Pit Bull Rescue Central says:
It is estimated that up to 200 Pit Bulls are killed EVERY DAY in Los Angeles County, CA, shelters alone because there are not enough homes for them. Imagine the number across the entire United States .... Before you breed, we urge you to volunteer at your local animal shelter so you can witness pet homelessness first hand.
Good information. Good advice. Well said.
But is it enough?
Considering the number of Pit Bulls that are killed every day in shelters across this country, and the apparent shortage of sane, sensible and informed people willing to adopt them, is mandatory Pit Bull sterilization really a bad idea in areas that are overrun with them?
Yes, folks can simply go outside their area to get a Pit Bull.
But most won't.
Most people are too lazy to even look up a simple news story, aren't they?
7 comments:
I'm just curious why you think mandatory pit bull s/n would work if you don't think mandatory s/n of all pets would work. I'm hesitant to advocate for mandatory s/n of pit bulls because I don't believe that general mandates on s/n are effective and in some cases make the situation worse.
Because it apparently works to reduced the supply of Pit Bulls that end up being killed.
Consider this story from San Francisco where a mandatory spay-neuter law for Pit Bulls seems to be having an impact >> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/28/MNK5RMK79.DTL
_ _ _ _
"Not long ago, pit bulls occupied about three-quarters of the dog kennels at San Francisco's Animal Care and Control shelter. Now, only about a quarter of the unwanted canines at the shelter are pit bulls.
"The numbers of pit bull terriers and pit bull mixes abandoned and euthanized in San Francisco have fallen drastically since the city implemented a law 18 months ago requiring that pit bulls be sterilized, animal officials say."
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
While there is no longer a general over-supply of dogs, there IS a massive over-supply of Pits, and the dogs are being killed by the train-load as a result.
One thing for sure: What we are doing now is NOT working when it comes to Pit Bulls.
Another factor is that Pit Bull aggression is also closely linked with intact male dogs. Knocking off the nuts will only help reduce problems with the breed on several levels.
P.
I agree that there is an over-supply of Pits and that aggression in males can be reduced by castration, but I'm still wondering what the differences are that actually make these laws work as opposed to general mandatory s/n. The article you mentioned does make it sounds like things are working for the better, but why? Why do mandatory s/n laws for pits work when general mandatory s/n laws don't? Are pit bull owners somehow more afraid of the repercussions of not following the law? Are they generally more responsible? Or is the city able to expend the funds to send officers out to actually police the law?
I agree with you that things need to change with regards to how we treat pit bulls when it comes to pet ownership and the law. I'm not in favor of the kinds of campaigns that you mentioned in "Asking Google About Aggression in Two Breeds" that try to actually sell the pit bull as an easy and can-do-no-wrong breed. I think sentiments like that lead to more dog-on-dog and dog-on-human attacks than many people realize.
I don't know if they do generally work -- only that they were reported to work in San Francisco.
If they do work, it may be because all of the "good" people are adopting spay-neutered Pits anyway, while the "bad" people quickly figure out that an unaltered Pit results in people with uniforms showing up to ask inconvenient questions -- something they are interested in not happening.
Another issue is that Pit Bulls are not a good dog for commercial breeders -- they are too big to easily raise in a typical puppy mill, and they do not command a big price unless they are fighting dogs with track records, in which case advertising the animal is a problem.
P.
Patrick,
I'd be careful about how much stock you put in the San Francisco numbers. While they have had some success, it's not quite as much as what it appears like from the article you quote.
Note that they don't give real numbers.
So two things happened in San Francisco.
#1 - they number of pit bulls killed in the shelter decreased -- by about 16%
#2 - -the number of dogs of other breeds killed in the shelter actually increased slightly -- making the "percentage of dead dogs that are pit bulls" go down even more considerably.
While San Francisco has seen some success with the ordinance -- two other cities -- Kansas City, MO and Little Rock, AR have had devasting effects with their MSN for pit bulls. Little Rock saw their pit bull euthanasia go up 46%. in the first year, Kansas City 80% over two years.
I would supsect -- and this is speculation here -- that one reason San Francisco did see some success is that they have quite possibly the most well-developed low-cost/no cost spay/neuter system in the country. So they made it possible for people of low-incomes to comply.
Without such a system in Little Rock and KCMO, the numbers jumped up because the system was not there for compliance.
I'd be very wary of using the San Francisco numbers and thinking that will translate to other areas.
At the end of the day, you need the low cost spay/neuter services in order to solve the problem --- and if you have a good system in place, it can work wihtout laws.
However, if you have laws without the system in place, it can have the same problems as with MSN for all breeds.
I'm not denying that there is a problem -- too many 'pit bulls' - -but I think investing in low cost/no cost programs -- by the city and the private sector -- is a more efficient approach than going after it through legal means.
VERY good points BT!
The simple subsidy of spay-neuter of ALL Pit Bulls, or all large dogs, or even all dogs, may be the best low-cost and low-impact way of reducing the death toll.
The point you make about low-cost or no-cost S/N being the most likely important intervening variable in san Francisco sounds probable and logical.
Of course, the push-bach from vets is extraordinary when it comes to free S/N for dogs, though many do free S/N on feral cats.
Maybe the thing that is needed to a voluntary S/N program for Pit Bulls, and other problematic dogs? Would the vets lead the way here? Can the vets be recruited? Can local charities be recruited? Is this a possible investment for tax dollars??
P
The key to it, it seems, is to have a really targeted approach to the low-cost programs. If you're actively seeking out low-income people who could not afford it otherwise, then the vets lose nothing -- as the people who cannot afford s/n will not be going to the vet anyway. In KC, our program is designed that people have to be below a certain income to qualify. We've had pretty solid veterinarian compliance. We are also in a great situation here because we have several great Veterninary Colleges nearby -- so qualified students in the vet schools come in for "Mash" surgeries a couple of times a month.
The biggest problem we've had has not been with the veterinarians (who seem mostly supportive) - -but with reaching low-income people and letting them know why it is important, getting the dogs to the clinic (many of our low income do not have cars), and them trusting complete strangers to perform a surgery on their dog that the dog doesn't necessarily "need". The outreach/trust building seems to be the hardest part.
Post a Comment