PRELIMINARY
PET OVERPOPULATION
STUDY
9/20/04
Table of Contents
why the study was done p.
3
topics studied p.
3
statistics p.
3
sterilization
statistics p.
3
source
of dogs and cats p.
4
information
collected by Virginia p.
5
cats p.
7
gas
chambers p.
8
inspection reports p.
9
classified
ads p.
10
animal
control budgets p.
12
additional study topics p.
13
topics underway p.
13
topics not
started p.
13
Appendix A1 – 2000 Statewide Summary Report p. 15
Appendix A2 – 2001 Statewide Summary Reports p. 16
Appendix A3 – 2002 Statewide Summary Reports p. 21
Appendix A4 – 2003 Statewide Summary Reports p. 26
Appendix B – Pounds Not Accepting Cats p. 31
Appendix C – Gas Chambers in Virginia p. 32
Appendix D1 – Public Pounds Inspection Dates (alphabetical) p. 33
Appendix D2 – Public Pounds Inspection Dates (chronological) p. 36
Appendix E – Washington Post Breeder Ads Spreadsheet p. 39
why the study was done
In January, 2004, we attempted to introduce
legislation in the 2004 session of Virginia’s General Assembly. The legislation was to be sponsored by
Senator H. Russell Potts and dealt with Virginia’s pet overpopulation. Feeling that a study should precede and validate
the proposed legislation, Senator Potts sponsored SJR37, a study which would be
conducted during the course of the year, funded by Donald Marro, and worked on
in conjunction with the State Veterinarian.
The effort failed, or more accurately, was “passed by”, so no action was taken on it.
A number of colleagues, upset at
the complacency of the legislature regarding excess pet population in Virginia
and the resulting deaths and cost to tax-payers, asked why we didn’t do the
study anyway. We did.
The study has long ago been
started. Enough is complete to support
the proposed initiatives which were circulated as Food for Thought. However, this is a study which should be the
topic of a Task Force in Virginia as so many new questions have emerged when
working on the original issues.
topics studied
These topics below are thought to
be the most significant in the study.
However, other topics are part of the study and still under development,
and some others should be included in a Phase II, or in work done by a Task
Force.
statistics
The Humane Society of the United
States, using statistics compiled from the American Pet Products Manufacturers
Association (APPMA), reports that there are 65 million owned dogs and 77.6 million
owned cats in the US.
sterilization
statistics
Again from HSUS, 72% of owned dogs
are spayed/neutered and 84% of owned cats are spay/neutered.
In Virginia, using figures from
VDACS (Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services) for the most
recent year (2003) reported, 60,625 dogs were euthanized and 73,175 cats were
euthanized. In addition, there were
1,238 dogs and 1,986 cats which “died in the facility”, meaning they were not
euthanized but they died while in custody of public facilities, and the agony
of their last days can only be imagined.
In summary, 61,863 dogs and 75,161 cats entered the system alive, and
left the system dead in 2003 alone.
Nearly sixty-two thousand dogs.
Seventy-five thousand cats.
– topics studied (cont.):
statistics
(cont.):
sterilization statistics
(cont.):
If it is accurate that 72% of
dogs (and 84% of cats) are sterile, the question is why there are still
more dogs/cats than homes. Current
thinking says having a sterilization rate near 70% creates “equilibrium” – i.e., a balance between the births of dogs and cats and enough
homes to welcome them. However, if the
sterilization rate is even higher than the theoretical 70% equilibrium level
and there is still no “equilibrium”, then the only plausible explanation is
that too much breeding has defeated the theoretical equilibrium point which
must now be higher than 70% or 72%.
If it is not accurate that 72%
of dogs (and 84% of cats) are sterile, then we must determine what level of s/n and what amount of “breeder product” (i.e., puppies and kittens) is necessary to achieve equilibrium.
Where do the
dogs and cats come from?
According to APPMA figures from
the HSUS, only 18% of dogs (and 16% of cats) come from an animal shelter/pound/humane
society.
Statistics frequently used report
that 30% of dogs in Virginia’s system (pounds, shelters, and rescues) are
purebreds.
This means that the remaining 70%
in pounds/shelters/rescues are from owned dogs that were bred, but are not
purebreds.
And the 30% of
pound/shelter/rescue dogs that are purebred come from breeders without effective
contracts regarding responsible ownership of the puppies they produce, and/or
the breeder has declined responsibility for the unwanted puppies they produced
and sold.
The goal is to
achieve equilibrium without killing the excess as a way to control overpopulation.
This will happen when the number
born is equal to the number that may be absorbed by responsible owners.
– topics studied (cont.):
statistics
(cont.):
where do the
dogs and cats come from? (cont.):
Using figures for 2003 from VDACS,
38,416 dogs and 29,758 cats were adopted from pounds/shelters/rescues.
