of young animals, stimulate adoptions through LAAS during spikes in the shelter intake, encourage responsible pet ownership, and preemptively decrease the next year’s animal population.

“The Big Fix” would be LAAS’ most effective tool to lower its euthanasia rates because it would work toward the following goals: (1) increase the number of animals that are spayed/neutered in the City of L.A., (2) increase adoptions in L.A., (3) develop partnerships with other humane groups that are essential for lowering the homeless animal population, (4) raise public awareness of the importance of spaying and neutering pets, and (5) improve LAAS’ public image and its capacity to effect change in and with the community.

Our vision of “The Big Fix” is an annual extravaganza of L.A. humane group partnerships, spay and neuter campaigns, adoptions, public awareness and family fun. In order to spay and neuter as many animals as possible, “The Big Fix” should include concentrated veterinarian services to offer free (or low-cost) sterilizations to the public, tents for LAAS and animal rescue groups, familyfriendly activities, animal product vendors, humane awareness information booths, and food vendors. This combination would attract wide public participation. The cyclical nature of animal births (and subsequent euthanasia) requires that LAAS and its rescue group partners target spay and neuter campaigns and adoptions during specific windows of opportunity: immediately before the peak mating season and as soon as the offspring have been weaned and can be spayed/neutered.

22

Kittens comprise 85% of all euthanized cats, and puppies constitute 45% of all euthanized dogs. Please see pages 5-6 for our analysis.

16

We recommend that “Big Fix” events be scheduled for three consecutive weekends in May and early June,23 when shelters are at peak capacity, newborn litters can be sterilized and adopted, and the weather is perfect for outdoor activities. The ideal venues for “The Big Fix” would be parks and public spaces throughout L.A. The advertising and logistics for each locale must be tailored to the host community. Successful event management in West Los Angeles may look very different from that in South L.A., so each shelter should control advertising and logistics to address its own community’s needs.

The City need not bear the entire logistical burden for such a large-scale event, although it should serve as the initial organizer. Dozens of animal rescue groups are more than willing to help coordinate and plan.24 Meetings and committees among the rescue groups, nonprofit shelters, and LAAS would result not only in a great event, but also better cooperation and coordination in the future. Local nonprofits would be generous with their logistical capacity, station set-up, volunteers and other resources because everyone has the same no-kill goal.

Although LAAS would not bear

the costs for this event alone, it has over $2 million (not including mandatory salary savings) in unused salaries in its FY2005-2006 budget that are currently returned to the City. If some of this money can be reallocated to help finance “The Big Fix,” then LAAS would have a huge impact on lowering the number of animals euthanized each year. This is money wisely spent and sets LAAS

23

LAAS’ euthanasia rate for both cats and dogs is at its lowest level in January or February, and then increases every month until it peaks in July or August. The shelters euthanize the most animals following the kitten and puppy season, which logically follows the peak of animal mating season.

Most cats go into heat in January or February in Southern California. Weather patterns affect a cat’s estrus cycle, and females can go into heat four times per year beginning at 4 months old. Cats generally have pregnancies lasting from 58 to 65 days, or about 9 weeks. Kittens are usually born into litters of between 2 and 5 and can be weaned from the mother between 6 and 8 weeks.

Dogs’ gestation period also lasts about 9 weeks, and they can go into heat twice a year, starting at 8 months of age. A female dog can produce up to 2 litters per year: 6 - 12 puppies per litter for larger breeds, 4 - 8 for smaller breeds.

24 Best Friends has hosted smaller scale events throughout California and in Los Angeles.

17

on a proactive, rather than reactionary path. By pooling these funds with resources from local nonprofit humane groups, the City would become part of a community solution.25 LAAS cannot solve the animal overpopulation problem alone. Community nonprofits are a phenomenal resource that remains untapped, and “The Big Fix” is the first step toward uniting their collective power. Smooth coordination among nonprofits and city shelters will take time. The first “Big Fix” event will improve communication and coordination with the L.A. animal community both in everyday contact and in future events. Volunteers will also be crucial to “The Big Fix,” and L.A. Works, a volunteer match program, has thousands of volunteers wanting to work on single day (or longer) projects. LAAS and local nonprofits, of course, have their own volunteer corps from which to draw. LAAS’ volunteer coordinator already has a curriculum ready for classroom use, as education is another component of “The Big Fix.” Classroom visits with shelter animals during this three-week time period would raise awareness about the need to sterilize family pets and would encourage kids to bring their families to a “Big Fix” venue near their home. Field trips to shelters are another outreach possibility for children. Family-accessible “Big Fix” events like tents, tables and stations should include adoptions, vaccinations, vet check-ups, vendors, fundraising, radio stations, and of course, free or low cost sterilization services for all L.A. City animal owners.26 As a major public outreach campaign, “The Big Fix” needs major publicity efforts. The press should advertise and attend main events. If invited, politicians are likely to get involved because “The Big Fix” involves their constituencies and is evidence of the City coming into the communities to make improvements. Politicians and public figures would also help attract the

25

We also recommend that you make a suggestion to L.A. County Animal Control Services and Shelters that they could possibly spark a parallel and contemporaneous event coordinating L.A. County shelters, other city shelters and nonprofits outside of City limits.

