Throwing the Dog Away*
Posted: September 28th, 2004, 8:02 pm
It’s anathema to me that we have constructed a government-run disposal system for unwanted pets, with no checks or balances, no monetary fees or fines, no restraints or questions before the disposal is accomplished.
Our tax dollars are invested in the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of dogs each year whose only crime is lack of training. Like broken toys after Christmas, these dogs are tossed aside impatiently, when the solution, for perhaps as many as 80% of them, is as simple as a professional course in obedience.
Although our government conscientiously outlaws the casual disposal of even a can of paint without proper procedure, any person living in this country can turn in an unwanted animal, free of charge, in almost any community. Shelter workers are specifically enjoined to issue no challenges, make no judgements, present no difficulties, when a family member enters the local animal control agency with a pet to turn in.
A popular argument is that if animal shelters imposed any restrictions on owner turn-ins, our streets would quickly fill up with unwanted pets, spreading disease, scavenging garbage and wreaking general havoc in the community. In other words, if pet owners aren’t given legal, nonjudgemental means of throwing away animals, they will resort to illegal means, destructive to society and animals alike. In the past, this argument was accepted unquestioningly, and few attempts have been made to study the problems in depth.
Sociologists working within the animal welfare system have recently discovered that an alarming number of dogs relinquished to shelters have not been given even the slightest chance to prove their worth to their prospective owners. Time, money and owner education are crucial factors.
According to one study, an overwhelming 50.4% of owner-relinquished dogs turned in to shelters are less than two years old. Well over 50% of all relinquished dogs have not been neutered (predisposing them to various behavioral problems). Of the dogs under two years old that end their short lives in the animal shelter, a shocking 48.3% have spent less than one year in their original adoptive families. Worst of all, an average of 90.4% of the relinquishing owners interviewed confessed that their dogs had never been taken to obedience class or seen a professional trainer, nor had they received instructions from a dog trainer themselves.
What you are likely to see, when you go to the animal shelter these days, are the canine equivalents of children and youths, untrained but trusting, knowing little of the world besides steady good food, a warm bed, play and the love of a family. Most of them will die in that place because the people that turned them in never took the time to figure out how to make them productive members of their family pack.
It is certainly true that some dogs are untrainable. Some dogs demonstrate behavioral problems that make them dangerous to have in the home, even if proper training is possible. Indeed, one study indicated that 22.2% of owners relinquishing dogs to animal shelters cited “biting” as their number one reason for surrender. Assuming the owners are reporting the nature of their problems with their pets accurately, there may be nothing we can do about the deaths of one in five surrendered dogs. Perhaps the best remedy in these cases is euthanasia, since that is the only way to guarantee the safety of future human owners.
As for the rest, animal shelters can save themselves the expense and tragedy of putting thousands of dogs to their death by initiating owner training programs and imposing mandatory time extensions on owner-surrender of dogs. Since approximately 90% of owners interviewed for these studies admitted that they had never sought professional assistance in training their pets, a six week mandatory probationary period for animal and owner, including low-cost obedience classes at the shelter, might significantly increase satisfaction in owner-to-dog relationships. Making acceptance of the dog into an animal shelter conditional on some investment in training is not only preventative, it is reasonable. An untrained dog cannot be expected to behave.
Similarly, the shelters might offer vouchers for a low-cost spay or neuter to pet owners who complain of sex-related behavioral problems.
Strangely, it costs no money to surrender a dog to the shelter, although it does cost money to take one out. I find this state of affairs peculiar for a number of reasons. The same studies indicated above revealed that a purchased animal is as much as four times less likely to enter an animal shelter than one obtained for free. Considering that it is human nature to value purchased goods and services more highly than free ones, it makes good common sense for animal shelters to begin charging owners directly for the added expense incurred by accepting an animal. It costs the shelter money to feed, house, medicate and euthanize other people’s pets.
When the owners of relinquished pets were questioned, it was discovered that approximately 53% were college educated, 63.5% were white, and nearly 60% had a household income greater than $27,500 annually. As for income, the vast majority (35.6%) reported income between $35,000 and $75,000. This certainly proves that many of the people using our shelter system are not poor or disadvantaged. They are, instead, individuals who are well aware that there are other options available to them. They fall back on the shelter system, perhaps because it is free of cost, obligation, and moral judgement.
Furthermore, 20.5% of all animals surrendered to shelters are specifically surrendered for euthanasia by the owners themselves. That means that a little over one in five animals entering our shelter system were going to die, anyways. This 20.5% of pets do not represent “animal overpopulation”, but instead, they possibly represent “owners working the system”. Everyone knows the animal shelters euthanize free of charge, while the local veterinarian charges approximately $100.00 to $150.00 for the same service.
I think it is high time that the shelters begin imposing fees and certain obligations on relinquishing owners. It seems to me that the figures here prove that many animals die unnecessarily because we live in a society that offers free and convenient means for their disposal even before other options have been explored. Since the shelter system is supplying the means, and has been doing so for many decades, it is now up to the shelter system to address these issues and begin imposing conditions, if not penalties, for the deaths of our pets.
*Statistics credit to the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. Studies conducted by authors Lori Kogan, John C. New, Jr. Phillip H. Kass, Janet M. Scarlett, Mo. D. Salman, Mike King and Jennifer M. Hutchison. Copyrights 2000, 2001. Details available upon request.
