Santa Barbara Spay/Neuter Ordinance
Flies In Face Of Facts, Ignores Reality
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
SANTA BARBARA, CA – A proposed ordinance to mandate pet sterilization flies in the face of one basic fact. The current system of voluntary spaying and neutering, combined with increased public awareness, has been incredibly successful by any standard of measure.
Between 1990 and 2005 (the last year for which complete data is available), the number of dogs entering the Santa Barbara municipal shelter fell by 33-percent, and the number of dogs euthanized dropped by 58-percent, according to official data submitted to the California Department of Health Services.
The trend is continuing at an even more rapid annual rate, the data shows. Between 2002 and 2005, the number of dogs entering the shelter has declined by 14-percent, and the number euthanized by 24-percent.
In any other endeavor, those kinds of statistics would be used as evidence of overwhelming success. Instead, animal rights groups that have a larger agenda are trying to convince the county Board of Supervisors that their efforts have failed, and sterner measures are needed.
Next month, the supervisors are slated to vote on an ordinance that would mandate the spaying and neutering of many dogs in the county.
Aside from the statistical evidence, the proposed ordinance ignores the facts in many other regards. It ignores:
· The fact that similar ordinances in other communities, both in California and elsewhere, have completely backfired, causing a sharp rise in shelter admissions and euthanasia that took several years to level off. This is believed to be because many people abandon their pets, rather than face citations and fines, or because they cannot afford the cost. In addition, dog license sales and revenues have declined.
· The fact that the characteristics of the dogs entering the shelter conclusively prove that any form of spaying or neutering is unlikely to have a noticeable impact on the statistics. Nationwide studies have shown that 20-to-25-percent of the dogs entering shelters are brought there by their owners specifically to be euthanized because of old age or illness, that “pit bull” purebreds and crosses account for another 20-to-25-percent, and that most of the rest of the dogs that are euthanized are not adoptable because of age, illness or temperament problems.
· The fact that those three categories of dogs account for almost all of the shelter euthanasia (881 dogs in 2005), and that the rest of the dogs are either returned to their owners (1,887 in 2005), or adopted by individuals or rescue groups (1,356 dogs were adopted and another 616 rescued in 2005). Those numbers show dramatically that mandatory sterilization would have virtually no impact on the shelter.
· The fact that rescue groups now take virtually all surplus dogs from the shelter that are considered to be adoptable. These dedicated groups of caring people quickly find homes for any dog that is small, cute and friendly, or of a popular breed.
· The fact that these rescue groups are so successful that they are importing hundreds of dogs into Santa Barbara County every year from shelters in rural parts of California and other states to meet the exploding demand for adoptable pets.
· The fact that tens of thousands of dogs and puppies are brought into California each year from Mexico to meet the demand for adoptable dogs, and many of these animals wind up in Santa Barbara County. Other foreign imports to the county come from as far away as Taiwan, Korea and Puerto Rico.
· The fact that the current number of these imports completely offsets any gains that might be made by mandatory sterilization, and that these imports likely would increase if the number of adoptable dogs at the shelter is reduced, because of the high consumer demand for certain kinds of dogs.
· The fact that there is substantial evidence that an increase in imported dogs, especially from other countries, substantially increases the risk of rabies, canine diseases and other medical problems. The only known incidences of canine rabies in the past 10 years were found in shelter imports from Mexico and Puerto Rico, according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
· And the fact that there is a growing body of scientific evidence that spaying and neutering can have adverse affects on dogs’ health and well being, especially when it is done before sexual maturity. While the majority of veterinarians support sterilization and believe the benefits outweigh the risks, research findings have caused many veterinarians to rethink this issue. Because of the significantly increased risks reported in some veterinary medicine research, we believe that the decision should be left up to the pet owner in consultation with his or her veterinarian. Mandatory sterilization also could expose county government to significant legal and financial liabilities, especially in light of the doubts cast by current research. Research has linked increases to several serious and often fatal illnesses to sterilization. The information will be described in detail later in this report.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. Please visit us on the web at
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org.
