09/26/13

Is desexing a cult?

There are two definitions of ‘cult’ (according to Google):

A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease, or
Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

The community’s perception of desexing fits well into both of these categories.

Border terrier bitch on a table at a dog show, being examined by a judge.

The weird dog show culture.

How is desexing a cult?

There is relatively little data on desexing. You may be surprised to hear this, considering how the procedure is so loudly advocated, but there are few long-term controlled studies on gonadectomanies (i.e. removal of ovaries or testicles) in the dog. By this I mean that desexing is quite ‘nonscientific’ in that there is little research on what it actually does (or doesn’t) do for dogs.

Despite this, desexing is claimed to have “exceptional power in curing a particular disease”. For example, desex your dog to fix humping, aggression, to ‘calm your dog down’, to stop testicular cancer, stop mammary cancer, and so on and so on. In this way, the desexing mantra clearly fits into the first definition of ‘cult’. Desexing is a nonscientific method that has exceptional power in preventing and curing particular diseases and behaviours.

The way that the community embraces desexing could be described as obsessive devotion. The RSPCA, PETA, and even the (government run) Dog and Cat Management Board all promote desexing. The community follows suit. There is a devotion to desexing – it is loved, embraced enthusiastically, has a committed following. The community loves desexing, despite little evidence. This obsession towards desexing can also be described as cult-like.

In this way, desexing is a cult as it is:

a nonscientific method claimed to have exclusive power, and
obsessively followed by individuals and the community.

Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies allow individuals to avoid a fundamental lack of evidence. The Glossary of Logical Fallacies explains:

… some individuals will attempt to derail the [scientific, evidence-based] process by diverting the progression of the debate with fallacious arguments. Such efforts have the intent of masking the indefensibility of a flawed theory by muddying the waters with emotive rhetoric and fractured logic, with the ultimate goal being to convince someone to believe some idea that is not scientifically valid or that they might not otherwise accept.

Logical fallacies are inherent in both definitions of the desexing cult: a disregard of evidence underlined by a devotion to desexing. In all things desexing, there is a fundamental lack of critical thinking. Any attempt to debate desexing often descends into a sphere of logical fallacies, like those described in the graphic below.

Rational Thinking

I frequently make arguments against mandatory and default desexing. I say things like, “but breeding causes more dogs, not just gonads” and “there is no overpopulation problem, so it doesn’t even matter if people breed their dogs” and “desexing is correlated with some types of cancer“.

These arguments are met with responses like “Rescues desex their pets, so it’s obviously good for pets” (bandwagon) and “The Dog and Cat Management Board says desexing is good” (appeal to authority). They make strawman arguments like, “So you’re saying that no dog should ever be desexed?” and even just deny the claims all together, “It really doesn’t make sense that desexing would cause an increase in lymphosarcoma” (personal incredulity).

People make black and white arguments like “We can either have mandatory desexing or we can let everyone have a several litters in their backyard every year”, that then extend to slippery slope arguments, “If we don’t encourage people to desex, then people will breed more puppies”.

One of my big pet hate is anecdotal evidence. “I had a dog that was desexed at 12 weeks and it lived to 15 years old and died of a stroke” and “I knew an entire dog that used to bite everyone, and it was desexed and then it stopped biting”.

The false cause, “But so many dogs are dying in pounds because people don’t desex!” and “Entire dogs bite more, so testicles clearly cause dogs to bite.”

They ask loaded questions like, “So you are okay with the number of dogs dying in pounds?” or “So backyard breeders are okay by you?”.

In all these claims there is a lack of logic, validity and reasoning. Logical fallacies are a flaw in logic. These logical flaws are overwhelming in discussions on desexing. Debates should be argued and won on factual evidence and sound reasoning – and logical fallacies are neither.

What to do?

Unfortunately, the very nature of a cult is that it is difficult to break one. The devotion of to the thing itself is in the very definition of cult. Indeed, there also seems to be a veneration of gonads itself within the desexing cult.

I guess the only thing to possibly do is to logically state our claims for entire dogs, not use logical fallacies, and hope that people are willing to be wrong about that. We need to demand evidence that desexing has exceptional power – evidence in the way of articles in peer-reviewed papers. At the same time, we can supply our own evidence that desexing isn’t all it seems to be.

