(June 4, 2008) -- Saying it would save animal lives and taxpayer dollars, the Orange County Grand Jury is urging the OC Board of Supervisors to adopt a mandatory spay-neuter law and to consider supporting AB 1634 ("California Health Pets Act") that would implement similar policies statewide.
In a report released June 3 entitled "Is Orange County Going to the Dogs?" the Grand Jury concludes following its investigation that "there should be some form of mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for all Orange County cities and the unincorporated areas. This would reduce the animal population, save taxpayers money, and lower the number of pets being euthanized."
The Grand Jury recommends that the OC Board of Supervisors consider adopting an ordinance that includes:
The OC Grand Jury states that the "cost effectiveness of a spay/neuter program should be recognized. The program could cut the cost of shelter care and euthanasia for thousands of stray, unwanted or unclaimed animals due to inadequate space. Based on just the cost of euthanasia, and using the OCAC figures, the potential savings could reach $322,000 per year. However, realistically the effectiveness will never reach zero, but may be as high as 90% or $290,000 in annual savings as demonstrated by San Francisco's program. The most cost-effective and humane long-term method to reduce animal overpopulation is to spay and neuter pets."
Like many California counties, Orange County has an animal overpopulation problem. The increase in the number of pets in a community is generally proportionate to the increase in human population...Along with the growth in the pet population comes the need for care and control of those animals that may become lost, abandoned, surrendered or neglected by irresponsible owners...
During a review of the County Animal Shelter operations, the 2007-2008 Orange County Grand Jury learned that animals have proper board and care, but they have a brief window of survival. A caveat concerning animals brought to the County Shelter is that they have less than a 50/50 chance of survival because, if not adopted within a short timeframe, they may be euthanized. In 2006-2007, the County Shelter euthanized over 13,000 animals at a cost of $322,478. The reasons can be attributed to several factors.
Pets are not usually brought to public or private shelters to be euthanized. They are brought because they are abandoned newborns, unwanted, lost or stray, injured or sick, or vicious and dangerous. The shelters may accept and care for the animals that are waiting for adoption or retrieval by their owners. But they are not always adopted or retrieved.
Local shelter operators may perform a mental triage on a pet brought to them on the basis of how much room is available and what the odds are that someone will adopt it. Many city and private shelters focus on the probability of adoption...
Some city and private shelters may suggest that owners drop off the pet at OC Animal Care and the County Shelter will try to find a home for it. When this happens the limited-access shelters (also called "no-kill" shelters) that suggest owners take their pet to the OC Animal Care are no longer responsible for what happens to the animal.
They can continue to claim that they are a no-kill shelter all the while knowing that the animals they have rejected will most likely be euthanized. Animals brought into the County Shelter are well cared for while waiting to be reclaimed or adopted. Despite such humane treatment, if the animal is not adopted within four days to two weeks, it is usually euthanized.
The tragedy of euthanasia is the typical, not the occasional, situation for many reasons. First, the County Shelter is not in the business of selling animals. It is acting as a public health service to prevent rabies and other animal-borne diseases from affecting people. Some shelters can refer to themselves as a no-kill shelter because they know that they can refuse unadoptable animals which will most likely end up at the County -- the animal's last hope of survival.
Thus, the stigma and cost of euthanasia falls to OC Animal Care. The Grand Jury found that this results in something of a "blame game." The no-kill shelters can deny the pet owner's request to take the pet knowing full well that the County, an open-access shelter, must accept all animals.
The number of animals accepted by the County Shelter and the high volume that are euthanized are perplexing problems confronting the County and pet owners. The main reason that the County Shelter is full and many animals are euthanatized is that pet owners, in many cases, have allowed their animals to reproduce beyond the owner's ability to take care of the offspring. The Grand Jury determined that there should be some form of mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for all Orange County cities and the unincorporated areas. This would reduce the animal population, save taxpayers money, and lower the number of pets being euthanized...
The staff at the County Animal Shelter is skilled, hardworking and dedicated. Yearly, their veterinarians perform about 5,000 spay/neuter procedures. In 2007 the staff took in 29,000 animals, licensed 160,000 dogs, and managed 44,000 service or phone calls, and did it with 147 employees and 130 volunteers. Through its outreach efforts and working with some 200 rescue organizations, the OCAC reunited or placed over 15,000 animals last year. Adoptions were up for the third year in a row. Despite these efforts, the County Shelter is nearly always full.
Regardless of the Shelter's location, it will always have a shortage of capacity because it is an open-access shelter. Unlike most other shelters in the county, it takes in any animal that is dropped off. It takes injured, sick or stray animals. It also accepts animals from different cities and five other shelters. The Grand Jury learned about shelter selectivity from the following example: a popular dog like a Jack Russell terrier would be accepted by a local shelter because finding a new owner is fairly easy. But if a pit bull is brought in, the pet owner may be turned away because the local shelter will have a hard time finding it a home. As an open-access shelter, the County obviously has a higher animal population and thus a higher kill rate than limited-access shelters.