The Numbers
The numbers speak loudly and clearly for the success of the current program of voluntary spaying and neutering, combined with increased public awareness. The numbers also strongly suggest that the best way to reduce the number of unwanted dogs is to provide increased opportunities for no-cost and low-cost voluntary programs.
Here are the official numbers for dogs for the past several years at the Santa Barbara municipal shelter, according to the California Department of Public Health Services:
· 2006 – Incomplete data. No data is available for 2007.
· 2005 – 4,755 entered, 1,356 adopted, 881 euthanized
· 2004 – 4,901 entered, 1,292 adopted, 899 euthanized
· 2003 – 5,005 entered, 1,428 adopted, 913 euthanized
· 2002 – 5,523 entered – 1,536 adopted, 1,174 euthanized
· 2001 – 4,850 entered, 1,627 adopted, 1,358 euthanized
· 2000 – incomplete data
· 1995 – 5,665 entered, 1,710 adopted, 1,434 euthanized
· 1990 – 7,090 entered, 1,245 adopted, 2,147 euthanized
We believe that this data is conclusive. The current system is amazingly successful. The downward trends in shelter admissions and euthanasia rates are striking evidence of success.
Since most of the dogs entering the shelter are returned to their owners or adopted by individuals or rescue groups (616 were transferred to other shelters in 2005), the only possible beneficial impact of mandatory sterilization would be upon the dogs that are euthanized.
Nationwide shelter statistics show that this impact would be minimal, at best, and probably are entirely illusory.
Accurate breakdowns of the dogs euthanized at the Santa Barbara shelter are not available, but can be estimated under the assumption that they are consistent with national statistics.
Those statistics would indicate that the 881 dogs euthanized in 2005 likely would include roughly 200-to-225 that were brought to the shelter by their owners for the express purpose of euthanasia because of old age or illness, and another 200-to-225 of the so-called “pit bull” breeds and crosses that are not considered to be adoptable. Other estimates are even higher. The pro-rescue group Animal People says that 40-percent of the dogs at the Los Angeles shelter are pit bulls, and that the number ranges up to 70-percent in some cities.
Thus, it is likely that at least half of the dogs euthanized would fall under those categories, and that this number would not be affected by mandatory sterilization.
Of the remaining dogs that are euthanized (450, give or take), many are strays that are killed because of old age, illness, injury or demonstrated unstable dispositions. Most of the rest are probably big dogs with undesirable characteristics or breed combinations. Many of these dogs are described by shelter workers with a black sense of humor as being “big black dogs,” which are the hardest to adopt.
Thus, at most, mandatory spaying and neutering has the theoretical potential to reduce the number of dogs at the shelter by around 450 a year, at current rates of admission, which are showing clear signs of continuing to decline at a rapid rate.
However, this does not mean that 450 shelter deaths could be avoided.
National research has shown that pet population issues rank sixth and 10th on the list of why dogs find their way to shelters. Too many dogs at home ranks sixth, and not finding homes for puppies ranks 10th.
The top five major causes were shown to be social issues that are part of modern life, such as job-related moving, landlords who won’t allow pets, financial problems, lack of time, and personal problems such as divorce. A sterilization ordinance would do nothing to reduce these shelter admissions.
This research shows that most dogs that enter shelters are wanted by their owners, but that their owners are forced to abandon them. This research also clearly implies that only a small fraction of the avoidable shelter deaths could be attributed to an overpopulation of dogs – could be, that is, but not necessarily.
Importation Issues
This is where the number of dogs imported into Santa Barbara County from other counties, states and countries plays an important role, and why it is highly probable that these imported dogs completely offset any theoretical gains made by mandatory sterilization.
No data is available to show the exact number of dogs brought into Santa Barbara County each year to satisfy a burgeoning demand for small, cute and friendly dogs, but the number is likely staggering.
