First Fix the Leak: Target the Animal Sellers First

By Rich McLellan

The Problem

In the noise created by the current ethical debate among animal advocates about the use of euthanasia versus “No-Kill” as a companion animal overpopulation management technique, I am somewhat surprised at the fact that while our community is wringing its hands about the lives of animals caught in the life and death grip of animal control agencies all over the world, it has shown little interest in investigating whether pets need to be there in the first place.

In spite of frequent attempts through the years to cut taxes and trim costs, decision makers still see the ever-increasing costs of pet abatement programs as one of the cost of managing complex, human, urban societies. Originally designed to deal with the public health and annoyance issues, created by an increasing number of abandoned and unsupervised pets, animal control agencies have become community “entitlement” programs, like health care and social security. Focused on the “bigger issues”, politicians have ignored statutory provisions that would eliminate companion animal overpopulation control as a perennial cost of being a modern community. There has been no attempt to investigate the biological and market forces that create this problem. Spend, euthanize, rescue, adopt, spay/neuter have been the approaches for over 75 years with the result that the problem seems to be worsening, demanding more money and community involvement every year with no end in sight.

The current storm of controversy is reminiscent of two castoffs in a leaky lifeboat, each arguing about the fastest way to bail out the water, while their hapless craft sinks. Arguing over reactive strategies to any problems never produces a solution. Like weed control, a lawnmower is not a solution. They need to be pulled up by their roots.

Our failure to articulate a rational solution is further subverted by our current fascination with spaying and neutering. Spaying and neutering, were it ever universal, would end the existence of dogs and cats within 20 years, so one can assume that the majority of its adherents only want partial success. They want some level of compliance to reduce numbers, and bring the number of pets in line with the number of permanent loving homes. They work overtime to remove the water from the bottom of the boat but, by not addressing the leak, are condemned to continue this course of action forever. It also assures that responsible pet owners who supervise their pets and would never allow them to breed, incur a cost, if only to remain politically correct while irresponsible pet owners whose animals have the greatest statistical chance of breeding escape this financial burden and perpetuate the problem. Spaying and neutering is noble, but futile, as with our leaky boat, or a basement with an open tape filling a basin and overflowing into a flooded basement. We must first stop the leak or turn off the tap.

In 1949, Mao-tse-tung ordered the destruction of every dog and cat in China to save food for the starving humans of China. Today, stray dogs and cats again wander the streets of every Chinese city. Even their use as a source of cheap rural protein does not threaten them with extinction. Like the coyote, persecution has only increased their numbers and extended their range.

Spaying and neutering does accomplish one thing, it eliminates the competition for homes that breeders face from animals born within their own community. The more our efforts at spaying and neutering succeed, the greater opportunity for sellers of pets to profit from our openings created by those efforts. Our sweat and sacrifice, improves their sales. In fact if we were to succeed in having every animal in our community spayed and neutered, any owner wanting a dog, cat or rabbit would have to go to a breeder.

Is this what we are all working so hard for? Continuous increases in the cost of companion animal abatement in both human and dollar terms, increasing the market share and profit margin for those who gain financially from the sale of puppies, kittens and rabbits, increasing the cost of pet ownership for people who carefully supervise their pets? That is the place that 150 years of policy decisions and humane approaches to companion animal overpopulation have brought us.

The Principles

The companion animal overpopulation is driven by two principles. One is from the field of biological demographics and the other from the field of economics. Once understood, it is obvious that there are five requirements necessary in any community to eliminate companion animal overpopulation. Without the implementation of all five, there is no solution.

Demographics: We all understand the reproductive power of dogs, cats and rabbits. Every species has the biological power to expand infinitely. Dogs, cats and rabbits are no different.

But, there is a limit to the number of individuals that can exist in any circumscribed area. Any defined region of the planet has a specific number of animals that it can support. The number may be zero or it may be 10,000, but it is not infinite. This absolute number based on many factors, temperature, water, shelter, food, predators etc is called the “holding capacity”. If we artificially place a new individual of that species into our circumscribed area, that individual or one other individual will fail to survive.

Models can be useful in conceptualizing any principle. In my opinion, the best way to conceptualize holding capacity is to think of a dam. The height of the dam, is equal to the holding capacity, the water behind the dam is equal to the number of any species that can inhabit that area, the higher the dam, the more water, the greater the holding capacity, the more individuals that can exist in the area. When the number of individuals in an area exceeds the holding capacity, they die, just as when the water collecting behind the dam reaches the top and spills over. The animals killed by animal control every day, represent the number of pets in excess of our communities holding capacity for them. The killing of course has no more impact on a solution than the water spilling over the top of the dam has on the sources of water entering the lake.

