[News] Is Pet Overpopulation Really Killing Our Cats and Dogs?

[QuickSilver]

I'm about halfway through Winograd's second book, Amazon.com: Irreconcilable Differences: The... .

All I can say is that it's very disturbing. He claims that most shelters are horribly run, and don't accept that they could save more than 90% of incoming animals because they don't want to acknowledge their incompetence.

This guy is a zealot, no question. I need to read more before I can really assess his position.

I hope this thread gets more views, because if what he is saying IS true, it is completely revolutionary - NO MORE ANIMALS KILLED IN SHELTERS.

Also, I wanted to share some information from this book, because it clears up some confusion I had about the ASPCA, HSUS, PETA, and the garden variety "pound".

It appears that the ASPCA was founded in 1866 in New York, and the name says it all: it was a society dedicated to preventing cruelty to animals. For instance, it provided water troughs to over worked horses.

At the time New York was concerned about roving dog packs, and instituted animal control to pick up these dogs and exterminate them. This is the kind of pound that's portrayed in the movie 'The Lady and the Tramp'. I won't even describe how dogs were killed by the pound back then, because it's too gruesome and depressing. The ASPCA was very vocal in its opposition to these practices, and instrumental in mandating more humane treatment of dogs (for instance, people were paid to bring dogs in to be destroyed, no questions asked).

Then, in 1910, the New York government contracted out its animal control department to the New York SPCA. The large majority of SPCAs since then have followed this model, and that's why the SPCA is synonymous with the city pound - your local city pays your local SPCA to do ALL TYPES of animal control, including round up of strays, licensing, checking on reports of abuse, etc.

Winograd argues that these contracts for animal control have led most SPCAs tragically astray, putting them in the business of killing stay pets, when they should be fighting to protect them.

He argues that in certain cases, local SPCAs should stop taking these contracts. He also points out that in many cases, the government underpays on these contracts, and the SPCA makes up the difference through charitable contributions. So basically, if your SPCA runs a kill shelter, you should not donate to it, as you are subsidizing horrific treatment of pets. I found this contention shocking. I always thought that of all the controversy out there about animal rights, you could at least be safe giving money to the ASPCA.

Similarly, it appears that in a few cities, PETA has contracted with the local government to do animal control. That's why there is sometimes news about PETA taking shelter animals in.

Most SPCAs run according to HSUS's written guidelines.

Anyway, I found this very helpful, as I did not really understand the difference between government mandated animal control, and SPCAs. I didn't realize that SPCAs can turn down these contracts, in which case, either animal control is run by the local government, or it is contracted to another private organization. I hope this is helpful to someone else here as well.

[Woogie Man]

A curious wrinkle in the pet over-population story is that some areas are actually importing dogs from other countries to meet their needs. While it's commendable to bring in dogs from other states that may otherwise be euthanized, it's downright disturbing to import them while dogs are being put down in this country. I think some areas have been so successful in eliminating the stray problem that they are in danger of losing some shelter funding if they don't maintain a certain population. So there's an economic incentive to maintain the status quo.

I don't know enough to speak intelligently about this, but the very fact of importing dogs from other countries for shelters speaks volumes to me. Maybe we need a Nathan Winograd to open our eyes to the reality of shelters.

Here's a link about the importation of dogs.
Dog Laws At Large: Dog shelters import from around the world to fill the need

[QuickSilver]

Is that avatar new? I love it!

Winograd actually says that many shelters import dogs from other states -- and they make room by killing dogs they already have. Often dogs will be moved to a shelter that has a higher kill rate than the one they are currently in.

I finished the book. I found it both provoking and frustrating, for a lot of reasons. He says over and over again how morally bankrupt the ASPCA and PETA are, but he doesn't really go into why, except to say that they are mired in bureaucracy. Presumably money must be part of the problem... he makes very vague allusions to the fact that a No Kill policy is considered more expensive. But zealots make me nervous, because they often consider their cause more important than the truth.

I think I may buy his first book. I'm hoping that has more practical, fact-based solutions. This one is kind of a screed. Though again, if he's right - revolutionary.

___________________

Okay, just read your link. Very interesting! I wonder why US shelters would import from other countries rather than other states?? One thing that does give me pause, the article ends on a pro-pet store note.