26 LAAS could use a utility bill or driver’s license to verify residency.

18

media. 27 In particular, Mayor Hahn should also be involved because no-kill is, after all, his goal. A public campaign to reach it could help the Mayor’s often-stormy relationship with the animal activist community in Los Angeles, which is a vocal constituency.

Given the vet shortage, LAAS would need to bring in outside veterinarians and recent vet school graduates to staff the concentrated spay and neuter blitz. The number of required vets and veterinary technicians depends on their level of experience and the condition of the animals they treat (gender, size and type of animal and any complications such as estrus or pregnancy).28 LAAS could pay them an attractive salary out of the unused vet budget or use nonmonetary means of compensation. For example, LAAS could recognize their efforts at an awards event and provide them with a gift of appreciation or a certificate upon completion a week’s commitment. Through work with nonprofits and for profit corporations, LAAS could procure sponsors for vet services (e.g., donated hotel rooms for the vets’ stay) and other events related to “The Big Fix.” We discuss LAAS’ ongoing TNR efforts in detail in the “Fourth Priority” section below.

Nevertheless, LAAS should engage in aggressive TNR/TTVNR throughout the City during “The Big Fix.” To do this, LAAS should encourage calls from people living near feral animals to identify existing feral colonies. LAAS should also step up staff dedicated to TNR/TTVNR during this time period. Traps are always available to the public to rent to trap feral cats, and this should be publicized during “The Big Fix” to increase trap rental and use.

“The Big Fix” would help LAAS get to a point where no-kill will be within reach.

However, it must be backed up by strong efforts to sustain its momentum and keep the unwanted

27

The Mayor of New York City has utilized such opportunities for expanding adoptions and spay/neuter awareness to further NYC’s no-kill goal.

28 Given an 8-hour workday, three shifts (each serving seven days), and equal distribution of animals brought to be fixed, fifty vets would be able to fix 7,500 animals in three weeks (1,875 male cats, 1,875 male dogs, 1,875 female cats, and 1,875 female dogs). If vets were to serve for a five-day period, then approximately seventy vets would be required for the same number of alterations.

19

animal population decreasing. Follow-up is just as important as the initial push to become no-kill because, without sustained efforts, animal population numbers will balloon back to where they are today or, worse, revert to previous levels.

We recommend the following programs both as

complements to “The Big Fix” and as efforts to continue its momentum.

Second Priority: Expand the SpayMobile The SpayMobile – which provides free spay/neuter services for pets in low-income households, a group that has a particularly low spay/neuter rate – is particularly important to LAAS because its two stationary clinics are closed due to the vet vacancies. (We recommend how to change that in a later section.) The SpayMobile is a highly effective way to reach the parts of Los Angeles with the densest animal populations. There are several ways to improve upon its performance.

LAAS contracts with outside providers to run the SpayMobile and has had no contract since December, although an interim provider has been running it temporarily. Under the old contract, the SpayMobile was supposed to do 5,000 surgeries annually, with a budget up to $500,000. It has never achieved anywhere close to its contracted surgeries. 29

LAAS’ RFP process has been

unsuccessful in securing an acceptable provider of SpayMobile services since December. This is due, in large part, to the RFP’s structure, which places a ceiling on the number of animals fixed, uses non-optimal compensation for surgeries performed, and is not well-advertised. As discussed above, a few breeds disproportionately impact shelter intake and euthanasia numbers. The SpayMobile should incorporate incentives to target the breeds that are killed in the highest numbers: Pit Bulls, Chow Chows, Rottweilers, Akitas, German Shepherds and cats (both feral and domestic).

29

In FY2002-2003, the SpayMobile did 3808 surgeries; in FY 2003-2004, it did 3899, and, through September of FY 2004-2005, it had completed 851 surgeries. Given the lapse in contractors in December, we do not anticipate that the SpayMobile will sterilize 5,000 animals this fiscal year, either.

20

First, the RFP should not state a maximum number of animals fixed, especially since the goal is to maximize the number of sterilizations, but the contract can, and should, specify a minimum.

Further, the SpayMobile needs to address directly the greatest contributors to shelter overpopulation; animals should be sterilized in the same proportions that they are euthanized in the shelters, which will focus efforts on animals that have the greatest shelter representation.30 By maximizing the animals spayed and neutered in proportion to their euthanasia rates, the SpayMobile will most effectively curtail euthanasia.

In the past, SpayMobile contractors have fallen short of the contract’s required surgeries, so LAAS should provide financial incentives for the contractor to exceed its sterilization minimum. In order to enhance the incentive to go beyond the minimum number of surgeries (4,000), 31 the contractor should receive compensation at a slightly higher rate for 4,000 to 5,000 animal sterilizations and a still higher rate for sterilizing over 5,000 animals. However, the bonuses should be distributed only if the SpayMobile exceeds its targets in each animal category – cats, small dogs, and large dogs. We also recommend providing bonuses for sterilizing Pit Bulls, Chow Chows, Rottweilers, Akitas, and German Shepherds. The SpayMobile contractor could be paid for the animals beyond the prepaid 4,000 animals from LAAS’ Animal Spay and Neuter Trust Fund. 32 Once the SpayMobile is under contract, it is cost-effective to encourage the contractor to spay as many animals as possible. Currently, compensation per animal is $100 per surgery, although actual costs vary widely with animal size. Compensation should, instead, be based on average costs 30

For example, in FY2003-2004, 11,102 dogs (43% of all animals euthanized) and 14,707 cats (57% of the total) were put down. Therefore, approximately 45% of sterilized animals should be dogs and 57% cats. A more targeted formulation would specify specific spay/neuter targets for cats, small dogs, and large dogs based on their shelter representation.