If 38,416 dogs which were adopted
is 18% of the total number of dogs, then the total number of dogs placed or
sold was 213,422 in 2003.
The 213,422 dogs placed or sold in
2003 is an unacceptably high total since, for example, 45,309 dogs were given
up by their owners, and 48,484 of strays were not reunited with their owners.
And 60,625 of the dogs in
Virginia’s system in 2003 were killed.
Clearly, many more dogs (and cats)
were produced than there were homes to take them and keep them.
information collected by
Virginia and received from Virginia
The State Veterinarian collects
companion animal data from all counties, cities, humane/SPCA groups, and
rescues annually. The state then each
year creates a report called the Statewide Summary Report. Attached are the reports for 2000, 2001,
2002, and 2003.
The data lacks integrity. We found that the numbers are not
consistently calculated by reporting entity.
For instance, some places do not count pit bulls and some places do not
count owner give-ups for euthanasia.
We also found that some places
including some large ones simply do not report at all.
The 2003 report is online from the VDACS (Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services) website; this is the third
version of that report. In reviewing
the original report, we noted calculation errors, reported that to VDACS, and
subsequently VDACS put out a second version.
We later also alerted VDACS to various entities which had not reported
their information to the state. We were
told yet another version of 2003 Statewide Summary Report would be
created. That third version is now
online and is the report we have used in this study. It is also the version in the appendix below.
– topics studied (cont.):
statistics
(cont.):
information collected by
Virginia (cont.):
To get state totals, reporting
entities fill out a form. We FOIAed all
the individual reports (reports from each county, city/town, humane society,
and rescue) from 2000 to 2003 and VDACS graciously provided all that data to
us, copying the original documents they had received. As a result, we have the information available for each reporting
entity from 2000 forward and will be willing to share that information with
you, or alternatively, you may seek it directly from VDACS. The categories of information that a county
sends in, for example, mirror the categories on the final state total, so you
are able to see how many dogs were euthanized in a given year in a given
facility, how many died in the runs (a different category than the number euthanized),
how many were adopted, how many were stray, and so on.
Note that there is
no category in the VDACS reporting that asks about breed of dog (or cat), or
its source, i.e., pet store, breeder, or backyard breeder.
Note further that
the absence of uniform and comprehensive reporting means there has been no
provable improvement in kill rates since 2000 when the reported kill number for
dogs was 70,667, in 2001 was 65,315, was 59,396 in 2002, and in 2003 was
60,625.
Virginia code requires that facilities
submit their animal records to the state.
It is not clear how those who do not report, or who report with gross
errors, are handled.
HSUS does not have
statistics for Virginia, and so those provided by VDACS are the only numbers
available.
- topics studied (cont.):
cats
Cats are not protected by Virginia
law in the same way as are dogs.
Publicly funded pounds are not required to take cats.
On April 7, 2004, we sent an email
was sent to Dr. Butts, the State Veterinarian at VDACS:
“ Please tell me if a pound – a
facility funded by Virginia – is out of compliance if it has no provision for
cats.”
On the following day, Dr. David
Cardin, the Deputy State Veterinarian, responded for Dr. Butts:
“ Sec. 3.1-796.96, Code of
Virginia states:
‘A. The governing body of each
county or city shall maintain or cause to be maintained a pound and shall require
DOGS (capital letters from Dr. Cardin) running at large….to be contained
therein. Nothing in this section shall
be construed to prohibit the confinement of other companion animals in such a
pound.’”
Dr. Cardin continued: “I am not aware of any other Code citation
which addresses facility provisions for cats.”
We followed up with an email to
Dr. Cardin on April 13, 2004:
“A county pound does not have to
provide for companion animals other than dogs, and you sent me the legal
language about that.
However, what if someone brings
cats, or if cats are found to be abandoned, in those jurisdictions without
provision for cats. What is legally
acceptable to be done with the cats?
What do you know to be typically done in such circumstances? ”
This email was not answered.
Using the information we received
from VDACS with a FOIA, we were able to determine which public pounds do not
accept cats. That list is an attachment
to this document. We are still collecting
information on the status of cats.
To illustrate further the plight of cats, see the
attachment (Animal Records) described earlier in this document. Note that the number of cats that “die in
the facility ” (different than “euthanized” ) and the number of cats euthanized
is significantly higher than for dogs.
Left unquantified is the number of cats killed inhumanely because pounds/shelters do not accept them.
- topics studied (cont.):
gas
chambers
When VDACS was asked earlier this
year if there was a list of facilities using gas chambers to euthanize dogs and
cats, we were told there was no such list.
However, VDACS offered that a page of the Inspection Report which is
filled out when a facility, public or private, is inspected by VDACS, does have
a category in the report regarding gas chambers.
VDACS generously offered to copy
that portion of each Inspection Report so use of gas could be determined.