[Woogie Man]

I wouldn't call it a pro pet store stance. I saw it as just a statement regarding regulatory oversight. Maybe I'm wrong because, as I said, I can't really speak intelligently about it all. I do think it's a mystery to the average person how shelters truly operate and what the motivating factors are. Whatever the case is, I don't think it takes away from the central point of the article...that being the importation of animals from abroad.

It's kind of ghastly to think a shelter might euthanize a dog just to make room for one it sees as more desirable. I would hope not but it does seem that he (Winograd) is intent on showing us the 'soft white underbelly' of shelters.

Thanks for the review of his book. I think I may get a copy, too.

Yes, that's a new pic in my avatar. That's Darla...I call her my little monkey. I need to get a pic with her all gussied up (she had been out playing when I took that pic) but she's a little beauty. Thanks for noticing .

[QuickSilver]

Yes, please let me know if you read the book. His first one might be a better bet. It's such an incredible idea, I really want to find out more about it and discuss it with everyone!

[Wylie's Mom]

Quicksilver, my library has this title:
Redemption : the myth of pet overpopulation and the no kill revolution in America

So, I think that must be his 1st book? I'm going to put it on hold. Thanks for the review, very interesting.

And Jim, that is really interesting. I wonder what they mean by "importing" (exactly). I know there are some rescues/orgs who specifically work in Puerto Rico etc to try to get stray animals out of there (and other poorer areas) bc of the situation for animals. But, this sounds different from what's being described in the link (not sure if it's the entire original article or not). And it would be so wasteful (like you said) to bring them over here, just to take the place of another euthanized animal. It would be interesting to learn more about this.

[QuickSilver]

Yes, that's his first book! Please let me know what you think.

Just a warning, he rips into PETA pretty hard. Brace yourself.

[maps4pets]

Superb thread that I will follow with interest. I wonder how many others out there that are in the dark about this emotional subject matter.

[Woogie Man]

Ann, I haven't found any real definitive info on this (the importation of dogs) but the article I linked to does mention Puerto Rico and Taiwan specifically. I don't see how anyone can justify helping out other nations' animals while millions of ours are being put down, whatever the reason. Just think of the cost of transportation alone and how far those dollars could go here. And then there's the issue of bringing diseases in. I'm not sure if these dogs must go through quarantine or not.

I, like Quicksilver, would love to see a really honest discussion of this issue. I think so many of us just assume that our shelters are doing a great service and leave it at that. Maybe we should ask if they are doing all they can to end the problem or if they are merely doing enough to 'stay in business'. Many shelters do, after all, get public funding.

I don't mean to disparage the front line volunteers at shelters. I think they have the hearts of saints but still the problem persists and we can't seem to get below a certain level of animals being put down. For their sake, I think the hard questions need to be asked. It's curious that resources are always found for cases that get publicity (puppy mill busts, typically) while thousands of animals are put down daily in a business as usual fashion.

I don't want to get *too* long-winded here, but let me relay a story. My neighbor just got a mixed breed hound from our local shelter. He was scheduled to be put down on the day he got him. This is a young dog, just over a year old, and sweet as can be. He is heart worm positive (like many shelter dogs down South) but the Humane Society told my neighbor they would pay for his medicine. So he pays $65 for the dog and takes him to the vet. The vet gives an estimate for his treatment that goes over $600. My neighbor calls the Humane Society about this and they said they would pay for the medicine only, which is only $100 of the total bill. This shelter dog all of a sudden turns into a $500+ investment and this guy doesn't have that kind of money. He was given the option to return the dog for another, but that would have just been a death sentence for his dog (Chevy is his name).

I told Nathan (Chevy's new dad) about the slow kill method for heart worm treatment. He asked his vet about it and the vet agreed that it would be an option for Chevy, especially due to his young age and the likelihood that he wasn't heavily infested with them. So, that's the route he'll take with Chevy.

I don't know how pertinent this is to the issue except that this is just another thing that keeps some people from adopting. Heart worms are a major problem in Southern shelter dogs and not advising prospective adopters of cheaper alternative treatments means many of these dogs are not adopted and are put to sleep.

Anyway, I'd just love to see a good discussion of the issue. I hope more people see this thread and respond.