31 During the most recent revision process for the RFP, the minimum number of animals sterilized was revised down to 4,000.

32 Due to severe budget shortages, LAAS staff have formed four 501(c)(3) trust funds, with one more being formed. The trust funds have been effective as fundraising tools (one received a seed donation of several hundred thousand dollars) and as a way to alleviate the budget crunch. Each trust fund is earmarked for a specific purpose. Please see Appendix IX for a detailed description of the trust funds.

21

for each animal category – cat, small dog, and large dog. This pricing scheme removes the incentive to shy away from more expensive surgeries (i.e., large dogs like Rottweilers and German Shepherds) and eliminates the economic risk posed by guessing the distribution of actual animals fixed.33 This specific payment approach makes economic sense, would be more attractive to potential contractors, and most effectively reduces the animal shelter population. It would also ensure that the City does not overpay and that the contractor is not underpaid for surgeries actually performed.

The tiered

payment plan sets up an incentive for the SpayMobile contractor to exceed the minimum number of animals and encourages the contractor to travel to geographic locations that have the greatest need (highest animal density).

Finally, the RFP should be rewritten.

It currently specifies days and locations for the

contractor, leaving little room for flexibility. The SpayMobile operator should be able to choose the days and locations (within specified criteria) in order to maximize SpayMobile resources.

In

addition to the per-surgery rates, a small, but flexible allowance should be provided to fund local advertising costs, which are integral to the SpayMobile’s success. The SpayMobile contractor should also be allowed to offer ancillary services – check-ups, deworming, vaccinations, and ear cleaning – that pet owners could pay for out-of-pocket. Proper incentives and fair payment for surgeries performed would reduce the LAAS’ need to devise a detailed plan for the SpayMobile and will allow the contractor flexibility to maximize resources.

Second, the RFP is not advertised effectively, which is one reason why the four-month search for a new contractor has been unsuccessful. LAAS needs to be more proactive to garner bids to run 33

Bonuses for the SpayMobile administrator should be distributed when all animal categories have reached their contracted maximum and should be based on the original cost for each animal type. For example, if the contract specifies 2,000 cats at $50 per surgery, then sterilizations between 2,000 and 2,500 should be reimbursed at $60, and each cat surgery beyond 2,500 should be reimbursed at $70. For a small dog, if the contract specifies 400 small dogs at $45 per surgery, then the contractor would be paid $55 for each small dog fixed above between 400 and 500 surgeries and $65 for sterilizations done beyond 500. An allowance for complicated surgeries can also be built into the contract and subsidized by the Spay and Neuter Trust Fund.

22

the SpayMobile. External advertisement is currently limited to a City Hall newsletter. It does not appear in local industry newsletters, publications, or pet stores. This is an obvious hindrance to getting a diverse and qualified applicant pool. In addition, potential applicants must call LAAS to get a copy. Making the actual RFP available for download on LAAS’ and L.A.’s “Bids, RFPs and Grants” website would be more efficient. If more advertising and publicity efforts do not find a suitable contractor, then LAAS should strongly consider hiring someone to run the SpayMobile inhouse. An idling half-million dollar facility is a terrible inefficiency.

Third, the SpayMobile is not allowed to sterilize stray animals, including feral cats because it exclusively targets low-income pet owners. especially feral cats, be encouraged.34

We recommend that sterilizations of all strays,

Feral cats comprise part of the animal overpopulation

problem in Los Angeles, and many unadopted kittens come from stray litters. Since the SpayMobile goes out into the community already, it is well-placed to spay and neuter homeless animals, and doing so will increase its impact. If the SpayMobile is overwhelmed with feral cat sterilization requests, then like the shelters, it can distribute coupons or free vouchers for private sterilization.

Finally, LAAS should strongly consider getting a second SpayMobile because it is the most effective tool to reach L.A.’s pet population with the lowest spay and neuter rate. This requires no capital investment on LAAS’ behalf because a private donor is willing to cover that cost. 35 The SpayMobile is also popular with City Council members because it provides a direct, visible service to their constituents. Given its popularity and effectiveness, a little lobbying effort may persuade City Council to provide operational funds for a second SpayMobile.

34

Erika Brunson, who owns the SpayMobile, bought it for LAAS’ use and leases it to the City for $1 every year. She thinks that having LAAS staff run the SpayMobile would be a good idea.

35 In fact, Erika Brunson originally offered to buy two SpayMobiles for the City’s use, although, at the time, Mayor Riordan decided to start with one.

23

Third Priority: Single Day Events Through community events, public outreach and cooperation with rescue groups for “The Big Fix,” LAAS will reinforce the importance of animal lives and educate people as to how they can help stop euthanasia.