At the same time, we need to support dog science that allows us to make more solid conclusions on desexing. When evidence becomes available, we need to embrace it – even if that potentially means changing our view on desexing. I am not prepared to personally commit logical fallacies, just as I reject those exclaimed by others.

Further reading:

5 Logical Fallacies That Make You More Wrong Than You Think

The Great Spay-Neuter Fallacy

Understanding Science – Logical Fallacies

Border-Wars Comment Policy (or the Disagreement Hierarchy)

09/22/13

Public Misconceptions

I was struck while reading the Companion Animal Taskforce report and that of the Select Committee on Companion Animal Welfare in SA (click ‘Final Report’) on the feedback that was provided by the public. Submissions to both of these committees were making the same uninformed recommendations, and the similarities between public opinions expressed are extensive.

I thought it was time to address some of these misconceptions held by the general public concerning animal welfare.

ACTIVIST AVOWAL: Desexing everything!

The public seems to believe that there is an overpopulation of animals, and that desexed animals are healthier, and therefore argue for mandatory desexing.

In reality, there is no ‘overpopulation problem‘ and it is debatable whether desexing is in the best interest of animal health.

ACTIVIST AVOWAL: Ban pet sales in pet shops!

Most puppies in pet shops come from puppy mills. I like puppy mills as little as the next person, and in no way want to support the practices of puppy farmers.

However, the problem here is puppy mills. Not pet shops.

Pet shops are on public display, and have a pretty strict codes of conduct which are often better/higher than your average backyard breeder. Are they really who we should be targeting?

Furthermore, many pet shops routinely work with rescues to sell/market animals. Do we really want to ban that?

ACTIVIST AVOWAL: Get breeders registered!

There seems to be a logic that if breeders had to be registered there would be less unscrupulous breeding.

As most of these schemes require breeders to pay in order to be registered, what breeder registration effectively does is limit (legal) breeding to those who are making money from the practice. What I mean is: breeders who don’t make money are are probably the ‘ethical ones’, and are probably less likely to be able to afford registration. Are these the individuals we want to perturb from breeding?

Meanwhile, individuals making profits from dog breeding (i.e. the puppy farms) easily purchase their registrations. Some argue that registering breeders would mean that there would be ‘policing’ of legislation surrounding their care. It is already illegal to be cruel to and not ensure the welfare of dogs. If this legislation isn’t being policed, then that’s the matter for the police. Furthermore, is it truly likely that the bad guys are going to sign up to such legislation? “Well, my animals have lived in faeces for years, but now that I have to be registered, I really want to undergo the scrutiny of a policing body.” Yeah, nah.

This is Dulcie’s litter – a bitch that was rescued from a pound when she was 8 weeks pregnant. As a rescue, we whelped and raised this litter. If breeders had to be registered, would rescues have to be registered as breeders, too?

ACTIVIST AVOWAL: Mandatory cooling off periods are cool.

There seems to be a belief that animals are surrendered to rescue because owners ‘didn’t think about their purchase’, or otherwise acquired their pet impulsively. In reality, relinquishment statistics don’t support this, and there is evidence that impulsive adoptions are as successful as planned ones. In this way, there is not evidence that supports mandatory cooling off periods as desirable.

However, there are obvious implications for other animal-selling institutions regarding a mandatory cooling off period. Do we really want to see animals held in pounds even longer? Do we really want to see puppies held in pet shops longer? We know both of these scenarios have negative welfare implications on dogs, so why would we mandate compulsory confinement under the guise of a cooling off period with unsubstantiated positive benefits?

Mandatory cooling off periods restrict adoptions! Bad!

ACTIVIST AVOWAL: Puppy mills should be banned. Backyard breeders should be banned.

While I would also like to see puppy mills and backyard breeders cease to exist, it’s unlikely that a legislative ‘ban’ would be effective. Those who are unscrupulously producing puppies are unlikely to heed new legislation. Furthermore, I am concerned that a ban on backyard breeders or puppy mills may see ethical registered breeders disadvantaged.

ACTIVIST AVOWAL: Online puppy sales should be banned.

