Humane or insane?
Importation of foreign stray animals into US shelters
threatens health, sustains 'overpopulation'
Patti L. Strand, president, National Animal Interest Alliance
If you don't know what's happening at your local animal shelter, or what local
pet rescue groups are doing, it's time to find out! Destructive practices are
emerging that threaten public health, sustain 'pet overpopulation' and undermine
responsible dog ownership and breeding.
Finding out what's happening in the world of animal sheltering and rescuing,
however, is not always that easy. Although most shelters use the issue of 'pet overpopulation'
to raise funds, it turns out that few of them have sufficient records to support
the term. In fact, a major impediment to solving the US stray and surplus pet
problems is the lack of reliable shelter statistics.1
Many shelters combine dog and cat statistics, thus making it impossible to
track dog or cat trends individually. Shelters also tend to lump together all
shelter deaths regardless of the reason for euthanasia, even though their data
would be of far greater statistical value if categorized, for example, as: 1) owner
requested due to health, temperament or old age; 2) shelter mandated because
the animal was judged too sick or too dangerous to be rehabilitated and placed;
3) and, shelter mandated because insufficient resources existed to continue
maintaining an animal even though it was healthy and adoptable. Of these three
categories, only the last, the adoptable pet that died for lack of a home, signifies
a surplus animal problem. But muddled euthanasia statistics combined with fundraising
campaigns to stop 'pet overpopulation' encourage the public to believe that
all shelter deaths are part of a massive 'pet overpopulation' problem.
The practice of relocating pets from a crowded shelter to one with empty runs
within the same community also leads to confusion if the source of the animals
is not reported. The practice itself may be reasonable and humane if it increases
adoptions, but too often all participating shelters count the same animals in
their totals inflating the number of shelter animals reported for a given community.
Over-representing shelter impounds hinders the development of an accurate baseline
for shelter populations. Without an accurate baseline it's impossible to get
a handle on pet population trends and difficult to identify remaining problems,
much less to plan appropriate strategies to solve them. Over-representing shelter
impounds or shelter euthanasia statistics generates few negative consequences for shelters, while
higher numbers and the appearance of a crisis buoy donations and budgets.
Another confusing factor is that the actual number of euthanized adoptable
dogs (surplus dogs) varies enormously from one region to another and from rural
to urban areas within states and regions. Generally speaking, many of the larger
cities in the Pacific Northwest, New England and the Great Lakes region have
dog population dynamics that are in balance, meaning that the demand for dogs
equals or nearly equals the supply of dogs in their regions. This may seem incredible
to people living in cities or regions where shelters are still brimming with
surplus animals, as in the farm belt states, parts of the South and in the rural
areas of most states - but it is true.
In many US cities today, campaigns to end 'pet overpopulation' have been so
successful that the demand for dogs far outstrips supply. In fact, shelters
in many of these cities would have a significant percentage of empty dog runs
were it not for the mushrooming practice of moving dogs around from one region
to another and from one shelter to another within regions, an activity known
somewhat euphemistically as humane relocation.
Humane relocation began as a common sense method for helping animals to get
adopted through cooperative efforts among city shelters. It made no sense for
the humane society to euthanize dogs for lack of room while the local animal
control agency had the space and resources to help get them adopted. Over time,
as the number of surplus dogs in some cities continued to drop, they began taking
in animals from greater distances. For example, some shelters in the greater
Portland metropolitan area routinely accept dogs from other counties in Oregon,
Washington and sometimes from states as far away as Hawaii.
As long as participating shelters publicly disclose what they are doing so
that taxpayers and donors can assess the risks and benefits, and as long as
exporting municipalities and shelters increase their commitment to the responsible
pet ownership programs in their areas, humane relocation can be a helpful tool.
However, if exporting regions do not increase spay/neuter and public education
programs, humane relocation could amount to little more than a constant reshuffling
of dogs and resources and would not lead to further reductions of surplus animals.
Irresponsibly used, humane relocation could be used for maintaining the status
quo and increasing bottom lines instead of solving long-term shelter problems.
The flies in the ointment
Unfortunately, humane relocation is not being conducted responsibly by a small
but growing number of shelters and rescue groups. The answer for some shelters
with empty runs has not been to contact shelters in their own regions or in
other areas of the continental US, but to institute programs of importation
from other countries and territories. According to their own records, one foundation,
the Save a Sato 2 program championed by PeTA, has
already sent 14,000 dogs to the US. Satos (a slang term for mixed-breed street
dogs in Puerto Rico) arrive in US cities practically every day. Dozens of shelters
are involved. Some of the shelters NAIA is tracking bring in 100-200 dogs each
month and are placing them for $200-$250 each.3
From Florida, Texas and Michigan to New England 4
and the Pacific Northwest, more and younger Puerto Rican dogs and puppies are
finding their way into American shelters every month. Massachusetts in particular
is a magnet and a distribution center 5 for relocated
surplus pets and strays, but other states with empty shelter runs are picking
up the cause as well. This is not a phenomenon that can be brushed off lightly
as a passing phase. If you examine the evidence and connect the dots, the steady
influx of foreign strays reveals an evolving plan.