ASDA has verified that no fewer than seven private shelters and rescue groups in the county import dogs from other areas, and a well-developed network shows a steady stream of traffic into the county from other areas. This can be verified by looking up rescue pipelines on Yahoo groups, which are organized by each Interstate highway in the nation. Search for the number of the Interstate under categories such as “I-5 transport,” “I40 rescue,” or “I-10 rescue transport,” and you can track how this network enters California and the destinations of many of the dogs.
Another organization, called the Canine Underground Railroad, also is a communications network for the interstate and international rescue pipeline that leads straight to Santa Barbara’s doorstep. This group boasts 250 underground railway relay stations across America, and some are in Santa Barbara County.
An October 27, 2007, report by ABC News described the issue succinctly: “Even though dog overpopulation is rampant in some states, particularly in the South, successful spaying and neutering programs in the Northwest, California and the Northeast have created a dearth of adoptable puppies, say local shelters.”
Blogs from the Canine Underground Railway also consistently point to the high demand for “adoptable” dogs in many rescue shelters, and the continual necessity to fill rescue kennels with adoptable dogs from other areas.
ASDA does not criticise these rescue groups, and in fact admires the dedication of these people to save lives of innocent dogs by helping them to find good homes.
On the other hand, this trend puts the alleged “pet overpopulation problem” in Santa Barbara County in a completely different perspective. It is impossible to argue logically that there are too many unwanted dogs in Santa Barbara County, when hundreds and possibly thousands of dogs are brought into the county every year to meet the demand for pets.
It also points out that any gains in either voluntary or mandatory sterilization in the county are very likely to be offset if not reversed by increases in the number of dogs brought into the county by private shelters and rescue groups.
The rescue movement was begun as a humanitarian commitment to animal welfare, but it also has become driven by the market economy. It requires a steady supply of small, cute and friendly dogs for adoption in order to pay for the facilities and programs to help other dogs.
This is a central and pressing issue described in detail in discussions by shelter and rescue managers on blogs and message boards connected to the Canine Underground Railroad website, and also from another rescue pipeline called the Best Friends Animal Society.
A leader of the Homeward Bound Golden Retriever Rescue in Elverta, CA, describes the magnitude of the number of dogs being brought into California from just one pupular breed, and by just one shelter. “We rescue between 350-500 dogs per year, many of whom come from distant shelters and are transported by our Golden Taxi Team,” she said on one blogsite.
“The feeling I'm getting anymore is not an altruistic, helpful endeavor,” a manager at another California rescue said. “ These are business decisions, the need to provide a commodity (cute dogs and cats) to the local community so you've still got the public walking through your doors.”
A manager of a public shelter complained bitterly about the cometition from out-of-state imports. “… Because of the success of our spay/neuter program, we do not have puppies waiting to be adopted,” she said. She was referring to a voluntary low-cost program.
A 1994 study by the American Veterinary Medical Association found that shelters and rescues accounted for 10-to-14-percent of all pet ownership. More recent findings shows that this has grown to more than 21-percent.
An article published by the pro-rescue group Animal People analysized that increase: “Most of the increase appears to reflect the declining numbers of unintentional litters given away by families and friends, but breeders also seem to be feeling the competition from shelters and rescuers who are increasingly astute about using paid ads to boost adoption demand and using the Internet to arrange humane relocations, so that adopters can find the dogs they want.”
We believe that the precipitous rise in shelter importations (more properly called “humane relocations”) dramatically emphasizes the futility and pointlessness of any mandatory spay and neuter program, and also points out the strong potential to cancel out current successful efforts of voluntary pet sterilization and increasing public awareness.
In plain English, there is a strong demand for small, cute and friendly dogs, and also dogs of popular breeds, and it is in the nature of America’s values to fulfill that need in the marketplace by whatever means are possible.
Some of those means are brutally inhumane, a Border Patrol analysis of dog smuggling into California from Mexico shows.
The Foreign Equation
Many of the groups that import dogs into the United States from foreign lands are working from excellent motives: To save innocent dogs that have horrible lives in the lands of their birth.