Presumably, puppy millers use the internet to make sales of their puppies and avoid scrutiny of their premises. While this is likely the case, many ethical puppy sales are made online too – such as DogzOnline (for purebred breeders) and PetResuce (for rescue pets). It seems folly to restrict sales of all animals online due to the malpractice of a few.

ACTIVIST AVOWAL: Animals should be desexed before sale.

This is a mandatory desexing claim. The Saving Pets blog does a good job of describing how mandatory desexing has never worked. Furthermore, I’ve blogged before about how mandatory desexing is hard to define (unless we desex everything and eradicate the species). Mandatory desexing is also often associated with early age desexing, which has its own welfare implications. And there’s evidence that making desexing mandatory increases surrenders, as people aren’t able to pay for the surgery and so are left with no other choice. And, on top of that, desexing is a medical procedure, which should be implemented by medical professionals based on the individual animal at hand – not policy makers.

ACTIVIST AVOWAL: Bitches should only have a particular number of litters in her life. Bitches should wait a certain time in between litters.

There seems to be a belief that bitches will ‘wear out’ if bred every season, or allowed to have ‘too many’ litters. However, there is little evidence to substantiate this claim. It seems surprising, but there is really no evidence on when it becomes a welfare issue for a bitch to have so many litters or a time between litters. (Despite what the Victorian code tried to suggest.)

You may be surprised to hear that when bitches don’t fall pregnant after estrus, they are more likely to develop the sometimes-lethal condition pyometra. In that way, there is actually evidence to the contrary – not breeding a bitch every season could be detrimental to their welfare.

Basically, though, it is up to breeders to determine how many litters a bitch may have, and over what time period, if any at all. They may have good reason for allowing a bitch to have several litters – perhaps the bitch is a Supreme Show Champion, or maybe she is an exceptional free-whelping bitch in a breed that often has whelping difficulty. There might also be good reason to have several back to back litters – maybe there is a stud visiting the country for a ‘limited time only’, or maybe the bitch has a pet home to go to so the breeder wants her to finish her breeding career sooner. These are all individualistic things for the breeder to address.

Basically, there is no evidence confirming this avowal, and it seems like a limit to puppies bred (probably on the basis of the overpopulation myth) is based on good intentions instead of good science. Meanwhile, until we have more evidence, breeders are in the best position to use their own discretion in determining their own breeding practices based on their specific conditions.

ACTIVIST AVOWAL: Breeders should only have n dogs on their property (where n is a certain number of dogs).

Often, the public seems to believe that at a certain point – be it 10, 20, 30, 50, or more – breeders suddenly become ‘unethical’. In reality, numbers has nothing to do with ethics. Through my rescue work, I have seen plenty of dogs who have lived singularly that have been treated poorly, and seen litters of puppies surrendered by people with just ‘a dog and a bitch’ who happen to breed. People can be unethical with just 1 or 2 dogs, but they can also be highly ethical with 50 or more dogs. So far, I haven’t been to a facility with 30 or more dogs that didn’t have good welfare standards.

While it may be easy to apply a blanket limit on dog numbers, again, there is no evidence that this truly matters. If animals on the property are being treated in ethical ways, then it’s folly to deny owners the privilege of having that many dogs. Likewise, if individuals only have a small number of dogs, but are handling them in ways that are inappropriate, then this should not be permitted, either.

ACTIVIST AVOWAL: When advertising, breeders should have to provide a microchip or breeder number.

The logic here is that this would mean that only legitimate breeders would be able to advertise.

While this suggestion is not as detrimental as some of the other proposals here, it still is not a gold star suggestion. Chiefly, this proposal is only as good as the policing that is implemented. Considering the failure to police the Animal Welfare Act and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, what faith do we have that advertising controls would be enforced?

Recently, the microchip number in advertisement rule was introduced in Victoria. What the dodgy breeders did is copy and paste the microchip numbers for legitimate ads onto their own, to avoid detection. Without adequate policing, policies like this will never work.

ACTIVIST AVOWAL: Anyone with an entire animal should be considered a breeder.

Presumably, activists believe that if an animal is entire, it will breed. They don’t believe in legitimate reasons that people keep animals entire.

