Whose Side is Matthew Pepper on?

Reminder: This blog is now living at yesbiscuit.wordpress.com

***

The Memphis Animal Shelter killed around 13,000 pets in 2009. In 2010, they hired Matthew Pepper to take over the helm. I was thinking he was going to work toward reducing the killing at the shelter. Now I'm not so sure.

This week, the community gathered at a city council meeting to discuss a proposal regarding mandatory spay neuter. MSN supporters far outnumbered those opposed and Matthew Pepper was there. But he apparently did not speak out against the proposal, which would likely increase the killing at MAS:

Shelter director Matthew Pepper, who started his job this month, said that as a newcomer he was there to listen. He said whatever the fate of the ordinance, community-based programs that address responsible pet ownership will be needed.

He was there to listen to people proposing a bad law that would burden animal control, cause families to lose their pets, increase the intake at his shelter and increase the killing. This is not a "whatever the fate" tra-la-la-la-la issue. This is the time for the new director at MAS to take a stand and establish himself as a leader in Memphis with regard to decreased killing of the community's pets. Programs that address responsible pet ownership are good. MSN is not one of those.

Why is Matthew Pepper not speaking out against something that will lead to increased killing at MAS? Haven't the pets of Memphis suffered enough?

Memphis Animal Shelter News Bits

Matthew Pepper, the new director of the Memphis Animal Shelter (MAS), met with the Animal Services Advisory Board this week to discuss his plans for turning the shelter around. He will meet with them again next week:

Pepper plans to join the Animal Services Advisory Board for a public discussion next Tuesday on the issue of spaying and neutering. The meeting is scheduled for March 16th at 4pm at Memphis City Hall.

I sincerely hope Mr. Pepper will be speaking in favor of low/no cost spay neuter programs for Memphis and against the mandatory spay-neuter proposals on the table:

Councilman Shea Flinn is proposing an ordinance that would require all dogs and cats owned by Memphis residents to be altered, with several exemptions. The proposed law is in response to the overpopulation of animals in the city, which has led to a euthanasia rate in the Memphis Animal Shelter of more than 79 percent.

Again, this meeting is open to the public and you may speak if you wish. MSN doesn't decrease shelter killing. Sometimes it increases the killing. Only comprehensive reform will reduce the killing in Memphis. And if Memphis is looking for funding for low/no cost neuter, look no further than your own backyard:

For months you've been paying three Memphis Animal Shelter employees to sit at home. All of them were suspended in the latest scandal at the facility.

Memphis taxpayer and attorney Bryan Mauldin doesn't understand why the three employees are still collecting a paycheck, while they're off the job. Mauldin says “Our shelter has limited resources and we can't afford to squander that money.”

On a related note, perhaps taxpayers are getting their money's worth from Mr. Pepper who is apparently not only a shelter director, but also a qualified behaviorist who can make a preliminary assessment of seized Pitbulls in the blink of an eye:

The 4 pitbulls seized from the active dog fight were impounded at the Memphis Animal Shelter Thursday night. Director Matthew Pepper says the condition of the dogs shows it wasn't their first fight and it's too early to tell what will happen to them.

"Some violent and aggressive tendencies have been ingrained in them so, it's difficult for us to determine what we can safely do with them," Pepper said.

Well you could start by getting the dogs a fair evaluation from an experienced group or individual. These dogs have been rescued and placed in your care MAS. Whatever they've been forced to do in the past is over. Do not judge them on the cruelty of their abusers. They are each individual dogs with needs and abilities all their own. Violence and aggression are not "ingrained" in them. Judge them with a kind eye, as you would any dog who's been rescued from abuse. Don't allow your judgment to be clouded by preconceived notions.

Mr. Pepper wants a chance to show he can turn around the MAS. I hope he gives these 4 dogs a chance too. Every dog deserves a fair evaluation.

You Can't Reject the Internet

Mike Fry received a heads up in January that the Spring issue of The American Dog Magazine contained an article addressing no kill and mandatory spay-neuter:

After reading the article in question, I requested an opportunity to write a rebuttal in the next issue. The publisher agreed and the rebuttal was written. Upon submission, however, the article was rejected, with the publisher simply stating this was not what they had agreed to publish.