Yet, smaller-scale, localized campaigns throughout the year would provide more

opportunities to teach and remind pet owners the consequences of irresponsible behavior. These events would bring animal adoption and spay/neuter to the forefront of people’s minds several times a year, which will maintain interest and awareness. Regular events would also make the logistics for “The Big Fix” more routine and foster cooperation with the animal rescue community throughout the year. LAAS should visibly and actively participate in the national animal awareness event days, such as the following: National Spay Day USA (February 22), National Pet Week (first week of May), and National Feral Cat Day (October 16).

In addition, California has a Homeless Animals’ Day, celebrated in mid-August. The SaveA-Sweetheart event that the South L.A. shelter held on Valentine’s Day this year was enormously successful and speaks to how popular future events may be. Save-A-Sweetheart and similar events should become annual events at more shelters.

Fourth Priority: Sterilize Feral Cats Given feral cats’ high potential growth rate, LAAS must aggressively target this population with appropriate sterilization and adoption programs. The American Veterinary Medical Association and

24

animal rescue groups endorse TNR/TTVNR as a humane and effective method to reduce the feral cat population.

According to a meta-study in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA), TNR/TTVNR can result in long-term reduction of a free-roaming cat population, especially when combined with adoption programs.36 TNR must be implemented regionally to ensure effectiveness, because cats tend to migrate. However, another JAVMA study found that euthanasia was more effective in reducing the population than TNR.37 Euthanizing 50% of a feral cat population achieved a greater population decline than sterilizing 75%.38 This is in part because killing feral cats has a more immediate impact on population size. Regardless, we cannot advocate killing off a large portion of an animal population for the sake of becoming no-kill. On net, the added cost of keeping the animal for seven days, staff resentment towards killing feral cats, and the City’s emphasis on no-kill make euthanasia a less desirable alternative to TNR/TTVNR. The SpayMobile is currently not supposed to sterilize stray animals, including feral cats, and we strongly recommend that it be permitted to do so. The SpayMobile already goes to feral cat colony locales, so the additional cost to sterilize them is marginal. Efforts to spay and neuter feral cats should be particularly concentrated during December and early January, before the cats go into heat. Because animal intake and shelter capacity are lowest at the time of year, it would be easiest to divert staff resources to concentrate more on doing TNR/TTVNR.

36

Levy, Julie K., et al. “Evaluation of the Effect of a Long-Term Trap-Neuter-Return and Adoption Program on a FreeRoaming Cat Population.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. Vol. 222(1): 45.

37 Andersen, Mark C., et al. “Use of Matrix Population Models to Estimate the Efficacy of Euthanasia Versus TrapNeuter-Return for Management of Free-Roaming Cats.” Journal of Veterinary Medical Association. Vol. 225(12): 1874.

38 Andersen, Mark C., et al. “Use of Matrix Population Models to Estimate the Efficacy of Euthanasia Versus TrapNeuter-Return for Management of Free-Roaming Cats.” Journal of Veterinary Medical Association. Vol. 225(12): 1873-1874.

25

Although LAAS rents traps out to the public for a fee, few people actually have the time, knowledge or resources to trap a feral cat for sterilization.39 Doing TNR/TTVNR in-house and referring callers to feral animal organizations such as the Feral Cat Alliance should not prevent LAAS from having traps available to the public, should someone wish to get involved. Staff can look to other successful TNR/TTVNR programs for ideas and best practices. LAAS should assign a staff member or experienced volunteer, trained in trapping feral cats, to ensure that the TNR/TTVNR is run well. Combined with the SpayMobile’s efforts, this will cause the feral cat population to drop.

The results will become more dramatic the longer that TNR/TTVNR is in place.

Recommendations Part 2: Departmental Changes As discussed above, LAAS has numerous departmental issues that hinder its ability to become nokill. We recommend filling the veterinarian vacancies and increasing staff development as the most accessible starting point to deal with these problems. As LAAS overcomes its internal issues, more sophisticated staff development tools and techniques will become more appropriate.

First Priority: Fill Veterinarian Vacancies LAAS’ lack of veterinarians severely limits its ability to reach the no-kill goal.40 The additional vets are so vital to the Department’s functioning that LAAS received approval to hire them despite the hiring freeze at City Hall. To ensure proper vet and vet tech staff levels, LAAS should lower the prerequisite of two years of experience for the City’s open vet and vet tech positions and recruit recent graduates from California veterinary schools and vet tech credential programs. 41

39

Nevertheless, LAAS should keep traps available for the public to rent, in the event that someone should want to use them.

40 The stress and high caseload of vets in the City’s six shelters lead to a high burnout rate.

41 See Appendix X for a list of California programs.

26

Due to the cost of veterinary teaching and limited number of programs, there is a nationwide vet shortage. Many veterinarians who have two years of experience already have their own private practice, and they generally receive higher salaries than the City can offer. Therefore, it is in the City’s interest to entertain applications from veterinarians who may have little experience. Recent vet school and vet tech credential graduates may come to view LAAS as a good place to gain experience.

Two recently initiated LAAS vet school partnerships (UC Davis externships and L.A. Pierce College internships) will help, although they do not ameliorate the shortage. We encourage staff to continue to seek out other opportunities with vet schools to bring in more help. In addition, we recommend hiring private, local vets on a part-time basis (e.g., once a week, biweekly or monthly) to fill the gaps. This could potentially be less expensive for the City because the Department would not have to pay benefits. The private vets’ presence could also foster improved relationships between LAAS and the animal community. Other perks, such as special recognition and awards receptions, could help recruit private vets.