For the last few years, I have had 3 ‘permanent resident’ entire dogs, of different sexes, living in my house, plus almost always one rescue dog (adding up to about 30 dogs in all) come through my house, most entire when they enter (and all desexed when they leave). I have never had an accidental mating or litter.

In reality, it is very possible to own entire animals without breeding. It is just a simple matter of management.

ACTIVIST AVOWAL: Support for codes of practice/restrictions on breeders is the way to better animal welfare.

There seems to be a logic that if breeders and their practices are restricted, the welfare of breeding animals will be improved. In reality, we already have a pretty good legislation, like the Animal Welfare Act.

If breeders are choosing to disregard current legislation, then it’s very likely they’ll continue to disregard new legislation. Legislation is only effective when it goes along with enforcement.

ACTIVIST AVOWAL: We could have a pet license scheme.

At least this idea leaves the poor breeders alone! This one concentrates on pet owning public and goes with the logic: ‘If someone had to get a license before adopting a pet, then they wouldn’t impulsively purchase a pet and they’d be better owners who don’t dump their pets at shelters’.

Firstly, how wildly expensive and impractical is this proposal? There’s about 3.4 million dogs in Australia. Introducing a retrospective ownership scheme will be hard work! And expensive! And impossible!

We’ve already addressed the impulsivity thing with the mandatory cooling off period segment. Most people aren’t impulsive in their pet choices. (And even if they are impulsive, that doesn’t make them bad pet owners.)

And there are a range of reasons for people to relinquish pets, most of them to do with accommodation issues.

And, I’m willing to bet, if you made pet licenses compulsory, there would be one more reason to relinquish a pet. (That is, “I can’t afford or find time to acquire my pet license, therefore I am surrendering this pet because I am not legally able to own it.”)

So what should we do, then?

I’ve been a bit of a negative nancy all through this post, so it’s important to note that I try to come up with workable suggestions for improving animal welfare.

Firstly, I’d like to see microchips as compulsory (and policed!) and then I’d like to see these microchips linked to the breeder’s details, and have the breeder required to provide some level of care to their pups for life. I wrote more about this in my post ‘What is the Answer (to Puppy Mills)?‘.

Also, I made a bunch of recommendations to the Select Committee on Companion Animal Welfare in SA. At the beginning of this post, they’re summarised as ‘key points’. Click through to read all the recommendations I made, with the primary purpose of reducing euthanasia in shelters.

08/29/13

Why would you NOT desex your dog???

Why wouldn't you desex a dog?

Desexing advocates seem to minimise the many real reasons that people choose to keep their dogs entire. In Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA, at some other countries, desexing (spay and neuter) is the default, and anyone who chooses for their dog to not undergo the surgery is treated with suspicion.

However, there are a number of reasons that people choose to keep their dogs entire. Here are some of them.

The question is: Why is your dog entire?

They want their dog to physically and mentally mature before desexing.

It is well documented that desexing dogs early can cause them to grow taller and leaner. While for many people this is not a problem, others particularly want their dog to develop ‘the way nature intended’, especially if the dog will be partaking in strenuous sports like agility. Others want their dog to mentally mature before desexing, too. In this case, “My dog is entire to ensure that it naturally matures.”

They want their dog to look or act like their given breed.

On a similar note, it is well know that desexing causes dogs to know only grow taller (in the case of early aged desexing) but, in all desexing, it is common for the coat to change texture and not ‘blow’ as normal. Quite simply, while you may purchase a purebred, desexing may cause the dog to look dissimilar to the breed your purchased. The answer may be, “My dog is entire because I want my dog to look and act like the breed I purchased” and “My dog is entire because I don’t want it to grow tall (i.e. I want a small dog)”.

There are risk factors associated with desexed dogs that they are not prepared to risk.

They are aware of the health conditions associated with desexed dogs, and some owners may choose to minimise the risks of these health conditions by keeping their dogs entire. These risks include an increased incidence of cranial cruciate ligament tears, and the risk of cancer. They could say, “My dog is entire because I believe it is in their best interests, for health reasons, for them to remain entire.”

They want their dogs to act like its appropriate sex.