In our model, if the amount of water behind our dam is unchanged, it should begin to evaporate and the water level should begin to fall. Even if at one time, water spilled over the dam, as the water level falls, the remaining water can be retained. In fact, as water evaporates there is more room for water in the basin behind the dam. If we replace water with individuals in our circumscribed area, over time, attrition from aging and loss of life reduce the number of animals in our community. All of a sudden, every pet can find a home and euthanasia is not necessary. Animal control is not necessary other than to find and return lost pets to their owners, fewer pets means more competition for them and hopefully better homes.

But, populations of any pet species are sexually active and the members of any population will reproduce individuals far in excess of any attrition (mortality rate). In all but catastrophic circumstances (those that precipitate extinction), any species, regardless of euthanasia, regardless of efforts at spaying and neutering, regardless of token animal control “round ups” of abandoned pets, a species will inevitably return to the number of individuals allowed by its holding capacity. As soon as this absolute number is achieved, animals will then begin to die, whether at the hands of animal control or through natural causes.

In our dam model, this tendency for living things in a community to reproduce so as to produce individuals in excess of their mortality rate, can be seen as a series of springs at the bottom of the lake, constantly pumping more water into the lake and overwhelming the forces of attrition from aging and disease.

The current drive for “universal” spaying and neutering can be seen as an attempt to remove all the sources of pets born into the community in hopes that attrition will reduce the size of the population and eliminate the need to destroy animals. Indeed, this would work were it not for confounding outside factors. The picture being more complex, our good intentions have not been producing the desired effect, but the opposite what we anticipated.

Economics

Enter the effects of supply and demand. The current market place says: “People love puppies and kittens”. They are so desirable that people will pay money for them. This creates a financial incentive to produce more and more of them. The fewer puppies and kittens in the shelters, the more even informed and compassionate consumers will turn to the market place.

To return to our dam-lake model, even if some day we might be able to block every source of water coming from springs beneath the lake, other sources of water (such as rainfall or rivers) would quickly overcome any impact of evaporation.

Where in our dam/lake/spring/ river model, the variables are based upon precipitation and topography, in our community pet situation the variables are biological (substantial reproductive potential) and economic-- the market place's demand for puppies and kittens and the financial incentive, insures a constant supply.

Like human babies, puppies and kittens are adorable. They are a source of great interest, attention and amusement and relatively easy to care for. But puppies and kittens also become adolescents. They get larger, they eat more, they become more self- assured and aggressive, they begin to defend territories, they seek more exercise, require more space, they develop sexual longings and wanderlust. Altogether, they become less endearing and more troublesome, realities which even a big backyard can't hide.

All of a sudden our supply/demand equation reverses and we have greater supply than demand, at a time when the seller is no longer in the picture. I have always maintained that if teenagers could be more easily abandoned we would have a lot more orphanages. But pets are easily abandoned. Who is going to know? Enter our need for animal control.

It is the business of selling pets and pet products that prevents euthanasia, spaying, neutering and rescuing from being rational solutions to companion animal over population. The financial incentives of pet sales and the biological productivity of pets frustrate reactive policies and condemn us to eternal public hardship and anguish and a constant need for public revenues.

Are we chasing our tails? Are we doomed to fail? Well, without the proper policies and approaches, the answer is sadly, yes.

Salvation

Five regulations instituted in any community will end companion animal over population. They work in concert and are ineffectual unless all five are in place. If any single element is missing, the other four will fail.

The 5 Components

1) Local animal control must take responsibility for the registration of every new pet in its jurisdiction by registering sellers and the micro-chipped animals.

This component can be made revenue neutral by having sellers pay for the cost of maintaining a registry through paying a fee for this registration. Enforcement can be revenue neutral by ensuring that fines for failure to register, publish registration, microchip or sell from a physical address cover the costs of enforcement.

2) Sellers who become identifiable when they enter the market place (newspapers, magazines, internet, cardboard box on a corner) are responsible for registering the physical address where the pets were raised, or the physical address where the pets are sold, micro-chipping each animal sold, providing the micro chip number and contact information for buyers, publishing their registration information at point of sale and revealing the number of animals sold to animal control at the end of each year. Slowly, Animal Control becomes a data bank (cheap) rather than a warehouse for abandoned animals (expensive).

3) Old owner (including sellers) must report new owner, even if the transfer occurs with out compensation. Initially only sales enter the database to prevent the transition from being overwhelming, but in 15 to 20 years, every animal is either micro-chipped or registered, or its origins are under investigation.

4) Any owner who finds that his pet is missing must report it to local animal control within 72 hours. To fail to do so, creates the possibility that the owner intended to abandon that animal which should be made a misdemeanor or a felony, as it already is in some communities.