New 501(c)3 charities devoted to rescuing dogs from distant lands are popping
up in states across the US. They are not being formed to place only Puerto Rican
dogs, but also to save dogs from as far away as Taiwan 6
and other Asian countries. Several shelters and rescue groups in the Northwest
knowingly accept dogs from Taiwan, Puerto Rico or Mexico.
There is another disturbing pattern developing, a trend toward importing progressively
younger dogs. Two years ago when NAIA first began researching the issue, the
foreign imports depicted on shelter web sites were of varied ages. Today, most
of them are puppies. It is easy to speculate that if no one is capturing and
altering the illusive strays that produce these orphans, then enterprising rescuers
and shelter directors could help developing countries become breeding grounds
for stocking US shelters.
Long-term flooding of US cities with mixed-breed, foreign dogs has unavoidable
implications for pet population dynamics in the US. The practice of importing
dogs from developing countries not only prevents us from making further progress
against 'pet overpopulation,' in time it could also diminish the responsible breeding
and placement of well-bred, healthy dogs and cats.Many conscientious dog breeders
are so concerned about 'pet overpopulation' they have already accepted the idea
that a good breeder is one who seldom breeds. The problem with this conclusion
is that it does not recognize the basic marketplace reality that demand drives
supply. When responsible breeders quit breeding, it means only that in the future
someone else will supply the public with the dogs or cats they want. In this specific
case, it also means that the public will have fewer reliable sources for healthy,
well bred and socialized purebred dogs.
In the two years since introducing the subject of stray importation, (see /articles/archives/redefining.htm)
the practice has taken off, with the result that some animal shelters are clearly
operating as pet stores today. Whether they acquire their inventory from distant
states or foreign countries or territories, they operate like commercial businesses,
not charities formed to serve the public good.
They acquire their stock at little or no cost 7,
advertise their product using time-tested campaigns against 'pet overpopulation,'
rotate inventory quickly, restock immediately and bring in staggering amounts
of money. Projecting from figures on the web site of one active shelter, gross
revenues from imports that include a constant supply of satos, will total more
than $500,000 this year alone!
It is also disturbing to see the animal rights party line being used against
breeders to justify importation. The following quote was taken from the web site
of the Humane Society of Snohomish County, a Seattle-area importer of dogs from
Taiwan.
"By saving Taiwan dogs, we do not feel this takes away from saving a dog
at our own shelters. The majority of dogs from Taiwan are small and our own
shelters do not have many small dogs. At this time we have over 38 people on
our waiting list for small dogs. We feel it is better to bring small dogs in
from another part of the world than to have these people going to a breeder.
Many people, sadly, still do after they have been on our waiting list for an
extended period."
The Buddy Dog Humane Society 8 in Massachusetts
shares the anti-breeder sentiment and offers a similar rationale on their web site:
"Many people ask why we are taking dogs from Puerto Rico. The answer for us
is simple. Most of the dogs are small, usually under 30 pounds, thus enabling
Buddy Dog to find many adopters looking for a smaller dog, a new companion,
without going to a pet store or breeder. At the same time we are helping homeless
dogs get off the streets and into a caring home."
A certain picture begins to emerge when reviewing Buddy Dog's statement of
priorities: 1) to have the right product to fill consumer demands; 2) to prevent
the public from getting a dog that was deliberately bred, whether from a pet
store or a private breeder; and 3) to help a homeless dog.
When coupled with the stated goal of the animal rights agenda 9
to eliminate the purposeful breeding of dogs and cats, the anti-breeder mantra
echoed throughout this enterprise should convince even the most skeptical of
readers that stray importation is only part of a far more ambitious plan. The
oft-repeated vision for pet ownership espoused by PeTA's founder, Ingrid Newkirk
makes humane relocation a moral imperative. "If people had companion animals
in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters
and the streets."
Eliot Katz, president of In Defense of Animals 10
and the foremost advocate of 'guardianship,' states a similar goal, "to convince
people to rescue and adopt instead of buying or selling animals, to disavow the
language and concept of animal ownership." IDA's leader says that it is essential
for people to understand that, "an owner buys, a guardian adopts or rescues."
Katz is currently leading the campaign to get Los Angeles to adopt 'guardian'
in all of its municipal codes.
NAIA unequivocally opposes the importation of stray dogs (and more recently
cats) into the US for adoption. Importing strays is a dangerous and irresponsible
practice and should be outlawed immediately. The only reason that laws don't
already exist to prevent such destructive rescue activities is that no reasonable
person could have imagined a scenario in which anyone would be irrational enough
to do it.