Between 25 and 28 facilities in
Virginia have gas chambers. Because of
changes in management of some facilities, the number is not exact. The information we have from VDACS regarding
gas chambers is also attached to this document.
It has been suggested that the
rationale for continuing the use of gas chambers is two-fold. In the one hand, it has been suggested that
gas is cheaper. It is also suggested
that in places where there is only one person involved in animal control work,
a gas chamber is easier to use than other methods of euthanasia.
Another reason for using gas is a
result of not understanding alternatives.
The preferred method of euthanasia appears to be I/V, but some have
declined moving to I/V for euthanasia because it was assumed that I/V
euthanasia was administered by drip, much as a human gets it while lying in bed
in a hospital.
Please note that Dr. David E.
Cardin, the Deputy State Veterinarian of Virginia, is quoted in an article in
the Chesterfield Observer of 8/11/04, in discussing the use of gas chambers
versus injection, the “injection is the preferred method of euthanasia,
according to the AVMA”, but “Virginia allows it, because the AVMA says it’s an
acceptable method of euthanasia.”
Supporters of gas chambers contend that proper use
of gas chambers is humane. However,
there is no end of horrible and mind-searing stories about the use of gas
chambers to kill dogs and cats, horrible either because of improper use, or because
gas chambers are not intrinsically humane.
In addition, the liability any jurisdiction has to
employees and volunteers working with an improperly functioning chamber is
tremendous.
– topics studied (cont.):
inspection
reports
While the focus of this study is
on publicly funded facilities, all custodial facilities in Virginia –
facilities which keep dogs and cats - are to be inspected but the frequency of
inspection is not provided for by law.
Public (and private) facilities
range from those in close to complete compliance with the law to those in flagrant
violation of and disregard for Virginia’s animal laws.
Currently, inspections and failures
of inspection have virtually no consequences.
Inspectors are empowered to levy civil fines for a facility which is in
violation of Virginia law. In reality,
only one civil fine (for $139K) has been levied since the law has been in
effect, and of the $139K, only $1K has been paid by the violating jurisdiction.
Using the same source of
information that was used in compiling the list of places having gas chambers,
a list of inspections conducted was compiled.
The lists attached (one
chronological and one alphabetical) indicate the date of the last inspection by
VDACS. This information was provided by
the state and is good as of 6/3/04. It
is likely that a few inspections have been conducted since that date.
Note that some facilities have not
been inspected since January, 2002, and some, from records provided by the
state, have not been inspected at all.
Evaluations of the inspection
reports is difficult as several variations of reporting forms are used,
inspectors do not necessarily indicate conditions in the same manner, and some
categories are checked as done without visual confirmation of that particular
category. A cover letter, written to
the jurisdiction after an inspection, is often misleading regarding the
contents of the actual inspection report, letting non-compliant jurisdictions
feel they have received a very good report when that may not be the case.
– topics studied (cont.):
classified ads
The ads which appear in
newspapers, the majority being in the Sunday edition of a daily paper, provide
insight into just how big a business selling dogs and cats is, with many places
to buy dogs and cats.
For our July meetings, we took a
single issue of the Washington Post, that of Sunday, 7/11/04, and looked at the
dogs for sale.
Some of this information was
presented at our July meetings, but we have revisited the numbers. The spread sheet is attached.
On that day, 258 breeders
advertised between 1200 and 1600 dogs for sale, the exact number being uncertain
since litter sizes were often unspecified.
Unless it specified the number, we counted the ad as offering four dogs
(half the number HSUS states is a typical litter size).
In some ads, the price was
provided. Where it was not, we either
took an average of the prices for that breed, or used $750 if there was no
advertised price for that breed of dog.
Breeds without any price were all specialty breeds for which the actual
price may have been higher.
Assuming each dog advertised was
sold, the total amount would represent $527,176.25. Each dog on average would have sold for $625.
Looking at the Virginia Pilot on
Sunday, 6/27/04, 218 dogs and 40 cats were advertised for sale. Looking at that same paper from 11/2003
through 6/2004 revealed that ads were from sellers in 15 different states, with
3026 ads from Virginia-based sellers and 714 ads from North Carolina-based
sellers.
The most likely assumption,
supported by the requirement for cash in many ads, is that virtually all these
sales go unreported for income tax purposes, and it is assumed that few, if
any, of these sellers have a business license.
If in fact 100% of these sales are off the books, then a significant
amount of revenue is not being taxed.
Taking it a step further, dogs
move into Virginia’s pound/shelter/rescue system without accountability of the
seller/producer, and a large percentage of these sales result in dogs/cats (or
their progeny) being in the public pounds of Virginia at great expense to the
taxpayers of Virginia.