They like a dog who acts like their sex, which is mostly controlled as hormones. This is best expressed as, “My dog is entire because I want it to act like a dog or act like a bitch”.

They feel the risks of desexing surgery is too great.

They are concerned about the risks of anaesthetic, especially if their pet already has health conditions (e.g. heart conditions). These owners could say, “My dog is entire because the risks of anaesthetic are too great”.

They compete in dog shows in which their dog is required to be entire.

While many dog shows in Australia have a neuter class, they are not competitive, and only have one title awarded after 100 points. This is, the neuter classes in Australian dog shows are not highly competitive. It would make sense for owners to justify keeping their dogs entire by saying, “My dog is entire because I enjoy participating in a competitive way in dog shows”.

They don’t believe their is anything wrong with their dog in current form.

Why fix what isn’t broken? Many dog owners are happy with their dog behaviourally and/or phyiscally and don’t want to change it. Indeed, they are scared that desexing may change their pet’s temperament. They could say, “My dog is entire because I see no reason to desex them – I like them just the way they are”.

They want to have the option to breed from their pet one day.

Before becoming alarmed (Oh no! Breeders!), I am referring to ethical ways in which breeders seek to ensure they only breed from the ‘best dogs’ and preserve genetic diversity. For example, many breeders run on several dogs from one litter, to give them time to determine ‘the best one’. Some breeders (like myself) may choose to put males out on terms that require them to remain entire, so I can collect semen from them and store it to preserve genetic diversity. Some people also keep dogs entire as insurance – again, in my case, my bitch Clover is still entire just in case something happens to her progeny and so I’m therefore left without anything to go on with. So, people may be able to say, “My dog is entire because I am committed to ensuring only the best dogs are bred from, while also having a committing to preserving genetic diversity within the breed”.

They can’t afford to desex!

This is a big one! Many people want to desex their pets, but they do not have the finances to do so. Statistics from groups like Downtown Dog Rescue show that poverty is a big problem when it comes to many matters concerning pet ownership, including desexing. If you asked these people, “Why is your dog entire?” the answer would probably be “My dog is entire because I do not have enough income to pay for rent, groceries, medications, and to also pay for surgery for my dog”.

They believe it is cruel to desex.

Desexing is a medical procedure that certainly causes short term suffering for an animal, and has some long term health implications. Many believe that desexing is a superficial procedure, mostly performed in order to make pets easier to ‘control’ (presumably). How ethical is it to maim an animal for personal convenience? These people could say, “My dogs are entire because I believe desexing is cruel.”

The law doesn’t allow them to desex.

This is real. In Norway, desexing is illegal except in extenuating medical circumstances. Routine desexing is outlawed. “My dog is entire because it’s illegal to desex them.”

They chose alternative contraceptive options for their dog.

Just because a dog appears to be entire (like the lovely bull terrier illustrated above), that does not mean that they are actually able to reproduce. Dog owners may choose to have a vasectomy, a tubal ligation, or use a contraceptive like the Superlorin. In this way, “My dog is entire because I have chosen a form of sterilisation (temporary or permanent) that not a gonadectomy”.

Unfortunately, we have set desexing as ‘the norm’ for companion animals. People take their pets into their vet for their first consult, and they vaccinate, microchip, and book them in for desexing.

While there may be many reasons that people choose to desex their pets, these are readily and openly discussed. This post aims to produce an alternative dialogue and provide legitimacy to the practice of keeping pets entire.

08/15/13

Why I Don’t Want Oscar’s Law

The heading from the Oscar’s Law website.

Oscar’s Laws aims, screengrab from their website.

Oscar’s Law is a prominent Australian lobby group who has three aims:

“Abolish the factory farming of companion animals”
“Ban the sale of companion animals from pet shops/online trading sites.”
“Promote adoption through rescue groups/pounds/shelters”

I would like to congratulate Oscar’s Law for being hugely successful in marketing and building awareness on puppy mills and pet shop sales, and their success as a movement.

The chief goals of Oscar’s Law I fundamentally support, but I do have issue with several aspects of their campaign. Most significantly:

Defining a puppy mill and differentiating a mill from a responsible and ethical breeder (especially in legislation),
How rescues will be impacted from sale restrictions, that mean pets can’t be sold in pet shops or online,
Their failure to differentiate between ethical and unethical rescue groups, pounds and shelters, and finally
The personal conduct with Debra Tantra in regard to Oscar and his theft and then purchase from a puppy mill.