Organizations such as Compassion Without Borders, of Santa Rosa, CA, and Fund for Animals, Vacaville, CA, rescue hundreds of dog in Mexico every year and bring them to California shelters for adoption. Another program, called Save A Sato, has brought in 14,000 dogs from the streets of Puerto Rico, and some of them have gone to California. Dogs are flown to the U.S. almost daily from Puerto Rico. Other West Coast programs focus on dogs from Korea and Taiwan.
We do not criticize the motivation of these groups, although we do question their impact on domestic dog programs in the United States. We also are concerned that many of these rescued Mexican dogs have potential health problems, including rabies, which is rampant in Mexico.
There have been only two cases of canine rabies in the U.S. over the past decade, and both involved dogs brought in by foreign rescue programs. In 2004, a rabid dog from Mexico ended up in Los Angeles. Another rabid dog came from Puerto Rico to the East Coast.
Rescue groups, however, are not the major risk factor, and probably represent a small percentage of the dogs entering California from Mexico.
In only two weeks in December, 2005, a sting operation by the U.S. Customs Service and 14 California law enforcement agencies and animal welfare organizations uncovered 1,579 dogs being smuggled from Mexico into California at just two border checkpoints, San Ysidro and Otay Mesa.
Smuggled dogs were found in 1,157 different vehicles, and included 362 young puppies, 155 older puppies and 1,061 mature dogs, Customs reported.
Customs found a literal tidal wave of illegal canine immigration for profit, complete with well-organized supply lines, “coyotes” and “mules.”
Based on that two-week tally, Customs estimates that at least 10,000 dogs are smuggled into California from Mexico every year at just those two border crossing points. The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that up to 300,000 dogs are smuggled into the U.S. every year.
These are not rescue dogs. These are dogs smuggled into the U.S. for profit.
An Associated Press reporter covering the story described the reality of this smuggling enterprise: “Typically small breeds like poodles and Chihuahuas (are chosen),” reporter Elliott Spagat wrote, “(and) the puppies are believed to be purchased in Mexico for between $50 and $150, then sold at street corners, parking lots and flea markets in Southern California for between $300 and $1,000 each.”
Smugglers regard the puppy trade as safer than the drug trade, as the penalties for getting caught are much less severe, as are the risks. But the profits are equally high. Other sources report that dog smuggling is used by some illegal immigrants as a way to finance relocation to the United States.
Many of these dogs come from the worst possible conditions, and have been exposed to a variety of communicable diseases. Many get sick and die shortly after they are purchased in the U.S.
The influx of smuggled dogs from Mexico has continued unabated since the 2005 sting, and it is reported that many of these dogs end up in Santa Barbara County.
Sterilization Mandates Backfire
The Santa Barbara proposal for mandatory sterilization seems doomed to failure simply because of the realities of the marketplace, which have led rescue groups and smugglers to bring in dogs to meet the insatiable demand for cute and cuddly pets.
They are further doomed by the fact that unwanted puppies represent only a tiny fraction of the dogs entering shelters, and an ordinance would have no tangible effect on either shelter admissions or euthanasia numbers.
But the icing on the cake is the uncontestable fact that similar ordinances have completely backfired in other communities that have tried it. One of those communities was California’s San Mateo County.
Statistical evidence in San Mateo County is clear and dramatic, and offers conclusive proof of the unintended consequences of mandatory sterilization. The data shows a huge increase in the number of dogs entering shelters since a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance was passed in 1996, and also a large increase in shelter euthanasia. In fact, it took San Mateo County 10 years to get back to the rates it had the year before the ordinance was passed.
While San Mateo County was struggling to get back to “Square One,” the rest of California was making rapid progress to solve the problem of unwanted animals through public education and voluntary programs.
Dogs paid the price for the San Mateo ordinance. They paid the price with the loss of their homes, and many paid with their lives.