[livingdustmops]

I have heard him speak on the radio many times and have read his first book. I will say a great deal of what he is talking about is the truth and I believe most people cannot handle the truth of what is really going on in this country and the people who are involved all have their own little kingdoms to protect. I see it right her on YT...everyone hates puppymills, cruelty to animals etc but few will do anything about it and most can't even look at the pictures. Most only care about their own dogs and the heck with the rest.....The pet industry is over a 94 billion dollar a year industry...

I understand his anger at the other organizations because I believe everyone is making $$$ off of animals and at the end of the day...more just die. It was the same for me when I found out AKC doesn't give a flying flip about the animals...only the breeders. Just look at the legislation they help pass to protect the breeders rights...no matter what. Look at the USDA requirements..they are beyond cruel, but again no one does anything about it.
I am not just bashing the AKC but also any of these other organizations and many of our laws. Enough $$$ is raised but few organizations really step up to the plate. One that I believe in is Best Friends in Utah (read their books) but since they are private I have never seen numbers issued on euthanizing dogs. I am also a person who will look at each organization knowing they are not all 100% perfect and I take different parts from each one of them. For the most part I want an AKC dog as an example. I do not agree with everything PETA is doing but I do know they have always been the first ones to tell the world many of the cruel actions that are happening to many animals. I support them because of this...


If people got involved in rescue and could take the emotions out of the issue then they would understand how cruel this country is. They would understand laws have to be changed and I have been saying this for years. You have to look at each cities laws, each counties laws, each state laws and the federal laws...everyone is making $$$ off of these animals. Spend some time in a city paid shelter and look at the laws they are forced to follow..you will get a real rude awakening.

But before anyone says we have to change it...I have two issues:

First we over product dogs and cats every year by over millions....I believe we should restrict the amount of litters that can be born in a year...it starts with the breeders (all of them - volume included). It is beyond me how anyone feels it is their "right" to bring in more animals into this world and use my tax payer $$$ and my emotions to do this. Also if they all lived who would feed them and who would pay for the medical costs?

Second - I do not believe animals should live in a shelter environment for the rest of their lives. While I hate all of these animals being euthanized, I also think being kept in a kennel is also cruel and there are articles about this with some of the no kill shelters...they go crazy.

In my mind unless we stop the massive amounts of breeding this all will continue. I also believe we should charge the breeders for their dogs ending up in rescue situations that are tax payers burden.

Just go to all the sites that sell or give away puppies/kittens every day. It is all about supply and demand and in order to sell new puppies/kittens then the older ones (old stock) must be removed. Almost all of these issues would go away if we stopped the huge production of animals that goes on in this country.

Radio : Nathan J Winograd

P.S. Interesting about not helping animals from other countries....then we shouldn't help people from Haiti as a comparison? I believe we have to all care about all animals to fix this problem...It affect everyone of us both emotionally and financially.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by livingdustmops

P.S. Interesting about not helping animals from other countries....then we shouldn't help people from Haiti as a comparison? I believe we have to all care about all animals to fix this problem...It affect everyone of us both emotionally and financially.

I agree with much of what you say but feel it's an unfair comparison to equate earthquake relief to importing animals for shelters. I have to wonder how many of 'our' animals could be helped for just the cost of importing one from abroad. Also, as I mentioned earlier, the issue of diseases. Maybe they're just 'cherry-picking' what they bring in?

I think the situations in various shelters varies widely from area to area so there is no blanket solution. For instance, in my area (Mississippi Coast), most all the dogs in the shelter are large mixed breeds. Here's a link to our local shelter. You can see for yourself the animals they have.

Humane Society of South Mississippi - 2615 Hwy. 49, Gulfport, MS 39501

In my area, though far too many dogs are PTS, the problem is even worse for cats. Fewer are adopted and they bring the kill ratio way up.

There are feral cat colonies here and what's being done now for them is to capture them, s/n them, and release them back to the colony. These cats will never be adoptable so it may be the best for them. We'll see how it works over time.

[QuickSilver]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, livingdustmops. What I am wondering about is his contention that for the most part, shelters could be run differently and we could effectively stop euthanizing pets. Winograd's contention is that there is NOT a pet overpopulation problem in the US, that if shelters ran more efficiently, almost all these pets would have homes.

He says several times in this book that he would visit shelters where well over half the cages were empty, but at the same time, these same shelters were still euthanizing dogs because they were "over capacity."