I will address these issues in more detail in order to illustrate why I don’t support Oscar’s Law, the group.

Defining and differentiating a puppy mill from a responsible and ethical breeder

Closing down puppy mills is great, until we get into defining what a puppy mill is.

Is a puppy mill a registered business? Well, I know plenty of registered and ethical breeders who call themselves a business for tax purposes (yet only have 0-2 litters a year).

Is a puppy mill somewhere that has a lot of dogs? I know breeders who have 50+ dogs and, again, rarely breed litters and the dogs are kept in good conditions.

Is a puppy mill somewhere that keeps dogs in substandard conditions? Currently, the Animal Welfare Act requires animals to be fed, watered, vetted, and sheltered. If animals are not receiving this care, then there are already ramifications set out in the act. If people think that animals deserve more than this, then perhaps the act needs to be changed to reflect the psychological needs of animals, too. Keep in mind, while doing this, we will also see about half of dog owners now become law breakers (i.e. most pet owners just have dogs in the backyard and only meet their most basic needs).

A tokenistic section on their website on differentiating between a puppy farm/factory and a registered breeder that fails to advocate for individuals to seek a registered breeder.

The most concerning thing about Oscar’s Law: Its use of mild dog breeding imagery to attempt to build support against puppy farms. That is, using pictures of ‘dog breeding’ of any sort (i.e. good or bad) to muster support against puppy farms. It makes me wonder what the ‘good’ types of dog breeding would look like…

: A screen grab from the Oscar’s Law Facebook page, with the comment, “Do you think the dogs are happy that they live in brick buildings painted with marine sealant?” What type of dog breeding is okay by Oscar’s Law?

The Facebook page posts pictures of good kennel facilities (like that above) and healthy dogs and puppies, and manages to rally hate in the comments of these posts. Apparently, kennels, crates, and puppies are always bad.

Oscar’s Law particularly fails to express how ‘puppy farming’ would be banned in legislation. They have never written or expressed what kind of legislation they’d actually like to be implemented. Because of this, I’m skeptical of their real intentions, and I harbour concerns about any new law impacting on ethical and responsible breeders.

This lead to me emailing the group, and received this response from Debra Tranter (24th January 2012):

Dear Tegan,

Oscar’s Law aims to abolish puppy factories, the sale of animals in shops and from internet trading sites such as trading post and gum tree.

We aim to do this by raising public awareness so consumers are more aware of this hidden industry and by lobbying politicians.

We do not write pieces of legislation, just as other campaigners who lobby for the end to live export, duck shooting or horse jump racing dont either.

I am currently discussing the issue with many politicans and I am part of the Vic Gov review of the Victorian legislation

regards

Debra

While I get what Debra is saying, her other examples (banning different types of sport and animal trade) is very clear cut. Banning one type of animal breeding (puppy farming) but allowing others to continue is a more complex issue. I really believe that Oscar’s Law needs to be more specific in the legislation that they are wanting to implement – especially as they call themselves ‘Oscar’s Law’. This is the chief reason I do not support Oscar’s Law.

How rescues will be impacted from sale restrictions on pet shops and online

Banning the sale of pets in pet shops also mean that rescue animals will be banned from pet shops. Many rescue groups use pet shops to promote their animals and elicit adoptions. Additionally, pet shops are one of the most regulated areas that animals are raised with strict conditions on their care. While I don’t think they are ever an optimum place for puppies, they are far better looked after than many other places (e.g. ‘backyard breeders’, ‘working dog’ breeders).

Furthermore, online is a fantastic place to sell all pets, including rescue pets. It seems ludicrous to restrict rescues from posting their pets on social media, PetRescue, and Gumtree when there are adoptive families that may be reached by these channels.

Again, it’s hard, legislation-wise, to allow some pets (i.e. rescue pets) to be sold by these venues and others (i.e. ‘breeder pets’) are denied the privilege.