The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals sponsored and drafted the San Mateo County ordinance, which mandates that every dog over six months of age must be spayed or neutered unless the owner obtains a very restrictive and expensive breeders’ permit. It became law in October of 1996. Violators are subject to heavy fines, prosecution and seizures.
In 1991, 6,694 dogs entered the San Mateo County shelter system. Then the ordinance was passed. In 1992, this number fell to 4,332 dogs, but then soared to 8,771 by 1998. The county only began to approach pre-ordinance levels in the Year 2000, with 4,144 dogs received, and the number gradually fell to 3,520 in 2006. However, percentage of this decline in the number of dogs entering San Mateo County shelters is far smaller than comparable statewide figures during the same period.
The ordinance has hurt dogs, not helped them. It is believed that financial hardship, and fear of fines and prosecution, has led many people to abandon their pets, while discouraging other people from adopting pets at shelters.
Many more dogs were killed in San Mateo County shelters in the years following the passage of the ordinance, and the shelter kill rate did not drop below pre-ordinance levels until 2006 – a bloody 10-year-long trail of death for dogs to reach euthanasia levels that existed before the ordinance was passed.
Dogs killed at San Mateo County shelters rose from 1,286 to 1,355 in the year following the passage of the ordinance, and rose again to 1,621 the following year. In 2006, 1,317 dogs were killed, which basically puts the county where it was before the ordinance was passed. During this same period, the rest of California reduced shelter euthanasia by 66-percent with a voluntary program.
Because of the burdens of spaying and neutering, fewer people adopted dogs in San Mateo County. Pet adoptions from the county’s shelters were 1,188 the year before the ordinance was passed, but had fallen to 839 by the Year 2000.
Medical Cautions
The American Veterinary Medical Association has long advocated spaying and neutering of dogs, and continues to do so, under the belief that the benefits outweigh the risks. However, recent research has led many individual veterinarians to seriously question this premise.
A 2007 analysis of the research by Dr. Larry Katz of Rutgers University concluded:
“Tradition holds that the benefits of (sterilization) at an early age outweigh the risks. Often, tradition holds sway in the decision-making process even after countervailing evidence has accumulated. Ms (Laura) Sanborn has reviewed the veterinary medical literature in an exhaustive and scholarly treatise, attempting to unravel the complexities of the subject. More than 50 peer-reviewed papers were examined to assess the health impacts of spay / neuter in female and male dogs, respectively. One cannot ignore the findings of increased risk from osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, hypothyroidism, and other less frequently occurring diseases associated with neutering male dogs. It would be irresponsible of the veterinary profession and the pet owning community to fail to weigh the relative costs and benefits of neutering on the animal’s health and well-being. The decision for females may be more complex, further emphasizing the need for individualized veterinary medical decisions, not standard operating procedures for all patients.”
Sanborn’s review of the research concluded:
The number of health problems associated with neutering may exceed the associated health benefits in most cases.
On the positive side, neutering male dogs
· eliminates the small risk (probably <1%) of dying from testicular cancer
· reduces the risk of non-cancerous prostate disorders
· reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
· may possibly reduce the risk of diabetes (data inconclusive).
On the negative side, neutering male dogs
· if done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a common cancer in medium/large and larger breeds with a poor prognosis.
· increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6
· triples the risk of hypothyroidism
· increases the risk of progressive geriatric cognitive impairment
· triples the risk of obesity, a common health problem in dogs with many associated health problems
· quadruples the small risk (<0.6%) of prostate cancer
· doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract cancers
· increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
· increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations.
For female dogs, the situation is more complex. The number of health benefits associated with spaying may exceed the associated health problems in some (not all) cases. On balance, whether spaying improves the odds of overall good health or degrades them probably depends on the age of the female dog and the relative risk of various diseases in the different breeds.