Second Priority: Staff Development Since the City is under such tight budget constraints, looking for programs that have the largest impact per dollar spent is only logical. Similarly, LAAS will allocate its dollars more efficiently when data on its programs and animal populations are accurate, comprehensive and current.

Keeping track of trends in the animal and shelter population is crucial to understanding policy effectiveness. Improved data will also give LAAS staff a better understanding of what needs to be done to lower the City’s euthanasia rate. We recommend that LAAS request an exemption to the

27

hiring freeze to fill the senior analyst and statistician positions to have staff actively examine current practices to ensure cost-effectiveness.

Because LAAS’ policies are only one factor in a multitude of efforts to save animals throughout the City, LAAS’ data are insufficient to evaluate and analyze the progress of the Department. Best Friends, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), the Humane Society (HSUS), and a myriad of other private and public shelters and humane groups all have adoption and spay/neuter programs. By collecting and merging data from all these groups, a LAAS statistician could measure results, identify best practices, and monitor progress towards the no-kill goal.

LAAS should send its staff to conferences to network and facilitate policy development. We recommend attending the following industry conferences: Animal Care Conference 2005, April 3-5th, San Jose, CA, Animal Care Expo, HSUS, April 6-9th 2005, Atlanta GA, Texas Federation of Humane Societies, April 24-26th 2005, Houston, TX, and National Animal Control Association Conference, June 2-4th 2005, Scottsdale, AZ.

Recommendations Part 3: Public Affairs Finally, because LAAS does not currently look to other cities or organizations for best practices or ideas, we have done so on the Department’s behalf. From our research, we suggest the following changes.

28

Improve relationships with local nonprofit humane organizations.

Have staff respond to calls regarding feral cats by using TNR/TTVNR methods.42 When that is not possible, staff should refer callers to Feral Cat Alliance and other related organizations.

Add links to local humane and animal groups to the LAAS website. This serves both to connect to animal rescue partners and to facilitate flows of information on how to reduce the homeless animal population in L.A.

Increase animal adoptions from City shelters.

LAAS should spay and neuter animals when they are available for adoption so they can be sent home with new owners right away instead of having to wait an extra day or two for the surgery. The Animal Sterilization Trust Fund will provide the money to do this.

Highlight “Pets of the Week” in the L.A. Times, the L.A. Weekly,43 and on local television news stations.

Look into setting up “Free Fix Fridays” at the shelters.

Improve public’s perception of LAAS and no-kill efforts.

Ensure large signage and visibility of LAAS at “The Big Fix” events.

Invite major political figures (Mayor, Deputy Mayor) to LAAS’ public events.

Press

conferences with darling animals are great for politicians, and such events will give exposure and legitimacy to LAAS’ efforts to save animals.

42

Houston, TX has a good model for feral cat information/referral: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pointe/9322/table.html 43 Cities that already do this include: Austin, TX; Sacramento, CA; Temple, TX; St. Petersburg, FL; St. Louis, MO; and New Orleans, LA.

29

Change the name of Animal Services to “Pet Rescue” or have a “Pet Rescue” division that includes the animal shelters and public events.

Make school presentations with the animals to teach about the importance of sterilizations an ongoing effort.

Run student contest for best drawing or icon for “The Big Fix” and other days.

Hold an awards dinner or event for professionals and volunteers to recognize their outstanding contributions to promoting animal welfare and eradicating the homeless animal population. Veterinarians, local elected officials, humane organizations, individuals, and businesses could all be recognized for their support in promoting a no-kill L.A.44 Increase donations and fundraising.45 Given LAAS’ cash-strapped status, fundraising is essential to expanding its programs to maximize their reach and effectiveness. To complement the Department’s current fundraising efforts, we suggest expanding on gift-specific donations, adding earmarked donation options to the website,46 and using creative fundraising ideas in coordination with other animal community groups. Here are some ideas to get LAAS started: 

“Fur Ball” dance/dinner benefit event (Albany, NY),



“Bone Appetit” benefit dinner (Lancaster, PA),



5-K/10-K run/walk: “Mongrel Mash” (Sacramento, CA), “Paws in the Park” (Chattanooga, TN), “Pets on Parade” (Hixson, TN), and “Yappy Hour” (New Orleans, LA).

44

For details on a Council of Governments event in Washington D.C. see Appendix XI. San Diego County and Charlotte have exemplary sites for online donations: http://www.sdhumane.org/howyoucanhelp/index.cfm http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/Animal+Control/Donation.htm 46 Earmarked donation options might look like this: $1000 spays/neuters 40 animals, $100 spays/neuters four animals, $50 buys rawhides, dog food, grooming tools, or vaccinations.

45

30

Conclusions We cannot conclusively answer the question: Can L.A.’s municipal animal shelters become no-kill by 2008? Given its current trajectory, LAAS is not on target, although recent efforts have steered the department in the right direction.

While the programmatic and departmental changes we

recommend will move LAAS towards no-kill, do not have the data to predict with accuracy their numeric impact or the time frame in which any decline will occur.