Their failure to differentiate between ethical and unethical rescues and shelters

Promoting rescue is great, too, but not all rescues are created equal. There are ‘rescues’ in my state that rehome pets entire, rehome pets that bite (badly!), and keep pets for indefinite periods in ‘puppy mill’ style conditions. The rescue system is unregulated and is mostly run by volunteers with good intentions and not much in terms of skills or experience. (Mostly mostly!) A blanket promotion on rescues is as flawed as blanket rejection of dog breeders.

The personal conduct with Debra Tranter in regard to ‘Oscar’

On the front page of the Oscar’s Law webpage, it tells a biased story, saying “Oscar was… rescued from a puppy factory” and “Days later and recovering from surgery, Oscar was returned by the authorities…” and “…18 months after being returned… Oscar was saved once again”.

In reality, Oscar was stolen by Debra Tranter from a puppy mill. She desexed the stolen dog. Authorities returned the dog to the puppy mill – the original and legal owner of the dog. 18 months later, Debra Tranter legally purchased Oscar by monetary exchange with the puppy mill owner.

The real story raises questions on the moral and personal conduct of Debra Tranter. Not only did she steal an animal, the animal must have been in reasonable health for a veterinarian to subject it to desexing surgery. This suggests that ‘Oscar’ must have been in a reasonably physically fit condition, and so probably didn’t require a ‘save’ (theft) in the first place.

When the dog was returned to the puppy mill, Debra Tranter then purchased Oscar back from the puppy farmer, thereby putting cash in the pocket of a puppy farmer – the very act that Oscar’s Law advocates that we avoid at all costs. “Do as I say, not as I do”, anyone?

As I started this post, I wanted to also end by congratulating Oscar’s Law on their success in raising public awareness on puppy farms. There is no doubt that they have done excellent work in bringing knowledge on puppy farms into the conversations of every day families.

However, this success does not and should not remove scrutiny into what this group is actually advocating. I certainly don’t want ‘Oscar’s Law’ until I know precisely what ‘Oscar’s Law’ is.

Further reading on Oscar’s Law:

Oscar’s Law and Puppy Farms

Further Reading from the DogzOnline Forums on Oscar’s Law:

Puppy Farm Legislation Victoria

Oscar’s Law – Copy of the proposed legislation?

Puppy Farm Awareness Rally

Oscar’s Law – Against Puppy Farming

Pet Barn Selling Dogs and Cats – Thoughts?

The Final Version of the Document Legislating to End Puppy Farming

Further reading on breeding regulation:

Clean and Kennelled: The Future of Dog Breeding

What is the answer to puppy farms?

Select Committee SA replicates faulty animal welfare legislation

Breeding and Rearing Code in Victoria – online submission

Breeding and Rearing Code in Victoria

Companion Animal Taskforce NSW – Feedback

08/11/13

Are you willing to be wrong about that?

Full credits to Saranimals on the great title on this post. Sara blogged “Are you willing to be wrong about that?” in regard to dog training. I instantly knew I needed to create this sequel on ‘the overpopulation problem’.

You’ve probably heard that there is an overpopulation problem; that there are too many dogs and not enough homes.

But, how do you know this?

And, are you willing to be wrong about that?

How many dogs could we fit in Australia? What is the Australian dog population?

Read on, or listen to the audio. (Audio only summarises the blog post and does not contain new information.)

The common figure quoted is 250, 000 dogs and cats are killed in shelters in Australia annually. While I question the accuracy of this figure (i.e. I think it’s actually quite inflated), for the purposes of this article, let’s run with it as there are no alternative figures available.

We know the RSPCA has high kill rates (except in the ACT), but I’m going to use their statistics for making a guess on how many of those 250,000 pets killed in Australian shelters are dogs. By using the RSPCA’s stats, we are probably over-stating kill rates, but I rather be using a figure that is too big than too small.

The RSPCA, Australia wide, killed 37,862 dogs and cats in the 2011/2012 financial year. 14,211 dogs and 23,651 cats. That is, 37.5% of them were dogs.

So, if we extrapolate that 37.5% of the 250,000 animals killed in shelters are dogs, then that means 93,750 are dogs.

We will start with the theory that 93,750 dogs are being killed in shelters in Australia each year.
This is a rough, and probably generous, estimate.