You can read the rebuttal here.

What if We All Neutered Our Pets Today?

I no longer believe in the concept of "pet overpopulation" in this country. That myth has been debunked to my satisfaction by Nathan Winograd. But setting that aside, let's say for the sake of discussion that there are - if not a surplus of pets, at least way too many being killed in animal shelters. It's good to have a general agreement on what the problem is when considering possible solutions. So let's consider this guy's idea, which is not his alone, but rather one shared by many people concerned about pets being killed in shelters:

The Executive Director of what is now the Humane Society of Northeast Georgia in Gainesville says he would support a law requiring cat and dog owners to spay and neuter their pets.

As regular readers know, I do not support mandatory spay-neuter laws in any way, shape or form. But again, for discussion purposes, let's give the proposal a whirl.

So we all spay and neuter our pets. Well hold on a sec actually because I could not afford to spay and neuter all of mine at once. And there are most likely many others like me. So will there suddenly be funding for low cost spay-neuter services everywhere they are needed, especially in rural areas of the South for owners like me? That seems hard to believe since, if funding were available, wouldn't we have low cost spay-neuter services available everywhere already? But let's just say that all the needed neuter clinics appear magically throughout the U.S. Further, let's set aside the concerns about vaccinations (mandatory or owner discretion?), individuals with medical concerns (senior pets, anesthesia sensitivity, etc.), transportation (how do I get my pets to and from the clinic?) and any other potential conflicts. We'll just make this happen.

So now we've all got our pets neutered. But wait - is it reasonable to assume that every single pet owner complied? Probably not. People who rely on selling puppies and kittens as a means of income may not be willing to give up their livelihoods and in fact, unscrupulous individuals may see a black market developing for their product. Other owners may be involved with criminal activities involving their dogs and cats (dogfighting, crush videos) and may intend to continue but even if they were willing to abandon their practices, they likely wouldn't want to come forward to have any official records created on their animals.

In my estimation, we'd still have black market entrepreneurs and other criminals with intact dogs and cats. Then there are the strays, reproducing at will all over the country. Stray dogs and cats, lacking in socialization and definitely going without health screening or even basic health care. Litters born under abandoned trailers in the cold and the wet. Those lucky enough to survive spend their lives evading animal control, scrounging for scraps, and reproducing at will.

Back at home, 10 years into the future, all my pets will have died. And so will everyone else's who complied with the MSN law. But we really want to have pets. Veterans and other individuals need service dogs to assist them in day to day life. Farmers need stock dogs. Families need companion animals. Etc. What are we to do?

We can try to trap and domesticate a stray dog or cat. That may or may not work out so well, especially if our needs are for a particular type of pet. And if we successfully catch and tame a stray pet, the animal will need to undergo training for the work we require him to perform. He may or may not be physically and mentally suited for this training. If we get lucky and all goes well, we can hope that he is able to provide several years of service/companionship but of course he'd have to be neutered, leaving us stranded in the same boat eventually.

Alternately, to find a pet of a specific type, with predictable behavior and aptitude, we could seek out a criminal. Because those are the only people with intact pets who would be breeding anymore in this country. Again, that may or may not work out so well and probably isn't worth the risk.

Finally we might have the option of importing a pet from a foreign country. But surely foreign breeders will seize the opportunity to make financial and other demands on U.S. buyers, since the market will bear it. And some breeders will not sell stock to a country where sterilization is mandatory. The average pet owner will most likely be unable to import a pet. Perhaps U.S. shelters will import pets from foreign sources - strays rounded up off the streets or taken from shelters. Will these pets be well cared for in transit and what will the cost be to adopt these precious few available pets? If we look at how American consumers have historically fared when we've relied upon foreign products, we could get a glimpse into how the foreign pet trade might look.