Our tax dollars are invested in the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of dogs each year whose only crime is lack of training. Like broken toys after Christmas, these dogs are tossed aside impatiently, when the solution, for perhaps as many as 80% of them, is as simple as a professional course in obedience.
Although our government conscientiously outlaws the casual disposal of even a can of paint without proper procedure, any person living in this country can turn in an unwanted animal, free of charge, in almost any community. Shelter workers are specifically enjoined to issue no challenges, make no judgements, present no difficulties, when a family member enters the local animal control agency with a pet to turn in.
A popular argument is that if animal shelters imposed any restrictions on owner turn-ins, our streets would quickly fill up with unwanted pets, spreading disease, scavenging garbage and wreaking general havoc in the community. In other words, if pet owners aren’t given legal, nonjudgemental means of throwing away animals, they will resort to illegal means, destructive to society and animals alike. In the past, this argument was accepted unquestioningly, and few attempts have been made to study the problems in depth.
Sociologists working within the animal welfare system have recently discovered that an alarming number of dogs relinquished to shelters have not been given even the slightest chance to prove their worth to their prospective owners. Time, money and owner education are crucial factors.
According to one study, an overwhelming 50.4% of owner-relinquished dogs turned in to shelters are less than two years old. Well over 50% of all relinquished dogs have not been neutered (predisposing them to various behavioral problems). Of the dogs under two years old that end their short lives in the animal shelter, a shocking 48.3% have spent less than one year in their original adoptive families. Worst of all, an average of 90.4% of the relinquishing owners interviewed confessed that their dogs had never been taken to obedience class or seen a professional trainer, nor had they received instructions from a dog trainer themselves.
What you are likely to see, when you go to the animal shelter these days, are the canine equivalents of children and youths, untrained but trusting, knowing little of the world besides steady good food, a warm bed, play and the love of a family. Most of them will die in that place because the people that turned them in never took the time to figure out how to make them productive members of their family pack.
It is certainly true that some dogs are untrainable. Some dogs demonstrate behavioral problems that make them dangerous to have in the home, even if proper training is possible. Indeed, one study indicated that 22.2% of owners relinquishing dogs to animal shelters cited “biting” as their number one reason for surrender. Assuming the owners are reporting the nature of their problems with their pets accurately, there may be nothing we can do about the deaths of one in five surrendered dogs. Perhaps the best remedy in these cases is euthanasia, since that is the only way to guarantee the safety of future human owners.
As for the rest, animal shelters can save themselves the expense and tragedy of putting thousands of dogs to their death by initiating owner training programs and imposing mandatory time extensions on owner-surrender of dogs. Since approximately 90% of owners interviewed for these studies admitted that they had never sought professional assistance in training their pets, a six week mandatory probationary period for animal and owner, including low-cost obedience classes at the shelter, might significantly increase satisfaction in owner-to-dog relationships. Making acceptance of the dog into an animal shelter conditional on some investment in training is not only preventative, it is reasonable. An untrained dog cannot be expected to behave.
Similarly, the shelters might offer vouchers for a low-cost spay or neuter to pet owners who complain of sex-related behavioral problems.
Strangely, it costs no money to surrender a dog to the shelter, although it does cost money to take one out. I find this state of affairs peculiar for a number of reasons. The same studies indicated above revealed that a purchased animal is as much as four times less likely to enter an animal shelter than one obtained for free. Considering that it is human nature to value purchased goods and services more highly than free ones, it makes good common sense for animal shelters to begin charging owners directly for the added expense incurred by accepting an animal. It costs the shelter money to feed, house, medicate and euthanize other people’s pets.
When the owners of relinquished pets were questioned, it was discovered that approximately 53% were college educated, 63.5% were white, and nearly 60% had a household income greater than $27,500 annually. As for income, the vast majority (35.6%) reported income between $35,000 and $75,000. This certainly proves that many of the people using our shelter system are not poor or disadvantaged. They are, instead, individuals who are well aware that there are other options available to them. They fall back on the shelter system, perhaps because it is free of cost, obligation, and moral judgement.
Furthermore, 20.5% of all animals surrendered to shelters are specifically surrendered for euthanasia by the owners themselves. That means that a little over one in five animals entering our shelter system were going to die, anyways. This 20.5% of pets do not represent “animal overpopulation”, but instead, they possibly represent “owners working the system”. Everyone knows the animal shelters euthanize free of charge, while the local veterinarian charges approximately $100.00 to $150.00 for the same service.
I think it is high time that the shelters begin imposing fees and certain obligations on relinquishing owners. It seems to me that the figures here prove that many animals die unnecessarily because we live in a society that offers free and convenient means for their disposal even before other options have been explored. Since the shelter system is supplying the means, and has been doing so for many decades, it is now up to the shelter system to address these issues and begin imposing conditions, if not penalties, for the deaths of our pets.
*Statistics credit to the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. Studies conducted by authors Lori Kogan, John C. New, Jr. Phillip H. Kass, Janet M. Scarlett, Mo. D. Salman, Mike King and Jennifer M. Hutchison. Copyrights 2000, 2001. Details available upon request.