– topics studied (cont.):
classified
ads (cont.):
This aspect of the study warrants
further work. We have now subscribed to
over 40 papers published in Virginia to continue to investigate these
sales. Not only is it important to
ultimately determine how much revenue is uncollected, but it is important to
see if other states are contributing to Virginia’s overpopulation, if other
states are contributing to transmission of disease by transporting dogs over
the Virginia state line without veterinarian check for health, and by determining
whether these facilities, private or not, which have custody of dogs which are
commercial breeding stock in Virginia, have been inspected by the State Veterinarian.
In addition, the study could
continue pursuing this avenue by studying sales via the Internet.
Why is an analysis of advertising
significant?
because if all dogs were licensed,
for example, at $25 each, and if Virginia has 3% of the 65 million owned dogs
in the US, license revenues would be $50 million per annum;
and if all 213,422 dogs sold in
Virginia in 2003 were taxed at 6.5%, then some $8.5 million in tax revenues
would be collected (213,422 x $600 average price per dog x 6.5%);
and if all breeders were licensed,
for example, at $500 each, and if Virginia has 2000 breeders, breeder license
revenues would be $1.0 million.
Taken together, the $59.5 million
raised from dog licenses, breeder licenses, and sales tax would be enough to
pay to spay/neuter all dogs in Virginia (based on an average surgery cost of
$40 per animal and assuming 28% of all owned dogs are intact per HSUS) plus
pay for all operating expenses of public pounds (approximately $32
million).
- topics studied (cont.):
animal
control budgets
animal control officers
As a step in getting budget
information an attempt to determine the number of ACOs employed by each jurisdiction
has been made. As of early August,
2004, we believe there are some 378 animal control officers employed by Virginia’s
various jurisdictions.
funding
We contacted each county, city,
and/or town, to determine the amount of money spent on animal control in the
most recent fiscal year.
In each jurisdiction, an attempt
was made to determine what portion of the budget of animal control was used for
prevention – i.e., spay/neuter. To
date, none has been found.
We have found only a few
jurisdictions report funds ($130,307) in their budgets as dedicated to s/n programs. However, on closer inspection, it appears
those funds are from sources such as adoption and surgery fees collected by
those adopting as well as funds from animal friendly license plate sales.
The issue is made more problematic
since, in several cases, revenues from animal friendly car licenses appear to
be mixed into the general budget of a given county, giving the appearance of
coming from the tax base of that jurisdiction.
The same has been found to be true
in several instances where fees from adopters both for the animal and for the
cost of that animal’s sterilization appear to be funds coming from the tax base
to pay for s/n rather than from funds generated by a portion of the public that
pays to adopt and pays the sterilization fee for the adopted animal.
In addition, some jurisdictions
have received license plate funding but are unable to report what has happened
to the money, or say the money was used but not on s/n.
As of our overall calculations in
August, 2004, Virginia spends nearly $32 million state-wide on animal control
and impoundment. Note that the $32
million accounted for already does not include depreciation on buildings,
mortgage interest, building maintenance, or capital improvements.
We have not been able to determine
that there is a single jurisdiction spending taxpayer funds on prevention of
the pet overpopulation problem, but only spending taxpayer funds to control the
result.
additional study topics and their status
There are many topics which are under study as part of this
effort, and there are other important topics which have not yet been attempted.
Here are study topics underway:
what
happens with cats at pounds which do not accept them
voting records of members of the
General Assembly over time regarding animal issues
methods
of identifying and tracking dogs/cats
unique/successful
s/n programs in VA
unique/successful
s/n programs out of state
breeder
licensing/regulations outside VA
ACOs: total employed; time on job,
job turnover and reasons for leaving job;
training; background used to determine fitness for employment with animals
identification of all rescue and
animal welfare groups focusing on companion animals in Virginia
Here are study topics not yet
started:
breeders
in Virginia; identify individual breeders and also breeder groups
how
does AKC (and other registries) impact overpopulation
what
registries exist in addition to AKC and how do they differ
breeder
contracts, placement procedures, return policies
puppy
mills and pet stores
status of rabbits
and other exotic companion animals
identification
of veterinarians participating in low cost/high volume s/n programs
– additional study topics (cont.):
study
topics not yet started (cont.):
identify public pounds with no
corresponding humane society/spca/rescue in support of the animals
TNR
programs in the state
identify public facilities with no
computer access, resulting in at least an inability to list animals on
Petfinder
programs to provide veterinarians
tax credit or other compensation for participation in low cost/high volume s/n
programs
results of the animal task force
of 1999/2000
canvass each animal welfare group
in Virginia and determine what is being done by their group re s/n
determine ethical and behavioral
guidelines that public or private facilities provide to their employees and
volunteers regarding acceptable conduct toward custodial animals
sources of s/n funding from large
animal-focused organizations or large employers
Lillian Clancy and Donald Marro
9/20/04
