May 29, 2007
Charles A. Hjerpe, DVM
25258 County Road 95
Davis, CA 95616

Dear CVMA Members, other California Veterinarians, and Veterinary Information Network (VIN) Subscribers:

I am writing to identify and, hopefully, correct some inaccuracies and misconceptions contained in a letter to California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) members from CVMA President, Dr. Ron Faoro. His letter was posted on the VIN web site on May 23. In his letter, Dr. Faoro attempted to explain how and why CVMA became a sponsor of AB 1634 (The California Healthy Pets Act). In addition to it’s other shortcomings, this proposed legislation would appear to be inaccurately named, in that it has absolutely nothing to do with the health of pets. In fact, it would not have been inappropriate to have named it “The California UNHEALTHY Pets Act”, in that a recent study, Long-Term Heatth Risks and Benefits Associated with Spay / Neuter in Dogs, found that the increased health risks associated with neutering male dogs exceeded the health benefits: Neutering increased the risk for male dogs of osteosarcoma, especially when done before 1 year of age. Also increased were the risks for developing cardiac hemangiosarcoma (60% increase), hypothyroidism (300% increase), progressive geriatric cognitive impairment, obesity, prostate cancer, urinary tract cancers. orthopedic disorders and adverse reactions to vaccinations. If we were talking about human beings here, the routine neutering of all males would be prohibited by the FDA.

The spaying of bitches was associated with an increased risk for osteosarcoma, recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis and vaginitis, especially when done before 1 year of age. In addition, spaying increased risks for splenic hemangiosarcoma (120% increase), cardiac hemangiosarcoma (more than 400% increase), hypothyroidism (300% increase), obesity (60 to 100% increase), urinary incontinence (4 to 20% increase), recurring urinary tract infections (200 to 300% increase), urinary tract tumors (100% increase), orthopedic disorders and adverse reactions to vaccines. These increased health risks in spayed bitches were offset, however, by reduced risks for mammary tumors and pyometra.

Dr. Faoro begins his letter by exaggerating the magnitude of the problem, which is, of course, the regrettably large numbers of dogs and cats that arrive in California animal shelters and are euthanized there. Dr. Faoro wrote that “Nearly one million animals enter California shelters every year at an average annual cost of $275 million. More than 51% of these animals are killed.” Fortunately, the situation is not nearly as dire as Dr. Faoro portrays. During the last year for which statistics are presently available (2005), a total of 572,410 dogs and cats were received by all California animal shelters, and 310,337 were euthanized, which is 54% of the total. This is, nevertheless, a very sobering number (Table 1).

The news is considerably better for dogs than for cats. In 2005, 115,630 dogs were euthanized, which is a 52% reduction from the 240,975 that were euthanized in 2000, and a 59% reduction from the 282,599 that were euthanized in 1995. Steady progress is being made, using the tools that are at hand, without mandatory spay/neuter legislation. The numbers of dogs being received by animal shelters is also steadily declining. The number of dogs received during 2005 was 293,142, a 32% reduction from the 430,236 received during 2000, and a 40% reduction from the 492,142 dogs received in 1995.

The numbers are considerably less encouraging for cats. During the 6 years from 2000 through 2005, the numbers of cats received and euthanized in California animal shelters remained virtually unchanged: During 2005, 194,707 cats were euthanized, which is only a 4% reduction from the 201,937 that were euthanized in 2000, and a 33% reduction from the 291,512 that were euthanized in 1995. During 2005, 279,268 cats were received by California animal shelters, which was actually a 1% INCREASE over the 276,543 received in 2000. However, this was a 27% improvement over the 383,256 received during 1995. These data are available to anyone with a computer, by clicking www.naiashelterproject.org , then DATA and then California (within the US map).

Dr. Faoro and others may also be exaggerating the COST of sheltering and euthanizing abandoned dogs and cats in California. The figure Dr. Faoro is using, of $275 million per year, seems unreasonably high, and I have been unable to find out where this number comes from or how it was calculated. If one divides this number by 572,410 (the number of abandoned dogs and cats received by all California animal shelters in 2005) the cost for each dog or cat received that year was $480.42 It would appear that either this figure is incorrect, or that our animal shelters are being operated in an exceedingly inefficient manner.