Also, while I hesitate to bring this up because I know it's a real sore spot... I believe this book gives lie to PETA's claims that their abysmal kill rate (90%+) is because the animals they take in are the "worst of the worst". Based on my reading, it appears to me that they ran (run?) some open admission shelters in several counties, and there's no reason to believe that the profile of dogs and cats they admitted was any worse than it is for an average shelter. If this is the case, this is an appalling failure of leadership on PETA's part, and it makes me ill that they basically lied about why their kill rate is so terrible.

Again, I'm not sure I trust Winograd to tell the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". I'm still learning about him.

[livingdustmops]

HaHa...well hell the only thing you picked on was the last sentence...

Actually I have given $$$ for Haiti animals via Best Friends because they went there. Of course not everyone will agree with me but I feel enough people will give $$$ (not enough $$$ will be given) for the humans and very little will be done for the animals there. I have visited Haiti twice in my life and I will never forget seeing a dog dying right downtown and no one did anything. If you read what happens to many animals in many countries again it is cruel and inhumane.

Until proof is given I have only seen a few dogs imported from other countries so I am not sure that is really going on in large numbers and shouldn't be a point on this thread unless we know real numbers.

For the most part and again this goes along with my "I'll take different parts" and throw out the rest theory when it comes to feral cats. I would rather see them fixed and released then euthanized because the numbers would shock people because more cats are euthanized than dogs.

For the most part it is always a much higher % of dogs in shelters are the big breeds...but then again they have been the most popular over the years and take less upkeep than the small companion pets. You also don't see as many hunting dogs (except for the labs) in shelters...and I am guessing because they were purchased for a reason. I have seldom if ever seen a bloodhound in a shelter but is that because they are used in the south more for hunting wild boar? I don't know.

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

There are feral cat colonies here and what's being done now for them is to capture them, s/n them, and release them back to the colony. These cats will never be adoptable so it may be the best for them. We'll see how it works over time.

Winograd is adamently in favor of "Trap/Neuter/Release" for feral cats, and I think I agree with him. Cats CAN survive in the wild, in colonies, it makes no sense to euthanize a feral cat on the basis that it's not "adoptable". It doesn't need to be adopted.

[livingdustmops]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Thanks for your thoughtful response, livingdustmops. What I am wondering about is his contention that for the most part, shelters could be run differently and we could effectively stop euthanizing pets. Winograd's contention is that there is NOT a pet overpopulation problem in the US, that if shelters ran more efficiently, almost all these pets would have homes.

He is full of crap on this...the supply is to large...Think about it, the last 5 years we have euthanized over 24 million animals...now do you really think we have enough homes for all of those animals? Or is it just everyone wants the newer models?

He says several times in this book that he would visit shelters where well over half the cages were empty, but at the same time, these same shelters were still euthanizing dogs because they were "over capacity."

I just don't agree with what he says on this issue...been inside to many of them across the country even before the ecomony took a turn for the worst to believe this.

Also, while I hesitate to bring this up because I know it's a real sore spot... I believe this book gives lie to PETA's claims that their abysmal kill rate (90%+) is because the animals they take in are the "worst of the worst". Based on my reading, it appears to me that they ran (run?) some open admission shelters in several counties, and there's no reason to believe that the profile of dogs and cats they admitted was any worse than it is for an average shelter. If this is the case, this is an appalling failure of leadership on PETA's part, and it makes me ill that they basically lied about why their kill rate is so terrible.

I believe PETA has their own agenda but comparing their 3000 kill to the rest of the nations over 4 million kill doesn't make sense either. I would also want to know were these city run shelters who contracted PETA then the laws are directing when these animals have to be euthanized ...not the shelters or PETA.

Again, I'm not sure I trust Winograd to tell the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". I'm still learning about him.

I think he has some marvelous points, just like I think PETA does, HSUS does, AKC does, and the list could go on and on. I learned over the years you cannot just trust one group...you have to follow the $$$ and then you will start to see the truth. The truth is we are a very uncaring nation when it comes to our pet companions..or animals in general. Look at the animal research industry (it would break your heart), look at the slaughter industry (it would break your heart) and the list could go on. Until we become a nation who really cares then this will continue.

I do think education helps but we need more.