On the positive side, spaying female dogs
· if done before 2.5 years of age, greatly reduces the risk of mammary tumors, the most common malignant tumors in female dogs
· nearly eliminates the risk of pyometra, which otherwise would affect about 23% of intact female dogs; pyometra kills about 1% of intact female dogs
· reduces the risk of perianal fistulas
· removes the very small risk (_0.5%) from uterine, cervical, and ovarian tumors
On the negative side, spaying female dogs
· if done before 1 year of age, significantly increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer); this is a common cancer in larger breeds with a poor prognosis
· increases the risk of splenic hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 2.2 and cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of >5; this is a common cancer and major cause of death in some breeds
· triples the risk of hypothyroidism
· increases the risk of obesity by a factor of 1.6-2, a common health problem in dogs with many associated health problems
· causes urinary “spay incontinence” in 4-20% of female dogs
· increases the risk of persistent or recurring urinary tract infections by a factor of 3-4
· increases the risk of recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis, and vaginitis, especially for female dogs spayed before puberty
· doubles the small risk (<1%) of urinary tract tumors
· increases the risk of orthopedic disorders
· increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations
Sanborn concluded: “One thing is clear – much of the spay/neuter information that is available to the public is unbalanced and contains claims that are exaggerated or unsupported by evidence. Rather than helping to educate pet owners, much of it has contributed to common misunderstandings about the health risks and benefits.”
It is ASDA’s opinion that these research findings cast enough doubt on the practice of universal sterilization to make it inadvisable if not reckless for any level of government to mandate spaying or neutering at this point in time.
Moreover, such a mandate would expose any governing body to substantial legal and financial liability if individual pet owners successfully claim damages based on current or future research.
Please Help Dog Owners
We urge our members and readers to support local dog owners in Santa Barbara County. American Sporting Dog Alliance members and county residents Steve and Susan Sakauye (
SSakauye@aol.com) and Allison Iwamoto (
alohabyallison@aol.com) are helping to coordinate citizen opposition to this ordinance.
In addition, American Sporting Dog Alliance Veterinary Advisory Board member Dr. Charles Hjerpe, professor emeritus of veterinary medicine at the University of California – Davis, Legal Committee member and California attorney Tom Griffin, and Bay Area businessman, ASDA Director and dog law activist Mike Spies are willing lend assistance. These officers can be reached through
asda@csonline.net.
Also, please contact the Santa Barbara County Supervisors to voice your opinion about mandatory pet sterilization.
They are:
Salud Carbajal, Chair (He is in favor of the ordinance)
fax: 805.568.2534. Email:
SupervisorCarbajal@sbcbos1.org
Janet Wolf
fax: 805.568.2283. Email:
jwolf@sbcbos2.org
Brooks Firestone
fax: 805.568.2883 Email:
bfirestone@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
Joni Gray
fax: 805.346.8498 Email:
jgray@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
Joseph Centeno, Vice Chair
fax: 805.346.8404 Email:
jcenteno@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
Michael Allen, Chief Deputy of the Board
l05 E. Anapamu St, Room 407, Santa Barbara, CA 93101
fax: 805.568.2249 Email:
allen@co.santa-barbara.ca.us.
A Great Alternative
Today, April 14, the Concerned Dog Owners of California is joining Rep. Tony Mendoza, who is introducing legislation calling for a tax refund check-off to fund voluntary spay and neuter programs in the state. The legislation also calls for a special vehicle license plate to fund these programs.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance (ASDA) lends our unqualified support to this fine organization, and also to Rep. Mendoza for this extraordinary legislation, which approaches the problem proactively.
Rep. Mendoza earned the respect and admiration of dog owners last year for his leadership in the successful effort to block a statewide spay and neuter mandate.
It is estimated that this legislation realistically can provide $10 million a year to fund no-cost spay and neuter programs in California.
ASDA urges all Californians to send letters of support for AB 2291 to Rep. Mendoza , by writing to Robert Baird, State Capitol, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0056, or by fax to (916) 319-2156. The measure is before the Committee on Revenue and Taxation. We also urge our readers to support the Concerned Dog Owners of California. This fine group can be reached at
http://www.cdoca.org.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. You can reach us at
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. We are funded solely by the donations of our members, and maintain strict independence.