So where are we in 10 years if we pass mandatory neuter laws all over the U.S.? We can have a pet, provided we're skilled in trapping and taming strays, willing to buy from a criminal and hope we don't get caught, or wealthy enough to import a pet. These unlikely and undesirable options will not apply to the average pet owner though. The average pet owner will be a thing of the past - not in 1000 years or 100 years but in 10 years.

There is another approach to tackling the problem of killing shelter pets. It makes sense and allows all of us to keep owning pets for as long as we can do it responsibly. No Kill now.

CA SB 250 (MSN) on Hold

Via Save Our Dogs:

The California Legislature is winding down for the year and SB250 has been placed on the inactive file. That means no further action until next year.

AKC puts it a bit more definitively:

Senator Dean Florez, the author of Senate Bill 250, has issued a press release stating that the bill will be put on hold until the legislature reconvenes in January 2010.

So I guess CA residents can give their fax machines a rest for a few months, at least regarding SB 250.

Does HSUS Support SB 250 in CA?

A brief historical example of HSUS involvement in mandatory spay-neuter (MSN) in CA:

HSUS participated in crafting MSN in Sacramento Co, CA starting in 2004 (pdf). The ordinance was introduced in 2006 and passed in 2007.

• In 2006, Sacramento Co killed 46% of their shelter pets while owners redeemed 9% and 15% were adopted, rescue accounted for 6% and foster for 2% (pdf).
• In 2007, Sacramento Co killed 49% of their shelter pets while owners redeemed 10% and 15% were adopted, rescue accounted for 4% and foster for 3% (pdf).
• In 2008, Sacramento Co killed 50% of their shelter pets while owners redeemed 9% and 15% were adopted, rescue accounted for 4% and foster for 2% (pdf).

In summary, the HSUS led coalition declared that MSN was the solution to Sacramento County's shelter killing problems in 2006, when the kill rate was 46%. After MSN was passed in 2007, the kill rate increased to 49% and increased again in 2008 to 50%. Rescue/foster save rates have dropped from 8% to 6% in the same period. Adoptions have remained stagnant at 15%.

To date, I would give this ordinance a big frowny-face "F".

Now to current MSN legislation in CA and the question of HSUS support:

Judie Mancuso, the animal rights activist behind CA's 2007 statewide MSN bill (AB 1634), is founder and President of Social Compassion in Legislation (SCIL). SCIL is BFFs with HSUS (pdf of HSUS 2007 tax return indicating a $10,000 grant to SCIL, page 47). After AB 1634 went down in flames in 2008, SCIL went to work on SB 250 which is kinda very much like and eerily similar to and basically the same thing as AB 1634. SB 250 recently passed the state Senate and has been sent to the state Assembly for final consideration before it can become law.

Although to my knowledge HSUS has not taken an official position on SB 250, we know they are strong financial supporters of the bill's sponsor SCIL and historically they have worked to get MSN ordinances passed in CA. And since HSUS has not come out against SB 250, it's possible to my mind they are supporting it, perhaps through additional grants to SCIL and/or other means. Which is why this release from HSUS, dated June 4, surprised me:

On behalf of its nearly 1.3 million California constituents, The Humane Society of the United States yesterday appeared before the state legislative Budget Conference Committee to urge consideration of the serious and adverse implications of the Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to suspend the "animal adoption mandate," which would have the effect of reducing by three days the holding period for stray dogs and cats in the state's municipal animal shelters.

Indeed if HSUS is concerned about saving shelter pets in CA, why are they not campaigning against SB 250 which will have the effect of increased killing of shelter pets in CA? Note: Look at the Los Angeles MSN kills stats after 1 year on KC Dog Blog, and the disastrous effects of MSN in Santa Cruz Co on Save Our Dogs site.

I'll be watching the Save Our Dogs and PetPAC sites for news about the CA State Assembly's action on SB 250. And I'll be keeping an eye out for any "official position" and/or action by HSUS regarding the bill.