There are many factors outside of LAAS’ control that affect the success or failure of its programs. Controlling for variables other than LAAS sterilization programs would require adoption and sterilization numbers from all the humane groups and animal shelters throughout Los Angeles County. These data are not available and are likely not to be collected in the near future due to the City hiring freeze. However, LAAS has so much room for improvement that, in the immediate future, working toward “the big picture” to reduce the homeless animal population is more important than the narrowly defined no-kill goal.

Ultimately, the cities that successfully turned kill rates around did so because caring, savvy individuals insisted that spay and neuter programs go into a higher gear, and whole communities got involved to solve a citywide problem. To this end, LAAS has not fully capitalized on the potential synergy of working with the animal rescue community in L.A. Even if implemented immediately, the full effect of the recommended programs will not be fully realized by 2008. Taking longer to become no-kill should not be viewed as failure, however.

Short of catastrophe, large animal population changes will not happen quickly. LAAS recently embarked on a new course of action because its new General Manager motivates the staff, understands public relations, and has high expectations. What we do as a society for those who

31

cannot represent themselves reflects the humanity and compassion of our community.

This

reflection is especially palpable with pets because people domesticated them and then neglected to care for the animals that were sought as companions.

Human behavior facilitated animal

overpopulation. A change in behavior can bring it under control.

32

APPENDICES

33

Appendix I Shelter Intake by Age (FY2000-2005) 90,000

80,000

70,000 0-1 year old 1-2 years old

Number of Animals

60,000

2-3 years old 3-4 years old

50,000

4-5 years old 5-6 years old 40,000

6-7 years old 7-8 years old 8-9 years old

30,000

9-10 years old 10+ years old

20,000

10,000

0 cats

dogs Age of Animal

Data from LAAS

Appendix II Kill Rate for Dogs by Age 0.8 0-1 year old 0.7

1-2 years old 2-3 years old

0.6

3-4 years old 0.5

Kill Rate

4-5 years old 5-6 years old

0.4

6-7 years old 0.3 7-8 years old 0.2

8-9 years old 9-10 years old

0.1

10+ years old 0 2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

Fiscal Year

Data from LAAS

Appendix III Kill Rate for Cats by Age 0.9 0-1 year old 0.8

1-2 years old

0.7

2-3 years old 3-4 years old

0.6

Kill rate

4-5 years old 0.5 5-6 years old 0.4 6-7 years old 0.3

7-8 years old 8-9 years old

0.2

9-10 years old 0.1 10+ years old 0 2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

Fiscal Year

Data from LAAS

Appendix IV Shelter Intake, Number Killed, and Kill Rates for Most Represented Breeds (FY2000-2005)

Breed DOMESTIC SHORTHAIR (CAT) PIT BULL SHEPHERD/GERMAN SHEPHERD LABRADOR RETREIVER ROTTWEILER CHOW CHOW DOMESTIC LONGHAIR (CAT) TERRIER CHIHUAHUA COCKER SPANIEL JINDO/AKITA DALMATIAN GOLDEN RETREIVER SIAMESE BOXER SIBERIAN HUSKY DOBERMAN PINSCHER

Shelter Intake

Number Killed

Kill Rate

86,065 35,324 34,335 12,533 11,255 10,765 9,288 6,511 5,535 3,261 2,917 2,542 2,522 2,388 2,164 2,014 1,744

58,593 24,951 18,492 4,824 7,022 7,179 5,423 1,590 1,044 891 1,646 1,214 604 1,102 527 433 794

0.68 0.71 0.54 0.38 0.62 0.67 0.58 0.24 0.19 0.27 0.56 0.48 0.24 0.46 0.24 0.21 0.46

Note: These breeds are very imprecisely categorized in the original data.

Data from LAAS

Appendix V

Kill Rate by Breed (FY2000-2005) 0.8 PIT BULL DOMESTIC SHORTHAIR (CAT) 0.7

CHOW CHOW ROTTWEILER

0.6

DOMESTIC LONGHAIR (CAT) JINDO/AKITA

Kill Rate

0.5

SHEPHERD DALMATIAN SIAMESE

0.4

DOBERMAN PINSCHER LABRADOR RETREIVER

0.3

COCKER SPANIEL TERRIER

0.2

BOXER GOLDEN RETREIVER 0.1 SIBERIAN HUSKY CHIHUAHUA 0 Animal Breed

Data from LAAS

Appendix VI Trend Analysis of Dogs Killed Before Coupon and SpayMobile Programs (July 2000-June 2002) 3000

y = -43.897x + 2399.4 R2 = 0.6367

2500

2000

dogs euthanized

dogs killed before program trend line

1500

1000

500

0 JUL

OCT

JAN

APR

JUL

OCT

JAN

APR

The slope of the trend line is steeper for the data before the programs began compared to slope of the trend line for data after they began. This indicates that the drop in dog euthanasia decreased faster before the programs were implemented than it did after they were implemented.