The Euthanasia Issue
In 2007, 13,000 animals were euthanized at the Orange County Animal Shelter. This number will continue to grow because the number of animals in the county increases each year. This growth in animal population will continue until the number is reduced through some form of intervention such as a mandatory spay/neuter program. In 2006, the OC Animal Care impounded 17,691 dogs with most adopted or reclaimed and just 4,341 (24%) euthanized. Of the 15,705 cats brought to the shelter, only 467 were reclaimed by their owners, another 4,361 were adopted by new owners, and 9,711 cats were euthanized (61%). The average total cost to the County to euthanize an animal is $159.
Spay/Neuter Programs
Uncontrolled reproduction is a factor in the county's high pet population. It is estimated that the average fertile cat hypothetically can produce three litters a year with each litter being four to six kittens, while the average fertile dog can produce two litters yearly at an average of six to ten puppies a litter. Using these figures, one can see how the pet population could greatly increase unless the means and regulations are put in place to control pet reproduction. Unlike the Serengeti, urban environments are "space-limited" with few natural predators.
It is estimated that six to eight million cats and dogs enter shelters in the United States each year. Of these, approximately half are adopted and half are euthanized. That is disheartening news for animal advocates. To offset this high euthanasia rate, many cities, counties, and even states have adopted mandated spay/neuter programs with remarkable results. In 1988, the State of New Hampshire had a similar percentage to what Orange County had in 2007, of animals euthanized relative to the number impounded. New Hampshire is often cited as a successful mandated program as it has dramatically reduced the number of euthanized pets. In the first two years of New Hampshire's program, the killing of animals in shelters dropped 38%. Eight years after New Hampshire implemented its mandated spay/neuter law, euthanasia was reduced by 82%.
The City and County of San Francisco also showed dramatic results by joining forces with the San Francisco Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) to eliminate euthanasia as the common fate of homeless cats and dogs. They created a model mandatory program which has been used by communities worldwide. Its success is based on several elements, the main one being high-volume spay/neuter surgery to reduce pet overpopulation and shelter intake. The results over a 12-year period show that the number of cats and dogs entering the San Francisco shelter system dropped by 41% from 13,189 to 7,836. From 2002 to 2003, the figures for euthanasia dropped from 2,163 to 1,606.
In 2005, OC Animal Care impounded 9,754 stray dogs of which 6,300 had not been previously sterilized.14 Using the 13,000 number of Orange County animals impounded and euthanized in fiscal year 2006-2007, multiplied by the State figure for the average stay of five days, plus euthanasia and disposal costs, a mandatory spay/neuter law could save the County about $21 million over eight years.
State Assembly Bill 1634
The OCAC's animal care and control ordinances are based upon State law. A current legislative bill, AB 1634, buried in the bowels of the State Senate, would establish a mandatory spay/neuter law if passed. AB 1634 could be a remedy for the future overpopulation of animals by implementing a mandatory spay/neuter law for dogs and cats. It currently sits in the Senate Business and Professional Committee. It is an active bill and, if passed, would be part of the Civil Code §1834.4 and Sections A & B of the Food & Agriculture Code.
Nearly a million cats and dogs are abandoned in California yearly, adding a financial burden to public and private shelters. Proponents of AB 1634 state that, for every dollar spent on spay/neuter surgeries, taxpayers would save about $169 in future animal control cost over a 10-year time frame. If left unspayed or unneutered, animals will multiply beyond the capacity of our shelters. Even private shelters and volunteer rescue groups will not have enough space available.
The proposed AB 1634 legislation prohibits anyone from owning an unaltered dog or cat that is more than six months of age unless issued an exemption permit. The exemption permit fee, if any, will be determined by the local jurisdiction. Municipalities can continue to charge a higher annual licensing fee for unaltered animals. Fines for failure to alter an animal could be used for the cost of administration and, if available, to fund free or low-cost spay/neuter programs and educational efforts at the community level. Over time, enforcement of the bill could help reduce the animal overpopulation and save public funds, but at this time the estimated cost savings and cost of the program have not been determined.
Since all counties and most cities adopt their animal regulations from the California Codes, the proposed law would help ease Orange County's animal overpopulation and reduce the operating cost of the County Animal Shelter. The Board of Supervisors had not taken a stand on AB 1634 at the time of this report.
County of Los Angeles Ordinance
In February 2008, the City of Los Angeles took a major step towards reducing euthanasia of unwanted pets. The City followed the lead of the County of Los Angeles and 10 other cities in Los Angeles County with similar ordinances.
The L.A. County mandatory spay/neuter ordinance requires the owner or custodian of a dog over the age of four months either to have the pet altered or to obtain an unaltered dog license and pay an annual dog license fee three times the cost of a license for an altered dog. There are exceptions for "hobby breeders" and "competition dogs" that are documented by recognized kennel organizations. Other exemptions are dogs used by law enforcement, a qualified service or assistance dog or a dog which is unable to be spayed or neutered due to illness or age (requiring written confirmation from a licensed veterinarian).
The penalties for violations of any provision of the L.A. County ordinance are steep: the first violation fine is not to exceed $250 -- but a second violation within a year of a first violation is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed six months or by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.