Health matters
Even before considering the health issues, it is a reckless and indefensible
practice to import stray animals into a country that pours hundreds of millions
of public and private dollars annually, (and has for decades) into animal control
and 'pet overpopulation' problems! Imports from other countries displace American
shelter dogs that need homes, too. The importation of strays does not save lives,
it sustains overpopulation and assures that adoptable dogs in US shelters will
be euthanized.
The current scale of importation also poses significant public health risks.
These animals, destined to be domestic pets, are from countries where the standards
of veterinary medicine are not as high as they are in the US. Diseases and parasites
that are not found here may be endemic in poor or tropical countries. If the
fundraising materials accurately describe the rescued dogs, they are not pets
from private homes but strays from the streets and therefore are among the most
likely reservoirs for parasites and diseases. In addition, they are bringing
them into communal shelters where they are most likely to pass on whatever diseases
or parasites they have to other companion animals or to their caregivers.
Some diseases and parasites pose serious health risks for human health as well
as for dogs and other species. Dogs are a leading vector for rabies 11
in many poor countries. Currently, the only thing required for a dog to enter
the US is a health certificate and proof of a rabies shot. Given the incubation
period for rabies, from five days to several years, with 20-60 days being the
norm, unquarantined importation of street dogs from poor countries with low
rates of vaccination for rabies, is a disaster waiting to happen. Exotic parasites,
worms, protozoa and certain ticks pose significant risks as well.
Living in a country where it is difficult to get a banana through customs,
(especially since 9-11) and where livestock importation is strictly regulated
and animal protection groups seek ever-tighter regulation of dogs from breed
enthusiasts along with commercial breeders, it is a sick and intolerable paradox
that poorly bred, often diseased, foreign-bred dogs enter our country by the
thousands with the barest of regulation - often on airlines that fly them to
the US at no charge to help out the 'cause.' Seemingly, the only unregulated
operators in the animal world today are the 'animal dealers' working in the
animal protection groups that fundraise on overpopulation while importing dogs
from overseas. Indeed, the only thing that puts the madness into perspective
is the fact that importing groups and the national animal rights groups that
support them are still fundraising on the issue of 'pet overpopulation!'
At NAIA we salute anyone working to improve the welfare of animals so long
as they conduct themselves responsibly. If groups such as PeTA that support
importation of strays want to help animals in poor and developing countries,
though, we recommend that they take a fraction of their millions and fund spay
and neuter clinics or launch public education campaigns. Those initiatives might
actually help. Importing Satos or Taiwan strays, on the other hand, does little
more than displace US shelter animals with ones that are more suitable for fundraising.
NAIA recognizes that most people working in animal shelters and rescue conduct
themselves honorably while performing a difficult and often thankless job. This
article is not intended to tar the whole sheltering community with the irresponsible
actions of a few. Even so, if the good people who work in animal control and
protection remain silent on the issue, they are culpable as well. For too long,
extreme groups like PeTA have co-opted the animal movement and brought shame
to the cause of animal protection. It's time for reasonable people in animal
welfare to separate themselves from the corrupt and radical fringe and bring
respect back to their cause. The public needs to know that being humane doesn't't
have to mean being insane!
For more information on this and other issues affecting dog and cat owners
and breeders, visit the NAIA web site at www.naiaonline.org NAIA and NAIA Trust
will continue to work on the issue of stray imports. NAIA will pursue researching
and reporting on the subject and NAIA Trust will set out an agenda for dealing
with it legislatively and legally. If you have information on the subject, please
contact naia@involved.com If you would
like to work with NAIA Trust on this issue, contact naiatrust@involved.com.
Footnotes
- http://www.petpopulation.org
- http://www.saveasato.org
- http://www.daws.org/sato.htm
- http://www.northeastanimalshelter.org/special.html
- http://www.sterlingshelter.org/services/puppyrescue.html
- http://www.geocities.com/~t-aarf/main.html
- http://www.humanityforanimals.org/howyoucanhelp.html
- http://www.buddydoghs.com/html/satoInfo.html
- /articles/archives/aragenda.htm
- http://www.idausa.org
- http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/osh/info/rage_e.html
Note: The synopsis below was taken from the following link:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/osh/info/rage_e.html
"The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that more deaths occur
worldwide from rabies than from other common infections such as dengue fever,
polio, meningococcal meningitis or Japanese encephalitis. Of the 50,000 human
rabies deaths reported annually, it is estimated that over 30,000 deaths occur
in the Indian Sub-Continent with most of the remaining cases occurring in South-East
Asia (particularly, the Philippines), Africa and Latin America.In most countries
of Africa, Asia and Latin America, infected dogs are responsible for most of
the rabies deaths.In Bangkok it is estimated that one in 10 stray dogs is infected."
Author's note: NAIA thanks Charlotte McGowan for her tremendous help on
this project. Her researching efforts have been invaluable.
|