Dr. Faoro goes on to state that “shelters continue to expand throughout California to house abandoned animals” and rhetorically remarks “Do we want to see more shelters built throughout the state to house dogs and cats that are abandoned at exorbitant costs to the tax payers?” Dr. Faoro fails to explain why more shelters are being built to house fewer animals, or why these shelters have such exorbitant costs. He then proceeds to attempt to assuage the large numbers of California veterinarians who have been outraged by CVMA’s support of AB 1634, by assuring them that they are going to make a lot of money by selling 75-day spay/neuter waivers and even permanent waivers (to clients with “old, sick or otherwise compromised” pets), and because “The CVMA made sure that all spays and neuters must be performed by California licensed veterinarians.”

Dr. Faoro also argues: “Local jurisdictions are developing their own ordinances at an increasing rate. The CVMA believes that it is better to have a statewide law that more uniformly addresses the problem.” Dr. Faoro fails to tell us that these local mandatory spay/neuter ordinances are (1) failing miserably at reducing pet abandonment and euthanasia rates, are (2) resulting in lower compliance with dog licensure and rabies vaccination, are (3) greatly increasing the costs of operating animal shelters, and (4) that many of these ordinances have been or are being abandoned. This information is available on the web at: <http//saveourdogs.net/>, clicking on Shelter  Population Update, and scrolling down to “Experiences with Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws”, This material is also pasted below
______________________________

Experiences with Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws
Where mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) laws have been introduced, they have failed to reduce euthanasia rates, have increased enforcement costs, and have decreased compliance with legally mandated licensing and rabies vaccination compliance:

• San Mateo County California* – dog euthanasia rates increased by 126%, dog licenses declined by 35%
• Los Angeles City, California – enforcement costs rose 269%, from $6.7 million to $18 million; and compliance to mandatory dog licensing declined
• Fort Worth, TX -- ended its mandatory spay/neuter program. Rabies vaccination and licensing compliance declined after passage of the ordinance. This led to an increase in rabies in the city
• Montgomery County, MD – repealed its mandatory spay/neuter law. Euthanasia rates declined more slowly than they had been prior to the mandatory spay/neuter law; licensing compliance declined by 50%
• King County, WA -- euthanasia rates fell at a slower rate after mandatory spay/neuter. License compliance has decreased. Animal control expenses have increased 56.8% and revenues only 43.2%
• Camden County, NJ -- mandatory spay/neuter ordinance hasn’t stopped it from being called “consistently one of the leading, if not the leading killers of animals in the state of New Jersey” (ref: PAWS NJ)
• Aurora, CO – euthanasia and shelter intake rates increased. Licensing compliance dropped dramatically, compliance costs have increased 75% with revenue increasing only 13% in unincorporated areas of the county which are the areas covered by the ordinance.

________________________________________________

The truth is that local spay/neuter ordinances are preferable to  statewide laws, because local ordinances that are not working can easily be changed or abandoned. In contrast, if AB 1634 were to become law, we would, most assuredly, be stuck with it for a very long time, regardless of how disastrous and expensive it might prove to be.

Dr. Faoro also writes: “Listening to the stories of the shelter directors was a sobering experience. They know who the local offenders are, bringing in litter after litter to dump at the shelter. This legislation (AB 1634)  would give them a tool in their tool boxes to start addressing the repeat offenders”.

To me, this is an astounding admission! Dr. Faoro wants a draconian law that penalizes 15 or 20 million Californians, in order to control a few “local offenders” whose identity is known to the shelter directors. Please, please, Dr. Faoro, get together with a proven problem solver like Assembly member Lois Wolk of Davis, California, and ask her to work with you to develop more focused legislation that will only go after the “bad guys”.

          At another point, Dr. Faoro writes: “AB 1634 may not be useful for every local jurisdiction in the State of California.” If this is so, why should this bill not be amended so as to allow these local jurisdictions to be able to opt out?        