As a side note, the County of Riverside recently prepared a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance and will be presenting it to its Board of Supervisors for approval. It incorporates many of the features in the L.A. County mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. It also includes spaying and neutering of cats. As of this writing the County of Riverside had not taken action on the ordinance.
Proposed Orange County Ordinance
An Orange County ordinance could easily be drafted using some of the pertinent provisions from the existing L.A. County and the proposed Riverside County spay/neuter ordinances. One of the provisions could include Riverside's proposed program of a mandatory spay/neuter requirement for cats as well as dogs. An initial assessment of a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance was provided by OCAC staff as to what would be included. The Grand Jury reviewed this assessment and suggests that the following points be considered in a revised ordinance.
- Mandate the spaying/neutering of all animals covered in the proposed ordinance except those issued exemptions.
- Establish exemption policies for breeders, including an appeals process
- Notify current animal licensees of any new licensing policy for spaying/neutering of dogs/cats
- Mandate the licensing and the spaying/neutering of any stray dog/cat that OCAC impounds prior to being adopted or reclaimed unless legally exempt
- Enforce the spay/neuter ordinance with set fines for non-compliance
- Maintain different levels of license fees for unaltered animals
- Utilize some of the fee revenue to pay for educational programs
- Offer free spay/neuter clinics to initiate the program
The cost effectiveness of a spay/neuter program should be recognized. The program could cut the cost of shelter care and euthanasia for thousands of stray, unwanted or unclaimed animals due to inadequate space. Based on just the cost of euthanasia, and using the OCAC figures, the potential savings could reach $322,000 per year. However, realistically the effectiveness will never reach zero, but may be as high as 90% or $290,000 in annual savings as demonstrated by San Francisco's program.
The most cost-effective and humane long-term method to reduce animal overpopulation is to spay and neuter pets.
Opposition
A mandatory spay/neuter State law has the support of some cities and counties, plus animal shelter and animal welfare organizations, including the ASPCA. However, it is strongly opposed by the American Kennel Club and other breeder associations.20 These organizations suggest that the problem can be solved through aggressive education and are lobbying against AB 1634. While some pet owners oppose spay/neuter legislation on the premise that it smacks of governmental interference or "nanny-state" mentality, both hobby and registered breeders appear to be more concerned about the monetary impact than the animal population. They are opposed even though AB 1634 clearly allows exemptions for certain dogs and for-profit breeding purposes. Opposition from some breeders may stem from the requirement that they obtain a business license and pay taxes on profits.
Most pet owners are loving, attentive guardians of their pets. They are protective of their animals and are conscious of their pet's breeding habits. However, not all pet owners are as dedicated, particularly when it comes to caring for or placing unwanted or non-saleable litters. The overpopulation problem is caused primarily by stray, abandoned and unattended animals which reproduce freely. This places a burden on animal control agents who must constantly take in animals, the majority of which may be euthanized because the shelter is at capacity.
Even with the OCAC staff of paid and volunteer veterinarians performing 5,000 spay and neuter operations in 2006, animal overpopulation remains a major problem in Orange County. Despite this, the Board of Supervisors has not supported a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance...
CONCLUSION
The Orange County Grand Jury concluded that the OC Animal Care Department provides excellent services in spite of the physical restrictions of its site and the number of unwanted animals shifted from Orange County cities to the County Animal Care Shelter. However, there is no end in sight to the growing number of pets that the County will have to euthanize every year.
A mandatory spay/neuter ordinance has been successful in other jurisdictions, such as the State of New Hampshire and the City and County of San Francisco. Such a program has been adopted by the City and the County of Los Angeles, to reduce the number of pets that are euthanized in animal shelters each year. Riverside County is contemplating the adoption of an "L.A. County-type" ordinance. It is time for Orange County to adopt a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance as well.
When AB 1634 (statewide mandatory spay-neuter, Assemblymembers Betty Karnette (D., LB) and (now Congresswoman) Laura Richardson (D. Carson-LB) to advance AB 1634 to the Senate. After reportedly indicating they wouldn't support the bill, the two lawmakers voted "yes," effectively allowing the bill to advance to the Senate where it could be amended to address concerns (a common practice, instead of withholding their votes and killing the bill entirely).
A number of LB animal advocates cheered, the LB Area Chamber of Commerce and LB Area Convention & Visitors Bureau (the latter in part taxpayer-funded) voiced strong disagreement, accusing the state lawmakers of flip-flopping and charging that the measure, if it became law, could cost LB convention event revenue.
The issue eventually percolated to a Congressional race...when State Senator Jenny Oropeza (D., southbay), then battling Richardson for the late Cong. Millender-McDonald's seat came out in opposition to the measure. (Oropeza lost the election to Richardson).
AB 1634 has generated what some say may be the longest lists of recorded support and opposition in history of recent Assembly/Senate legislative analyses.
The measure is currently stalled in Sacramento (with the AKC implying it might move its activities out of CA if the measure became law) and faces an uncertain future On June 3, 2008, AB 1634's author, Assemblyman Levine lost his bid to advance to the State Senate...meaning he'll be out of office by year's end..