Australia has over 23 million people. (ABS)

This means, that if 0.4% of the Australian population adopted just one dog from a shelter, then there would be no dogs being killed in shelters.

Consider that 450,000 dogs and puppies are sold in Australia each year (source: ACAC paper 2009 PDF). 2% of Australians add a dog or puppy to their family each year as it stands. With 90,000 extra dogs available, we just have to bump this figure up to 2.4%.

If we could sell dogs through marketing to just 90,000 Australians (that’s a town the size of Toowoomba or Bendigo), we would effectively remove the need to kill dogs in shelters.

There are about 3.4 million dogs (3,400,000) owned in Australia (source: ACAC). This is significant because:

For every 362 dogs owned in Australia, one dies in Australia. That is, less than .3% (point three percent) of Australian dogs die in shelters each year. While it adds up to a big number, it’s not much of the total population. There’s not many irresponsible owners out there, really. It’s an important point to remember.
Estimates say that about 10-13% of dogs die each year from natural causes. That means that 340,000 people have a ‘vacancy’ in their lives for a dog on an annual basis.
There are also a number of new vacancies as people move into new accommodation or decide to add a second dog to their family.
19.61% of households who don’t own a pet want to in the future (Source: RSPCA).

So, considering all this, I’d argue that rehoming 93,750 dogs is a very achievable target.

However, I have some good news: We don’t even have to rehome 93, 750 dogs.

Dogs are typically owned by people. While it is common for cats to live in free-ranging communities and never have a true owners, dogs are not the case. When a dog becomes lost, typically, there is a home trying to find them.

So the good news is that we can try to get these 93,750 back to their original home instead of into a new home. Shelters can:

As pets enter their facility, post (good quality, clear) pictures of their pets online, such as on:
- their facility’s Facebook page,
- Gumtree
- DogzOnline, and
- lost dog pages like Lost Dogs of Adelaide.
Peruse the lost dogs notices in the local newspapers and on online sites, like those listed above.
Partner with local publications to get the photos of every impounded animal in print.
Use the details on the dog’s collar or tag to identify and contact the owner.
Scan the animal for a microchip and use the details to contact the owner.
If the name of the owner is known, but contact details are not up to date, pursue alternative ways to make contact (like using the electoral role.)

It’s hard to know exactly how many dogs could go home if the shelters invested this effort into finding their old home for them to go to.

Many argue that there is an overpopulation of dogs because dogs are dying in shelters. This is not evidence of an overpopulation problem. Shelter killing is the result of shelters killing. Shelter killing is a choice that shelters make. While shelters often claim “No one wants to kill pets“, they then make choices in contradiction to this. They choose to not actively pursue reclaims, they choose to not market animals to get them into new homes, and, then claim they have no choice but to kill their charges.

Australian shelters commit three great crimes:

They do not attempt to reunite pets with their families,
They do not attempt to find pets new families, and
They then kill pets who fail to find existing or new families.

Clearly, there are very few dogs that enter Australian pounds, very few dogs who don’t have a home to go to, and, at the same time, an abundance of homes looking for a new dog.

We do not have an overpopulation problem. We have a shelter problem. If we want to see less shelter killing, we need to demand shelters get over the myth of overpopulation.

—

This post has been brewing for a long time, and I felt that I really could not articulate this as well as no-kill blogging stars Shel (at Saving Pets), Nathan Winograd (at his self-titled blog), or Christie Keith (at the Dogged Blog).

As such, I really suggest you read more on the links (below) to get a more complete view of the issue.

Further reading:

Why shelter killing has nothing to do with pet overpopulation (The Dogged Blog)

The Lie of Pet Overpopulation Continues

The First 60 minutes: Animal Sheltering’s Critical Hour (KC Dog Blog)

Shelter ‘overpopulation’ a function of design (Saving Pets)

Do The Math (Nathan Winograd)

How to find a dog at the shelter

Debunking Pet Overpopulation (Nathan Winograd)

Pet Overpopulation Myth (ThatMutt)

The Kobayashi Maru (Nathan Winograd)

Is pet overpopulation a myth? Inside Nathan Winograd’s book