Related Reading:

Letter from former President of CA Veterinary Medical Association

American Veterinary Medical Association policy against MSN

ASPCA position statement against MSN

Alley Cat Allies (pdf) against MSN

New Shelter in SC and Some Misinformation

There's a new animal shelter in Florence Co, SC:

It spans about 4,600 square feet and has 76 dog pens and 86 cat cages, Christmas said. Generally, animal control officers will keep one animal to a cage to prevent problems such as fighting over food, he said.

The old facility could comfortably hold 30 dogs and 26 cats, although it was common to have six to 10 dogs in one pen, Christmas said.

Eek. Imagine 6 to 10 dogs urinating, defecating, eating, and living their lives in one shelter pen. How many adopters were able to sort out the mess and find a family pet? "One animal to a cage" sounds like a big improvement in the quality of life for the shelter pets and hopefully will increase their chances of adoption.

Another bit of good news is that the county may offer a low/no cost neuter program at the facility:

The county has about $20,000 toward operating tables, anesthetics and other surgical equipment, but needs an additional $25,000 to start a spay-and-neuter program, Anderson [a county councilman and retired Vet] said.

[...]

[Kathy Stewart, owner and founder of Home Away From Home Rescue in Florence] also said a spay-and-neuter facility will be a plus “because a lot of people aren’t going to (have their pets spayed or neutered) by themselves, and there’s a mandatory spay-neuter law in South Carolina.”

Well, no. (Is your fact checker out with Swine Flu or what?) SC mandates that shelter pets be neutered prior to adoption or that the shelter and new owner enter into a written agreement that the pet will be neutered within 30 days. Privately owned animals at shelters are exempt and there is no mandatory neuter legislation for non-shelter pets. Here is the wording:

§ 47-3-480. Provisions for sterilization; exceptions; payment of costs; subsequent notification of sterilization for animals not sterile when acquired.

(A) A public or private animal shelter, animal control agency operated by a political subdivision of this State, humane society, or public or private animal refuge shall make provisions for the sterilization of all dogs or cats acquired from the shelter, agency, society, or refuge by:

(1) providing sterilization by a licensed veterinarian before relinquishing custody of the animal; or

(2) entering into a written agreement with the person acquiring the animal guaranteeing that sterilization will be performed by a licensed veterinarian within thirty days after acquisition of a sexually mature animal or no later than six months of age except upon a written statement issued by a licensed veterinarian stating that such surgery would threaten the life of the animal.

(B) This section does not apply to a privately owned animal which the shelter, agency, society, or refuge may have in its possession for any reason if the owner of the animal claims or presents evidence that the animal is his property.

(C) All costs of sterilization pursuant to this section are the responsibility of the person acquiring the animal and, if performed before acquisition, may be included in the fees charged by the shelter, agency, society, or refuge for the animal.

(D) A person acquiring an animal from a shelter, an agency, a society, or a refuge which is not sterile at the time of acquisition shall submit to the shelter, agency, society, or refuge a signed statement from the licensed veterinarian performing the sterilization required by subsection (A) within seven days after sterilization attesting that the sterilization has been performed.

Individual shelters or a "political subdivision" of the state may adopt more stringent policies if they so choose. The existing state laws are sound to my mind. I support the neutering of shelter pets (with exceptions in case of medically unsuitable animals as determined by a Vet) and am absolutely against mandatory neuter laws for non-shelter pets. Neuter surgery is appropriate for many pets but the decision must be made by an informed owner based upon the counsel of his Vet with consideration for the individual pet's circumstances.

Additional reading on mandatory neuter laws:

No Kill Advocacy Center (pdf)

AVMA position

ASPCA position

MSN Links

A few examples of bad results for pets after mandatory spay-neuter (MSN) has been enacted:

CA:

Los Angeles - first year stats under MSN (more analysis of L.A.'s failure here)

San Mateo County

WA:

King County



Comparisons between MSN areas and non-MSN areas in CA:

Lake County has the highest kill rate in the state

Santa Cruz County kills significantly more pets than neighboring counties without MSN



Additional reading:

Why Punitive Legislation Fails (pdf) from No Kill Advocacy Center

MSN Fails to Reach Most Intact Cats (pdf) from Alley Cat Allies