General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNo One Knows Exactly How Many Dogs are Put Down in Shelters -- Range is 4 to 10 MILLION Annually
because they don't keep such statistics in the US. The Humane Society puts the number at "3 to 4 million" and they are combining cats and dogs into that number. In the 1970s their estimates were 12 to 20 million and the number of pet households has doubled.
The accepted stat is that 60% of dogs who enter shelters are put down. Canada, about 1/10th the US population, euthanizes almost 1 million dogs per year and they keep better stats. That would put the US number up closer to the 10 million.
Whatever the number it is way too many. Spay and neuter programs have been effective in reducing the number of pets without homes but without accurate statistics, we don't know how effective nor what factors are most responsible for the reduction. As they saying goes 'you can't manage what you don't measure' and I think we would do well to get past the shame and sadness and start keeping data on what works and what doesn't.
Certainly more access to low cost or no cost spay and neutering services would help. As would a crack down on amateur breeders including licensing and certification. Backyard breeders are intentionally creating dogs in a country that is killing them at a rate of 80,000 per week. And most dog owners got their current dogs free or with at a shelter with a minimal re-homing fee so the idea that you can (let alone 'should') charge $500+ per puppy should be retired. Another angle would be to charge more to register an un-neutered dog -- much more -- than a neutered one.
Another thing that is already underway is that people are moving away from the idea that they must have a "purebred" dog. The UK seems to be a head of us on this (and the UK is where the purebred thing peaked). 25% of the dogs given up to shelters are purebreds and they have a better chance of being adopted out than those considered mixed breeds but the reduction of this bias can help in two areas. First lower demand for dog breeding can reduce the number of purebred litters, and second, more people who are looking to bring a dog into their home will pick from those already on the planet.
My current 2 dogs came from "an unplanned pregnancy" where their mother's owner thought he would just "keep an eye on her around other dogs" but the first time she went into heat at about 10 months of age, an un-neutered neighbor dog jumped a 6 foot chain link fence and about 45 seconds later she was pregnant. The pregnancy nearly killed her as she was a rescue with an uncertain healthy history and not fully grown. Even nice, well-meaning dog owners can contribute to the problem.
Many dogs wind up in shelters because they are considered 'behavior problems' by their owners and that runs the whole range from being too aggressive, to being too noisy, to needing more running space than the owner has, to getting bigger than they thought they would. At least one pet store (whole other can of worms) has a new policy where they won't allow people who are intoxicated to buy puppies but intoxicated or not, far too many people buy puppies and then look to give them up within a few months. Fewer than 50% of dogs will stay with their first owners.
Dogs would be better served if we all knew more about what it really takes to create a healthy forever home for them. Expectations should be more realistic and conventional wisdom about what constitutes effective training could improve.
Whatever the exact number euthanized is, it is too high and we should do better for our best friends.
sinkingfeeling
(51,474 posts)We're trying to reduce it down to under 10% which counts as a 'no kill' center. There are at least 10% that are sick or have such behavioral problems that they can't be saved. Parvo is one of the diseases that many strays have and very easily transmitted to others.
the other one
(1,499 posts)Hey trolls:
FIX YOUR PETS!
ladjf
(17,320 posts)KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)and it can lead to bad results.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)etc. In the area of dogs I think people adopt a puppy or other dog optimistically and then run into problems -- landlord/neighbors complain, dog considered 'too active', puppy gets "too big", "too playful", "too expensive" and then it's off to the shelter. They don't spay and neuter, thinking the dog will never have a chance to mate and it gets pregnant in their yard, or at the dog park.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Perhaps so many people wouldn't turn over their dogs for euthanasia if they were able to access veterinary care. You may say that a person who can't afford veterinary care shouldn't have a pet, but that's an elitist statement, and does not take into account changing circumstances of families and elders.
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)I think it is far better to help people who love their dog keep it alive and healthy and in their home. We have some older neighbors who love to sit dogs when people are working. I think dog sharing is a nice arrangement for working people and great for the dog. Statistically, people who have dogs live longer than those who don't.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)abolugi
(417 posts)The shelter here used to have a 90% kill rate and when word got out our community was appalled! We demanded more. Much more!
A local animal-save agency took it over and flipped the rates. We now have a 90% adoption rate. Only the extremely sick or extremely aggressive are put down. They have an agreement with many local vets to provide free spay and neutering to pit bull type dogs.
Its a great place that truly cares for the animals ( as far as shelters go).
More people need to get involved on the local level and DEMAND changes!
Arkansas Granny
(31,532 posts)They have a 46% euthanasia rate. Too many animals being turned in and not enough people to adopt. They also have to deal with animals that won't find homes for one reason or another (illness, behavior problems, feral) and they can't afford to keep them. They cite irresponsible pet owners as the biggest problem.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)That is why I donate to Best Friends in Utah, a no-kill shelter for all animals.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I am required to pay the city a yearly licensing fee for both my dogs which goes to fund the city animal shelter. The problem is, most people don't license their dogs or cats.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Just sayin'
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)I guess some animal owners (not you) don't care about the negative results of recreational animal ownership. A lot of people here are complaining, but almost none of them are willing to actually step up and pay to fix the problems caused by recreational animal ownership.
Note: This is not directed toward the people who are actually stepping up and helping at animal shelters and/or donating additional money to protect animals.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The problem is that people who are responsible pet owners are already paying into the system while irresponsible pet owners aren't. So I see compelling pet owners who aren't part of the problem to pay more for those who are as counter productive. It's just going to lead to more pet owners neglecting to register their pets.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)We should just coerce negligent animal owners to pay. I'm sorry but "Oh, we won't pay if we have to bear the real burden of our actions" doesn't cut it with me.
There are tons of common sense solutions to this problem that make all recreational animal owners pay to care for the problems they created.
-Ban the sale of unsterilized/unregistered animals.
-Make vets report unregistered/unsterilized animals to the police for confiscation and fines.
-Increase taxes on business that sell recreational animals.
-Impose strict limits on the number of animals a breeder is allowed to have to limit over breeding.
-Increase and enforce the fines for owning an unregistered/unsterilized dog or cat
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Just because someone is a pet owner, doesn't mean they are part of the problem. Many pet owners, like myself, have never owned anything other than rescue dogs that have been sterilized. As such they are already part of the solution, rather than the problem.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)You are not part of the problem, because you are already taking steps to mitigate the problems caused by recreational animal ownership. Everything I've proposed only effects the people who are not.
Response to Taitertots (Reply #25)
Hassin Bin Sober This message was self-deleted by its author.
flvegan
(64,416 posts)Yeah, I'm THAT guy. And btw, HSUS puts it closer to 7 million, but whatever, right?
I'm going to show a lot of restraint, because I have a lot of rage inside me on this topic and not looking to make an issue that a random "jury" can take an aside with. Because...well.
That said...if you breed, if you buy...GO FUCK YOURSELF. Killing dogs and cats ain't cool, and that's what you're doing.
Flame on, and bring it. And bring it well. I'll wait...
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)but I think it is more than 7 million. The overbreeding and the mass euthanization is preventable which makes this all the more shameful.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)I'm with flvegan -spay and neuter these animals and don't buy pets from breeders. There are so many good animals who don't have a chance at having a safe, loving home.
My cat should have been dead three times already: when he was abandoned, when he was stuck in an overflowing shelter, and when he had an acute illness. Instead he's a healthy, active, middle aged cat and I hope that we can keep him that way for many years to come.