Trend Analysis of Dogs Killed After Coupon and SpayMobile Programs (July 2002- June 2004) 2000

1800

1600 y = -37.824x + 1575.6 R2 = 0.6407

1400

1200

dogs euthanized

dogs killed after program trend line

1000

800

600

400

200

0 JUL

OCT

JAN

APR

JUL

OCT

JAN

Data from LAAS

APR

Appendix VII The “70% Rule” During the course of our research we came across a concept known as “the 70% rule”.4748 Essentially, this formula predicts that when at least 70% of an animal population is sterilized, the population will markedly drop. The math behind this theory is attributed to Leonardo Fibonacci’s modeling of agricultural productivity and Louis Pasteur’s application of the 70% rule to human vaccinations. The literature implies that if a region does not reach a 70% sterilization rate, its efforts will be practically useless because the population will continue to grow. Several case studies vaguely support the rule, such as stray dog sterilization programs in India (drops began at 64% and 68%), the pet dog populations in the late 1980s in the United States (drops began at 67%), and the cat population in the United States after 1991 (drops began at 51%).49 There are several problems that we encountered confirming “The 70% Rule”: 1) The actual math used to reach 70% was calculated by Professor Bob Plumb, who taught physics at CSU Chic, passed away in 2003. We were unable to obtain his calculations as a primary source.

2) One of the authors citing the 70% rule uses a model to demonstrate how it works.

However, the statistical demonstration with dice is problematic because it assumes an equal distribution of the animal population, when, in fact, homeless pets congregate in colonies.

It also incorrectly models animal reproduction as linear instead of exponential, thus invalidating its conclusions.

3) Professors at the UCLA School of Public Health told us that they had never heard of such a rule in epidemiology, and its existence seemed farfetched due to the great variance in vaccination rates needed to stem a particular contagious disease.

4) Without excellent surveillance and sampling, calculating the animal population, and, hence, the necessary sterilization rate is difficult. Therefore, its application outside of a very limited radius is difficult to assume.

5) The actual rate at which the population begins to drop will vary among regions depending on animal density, death rates, adoption rates, and the distribution of unsterilized animals.

6) Even if 70% is not reached, each sterilization still reduces the tipping point may accelerate the effects of sterilization, sterilizations below this point have no effect. The direct sterilization undoubtedly depends on the sterilization rate, but

47

future population. While a this does not mean that and immediate benefit of the derivative of its impact

Clifton, Merritt. “70% Sterilization Rate Minimum.” Animal People. October 2002.

Mackie, W. Marvin. “Pet Overpopulation and the 70% Rule.” Paws to Think. Winter 2004.

49 All of these studies were cross-referenced but derive from a single non-primary source.

48

should not be confused with the long-term effect of each sterilization, regardless of the current sterilization rate.

zero sterilizations

some sterilizations more sterilizations

number of animals

number of animals at t=0

death rate = birth rate

death rate > birth rate

time

Our reservations about the per se 70% rule aside, the dog population in Los Angeles has been dropping, and, while we certainly cannot confirm that the drop is related to the 88% sterilization rate in licensed dogs, it may be part of the reason. 88% is too high a sterilization estimate for the whole dog population in Los Angeles, because it does not include unlicensed dogs (both pet and stray). Regardless of the exact rate (70% or otherwise), it is logical that sterilization and natural death must outpace births in order to lower the population and that intense and immediate intervention is more beneficial than slow and steady efforts spaced out over a number of years.

Appendix VIII Calculations for Determining Cost Difference Between LAAS and Private Vets General assumption: The per hour capability of a veterinarian and vet tech team is 6 cat neuters, or 3 dog neuters, or 2 cat spays, or 2 dog spays.

Most conservative scenario: Assuming minimum of 14 animals/day (2 animals/hour for 7 hours) Private vet cost: $28 x 14 animals/day x 230 days/year = $90,160/year LAAS vet and vet tech: $79,636 (vet salary) + $51,725 (vet tech salary) = $131,361/year Minimum ratio of private vet cost to LAAS vet cost: 90,160/131,361 = 0.69 Interpretation: If an LAAS vet only does sterilizations and performs them only on the animals that take the longest to sterilize, a private vet would cost 69% of the combined salaries for an LAAS vet and vet tech.

More liberal scenario of sterilization: Assuming maximum of 42 animals per day (6/hour for 7 hours) Private vet cost: $28 x 42 animals/day x 230 days/year = $270,480/year LAAS vet and vet tech: $131,361 (same as 14 animals/day) Maximum ratio of private vet cost to LAAS vet cost: 270,480/131,361 = 2.06 Interpretation: If an LAAS vet only does sterilizations and performs them only on animals that are the quickest to sterilize, a private vet would cost 206% more than the combined salaries for an LAAS vet and vet tech.

Likely scenario of sterilization: Assuming equal distribution of animal type and gender (3.25/hour for 7 hours) Private vet cost: $28 x 22.75 animals/day x 230 days/year = $146,510/year LAAS vet and vet tech: $131,361 (same as 14 animals/day) Maximum ratio of private vet cost to LAAS vet cost: 146,510/131,361 = 1.12 Interpretation: If an LAAS vet sterilizes animals in equal proportion, then a private vet would cost 12% more than the combined salaries from an LAAS vet and vet tech. Because the LAAS vets perform more expensive procedures than sterilization and are still paid the same amount as used above, the savings from using an LAAS vet and vet tech team are very likely greater than 12%.

Appendix IX

TRUST FUNDS Animal Spay and Neuter Trust Fund, Fund No. 543 – to provide pet sterilization services to residents of the City who meet eligibility requirements as established by the General Manager of the Department and approved by the City Council. The Department will continue to use these funds for spay and neuter services.