There is another point that needs to be made here. The numbers of cats that are, currently, being received by California animal shelters are roughly equivalent to the numbers of dogs (279,268 cats vs. 293,142 dogs in 2005). The number of cats euthanized during 2005 was actually 68% greater than the number of dogs (194,707 vs. 115,630). However, because most cats brought to animal shelters are feral and have no owners, the cat problem would not be amenable to improvement  by AB 1634. It is, therefore, disingenuous for Dr. Faoro to lump the dog and cat statistics together, in an attempt to exaggerate the magnitude of that part of the problem which is actually amenable to solution and, in fact, is steadily being solved (which is the dog problem).

          Any plan for achieving substantial reductions in the numbers of dogs being received by animal shelters in California, must take into account why these animals are being abandoned. One of the web sites previously referred to in this letter (<http//saveourdogs.net/>) has posted a summary of such a study, which is located just below the summary of “Experiences with Mandatory  Spay/Neuter Laws”. It is also pasted below:
___________________________________________________
Why Dogs are in Shelters
A study Exploring the Cat and Dog Surplus Problem listed the top 10 reasons that dogs are relinquished to shelters as

• Moving
• Landlord issues
• Cost of pet maintenance
• No time for pet
• Inadequate facilities
• Too many pets in home
• Pet illness(es)
• Personal problems
• Biting
• No homes for littermates
•  

Most reasons why dogs are relinquished to shelters have nothing to do with spay/neuter. AB 1634 is being sold as the solution to a pet overpopulation problem. Yet more spay/neuter cannot put a significant dent in that problem, because the problem is largely one of adult dogs being relinquished to shelters, not an excess of unwanted/unplanned litters that spay/neuter addresses. The real problem at California animal shelters is not due to an excess of irresponsible dog breeding. It is an undersupply of responsible dog ownership.

Most of those who back AB 1634 do so because of their legitimate concerns about dogs having to be killed in shelters. But AB 1634 won't help. It will actually make the real problem at shelters worse.

In animal shelters, what one finds are regional and local variations in the supply vs. demand balance for puppy adoptions. Some communities have an excess of unplanned puppies being born, some have a balance between supply and demand for adoption of puppies at shelters, and some have an inadequate supply of puppies at shelters to supply the local demand. Some shelters are importing puppies from other regions to supply their local demand for puppy adoptions. This is a big change from years ago, when there was an excess of puppies for adoption. Leash laws, voluntary spay/neuter, and owner education have been a huge success.

Again, the lingering problem with dogs in shelters in America is the adult dogs being brought there by people who, for various reasons, decide to get rid of their dog. We live in a throwaway society, where some will discard a dog in a shelter as readily as they throw away a broken toaster. This problem cannot be addressed by spay/neuter laws, or with any new laws.
What AB 1634 will do is reduce the number of responsible dog breeders. They are the ones who license their dogs in their county, socialize their puppies, vaccinate their puppies, research their puppy buyers carefully, do health checks on their breeding stock, and carefully select mates for their breeding dogs. Many of these people will not be able to afford "intact permits". In many cases they won't be eligible for them at any price under AB 1634.

Because there will be fewer responsible breeders in California, the supply of well-bred puppies will decrease. Since the demand will still be there, puppies imported from Mexico or from other states for sale at pet shops and sold over the Internet will fill the supply gap. These puppies will for the most part be from large-scale commercial breeders. With an increase of poorly-bred pets who suffer many more health and temperament defects, the problems with dog bite statistics in California will increase. Even more dogs will get dumped in California shelters. And even more dogs will have to be euthanized each year in California shelters
___________________________________________________

To summarize, present programs of (1) public education, (2) leash laws, (3) free or low cost spay/neuter opportunities for low income Californians, (4) moderate price differentials for licensing of intact and altered male and female dogs, and  (5) vigorous marketing of shelter dogs for adoption by the public have been working effectively to reduce the numbers of dogs being received and euthanized by California animal shelters. At present rates of reduction (6% per year over the past 10 years), we can anticipate that the numbers of dogs euthanized in California animal shelters will drop below 50,000 per year by 2015. Hopefully, by 2015, these 46,252 dogs will be only those that are not considered to be suitable candidates for adoption. Now is not the time to panic and adopt draconian measures like AB 1634, which have already been shown to make this problem considerably worse.

Charles A. Hjerpe, DVM
Emeritus professor of veterinary medicine
 UC Davis 
(530) 753-7330  
cahjerpe@ucdavis.edu