5) Decision makers are responsible for assessing each year whether current sales rates are compatible with community resources or whether some degree of voluntary or imposed regulation of sales is in order to prevent the expenditure of community resources to react to the financial rewards of just a few sellers.

Now, how do these 5 components change the dynamic in your community?

Enforcement 

How do you identify a breeder? How do you identify a responsible breeder? Tough questions, but a seller can be identified the moment they go to the market place. No problem. If you are trying to ‘hawk” your wares, you must “go” public, any seller caught with out a verifiable registration number is fined. This can be done by sitting in an office with a newspaper, a stack of magazines or the internet. It can be done by seeing a box of puppies or kittens at the strip mall. No valid registration number? Ticket! The cost of registration is equal to the cost of maintaining a sellers and microchip registry (revenue neutral). The cost of a fine equals the cost of enforcement, revenue neutral. I can train a volunteer to go through the morning newspapers pets for sale ads and check the validity of every registration number. Any ad without a registration number receives a call. Hello, who am I speaking to? Jot down the name. I read in the paper that you have a litter of Persian cats for sale. Are there any left? Can I come out and see them? Now you have an address. A seller can be sent a fine that is printed up by the computer and sent out through the mail the very next day without leaving one's desk. Revenue the first morning is $3,000. Next month, each morning brings in $2,000. Next month, compliance is 90 %. Enforcement of micro-chipping comes from an occasional on-site visit with your universal hand held scanner.

Who is responsible?  

“Let's see, it was a large female, brown dog with a long tail; or was it a male?” One third of all dogs have more than one home in their lifetime. A vagrant dog bites a child. Who does it belong to?

When I sell my car, I want to make sure that the government knows that I am no longer the owner. If the car is involved in an accident, or a hit and run, or a bank robbery, I don't want anyone coming to my door. Once pets are micro-chipped, if that dog or cat is found wandering or being anti-social, I just scan it and I know who is responsible. Suppose I scan our brown dog and I learn from my registry that the dog belongs to Fred. So, I call up Fred. Fred says that he gave the dog away to a stranger. Oh dear George, you were suppose to register the new owner. You get a fine and you are still responsible. Word gets around fast, you give your pet away you had better let animal control know who the new owner is or they are coming to pay you a visit if there is a problem.

Well, now suppose I scan the brown dog and it belongs to Fred, but Fred says. “You know that dog is always running away. He ran away last week”. We tell Fred, “well, you know Fred, we have had this dog for over 72 hours and you neglected to call us, so we are going to fine you and if you don't want to pay a fine we are going to prosecute you for pet abandonment”. “Gulp”. Sorry Fred, the law says you must report a lost pet within 72 hours.

50 % or all animals destroyed in modern shelters have been abandoned. We can stop that with the above simple regulations.

If society knows who is selling pets and how many excess pets there are in there community, they can regulate breeding so that over breeding does not become a burden. They don't have to outlaw breeding just regulate it by knowing who is, and who is not, selling.

Quality Control 

The royal families of Europe learned the cost of inbreeding. Hemophilia ravaged royal families during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. But an even heavier price is paid by pets and their owners. It is quite clear that some pure-bred animals cost their owners thousands of dollars during their life time. Often times genetic diseases that are the natural result of breeding for a specific look are not apparent until a family is emotionally attached to a pet. If they survive these diseases they often require chronic care and frequent hospitalization. Because we neither identify sources of animals or the chain of responsibility, there can be no effective enforcement of quality control. Registered sources and an electronic identity of individuals, beginning with sellers and with time encompassing the entire population will allow those responsible for inbreeding and allow society to deal with them as it sees fit. Currently, there is almost no chain of evidence.

Public Health and Safety

The time has come to make pets identifiable entities. It will insure high levels of vaccination and licensure. Rates of licensure in the best communities in the US are rarely greater than 30 %, more often far less. Vaccination rates can only be estimated, since the total number of dogs and cats in our communities is unknown. Owners need to be identified and made responsible for the fear, bites, and interference with commerce and communication that unsupervised animals create. Irresponsible owners prejudice the lives of all pets.

Five simple implementations and many problems just go away.

As progressive societies we are plagued by the moral and fiscal effects of companion animal overpopulation. If we were in a flooded basement, our first thought would be to turn off the tap before trying to remove the water. Why does the same approach seem so foreign to those who struggle in reacting to this problem? In ways, it is the fault of our leaders, but in other ways each of us is responsible for this failure. We need to detach ourselves from the sense of immediacy of the daily caring for abandoned pets or the continuous sterilization of pets and re-focus or attention on long term solutions.

We need to educate our decision makers about these solutions. We need to pass legislation that will end this 150 year history of failure and death. We need to refuse to be distracted by the day to day survival of individual animals and attend to their ultimate salvation … and ours.