Veterinary Medical Trust Fund, Fund No. 841 - for refund of deposits upon satisfactory proof of sterilization, forfeiture of deposits reverted to Animal Sterilization Fund if animal is not sterilized within a given time. Payment to veterinarians for spaying or neutering fees. The Department will continue to use these funds for spay and neuter services.

Animal Sterilization Trust Fund, Fund No. 842 – to provide sterilization services to residents and for dogs and cats adopted from City animal shelters by other persons, subject to any special terms of conditions of individual gifts, contributions or bequests to the fund. The Department will continue to use these funds for spay and neuter services.

Animal Welfare Trust Fund, Fund No. 859 - to augment established programs and activities of the Department, except those involving pet sterilization, subject to special terms or conditions attached to individual contributions or bequests. Funds are designated for donor specific uses.

Non-designated funds will be used for public education, training, mobile pet adoption supplies and other expenses to augment departmental programs.

Appendix X Schools of Veterinary Medicine and Veterinary Technician Programs

California State Polytechnic University Pomona (909) 869-2136 www.csupomona.edu

Western Career College-Pleasant Hill Pleasant Hill (925) 609-6650 www.westerncollege.com/ph_campus.asp

Cosumnes River College Sacramento (916) 691-7355 www.crc.losrios.cc.ca.us

Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona (909) 623-6116 http://www.westernu.edu/veterinary/home.x ml

Foothill College Los Altos Hills (650)949-7203 www.foothill.fhda.edu

Hartnell College Salinas (831) 373-2631 x390 www.hartnell.cc.ca.us

Los Angeles Pierce College Woodland Hills (818) 347-0551 www.macrohead.com/rvt

Mt. San Antonio College Walnut (909) 594-5611 www.mtsac.edu

UC Davis (530) 752-1383 http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/

Western Career College-Sacramento Sacramento (916) 361-1660 www.westerncollege.com/ph_campus.asp

Western Career College-San Leandro San Leandro (510)276-3888 www.westerncollege.com/ph_campus.asp Yuba College Marysville 530-741-6962 www.yuba.cc.ca.us

Appendix XI Press release for the Council of Governments Awards Dinner in Washington, D.C.

COG Honors Local Individuals, Organizations for Animal Services Animal services professionals and volunteers were honored for their outstanding assistance to animals, animal owners and their communities during the 1st Annual COG Animal Services Awards. The event, the first of its kind in the country, also recognized local elected officials and businesses for their strong support of animal services in the region.

Debra Duel of the Washington Humane Society was awarded for her work on a humane education program that has become a model for exposing children to animals and helping prevent future animal abuse. A group of six volunteers were honored for their dedicated service to their local animal shelter where they have logged 1,800 hours of work.

“We are seeing more and more funds being provided to improve the care of sheltered animals, the prevention of animal cruelty, to educate our youth, provide reduced cost spay and neuter, and increase the opportunity for adoption,” said Fairfax Supervisor Penelope Gross, who won the Animal Service Award for Elected Official of the Year. “Animal shelters are part of our community and serve the entire community.”

Since 2000, the committee has provided the animal services community an opportunity to meet and address mutual, regional concerns on animal care and protection as well as related public safety and health concerns. It has worked on a dangerous dog ordinance, animal disaster planning, and the reduction of wildlife-vehicle collisions.

"I am truly proud of the outstanding service provided by the Animal Control Officers and animal-care organizations in the Washington metropolitan area,” said Dr. Jacqueline Brown, Prince George's County CAO, in recognition of today’s award winners. “Their hard work and dedication make our community a better place in which to live, work and play.”

Liz Crenshaw served as the Mistress of Ceremonies and accepted a special media award for NBC-4’s support to the animal services community. The awards were sponsored by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG), Petco Foundation, American Humane Association, and the Humane Society of the United States.

Full List of Award Winners Administrative/Customer Team: Faye Logan & Adina Howard, Prince George’s County Animal Welfare League Adoption Team: Betty Bear, Claudia Prather, Khari Dixon, Feri Abendipour, Christine Johns & Kathy Schonley & Maureen McCabe, Frederick County Animal Control

Animal Care Technician Team: Eugene Hill, Washington Animal Rescue League Animal Control Officers/Humane Officer Team: Ted Deppner, Washington Humane Society/District of Columbia Animal Shelter Corporation: Law Firm of Covington & Burling, District of Columbia Humane Education Team: Debra K. Duel, Washington Humane Society Elected Official of the Year: Penelope Gross, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Animal Rescue Story: Jennifer Roberts, Mary Zambrano and Andrew Sanderson, Fairfax County Animal Services Division Veterinary Team: Dr. Peter Glassman and staff, Friendship Hospital for Animals Volunteer Team: Mary O’Malley, Shizue “Susie” Cooper, Peter “Pete” Barnes, Nancy Fluhr, Jami Ojala, Michael “Mickey” Lasky, Fairfax County Animal Services Division Wildlife Rehabilitation Team: Chris Montouri, Polly Hoffman, Brittany Davis & Amber Vencion of Second Chance Wildlife Center Media: Liz Crenshaw and NBC-4; Washington Post Animal Watch section ----------Release Date: Feb 25, 2005 Contact: Steven Kania Phone: 202-962-3249